They may work but that doesn't mean they work better than OHC's. (As evidenced by Chev & Dodge always needing bigger displacement to keep up.)

 

Doesn't mean it's any worse either. More than one cam. Multiple valves per cylinder. Yes it makes sense but is it necessary? Can the same results be had with one cam and two valves? Especially when it's not in a high rpm type of vehicle. I haven't seen modular engines prove to be more reliable or show less valve train wear than the pushrods. If anything they have added more wear components to these engines. 4ft long timing chains. Tensioners and guides. Cam bearings. Upper cylinder head lubrication issues. Do you really believe that old ford truck outside your place would have lasted with a modular small block?

 

Apples and oranges. I doubt that I6 goes past 5k rpm. Its a tractor engine. It might place in a tractor pull but not going to cut it in a road race or at the strip.

4V's have proven themselves for decades for better breathing. Even the 3V jumped hp & torque over the 2V 4.6.

And there are plenty of 4.6's that have passed 200k. My 4.9 I6 broke a ring at 218k.

 

i think the op`s second post says it best .. the solid axle should remain as standard equipment and if one wished a IRS could be had .. standards would out sell IRS`s about 10 to 1 ..

 

Each manufacturer has their own answer to power, reliability, and efficiency. I really like the fact that Ford has come so far with the ohc small blocks. I am also happy to see GM has been able to answer still using the pushrod single cam design. Nobody can knock the success of the LS platform engines. They're all primarily the same exact engines 4.8L-6.whatever, just a bigger piston. Chrysler, well who cares what Chrysler is doing? Lol
The only thing that I really don't like about the Ford small blocks is the size of the engines. More power with small displacement but the size of these small displacement engines is unbelievable. Even cast in aluminum and alloys, it's a lot.

 

No freaking way. IRS should be standard and the car designed with it in mind. SRA should be extra for the 10% of people that take their car drag racing or for the people that like living in the past.

 

so everyone that has a mustang today is living in the past ?

 

So my question is this, if the IRS worked so well then why did they go back with the straight axle in 2007 when theyintroduced the new gt500? I dunno? Just asking.

 

That's the million dollar question right there. Maybe it's really not better.

 

Not me Hoss. I got IRS.

 

You're just in the past with a 10 year old mustang.

 

That's faster than yours.

 

Bring it and let's find out.

 

Run your car not your mouth

 

With pleasure.
can't I do both?

 

No, just owners that think that think Ford should keep the SRA for the next 100 years.

 

Do you guys think ford will IRS the V6? Sounds crazy to me.

 

They were going with a IRS design (I even heard they were spy photos of them testing the setup but I've never seen it myself) but one of the head engineers somehow convinced management that the SRA was "good enough" to save a few bucks.

 

Of course. Too costly to maintain two different platforms now days.

 

Doesn't need two different platforms. The new edge cobra and gt can pretty much swap rear ends back and fourth.