One compelling reason to keep pushrod engines.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One compelling reason to keep pushrod engines.
Originally posted by Z28x
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?
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?
The real comparison is between the weak "High Value" motor and the competition that's producing 25 to 50hp more. I'd gladly take the power and audible refinement of an Altima or Accord over the droning GM products.
Even when the 240hp 3.9 liter "High Value" six banger appears, the refinement gap will still weigh heavily against the GM product. Despite massive amounts of sound deadener and a trick exhaust, a pushrod V6 running flat out will always sound like a hunk of junk.
Originally posted by Z28x
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.
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.
Personally, I'd rather see them make the "High Feature" V6 standard in all V6 applications - Epsilon, Theta, Mid-Lux, or whatever. They can keep their lousy proprietary "climate control system," though. GM brags about rubbish of this sort, then resorts to wacky "driver's side only" side impact airbags.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
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 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
.
The Northstar V8s are big too. They had them on display stands at the NYC auto show last year. I was amazed at how much more compact the Escalade 6.0L was.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 528
From: The land of ice and snow.
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
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 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
.
GM is doing one thing right for sure and that is continuing to refine the pushrod V8 for the mass market. They've gotten exceptionally good at it and I don't think anyone else can touch them (yet). Considering the cost to make, HP/TQ and fuel economy, the LSx engines totally own. PacerX hit it on the head with his last post.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One compelling reason to keep pushrod engines.
Originally posted by redzed
The real comparison is between the weak "High Value" motor and the competition that's producing 25 to 50hp more. I'd gladly take the power and audible refinement of an Altima or Accord over the droning GM products.
The real comparison is between the weak "High Value" motor and the competition that's producing 25 to 50hp more. I'd gladly take the power and audible refinement of an Altima or Accord over the droning GM products.
Also I've driven a V6 altima, it has NO audible refinement. The Ford DOHC V6 in my Dads Mazda Tribute also doesn't feel or sound as smooth as my GP's 3800 pushrod V6.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
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 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
.
HOLY S*IT!!!!! 
Can someone tell me again, why exactly Ford killed off the excellent "Windsor" V8 engines in favor of "Modular" V8s!
My goodness, I had no idea the size difference was THAT much!
BTW: to add my 2 cents to the running debate, if we are talking about efficiences and comparasons between OHC and pushrod engines, then why are we comparing a 4.6 liter to a 5.7?
To properly compare the 2, shouldn't we do this based on displacement? Perhaps compare the 4.6 to 4.8, or the 5.3 to the 5.4?
The 4.8 ohv puts out 285 horses and 295 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 17 & 20 mpg
The 4.6 ohc puts out 231 horses and 293 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 15 & 19 mpg
The 5.3 ohv: 295 & 330. EPA estimates: 16 & 19
The 5.4 ohc: 300 & 365. EPA estimates: 15 & 19 (identical to the 2v 4.6!)
The cammers are bigger and heavier than the pushrods, more expensive to make, get marginally less fuel economy (remember, the new F150 is substantially heavier then the Silverado, so should get worse mileage aff the bat) and seems to offer mixed results in the power catagory when compared to an engine of equal size.
In short, besides more moving parts and a bigger size, Ford's cammer doesn't seem to offer either benefits or drawbacks to it's design, so from an engineering standpoint, the pushrod is better because it does the same amout of work with fewer moving parts, less expense & smaller size. End of story.
Having said that, I still am seriously fighting the urge to rush down to my Ford dealer to pick up one of those engineeringly inefficient, Mustang Mach 1s that Ford has slashed down to just $25,000... vroom vroom!
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Originally posted by guionM
Having said that, I still am seriously fighting the urge to rush down to my Ford dealer to pick up one of those engineeringly inefficient, Mustang Mach 1s that Ford has slashed down to just $25,000... vroom vroom!
Having said that, I still am seriously fighting the urge to rush down to my Ford dealer to pick up one of those engineeringly inefficient, Mustang Mach 1s that Ford has slashed down to just $25,000... vroom vroom!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,306
From: Jersey Shore
holy mega-motor batman!! Maybe displacment is smaller, but in size, the 4.6 is king.
GunionM made a great post, and it shows exactly the difference between the 2. GM's OHV engines provide great power with great fuel economy for a lower price. Add on VVT an 3v technology, this engine is as advanced as anything out of Germany. Not to mention DoD. Also, the 5.3 is now rated at 300hp and its still a Gen III engine. With a Gen IV motors, the 5.3 should pick up a few more hp, around 310 or more, and get better gas milage with DOD and VVT.
GunionM made a great post, and it shows exactly the difference between the 2. GM's OHV engines provide great power with great fuel economy for a lower price. Add on VVT an 3v technology, this engine is as advanced as anything out of Germany. Not to mention DoD. Also, the 5.3 is now rated at 300hp and its still a Gen III engine. With a Gen IV motors, the 5.3 should pick up a few more hp, around 310 or more, and get better gas milage with DOD and VVT.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Originally posted by guionM
HOLY S*IT!!!!!
Can someone tell me again, why exactly Ford killed off the excellent "Windsor" V8 engines in favor of "Modular" V8s!
My goodness, I had no idea the size difference was THAT much!
BTW: to add my 2 cents to the running debate, if we are talking about efficiences and comparasons between OHC and pushrod engines, then why are we comparing a 4.6 liter to a 5.7?
To properly compare the 2, shouldn't we do this based on displacement? Perhaps compare the 4.6 to 4.8, or the 5.3 to the 5.4?
The 4.8 ohv puts out 285 horses and 295 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 17 & 20 mpg
The 4.6 ohc puts out 231 horses and 293 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 15 & 19 mpg
The 5.3 ohv: 295 & 330. EPA estimates: 16 & 19
The 5.4 ohc: 300 & 365. EPA estimates: 15 & 19 (identical to the 2v 4.6!)
The cammers are bigger and heavier than the pushrods, more expensive to make, get marginally less fuel economy (remember, the new F150 is substantially heavier then the Silverado, so should get worse mileage aff the bat) and seems to offer mixed results in the power catagory when compared to an engine of equal size.
In short, besides more moving parts and a bigger size, Ford's cammer doesn't seem to offer either benefits or drawbacks to it's design, so from an engineering standpoint, the pushrod is better because it does the same amout of work with fewer moving parts, less expense & smaller size. End of story.
Having said that, I still am seriously fighting the urge to rush down to my Ford dealer to pick up one of those engineeringly inefficient, Mustang Mach 1s that Ford has slashed down to just $25,000... vroom vroom!
HOLY S*IT!!!!! Can someone tell me again, why exactly Ford killed off the excellent "Windsor" V8 engines in favor of "Modular" V8s!
My goodness, I had no idea the size difference was THAT much!
BTW: to add my 2 cents to the running debate, if we are talking about efficiences and comparasons between OHC and pushrod engines, then why are we comparing a 4.6 liter to a 5.7?
To properly compare the 2, shouldn't we do this based on displacement? Perhaps compare the 4.6 to 4.8, or the 5.3 to the 5.4?
The 4.8 ohv puts out 285 horses and 295 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 17 & 20 mpg
The 4.6 ohc puts out 231 horses and 293 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 15 & 19 mpg
The 5.3 ohv: 295 & 330. EPA estimates: 16 & 19
The 5.4 ohc: 300 & 365. EPA estimates: 15 & 19 (identical to the 2v 4.6!)
The cammers are bigger and heavier than the pushrods, more expensive to make, get marginally less fuel economy (remember, the new F150 is substantially heavier then the Silverado, so should get worse mileage aff the bat) and seems to offer mixed results in the power catagory when compared to an engine of equal size.
In short, besides more moving parts and a bigger size, Ford's cammer doesn't seem to offer either benefits or drawbacks to it's design, so from an engineering standpoint, the pushrod is better because it does the same amout of work with fewer moving parts, less expense & smaller size. End of story.
Having said that, I still am seriously fighting the urge to rush down to my Ford dealer to pick up one of those engineeringly inefficient, Mustang Mach 1s that Ford has slashed down to just $25,000... vroom vroom!
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8
Au contraire
I doubt we'll ever see the 2.8L HFV6 in the U.S. This engine will pretty much be for Europe, and some "export-only" Aussie Commodores.
'05 CTS news
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by guionM
To properly compare the 2, shouldn't we do this based on displacement? Perhaps compare the 4.6 to 4.8, or the 5.3 to the 5.4?
The 4.8 ohv puts out 285 horses and 295 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 17 & 20 mpg
The 4.6 ohc puts out 231 horses and 293 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 15 & 19 mpg
The 5.3 ohv: 295 & 330. EPA estimates: 16 & 19
The 5.4 ohc: 300 & 365. EPA estimates: 15 & 19 (identical to the 2v 4.6!)
To properly compare the 2, shouldn't we do this based on displacement? Perhaps compare the 4.6 to 4.8, or the 5.3 to the 5.4?
The 4.8 ohv puts out 285 horses and 295 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 17 & 20 mpg
The 4.6 ohc puts out 231 horses and 293 torque. EPA estimates for 2wd, regular cab truck w/ automatic: 15 & 19 mpg
The 5.3 ohv: 295 & 330. EPA estimates: 16 & 19
The 5.4 ohc: 300 & 365. EPA estimates: 15 & 19 (identical to the 2v 4.6!)
It should be interesting to see how the 3v pushrod 5.3L stacks up to the Ford 3v 5.4L when it comes out.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by Z28x
That is the new 3 valve 5.4L the 2 valve 260HP & 350tq (I don't have fuel economy #s)
It should be interesting to see how the 3v pushrod 5.3L stacks up to the Ford 3v 5.4L when it comes out.
That is the new 3 valve 5.4L the 2 valve 260HP & 350tq (I don't have fuel economy #s)
It should be interesting to see how the 3v pushrod 5.3L stacks up to the Ford 3v 5.4L when it comes out.
I know I don't come here as much as I used to, but I feel I seriously missed something here, since I thought it was a future 6.0 that was getting it.
Originally posted by PacerX
Dark side resist you must....
Dark side resist you must....
Originally posted by PaperTarget
...I know there aren't that my reliability issues with the 4.6 DOHC in the Mach 1's.
...I know there aren't that my reliability issues with the 4.6 DOHC in the Mach 1's.
I know the '05 Mustang is going to go for scalper prices the 1st year and I really don't want to go to Texas just to get a GTO without a markup. I either have to get something within the next year, or I'll be setting aside alot of money to redo the Camaro, now getting up to 130,000 miles. I'm about done with the SC, but I have no intentions of selling or trading that in.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 293
From: Hou,TX
Originally posted by PacerX
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.
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.
There's your damn in car comparison. It's even better than your kit car test because the Mach's only got 5 gears and worse aero.
The 4.6DOHC has achieved parity in performance to the LS1, got it dumbass? How can a motor that's down by 40peak hp equal the LS1? Area under the curve. Thought u wuz an enjuneer? Guess not.
http://www.mach1registry.org/photopo...00/325dd06.jpg
bonestock 3K miles.
Stock LS1 is under 200rwhp by 6500. AREA UNDER THE CURVE DUMBASS.
I know I'll have to go over this AGAIN in about a month.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 917
From: Lexington, KY
Originally posted by hp_nut
Listen up moron. The 3400lb Mach1 runs a 13.3@106 average just like a 3400lb '02 LS1 F-bod does. And there are factory freaks running 12.8s@109 bonestock just like the F-bod.
There's your damn in car comparison. It's even better than your kit car test because the Mach's only got 5 gears and worse aero.
The 4.6DOHC has achieved parity in performance to the LS1, got it dumbass? How can a motor that's down by 40peak hp equal the LS1? Area under the curve. Thought u wuz an enjuneer? Guess not.
http://www.mach1registry.org/photopo...00/325dd06.jpg
bonestock 3K miles.
Stock LS1 is under 200rwhp by 6500. AREA UNDER THE CURVE DUMBASS.
I know I'll have to go over this AGAIN in about a month.
Listen up moron. The 3400lb Mach1 runs a 13.3@106 average just like a 3400lb '02 LS1 F-bod does. And there are factory freaks running 12.8s@109 bonestock just like the F-bod.
There's your damn in car comparison. It's even better than your kit car test because the Mach's only got 5 gears and worse aero.
The 4.6DOHC has achieved parity in performance to the LS1, got it dumbass? How can a motor that's down by 40peak hp equal the LS1? Area under the curve. Thought u wuz an enjuneer? Guess not.
http://www.mach1registry.org/photopo...00/325dd06.jpg
bonestock 3K miles.
Stock LS1 is under 200rwhp by 6500. AREA UNDER THE CURVE DUMBASS.
I know I'll have to go over this AGAIN in about a month.
Mach 1's trap about 2-3 slower than an F-body. More power = more trap speed. The only reason Mach's ET close is because of gearing. Point still stands...LS1 is lighter, more powerful, and better with fuel.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by guionM
3 Valve pushrod 5.3??
I know I don't come here as much as I used to, but I feel I seriously missed something here, since I thought it was a future 6.0 that was getting it.
3 Valve pushrod 5.3??
I know I don't come here as much as I used to, but I feel I seriously missed something here, since I thought it was a future 6.0 that was getting it.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Originally posted by hp_nut
I know I'll have to go over this AGAIN in about a month.
I know I'll have to go over this AGAIN in about a month.
SLOWER.
SLOWER SLOWER SLOWER SLOWER.
Get it through your skull. They trap lower and don't ET as quickly. One word:
MOTOR.