metroplex

Ford USA != Ford Europe or Ford Asia. Ford USA build quality << Ford Europe build quality. And just 1 example of how different we are from Ford over the pond: The Europe Focus ST is a world apart from the US Focus ST.

DaimlerChrysler and General Motors are going with 6.xL OHV V8s pumping out 400-500 hp, N/A. 2 out of the Big 3 use OHV V8s and get the job done.

If Ford goes with yet another OHC V8, they're going to slap a blower on the motor or spend an enormous amount of money/time trying to get that OHC V8 to run reliably and out to market (Remember the Cammer V8 fiasco? The supposed Hemi killer that never came to market or hit the NASCAR tracks).

vtdude

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think moosestang was talking about V8's from outside of Ford for the Europe and Asia entries, ie BMW, Bens, Lexus etc. Those engines are a bit more peaky than we might be used to in a Mustang but make good power. Also, you say that slapping a blower would ruin reliabilty but I have never heard of problems from a reliability standpoint with 2003-04 cobra engines. Finally, do you not remember the 427 SOHC from the 60's. That thing was rated the most powerful engine of the sixties, and banned from NASCAR. So, I think an OHC engine especially with newer technology would be more than enough.

metroplex

Yes that was the Cammer V8. An OHV engine made with newer technology will achieve great gas mileage and power.

rhumb

OHV motor don't necessarily have any advantage on low/mid-range power over an OHC motor. Rather, they tend to have been tuned more for that due to their relative limitations in generating high-range peak power relative to OHC motors, in general. The greater valve train mass of an OHV motor tends to necessitate relatively slower valve train motions to keep loads and wear down, as well as limiting redline speeds to avoid valve float. This equates to slightly less aggressive cam lobe ramps and less peak lift relative to the lighter OHC valve trains, all things being equal (which they rarely are of course). Intake port shape, size and positioning can also be constricted and otherwise compromised by the need to bypass the pushrods.

All these tend, then, to favor tuning for lower rpm power and torque rather than going for high-rpm peak number, but again, that's more making the best thing of the inherent limits of an OHV motor than reflecting any innate advantage.

OHC motors, by dint of their lower mass, more responsive valvetrains, can potentially produce a smidgeon greater low end oomph by being able to have steeper cam-ramps allowing greater flow while reducing power-sapping valve opening overlap. Greater freedom in port design can also potentially allow more optimally tailored airflow into the combustion chamber.

Indeed, what is often perceived as soft low-rpm powerbands in OHC motors is, rather, relatively strong low-rpm powerbands being overshadowed by much stronger, as compared to OHV motors, high-rpm powerbands.

Lately, more advanced materials (lighter and stronger), along with more refined CAD egineering and superior lubricants have mitigated some of the aforementioned constraints on OHV motors, as well evidenced by the 505hp, 7K redline LS7 and even the 425hp 6.1 Hemi.

OHV motors also have a significant advantage in terms of overall motor weight, size and power density (in terms of overall engine package size rather than specific output per unit of displacement.) Thus a "big" 7 liter, 505hp LS7 probably doesn't differ much in overall dressed size and weight as compared to a "little" 4.3 liter, ~500ish hp Ferrari F430 motor -- basically just two paths to 500hp and fairly similar performance results between the two cars (Corvette Z06 and Ferrari F430).

Winning Lotto ticket assumed, I'd have a very hard time choosing between the thundering LS7 Vette or the wailing Ferrari.

metroplex

The Ferrari F430 catches fire like a Pinto. Some guy in Taiwan had his brand new F430 catch fire and blow up (no accident was involved).

Stick with the LS7 Vette.


OHC engines can be made to outperform OHV engines, but Ford has thus far failed to deliver without resorting to supercharging production engines. The 05-up Mustang GT's 4.6L 3V V8 seems to work fairly well though producing low 13s in the 1/4 mile bone stock.

OTOH, GM and DCX have been demonstrating how much horsepower they can easily make out of their OHV V8s. A magazine (Hot Rod?) was getting nearly 500 hp N/A with a few bolt-ons w/ a 5.7 Hemi V8.

vtdude

My bad on the cammer, I thought you were talking about the 5.0L cammer from a couple years a ago. Which other than being pretty expensive and a race only motor at the moment is a great motor.

Oh, and don't get me wrong I would love an OHV v8 much like the LS series. But, don't discount the OHC until the BOSS series comes out (if ever).

Moosetang

Ok, stop talking about this right now. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just spouting off with baseless misconceptions and examples you don't even understand.

metroplex

I would have preferred that Ford went with an OHV V8 for the 2005-up GTs. Even the magazine writers ragged on Ford's 5.4L 3V V8 in the 2004-up F-150: "It doesn't feel like 300 hp..." possibly because they liked the Daimler 5.7 V8 in the Ram pickups more. Ford's desire to re-start the Hurricane program indicates something clicked in their heads.

bob

Must have

Anywhosit, cast iron does have something to offer over aluminum besides strength and heat rejection, they are quieter running than a comparable aluminum block (all things being equal), but I'm splitting hairs yet again.

However let me say this, ultrimately if Ford were to use a CGI block with aluminum heads while being able to approach an all aluminum engine in overall weight and being able to bring more power to the table at the same or cheaper price compared to current offerings, I'm all for it.

incomingRPG

Off topic comment...Boomer, glad to see the blue and gold is back! May the goat head rest in peace.

bob

Very nicely put Rhumb.

IMO since most hi performance OHC engines tend to be multi-valve affairs I think another factor that lead to the image of no low end grunt and all top end power is a lack of quench area combined with large port volumes. These two combined are even low end power killers on a 2 valve OHV engine (hemi anyone and to a lesser extent Boss/Cleveland). Despite all the praise given to a hemi combustion chamber its not all that great, sure it flows air really well due to the unshrouding of the valves and it can have a centrally located spark plug, but thats about it. Otherwise its got a pretty lazy combustion chamber design (like alot of 4 valve engines). If anyb ody has taken a gander at DCX's modern hemi, you will notice that they have gone away from a true hemi head with a centrally located plug to a twin plug head with quench pads on either side, what you end up with is a nice flowing cylinderhead that has a chamber with more activity compared to a true hemi.

The boss/cleveland motors utilized a polyangle combustion chamber featuring canted valves but had CRAP intake/exhaust ports of which the flow numbers didn't really give the true story. Had Ford designed a better intake/exhaust port combined with the canted valve arrangement along with a nice closed chamber it would have been a hemi beater

BigBlock

Ford must have done something right by using OHC motors. Your sitting here comparing a 4.6L V8 to a 5.7-6.2L V8. I guess it does need a supercharger. But with one its blowing them big motors into the weeds. Hell, now Chevy has even got a 7.0L titanium everything, factory ported heads, motor in the Vette. But your paying for it. Its hard to compare a small motor in a $25,000 car to a big motor in a $70,000 car. But here you sit here and do it.

Boomer

The new logo has grown on me..
I liked the Goat head too, but its time has passed....

metroplex

I'm actually in the market for a 2007 Mustang GT. One of the first things I noticed was a price increase from the 99-04 GTs (when they were brand new). I suppose Ford could justify it by saying they are using a new chassis, new styling, and a new 4.6L 3V V8. A low 13 second car bone-stock is pretty darn good for a $27k-$28k+ car (but let's be honest, even with the X-Plan, a brand new 2007 GT Deluxe w/ zero options will run about $26k after taxes. There's a meager pittance of a $500 rebate). You could haggle your way below invoice on a lot car that has been sitting under the sun for 3-4 months with bird kaka etching into the paint (local dealerships have at least 12-20 GTs per lot, more than half had multiple bird droppings on the paint sitting under the sun) or cars that were used as parts donors for customer cars (driveshaft wobble? No prob, let's play musical driveshaft)

I would have preferred an OHV Ford V8 (5.0L or 5.8L displacement would suffice) out of nostalgia and positive experiences in the past. My 1981 Ford 302 V8 has been running strong for the past 25 years on the stock internals. It still gets 16-18 mpg in the city and 25+ mpg on the highway with an "inferior" 2 barrel carburetor and mechanical clutch fan. No valve stem seal issues like the 03-04 4.6L 4V V8s or 92-up 4.6/5.4 2V V8s (some late model engines still blow out blue smoke).

I am not comparing the 4.6L 3V to a 6.2/6.6L Hemi V8 or the latest GM Z06 motor. But that said, even the 5.4L 3V V8 isn't producing as much power as the 5.7L 350+ hp V8s that GM and DCX uses (wooo 0.3L difference!!!) Ford Australia gets 360+ hp out of its N/A 5.4 4V V8, which is quite respectable, but I heard that the 03-04 Cobra got a blower because in N/A production form, the Cobra just wasn't making earth shattering numbers. People keep commenting on how the build quality of Mustangs are better than F-bodies (this may be true!) but so far I've seen quite a number of complaints regarding the S197 build quality and other typical BS Ford problems (slow fuel fill, snap crackle pop while turning wheel, dash rattle, rear end howl, driveline vibes).

Boomer

On any forum you are going to hear about the problems...

How many of us have started threads about 'this car has no issues'
You won't, you'll see all the threads relating to issues...thats what the board is for.

Fact is, this new chassis and car is 1000 times better than its pred.

Do you honestly think that the 5.4 becuse of what it currently produces in a truck... on 87 octane is near the potential of the engine?
The 4.6 4v 'niche' engine that was talked about a while back was said to be putting out just shy of 400hp.
The 5.4 3v and 4vs are easily capable of that on a 91+ octane tune.
(IIRC the 5.4 4v Cobra R was rated at 385..but was closer to 400.... back in 2000... over 6 years ago with NONE of the toys that the 3v currently uses)

At this point however, what do you do in fords shoes.
Do you milk a displacement limited engine with more and more refinements/technology, or build a brand new engine line to combat larger displacement rivals?
(Think back to intel VS amd in the beginning where MHZ was everything to consumers, but meant nothing)
Being as the 4.6/5.4 have their shortcommings... but the original designs are over 10 years old now.

V10

Ever hear of inflation?

Even if Ford was still selling the crappy old SN-95, there's no way they could sell them at 1999 prices and make a profit.

Using your example, a 2007 Mustang GT @ a net price of $26K calculates out to $21,250 in 1999 dollars. How many people were able to buy a new 1999 Mustang GT including sales tax for $21,250? I'm guessing no one? In other words using 1999 dollars a brand new vastly improved 2007 Mustang GT is cheaper than a 1999 Mustang GT (in real dollars)!

Reference: CPI inflation calculator at this URL http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

tacbear

I got my 2000 for $22,500 including tax.

hi5.0

Yeah, too bad my wages don't seem to be keeping up with inflation...

fastball25

Here's an article from detnews about the new BOSS motors!

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...610310352/1148

DrunkenDragon713

I bought my 2000 GT Vert Auto fully loaded for $12,000 over a year ago. The guy I bought it from bought it for $28,500 in late 1999. He used the money I paid for the car to put down on a new 2006 Mustang GT Vert fully loaded. Costed $33,750 he told me, and that was talking the salesman down a few thousand.

I'm hoping to see better N/A numbers out of the newer Mustangs as well. I was alittle dissappointed with only 500hp in the Shelby. I was expecting more like 550-600 for the price.