[Jims Mongoose]

Okay so if it can be done it is good to be able to rev more with better breathing, the problem is that It is hard to do and keep it street tractable.


So I see the posts and I have read about the Coyote, as well as other articles about power density etc. I have read all about torque and also about the balance of both. I have read about power and the the ability to continually accelerate requires an engine that can keep making power higher and higher into the RPM range.

It seems that the Z28 has a problem. From my own assessment and other smart people and their comments on this thread it seems like an engine like the coyote will cause the LS7 and the Z28 fits. Any engine that can rev that high and have a variable LSA/Overlap can give the designers all they could ask for.

I can easily see a 550 Hp Ford GT350 and if other parts are executed right, look out.

I am not a troll, I am a chevy lover but it seems GM has some home work to do.

Please give me some tech reasons why I am wrong.

Lets keep the discussions friendly.

Jim

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by 87GNX

7.0L coyote would have gm stunned for along time.

Ford can't build a 7.0 coyote. The stroke would be ridiculously long.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Ford can't build a 7.0 coyote. The stroke would be ridiculously long.

It was strictly hypotheyical. If you want a factual limit to the Coyote's block design, at least one aftermatket design has it up to 351ci. But I can't see that being an engine that'll last very long. Besides, it's unnecessary to reach for more than a few more tenths of a liter if they're going to remain as a crossplane crank design. The engine revs high enough to hit their power goals, I'm sure.

However, if a flatplane crank design is to be used, it may in fact be more desirable to lose a few tenth of a litre to just under 5.0 for the sake of balance.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by 87GNX

7.0L coyote would have gm stunned for along time.

lol!!!!


yeah GM is notorious for not being able to make HP....


plus a 7.0 modular would be so bad on fuel ford would only be able to sell 3 or 4 and still meet their café regulations.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by Jims Mongoose

It seems that the Z28 has a problem. From my own assessment and other smart people and their comments on this thread it seems like an engine like the coyote will cause the LS7 and the Z28 fits.

Jim, keep in mind by the time the GT350 ARRIVES, the LS7 will DEPART. Not unlike the BOSS vs. Z/28 (is this a conspiracy?!)

Any engine that can rev that high and have a variable LSA/Overlap can give the designers all they could ask for.

...for a price...at a price

I can easily see a 550 Hp Ford GT350 and if other parts are executed right, look out.

Since YOU have a slightly teasing nature added to your narrative, how about I leave YOU with this: How many numbers fit between LT1 and LT4?

Lets keep the discussions friendly.

Jim

This is camaro5, NOT a Mustang site...so OF COURSE the back-n-forth will ALWAYS be friendly. Right fellas?!

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

It was strictly hypotheyical.

Originally Posted by big hammer

plus a 7.0 modular would be so bad on fuel ford would only be able to sell 3 or 4 and still meet their café regulations.

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"...

[2010SLVRBULIT]

Originally Posted by 87GNX

Well to be fair, Camaros have always been the lesser brother to the corvettes, no offense here as I love the LS3 but it will never recieve the same goodies.

..and the GM reasoning is they want the brands to survive, conflict yields to extinction.. Plus there should be enough aftermarket parts for the unsatisfied crowd.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

It was strictly hypotheyical. If you want a factual limit to the Coyote's block design, at least one aftermatket design has it up to 351ci. But I can't see that being an engine that'll last very long. Besides, it's unnecessary to reach for more than a few more tenths of a liter if they're going to remain as a crossplane crank design. The engine revs high enough to hit their power goals, I'm sure.

However, if a flatplane crank design is to be used, it may in fact be more desirable to lose a few tenth of a litre to just under 5.0 for the sake of balance.

Then hypothetically speaking, Chevy can drop in the LSX454r. 720 horsepower naturally aspirated.

[87GNX]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Then hypothetically speaking, Chevy can drop in the LSX454r. 720 horsepower naturally aspirated.

As much as I love n/a, boost is just way better in every situation. BB n/a is so impractical for a daily driver....

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by 87GNX

As much as I love n/a, boost is just way better in every situation. BB n/a is so impractical for a daily driver....

Boost is more widely acknowledged, now, as the easiest way to get performance WITHOUT the dreaded EPA-ratings penalty...

The rub, as we fellow Buick Turbo-6 owners realize all to well, is that when you CREATE your mega-power and USE your mega-power, you BURN mega-hydrocarbons...in the REAL world, NOT the world of EPA's simulations...

For Ford folks, the EcoBoost is the verifier of this FACT...

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...

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by 87GNX

As much as I love n/a, boost is just way better in every situation. BB n/a is so impractical for a daily driver....

Boost is hardly better in every situation. There are some serious penalties that come with boost. Heat soak, complexity, weight and more failure points. The only downside to natural aspiration is an artificially imposed restriction that CAFE and emissions regulations bring.

The LSX454r is a small block.

[Jims Mongoose]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Jim, keep in mind by the time the GT350 ARRIVES, the LS7 will DEPART. Not unlike the BOSS vs. Z/28 (is this a conspiracy?!)

I am not sure what this means



...for a price...at a price



Since YOU have a slightly teasing nature added to your narrative, how about I leave YOU with this: How many numbers fit between LT1 and LT4?

Infinite LT1.1, Lt1.2 etc



This is camaro5, NOT a Mustang site...so OF COURSE the back-n-forth will ALWAYS be friendly. Right fellas?!

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 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.

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

[Bhobbs]

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 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.

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

On a flat plane crank, the rod journals are all on the same plane, 180* apart. On a cross plane crank, half are on one plane, the other are on another plane 90* apart.

[87GNX]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Boost is hardly better in every situation. There are some serious penalties that come with boost. Heat soak, complexity, weight and more failure points. The only downside to natural aspiration is an artificially imposed restriction that CAFE and emissions regulations bring.

I disagree 100% but to each their own, thats what makes this hobby fun.