2017 Ford Mustang will outperform Chevy Camaro in every way

[thePill]

There's absolutely no reason a base GT350 can't be compared to a 2016 MRC, Recaro 1SS. I can see that car going for $41,000-$43,000. It's got less power sure but it has more torque.

They had no trouble comparing a $75,000 z28 to a $47,000 Boss 302.


Suck it up boys...

Sponsored

 

[Erik427]

There's absolutely no reason a base GT350 can't be compared to a 2016 MRC, Recaro 1SS. I can see that car going for $41,000-$43,000. It's got less power sure but it has more torque.

They had no trouble comparing a $75,000 z28 to a $47,000 Boss 302.


Suck it up boys...

BINGO:ford:

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Essentially, the LS series brought up a really good question. The turning point came around the time they were trying to fit DI in an LS2. I think it worked, that's all I can say...

The issue was, the intake pushrod guide protruded through the intake port on the LS2. It left room for DI though... However, the pushrod guide was redesign in the LS3, which is the major difference from LS2 to LS3 heads. The pushrod guide was moved 0.25 of an inch further into the head casting.

'Pushrod guide'? There is no 'guide'. That's a 'hole'. Guideplates are Gen I stuff.

This increased airflow a great deal and is mostly responsible for the power bump from LS2 to 3. However, this design created major issues with DI paths. In fact, DI was probably impossible on the LS3...

Thus the $820 million dollar, raise cam'd LT1 was born. All pushrods been elevated from the intake paths and DI has been added.

Raised cam bores are adapted from racing programs, primarily for lightweight valvetrain...ie stability through short, stiff pushrods.

How do we increase power to remain competitive with DOHC's?

How do we match the fuel economy of a DOHC?

It's naive to think that Ford isn't reacting in the same manner w/ the release of the LT1, which at this point appears superior to the Coyote in every way.

Ford really should consider at least deactivation, realizing that DI isn't only expensive, but that Ford did indeed test it and determined it didn't really gain economy over the current setup(at least that's what they said).

Ford did the analysis and came to the conclusion that DI investment wasn't worth it...once upon a time. If they hold onto that conclusion much longer, they will see themselves fall behind. Just like the arguments of OHV being antiquated, port injection is on its way out...the higher compression and mixture benefits are required to remain competitive.

 

[thePill]

:lol:

The LT1 is not superior to anything as far as V8's are concerned.

Power per liter, engine weight, cost, AFM...

Yeah, I'll pass...

The intake pushrod hole, guide, pathway, passage in the LS3 was moved over 0.24 of an inch to increase airflow. The LS2 could support DI, neither could do both...

 

[15wile]

Ford did the analysis and came to the conclusion that DI investment wasn't worth it...once upon a time. If they hold onto that conclusion much longer, they will see themselves fall behind. Just like the arguments of OHV being antiquated, port injection is on its way out...the higher compression and mixture benefits are required to remain competitive.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't DI more of a maintenance headache?

 

[Todd15Fastback]

It's naive to think that Ford isn't reacting in the same manner w/ the release of the LT1, which at this point appears superior to the Coyote in every way.

Curious to hear you expand more on this?

 

[OppoLock]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't DI more of a maintenance headache?

Carbon build up is an oft-related issue. Not sure if the LT1's having issues with it though.

 

[thePill]

Carbon build up is an oft-related issue. Not sure if the LT1's having issues with it though.

It looks isolated to NA engine DI, although, we haven seen the entire lifespan of DI tech in most Fords yet.

Ford has developed Dual Injection which is supposed to have better atomization. If also heard a better, cleaner burn and better tune-ability.

 

[Mr Monte]

GM wouldn't be around without taxpayer money,

Ford isn't a saint, either. They've had problems. But the one thing I've always been impressed with when it comes to Ford is that they handle their problems without running to the government.

Corporate incompetence & union greed is what almost took GM down. If Ford hadn't gone to the government for help/protection they would of gone under back in the 80s. Ford didn't get a bailout this last round but Ford did get a $6 Billion loan which still has not been paid back.

I think both GM & Ford need to get their quality under control. My last 3 new Chevys had no quality issues, great panel fitment & didn't have any rattles nor did they fall apart but I know several people that their recent Chevys have been total junk.

3 out of my last 4 new Fords had multiple failures covered under warranty and the other one (2012 Escape 4x4) was perfect. My 2010 Mustang GT was a dealer buyback because it's issues made it unsafe to drive & Corporate Ford didn't care. Look at the current quality control of the 2015 Mustang. Just from what I've seen myself some look perfect but some suffer from such poorly stamped panels that proper alignment is impossible.

 

[OppoLock]

It looks isolated to NA engine DI, although, we haven seen the entire lifespan of DI tech in most Fords yet.

Ford has developed Dual Injection which is supposed to have better atomization. If also heard a better, cleaner burn and better tune-ability.

It's a problem with almost every turbocharged DI engine BMW makes too. They offer "walnut blasting" as a part of their maintenance services.

 

[flaps]

It looks isolated to NA engine DI, although, we haven seen the entire lifespan of DI tech in most Fords yet.

Ford has developed Dual Injection which is supposed to have better atomization. If also heard a better, cleaner burn and better tune-ability.

No it isn't. Ecoboost engines have had plenty of problems with intake valve carbon buildup.

[ame]

They show the intake valves at 5:50.

 

[thePill]

It's a problem with almost every turbocharged DI engine BMW makes too. They offer "walnut blasting" as a part of their maintenance services.

That sounds like a serious issue, I'd rather wait until it's perfected... as in longevity. I'm sure the Port-Direct Injection hybrid goes a long way.

 

[thePill]

No it isn't. Ecoboost engines have had plenty of problems with intake valve carbon buildup.



They show the intake valves at 5:50.

Holy sh!t!

Nah, the LT1 can keep it...

 

[Rob WH]

It's naive to think that Ford isn't reacting in the same manner w/ the release of the LT1, which at this point appears superior to the Coyote in every way.

I think the LT1 is a great engine, but it has widely known concerns already. I read just today that the high pressure fuel pumps have already failed on some Corvettes... not too old yet. I don't care about the warranty part... don't want my 6mo old car needing repairs due to part failure.

Aside from that, it seems rather clear at this time, the 5L is notably lighter...

The LS1 was bragged about since 1998, for being really light. The current 5L weighs just about the same as that... and the LT1 supposedly added 47 lb to the LS3 weight. That's BIG! I cannot verify that weight, but was stunned to read in (on a GM site) and not see a single person dispute it. If that's the case, I'd argue the LT1 isn't superior in weight.

I do, however, like it for many EXCELLENT attributes in N/A form. I'm hardly ready to give it the overall nod. I haven't seen one @ 1,250 + wheel hp just yet. ;)

Ford did the analysis and came to the conclusion that DI investment wasn't worth it...once upon a time. If they hold onto that conclusion much longer, they will see themselves fall behind.

Easy to say, but so far... making good with what it has.

DI has excellent points, but if you don't NEED 14:1 compression to keep up and you don't want to add turbos or the like(factory perspective here) and you're running DOHC... it's not gonna need DI for a long time.

Just like the arguments of OHV being antiquated, port injection is on its way out...the higher compression and mixture benefits are required to remain competitive.

I disagree. Port injection still works fine, as does the OHV itself. These engines, specifically DOHC, simply do not need high compression to keep up with the output. That's a benefit of being able to spin 7-8,0000rpm. It's also a benefit of being able to move massive amounts of air and fully control the events. That's something GM tried to a very unsuccessful end back in the 80s and now, has basically gotten very good at with OHV, but in general terms, it's much easier and more accurate with the 4 cams vs 1.

Mixture, etc.... simply not an issue for engines in the typical vehicle.

Carbon build up is an oft-related issue. Not sure if the LT1's having issues with it though.

I haven't heard about that, but I have heard of concerns, including failed DI pumps and... those aren't cheap. Then again, the injectors are likely very expensive as compared to "old school" stuff.

It looks isolated to NA engine DI, although, we haven seen the entire lifespan of DI tech in most Fords yet.

I've heard of it being a notable problem for both the BMW turbo 6s and basically all Ecoboosts. My own Ecoboost was said to have had that problem, but I switched to a 5L before it mattered much.

Ford has developed Dual Injection which is supposed to have better atomization. If also heard a better, cleaner burn and better tune-ability.

Better... would be expected.

If Ford hadn't gone to the government for help/protection they would of gone under back in the 80s. Ford didn't get a bailout this last round but Ford did get a $6 Billion loan which still has not been paid back.

Man... your "facts" are very skewed here. It's not really worth the argument, as it's been discussed, Ad Nauseam.

GM applied for the exact same loan Ford got, but was denied because the law was written that... no business in bankruptcy qualified for the loan program. What you're doing is propagating a lie, whether or not you know it.

The fact is, both the things you claimed above are factually false:

A: That Ford hasn't paid back their loan(it's simply not finished). To take your words as true would assume that Ford simply isn't paying or is somehow ignoring their loan.

When you took your last car loan, did your family/friends who knew about it constantly tell you that you got a bailout or had not paid it back... while you were making payments as the loan dictated? No, clearly.

B: That Ford took a bailout in the 1980's... it simply didn't happen and if you're certain it did, prove your case. I'm telling you now... it didn't happen. Ford negotiated things... but got no cash, check or charge from the government in any odd term or "bailout" of any manner. ONLY Chrysler got a "bailout" in... 1980.

 

[Brent302]

I really wish adding someone to ignore completely blocked them through quotes and from them seeing responses. Oh well can't avoid nonsense I guess

Sponsored