the LS1 might "fall on it face" AT 6200 cause that's its factory redline. You sound like you really should be driving a S2000....

 

OH yeah? Well, my car makes nearly 200HP per liter, and it has no valves, I could probably pick the engine up by myself, it redlines at 7,000rpm, and it sounds like very big angry bees (if I took the cat off it would sound like an upset chainsaw), so there!

Oh, sorry, got caught up in the "moment"

 

Ive read 8+ pages and still dont know why PaperTarget cant figure out why "lighter, stronger, smaller, cheaper, and more fuel efficient" are objective terms. The only one that can be argued is the fuel efficiency, as its vehicle dependant. However, I doubt very seriously that the two motors differ that much.

What other basis would you need to make a decision as to which is better? Im with whoever it was that called you hardheaded. There is NOT ONE feature of the 4.6 that out-does the LSx.

To repeat one last time (somehow I think youll need to read it again)

Smaller
Lighter
Cheaper
Stronger
More fuel efficient (or at the very least, on par with the 4.6)


hp_nut - Congrats to the few factory-freak Machs that finally caught up to a car that was killed two years ago. They should have made that kind of power last decade....when chevy was.

 

I've gotta thank you all for one of the most entertaining threads of the year.

"No . . . cannot . . . open my eyes . . . NO! . . . must . . . justify . . . purchase/ideology . . . NOOO!"

 

This is one of the most entertaining threads I hardly participated in.

On one hand, regardless as to if the Mach 1 gets there by gearing, or by magic, it has very impressive quarter mile times, and it can be made to go somewhat quicker. The LS1 Camaro and Mach 1 are a match for each other. So what.

It's the package that is interesting here. I like the Mach 1 better than my '97 at the moment because of the whole car package. The GTO is something I'm very interested in because it's exactly the car that covers all my needs at the moment, from speed to long distance high speed motering, to handling, to having enough room to move 3 other adults or family members around.

Let's face it, the LS1 engine is fantastic. It get's amazing fuel mileage for it's size, it pumps out more power than virtually all of the fabled monster sized production engines from the '60s, & can fit in a relatively small area.

But, if Ford had made a 5.8 DOHC production Mustang GT instead of going with 4.6, it would be more of a contest. Instead we are talking about, what, a small (displacement) 281 ci engine versus a 346 and 364 cubic inch engine?! How unfair is that?

The Mach 1's wrongly rated at 305hp & 320 torque (likely more like 330 & 325-330). The Vortec 4.8 runs 275/285 (very close to actual ratings). The Mach 1 clearly has impressive power for it's displacement, and there shouldn't be any debate about that.

But it's clear pushrods enable larger displacement engines of equal power and similar mileage in a smaller and cheaper to make package. Ford wanted to push engine size down, GM is going the opposite direction. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh, and BTW, the real reason why Mustangs took so long to catch up with f-bodies performance-wise is because Team Mustang was prevented by the old Ford management. Otherwise, the GT would have had the Cobra engine and the Cobra would have had the 5.4.

 

well said

 

We were comaring ENGINES, not cars. Plus, we have already covered the HP/liter component and it really bears no weight and is a worthless comparison. The 4.6 is physically BIGGER, WEIGHS MORE, and is NOT AS FUEL EFFICENT.

Objective...I think so

 

Just to throw something in here....

guionM, you said about let's compare equal sizes since the 4.6L is at a deficit in liters. However, if you do that, then the 5.7L LS1 is at a deficit in valves. So you'd have to compare a 4v DOHC to a 4v LS1.

And why compare the top DOHC 4.6L's to LS1 anyway? They should be compared to the 5.7L LS6.

Chris

 

Exactly! And I never said the Mach 1 was a bad car, its a decent little pony car. I'm just trying to get some people here to see that the Mach makes up for its 40hp deficit WITH GEARING! Seems some people dont wanna see this! Hell my 3.8 with 3.08's and an open differential in the rear is a slug compared to my buddy's 3.8 with 3.73's and a LSD! In the car, the motor can only put power to the pavement as quickly as the drivetrain (and tires) says it can! But on a stand outside the car, I cant see how you could say the 4.6 runs equally to the LS1! Its in the hole by 50hp from the get go! I think Pacer covered all the other bases as to why it isnt equal to the LS1. Sheesh! Oh well, it has been entertaining however

 

I sometimes don't make myself as clear as I'd like, so allow me to retrace the steps taken here so far :

A. The whole thing started as a comparason between OHC and pushrod engines.

B. Some were erronously comparing small displacement OHC engines with larger displacement pushrod engines as justification that pushrods were superior.

C. It was you guys that began comparing Mach 1s with LS1s, not me.


To say that the LS1 deserves special consideration because of a deficit of valves shows me that you have probally come into the middle of this thread without actually reading what the discussion is about in the 1st place, so let me recap for you :

1. It started off as an article that GM saves at least $800 per engine by going with OHVs instead of OHCs.

2. The discussion evolved into which was better, OHC or OHV engines.

3. People were mistakenly using 2 different displacements as a comparison. When discussing which is better, you need a common point of reference. Displacement is the common point to decide which valvetrain is better (in case some don't remember, the 4.6 was a replacement for the Ford 5.0, not the 5.8).

4. I pointed out that starting with the same displacement, comparing OHC and pushrod engines, pushrod engines are more compact (in case you didn't see my post, I mentioned the size difference between the windsor & modular V8s), cheaper to build, and as a whole produce the same amount of power as the OHC engine.

5. I concluded that pushrod engines are better because although they put out similar power out of a specific size as OHCs, they make that power using fewer parts, and takes up less space while being cheaper to make.

6. When I brought up the Mach 1 (after a new debate opened up, which I think is where you came in) I made points:
a) The Mach 1 is a good package,
b) I supplied a comparison between the quad cam Mach 1 since yesterday I compared a OHC 2V 4.6 to a 4.8 to show what that extra cam and 2 valves mean, and finally,
c) I also dispelled the notion that the reason why Mustang GTs were spanked by LS1 Camaros was only because of engine, when it was actually a corperate decision at the time not to make Mustang as quick as the F-bodies.

So now that you understand that we are starting from a common point (mandatory in a comparison of which valve train is better), and you understand that the LS1 engineering-wise is superior because it does the same work with less needed engineering & costs, I'll now return the thread to the ongoing discussions.

BTW: I'm not making any HP/L comparisons, just which valvetrain is better for a specfic engine displacement.

 

No disrespect meant to you guionM.

I read the whole debate. And I saw your post comparing the 2v OHC to the 2v pushrod. That's why I did't get why today you were comparing the Mach 1's 4v engine to a 4.8L 2v pushrod (although I think I understand from your post).

All I was stating was that people like to complain about the deficit in displacement of the 2v 5.7L vs. the 4v 4.6L and I'm saying that if you want to equal displacement, why not equal number of valves? I meant a pushrod 4v 5.7L. Or at least compare the 4v 4.6L in the Mustang with the 5.7L 2v LS6 in the vette .

Mach 1's are pretty cool, not looking down on them. Only thing I don't like about them is the interior (I don't like any of the SN95 Mustangs interiors, mainly dash and door panels and shifter placement). I've even thought of how one would make a nice daily driver if it wasn't for the dang snow we get in NJ.

Chris

 

Before I tear into Mr Magazine racer a bit, I'd like to state something to put this all in perspective. IMHO, The LSx series of engines is the best performance engine to ever be put between the fenderwells of a mass-produced vehicle. Bar none - including the DOHC that currently resides in my car. I have often said that my Cobra would have been damn near perfect (for me) had it of come with an LS1 and a solid axle. But like has also been mentioned already, it is the total package, and I far prefer my 99 Cobra to the 99 T/A I had previously for reasons that are unique to my wants and biases.

That said....

Mr Engineer (you are an engineer, right?). You cannot use a static "correction" to try and convert from RWHP to flywheel HP from different cars. Being the genius that you obviously consider yourself to be (a perception anyone would get from your condencending attitude towards anything you believe to be inferior), why do you think that is? Hmmm....lets see....

T56 vs 3650 perhaps - such as rotating mass differences?
Differential differences perhaps?
3.55/3.27/3.42 gearing differences perhaps?
Anything else you think might be involved? You're an engineer, edumacate us, please.

Hmmm. Let's look at something, shall we? Obviously you're a magazine racer, because any real drag racer worth his/her salt knows that while power-to-weight is incredibly important, it is hardly all that is involved. Case in point:

Car A puts down ~312 RWHP, weighs 3180 lbs, and runs the following ET: 11.60 @ 115 mph.

Car B puts down over 350 RWHP, weighs 3200 lbs, and runs the following ET: 11.56 @ 120 mph (mph is suspect, but I won't go there).

Car C puts down over 350 RWHP, weighs 3090 lbs, and runs the following ET: 11.54 @ 117 mph.

FYI, all use original-equipment, OD manual transmissions. All were on slicks. All were out to get the best possible ET from their cars.

Now, Mr Magazine racer, tell me how that could be so? What's the deal here? Cars B & C make 40+ more HP than car A, yet are less than a tenth quicker. What gives? All 3 cars are driven by competent drivers, known for getting the most out of their vehicles. They are geared correctly for the powerband of their engines.

Wait wait....I already know the ricer answer....lets see if he bites.

"Ram Air" on the SS, WS6, or Mach 1 is totally useless an any reasonable contest of acceleration. You're an engineer...please tell me why. Come on....take off your bias cap and 'splain' it to us.

BTW:

Car A is mine
Car B is Rageman on LS1Tech.com (a friend of mine)
Car C is 01-Z on LS1Tech.com (another friend of mine)

None of us are magazine racing internet jockeys.

 

What are the rear end gears in each car?

 

Pardon me, but the "mainstream" market is far tougher place than you think. If a pushrod "High Value" V6 is going into a $25-30k sedan, it's a joke. However, it should be just fine in a year old, sub-$10k rental buyback.