2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[SVT666]

And OHC motors, like Ford's utterly terrible 4.6/5.4L Modular, can be done horribly wrong. The existence of such a terrible (OHC) engine have led many to falsely believe that pooprod motors can run with OHC motors. But both done correctly, the OHC motor walks on a pooprod motor, and why there are no more pooprod I4 and V6 engines.

The LSX and Hemi engines are as competitive in every regard as their OHC counterparts.  Even in the NVH category.  Ford's 4.6L and 5.4L engines weren't terrible engines.  They were very competitive when they first came out.  Ford just let them sit with no development at all for nearly 20 years.  That was the problem.

[FoMoJo]

The LSX and Hemi engines are as competitive in every regard as their OHC counterparts.  Even in the NVH category.  Ford's 4.6L and 5.4L engines weren't terrible engines.  They were very competitive when they first came out.  Ford just let them sit with no development at all for nearly 20 years.  That was the problem.

The modular is a very stout engine used in basic and very outlandish applications.  Other than the millions used in Ford cars and trucks, modified versions, such as the that in the Koenigsegg CCR, powered it to the title of World's Fastest Production Car a few years back.  As well, it is the basis for the current Koenigsegg designed engine in the CCX.  It's been on Wards 10 best list a few times in different iterations and is the basis for the new 5.0.

[SVT666]

The modular is a very stout engine used in basic and very outlandish applications.  Other than the millions used in Ford cars and trucks, modified versions, such as the that in the Koenigsegg CCR, powered it to the title of World's Fastest Production Car a few years back.  As well, it is the basis for the current Koenigsegg designed engine in the CCX.  It's been on Wards 10 best list a few times in different iterations and is the basis for the new 5.0.

Thank you.  You said it much better then I.

[SVT666]

I wonder what the top speed on that thing is.

[Cobra93]

The modular is a very stout engine used in basic and very outlandish applications.  Other than the millions used in Ford cars and trucks, modified versions, such as the that in the Koenigsegg CCR, powered it to the title of World's Fastest Production Car a few years back.  As well, it is the basis for the current Koenigsegg designed engine in the CCX.  It's been on Wards 10 best list a few times in different iterations and is the basis for the new 5.0.

Mustang Jihadist!  Ford apologist! 

[SVT666]

Mustang Jihadist!  Ford apologist! 

[GoCougs]

And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular. The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...

(I think you guys get the point.)

[SVT32V]

And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular.

Of course you know they are not based on todays power rating system so they are not even close to the 412 in the 2011 mustang or any number of aussie 5.4s.

The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...

The LS motors have been eating everyone's lunch with the possible exception of mercedes v8s, not surprisingly they are also rather large in displacment.

(I think you guys get the point.)

[MX793]

And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular. The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...

(I think you guys get the point.)

50 years ago they weren't using SAE net power ratings, so any factory tune horsepower ratings are null and void when compared directly to SAE net power ratings on the ModV8.

[Cobra93]

Hemi 392 C.I high compression    Ford 281 C.I. low compression
Aw hell... what's a hundred or so cubic inches and a couple points compression ratio between friends? 

Couldn't possibly make a difference, could it?

[MX793]

Hemi 392 C.I high compression    Ford 281 C.I. low compression
Aw hell... what's a hundred or so cubic inches and a couple points compression ratio between friends? 

Couldn't possibly make a difference, could it?

The top dog of the 392 only had a 10:1 compression ratio, which a lot of "regular" engines have these days.  The 4.6 in the 2010 Mustang is 9.8, so it's not far off the old "high compression" performance motors.  But more importantly 345 GROSS horsepower is nowhere near as potent as 315 NET horsepower.  Rated in SAE net, a 392 hi-compression would probably only be making 260-ish hp.

[Cobra93]

The top dog of the 392 only had a 10:1 compression ratio, which a lot of "regular" engines have these days.  The 4.6 in the 2010 Mustang is 9.8, so it's not far off the old "high compression" performance motors.  But more importantly 345 GROSS horsepower is nowhere near as potent as 315 NET horsepower.  Rated in SAE net, a 392 hi-compression would probably only be making 260-ish hp.

I was mainly pointing out how ridiculous the comparison is. My 300C makes 45 HP more than my Mustang GT. It's also 70 cubic inches larger. This may not be in some people's engineering background, but displacement HAS been known to affect output. 

[GoCougs]

50 years ago they weren't using SAE net power ratings, so any factory tune horsepower ratings are null and void when compared directly to SAE net power ratings on the ModV8.

Yes, I realize that - the 354 and 392 Hemis were available up to 375 hp in their highest states of tune. SAE net this would be about 320 - 325 hp. Of note first generation Hemi engines were not hi-po stuff of muscle car days, these were mostly power plants for led sleds - Imperials, New Yorkers, etc.

The overarching non-ridiculous point is that the Ford Modular has been a proverbial boat anchor for the last decade owing to Ford's atrocious power train development efforts (or lack thereof).

[SVT666]

And the 331/354/392 Hemi was one heckuva stout motor, also used in many production cars and untold outlandish applications. And curiously, in top tune made more power than any production N/A Modular. The last date of production of the Chrysler FirePower V8 was 51 years ago, and Chevy's 50 year-old throwback has been eating modular lunch since the mid '90s, but I digress...

(I think you guys get the point.)

Aaaaaaah nope.  I missed it.

[ChrisV]

Wrong.  Only if the 'shrodders are bigger.  At the same compression ratio and displacement, 'shrodders aren't a match for 'cammers and haven't been for a long time.  N

but, in terms of size and packaging, you can get more displacement and more base power/torque from a pushrod engine due to that larger displacement. And pushrod motors have had the ability to rev as high as similarly (and a bit smaller) OHC engines for many years now. It's just that most don't choose to do it because frankly, they don't need to due to being limited in displacement in the same physical package size.

There are always tradeoffs, but both can get the job done. People REALLY need to get over needing to measure their dicks by how some valves are actuated in a 100+ year old air pump.

[hotrodalex]

Trim perhaps meaning overall size?

Correct.

but, in terms of size and packaging, you can get more displacement and more base power/torque from a pushrod engine due to that larger displacement. And pushrod motors have had the ability to rev as high as similarly (and a bit smaller) OHC engines for many years now. It's just that most don't choose to do it because frankly, they don't need to due to being limited in displacement in the same physical package size.

There are always tradeoffs, but both can get the job done. People REALLY need to get over needing to measure their dicks by how some valves are actuated in a 100+ year old air pump.

I want to built a high-revving 302 sometime. Maybe I'll put it in a Datsun 510 or something.

[GoCougs]

but, in terms of size and packaging, you can get more displacement and more base power/torque from a pushrod engine due to that larger displacement. And pushrod motors have had the ability to rev as high as similarly (and a bit smaller) OHC engines for many years now. It's just that most don't choose to do it because frankly, they don't need to due to being limited in displacement in the same physical package size.

There are always tradeoffs, but both can get the job done. People REALLY need to get over needing to measure their dicks by how some valves are actuated in a 100+ year old air pump.

The operative parameter however is not displacement, rpm, valves or any of that. It is simply how much air can be moved.

(Hint, there's a reason why no one but GM and Chysler build pooprod motors, and why they build fewer and fewer pooprod motors every year.)

[3.0L V6]

The operative parameter however is not displacement, rpm, valves or any of that. It is simply how much air can be moved.

...and how much it costs to design/manufacture an engine that moves that air.

[GoCougs]

...and how much it costs to design/manufacture an engine that moves that air.

...actually, it's what market forces dictate to be the optimum cost/performance ratio; the market has shown it will gladly pay a bit more for far better technologies; carb. vs. fuel injection, drum vs. disc brakes, solid axle vs. independent suspension, , et al.

That the world's automakers either never went pooprod, transitioned completely out of pooprod, or that the only two of the world's automakers that do make pooprod jettisoned all their pooprods save for a lone example engine each, easily answers that question I think.

But in this modern age of manufacturing I think you'll find the additional cost of superior technologies to be small if not actually cheaper in some cases. Betcha a DOHC motor is no more expensive to produce than a pooprod motor.

[SVT666]

Betcha a DOHC motor is no more expensive to produce than a pooprod motor.

I'll take that bet.  For starters, the block and everything associated with it, probably costs close to the same, so I'll give you that.  But you have 4 times the camshafts, double the valves, and a far more complex head to C'n'C.  I will go so far as to say that I guarantee a DOHC motor costs more to produce. 

You don't know shit Cougs.

[SVT666]

SVT666:  HemiDude, it's all relative.  If all of your factories are set up to produce modern V8 engines, it will cost a helluva heap to build a pushrod V8.  Conversely, if all of your factories are only set up to produce pushrod V8s, it will cost a helluva heap to build a modern V8.

Toolin' up to build engines you don't already build is always major bucks, no matter what kind of engine you intend to build.  That's why Ford execs insisted that the new DOHC TiVCT 5.0L V8 use the bore spacing of the current modular V8s--a "simple" modification to change nothing other than just the distances between the centers of the cylinders means massive money is necessary to modify the casting and machining hardware that produces engine blocks and cylinder heads.  What if you also had to pay for the machinery to produce single-cam OHV pushrod valve train blocks and heads--vastly more costly than just a bore spacing change?

Naturally, paying for the machinery to produce  single- or double- OHC valve train blocks and heads costs shitloads, too--no doubt the major reason GM is covertly feeling out Honda for providing replacements for all the LS series of engines during the twenty-teens.

I guarantee that is costs Ford more to build the 5.0L V8 that goes in the Mustang then it does GM to build the LS3 engines that go in the Camaro and Vette.

[GoCougs]

I'll take that bet.  For starters, the block and everything associated with it, probably costs close to the same, so I'll give you that.  But you have 4 times the camshafts, double the valves, and a far more complex head to C'n'C.  I will go so far as to say that I guarantee a DOHC motor costs more to produce. 

You don't know shit Cougs.

As is common with those unfamiliar of engineering, manufacturing, automation, and/or factory/industrial environments, the layman looks only at the amount of material of a manufactured assembly, naive as to what is usually the larger cost component of a complex assembly such as an engine: labor.

The one major labor detriment of the pooprod is that there is less opportunity to employ the Holy Grail of cost-efficient modern manufacturing: parallel processing of sub assemblies. The pooprod valve train can only be partially assembled before the heads must be installed on the block; after the heads must go on the block, the pushrods and rockers are installed, the valve lash adjusted, and then the valve covers (usually with ignition coils) are installed. With a DOHC engine, this is all done as a sub assembly.

If there is cost difference of pooprod vs. DOHC engine, it is measured in scores if not a couple of hundred dollars; meaning on a $20k - $35k vehicle, it is virtually irrelevant. C'mon, this we all know. Duh. The only two automakers that make 'em only make one each having jettisoned all their other pooprods. Plus, though the comparisons are fleeting, we all know in the scant few examples available one does not save money buying a pooprod-powered vehicle vs. its DOHC counterpart.

[r0tor]

I have to agree with cougs... mass produced engines (OHC or OHV) cost most manufacturers so little that any difference in price between the two comes down to only a coupel hundred bucks.  There is a lot of upfront cost for engineering, for molds, for tooling, for assembly line equipment, for training - and then after that they pop out the engines for peanuts.

Now something like a Ferrari engine is a compeltely different animal as the cast the block themselves and actually CNC every damn piece of the engine from billet stocks.

[SVT666]

As is common with those unfamiliar of engineering, manufacturing, automation, and/or factory/industrial environments, the layman looks only at the amount of material of a manufactured assembly, naive as to what is usually the larger cost component of a complex assembly such as an engine: labor.

The one major labor detriment of the pooprod is that there is less opportunity to employ the Holy Grail of cost-efficient modern manufacturing: parallel processing of sub assemblies. The pooprod valve train can only be partially assembled before the heads must be installed on the block; after the heads must go on the block, the pushrods and rockers are installed, the valve lash adjusted, and then the valve covers (usually with ignition coils) are installed. With a DOHC engine, this is all done as a sub assembly.

If there is cost difference of pooprod vs. DOHC engine, it is measured in scores if not a couple of hundred dollars; meaning on a $20k - $35k vehicle, it is virtually irrelevant. C'mon, this we all know. Duh. The only two automakers that make 'em only make one each having jettisoned all their other pooprods. Plus, though the comparisons are fleeting, we all know in the scant few examples available one does not save money buying a pooprod-powered vehicle vs. its DOHC counterpart.

It's more labour intensive to put a DOHC head together then a pushrod head.  It's also got 4 times the material for the cams and 4 times the C'n'C time.  The heads are also more complex for the CNC machine.  You've also got 4 times the number of valves valve springs to install and manufacture.

BTW, anyone who thinks the pushrod motors aren't competitive in power delivery, fuel economy, NVH, etc. has never driven one.

[Raza]

CNC?

[SVT666]

I have to agree with cougs... mass produced engines (OHC or OHV) cost most manufacturers so little that any difference in price between the two comes down to only a coupel hundred bucks.  There is a lot of upfront cost for engineering, for molds, for tooling, for assembly line equipment, for training - and then after that they pop out the engines for peanuts.

When the engine only costs roughly $4000 to build, a few hundred bucks is a big deal.  Let's pick a number out of thin air, say....$250.  Let's say it costs a difference of $250 to build a DOHC engine as opposed to an equivalent pushrod engine.  That's 7%, which in the automotive manufacturing world is a big number.  Especially when manufacturers will do whatever they can to save one screw from a door panel because it saves them $0.02 per door.  Four doors times 2 pennies is 8 cents.  8 cents times 250,000 cars is $20,000. 

Take the F-150 and the Silverado for example.  Let's say they each sell 750,000 copies and let's say the cost difference in the motors is $100.  That's $7.5 Million difference in cost.

[r0tor]

It's more labour intensive to put a DOHC head together then a pushrod head.  It's also got 4 times the material for the cams and 4 times the C'n'C time.  The heads are also more complex for the CNC machine.  You've also got 4 times the number of valves valve springs to install and manufacture.

DHOC engine heads are assembled in subassemblies rather then in the block like OHV so they take less time overall on the production line. 

Have you ever seen how fast a cam manufacturer can spit out a cam these days?  The cams are casted and then just have touch-up work done on a lathe.  Keep in mind the cams themselves on a OHC engine have less manchining involved as its not a single cam trying to operate all the 8 intake and 8 exhaust valves.  Pushrods are just as expensive as valve springs.

Any increase costs can be more then made up for in the marketing department.

[SVT666]

DHOC engine heads are assembled in subassemblies rather then in the block like OHV so they take less time overall on the production line.

Which still takes labour.

Have you ever seen how fast a cam manufacturer can spit out a cam these days?  The cams are casted and then just have touch-up work done on a lathe.  Keep in mind the cams themselves on a OHC engine have less manchining involved as its not a single cam trying to operate all the 8 intake and 8 exhaust valves.  Pushrods are just as expensive as valve springs.

True.  But you forget that there's 4 cams versus 1, and there is also 32 valves versus 16.  Putting a camshaft and pushrods in a block takes virtually no time at all.  Subassembly or not, putting DOHC heads together isn't something you can do in a matter of a couple minutes.

Any increase costs can be more then made up for in the marketing department.

I'm not arguing that.  I'm arguing Cougs' claim that a DOHC engine costs no more to produce then a pushrod.  Even if the difference is as little as $200, that is big money in an industry that does everything it can to use one less screw in a door assembly.

[Cobra93]

This one's really pretty simple guys, and SVT666 is correct.

[GoCougs]

No, SVT666 is wrong on most all levels.

First, typically there are only 2 times the valves (not 4 times as he asserted) and depending on the engine, 2 or 4 times the number of cams (which have fewer lobes). Further, as we know pooprod engines will have the pooprod, and larger/beefier valves, lifters, springs retainers, etc.

Second, "putting a camshaft and pushrods in a block takes virtually no time at all" is ignorant and typical of a statement of someone who has never done it. Most notably, this all has to be done on the complete engine assembly (i.e., heads already bolted onto the block). ALL of this for a DOHC engine can be done as a sub assembly.

Third, the continued assertion that the amount of "stuff" defines the cost of the assembly is simply incorrect. TIME is the biggest component here, and the pooprod engine has less opportunity for sub assembling = more labor costs.

Fourth, there is indeed typically more machining on a DOHC head but automated machine work is mega cheap. Also do not forget that pooprod machining isn't trivial as the valve train elements are larger and beefier and more involved (16 lobe cam).

If the average DOHC cost more DUH automakers wouldn't have gone that direction, including GM and Dodge who have jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each. There is no argument here other than to provide a continued platform for people to troll upon.