Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ford vs chevy (engines)
3200lb mustang...wow wtf is this guy smoking. The last stang that came in around that was a 5.0
[URL="http://www.brakesupplyplus.com"]http://www.brakesupplyplus.com[/URL]
Reply
Quote:3200lb mustang...wow wtf is this guy smoking. The last stang that came in around that was a 5.0

You don't need the correct weight 3200, 3400 - you get the picture no matter what.
Reply
Quote:This is where you said I said OHV engines make more power because they have a broad bore, which is a simplification of my argument.
Except I didn't use the word "more" which was key in your claim. Try again.

Quote:Any engine can have a large bore and profit from it in HP, not just the OHVs.
So what?

Quote:Didja find out what those LT1 heads flow compared to the 4V Ford heads?
Did you think I was looking to find out? LT1 heads weren't even a part of the equation for me, and it has nothing to do with the better flow capabilities of a 4V head since they aren't 4V. To make a statement like "You can never get valves big enough in a high performance application" only shows your lack of knowledge concerning cylinder head flow. You can certainly have valves larger than needed, just as you can have heads that flow more than needed, even for a high performance application. In other words, there are limits to what works best. The Ford truck guys you talk to probably don't have a 3 or 4 valve head in their trucks. The Modular engine in todays F-150(5.4L) produces 80% of it's maximum torque at only 1,000rpm. If a truck owner doesn't see a benefit to that, they don't use the truck for real work purposes. I actually drive a Modular engined F-250 and it's stronger than most pickups where pulling is concerned.

Quote:I'm not quite sure what 500hp Ford you're talking about.
No kidding...

Quote:But given that the LS1/LS6 live within certain parameters, ie. fuel mileage, emissions, long-term practicality and reliability I'm not sure your 500hp engine is relevant here.
That surely helps your argument against the power DOHC engines can make. Oh wait! No it doesn't.

Quote: What 500hp engine from Ford passes emissions and gets 28mpg?
Let me think..Oh, nevermind. The fact it makes 500hp has nothing to do with it's fuel mileage. It merely points out, it IS a naturally aspirated DOHC engine and it makes much more power than the LS6 while only using 351c.i. and that shows the real advantages of a DOHC design.
Quote:I mean, you can make any engine suck and blow, but the trick is to do it within the law and reason. Otherwise we'd all be driving 600cid BBCs.
Taking a page from my comments now? Good. This is why smaller engines are preferable to many buyers. Buyers are actually the driving force behind the engines used.

Quote:And I will restate my point, which is NOT a lie: Ford had to aspirate the 4.6 to get LS6 performance. They could NOT do it any other way and get reasonable mileage and emissions figures.
Emissions is a NON-issue, as the 4.6 burns much cleaner than the LS series as a whole. So clean infact, it doesn't even need a smog pump to pass emissions. Mileage is another issue, and as I've told you, the more power made, the less fuel mileage. Take any engine you want and make it more powerful without changing anything else about the car it's sitting in and the odds are good it will lose some economy. To compare the 4.6DOHC to the 5.7 LS6 is stretching it thin. The LS6 is a ZO6 specific engine made for that particular sports car. The Cobra is not a sports car. At any rate, Ford DID supercharge the engine and it makes more power and more torque and their reasoning makes sense to the masses. Incase you think GM disagrees with that idea, look no further than their many super/turbocharged models over the last 40 years. It's a case of "what works," not "what our customers can cry about later."

Quote: SVT and John Coletti stated that last year in interviews. So there.
J.C. said they did it for many reasons, none of which includes the words " to get LS6 performance." I promise.
Quote:And I think the crate 600cid BBC has 500hp. not sure though.
And this proves what exactly? Ford sells a 600HP 514c.i. engine. Big deal. Kinda inverted the numbers on ya there, eh? :x
Quote:If it doesn't matter why are you getting so angry about it?
I simply don't like people being misinformed by people who are simply misinformed and repeating bad information.

Quote:I've driven them at length and I can tell you I wouldn't buy one either.
Do tell? If you've driven them, which ones?
Quote: I'm making statements and backing them up with facts.
Lacking on the "facts" portion seems to be your style.

Quote:You seem to back your statements up with insults and anger. It's a free country and I'm glad anal-retentive people like you don't run it.
Yeah, I'm sure I look angry to you. Our "facts" aren't in agreement, so naturally, you think I'm just angry. I find that humorous. And btw, people like me DO run the country.


Quote:The Northstar DOHC 4.6 has a bore/stroke of 3.66x3.31. The mod is rated at [email protected] in the Mach and 17/25mpg. The Northstar is [email protected] 18/27mpg. Sounds pretty even doesn't it? BUT WAIT A MINUTE! The Northstar is in a 3992lb STS! The mod is in 3200lb Mustang! Oh uuhh yeah, it must be the gearing.:rofl:
Only, you're wrong again. The Mach 1 mileage rating is 17/26(manual), less in the auto. The Mach 1 weighs well over 3400 lbs. and the overall weight doesn't really matter once it's rolling down the highway at normal speeds. The Mach 1 also makes quite a bit more hp than the STS(which doesn't seem to be available anymore), even though it's rated just a little higher. You may be better off comparing the Marauder, but that's a bigger car. At least it gets lower mileage. Wink The Ford 4.6 also offers more torque. One reason the Seville STS might get better mileage is the fact, it's FWD.

Quote:I dare say, if they built the LS1 for a supercharger (and from what I hear they just might) the future would be very bleak for the 4.6 and the 5.4 performancewise.
IF a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its butt every time it jumped. Not that it matters, but we'll see. They may offer the S/C on a 7.0L in the ZO6. One would HOPE it makes more power than an engine 2.4 LITERS smaller.

Quote:You're guessing, or should I say praying? The real production stats on the new vette aren't out yet
http://www.chevrolet.com says the stats I listed are available. The new C6 is 1" taller too, and wears larger tires, at least in the rear. You may have trouble locating them. Try "2005 Corvette" for your reading pleasure, sir knowsalot. Take a moment and eat some humble pie(again). Btw, if the stats aren't out, how do YOU know the fuel mileage ratings? Rolleyes
Quote:but I would hazard that it will be a damn site more impressive than the '03 Cobra.
Let's collectively hope so, as it's about 600 pounds lighter, and is a true sports car. They aren't meant to compete with one another.

Quote:Way to go dude. You really know how to carry on a civil debate. Please, get help for that temper of yours. And maybe you ought to think about selling that car to eliminate the cause of all that anger.
I'll worry about my stuff. You worry about yours. My cars don't make me angry. They make me smile, and not just because they can lay waste to wannabe's like yours. I actually enjoy them.

On that note, contact me when you think you're ready to compare that sled you call fast. Otherwise, let this go. Seriously, you keep making statements and I keep correcting your errors, while you search for my typos. It's evident, each time you think of a new Ford to compare, you screw up the numbers somewhere. What? Do you think I won't catch them? Mileage errors, weight errors, hp errors. They run like water and you tell me I'm an idiot. And yet, you write it off(literally) that your numbers are close enough. WRONG! Get it right and I won't complain.
87 Mustang LX coupe

408 stroker Ported TFS TW "R" heads, etc. etc.

C6 trans 4500 stall.

No more street driving. Car's just too dangerous for me to do it.

Try this spot.. http://modernmusclecars.net/forums/index...rrerid=549
Reply
Quote:You don't need the correct weight 3200, 3400 - you get the picture no matter what.
We get it. YOUR inaccuracies don't matter, but my typo's do. :headbang:

We don't need the correct weight. Afterall, you tried to be exact withthe STS and then you throw out a nearly 800 lb difference about the Mach 1, when in fact it's only about a 550 lb. difference. This is the type of thing that causes people to have a distorted "truth" to things. But Heaven forbid I make a typo, because then I'm an idiot.

NOTE TO SELF: Typos make you an idiot, but completely and purposely misguiding people is perfecly acceptable.
87 Mustang LX coupe

408 stroker Ported TFS TW "R" heads, etc. etc.

C6 trans 4500 stall.

No more street driving. Car's just too dangerous for me to do it.

Try this spot.. http://modernmusclecars.net/forums/index...rrerid=549
Reply
Quote:You don't need the correct weight 3200, 3400 - you get the picture no matter what.

no I dont....the cadi wasnt as fast as the 260hp GT even with its 300+hp. The gt without driver or gas is about 3325-3400 depending on options. Due to the hp difference and weight difference Id say they come pretty close. The mach is probably closer to 3500

Also the 5l 430+hp NA engine I beleive will pass smog as it is basically a bored 4.6.
[URL="http://www.brakesupplyplus.com"]http://www.brakesupplyplus.com[/URL]
Reply
Quote:Oh uhh, yeah. Okay. Read my posts in this thread about the 4.6. Take note of its gross deficiencies. That's what makes it a dog. Clear enough for ya?
You are truely the ass cheese of fordvschevy these days.
I have a 4.6 that I will outrun you in, period. I have posted vids of me busting a LS1 in the ass, you do the same and post some of you outrunning a DOHC 4.6. And, once again, ITS A GOD DAMN AUTOMATIC, PUSH THE GAS AND GO. NO DRIVER SKILL NEEDED, if you can mash it to the floor, you have done your job.
And, as for a dog of a motor, you STILL have not shown me ANY LS1's in the 6's or 7's. Why is it the DOG has gone faster than the LS1 has(or probably) ever has/will?
Did your dad conceive you in a flower pot? I only ask because you came up a blooming idiot.
And, redbrd, you and I have never seen eye to eye on anything auto related. If its not chevy, you dont like it. You are a troll also, and someone should put some clorox in your gene pool to keep you from (in?)breeding .
Itll RUn, just leave these dumbfucks alone, you cant win a "retard contest" with two people who are more qualified than you
PS, for you two slow fucks, that was NOT a compliment, read it slowly.
1994 Supra Twin Turbo, candy red, etc...

C5 Vert, silver/blacktop, gloves

1999GT-sold

1990GT-4.6 DOCH cobra motor, renegade chassis, etc..-sold

1997 SVT Cobra-Vortech-sold

1988 coupe, 4.6 DOHC mod motor car, 97 cobra leather interior, work in progress!-sold(buying back :-P)

1994 GT -stock-sold

90Gt stock-sold

90GT vert stock-sold

89GT(carb+n20)-sold

97Z28-Sold

93 BMW325i-sold

90 Coupe-347+Procharger-sold

88 Coupe-300+rwhp N/A-sold

1994 Cobra(saleen clone) T76 Cartech Turbo kit -Sold

87 coupe-300rwhp N/A- Sold
Reply
Quote:Oh uhh, yeah. Okay. Read my posts in this thread about the 4.6. Take note of its gross deficiencies. That's what makes it a dog. Clear enough for ya?

Havent been back in a bit so i spent about 20 minutes reading through all the speaches. thanks to rio red for correcting me, which reminds me, with the 3 valve heads the sohc ford will have the same power levels as the sbc that is bigger n better? :nono: So hows it better again? :dunno: "Earn the right to talk smack.GET AN LS1" yeah that probably flew in 94-98, but the dohc isnt a dog anymore, shit the 3v sohc is gonna be kickin LS1 tail soon, i think if this was the 96-98 4.6 vs 94-dead ls1/lt1 thread you'd have it, but ours aint dead, its still growing, where as you got an engine with 30+ yr advantage yet it aint gonna be able to compete with new 4.6's

Quote:I'm not quite sure what 500hp Ford you're talking about. But given that the LS1/LS6 live within certain parameters, ie. fuel mileage, emissions, long-term practicality and reliability I'm not sure your 500hp engine is relevant here. What 500hp engine from Ford passes emissions and gets 28mpg? ?

Have you been hid up in your shack again for a few months, and not seen any automotive news in about a year or so? I spell it with bold letters so you can see it better, just make sure and sound out the words you cant read THE FORD GT WILL BE RELEASED SOON IN THE UNITED STATES, IT WILL HAVE 500HP AND BE BOUND BY EMISSIONS, IT WILL PROBABLY NOT GIVE 28MPG BUT WHO CARES :headbang: ,

Quote:Ford botched the job.
I'll remember that when i go test drive the 2004 Z28 :chin: , oh wait i forgot i cant because it doesn't exist. Don't get butt hurt because your crapero is dead, it was a shitty car with a good engine thats why it got shit canned :yuck: , yeah it might be back so dry those tears and get your facts straight.It seems that every time someone brings up a valid point about an an engine you bring up some ridiculous and off topic subject. By the way an engine doesn't drive itself jackass so gearing is a big factor in how much MPG a car will get,other factors are weight, drag coefficient, tire pressure( yes tire pressure), for a list of these factors simply get a clue or ask someone who has one. Im not an oracle of knowledge i just know that I have enough sense to tell when someone like you is trying to act smart
Reply
Quote:THE FORD GT WILL BE RELEASED SOON IN THE UNITED STATES, IT WILL HAVE 500HP AND BE BOUND BY EMISSIONS, IT WILL PROBABLY NOT GIVE 28MPG BUT WHO CARES

Um, hate to raise a point for the other camp, but I figured I'd do it before they do: The GT's engine is supercharged. The challenge was to name a production Ford engine that produces 500 horses, meets emissions, and is naturally aspirated. The truth is, there isn't one. Of course, GM doesn't have such an engine either, but the GM guys probably will never admit that. The new 6.0-liter LS2 will produce Cobra-level power (around 400 horses) but it will do so with 1.4 extra liters of displacement. It needs approximately 365 cubic inches to keep up with Ford's 281 cubic inches. I think the Ford "dog" is showing pretty well. Supercharger or not. And the supercharger only adds 70 horses when compared to the old Cobra engine (390 vs 320). The new LS2 has an 84 cubic inch advantage over the Cobra. I think those supercharged 70 horsepower are well justified when competing against engines that are that much bigger.

The NA 4.6 might not make the power the LS6 does, but it has 70 fewer cubes. Since the GM guys seem to be throwing the "wait'll GM supercharges the LS6 engine" argument about, I guess it's only fair for us Ford guys to say "Wait'll Ford starts producing the DOHC 450-horse 5.0 and the 5.8L 500-horse DOHC 5.8, or the 427CI DOHC 605-horse V10 in the Shelby concept".

I find it really funny how GM guys slam Ford for supercharging, but don't you dare say anything bad about a Grand National.

The truth of the matter is this: Comparing engines that do not exist or aren't in production yet (such as Ford's 5.0 and V10 DOHC's and GM's turbo/supercharged LS-whatever-they'll-call-it) is just plain stupid. Right now, at this very moment, Ford's supercharged 281 cubic inch DOHC engine produces every bit as much (if not more) power than GM's most powerful offering, the 345 cubic inch LS6. And that's not even Ford's top offering. Toss the 500-horse 330 cubic inch GT engine in there and it flatly outpowers everything GM makes (or has ever made). By at least 100 horsepower. If a supercharger makes the Ford "Dog" trounce GM's top offering by 100 horses with 15 fewer cubic inches, then I say I hope all of Ford's future engines are "dogs". GM guys keep saying "Wait for the new Z06". Fine. Wait for the new Shelby. Wait for the new Cobra. GM is not the only company with stupidly powerful engines in development.
Reply
You can't really accuse dwarf killer of bringing up off the wall subjects, because from what I've seen, the ford side of this argument has done it a lot more than the Chevy side. Granted, the Chevy side gives out a lot of "if" statements, but I like that better than completely changing the subject, or not giving a whole hearted answer.

For example, Dwarf killer asked if Ford had a 500 hp engine that PASSED EMISSIONS and got 28 mpg. It'llrun replied with "the gas mileage doesn't matter". What about emissions? (Don't answer cause I don't really care, I'm just pointing out, you know what he was asking, why not answer it right? It's better than half ass answering his questions then calling him an idiot.)

Besides, the whole insult thing is just retarded. Oh and if you don't want people to think you're mad, stop typing in caps, and insulting people. Oh and if one more person accuses another of being biased, I'm gonna puke.
_____________

81 Trans Am - 4.9L V8 looking for 455 SD

76 Trans Am - 400 Pont, TH350.

88 Suzuki Samari - 28 MPG!

"I just took the restrictor plate off, it's gonna give the red dragon a little more juice" - Will Ferrel from Old School
Reply
[quote name='It'llrun']
As for the "lie" comment, I could go back and point out no fewer than 10 OUTRIGHT LIES on your part in only this thread! Either lies, or you make many many mistakes. Here's a sample... That is a lie in more than one sense. Ford has a 500hp N/A engine. GM hasn't. Also, when Ford added the S/C it didn't merely get to GM's level, it passed it. Worse still, it's your opinion more than fact and... Well, your opinion means nothing.

what production car that ford makes that i can buy has a 500hp engine? just asking cuz i never heard about it.


actually both manufacturers make 500hp n/a engines. their called "crate engines". i'm not sure on all of the ford ones but chevy makes at least 5 of them over 500hp. actually a test on the new 572/610 by popular hotrodding came up with 715hp on pump gas with this engine. i know that ford has the 512 that is over 500hp too.
just a bench racer for now
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)