2015+ GT350 Mustang official power specs: 526 HP / 429 LB-FT!

[Hack]

Why does Ford do so.. average on torque numbers? GM has been crushing them for decades now with the LSx motors. Not trolling, just curious. The base camaro v8 will have more torque than this motor, not that I think the LS3 will be a better engine, it's just an interesting trend.

If you want to discuss pickup engines, then your comments make some sense.

Do you want to compare towing of Ford's 213 cubic inch V6 versus Chevy's 376 ci V8?

Sponsored

 

[MadCow]

Why does Ford do so.. average on torque numbers? GM has been crushing them for decades now with the LSx motors. Not trolling, just curious. The base camaro v8 will have more torque than this motor, not that I think the LS3 will be a better engine, it's just an interesting trend.

As others have said, it's the displacement. If you are curious what modular motors are capable of in a cube to cube comparo check the 2013 engine masters challenge. In the modular motors first year of eligibility 3 mod motors swept the podium with an LSX motor in 4th. And before that it's worth mentioning Jon Kasse has won multiple years with a Ford 400 (ya know the one nobody wants) motor.

So after 2013 you think the mod motors were eligible? Matter fact mod motors are ineligible this year and LS motors have their own class. There are so many GM faithful out there that anytime a non GM product rises to the top the rules are bound to change. It's about the money. If a GM can't compete you lose 80% of your field. This isn't new. It's been goin on in motorsports for decades.

Here's some links for you

http://www.hotrod.com/events/coverage/1309-2013-amsoil-engine-masters-challenge-final-results/

Now when do you think that 6.2L Ford motor is gonna make an appearance in the EMC? Not sure if it's legal or not. But if Kasse builds one with a long stroke I am 90% certain it will run roughshod all over the EMC.

I posted it in another thread but I like this vid

[ame]

 

[Alkhater]

Why does Ford do so.. average on torque numbers? GM has been crushing them for decades now with the LSx motors. Not trolling, just curious. The base camaro v8 will have more torque than this motor, not that I think the LS3 will be a better engine, it's just an interesting trend.

OHV motors tend to be more torquey than OHC motors but usually don't rev as high.

 

[Johnb-5.0]

OHV motors tend to be more torquey than OHC motors but usually don't rev as high.

2015 GM ohv 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 355 hp at 5600 383 lb-ft of torque @ 4100 rpm. 2015 Ford f150 DOHC 5.0 385 hp at 5750 387 lb-ft at 3850 rpm

 

[Trackaholic]

OHV motors tend to be more torquey than OHC motors but usually don't rev as high.

It's not OHV that makes them more torquey, it's that they are larger displacement.

-T

 

[krt22]

And they have to be large displacement since they can't rev as high, otherwise they would be absolute dogs.

 

[Alkhater]

2015 GM ohv 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 355 hp at 5600 383 lb-ft of torque @ 4100 rpm. 2015 Ford f150 DOHC 5.0 385 hp at 5750 387 lb-ft at 3850 rpm

That's my point. OHV torque is more dominant where as in OHC and DOHC motors especially tend to be more peaky.

I'm not saying that this is the determining factor but a general influence when comparing the two.

 

[Hack]

That's my point. OHV torque is more dominant where as in OHC and DOHC motors especially tend to be more peaky.

I'm not saying that this is the determining factor but a general influence when comparing the two.

You did see that the Ford engine in the comparison was smaller but yet made more torque, right?

You can design and build a DOHC motor to be torque dominated and have low horsepower for the number of cubes. Just make smaller cams and smaller ports.

Performance engines tend to be more peaky. But GM using old fashioned cam-in-block technology is limited, especially by emission regulations. SO the engines they are designing are more what you might choose to put in a pickup or maybe a large passenger car like a station wagon. Big cubes, lazy, good torque but very limited breathing on the top end. Boring to drive. Not really a performance oriented engine build. Not that you can't make a pushrod engine perform - it's just hard to do it and meet emissions.

Ford has chosen a better design that allows better breathing and more power from fewer cubic inches. Very fun to wind out and feel the power keep growing and growing..

 

[nametoshowothers]

That's my point. OHV torque is more dominant where as in OHC and DOHC motors especially tend to be more peaky.

I'm not saying that this is the determining factor but a general influence when comparing the two.

Not sure what u are saying

The ford motor in example with similar displacement produces more torque and more power

Quite simply the ohc engines have better breathing, better control over the breathing and more rpm. So the engineers can now make more torque, more power or some compromise. The valve train is more robust, offers wider variety of cam profiles and more valve area while maintaining low rpm mixing and idle.

The negative is more parts and slightly larger physical size. But weights of the engines have shown no significant extra weight as per much debated engine posts in the past.

So the only argument for chevy or dodge ohv motors is you get more displacement in slightly smaller package but generally an inferior engine. Since basic engine is inferior, they make up with cubic inches to remain competitive

Not that it really matters except on Internet forums as it is the complete car that really matters




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alkhater]

Not sure what u are saying

The ford motor in example with similar displacement produces more torque and more power

Quite simply the ohc engines have better breathing, better control over the breathing and more rpm. So the engineers can now make more torque, more power or some compromise. The valve train is more robust, offers wider variety of cam profiles and more valve area while maintaining low rpm mixing and idle.

The negative is more parts and slightly larger physical size. But weights of the engines have shown no significant extra weight as per much debated engine posts in the past.

So the only argument for chevy or dodge ohv motors is you get more displacement in slightly smaller package but generally an inferior engine. Since basic engine is inferior, they make up with cubic inches to remain competitive

Not that it really matters except on Internet forums as it is the complete car that really matters

I'm not disagreeing with you and I understand the benefits of OHC motors.

I'm also not saying that OHV make more torque than OHC motors of similar displacement. What I am saying is that usually torque is the most dominant characteristic in an OHV motor. This is even shown in the example a couple of posts ago.

 

[Alkhater]

You did see that the Ford engine in the comparison was smaller but yet made more torque, right?

You can design and build a DOHC motor to be torque dominated and have low horsepower for the number of cubes. Just make smaller cams and smaller ports.

Performance engines tend to be more peaky. But GM using old fashioned cam-in-block technology is limited, especially by emission regulations. SO the engines they are designing are more what you might choose to put in a pickup or maybe a large passenger car like a station wagon. Big cubes, lazy, good torque but very limited breathing on the top end. Boring to drive. Not really a performance oriented engine build. Not that you can't make a pushrod engine perform - it's just hard to do it and meet emissions.

Ford has chosen a better design that allows better breathing and more power from fewer cubic inches. Very fun to wind out and feel the power keep growing and growing..

Yes... growing and growing = DOHC = peaky. Flat toque = OHV.

I'm out.

 

[ForTehNguyen]

DOHC can have flat torque curves. The drawback of FPC is it has weaker low end torque than an equivalent CPC because its firing every 180* instead of the CPCs every 90*

 

[ihc95]

Yes... growing and growing = DOHC = peaky. Flat toque = OHV.

I'm out.

DOHC engines can't have flat torque curves? LOL

E92 M3 stock dyno

 

[Trackaholic]

DOHC can have flat torque curves. The drawback of FPC is it has weaker low end torque than an equivalent CPC because its firing every 180* instead of the CPCs every 90*

Both types of V8 engines have 8 cylinders firing every two revolutions (or 720 degrees). Therefore both types fire every 90 degrees. FPC tends to have less low end because they are optimized for power, which means maximizing torque at high RPM. They are also typically smaller than traditional American V8s.

-T

 

[w3rkn]

OHC or DOHC and debating torque curve, etc.

Please understand it is pointless argument, because most engines have VARIABLE cams (Vanos, etc), meaning the engineers can draw up whatever TQ characteristic they like/want. Eek out near optimal use.

In many applications "Flat" is desired, so these such engines come stock with flat. But that is where sophistication comes into the argument VS pushrod.

Sponsored