GM engines vs. Ford engines
01-21-2011, 11:18 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Aug 2008
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really want to compare those 2 engines take a good look at the torque output. The only reason the DOHC engine makes equal HP is because they're spinning it to 9500. I wish they showed the dyno graphs so you could see how much greater the output of the pushrod example was across the graph.
2000rpm - 6500rpm (V8)
vs
4500-9500 (4-6 cyl)
or
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which would you rather have for a racing application?
The usable torque that pushrod engines have comes from their lower state of tune(cant rev as easily) and larger displacement. Give a dohc head the same displacement and it will consume the same fuel and breath better at partial throttle(also, the higher intake velocity at partial throttle and lower revs contributes to a better fuel atomization and more effective pumping in general)and produce more torque everywhere, therefore more power everywhere. This equates to greater EFFICIENCY, more power from the same displacement and consumption, or the same power from less displacement and less fuel consumption.
Last edited by crwtrans; 01-21-2011 at 11:22 PM.
01-22-2011, 12:22 AM
#22
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
32 Posts
Of course we can look at the torque factor, but that is only due to your increase displacement. Having a larger displacement motor does not conclude a more linear graph. Making power from (example):
2000rpm - 6500rpm (V8)
vs
4500-9500 (4-6 cyl)
or
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which would you rather have for a racing application?
The usable torque that pushrod engines have comes from their lower state of tune(cant rev as easily) and larger displacement. Give a dohc head the same displacement and it will consume the same fuel and breath better at partial throttle(also, the higher intake velocity at partial throttle and lower revs contributes to a better fuel atomization and more effective pumping in general)and produce more torque everywhere, therefore more power everywhere. This equates to greater EFFICIENCY, more power from the same displacement and consumption, or the same power from less displacement and less fuel consumption.
2000rpm - 6500rpm (V8)
vs
4500-9500 (4-6 cyl)
or
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which would you rather have for a racing application?
The usable torque that pushrod engines have comes from their lower state of tune(cant rev as easily) and larger displacement. Give a dohc head the same displacement and it will consume the same fuel and breath better at partial throttle(also, the higher intake velocity at partial throttle and lower revs contributes to a better fuel atomization and more effective pumping in general)and produce more torque everywhere, therefore more power everywhere. This equates to greater EFFICIENCY, more power from the same displacement and consumption, or the same power from less displacement and less fuel consumption.
Personally I prefer the simpler engine that makes torque down low no matter what manufacturer it is.
01-22-2011, 09:25 AM
#23
Heel & Toe
Member Since: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we can look at the torque factor, but that is only due to your increase displacement. Having a larger displacement motor does not conclude a more linear graph. Making power from (example):
2000rpm - 6500rpm (V8)
vs
4500-9500 (4-6 cyl)
or
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which would you rather have for a racing application?
The usable torque that pushrod engines have comes from their lower state of tune(cant rev as easily) and larger displacement. Give a dohc head the same displacement and it will consume the same fuel and breath better at partial throttle(also, the higher intake velocity at partial throttle and lower revs contributes to a better fuel atomization and more effective pumping in general)and produce more torque everywhere, therefore more power everywhere. This equates to greater EFFICIENCY, more power from the same displacement and consumption, or the same power from less displacement and less fuel consumption.
2000rpm - 6500rpm (V8)
vs
4500-9500 (4-6 cyl)
or
(3 ft/lb of torque @ 2 RPM) / 5252 = .0011424 HP
(1 ft/lb of torque @ 8 RPM) /5252 = .0015232 hp
Which would you rather have for a racing application?
The usable torque that pushrod engines have comes from their lower state of tune(cant rev as easily) and larger displacement. Give a dohc head the same displacement and it will consume the same fuel and breath better at partial throttle(also, the higher intake velocity at partial throttle and lower revs contributes to a better fuel atomization and more effective pumping in general)and produce more torque everywhere, therefore more power everywhere. This equates to greater EFFICIENCY, more power from the same displacement and consumption, or the same power from less displacement and less fuel consumption.
01-22-2011, 11:21 AM
#24
Le Mans Master
One could get lost in the minutia of discussing VE, HP/L, etc. etc.
The most powerful NA V8 I am aware of is the AMG M159.
It produces 563bhp and 480btq.
It weighs 450# dry.
The M156 it was derived from cost $56,000. I could not find a price for the AMG M159. I bet it's not less...
The SLS AMG it is installed in gets 14/20mpg. It weighs 3,5XX
The LS7 makes 505bhp and 470#btq.
It weighs 45X# dry.
It costs $14-16,000
The Z06 it is installed in weighs 3200# and gets 15/24mpg.
The additional $40,000 and all that technology got you a whopping 58bhp and 10#tq and lost you 1/4mpg (transmission/vehicle come into play here, but as you can see, it's certainly not more efficient by any real amount, if any, and maybe less-so.)
There you have it. A DOHC NA V8 (supposedly according to AMG, the most powerful in the world at the time).
Sorry, but I will stick with the LS7 until such time as 50bhp are worth another $40,000 to me.
The most powerful NA V8 I am aware of is the AMG M159.
It produces 563bhp and 480btq.
It weighs 450# dry.
The M156 it was derived from cost $56,000. I could not find a price for the AMG M159. I bet it's not less...
The SLS AMG it is installed in gets 14/20mpg. It weighs 3,5XX
The LS7 makes 505bhp and 470#btq.
It weighs 45X# dry.
It costs $14-16,000
The Z06 it is installed in weighs 3200# and gets 15/24mpg.
The additional $40,000 and all that technology got you a whopping 58bhp and 10#tq and lost you 1/4mpg (transmission/vehicle come into play here, but as you can see, it's certainly not more efficient by any real amount, if any, and maybe less-so.)
There you have it. A DOHC NA V8 (supposedly according to AMG, the most powerful in the world at the time).
Sorry, but I will stick with the LS7 until such time as 50bhp are worth another $40,000 to me.
01-22-2011, 12:54 PM
#25
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
32 Posts
I agree with everything you have said and you are just talking in general. One could go deeper and talk about parasitic losses through increased valve spring pressures needed to over come valve train weight at higher revs with a pushrod motor and on and on, then there is always the result of what happens when you decide to force induce it and that is where things can get down right crazy and the true capabilities on head design of the OHC engine comes really into play.
01-22-2011, 03:37 PM
#26
Drifting
Member Since: May 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the new Ford 6.2 v8 producing about the same hp that the GM 6.2 makes in the Silverado?
01-22-2011, 04:48 PM
#27
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
32 Posts
Ford - 411hp 434ft-lb http://www.fordf150.net/2011/2011-ford-f150-engines.php
GM - 403hp 417ft-lb http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-1500/
01-22-2011, 05:21 PM
#28
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 2000
Posts: 67,942
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
St. Jude Donor '12
2012 Election Contest Winner
One could get lost in the minutia of discussing VE, HP/L, etc. etc.
The most powerful NA V8 I am aware of is the AMG M159.
It produces 563bhp and 480btq.
It weighs 450# dry.
The M156 it was derived from cost $56,000. I could not find a price for the AMG M159. I bet it's not less...
The SLS AMG it is installed in gets 14/20mpg. It weighs 3,5XX
The LS7 makes 505bhp and 470#btq.
It weighs 45X# dry.
It costs $14-16,000
The Z06 it is installed in weighs 3200# and gets 15/24mpg.
The additional $40,000 and all that technology got you a whopping 58bhp and 10#tq and lost you 1/4mpg (transmission/vehicle come into play here, but as you can see, it's certainly not more efficient by any real amount, if any, and maybe less-so.)
There you have it. A DOHC NA V8 (supposedly according to AMG, the most powerful in the world at the time).
Sorry, but I will stick with the LS7 until such time as 50bhp are worth another $40,000 to me.
The most powerful NA V8 I am aware of is the AMG M159.
It produces 563bhp and 480btq.
It weighs 450# dry.
The M156 it was derived from cost $56,000. I could not find a price for the AMG M159. I bet it's not less...
The SLS AMG it is installed in gets 14/20mpg. It weighs 3,5XX
The LS7 makes 505bhp and 470#btq.
It weighs 45X# dry.
It costs $14-16,000
The Z06 it is installed in weighs 3200# and gets 15/24mpg.
The additional $40,000 and all that technology got you a whopping 58bhp and 10#tq and lost you 1/4mpg (transmission/vehicle come into play here, but as you can see, it's certainly not more efficient by any real amount, if any, and maybe less-so.)
There you have it. A DOHC NA V8 (supposedly according to AMG, the most powerful in the world at the time).
Sorry, but I will stick with the LS7 until such time as 50bhp are worth another $40,000 to me.
Now, the real question is - given a choice, which engine would you prefer in your car? The screaming AMG's DOHC or the lumbering GM's OHV?
Last edited by PeterK; 01-22-2011 at 05:37 PM.
01-22-2011, 06:39 PM
#29
Le Mans Master
This might be the catalog price, but it doesn't provide an accurate estimate on how much it costs to build it. That engine was economical enough to be put in merc models, such as E63, that retailed for $60-80K e.g. the same list price as the Z06 vette. Given that the rest of the E63 costs a lot more to make than the rest of the Z06, I would think that the actual cost to build that AMG engine is similar to the costs of GM's LS7.
Now, the real question is - given a choice, which engine would you prefer in your car? The screaming AMG's DOHC or the lumbering GM's OHV?
Now, the real question is - given a choice, which engine would you prefer in your car? The screaming AMG's DOHC or the lumbering GM's OHV?
The AMG engine redlines at 7200rpm and the LS7 at 7000rpm. I guess 200rpm less = "lumbering vs. screaming"?
The E63AMG's base price is $87,000. The Z06's fully loaded price is similar before the Z07 option came out.
The E63AMG's engine is the M157. It produces 518bhp and 465#tq. This is only 13bhp more and it is 5#tq less.
The M159 costs considerably more, I assure you. It is ONLY offered in the SLS63AMG. It is the only NA engine mercedes makes that offers "significantly" more horsepower than the LS7, while delivering nearly identical torque, and only spinning 200rpm faster. It is still the most powerful production NA V8 in the world.
So what you are telling me is that the LS7 BARELY plays second-fiddle to the most powerful NA V8 in the world. I'll take it until I have the $190K to drop on the SLS 63 AMG. Which is still not any faster than the Z06. Even with it's seven speed automatic, the mere 300# penalty seems to relegate it to running identical 0-60's (official literature from Benz and GM state 3.7s in both cases), The 1/4 mile times tested are also very similar.
01-22-2011, 09:00 PM
#30
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 2000
Posts: 67,942
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
St. Jude Donor '12
2012 Election Contest Winner
So what you are telling me is that the LS7 BARELY plays second-fiddle to the most powerful NA V8 in the world. I'll take it until I have the $190K to drop on the SLS 63 AMG. Which is still not any faster than the Z06. Even with it's seven speed automatic, the mere 300# penalty seems to relegate it to running identical 0-60's (official literature from Benz and GM state 3.7s in both cases), The 1/4 mile times tested are also very similar.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/24/2...ten-best-engi/
01-23-2011, 09:29 AM
#31
Le Mans Master
Well, that engine just won the best engine of the year in the V8 category.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/24/2...ten-best-engi/
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/24/2...ten-best-engi/
You can't argue with the numbers.
I never said the AMG engine wasn't a beast. Simply that it isn't much better than an LS7, and at a MUCH higher cost.
01-23-2011, 11:36 AM
#32
Team Owner
Air thin up there in Ramona?
Have you never seen the LT5 in the C4 ZR-1? Only a 350ci but with the 4 cams and 32 valves [+ 16 injectors] it also looked like a monster. One hellish hi-reving monster that would hit the 7200rpm redline in 1st & 2nd in a heartbeat!
Yes, it was impressive to look at with all of the plumbing etc but even more fun to hear at wide open throttle. I owned 3 of them, one for nearly 17 years till the fires took it. Never lost from a 20mph roll up to 100 or so. Went thru the traps in 3rd at 115mph! Not bad for a 400hp 1980's technology motor!
Have you never seen the LT5 in the C4 ZR-1? Only a 350ci but with the 4 cams and 32 valves [+ 16 injectors] it also looked like a monster. One hellish hi-reving monster that would hit the 7200rpm redline in 1st & 2nd in a heartbeat!
Yes, it was impressive to look at with all of the plumbing etc but even more fun to hear at wide open throttle. I owned 3 of them, one for nearly 17 years till the fires took it. Never lost from a 20mph roll up to 100 or so. Went thru the traps in 3rd at 115mph! Not bad for a 400hp 1980's technology motor!
The biggest thing I miss is that fantastic sound.
The Porsche 928's DOHC V-8 had a great sound as well.
Last edited by BoostManiac; 01-23-2011 at 11:51 AM.
01-23-2011, 11:49 AM
#33
Team Owner
I have even more respect for the new Mustang chassis. A in a recent shootout, the V-6 Mustang outlapped the Subaru WRX STi turbo AWD car, in spite of banging the 114 mph speed limiter on the Stang! The V-6 Stang even outlapped last year's V-8 GT Stang, although they have similar HP. Still, a V-6 Stang used to be a giant turd. They've come a long way. And the 5.0 GT laps almost the same times as the screaming 414 HP V-8 BMW M3, which is simply incredible!
01-24-2011, 01:56 PM
#34
Race Director
Maybe because they have so much word of mouth advertising, they don't need to spend money on ads.
Maybe because it is so well known how fantastic the small block Chevy engine is. Maybe because so many '32 Ford hot rods have Chevy small blocks. Maybe because Chevy small blocks are the ubiquitous in the custom and hot rod industry.
Maybe because it is so well known how fantastic the small block Chevy engine is. Maybe because so many '32 Ford hot rods have Chevy small blocks. Maybe because Chevy small blocks are the ubiquitous in the custom and hot rod industry.
02-09-2011, 07:42 PM
#35
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
