So your saying if you had your choice of the 200HP 3.5L or GMs new 200HP 2.8L High Feature V6, you would pay $800 extra just so you could tell you friends its DOHC?

Your avg. person doesn't care how an engine works, just as long as it works and meets thier needs. Most would rather that $800 be spent on other more useful features in the car.


other than the T-56, what manuals does GM charge extra for? last I checked the manuals were a lot cheaper. (Ion, Colorado, Grand Am, CTS, Cavalier, Silverado, V6 Camaro, etc...)

 

The $800 savings is in cost to manufacture... not (necessarily)savings to the consumer.

 

Since I only look at performance Chevy's, that would be why! Hard to believe that the T-56 costs more than an auto though.

 

I doubt that it does. I think the reason it was an extra cost standard item or whatever they had it set up as was demand... The demand was so high for the 6 speeds they had trouble keeping up with it.

I know that in '93 they only expected about 10% of the cars to be M6s but orders were at 25%+. Folks who ordered the T56 in '93 had to wait forever to get their cars.

I think the pricing on the t56 thereafter was done as sort of a demand control, and it basically ensured IMO that most cars dealers ordered to stock their lots were going to be automatics.

 

Look at it this way. Automatics are more popular than manuals. So much so many cars don't even have a manual at all. GM simply makes the more popular trans standard and the less popular one an option.

The true way to make money would be to make the manual standard and force the majority of buyers to spend extra on automatics.

 

Can you imagine that still happening in the 21st century? People would be livid.

 

If you are talking factory engines then the sc cobra engine is out. The SCCA does not consider it stock. The SVT Cobra and Lightning are not considered factory cars. At least not by me or the SCCA. They are tuner cars like a salenn, rousch or Lingenfelter car.

 

Then so would the SS. SLP made that one first right? Either way, you're arguement is lame also. If SVT isn't Ford then there's a serious problem with your thinking.

 

You are correct in assuming the SLP cars are also not considered to be stock. But echanicaly there is not much difference between those and the regular LS1s.

I never said SVT is not FORD. It is not factory.

Try to race an unmodified SVT vehicle in an SCCA event under the stock classification. You cannot. I am not stating opinion. It is FACT. Can you tell me which FACTORY assembles the sc cobra engines? I dont know for sure but i bet that they are hand built.

Nothing wrong with my thinking.

If we are gonna use tuner engines from SVT, then to be fair we need to include the Lingenfelter line as well.

 

How is the SVT not factory?. This is not a tuner car, it is a high performance "trim". It's no less factory than a Mach 1 or a GT. This is like saying the Z06 isn't factory.

Btw: Under SCCA Solo II car classifications, the 2003+ Cobra is listed in "A stock" with the Honda s2000, Acura NSX, Corvette Zl-1, Bmw M3, Boxter S, and a slew of other cars.

Now if the SCCA doesn't consider it stock, why is it listed in a stock class with stock cars like the Honda s2000 and Acura NSX? .

 

My guess would be hes saying the Cobra falls under A stock while the rest of the Mustang lineup falls under FStock. Other cars in that category which could fall under tuner cars are the Saleen Mustang (n/a) and all Shelby Cobras.

The SS falls under B-stock, just to clear up confusion while the normal Fbody falls under FStock like the non-cobra Mustangs.

Just a side note, the Mach 1's are sick in fstock this year.

 

The SVT models are a tunner group inside Ford. They dont roll off the "factory" with SVT parts, they go to SVT and get modded, but yes I do say that they are factory as SVT is a division of Ford. I also think that SLP Eng. makes factory cars even if SLP and GM dont have any real relation.
Dealer add-ons are different.
You should not compare the 03 cobra motor vs the LS1/6 as you are involving a power adder, which changes the whole outlook on this and thats a whole different thread.
Keep it n/a.

how the hell did we get on to SVT from push rods?

GM should continue with the production of OHV engines as they have proven to be equal with the best of the OHC engines out there, and made at a lower cost. There is nothing that seperates the OHV and OHC engines anymore. GM has shown that they can produce world class OHC and OHV engines, and I say more power to them.

 

"Factory" is a loose term. Whether that means those engines were built by hand or not matters little. It still comes from Ford. SVT = Special Vehicles Team. It does not = Special Vehicles Tuner. It was never a seperate company outside of Ford. It was a "team" created by Ford to build "special" Ford "vehicles". SLP is not owned by GM. Is also produces parts for Ford vehicles as well. SVT produces only Ford vehicles, no parts, no service. You cannot take your Mustang GT to SVT to have it tuned or have SVT parts installed. You cannot buy parts from SVT. That's the major difference and the reason why it's not a tuner.

The SCCA question was answered by someone else.

No clear and objective comparison has been made between the 4.6L (s/c or not) and the LS1/LS6. My personal opinion is that it's a very good motor and does quite well against the LS1 considering its smaller (displacement). The LS1 is a good motor, no doubt about it, I never said it wasn't. In n/a form the 4.6L is at a disadvantage in power no doubt, but does fairly well.

On the subjective side of things, the Mustang should be seeing some nice engine options in the near future (more displacement). You have to admit, the new motor with 3V heads produces 300 hp on 87 octane and that's pretty good. VCT (VVT) will help the 4.6L with its weaker low end.

 

Clear and objective analysis was given, you just don't happen to like it.

The 4.6 in DOHC or SOHC form is HEAVIER, MORE GAS HUNGRY, MAKES LESS POWER, AND IS PHYSICALLY LARGER than the LS1.

The comparison is EVEN WORSE with the LS2, as the LS2 makes 50hp more and is 15 lbs. lighter than the LS1, which should put the entire motor UNDER 400 lbs. fully dressed.

What the hell else do you want???? Ford's 4.6 boat-anchor has been getting the ever-loving crap kicked out of it for years, and that will apparently continue.

 

While i certainly don't have pace's outlook on Ford motors (we're both biased in ours own ways), he does make excellent points regarding weight, complexity, size and packaging, as well as hp/tq, etc....

At times, i wished Ford would have kept the 351 around. The 320hp 4.6 Dohc is an awesome motor, but the cost is one of the main reasons why it isn't in a 23k GT. Cost is also part of the reason why GM can have a 330+hp 5.7L v8 in their $24k z28's.

Having said that, i still think Ford is doing an excellent job with their smaller displacement v8's. 300hp (rumored to be closer to 320) on 87 octane, with a rather conservative compression and overall tune, and from 281 cubes. May not be earth shattering or Ls-1 killing, but that is impressive in my book. Had they bumped compression up, and had it tuned more aggressively for premium unleaded, i don't doubt 330hp+ from this little 4.6 sohc. And this is just the base performance v8. The Ausi falcon GT gets 390 horses and 380lb-ft of tq from its N/A 5.4, and i wouldn't be surprised if an intermediate v8 (mach 1, boss, whatever) comes with a 5.4 with an output in the 350-400hp range. Expect Cobra to be 450+. Sounds like a good lineup to me.

I guess GM's doing their own thing with pushrods, and Ford their own thing with overhead cams. Kudos to both since the Ls2, 4.6 Dohc, new 3v 4.6 Sohc, and blown 5.4's look to be excellent motors in their own right.