2011 Mustang GT 5.0

[Cobra93]

No, SVT666 is wrong on most all levels.

Wrong, but you are.

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.

Having been in the engine building business for 30 years, I can tell you you that the valvetrain component cost for an OHV engine is FAR less than for a DOHC one, regardless of the size/beefiness of the components, and pushrods are literally a dime a dozen.

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.

I've done it hundreds of times and it takes virtually no time. Besides, you seem to believe that assembling a complete DOHC head doesn't take any time.

Third, the continued assertion that the amount of "stuff" defines the cost of the assembly is simply incorrect.

Wrong again. Price out all that stuff and get back to me.

TIME is the biggest component here, and the pooprod engine has less opportunity for sub assembling = more labor costs.

I've covered that. It doesn't matter if it's done in subassemblies or not. They still require TIME to assemble.

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. 

If you really don't understand why manufacturers are going to smaller displacement, more efficient engines, I don't know what to tell you.

[r0tor]

Price out all that stuff and get back to me.

consumer prices do not equal OEM  prices by any stretch of the imagination.

If Ford used 750,000 identical cams, they will absolutely get them much much cheaper then if GM is only ording 20,000 cams, who gets them much much much cheaper then if you order some out of Jegs catalogue

[SVT666]

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.

Yeah the "4 times the valves" was typo that I corrected in a following post.

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. 

Cobra pulled your arguments apart in his post so I won't bother except for this one.

In I4 and V6 engines, the OHC configuration makes for smoother running engines, but in V8 trim, the pushrods are very smooth and NVH isn't a problem.  

[SVT666]

consumer prices do not equal OEM  prices by any stretch of the imagination.

If Ford used 750,000 identical cams, they will absolutely get them much much cheaper then if GM is only ording 20,000 cams

If Ford is building 750,000 engines, they will be getting 750,000 of one grind and 750,000 of another grind (SOHC exhaust/intake).  GM will be ordering 750,000 of one grind and that's it.  Ford won't be getting 1.5 Million cams for the same price as the 750,000 GM ordered.  Cost per unit might be less, but it certainly won't be a 2 for 1 deal.

[GoCougs]

Let me summarize: yes, there is less stuff (material, components) in a pooprod engine but there is also less opportunity to economize on labor, and yes, labor costs more than stuff.

The experience of building an engine by hand one at a time is not related in any way to the supply chain process of assembling 50,000, 100,000 or 400,000 engines a year.

"Small displacement" is not a factor as engines have not increased in displacement much at all in 30+ years; in many cases they've gotten bigger as evidenced by the average V6 displacing 3.5L.

In short, r0tor and I are correct (and why almost no one makes pooprods and GM and Dodge jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each.

EDIT: that was too snobby 

[Cobra93]

consumer prices do not equal OEM  prices by any stretch of the imagination.

If Ford used 750,000 identical cams, they will absolutely get them much much cheaper then if GM is only ording 20,000 cams, who gets them much much much cheaper then if you order some out of Jegs catalogue

You mean I can't buy cams as cheap as Ford? This should be obvious, but comparing consumer prices can still yield a fairly accurate representation of comparing OEM costs. SVT666 covered the other obvious one. All cams aren't the same grind.

[Cobra93]

Let me summarize: yes, there is less stuff (material, components) in a pooprod engine but there is also less opportunity to economize on labor, and yes, labor costs more than stuff.

The experience of building an engine by hand one at a time is not related in any way to the supply chain process of assembling 50,000, 100,000 or 400,000 engines a year.

"Small displacement" is not a factor as engines have not increased in displacement much at all in 30+ years; in many cases they've gotten bigger as evidenced by the average V6 displacing 3.5L.

In short, r0tor and I are correct (and coincidentally, are engineers who work in factories and automation, but my snobby self digresses), and why almost no one makes pooprods and GM and Dodge jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each.

Then you should know how much of the engine assembly is automated. Yet another reason why it's far cheaper to build an OHV engine

[giant_mtb]

CNC?

Computer Numerical Control.

Basically, a lathe/saw/drill/tool that you put data into and it creates the part automatically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPojGFg9-8

[SVT666]

Let me summarize: yes, there is less stuff (material, components) in a pooprod engine but there is also less opportunity to economize on labor, and yes, labor costs more than stuff.

The experience of building an engine by hand one at a time is not related in any way to the supply chain process of assembling 50,000, 100,000 or 400,000 engines a year.

"Small displacement" is not a factor as engines have not increased in displacement much at all in 30+ years; in many cases they've gotten bigger as evidenced by the average V6 displacing 3.5L.

In short, r0tor and I are correct (and why almost no one makes pooprods and GM and Dodge jettisoned all pooprods save for one engine each.

EDIT: that was too snobby 

You're an engineer...you also have the attitude of an engineer.   You have a God-like view of yourself, which is the stereotypical engineer.  The man you're arguing with (Cobra93) actually does this for a fucking living you idiot.  He's int he engine business.  Fuck, sometimes you can be so goddamn stubborn that you make yourself look really really stupid.  Another trait of an engineer.

[Raza]

Computer Numerical Control.

Basically, a lathe/saw/drill/tool that you put data into and it creates the part automatically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNPojGFg9-8

Oh, okay.  I think I did something similar in shop (much simpler, obviously).

[GoCougs]

Then you should know how much of the engine assembly is automated. Yet another reason why it's far cheaper to build an OHV engine

Yes, it's very automated, but the level of automation doesn't necessarily change based upon the style of engine. Let's look at it this way; how has it that a Malibu today with DOHC V6 and 6sp AT is no more expensive than its pushrod V6/4sp AT counterpart of 10 years ago?

Because these more advanced technologies can be tailored for modern manufacturing methods and technologies. Let's look at the extreme example of electronics. Transistor style electronics have vastly more parts and infinitely more complexity than their vacuum tube counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago. Not only is your average radio or TV an infinitely better product it is far less expensive.

So what gives? How can a printed circuit board be less expensive to manufacture than vacuum tubes? One significant reason is sub assemblies. Each individual chip, transistor, capacitor, resister, et al., can be manufactured as a sub assembly in extreme numbers. If the average TV or PC couldn't be sub assembly'd  they'd literally cost millions of dollars.

[GoCougs]

You're an engineer...you also have the attitude of an engineer.   You have a God-like view of yourself, which is the stereotypical engineer.  The man you're arguing with (Cobra93) actually does this for a fucking living you idiot.  He's int he engine business.  Fuck, sometimes you can be so goddamn stubborn that you make yourself look really really stupid.  Another trait of an engineer.

I can't help it that I do this stuff every day for a living, and have been doing so in various capacities for 15 years.

Cobra93 certainly has knowledge but as I understand his business is relatively small; meaning, no robots, no massive supply chain, no shifts, etc.

[Cobra93]

Yes, it's very automated, but the level of automation doesn't necessarily change based upon the style of engine. Let's look at it this way; how has it that a Malibu today with DOHC V6 and 6sp AT is no more expensive than its pushrod V6/4sp AT counterpart of 10 years ago?

Because these more advanced technologies can be tailored for modern manufacturing methods and technologies. Let's look at the extreme example of electronics. Transistor style electronics have vastly more parts and infinitely more complexity than their vacuum tube counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago. Not only is your average radio or TV an infinitely better product it is far less expensive.

So what gives? How can a printed circuit board be less expensive to manufacture than vacuum tubes? One significant reason is sub assemblies. Each individual chip, transistor, capacitor, resister, et al., can be manufactured as a sub assembly in extreme numbers. If the average TV or PC couldn't be sub assembly'd  they'd literally cost millions of dollars.

Given your context of comparing modern manufacturing processes to those from the pushrod engine era, I'd agree that a current design DOHC engine isn't much more labor intensive than it's OHV counterpart. Were both designs to be produced by modern manufacturing processes, the OHV would be less labor intensive. Also, keep in mind that the two remaining pushrod V8's both use non adjustable rockers, so forget about adding in time for lash adjustment.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

 

[mojammer]

InsideLine dynoed the 5.0:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/03/inside-line-dyno-tests-the-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50.html

At the wheels it's making 395hp@6600rpm, with 350lbp-ft@4150-5500rpm.

I'm flummoxed.  This is much more impressive than I was expecting.  I looked around and found 2 results for a new Camaro SS, one with 365hp, the other with 385hp.  Given that I have to say, Wow!

[giant_mtb]

When is the 5.0 for sale?

[SVT666]

InsideLine dynoed the 5.0:
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/03/inside-line-dyno-tests-the-2011-ford-mustang-gt-50.html

At the wheels it's making 395hp@6600rpm, with 350lbp-ft@4150-5500rpm.

I'm flummoxed.  This is much more impressive than I was expecting.  I looked around and found 2 results for a new Camaro SS, one with 365hp, the other with 385hp.  Given that I have to say, Wow!

395 hp at the wheels puts it at approx. 480 hp at the crank assuming an 18% drivetrain loss.  Somehow, I have a hard time believing that.

EDIT:  They claim there's only an 11% drivetrain loss in the Mustang, which I also find hard to believe.  But based on that it's still at 445 hp.

EDIT 2:  I see they're using a Dynojet.  That could explain the high numbers.  The Mustang aftermarket shop I used in Calgary always told me to use a Dynojet for bragging rights and a Mustang Dyno for accuracy.  They said they've seen some big discrepencies between the two dynos.

[Raza]

At 412bhp, that's a 4.1% drivetrain loss....assuming a conservative 12%, crank output is 442...

I can't wait to see this thing in convertible form.

[GoCougs]

Uh, who are going to trust for engine hp rating; the $100B company that is Ford or the gossip mag outfit worth maybe $5MM?

Never trust a chassis dyno for absolute hp figures for anything better than about 5% accuracy (and that's best case).

The new Mustang GT is not making 395 rwhp. Figure in the 330-340 rwhp range.

[the Teuton]

This car will likely wipe the floor with the new Camaro in a straight line, as it's 300 lbs. lighter and could be pumping out a hell of a lot of horsepower. Let's see how it does in the real world.

[GoCougs]

This car will likely wipe the floor with the new Camaro in a straight line, as it's 300 lbs. lighter and could be pumping out a hell of a lot of horsepower. Let's see how it does in the real world.

"Likely" I think is a bit of an overstatement IMO for at least two reasons:

First, inter-Ford politics - Ford has the GT500 that can barely outrun the Camaro SS. Will Ford let a $30k GT version run as quick or quicker than the $48k version?

Second, it's more than weight; the 3,900 lb 540 hp GT500 can barely outrun the Camaro SS because of traction/wheel hop issues. Will these problems go away for a 3,500 lb 412 hp GT?

Perhaps Ford will fix the chassis/suspension/traction issues in both the 2011 GT500 and GT, ratcheting both cars up the quickness scale yet maintaining an acceptable margin for the GT500, but I have my doubts simply owing to the inherent flaws and limitations of a live rear axle.

[FoMoJo]

"Likely" I think is a bit of an overstatement IMO for at least two reasons:

First, inter-Ford politics - Ford has the GT500 that can barely outrun the Camaro SS. Will Ford let a $30k GT version run as quick or quicker than the $48k version?

Second, it's more than weight; the 3,900 lb 540 hp GT500 can barely outrun the Camaro SS because of traction/wheel hop issues. Will these problems go away for a 3,500 lb 412 hp GT?

Perhaps Ford will fix the chassis/suspension/traction issues in both the 2011 GT500 and GT, ratcheting both cars up the quickness scale yet maintaining an acceptable margin for the GT500, but I have my doubts simply owing to the inherent flaws and limitations of a live rear axle.

Wheel hop? Wheel hop?

That tells me you haven't seen a GT500 at the dragstrip.

[GoCougs]

Wheel hop? Wheel hop?

That tells me you haven't seen a GT500 at the dragstrip.

LOLzers - check :50+ in GT500 wheel hop. It's been a known (or so I thought) problem with the car, or at least the first generation.

And just for good measure here's a GT500 getting walked by a stock Camaro SS (albeit it's the 500 hp '07 GT500).

As long as Ford sticks with a rear live axle the Mustang will always need more hp/lb than the Camaro to run even or better.

[Cobra93]

LOLzers - check :50+ in GT500 wheel hop. It's been a known (or so I thought) problem with the car, or at least the first generation.

And just for good measure here's a GT500 getting walked by a stock Camaro SS (albeit it's the 500 hp '07 GT500).

You should probably read the description of the video:

race 1: shelby 2008, JLT INTAKE/SCT TUNER/PULLEY PACKAGE jba long headers ,jba hi flow cats , ford racing catback VS camaro 2010 Supercharged, Auto trans, Torque Converter , Nitto NT555R drag radials , full exhaust system no cats, Camshaft , MagnaCharger

[GoCougs]

You should probably read the description of the video:

race 1: shelby 2008, JLT INTAKE/SCT TUNER/PULLEY PACKAGE jba long headers ,jba hi flow cats , ford racing catback VS camaro 2010 Supercharged, Auto trans, Torque Converter , Nitto NT555R drag radials , full exhaust system no cats, Camshaft , MagnaCharger

Whoa - that's a big "Oops." The Camaro still won however.

[Cobra93]

Whoa - that's a big "Oops." The Camaro still won however.

Yes it did. And they were both modified. But as you have already pointed out, stock for stock, the GT500 is faster. Not enough for the price difference IMO...

[GoCougs]

Yes it did. And they were both modified. But as you have already pointed out, stock for stock, the GT500 is faster. Not enough for the price difference IMO...

I know, I shoulda put a smile on that one...

[SVT666]

LOL at Cougs.

Cougs and Nethead are getting more retarded by the day.

[GoCougs]

In all seriousness, if the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS, and then by extension as quick or quicker than the GT500, what then?

If the Camaro SS's superior performance and sales turned Mustangists' world on its ear, what the heck will such an Ford internal/incestuous conundrum do?

[SVT666]

In all seriousness, if the Mustang GT is quicker than the Camaro SS, and then by extension as quick or quicker than the GT500, what then?

No.  The GT500 now weighs 120 lbs less then the last version and has an additional 10 hp.  If anything the GT500 will finally live up to it's hype.