[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Nabush

The thing is the Mustang is an in between the Camaro and the Challenger.

It performs as well as the Camaro/challenger in straight line (for the 2018 model), is slower on a roadcourse than the Camaro but faster than the challenger, but sufficiently fast and composed to give fun on a mountain road at a fast pace.

It’s more liveable as a daily than the camaro (don’t know for the challenger)

By the way How many of you go to the limit of your cars ?

For you living in NJ which roads do you have to touch/approach the limits of your ZL1 ?

I live myself of the bottom of the 15miles/6000 ft elevation Hillclimb where i can do it (and also on roadcourses, was living near Le Mans and other famous French roadcourses where i raced, now i need to go farther ...) but i’m very lucky to have such roads....

That’s why Mustang sells well, performance is good, accessible and sufficient for most people.

More liveable? Well that is debatable. I don't think it is. They are exactly the same when it comes to liveability (I just made that word up). And I admit that the Mustang is OK at best. Good enough? Nope. Well maybe for some but not for me. Not until the GT500 comes out. But we're not discussing what is sufficient. This is about which one is better. And it ain't the Mustang. it's the cars with "truck" engines.

I don't push my car to it's limit at all. I baby it. I find that I am satisfied with what it gives me back and that is with me not pushing it. It can give me soo much more than I could ever care to use and I'm fine with that.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Saving the world from horsepower...1 at a time?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Saving the world from horsepower...1 at a time?

If I was in a 5 year old Mustang GT then that would be true...

[FastCarFanBoy]

If yore cars have more power than yew need hue would think my 5yo mustang should be classified as unlawful wanton excess.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by oldman

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?

So if DOHC are not good for fuel economy why are they the engine of choice in almost all cars that are made for good fuel economy then? I don't think any manufacturer even offers a OHV V-6 anymore.

Or are you talking strictly in a V-8 application

Either way like I mentioned that initial post was meant to be taken more as a playful jab and sarcasm lol

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So if DOHC are not good for fuel economy why are they the engine of choice in almost all cars that are made for good fuel economy then? I don't think any manufacturer even offers a OHV V-6 anymore.

Or are you talking strictly in a V-8 application

Either way like I mentioned that initial post was meant to be taken more as a playful jab and sarcasm lol

There is still the good ole' 4.3 liter V6....

The move to DOHC is partly driven by the countries that tax based on displacement therefore the advantages of DOHC is preferred.

As for age of the architectures..... They are all old. OHC has origins in the late 1890's, OHV debuted in the 1900's, and DOHC in the early 1910's.

[Mr. Wyndham]

DOHC allows for an engine to spin faster to make HP, while reducing displacement VS a comparable output OHV engine. The result is better startup emissions, no doubt aided by the modern incorporation of individual cam phasing.

This is also the big reason why there's been no N/A replacement for the LS7, yet.

People often forget how much regulations play a role in forcing engineering design one way or the other. So consider that before claiming "this" is better than "that". For example - a major reason the LT4 was designed the way it was...with a smaller supercharger and low intake plenum cover...was so the Z06's hood could be low enough to pass EU pedestrian standards!!!

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Nabush

The thing is the Mustang is an in between the Camaro and the Challenger.

It performs as well as the Camaro/challenger in straight line (for the 2018 model), is slower on a roadcourse than the Camaro but faster than the challenger, but sufficiently fast and composed to give fun on a mountain road at a fast pace.

It’s more liveable as a daily than the camaro (don’t know for the challenger)

That’s why Mustang sells well, performance is good, accessible and sufficient for most people.

A common thing forgotten is the difference between the Mustang and Challenger in handling is actually in favor of the Challenger. The Mustang "can" outhandle it when equipped with the PP. The base GT (at least for MY15-17) was laughable in handling. Take a look at the tests between these two:

'15 Challenger R/T (not a Scat Pack)
skidpad: 0.89g
braking 70-0: 167ft

'15 Mustang GT (auto so no PP)
skidpad: 0.83g
braking 70-0: 175ft

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...al-test-review

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review

Just for reference on how terrible those numbers are. I give you a 4 door FWD sedan popular with senior citizens:

2016 Toyota Camry SE
skidpad: 0.83g
braking 70-0: 180ft

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...a-camry-review

Now of course you won't a track day comparison with any of those cars. And we don't know how much better the '18 base GT will be in handling, but the point remains. The Mustangs that sell the most, are the worst in overall handling. They will wallow and brake like a Camry and be outperformed by a 4100lb Challenger in the curves and braking. And we will probably never know how the new "18 base GT performs, b/c we only had one review for the '15-17's. And that was mainly b/c it was an auto. Ford is very careful about letting people know how much the base GT sacrifices for its lower price. Same thing happened with the base GT350.

So no Mustangs don't sell b/c the performance is good (since there are probably 10 non-PP cars sold to every PP). The Challenger has vastly more room and is the only one of the 3 cars that can actually comfortably fit normal Americans in the rear seats. So it's not accessibility that makes it sell either.

As for the Mustang being more liveable, it does have better storage than the Camaro. The seating position is more "normal" for those not used to sports cars. There is more glass to let in more light, which gives people the perception of better visibility. Something the Camaro does not have. Quantitatively, you would be hard pressed to "prove" more visibility in the Mustang. But the above mentioned appearance, is how most people perceive it regardless. Those things could be a driving force behind their sales, but I would point out the 5th gen Camaro was worse in those areas as well, but outsold the Mustang. So there's probably more "subjective" reasonings behind it. Or as I have long suspected, terrible packaging/pricing of the Camaro's non-V8 trims.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

There is still the good ole' 4.3 liter V6....

The move to DOHC is partly driven by the countries that tax based on displacement therefore the advantages of DOHC is preferred.

As for age of the architectures..... They are all old. OHC has origins in the late 1890's, OHV debuted in the 1900's, and DOHC in the early 1910's.

Yep very true. There is an engine size tax in Japan.

[Spartan268]

Good morning everyone.

How's the argument going with a crusty LT1 truck engine scaring the athletic young lad called the coyote?

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by Spartan268

Good morning everyone.

How's the argument going with a crusty LT1 truck engine scaring the athletic young lad called the coyote?

Sounds like a solid foundation for an animated movie to me.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

There is still the good ole' 4.3 liter V6....

The move to DOHC is partly driven by the countries that tax based on displacement therefore the advantages of DOHC is preferred.

As for age of the architectures..... They are all old. OHC has origins in the late 1890's, OHV debuted in the 1900's, and DOHC in the early 1910's.

Originally Posted by oldman

Yep very true. There is an engine size tax in Japan.

Touche

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Nabush

A DOHC has not a peaky power....

with the same displacement a DOHC engine will have both more torque and more power.

This is where your thought process went off the rails. Barring any external rules, taxes etc, a OHV V8 will always have substantially more displacement in similar size and weight package. The OHV motor will be more bottom heavy (a good thing). The fact that a DOHC V8 has substantially less displacement per package is the reason the Mustang has been stomped on since the 4.6 GT unveiled in the 90s. A Lt1 can do 7 liters no problem and the Ford, well with BIG dollars into it can do 5.2. The LT1 is smaller and lighter.

Originally Posted by Nabush

It's just a more efficient design

In what power per displacement is not a designed parameter. Power per weight, power per external engine size, power per MPG, power per drivable torque, power per actual cost of manufacture, power to longevity. The canard of power per displacment is just that a strawman agument. My last B20 VTEC engine put out 275 engine HP from 2 liters. I've done K20 that do 300 complete drivable HP, 600 RPM idle engines, are they faster than a LT1? Nope. Why cause HP per CID is MEANINGLESS. HP and Torque per engine that fits in the engine bay is what wins races.

Originally Posted by Nabush

you have more adjustability for your cam timing, you can flow more air because you have 4 valves per cylinder...

With the cam in cam technology, overlapped can now be adjusted on OHV and you can take a look at the HUGE jump in HP as implemented in the Viper. That is a single phaser and one cam vs upto 4 phasers and 4 cams.

Move more air are you kidding me. Why does the LT1 have WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more and torque and flatter torque? Cause a BIG cylinder moves more air than any silly 4 valve design.


Lets play a little Gendanken Experiment: NA street HP: Ford it would be hard to get past the 5.2 Shelby at 526 HP, say the best you could do with aftermarket stuff is 570 HP, 440 ft-lbs. For the LT1 you can do a 427 running Victor heads and a big cam: 570 HP but 540 ft -lbs of completely flat torque. NOWHERE in the entire 5.2 performance envelope will it ever maker more torque than the stroker LT1 will make as a MINIMUM over its rev range. It is power under the curve that moves a car.

http://image.superchevy.com/f/120187...comparison.jpg

Originally Posted by Nabush

OHV is old technology not matter what people say, but i agree it has some advantages...but power and torque are not among them. They only make torque because of displacement.

Ford has had so so so many redesigns of the original mod motor, and finally after dual inject design number dunno 10? They have an engine that makes the same HP as a OHV engine; however it has WAY less usable torque. Great. GM could implement cam in cam technology yesterday and bring the LT1 to 500 HP and an even flatter torque curve. What is Ford's reply? Nothing as it is already a spray bar engine, dual inject, dual runner intake. yada yada. To my mind it really is the 10 speed auto not the fancy redesign of the engine that makes the Mustang a better car. Next year say GM does cam in cam and a 10 speed auto. What does Ford do then? NOTHING. LOL

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by oldman

This is where your thought process went off the rails. Barring any external rules, taxes etc, a OHV V8 will always have substantially more displacement in similar size and weight package. The OHV motor will be more bottom heavy (a good thing). The fact that a DOHC V8 has substantially less displacement per package is the reason the Mustang has been stomped on since the 4.6 GT unveiled in the 90s. A Lt1 can do 7 liters no problem and the Ford, well with BIG dollars into it can do 5.2. The LT1 is smaller and lighter.



In what power per displacement is not a designed parameter. Power per weight, power per external engine size, power per MPG, power per drivable torque, power per actual cost of manufacture, power to longevity. The canard of power per displacment is just that a strawman agument. My last B20 VTEC engine put out 275 engine HP from 2 liters. I've done K20 that do 300 complete drivable HP, 600 RPM idle engines, are they faster than a LT1? Nope. Why cause HP per CID is MEANINGLESS. HP and Torque per engine that fits in the engine bay is what wins races.



With the cam in cam technology, overlapped can now be adjusted on OHV and you can take a look at the HUGE jump in HP as implemented in the Viper. That is a single phaser and one cam vs upto 4 phasers and 4 cams.

Move more air are you kidding me. Why does the LT1 have WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more and torque and flatter torque? Cause a BIG cylinder moves more air than any silly 4 valve design.


Lets play a little Gendanken Experiment: NA street HP: Ford it would be hard to get past the 5.2 Shelby at 526 HP, say the best you could do with aftermarket stuff is 570 HP, 440 ft-lbs. For the LT1 you can do a 427 running Victor heads and a big cam: 570 HP but 540 ft -lbs of completely flat torque. NOWHERE in the entire 5.2 performance envelope will it ever maker more torque than the stroker LT1 will make as a MINIMUM over its rev range. It is power under the curve that moves a car.

http://image.superchevy.com/f/120187...comparison.jpg







Ford has had so so so many redesigns of the original mod motor, and finally after dual inject design number dunno 10? They have an engine that makes the same HP as a OHV engine with WAY less usable torque. Great. GM could implement cam in cam technology yesterday and bring the LT1 to 500 HP and an even flatter torque curve. What is Ford's reply? Nothing as it is already a spray bar engine, dual inject, dual runner intake. yada yada.

And yes the torqueless wonder is running 119+mph in the quarter despite being 200 lbs heavier than the SS, yes awful technology.