GM engines vs. Ford engines
01-21-2011, 04:57 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
GM engines vs. Ford engines
Ford has a new line of commercials showing their new engines. 4 cams, huge heads, huge physical size. The Ford 4.6L (276 cu inch) is huge in size compared to the LS1 (346 cu inch). GM has kept the OHV engine very simple but got it to develop a lot of power with a very small size. Why hasn't Ford done that. If you blow a head in a Ford engine it's got to be terribly expensive.
01-21-2011, 05:09 PM
#4
Heel & Toe
Member Since: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give credit where it is due, The 2011 5.0 engine is nothing but simply amazing in its look/design and performance. It makes 412 hp on 5 liters, normally aspirated, sorry but chevrolet cant get there on its current configuration.
01-21-2011, 05:29 PM
#5
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
32 Posts
Its a nice engine but there is nothing amazing about it. Ford has been behind in engine performance for years now and its about time they came up with something to compete.
01-21-2011, 05:35 PM
#6
Safety Car
Ford has a new line of commercials showing their new engines. 4 cams, huge heads, huge physical size. The Ford 4.6L (276 cu inch) is huge in size compared to the LS1 (346 cu inch). GM has kept the OHV engine very simple but got it to develop a lot of power with a very small size. Why hasn't Ford done that. If you blow a head in a Ford engine it's got to be terribly expensive.
01-21-2011, 05:37 PM
#7
Melting Slicks
Ford engine
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!
01-21-2011, 05:43 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
Ford has a new line of commercials showing their new engines. 4 cams, huge heads, huge physical size. The Ford 4.6L (276 cu inch) is huge in size compared to the LS1 (346 cu inch). GM has kept the OHV engine very simple but got it to develop a lot of power with a very small size. Why hasn't Ford done that. If you blow a head in a Ford engine it's got to be terribly expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine
Last edited by Sunset-C6; 01-21-2011 at 05:56 PM.
01-21-2011, 05:51 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
I'm beginning to wonder if any of the people who bring ford crap to this forum even own a Corvette.
01-21-2011, 05:56 PM
#10
Le Mans Master
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.
01-21-2011, 06:02 PM
#11
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Mooresville (Race City USA) NC
Posts: 4,681
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Consider that the 2011 Mustang V6 develops 1.34 HP per CID (on regular gas), their V-8 1.36 Hp per CID, and the LS3 develops only 1.14 HP per CID. So, what was your question?
01-21-2011, 07:33 PM
#13
Melting Slicks
The V6 makes 12.7 HP/valve, the V8 makes 12.8 HP/valve, and the LS3 makes 26.8 HP/valve. Want to come with some other stupid comparisons? Packaging, weight, complexity and durability are a lot more telling.
01-21-2011, 07:57 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Aug 2008
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
01-21-2011, 08:13 PM
#16
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
32 Posts
It took GM nearly 11 years to produce anything faster than the LT5. Really there is no comparison between pushrod and dohc setups. The argument use to be that pushrod saved more weight, but over the last few years, the automotive industry has provided significant weight savings in materials used. Secondly, there has not been one ohc vehicle that makes more power with the same displacement. That is a testament to the superiority of the head design.
If displacement matters so much then rotary would be best. 1.3L with 232hp and no valves. Also runs much smoother then a piston engine.
Last edited by MARSC6; 01-21-2011 at 10:32 PM.
01-21-2011, 08:27 PM
#17
Heel & Toe
Member Since: Dec 2010
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Still, when you talk about mass production 2011 Mustangs with the muscle from just 5 liters, it is quite impressive-whether you dig Fords or not, that needs respect.
01-21-2011, 09:07 PM
#18
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Aug 2008
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The smaller displacement means nothing with the massive heads. Any size or weight benefit is lost. Especially since the weight saving materials are also used with OHC.
If displacement matters so much then rotary would be best. 1.3L with 232hp and no valves. Also runs much smoother then a piston engine.
If displacement matters so much then rotary would be best. 1.3L with 232hp and no valves. Also runs much smoother then a piston engine.
You simply do not have the VE to compete with a DOHC motor as opposed to a Pushrod. Furthermore, there are race motors that are Dohc that are lighter than their Pushrod variants!
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/moparv8.html
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mugenv8.html
Care to dispute?
In addition to this, OHV engines have the camshaft below the cylinder head, and and use lifters and pushrods to help actuate the valves that are in the cylinder head. Compared to OHC engines, they allow for better packaging, but are less efficient compared to OHC designs due to increased valvetrain mass. To open a valve, the camshaft pushes on a lifter, which pushes a pushrod, which pushes on a rocker am, which opens the valve. OHC engines don't have the weight of the pushrod to overcome. While the weight of a pushrod & lifter is seemingly insignificant, when you consider it can account for more than 15% of the valvetrain mass, and it has to open a valve up to 6000 times a minute (or more), it adds up to measurable difference. It's all about inertia - the less weight it has to move, the less energy is required to open the valve, and thus, there is more energy that can be transferred to the crankshaft - meaning more HP to the wheels.
01-21-2011, 10:32 PM
#20
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,861
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
32 Posts
We are not comparing rotaries, that is another subject.
You simply do not have the VE to compete with a DOHC motor as opposed to a Pushrod. Furthermore, there are race motors that are Dohc that are lighter than their Pushrod variants!
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/moparv8.html
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mugenv8.html
Care to dispute?
In addition to this, OHV engines have the camshaft below the cylinder head, and and use lifters and pushrods to help actuate the valves that are in the cylinder head. Compared to OHC engines, they allow for better packaging, but are less efficient compared to OHC designs due to increased valvetrain mass. To open a valve, the camshaft pushes on a lifter, which pushes a pushrod, which pushes on a rocker am, which opens the valve. OHC engines don't have the weight of the pushrod to overcome. While the weight of a pushrod & lifter is seemingly insignificant, when you consider it can account for more than 15% of the valvetrain mass, and it has to open a valve up to 6000 times a minute (or more), it adds up to measurable difference. It's all about inertia - the less weight it has to move, the less energy is required to open the valve, and thus, there is more energy that can be transferred to the crankshaft - meaning more HP to the wheels.
You simply do not have the VE to compete with a DOHC motor as opposed to a Pushrod. Furthermore, there are race motors that are Dohc that are lighter than their Pushrod variants!
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/moparv8.html
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mugenv8.html
Care to dispute?
In addition to this, OHV engines have the camshaft below the cylinder head, and and use lifters and pushrods to help actuate the valves that are in the cylinder head. Compared to OHC engines, they allow for better packaging, but are less efficient compared to OHC designs due to increased valvetrain mass. To open a valve, the camshaft pushes on a lifter, which pushes a pushrod, which pushes on a rocker am, which opens the valve. OHC engines don't have the weight of the pushrod to overcome. While the weight of a pushrod & lifter is seemingly insignificant, when you consider it can account for more than 15% of the valvetrain mass, and it has to open a valve up to 6000 times a minute (or more), it adds up to measurable difference. It's all about inertia - the less weight it has to move, the less energy is required to open the valve, and thus, there is more energy that can be transferred to the crankshaft - meaning more HP to the wheels.
Last edited by MARSC6; 01-21-2011 at 10:38 PM.