[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by metros11

What we find in a more 'athletic' power bands, like the Coyote, as you suggested... is that torque peaks at 4,600 rpm, and then dives from there. Nice try.

One of those makes 325lb/ft of torque at 1500rpm, the other makes 275 at 2000. Huge difference.

The fastest cars have loads of torque at relatively low RPM. They also have a lot of torque at high RPM, but every time you slam the gear into a lower gear, you want maximum acceleration, which ample torque gives you. Having to build RPM to get more torque means slower acceleration.

I was doing some research on truck engines for a different reason a few weeks ago, looking at the design of several engines and how they changed from model years, the articles went into detail about why the engines were truck engines vs. the same displacement engine being used in the manufacturer's non-truck models. To say x engine is a "truck engine" just because the same basic block or displacement is used in another vehicle is 100% ignorant.

[KMPrenger]

lol...so now we have guys saying that the engine that makes its power in the upper rpms is the better sports car engine, while the one that makes power everwhere is a "truck engine".

You know, that's the same argument us V6 owners had back in the 5th gen days when I owned one. "Its fast, just doesn't have much down low". Funny to see the Coyote fans arguing it now.

Look, I think the Coyote is a great engine, but I'm sorry, it makes almost no more peak power than the LT1, has much less low end torque, is bigger, is heavier, and is also less fuel efficient. But sure, go ahead and argue for the Coyote.

[shaffe]

If the coyote is less fuel efficient why doesn't it need AFM? The fact the LT1 needs AFM in the camaro that to me tells me its not as fuel efficient lol

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by shaffe

If the coyote is less fuel efficient why doesn't it need AFM? The fact the LT1 needs AFM in the camaro that to me tells me its not as fuel efficient lol

The manual SS does not have AFM enabled and is more fuel efficient than the manual mustang GT.

It's simply a more efficient powertrain

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by shaffe

If the coyote is less fuel efficient why doesn't it need AFM? The fact the LT1 needs AFM in the camaro that to me tells me its not as fuel efficient lol

A DOHC should be the most efficient for FE, yet the Mustang only gets 1mpg better in the city than a non-DI, 392 in a heavy Challenger. The LT1 in the 6th gen bests both in city and highway. And I don't believe it is AFM that is giving the 6th gen the advantage. All this while the '18 GT has 3 OD gears compared to 2 on the Camaro/Challenger, and the GT despite getting DI/PI and changing from the A6 to A10 didn't improve it's ratings from MY15-17.

If you look at a '15 Camaro SS (A6 vs M6) comparison, the M6 is rated better despite not having AFM. If you talk to a lot of guys on here, they insist AFM doesn't add anything (I disagree, but that's a matter of driving style).

So the reality is the Coyote might be a more FE engine, but it's in the worst FE setup. Course the answer as to why is clear, it's too athletic

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

lol...so now we have guys saying that the engine that makes its power in the upper rpms is the better sports car engine, while the one that makes power everwhere is a "truck engine".

You know, that's the same argument us V6 owners had back in the 5th gen days when I owned one. "Its fast, just doesn't have much down low". Funny to see the Coyote fans arguing it now.

Look, I think the Coyote is a great engine, but I'm sorry, it makes almost no more peak power than the LT1, has much less low end torque, is bigger, is heavier, and is also less fuel efficient. But sure, go ahead and argue for the Coyote.

Yet it is still capable of running 119-mph in the quarter mile in a heavier chassis.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

The manual SS does not have AFM enabled and is more fuel efficient than the manual mustang GT.

It's simply a more efficient powertrain

Originally Posted by SuperSound

A DOHC should be the most efficient for FE, yet the Mustang only gets 1mpg better in the city than a non-DI, 392 in a heavy Challenger. The LT1 in the 6th gen bests both in city and highway. And I don't believe it is AFM that is giving the 6th gen the advantage. All this while the '18 GT has 3 OD gears compared to 2 on the Camaro/Challenger, and the GT despite getting DI/PI and changing from the A6 to A10 didn't improve it's ratings from MY15-17.

If you look at a '15 Camaro SS (A6 vs M6) comparison, the M6 is rated better despite not having AFM. If you talk to a lot of guys on here, they insist AFM doesn't add anything (I disagree, but that's a matter of driving style).

So the reality is the Coyote might be a more FE engine, but it's in the worst FE setup. Course the answer as to why is clear, it's too athletic

That was meant to be more of a playful jab hence the LOL at the end but thanks for the clarification.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That was meant to be more of a playful jab hence the LOL at the end but thanks for the clarification.

Come on shaffe, you know sarcasm is lost in these threads....especially in the morning lol

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Come on shaffe, you know sarcasm is lost in these threads....especially in the morning lol

LOL! I thought everyone would have had enough coffee by now!

[Mazman]

Hi

this is where the new 10-speed comes into play if accelerations is the main priority at least for the 5.0. With the close gear ratios, the RPM during shifting is held above 6000RPM when on full throttle. It would be interesting to see how a 10-speed and the 6.2(N/A) work together as this engine I am assuming is not as hungry for more gears compared to the 5.0.

Depending on track(circuit) and driving style I would assume the two engine/transmission combos have their pros and cons.

Still I think it is great that we are able to have these cars, I understand that there can be arguments(wild ones) but still it is a great era with a lot of amazing cars. For me I buy whatever I can afford and what I can think I can live with. For us as consumers competition is great and in some parts of the world it is getting more and more difficult to have these type of cars. We should enjoy what we have while it lasts.

Regarding the test I think MT will say the SS is still king on track compared to the PP1 at least and that the Mustang is easier to live with but that it is well improved for tracking with introducing the magneride, tires, (potentially the A10) and the new engine with a bit more torque and HP. I think as a surprise they also will test the PP1 with the same tires the the PP2 comes with . In the end it is what makes you happy regardless of numbers. Some buy an Aston Martin for the same money as a Ferrari and might not this time around be after the ultimate driving car but after the feeling it gives them. I have said it before looking at the Mustang and SS if being daily driven I think they perform well enough for 95% of the people buying them.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by shaffe

If the coyote is less fuel efficient why doesn't it need AFM? The fact the LT1 needs AFM in the camaro that to me tells me its not as fuel efficient lol

There are several reasons why a DOHC engine does not get good fuel economy.
1) the port size is too big for good velocity at low throttle settings. Ford designed a whole new intake manifold to up velocity.

2) The 4 valve design does not have swril. That is why every VTEC (able to change LIFT) technology that is built for economy lifts only ONE intake valve. Honda even has a three stage VTEC, one valve, two valves low lift, two valves at high lift and duration on the D15 engine.

3) Forget EPA, real world economy is a low rpm engine able to generate a reasonable amount of torque at cruse speed. In my past life I was a hyper-mile guy just for fun going all the way back to the Chrysler leanburn systems.

4) a quadcam engine has a whole bunch of moving parts aka friction. Due to the small internal size DOHC engines usually have long stokes to make usable torque, so that piston has to fly pretty far up and down the bore. GM would destroke the engine OHV engine as you can see in the LS base 4.8 engines with the 83mm stroke, leading to a LONG lived engine with good fuel economy.

Your qualifications?

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

lol...so now we have guys saying that the engine that makes its power in the upper rpms is the better sports car engine, while the one that makes power everwhere is a "truck engine".

You know, that's the same argument us V6 owners had back in the 5th gen days when I owned one. "Its fast, just doesn't have much down low". Funny to see the Coyote fans arguing it now.

Look, I think the Coyote is a great engine, but I'm sorry, it makes almost no more peak power than the LT1, has much less low end torque, is bigger, is heavier, and is also less fuel efficient. But sure, go ahead and argue for the Coyote.

Good call. That’s always why the 3.6 with more HP and torque is slower than the BMW twin and single turbo 3.0s, even accounting for being underrated, both cars should dyno around 300 at the wheels and the BMWs aren’t light, but they have torque down low and flat across the range.

[SpeedIsLife]

It'll be interesting to see what happens when GM's V8's switch over to DOHC units early in 2020..

I believe it was stated the LT1 or at least a 6.2L V8 was supposed to stick around until 2021 in the Corvette.

[oldman]

At some point a DOHC inline 5 or 6 is all that you will ever need, look at the Ford GT, the new Audi inline 5, high 11s in a 4 door. The Boxter has gone down to an opposed 4, the handwriting on the wall is DOHC, I just highly doubt it will be a V8 configuration. Inline DOHC have half the cams, half the heads, half all the timing belt stuff out front.

Remember all the rumors with the Cuda having a Pentastar V6 twin turbo.