2010 GT Engine
11/11/08, 05:07 PM
#22
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand these blind defenses for Ford's V8 being underpowered. Are you guys Ford shareholders or some something?
11/11/08, 05:17 PM
#23
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If horsepower is all you look at, they've got you right where they want you. Torque is where it's at, and it makes the Chevy's 300 HP V6 all that more laughable to me. It will fool the 80% of shiny toy buyers that swallow the comparison to the GT that the salesman gives him/her.
Shouldn't we compare it to the truck motor 4.0 in the base model Mustang?
Is it funny that the V8 model will have 122HP more than the Mustang GT? I understand that the 10' model will have a reworked 4.6 but I don't see it coming anywhere near the Camaro's numbers. I'm just glad that my 03' is all most paid off, looks like i'm going to hang on to this one for a long time.
11/11/08, 05:48 PM
#24
Member
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the domestic manufactures got you right where they want you.
A cars gear ratios can make up for lower power. If the nissan can rev higher they could take advantage of a bigger ratio(smaller gear) and equal it.
270lbs of torque with a 2.2 ratio gear with 3.55 rear would be 2108 lbs of torque at wheels.
330lbs of torque with a 1.8 ratio gear with 3.55 rear would be 2108 lbs of torque at wheels.
Then the nissian would either need to rev higher(which it most likly does) to make up for the smaller gear or have a six speed to allow tighter ratios(which it prob has too).
But that being said I perfer the sound of a V8 over a V6 so even if the Z is as fast as the stang I atleast have the V8 soundtrack.
A cars gear ratios can make up for lower power. If the nissan can rev higher they could take advantage of a bigger ratio(smaller gear) and equal it.
270lbs of torque with a 2.2 ratio gear with 3.55 rear would be 2108 lbs of torque at wheels.
330lbs of torque with a 1.8 ratio gear with 3.55 rear would be 2108 lbs of torque at wheels.
Then the nissian would either need to rev higher(which it most likly does) to make up for the smaller gear or have a six speed to allow tighter ratios(which it prob has too).
But that being said I perfer the sound of a V8 over a V6 so even if the Z is as fast as the stang I atleast have the V8 soundtrack.
What is so laughable to you about a BASE MODEL CAMARO putting out equal horsepower and less torque than the Mustang GT?
Shouldn't we compare it to the truck motor 4.0 in the base model Mustang?
Is it funny that the V8 model will have 122HP more than the Mustang GT? I understand that the 10' model will have a reworked 4.6 but I don't see it coming anywhere near the Camaro's numbers. I'm just glad that my 03' is all most paid off, looks like i'm going to hang on to this one for a long time.
Shouldn't we compare it to the truck motor 4.0 in the base model Mustang?
Is it funny that the V8 model will have 122HP more than the Mustang GT? I understand that the 10' model will have a reworked 4.6 but I don't see it coming anywhere near the Camaro's numbers. I'm just glad that my 03' is all most paid off, looks like i'm going to hang on to this one for a long time.
You're right, we should compare it to the base Mustang. But the 300 HP figure is too much for people. They gravitate to it, and immediately look at the Mustang GT with 300 HP, which will outperform the base Camaro in stock form.
Now about the Camaro SS - Ford better come back strong, because you're right, that's where the real comparison lies. GT vs. SS needs some perspective though. GM had years to study and formulate their answer to the Mustang. It's no surprise that the power gap is there. But nothing about an Australian chassis with an LS engine makes me break out in sweats. This Camaro is teetering on the edge of 'muscle' or 'pony', much closer to the Corvette than I'm sure some at GM would like.
I want to see Ford's answer...what I don't want to see is Ford slapping the Mustang name on a sports car.
Last edited by VA_Ford; 11/11/08 at 05:52 PM.
11/11/08, 11:17 PM
#26
Member
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is reliable enough it sounds like it could be very feasable and cheap. Ford wouldn't want to spend alot of money on R&D for this motor. So if that is all it takes to squeez out that 50 extra HP and its reliable and easy to manufacture than I could see this being the case. With the mustang weight and that kinda power I could see it running down the strip very comparible to the challenger and camaro. Plus it's new handling characteristics may help as well. (bullit suspension set up)
11/12/08, 01:29 AM
#27
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was my take too. If Ford did all the R & D to offer it as a crate motor, it shouldn't be that hard to offer it in a production car. My only concern is emissions cdrtification. I noticed the engine was not certified at this time.
11/12/08, 07:38 AM
#28
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
Sorry I don't have the fancy know how you have, why don't you get a Camaro that will have more HP AND torque..... Last I checked no replacement for displacement right?
I don't understand these blind defenses for Ford's V8 being underpowered. Are you guys Ford shareholders or some something?
I don't understand these blind defenses for Ford's V8 being underpowered. Are you guys Ford shareholders or some something?
2008 BMW 135i - Specs
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $42,895 (base price: $35,675)
ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
11/12/08, 08:32 AM
#29
Needs to be more Astony
All things equal you will 100% of the time make more power with more displacement.
11/12/08, 08:50 AM
#30
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I don't have the fancy know how you have, why don't you get a Camaro that will have more HP AND torque..... Last I checked no replacement for displacement right?
I don't understand these blind defenses for Ford's V8 being underpowered. Are you guys Ford shareholders or some something?
I don't understand these blind defenses for Ford's V8 being underpowered. Are you guys Ford shareholders or some something?
But I do expect Ford to upgrade the 4.6 for '10 so that not only will it out-torque the V6 'Maro, but also out-horsepower it as well, bearing in mind that any upgrades are for a one-year run, anyway, if the 5.0 continues on schedule.
And as others have already explained, horsepower is only one factor in performance. Gear ratios, number of gears, final drive ratio, and vehicle weight all impact performance. The old "no replacement for displacement" addage has been long disproved. While simply adding displacement CAN improve performance, all else being equal, there are many other ways to achieve the same performance improvement.
Judging the merits of one vehicle over another based solely on horsepower and number of cylinders is just not seeing the whole picture, is all we're saying. How that horsepower is generated across the rev band and what the vehicle does with it will determine overall performance.
Remember, horsepower is computed from torque multiplied by RPM divided by a constant.
There was no intent in my original reply to irritate or annoy, and if that was the result I apologize. My intent was only to emphasize the relative importance of torque over horsepower in evaluating engine output, all else being equal.
11/12/08, 09:21 AM
#31
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a replacement for displacement. It's direct injection and forced induction (and a healthy sum of money).
2008 BMW 135i - Specs
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $42,895 (base price: $35,675)
ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
2008 BMW 135i - Specs
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $42,895 (base price: $35,675)
ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
11/12/08, 12:07 PM
#32
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
Zoomie says it best above. Yes adding displacement will generally increase power and torque, however there are other ways to add power and torque.
In that respect there are now replacements for displacement. I guess it just depends on how you look at it.
11/12/08, 02:17 PM
#34
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the Camaro, they still have a slight problem with weight. I generally ignore the Japanese manufacturers since their cars may be competition within the marketplace, yet they are inherently different cars. It's fairly easy to poke holes in the muscle car formula if you're comparing it to a sports car approach.
It's laughable because GM has made that the "stat of choice." Ignore a heavier Camaro, ignore the larger pricetag, ignore the similar fuel economy as a V8 with more torque.
You're right, we should compare it to the base Mustang. But the 300 HP figure is too much for people. They gravitate to it, and immediately look at the Mustang GT with 300 HP, which will outperform the base Camaro in stock form.
Now about the Camaro SS - Ford better come back strong, because you're right, that's where the real comparison lies. GT vs. SS needs some perspective though. GM had years to study and formulate their answer to the Mustang. It's no surprise that the power gap is there. But nothing about an Australian chassis with an LS engine makes me break out in sweats. This Camaro is teetering on the edge of 'muscle' or 'pony', much closer to the Corvette than I'm sure some at GM would like.
I want to see Ford's answer...what I don't want to see is Ford slapping the Mustang name on a sports car.
It's laughable because GM has made that the "stat of choice." Ignore a heavier Camaro, ignore the larger pricetag, ignore the similar fuel economy as a V8 with more torque.
You're right, we should compare it to the base Mustang. But the 300 HP figure is too much for people. They gravitate to it, and immediately look at the Mustang GT with 300 HP, which will outperform the base Camaro in stock form.
Now about the Camaro SS - Ford better come back strong, because you're right, that's where the real comparison lies. GT vs. SS needs some perspective though. GM had years to study and formulate their answer to the Mustang. It's no surprise that the power gap is there. But nothing about an Australian chassis with an LS engine makes me break out in sweats. This Camaro is teetering on the edge of 'muscle' or 'pony', much closer to the Corvette than I'm sure some at GM would like.
I want to see Ford's answer...what I don't want to see is Ford slapping the Mustang name on a sports car.
Sure the Mustang GT may be the faster car, but i'm not so sure it will outperform it. I'm not positive on this but I think all Camaros including base models will have 6 speed AT/MT, IRS big brakes..... As far as MPG numbers go the V6 Camaro gets better MPGs than the current V6 Mustang never mind the GT model. I agree it does cost more, but for all the extra stuff you get, IMO at least with the base model comparison the Camaro is the better buy and worth the extra couple grand.
11/12/08, 02:26 PM
#35
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to get personal, and I've explained many times on this forum that I am a life-long Mustang fan. I have no desire to buy a Camaro, as much because I prefer the Mustang styling, inside and out as the fact that I am a long-time Mustang fan.
But I do expect Ford to upgrade the 4.6 for '10 so that not only will it out-torque the V6 'Maro, but also out-horsepower it as well, bearing in mind that any upgrades are for a one-year run, anyway, if the 5.0 continues on schedule.
And as others have already explained, horsepower is only one factor in performance. Gear ratios, number of gears, final drive ratio, and vehicle weight all impact performance. The old "no replacement for displacement" addage has been long disproved. While simply adding displacement CAN improve performance, all else being equal, there are many other ways to achieve the same performance improvement.
Judging the merits of one vehicle over another based solely on horsepower and number of cylinders is just not seeing the whole picture, is all we're saying. How that horsepower is generated across the rev band and what the vehicle does with it will determine overall performance.
Remember, horsepower is computed from torque multiplied by RPM divided by a constant.
There was no intent in my original reply to irritate or annoy, and if that was the result I apologize. My intent was only to emphasize the relative importance of torque over horsepower in evaluating engine output, all else being equal.
But I do expect Ford to upgrade the 4.6 for '10 so that not only will it out-torque the V6 'Maro, but also out-horsepower it as well, bearing in mind that any upgrades are for a one-year run, anyway, if the 5.0 continues on schedule.
And as others have already explained, horsepower is only one factor in performance. Gear ratios, number of gears, final drive ratio, and vehicle weight all impact performance. The old "no replacement for displacement" addage has been long disproved. While simply adding displacement CAN improve performance, all else being equal, there are many other ways to achieve the same performance improvement.
Judging the merits of one vehicle over another based solely on horsepower and number of cylinders is just not seeing the whole picture, is all we're saying. How that horsepower is generated across the rev band and what the vehicle does with it will determine overall performance.
Remember, horsepower is computed from torque multiplied by RPM divided by a constant.
There was no intent in my original reply to irritate or annoy, and if that was the result I apologize. My intent was only to emphasize the relative importance of torque over horsepower in evaluating engine output, all else being equal.
11/12/08, 02:31 PM
#36
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a replacement for displacement. It's direct injection and forced induction (and a healthy sum of money).
2008 BMW 135i - Specs
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $42,895 (base price: $35,675)
ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
2008 BMW 135i - Specs
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $42,895 (base price: $35,675)
ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
11/12/08, 08:16 PM
#37
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new Camaro already has direct injection, so not only does it produce a lot more power but also is expected to get better MPGs than the current 4.6. I agree the engine of the BMW is impressive for it's size but, it still pails in comparison to the LS motors in the Camaro by over 100 hp and tq. I would argue that a fully equipped SS Camaro would best a new M3 out on the track and humiliate the BMW 135i.
I think you are wrong (respectfully) if you think a new SS equipped Camaro will beat a M3 on the track. The power to weight ratio will favor the M3 by quite a bit..The car will weight more than 600lbs more than a E92 M3 and on a race track weight is king.
Of course it's just conjecture since there isn't even a SS Camaro even released yet, but you really owe yourself a drive in a new E92 M3. That is why I am hoping the 5.0L 4V motor Mustang with updated suspension could be the poor man's M3.
You may have one or two quick laps, but that added weight will take it's toll on brakes and tires and then it's just literally a slippery slide down the slope.
Regarding the 135i or even a 335i those motors make maximum torque at 1300rpm-just off of idle all the way to 5500rpm and they pull all the way to their redline. BMW 335i's run low 13's @106+mph bone stock with their puny 3.0l motors.
Last edited by Dave07997S; 11/12/08 at 08:19 PM.
11/12/08, 08:20 PM
#38
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11/13/08, 02:20 PM
#39
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are wrong (respectfully) if you think a new SS equipped Camaro will beat a M3 on the track. The power to weight ratio will favor the M3 by quite a bit..The car will weight more than 600lbs more than a E92 M3 and on a race track weight is king.
Of course it's just conjecture since there isn't even a SS Camaro even released yet, but you really owe yourself a drive in a new E92 M3. That is why I am hoping the 5.0L 4V motor Mustang with updated suspension could be the poor man's M3.
You may have one or two quick laps, but that added weight will take it's toll on brakes and tires and then it's just literally a slippery slide down the slope.
Regarding the 135i or even a 335i those motors make maximum torque at 1300rpm-just off of idle all the way to 5500rpm and they pull all the way to their redline. BMW 335i's run low 13's @106+mph bone stock with their puny 3.0l motors.
Of course it's just conjecture since there isn't even a SS Camaro even released yet, but you really owe yourself a drive in a new E92 M3. That is why I am hoping the 5.0L 4V motor Mustang with updated suspension could be the poor man's M3.
You may have one or two quick laps, but that added weight will take it's toll on brakes and tires and then it's just literally a slippery slide down the slope.
Regarding the 135i or even a 335i those motors make maximum torque at 1300rpm-just off of idle all the way to 5500rpm and they pull all the way to their redline. BMW 335i's run low 13's @106+mph bone stock with their puny 3.0l motors.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post