So, Pacer, tell us what you really think of Ford's ohc V8s.

 

PacerX, until you post links to reports showing both engines on a rack at the same rpm, then it's not objective. The the size and/or weight of the engine has little to do with power output or mileage.

 

What are you talking about? the Z28 did cost under $24K and have a 330HP+/- 5.7L V8.

They don't affect output but they do affect cost, weight distro of the car, and packaging.

 

Read again, slowly. That is what i was saying.

Meaning, the pushrod Ls-1 is cheaper to make than a more complex 4.6 Dohc. Hence the reason why the330+ Ls-1 can be found in a 24k z28, and the reason why a 24k GT gets a cheaper 260hp Sohc in place of the 320hp Dohc. Dohc 4.6 was too expensive for a 24k GT, but the Ls-1 wasn't too expensive for the 24k z28. This all has to do with cost of the motor.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

 

All in all, this is too stupid to merit a response... but what the hell, I'll make a last attempt at it.

1) Weight is weight, that's objective. The 4.6 is ~100lbs. heavier than an LS1. If you don't think 100 lbs. hanging right over the nose of a car is significant, ask your 2003 Cobra buddies why their car plows like it has FWD. That weight alone is good for .1 seconds in the quarter mile, and a MINIMUM 3% REDUCTION in fuel economy.

2) Your test, as mentioned before, is moronic. The LS1 will CATEGORICALLY operate at a lower rpm to drive the car at a given speed. Why? Gearing and torque. The LS1 can push the gigantic .5 overdrive, and generally has a numerically lower rear end gear to boot. So, once again, powertrain vs. powertrain (that includes all gearing in the transmission and the rear end) the LS1 lays the smack down. Duh - who the hell would EVER want to compare fuel economy ON A RACK???

3) Size is size. Pop the damn hoods and look at them or quit blowing hot air here. The physically smaller motor can be mounted lower in the car. Couple that with the lower weight and the Mudstain is at a radical disadvantage - which is EXACTLY why 2003 Cobras plow their front ends. Too much weight, too high in the car. Look at how low the nose is on a Corvette or Camaro sometime compared to a Mustang. Size of the motor also directly effects frontal area and cD - which are critical to fuel economy. Look at the difference in the cowl height between the two cars.

4) Power. The numbers don't lie.


Those are the very definition of objective. Power, fuel economy and weight are numbers. You can see the size difference with your own two eyes - if you would bother to open them.

Instead of recognizing those four FACTS posted, you'd rather blather on about some nonsensical test that proves precisely NOTHING and call hard engineering numbers subjective.

 

I have an image of a 4.6 DOHC on a stand next to a 302 for anyone interested in the physical size of the motor. Its massive. Anyone wanna host?

 

Points 1 through 3 are subjective. Why you ask? Because they rely on properties outside of the engine. Is this so hard to understand? We're talking about the motors themselves, not the motors and the CARS they're in. That's what I've been trying to drive home to you but you don't seem to be understanding.

Point 4 is objective when defined. n/a versus n/a I totally agree! A larger motor like the LS1 is going to produce more power than the 4.6L. I'm not arguing that.

When I say I want OBJECTIVE data, I'm speaking of on the rack data, not what does it do in a car data. If this is so hard and the data doesn't exist, please just say so.

 

Sorry, looks like it is time for me to get glasses I've also heard a number of times that the LS1 is cheaper to build than a Honda V6. Anyone have any numbers on this? what do the create versions cost?

 

Ahem, if you want objective data on fuel economy between the two numbers I believe the EPA rating on the LS1 is substantially higher than the 4.6...but if that goes back to "yeah but that's with gearing and transmissions and stuff" then no, I'm not sure where you'd find such data or why it makes any difference in the first place. Fuel milage is fuel milage, it isn't measured on an engine stand it is measured while driving.

One of Pacer's main points is that the SOHC 4.6 in stock form doesn't have the guts to drive 6th gear in the T56. That says a little about the engines right there.....

 

The ENGINE drives properties in the CAR you knucklehead. They CANNOT BE SEPARATED. Engineering is ITERATIVE - conditions or assumptions or properties of the components drive the properties of the finished car.

The SIZE of the 4.6 necessitates that the COWL on the Mustang be HIGHER than the cowl on the Camaro (which covers half the damned engine, it's so low). The greater HEIGHT of the ENGINE in the Mustang drives the higher CENTER OF GRAVITY of the MUSTANG relative to the CAMARO and gives the MUSTANG a GREATER TENDENCY to PLOW (understeer) along with the fact that the motor is heavier. The 4.6's LOWER POWER makes for a SLOWER car. The fact that the area under the torque curve is lower than the LS1 at low rpms means the motor cannot propel the car as efficiently at highway speeds because it cannot take advantage of the exceptionally tall 6th gear the Camaro and Corvette rely on to knock down great highway numbers.

The engine also drives worse fuel economy, added wind noise, greater frontal area, a narrower track up front, and requires a numerically higher rear end gear to get the car moving remotely as quick as the F-cars. That's why LS1's lay the smack down on the Ford products in 3rd gear.

Again, your test is S-T-U-P-I-D. It proves NOTHING. The car and the engine CANNOT BE SEPARATED.



NOBODY is dumb enough to waste money on that test.

Now follow along here:

"The LS1 is lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient and more powerful than the SOHC and DOHC 4.6 liter Mod Motor. The LS2 is even lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than the LS1."

Period. End of discussion.

If you want a test that might make sense, take two Shelby Cobra kit cars, mount a T-56, a Mach 1 gearset and a DOHC 4.6 in one and a T-56, 3.42 rear end, and an LS1 in the other.

The LS1 powered car will be faster, lighter, and get better fuel economy. No reasonable individual with half a brain in their head would care to argue that.

 

Well, enough of this conversation. You're bias and demeaning behaviour is obvious and not worth continuing to have a conversation with. **** retentive people

 

Not to be belittling or anything, but a lot of people, especially Pacer X, have spelled out many many real world facts in this thread, and you continue to be in denial...

You have shown a quality being in denial on certain Ford issues... like the whole "2005 Mustang is not retro" issue... (not trying to start a retro thing here, just using it as a point)...

It is a little frustrating trying to carry on a worth-while arguement with you at times.... it seems that 1+1 does not always equal 2 with you, which gets frustrating to a lot of people.

 

I believe this is what you're looking for...

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

That 32 valve 4.6 is massive sitting next to the 302.

 

I can understand why some people feel that way, and I feel the same way about some others on here. If you're going to compare engines, then compare JUST THE ENGINES. If you're going to compare cars, then compare JUST THE CARS. I'm trying to be objective and I'm looking for objective data. If it doesn't exist, that's what I want to know. If someone says the LS1 destroys the 4.6L, in what terms are we speaking? One minute it's just the engine, the next it's a Camaro or a Corvette Are we comparing engines at that point or cars? If it's engines, then put them on a rack and compare them. If it's cars, well, that data is plentiful. A n/a Camaro with an LS1 will beat a n/a 4.6L Mustang GT in just about every performance category. I never denied that as the case. Mach 1's hold their own against LS1 Camaros at the strip. In many cases it's a drivers race. On paper the LS1 Camaro should win. If you're comparing the Cobra with the 4.6L to a Camaro LS1, then the Cobra wins in just about every category. Now, please define exactly what the comparison is...

 

Massive is a good word to use.