[SpeedIsLife]

Even diehard Pony fanboys gotta give it up to the LS7 lol

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Thor142

I'm not getting into this again. I know better than to say anything good about Ford here. In no hurry to get piled on again. Everything Chevy does is awesome and Ford sucks, There.

I have nothing but respect for Ford. They are a worth rival to Chevy. Both are aiming at the same goal but take different paths.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

I have nothing but respect for Ford. They are a worth rival to Chevy. Both are aiming at the same goal but take different paths.

I agree. I like all the pony cars actually. Just cause I have a Camaro and plan on buying the gen 6 doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have a GT 350. I test drove all three in the V6 class before I bought the Camaro. It was a really tough decision.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by fastball

The pushrod V6s could not develop the power that you need to be competitive in today's market with a V6. There is no way the 3800 could develop 300+ hp and 270+ ft/lbs of torque. It was maxed out at it's most possible at 210, 250 supercharged, when it was retired in 2008. Ok, so aftermarket parts can add maybe 30 hp.

The DOHC 3.6 will leave any 3800 in the dust, while returning better fuel economy and emissions.

While the 6.2L in the Camaro and Corvette has it's roots in the old, venerable 5.7, the development of that engine is so advanced over the years to today that they're really not that closely related. They share the pushrod architecture and that's about it.

The first Chevy Small block V-8 engine was 265 (4.3L) cubic inches, the first 350 cubic inch engine wasn't until the late 1960s (where as the SBC goes back to 1955).

Also the idea that a OHV V-6 engine couldn't produce over 300BHP to be competitive today just isn't true. It really comes down to there is no other product that will get said V-6 engine so why produce a new OHV V-6 engine just for the Camaro or take the 4.3L and make a car version. BTW the 4.3L V-6 engine in the truck with a truck tune currently produces 285/305.... not saying that they should just pointing out that the reasons why they don't do not include it wouldn't be competitive.

Today OHV engines are revving to 10,000+rpms (in race form), modern head design has resulted in two valve heads which have great flow data. If you look at the old L98 V-8 engine it just stopped breathing at a fairly low rpm which resulted in a low horsepower rating. Now they regularly have red lines over 6,000rpms...... after all the laws of physics doesn't care how many valves and where the cams are. If you can get the fuel and air into the combustion chamber it will make power. You are not going to suddenly produce more power and torque at a given rpm with the exact same amount of fuel/air because the camshafts are sitting on top of the head.

[Autonaut]

Im getting pretty tired of the chevy vs ford, pushrods vs dohc!! It just different ways to achieve the same. Let the m6g site have their bashing to themselves.

[Childs Play]

Originally Posted by Autonaut

Im getting pretty tired of the chevy vs ford, pushrods vs dohc!! It just different ways to achieve the same. Let the m6g site have their bashing to themselves.

I agree for the most part, but when I hear a Mustang owner say that their engine is smaller (because they think that displacement somehow means the size/weight of the engine) and produces more power with less engine I want to slap them through their computer screen... lol

[titanfan]

Originally Posted by BigRedViking

Just tired of hearing the whole new GM isn't the old GM argument. They still make products that are true to their heritage While remaining a first rate product that routinely out performs Ford. Not to say Ford makes garbage, I really like the new GT Supercar. I'm just proud of the fact that here in 2015 future premium models are still utilizing technology that dates back to the fifties.

So, I guess you're sad that the Camaro moved to an IRS and ditched the solid rear axle setup, right? I mean, you surely would not have been one of those calling out Ford's use of "heritage" rear suspension in the previous generation Mustang yet somehow staying competitive with it's rivals.

[GearBangr]

Originally Posted by Childs Play

I agree for the most part, but when I hear a Mustang owner say that their engine is smaller (because they think that displacement somehow means the size/weight of the engine) and produces more power with less engine I want to slap them through their computer screen... lol

My favorite is their more with less argument. Sure we have more CI. But they need more rpm, 3 more cams, 16 more valves, 3 more actuators, more chains blah blah blah. Different techniques, similar results.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

So, I guess your sad that the Camaro moved to an IRS and ditched the solid rear axle setup, right? I mean, you surely would not have been one of those calling out Ford's use of "heritage" rear suspension in the previous generation Mustang yet stating competitive with it's rivals.

Yes we need to stay true to heritage and go back to solid axles and leaf springs. Bring back carburetors too!!!!

[ULTRAZLS1]

OHC design isn't any newer or space age than ohv. They both were invented around the same time.

He's probably laughing because most ford guys have been insisting for years that ohv/ pushrod is dead and we will have to go ohc to compete. Guessing he's laughing because it doesn't look like that now does it?

They don't add cubes because the design of the coyote won't allow it. They are stuck with the cubes they have ( think it can go to 318 or so) So... Rip on us for having more. Simple...

High revving complex engine that has to be revved to the moon and makes less power across the curve until high in the rpm range. Vs a larger cubed less complex design that makes power everywhere. With the option of even more cubes. Sounds like a tough choice.

[wakespeak]

To me the LS3/7 are the last of the great pushrod engines for what made them old school fun: they are simple to hop up/mod relative to the DOHC Ford engines and all those cams and timing chains. Swap out the heads, cam, retune the motor, add exhaust, intake, etc, etc. Easy on the LS engines.

So that's the difference with the Ford engines IMO. If you don't work on the engine, track the car, mod it, then its just about hp, torque so who cares. Its also a different discussion on whether you want big displacement torque or free revving OHC's with their less reciprocating mass.

The LT1 has complex DI, VVT, AFM, PCV systems, and related programming. Is it still easier to keep running on the track or to hop up than the Ford engines? Dunno, but I doubt it will be in the same category for the garage modder as the LS series. With the LT1 pushrods were retained for AFM, packaging (fits better in a Corvette), and cost IMO.

Smaller bore engines are easier to do clean emissions with (Ford didn't need DI with the Voodoo), so the LT1 may be the last of the 2 valve pushrod engines since smaller bores usually need the multiple valves to keep the flow moving.

[titanfan]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

OHC design isn't any newer or space age than ohv. They both were invented around the same time.

He's probably laughing because most ford guys have been insisting for years that ohv/ pushrod is dead and we will have to go ohc to compete. Guessing he's laughing because it doesn't look like that now does it?

They don't add cubes because the design of the coyote won't allow it. They are stuck with the cubes they have ( think it can go to 318 or so) So... Rip on us for having more. Simple...

High revving complex engine that has to be revved to the moon and makes less power across the curve until high in the rpm range. Vs a larger cubed less complex design that makes power everywhere. With the option of even more cubes. Sounds like a tough choice.

We're all aware of the ages of the OHC/OHV engine designs (at least those who have researched both), so I don't think we need yet another history lesson on when each was first put into use in a high-volume passenger car. I just thought it was funny that the OP used the word "heritage" in defense of the OHV engines still being produced by GM. GM doesn't do it because of heritage, they do it because they feel it is the most cost-effective yet efficient way to power certain vehicles they produce. And they continue to improve the breed year-after-year.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

To me the LS3/7 are the last of the great pushrod engines for what made them old school fun: they are simple to hop up/mod relative to the DOHC Ford engines and all those cams and timing chains. Swap out the heads, cam, retune the motor, add exhaust, intake, etc, etc. Easy on the LS engines.

So that's the difference with the Ford engines IMO. If you don't work on the engine, track the car, mod it, then its just about hp, torque so who cares. Its also a different discussion on whether you want big displacement torque or free revving OHC's with their less reciprocating mass.

The LT1 has complex DI, VVT, AFM, PCV systems, and related programming. Is it still easier to keep running on the track or to hop up than the Ford engines? Dunno, but I doubt it will be in the same category for the garage modder as the LS series. With the LT1 pushrods were retained for AFM, packaging (fits better in a Corvette), and cost IMO.

Smaller bore engines are easier to do clean emissions with (Ford didn't need DI with the Voodoo), so the LT1 may be the last of the 2 valve pushrod engines since smaller bores usually need the multiple valves to keep the flow moving.

It's still an ohv 2 valve per cylinder pushrod motor. From what I've looked into im sure it will be a little more complex to h/c swap compared to the ls1/2/3/6/7. But im not worried at all. I should still be able to do it easily. Just not in my sleep like the ls series.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

We're all aware of the ages of the OHC/OHV engine designs (at least those who have researched both), so I don't think we need yet another history lesson on when each was first put into use in a high-volume passenger car. I just thought it was funny that the OP used the word "heritage" in defense of the OHV engines still being produced by GM. GM doesn't do it because of heritage, they do it because they feel it is the most cost-effective yet efficient way to power certain vehicles they produce. And they continue to improve the breed year-after-year.

Sorry bro... But from what I've read on various forum plenty of people still need a history lesson.

Other than that good post.