Wonder what could have been...

Topic: Wonder what could have been... (Read 7559 times) previous topic - next topic

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #45 – January 28, 2008, 06:26:40 PM

My rant wasn't about what the 5.0 was back in 1995 when they stopped using it in cars, it was about what it could have been, had it seen the same kind of development and evolution that the LSx engines have seen. Things such as variable valve timing, displacement on demand, split port heads, aluminum blocks of varying displacements (not just a 5.0, but anything from a 5.0 to a 5.8 in 8.5" deck height, and up to 7.0 in 9.2" deck height), etc.

Hell, the same applies to the modular, for that matter. GM has developed the HELL out of the LS engine series, with dozens of versions available for cars and trucks ranging from 4.8 liters to 7.0 liters. Meanwhile Ford seems content to let the modular fester underdeveloped while other engines that are supposedly inferior because they're supposedly antiquated leave it in the dust.

Ten years ago I'd have been (and indeed, was) all over GM for developing an engine based on antiquated designs while everyone else moves forward to OHC an multivalve setups. Now, though, I see that it was GM who was(and still is) looking ahead. Ford's modular has seen very little change while GM's LS engines have constantly been upgraded and improved. Ford promised us all kinds of things - 5.0 "cammers", 351 and 427CI V10's, etc, but it was GM who delivered.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #46 – January 28, 2008, 06:27:08 PM

92 then :hick:

I don't like the LT1, give me a standard SBC or an LS1 anyday.

I'm still waiting to find a ridiculously cheap 3V setup for the 'Vic though...

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #47 – January 28, 2008, 06:36:43 PM

The "cam-within-a-cam" technology in the LS3 is staggering. Just the idea of 436HP with a full factory warranty out of 6.2L (Hell 400HP from the 364ci 6.0L LS2!) and still get 25-28MPG on the highway is superb. I barely get 25MPG in the the anemic 4.6L 240HP mod motor (working on that...).

I really, REALLY hope the "new" engine is pushrod or at least, developed. Ford started the 4.6 in what, 94-95? It took them until 99 to get (2V) heads that flowed decent on the Mustang (and 2001 on the CV and others). The 3V didn't hit until 2005 and all of the 2V's STILL have not enough spark-plug threads (my God, how hard is it to tell the machine to tap 8 threads instead of 4, SERIOUSLY!?!?!!).

The LSx? 97 LS1 in the Vette (350HP), 98 in the Camaro/Firebird, the first Z06 hit in what 00, 01? First with 385HP, then 405HP (LS6, still 5.7L). The trucks got iron-block versions with tons of grunt, the 400HP LS2 hit in 05 in the Vette and GTO (6.0L), the 505HP LS7 (7.0L) in 06, and in 07 we got the 436HP "base" LS3 (6.2L) with displacement-on-demand. Even the FWD (5.3L LS4) have 303HP (ECU-limited for drivetrain life!). They kept developing the architecture!

The "mod" is still 4.6L, it took 5ish years to get heads, a decade to get a valvetrain update, still no DoD or VVT type things (though the intake does have the SHO-like flappers). Why couldn't Ford update the mod like GM did the LS? *sniff*

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #48 – January 28, 2008, 06:44:44 PM

Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200537

The "mod" is still 4.6L, it took 5ish years to get heads, a decade to get a valvetrain update, still no DoD or VVT type things (though the intake does have the SHO-like flappers).

The 3V variant has VCT.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #49 – January 28, 2008, 07:46:40 PM

Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200525

2V man, 2V! The 3V's are finally getting some OK #'s, but you have to imagine that even the 94 LT1's were 300HP. So as usual Ford is a decade late and 100HP short (LS2 GTO = 400HP). *sigh*

You know Carm, they don't even care about you during the warranty any more. How many 4.6 owners have been left high-and-dry with blown out plugs? How many fires did that stupid cruise switch start (INCLUDING the one in my 92 SHO that caught fire). It saddens me. :(

Ah yes more Modular hating from ABM. Guess he forgot that the ever so better Camaro/Firebird got shiznit canned and guess what? So did the GTO. Amazing that the Mustang never died?

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #50 – January 28, 2008, 08:38:48 PM

Quote from: Aerobird Motorsports;200537

The "cam-within-a-cam" technology in the LS3 is staggering. Just the idea of 436HP with a full factory warranty out of 6.2L (Hell 400HP from the 364ci 6.0L LS2!) and still get 25-28MPG on the highway is superb. I barely get 25MPG in the the anemic 4.6L 240HP mod motor (working on that...).

I really, REALLY hope the "new" engine is pushrod or at least, developed. Ford started the 4.6 in what, 94-95? It took them until 99 to get (2V) heads that flowed decent on the Mustang (and 2001 on the CV and others). The 3V didn't hit until 2005 and all of the 2V's STILL have not enough spark-plug threads (my God, how hard is it to tell the machine to tap 8 threads instead of 4, SERIOUSLY!?!?!!).

The LSx? 97 LS1 in the Vette (350HP), 98 in the Camaro/Firebird, the first Z06 hit in what 00, 01? First with 385HP, then 405HP (LS6, still 5.7L). The trucks got iron-block versions with tons of grunt, the 400HP LS2 hit in 05 in the Vette and GTO (6.0L), the 505HP LS7 (7.0L) in 06, and in 07 we got the 436HP "base" LS3 (6.2L) with displacement-on-demand. Even the FWD (5.3L LS4) have 303HP (ECU-limited for drivetrain life!). They kept developing the architecture!

The "mod" is still 4.6L, it took 5ish years to get heads, a decade to get a valvetrain update, still no DoD or VVT type things (though the intake does have the SHO-like flappers). Why couldn't Ford update the mod like GM did the LS? *sniff*

The Modular was introduced in the '91 Lincoln Town Car. The 4V version came along two years later, in the Lincoln Mark VIII.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #51 – January 28, 2008, 08:55:01 PM

Quote from: JeremyB;200542

The 3V variant has VCT.

Sweet! I honestly didn't know that. The 3V is such a huge step in the right direction! I just wish it didn't take 10+ years :(

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #52 – January 28, 2008, 08:57:01 PM

Quote from: CougarSE;200565

Ah yes more Modular hating from ABM. Guess he forgot that the ever so better Camaro/Firebird got shiznit canned and guess what? So did the GTO. Amazing that the Mustang never died?

Your point? The GTO wouldn't meet 2007 crash regulations (you know, like the Ford GT). The 4th gen F-body was a py car. The Mustang got by how it always does, V6 sales.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #53 – January 28, 2008, 09:01:20 PM

Say it again. Got by, Gm didn't.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #54 – January 28, 2008, 09:51:40 PM

LOL at LT1! i pulled on a 97 slomaro with my 94 mark viii with nothing more than a shift kit. the camaro was always a piece of shiznite. now, im not saying i would never consider a 98 up ss or something but were boasting a little too much. i wouldnt put alot of faith in ford these days either. i love the mustang. i love every mustang from 87 up untill now. i love vetts too. i love all kinds of cars. i just prefer the modular new edge stangs the most. followed by the S197. id truely prefer my old tbird with a forged aluminum modular with a turbo setup. ford has the stang to offer and much else. i had alot of love for them at one point. unfortunately they are just kind of festering in the sun like yesturdays garbage.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #55 – January 28, 2008, 10:57:03 PM

shame302,
And isn't that the shame? Ford did so well with the S197 Mustang (and the GT), why can't they do the same to the whole line? Hell Europe gets an awesome Focus, Mondeo, and even the Ka. Bring them over here in LHD and they'd make a fortune! It's sad that GM is still #1 and Ford has slipped to #4. :(

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #56 – January 29, 2008, 07:58:34 AM

Quote

Ah yes more Modular hating from ABM. Guess he forgot that the ever so better Camaro/Firebird got shiznit canned and guess what? So did the GTO. Amazing that the Mustang never died?

You know, there are plenty of other Pro GM guys here and they are never bashed......Take it to the PM's or get over it. This is a lounge thread with peoples opinions. Not Thunderdome...

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #57 – January 29, 2008, 12:45:06 PM

I'd love to see a graph of the stock BSFCs for the different engines in the thread. It's hard to truly compare fuel efficiency of different motors when you put them in divergent platforms (mass, transmission, Cd, diff. gearing, etc).

A chart of BSFC verus rpm with at different load conditions (idle, 20%, ..., WOT) could be used to see the mpg difference of an LS3 put into a 1987 Cougar, or a 3V 4.6L in a ZO6 (b/c who would really do such a swap

)

Example...

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #58 – January 29, 2008, 12:51:33 PM

Oh Paul now your crying GM love. Funny my other project car is a GM. I'm not crying GM love and I'm sure as hell not crying Ford love. You don't see me in these "gosh I love my tbird" threads.

I have nothing to "get over". I'm stating my "opinion" about the praises of three cars that got phased out.

Wonder what could have been...

Reply #59 – January 29, 2008, 04:26:59 PM

Three highly-profitable cars that got phased out when the platforms got out of date (something Ford has NO freaking idea how to do!) and kept their maker #1 in world sales.

Ford's slipped to #4 in the meantime...