[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I'm not disputing this, but do you have actual evidence of this practice? Just curious. For what it's worth, Car and Driver's test of the 2018 Mustang GT A10 was tested w/ regular (indicated in the testing notes), and it ran 0-60 in 3.8 sec and 1/4 mile in 12.1 @ 120 mph. That seems like 460 hp to me on regular.

Sometimes they make mistakes.. motor trend recently listed the civic type 0 to 60 as 4.1 due to a type, no retarded import boys are claiming it does 0 to 60 in 4 lol

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

I’m not 100% sure but it’s probably because you get way more control of the cam timing with a DOHC than you do with a cam in block design with VVT. My guess is the reason why EVERYONE but Gm and dodge strictly make overhead cam engines for their passenger cars is emissions.

I think you are correct in that OHC allows great control of timing. Hopefully someone a bit smarter can chime in but I believe you are on the right path

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

I’m not 100% sure but it’s probably because you get way more control of the cam timing with a DOHC than you do with a cam in block design with VVT. My guess is the reason why EVERYONE but Gm and dodge strictly make overhead cam engines for their passenger cars is emissions.

Dodge Viper had the cam-in-cam design that allows the exhaust valve timing to be adjusted independently from intake valve timing.

Without cam-in-cam OHV or DOHC VVT, you also can't do tricks like the Atkinson cycle(which delays the intake valve closing). GM seems to be more focused on cylinder deactivation.

Again, it just comes down to the fact that Europe and Japan both have displacement taxes and DOHC has the power per displacement edge, so their brands would favour DOHC design. Granted, it is a bit BS because then you have the Mazda rotary(what's a camshaft? LOL), which is by no means emission-friendly, but heh technically it's a 1.3L engine and it gets taxed as such even though RX-8 burns as much gas as a C6 Corvette... Or you can have the AP2 S2000(2.2L DOHC) and the 7th Gen Accord V6(3.5L SOHC). S2000 makes the same peak power and is lighter, yet is worse on gas, but heh, smaller displacement! It's just how it works outside of North America.

Ford has a higher global presence than GM and Dodge and so they also adopted DOHC design more. Even the non-V8 engines from GM are all DOHC engines because they have to be sold oversea.

[Martinjlm]

I know this is a really old thread, but I just stumbled across it. Here's the lowdown (what we believe to be true ad are forecasting) for the Ford 6.8L.

What is the 6.8L?
A pushrod Medium Duty truck engine based off of the recently introduced Ford OHV Godzilla 7.3L. For several years, Ford's SuperDuty trucks were powered by a 6.2L DOHC base engine with a 6.8L V10 uplevel. The 7.3L was introduced to replace the 6.8L V10. The 6.8L V8 OHV is being introduced to replace the 6.2L V8 DOHC.

Will the 6.8L by used in the Mustang?
Anything's possible, but no.

Then why are websites reporting that it might?
Because the President of Unifor, Canada's autoworkers union, mis-spoke when he answered a journalist's question at a press conference focused on announcing that Ford and Unifor had reached a contract agreement. Can't remember the last time any car company counted on a union president to make product announcements. Journalists who reported this as a "leak" didn't exercise due diligence in trying to develop a second independent source. EVERY outlet that reports "Mustang getting a 6.8L!!!" are referencing the same, easily explainable misstatement by someone so far removed from product development that he should have never been asked a product related question.

Part of the labor agreement included placement of the new 6.8L OHV V8 in the Windsor engine plant. That was a no-brainer, since the 7.3L on which it is based was already being produced in that plant and only that plant. For background, the 5.0L Coyote, which goes in the F150 and Mustang, is built literally a few blocks away at Ford's Essex plant. When the reporter asked the Unifor president "what will these engines be used in" the Unifor president said F150 and Mustang. No sir....that's the other plant. The 6.8L will be used for the F250, not F150.

For those who still need more reasons why 6.8L isn't for Mustang
Current Mustang lineup is 2.3T, 2.3T HiPo, 5.0L (460 hp), 5.0L (480 hp), 5.2SC. So where does the 6.8L slot in? Definitely below 5.2SC. Power output is rated around 430, so does it position below 5.0L? If so, it would need to be priced lower than Coyote engine in GT. So a whole new engine platform for a low volume engine priced lower than the high volume (F150) cash cow engine already in the GT with no complaints. Ok. Then consider the mass implications of a cast iron 6.8L replacing an aluminum V8 (or 4-cylinder) under the hood of an already front heavy car.

Current F150 lineup is 3.3L V6 -->2.7TT --> 5.0L --> 3.5TT. Where does the 6.8L OHV fit in that lineup? It surely isn't replacing the 5.0 or the 3.5TT. It will only be used in the SuperDuty (F250/350) and some vans. Low volume.

[UnknownJinX]

That makes more sense.

Sent from toaster or something

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I know this is a really old thread, but I just stumbled across it. Here's the lowdown (what we believe to be true ad are forecasting) for the Ford 6.8L.

What is the 6.8L?
A pushrod Medium Duty truck engine based off of the recently introduced Ford OHV Godzilla 7.3L. For several years, Ford's SuperDuty trucks were powered by a 6.2L DOHC base engine with a 6.8L V10 uplevel. The 7.3L was introduced to replace the 6.8L V10. The 6.8L V8 OHV is being introduced to replace the 6.2L V8 DOHC.

Will the 6.8L by used in the Mustang?
Anything's possible, but no.

Then why are websites reporting that it might?
Because the President of Unifor, Canada's autoworkers union, mis-spoke when he answered a journalist's question at a press conference focused on announcing that Ford and Unifor had reached a contract agreement. Can't remember the last time any car company counted on a union president to make product announcements. Journalists who reported this as a "leak" didn't exercise due diligence in trying to develop a second independent source. EVERY outlet that reports "Mustang getting a 6.8L!!!" are referencing the same, easily explainable misstatement by someone so far removed from product development that he should have never been asked a product related question.

Part of the labor agreement included placement of the new 6.8L OHV V8 in the Windsor engine plant. That was a no-brainer, since the 7.3L on which it is based was already being produced in that plant and only that plant. For background, the 5.0L Coyote, which goes in the F150 and Mustang, is built literally a few blocks away at Ford's Essex plant. When the reporter asked the Unifor president "what will these engines be used in" the Unifor president said F150 and Mustang. No sir....that's the other plant. The 6.8L will be used for the F250, not F150.

For those who still need more reasons why 6.8L isn't for Mustang
Current Mustang lineup is 2.3T, 2.3T HiPo, 5.0L (460 hp), 5.0L (480 hp), 5.2SC. So where does the 6.8L slot in? Definitely below 5.2SC. Power output is rated around 430, so does it position below 5.0L? If so, it would need to be priced lower than Coyote engine in GT. So a whole new engine platform for a low volume engine priced lower than the high volume (F150) cash cow engine already in the GT with no complaints. Ok. Then consider the mass implications of a cast iron 6.8L replacing an aluminum V8 (or 4-cylinder) under the hood of an already front heavy car.

Current F150 lineup is 3.3L V6 -->2.7TT --> 5.0L --> 3.5TT. Where does the 6.8L OHV fit in that lineup? It surely isn't replacing the 5.0 or the 3.5TT. It will only be used in the SuperDuty (F250/350) and some vans. Low volume.

Pretty much exactly what I told someone on another site but good to see someone in the know pretty much confirm it.

I'll try and remember what site it was and go pat myself on the back now lol

[FarmerFran]

The next "engine" it gets is electric

[Fraxum]

I think replacing the Coyote DOHC with a larger displacement OHV is a great idea for a Pony car. You really have to rev the 302 hard to get the power. The LT1 sort of throws the Camaro down the road at lower revs. To me it is more fun to drive.

[metros11]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

The next "engine" it gets is electric

The word you're looking for is 'motor(s)'.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Originally Posted by Fraxum

I think replacing the Coyote DOHC with a larger displacement OHV is a great idea for a Pony car. You really have to rev the 302 hard to get the power. The LT1 sort of throws the Camaro down the road at lower revs. To me it is more fun to drive.

I have a 18 GT and the thing pulls like a bat out of hell on the second half of the rpm range.

the higher you rev the more crazy it gets.

I am not saying it is better then the LT1 I love them both, But I am saying it is a absolute blast to drive.

The 5.0 is a beast

[chaospiece]

Originally Posted by IMadeYouReadThis

I have a 18 GT and the thing pulls like a bat out of hell on the second half of the rpm range.

the higher you rev the more crazy it gets.

I am not saying it is better then the LT1 I love them both, But I am saying it is a absolute blast to drive.

The 5.0 is a beast

I kinda feel different about the gen 3. The camaro shifting at 6k and staying on the torque is way scarier than waiting for the mustang to pull from and through 5k to 7k.

I get that feeling of it's still going at 7k, but i wouldn't describe it as crazy, feels more like finally it's moving.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

If you want to talk about emissions, I wonder if the idle fuel consumption is higher with a larger displacement OHV engine than it is with a smaller displacement DOHC engine making similar peak power. There is no idle fuel consumption display on our cars.

Sent from toaster or something

It used to be, but that is where direct injection comes into play. DI sprays the fuel directly into the cylinder rather than in the port that goes to the cylinder. So, under idle or when you are cruising on the highway in top gear, the fuel system goes into "ultra lean mode". What's that?

So, in order for the engine to keep firing, there has to be enough fuel/air mixture to create a combustion. AND, the air/fuel ratio has to be maintained. So, there is a minimum amount of fuel needed under these conditions. However, when ultra lean mode comes in, the fuel injector waits to spray until AFTER the compression phase is almost complete. And then only sprays enough fuel to get the air/fuel ratio correct, but only right in front of the spark plug. The parts of the air that are compressed near the edge of the piston doesn't have much fuel, but the localized ignition near the spark plug is enough to propel the car down the road under cruising conditions. You can't do this with port injection, because the air/fuel is fully mixed as it enters the combustion chamber and the FI must spray during the intake phase. With direct injection, you can you can spray at the end of the compression stroke, and have a localized combustion.

This is one of the reasons why the Camaro gets such good highway mileage compared to the maximum HP number and it's large displacement of the LT1 engine. That, and tons of low-RPM torque combined with a bit tall overdrive gear. I have gotten 30.5 MPGs as my best 50 mile average.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I know this is a really old thread, but I just stumbled across it. Here's the lowdown (what we believe to be true ad are forecasting) for the Ford 6.8L.

What is the 6.8L?
A pushrod Medium Duty truck engine based off of the recently introduced Ford OHV Godzilla 7.3L. For several years, Ford's SuperDuty trucks were powered by a 6.2L DOHC base engine with a 6.8L V10 uplevel. The 7.3L was introduced to replace the 6.8L V10. The 6.8L V8 OHV is being introduced to replace the 6.2L V8 DOHC.

Will the 6.8L by used in the Mustang?
Anything's possible, but no.

Then why are websites reporting that it might?
Because the President of Unifor, Canada's autoworkers union, mis-spoke when he answered a journalist's question at a press conference focused on announcing that Ford and Unifor had reached a contract agreement. Can't remember the last time any car company counted on a union president to make product announcements. Journalists who reported this as a "leak" didn't exercise due diligence in trying to develop a second independent source. EVERY outlet that reports "Mustang getting a 6.8L!!!" are referencing the same, easily explainable misstatement by someone so far removed from product development that he should have never been asked a product related question.

Part of the labor agreement included placement of the new 6.8L OHV V8 in the Windsor engine plant. That was a no-brainer, since the 7.3L on which it is based was already being produced in that plant and only that plant. For background, the 5.0L Coyote, which goes in the F150 and Mustang, is built literally a few blocks away at Ford's Essex plant. When the reporter asked the Unifor president "what will these engines be used in" the Unifor president said F150 and Mustang. No sir....that's the other plant. The 6.8L will be used for the F250, not F150.

For those who still need more reasons why 6.8L isn't for Mustang
Current Mustang lineup is 2.3T, 2.3T HiPo, 5.0L (460 hp), 5.0L (480 hp), 5.2SC. So where does the 6.8L slot in? Definitely below 5.2SC. Power output is rated around 430, so does it position below 5.0L? If so, it would need to be priced lower than Coyote engine in GT. So a whole new engine platform for a low volume engine priced lower than the high volume (F150) cash cow engine already in the GT with no complaints. Ok. Then consider the mass implications of a cast iron 6.8L replacing an aluminum V8 (or 4-cylinder) under the hood of an already front heavy car.

Current F150 lineup is 3.3L V6 -->2.7TT --> 5.0L --> 3.5TT. Where does the 6.8L OHV fit in that lineup? It surely isn't replacing the 5.0 or the 3.5TT. It will only be used in the SuperDuty (F250/350) and some vans. Low volume.

I also understand that the new engine is an iron block. I would imagine Ford would want an aluminum version, which is not trivial...

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

It used to be, but that is where direct injection comes into play. DI sprays the fuel directly into the cylinder rather than in the port that goes to the cylinder. So, under idle or when you are cruising on the highway in top gear, the fuel system goes into "ultra lean mode". What's that?

So, in order for the engine to keep firing, there has to be enough fuel/air mixture to create a combustion. AND, the air/fuel ratio has to be maintained. So, there is a minimum amount of fuel needed under these conditions. However, when ultra lean mode comes in, the fuel injector waits to spray until AFTER the compression phase is almost complete. And then only sprays enough fuel to get the air/fuel ratio correct, but only right in front of the spark plug. The parts of the air that are compressed near the edge of the piston doesn't have much fuel, but the localized ignition near the spark plug is enough to propel the car down the road under cruising conditions. You can't do this with port injection, because the air/fuel is fully mixed as it enters the combustion chamber and the FI must spray during the intake phase. With direct injection, you can you can spray at the end of the compression stroke, and have a localized combustion.

This is one of the reasons why the Camaro gets such good highway mileage compared to the maximum HP number and it's large displacement of the LT1 engine. That, and tons of low-RPM torque combined with a bit tall overdrive gear. I have gotten 30.5 MPGs as my best 50 mile average.

Stratified fuel injection, yep. Direct injection enables that.

That said, a lot of the cars with smaller engines are starting to have auto start-stop on them. I don't have much of an issue against the concept(I know, some people are gonna raise their pitchforks against me), but with how most manufacturers are implementing them, yeah, I wouldn't want it.