2017 Ford Mustang will outperform Chevy Camaro in every way

dystopic said:

Your Poopness,

Can I just point out that there is a lot of f*cked up humor in seeing a guy who calls himself poopsh*ts discussing holes and pushrods?

Click to expand...

There's all kinds of shit going on in this thread. Mr. Shit, bullshit, rivalries shitting on each other... shit.

After just dropping $600 plus on Master brake cylinder and components and then immediately taking the SUV to the dealership for a busted motor mount, water pump and two recalls covered under warranty I'm none too happy with Chevy right now..

That would have been a serious tab to come out of pocket for a 2012 car with about 50k miles on it....Get your act together Chevy!

thePill said:

:lol:

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

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

Click to expand...

Power per liter? Since when are these Honda forums? I don't remember talking about the B18? I thought ppl arguments were laughed out of contingency long ago?

HP/tq curves, bsfc. These are the important variables.

I admit I havent paid attn to weight. On the other hand, anyone plot cg's of the 2 engines since we're picking nits?

Cost? These are mass produced engines assembled by machines and used in trucks for christs sake...not worthy of discussion.

AFM? I'm not fond of it, but there are a shitload of cars out there w/ 200k+ miles w/ no issues.

The intake pushrod hole, guide, pathway, passage in the LS3 was moved over 0.24 of an inch to increase airflow.

Click to expand...

An anus is not a vagina. What you call things is VERY important. Also, pretty sure it was the valve that got moved, as the 821 heads I've worked on use an offset intake rocker. Moving pushrods can introduce funky issues w/ geometry.

Here's the way I see it...the Coyote was Ford's response to the LS2 and LS3. The 4.6 stuff was woefully inadequate. The LS's are going away, and the LT raises the bar again...big torque, reasonable power from the factory, w/ loads more a simple cam swap/spring change and exhaust system away. I'm waiting for Ford's mass-produced answer...the Voodoo sure ain't it.

DiMaio said:

I want someone with a F*CK TON of money to put an LS3 and/or and LT1 into a mustang and see which car performs better. Or put a Coyote into a Camaro.

Click to expand...

Not sure a Coyote can fit in a Camaro. On the flipside, LS engines are in EVERYTHING. I thought it would be entertaining to do just what you're suggesting, LS3 into a wrecked V6. I'm surprised it hasn't been done by anyone yet. I can almost guarantee there's one out there somewhere being built as we speak. Just like LS engines in Fox Mustangs at the drag strip...best engine, meet best chassis. Good luck finding one where everything else is stock, however.

I was thoroughly impressed w/ the 5.0 in a Boss I considered buying, but couldn't make myself love the retro styling. Recently drove a new GTPP and it felt sluggish and boring...powershifting through 3rd just felt tame and lazy. Suspect it's just too heavy and not enough low rpm/total torque...same reason I was turned off by the 96 Cobras when they came out. Even w/ the 3.73s that some laughably think are 'too low', the speedo just didn't sweep as fast as I expected it to. Automatic might have given a different impression...but then the converter masks the inadequacies of the engine...

Herr_Poopschitz said:

Power per liter? Since when are these Honda forums? I don't remember talking about the B18? I thought ppl arguments were laughed out of contingency long ago?

HP/tq curves, bsfc. These are the important variables.

I admit I havent paid attn to weight. On the other hand, anyone plot cg's of the 2 engines since we're picking nits?

Cost? These are mass produced engines assembled by machines and used in trucks for christs sake...not worthy of discussion.

AFM? I'm not fond of it, but there are a shitload of cars out there w/ 200k+ miles w/ no issues.



An anus is not a vagina. What you call things is VERY important. Also, pretty sure it was the valve that got moved, as the 821 heads I've worked on use an offset intake rocker. Moving pushrods can introduce funky issues w/ geometry.

Here's the way I see it...the Coyote was Ford's response to the LS2 and LS3. The 4.6 stuff was woefully inadequate. The LS's are going away, and the LT raises the bar again...big torque, reasonable power from the factory, w/ loads more a simple cam swap/spring change and exhaust system away. I'm waiting for Ford's mass-produced answer...the Voodoo sure ain't it.



Not sure a Coyote can fit in a Camaro. On the flipside, LS engines are in EVERYTHING. I thought it would be entertaining to do just what you're suggesting, LS3 into a wrecked V6. I'm surprised it hasn't been done by anyone yet. I can almost guarantee there's one out there somewhere being built as we speak. Just like LS engines in Fox Mustangs at the drag strip...best engine, meet best chassis. Good luck finding one where everything else is stock, however.

I was thoroughly impressed w/ the 5.0 in a Boss I considered buying, but couldn't make myself love the retro styling. Recently drove a new GTPP and it felt sluggish and boring...powershifting through 3rd just felt tame and lazy. Suspect it's just too heavy and not enough low rpm/total torque...same reason I was turned off by the 96 Cobras when they came out. Even w/ the 3.73s that some laughably think are 'too low', the speedo just didn't sweep as fast as I expected it to. Automatic might have given a different impression...but then the converter masks the inadequacies of the engine...

Click to expand...

So efficiency isn't a respectable trait of an engine?

The Coyote vs. LT1 debate was over weeks ago.

It's not nit-picking if a baseless statement is thrown out here as fact. You said better in everyway yet everyway I just mentioned doesn't support your baseless comment.

I can't believe someone who's so adamant on OHV superiority can be so ignorant to its function. Yeah, they moved the valve and valve only you _______ ___ __ _____!!!!!

Notice the pushrod guides, or, as you suggested the scientific name, the pushrod "holes".


ALL LS3's have an offset intake rocker... because the VALVE remained in place. The PUSHROD GUIDE (as in the hole in the casting that guides operation) was moved over a 1/4 of an inch. The pushrod position in the head was moved, the rocker was offset to accommodate.


I highly doubt you ever had an engine open IF YOU THOUGHT THEY ONLY MOVED THE VALVE. The valve can't move you wiener. Let me run over this one more time... Moving the pushrod is bad because it messes with "Geometry' (Ya' know, pushrod geometry). BUT, you assumed GM took the easy route and moved the intake valve in essentially the same CC chamber?

I'm not an engine guy... and I know that's not correct...

Do me a favor, don't post again please...


Note the thin Cathedral style ports on the LS2. The LS3's redesign allowed a more LS7/LSX type port.



Pushrod guides clearly present here...

thePill said:

Rob, I have a serious question, for anyone really.

How does this DI issue go undetected, unreported, throughout the last how many years and multiple manufacturer QC and R&D?

Did they not notice the globs on the valves at 20,000 miles?

Is Full-Throttle testing hiding this design flaw in testing? Does full-throttle or continious operation help control this event so it goes undetected or, mitigated in testing somehow?

Click to expand...

I'm sure it was noticed by the MFRs, but if all it does is reduce power a little, they probably figured it wouldn't be an issue many would care about.

With today's emphasis on fuel economy, going DI with a turbo gives you the ability to run a high compression ratio for improved efficiency at low load, while having great power when needed. I think it was just too difficult to resist, and in many cases probably works fine.

I do think the idea of the combined port injection and DI is a great way to go, and would prefer an engine with that confit rather than going pure DI.

Incidentally, I read an article that stated DI is actually bad for harmful emissions. It creates much worse particulates during cold starts than a port injected engine. I thought that was interesting.

-T

Shakooza said:

After just dropping $600 plus on Master brake cylinder and components and then immediately taking the SUV to the dealership for a busted motor mount, water pump and two recalls covered under warranty I'm none too happy with Chevy right now..

That would have been a serious tab to come out of pocket for a 2012 car with about 50k miles on it....Get your act together Chevy!

Click to expand...

Sounds like my neighbors. In the last four months one dumped her two-year-old Equinox after a multitude of problems and went back to Honda, and another punted his lemon of a three-year-old Silverado for a new Dodge.

I haven't had a GM vehicle in over a decade, and I think I'll just continue that streak....

Trackaholic said:

Incidentally, I read an article that stated DI is actually bad for harmful emissions. It creates much worse particulates during cold starts than a port injected engine. I thought that was interesting.

-T

Click to expand...

NOx emissions can go up due to the higher combustion chamber temperatures afforded by DI. The main benefit of DI is the ability to run leaner a/f ratios without detonation because the fuel is only in the chamber when it is needed. Leaner mixtures run hotter, and once to a specific temperature(1,250f IIRC) NOx emissions go up which are more difficult for cats to scrub out.

Strokerswild said:

Sounds like my neighbors. In the last four months one dumped her two-year-old Equinox after a multitude of problems and went back to Honda, and another punted his lemon of a three-year-old Silverado for a new Dodge.

I haven't had a GM vehicle in over a decade, and I think I'll just continue that streak....

Click to expand...

I have never owned a GM vehicle since I started drive at the age of 15/16. So 30 years and I don't see that trend changing:ford:

Todd15Fastback said:

I have never owned a GM vehicle since I started drive at the age of 15/16. So 30 years and I don't see that trend changing:ford:

Click to expand...

Your not missing anything.

Our last Camaro wrecked last season in AS here at Pitt. It has never been the same since... In my opinion, the '99-'02 SS/Z28 was the best performing Camaro overall. Strip, street, track...and in my case field ;)

I started young with a series of 3rd Gen Camaro's and Firebirds, all considered highly disposable and cheap to maintain (until TPI came along and alienated me from engines). That is where I started seeing Fox Body domination. It didn't take long for me to start comparing the two.

I was invited to Ford island to test the 2010 SS and V6. The drastic change from the previous Gen (although Gen 3 was hardest to look at) kinda bothered me instantly. The sheer size of it shocked me.

It's been about 15 years since a Camaro was built worthy of this hobby. Before that, the Camaro was pretty much silent since 1969.

Chevy just isn't involved enough for me to be interested.

thePill said:

Our last Camaro wrecked last season in AS here at Pitt. It has never been the same since... In my opinion, the '99-'02 SS/Z28 was the best performing Camaro overall. Strip, street, track...and in my case field ;)

I started young with a series of 3rd Gen Camaro's and Firebirds, all considered highly disposable and cheap to maintain (until TPI came along and alienated me from engines). That is where I started seeing Fox Body domination. It didn't take long for me to start comparing the two.

I was invited to Ford island to test the 2010 SS and V6. The drastic change from the previous Gen (although Gen 3 was hardest to look at) kinda bothered me instantly. The sheer size of it shocked me.

It's been about 15 years since a Camaro was built worthy of this hobby. Before that, the Camaro was pretty much silent since 1969.

Chevy just isn't involved enough for me to be interested.

Click to expand...

The f body is tons better then current camaro offerings. I havent respected a camaro since.

ridenfish39 said:

We had intake valve cleaning parties in the Mazdaspeed world. A meth kit helped with the carbon build up. You wouldn't believe how bad the valves looked after 20 to 30 k miles. DI....no thanks unless they put in a secondary port injection system to keep things clean.

Click to expand...

I work at a dealer that sells new and preowned german cars. The build up in the DI engines from bmw and audi are HORRIBLE. I personally work at bmw, but the audi techs are right next to me. I don't care who makes it, if its a gasoline DI, I wont buy it. DI technology has a long way to come in gasoline engines. Ill leave a few links below.







The dyno shows how much it lowered the power in only 24,000 miles.

http://www.audiboost.com/showthread...orsepower-after-034Motorsport-carbon-cleaning




http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/06/direct-injection-fouls-some-early-adopters.html

That is just to give an idea how flawed DI is currently. Subaru has gone to this in their Wrxs 2.0T and the Forester XT for 2015. People have seen build up as soon as 7500 miles. We charge at my dealer for walnut blasting, roughly 700-$1200. While not all dealers are suggesting the intervals we are currently (15-20k). The pros of Di are quickly outweighed by the cost right now. Any savings you see at the pump goes toward paying for that cleaning.

*EDIT* With that said, euro cars are unreliable piles of trash if its been made in the past 20 years or so.

thePill said:

I can't believe someone who's so adamant on OHV superiority can be so ignorant to its function.

Click to expand...

I've never once said OHV was superior, just LT1 vs Coyote.

Notice the pushrod guides, or, as you suggested the scientific name, the pushrod "holes"

ALL LS3's have an offset intake rocker... because the VALVE remained in place. The PUSHROD GUIDE (as in the hole in the casting that guides operation) was moved over a 1/4 of an inch. The pushrod position in the head was moved, the rocker was offset to accommodate.

Click to expand...

Sorry, late night. Wasn't thinking straight. Meh, it happens. :shrug:

It's still not a guide. It doesn't 'guide operation'. There is no contact made. Nothing sophisticated here. It's just a hole, passage, whatever...but def not a 'guide'. The pushrod has two points of contact in which the crippling strength is calculated, there are no supports on the side. If it were a guide, it would have to have somekind of liner that would be replaceable due to wear, like what's seen at the valve stems. No liner, not a guide.

The valve can't move you wiener. Let me run over this one more time... Moving the pushrod is bad because it messes with "Geometry' (Ya' know, pushrod geometry). BUT, you assumed GM took the easy route and moved the intake valve in essentially the same CC chamber?

Click to expand...

Valves can be moved anywhere they fit in different combinations of sizes. Many times guides are pressed out, their holes are welded up and remachined in other locations to get around class rules. Custom rockers are only a phone call away. "Can't move"

I like how I mention pushrod geometry in my previous post and now you're talking about it...introducing it as new info you're 'schooling' me on, in fact. Awesome.

Todd15Fastback said:

I have never owned a GM vehicle since I started drive at the age of 15/16. So 30 years and I don't see that trend changing:ford:

Click to expand...

Man... I think everyone should go through 2 things before being really turned loose on our roads in America: #1, attain a Class A CDL. It teaches respect for the road and others on it, having to lumber along slowly almost everywhere you go.
#2, own some older GM product. It helps teach how to work on cars. :lol:

thePill said:

Chevy just isn't involved enough for me to be interested.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you think so. I mean, I simply don't like the 5th gen because it's too bulky and I cannot see properly out of it from any seated position, plus it felt much to heavy for me. That aside, I feel that Chevy has been deeply involved. You can buy just about any kind of upgrade you'd think of for a Camaro... right through a dealer.

mustang_guy said:

The f body is tons better then current camaro offerings. I havent respected a camaro since.

Click to expand...

In what way? It's lighter and that's pretty much where the advantages abruptly end. I cannot, honestly speaking, think of a single F-body advantage aside from weight. It's slower, less powerful, has an overall weaker engine, less than stellar handling, a totally weak rear, garbage interior(at very least, in comparison) and generally, it falls apart sooner. You could say it has the advantage of outward visibility... so I guess I thought of 1 more.

mustang_guy said:

That is just to give an idea how flawed DI is currently. We charge at my dealer for walnut blasting, roughly 700-$1200. While not all dealers are suggesting the intervals we are currently (15-20k). The pros of Di are quickly outweighed by the cost right now. Any savings you see at the pump goes toward paying for that cleaning.

Click to expand...

Those pics are NASTY! :doh:

Part of why I specifically skipped on the 3.5L EB is that I knew of these buildup issues... to some degree, anyway. Those pics look even worse, but whatever. I'm truly wondering if the 2.7L will have the same problem and if it does, when I replace my 5L, it will be with ... another 5L! On the other hand, I may just buy used and save money as well as get something I can toy with, w/o concern for damage.

DI is still expensive and clearly, expensive to maintain! I like the advantages, but personally, I can see why it isn't so great too and am glad I got rid of my own.