[72MachOne99GT]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

when you CREATE your mega-power and USE your mega-power, you BURN mega-hydrocarbons

Psssh... lies

Back on topic...would the people here consider it a fail if ford can provide a zl1 slayer (relative term) with all the goodies required (opinion) for a street car in the mid 50s price range?

Say for instance Ford doesn't see a 70,000 dollar market for this car...

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by 72MachOne99GT

Back on topic...would the people here consider it a fail if ford can provide a zl1 slayer (relative term) with all the goodies required (opinion) for a street car in the mid 50s price range?

Say for instance Ford doesn't see a 70,000 dollar market for this car...

Why don't we save our conjecture for a time when BOTH have their next-Gen running shoes on...

Apples-to-Apples?

And we'll drive the actual RESULTS, not just our keyboards...

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by 72MachOne99GT

Psssh... lies

Back on topic...would the people here consider it a fail if ford can provide a zl1 slayer (relative term) with all the goodies required (opinion) for a street car in the mid 50s price range?

Say for instance Ford doesn't see a 70,000 dollar market for this car...

I don't see why they couldn't. The GT500 was dominant in the 1/4 and a decent competitor on the track. I would think adding IRS would make it a better track car. I know it won't have the same power as the GT500 but I don't think it would need it.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

The 6.8L Ford V10 wasn't "hypothetical"...nor is the (not so) EcoBoost, under load.

A story: the Good Doctor that used to be my next door neighbor bought an F-250 Crew V10...that NEVER got better than 11 mpg, unladen. I suggested he buy a GM HD1500 Crew 6.0L Vortec (when they arrived). His collective fuel bill improved by 60%, not an inconsequential amount for a daily driver, EVEN for a doctor...

Typical response from EcoBoost owners when questioned about mpg: "Not nearly what it's rated for, ESPECIALLY when it's 'working'; then, it's terrible...worse than my [any brand] previous [1/2-ton] V8"...

if I had a dollar for every time I've heard that....

and the ford 6.2 1\2 ton that was so poor on fuel it had like a 3 year production run.

[joelster]

Originally Posted by Jims Mongoose

I guess in printed words interpretations or feelings get lost.

I am not teasing at all. My questions come from a fairly consistent pattern on this forum where many people feel that the stangs have the upper hand. When it comes to the 5.0's they say it's because of weight and wheel size. Whatever.

I am GM loyal but I can appreciate all makes and models. I'm not biased either way. The Coyote engine is a better engine because of the way it can constantly adjust the CAM timing, and also 4 valves per cylinder. At very low valve lift there is SUBSTANTIALLY more curtain area on a 4 valve engine versus a 2 valve engine. It has much more capability to fill the cylinder. That's why Ford can get so much hp out of such a small displacement. It's also why it can rev so high.

Originally Posted by Jims Mongoose

I was just really trying to ask what are the limitations of the Ford 4 Valve Variable valve timing on intake and exhaust design. It seems that it's a great combo. So I was looking for the knowledgeable people on this site to tell me what the limitations of that design are and why and how the chevy engines are better.

The limitations are it's torque production due to its size. In a nutshell (again not going into specifics), but usually the more mass you have with big crankshaft, big pistons, rods, stroke, etc, the more torque the engine will have. Think of torque as momentum of all of the moving parts. That's why big-blocks and diesels have lots of torque, but little 4-bangers have none, lol. Look at the BOSS 'stangs hp/tq. It's 444/380. Amazing hp but the torque is way less than a Camaro's LS3 which is 420. That's where having 6.2 liters of displacement comes into play.

Originally Posted by Jims Mongoose

In fact the goal with my 1LE is to make it able to beat stangs. Searching for all answers on how to make the best NA engine, best supercharged engine etc.

Also just interested in engine theory. I love threads where we exchange the knowledge and all learn.

What is a flat plane crank?

Jim

A flat plane cranks has each journal 180 degrees apart instead of 90. Some racers will swear by them, while others will hate them. There are pro's and con's to each design.

If you want to see some interesting crankshaft designs google 500cc Moto GP "big-bang" 2-stroke engines.

[TheReaper]

The new Mustang will destroy the Z28 and the Mustang will reign as the king of pony cars forever.

[LOWDOWN]

Raptor, with it's vastly superior OHC 6.2L V8:

Power comes from a 6.2-liter SOHC V8 that produces 411 horsepower and 434 lb-ft of torque. Fuel economy is about what one would expect of a large pickup with a big V8: 11 mpg in the city and 16 mpg on the highway, according to the EPA.


The GM Twins, saddled with that outdated low-tech pushrod thingie:

2014 Silverado and Sierra with 6.2-liter small-block V-8 engine... its 420 horsepower and 460 lb-ft of naturally aspirated grunt. The 6.2L EcoTec3 V8 will return 15 miles per gallon in the city and 21 mpg on the highway

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by TheReaper

The new Mustang will destroy the Z28 and the Mustang will reign as the king of pony cars forever.

No doubt. Welcome back...

[crysalis_01]

I love posting these two gifs.

[LOWDOWN]

Marshmellow roast at kiddies camp?

[TheReaper]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

No doubt. Welcome back...

THANK YOU.

[matt55]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

If you are creating [500 horse] power, you are using [500 horsepower's] -worth of fuel...unless you introduce hybrid assist...the NEXT frontier being explored by Porsche 'n others...

Not really , F.I. runs richer than N/A counterparts and F.I. generally has lower C/R which also leads to lower fuel efficiency.

[72MachOne99GT]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Why don't we save our conjecture for a time when BOTH have their next-Gen running shoes on...

Apples-to-Apples?

And we'll drive the actual RESULTS, not just our keyboards...

My mistake, I didn't mean to bring conjecture in a thread that originated from a "Car and Driver future cars that may or may not be produced" article.

[joelster]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Raptor, with it's vastly superior OHC 6.2L V8:

Power comes from a 6.2-liter SOHC V8 that produces 411 horsepower and 434 lb-ft of torque. Fuel economy is about what one would expect of a large pickup with a big V8: 11 mpg in the city and 16 mpg on the highway, according to the EPA.


The GM Twins, saddled with that outdated low-tech pushrod thingie:

2014 Silverado and Sierra with 6.2-liter small-block V-8 engine... its 420 horsepower and 460 lb-ft of naturally aspirated grunt. The 6.2L EcoTec3 V8 will return 15 miles per gallon in the city and 21 mpg on the highway

You are implying that because the Raptor 6.2L has OHC that it should automatically make more power than a pushrod 6.2L, based on its level of sophistication, right? That's a pretty weak argument. Compression ratio is different, one is direct injected, lift/duration is different, etc, etc.

My points were all about the Coyote which is DOHC, not SOHC. DOHC allows them to move the intake cams separate from the exhaust cams. You can't do that with the Raptor engine. The Raptor 6.2 can't adjust it's cam timing any different from the GM family.

Then you brag about the economy, lol. Have you ever seen a Raptor? They aren't exactly built for highway use. 35" knobby tires, massive Fox off-road shocks, huge by large everywhere. Do you think that effects the fuel economy? What if they stuck that 6.2 into a regular 4x2 F150? I bet it could hit 20mpg highway.