engineermike

So, since it doesn't match your criteria of being an existing production engine in a car and cheap to build then it can't be done? As far as I can tell, this whole thread is about what can be done not about what has been done already. Do you really lack that much vision?

Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it's not "real world".

. . . and the 5.4 4v hands the LS1 it's *** also. 113 in the quarter bone stock. If you're going to insist that the NA 4.6 just downright sucks and "missed the boat" because the LS1 "hands it it's ***", then be prepared for me to point out a smaller displacemnt mod motor that "hands the LS1 its ***". I'm sure you don't like that comparison. Who on LS1tech would. . .

I'll address your other null points later...

Mike

engineermike

4.6 2v gas mileage > 5.4 2v
4.6 4v power > 5.4 2v
4.6 4v gas mileage = 4.6 2v
It is physically possible to put a shorter rear gear in a vehicle along with a taller OD to get the same top gear rpm.

These are facts. Please connect the dots. I re-ordered them to make it easier to understand.

These facts prove my point. The 4.6 4v is EQUAL or MORE hp than the 5.4 2v, has less TQ, greater mileage, and can be geared to go just as fast. And please don't say that putting a 4.11 rear gear will kill the mileage. I think even you, deep down, understand that they have the ability to put a taller OD in the tranny. . .

I bring up bikes because they do all the things you say are not real-world and can not be done.

- Weight is extremely competitive.
- Size is extremely competitive.
- Power is extremely competitive.
- Cost is extremely competitive.
- You say torque doesn't matter, but they have a better torque/weight ratio than just about any car.
- They made the transition from 2v to 4v back in the early '80's.

I think it's extremely applicable since we're seeing the same basic market demands in cars now.

Mike

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I can't believe the sh*t that comes out of this guy's mouth. He just keeps digging himself in deeper. Now the ford mod motors pwn the LS1 N/A?

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Can be. Isn't. Example: FAILED. And yes: gears = bye bye gas MPG. 'Specially since Fords only had 5 speeds.

It doesn't matter because they have enough already at that weight. The concern is adding more top end. Thus, OHC. Simple, really.

Stang's Bane

iTrader: (22)

You have to show me this 5.4 that traps 113 NA. I really want o see it??

Jhankinson

iTrader: (1)

I am still trying to figure out how he compares an LS1 to a 4.6l. If we wanna talk equal...compare the 4.6 to the 4.8. Or the 5.4 to the LS1. I agree...the 4.6 and the 5.4 arent the greatest motors and I think ford could have done better. But they are purpose built. Ford is known for assembly line ease...so they make a modular motor...it fits what THEIR company wants. GM's LSx series motors fit what they see they want. But in the real world...we may not like it...so dont buy it. I mean yes...its an LSx website...so most here are partial to LS1...but lets keep it level. Factory motors... Not a 7.0 Performance derived LS7 to a 4.6l modular multi purpose motor. Its like comparing an LS2 to a 6.0l truck motor...same basic idea...dif goals. HP/L willl always be a tricky thing to deal with. Emmissions and Longevity of use will always come into play. Millions of factors in many ways. And many say the smog laws would kill muscle cars..nah...it just hesitated for a moment...but I think now we are better of because of those times. Forces companies to rethink how to get EFFICIENT GOOD power. I am hoping the HP/L will go up in the real world...but I myself want to see it done freindly to the consumer and the future.

B T

>>>
Seeing how it needs 3 shifts and 4 gears to do that already....


I really want to see it do that with an automatic 4 speed ( I'll let mike choose the proper gearing for the trans ) with no crazy stall , something in the 2:73 final drive gear range so that it will still have the ability to have a theoretical TOP SPEED of 220 MPH in forth gear.
So mike would really have to watch how he gears that over drive gear ( 4th )

How's that for some gearing Mike?

Get out that abacus and do the gear reduction on that one.
Maybe if you gear it down correctly you can still have a good 1/4 mile, 1/2 half mile and 1 mile TIMES with good MPH and still put down over 25 MPG



I think I just killed a kitten, my bad!

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

You've missed my entire point. You don't compare equal displacement. You compare equal size/weight. Ability to cram displacement into a small place is a performance feature. If you compare like displacement, you miss this point. The 4.6 is already bigger and heavier than the LS1. And the 5.4 is even bigger and heavier than that. It's simply not a fair comparison... for the ls1!.

I never did that. HE did however, try to compare the hand-built 5.4 Cobra R motor to the mass produced LS1. I've always compared like to like.

whiteghost

iTrader: (2)

I'm suprised the cady N* motor hasn't been brought up more in this debate. 4.6L DOHC 275-320 hp NA and it will deliver 25+mpg highway in 4000lb vehicles.

engineermike- some people can just never be wrong no matter how well you explain concepts to them (black knight) . It should be obvious that extracting higher hp levels from a constant displacement would indicate a better performing engine, but some folks just can't extract themselves from their overemotional envolvement with certain brands and designs. Luckily evolution does a pretty good job of weeding them out of the reproductive population.

DanO

Yup, he (black knight) wouldnt make it a day in the automotive engineering world.. well i take that back.. i've met far too many engineers just like him.. focused on one aspect without seeing the big picture.. or any picture besides thier own..

Krom

How any one can say the ford mod motor wasn't a failure is beyond me, the people who design and build it know its junk, but need to pay down R&D and tooling costs. It was designed to save money, by using many of the same parts, tooling, and assy line to build everything from an econo v6 to a high perf V8 for cars(both fwd, and rwd) trucks, vans etc. The project ended up way over budget, and way short of goals.

Just look and the class action law suit that ford lost because of the poor performance of the cobra, a car that was advertised to make 320 hp, but only made 256 at the tires, while the 320 hp LS1, made 296.
Mod motor= big heavy POS

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

Here, I'll say it. The Ford motor was not a failure. Because though it may not have been an LS1, people still cut the checks for a 4.6 Mustang. GM can't exactly say the same, as nobody bought F-bodies, whether they had a LS1 or L36. There's a reason the Mustang is still being built.

dakkrin

needed a better marketing department, completely unrelated to performance

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Higher HP from constant displacement takes L out of the equation. HP/L without changing L just equals HP. No need for ricer math.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

It was a failure. People bought the Mustang. The Mustang succeeded in spite of the mod motor, not because of it. Vice versa the fbody and the LS1. Are you prepared to say otherwise?

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Nice cliche. Bet you can't back it up, though. What exactly am I focused on to the exclusion of the big picture?

Krom

The V6 mustang far outsold the 4.6 (I believe it was almost 3:1), and the sales of said V6 mustang are why the car stayed alive. The mustang was an easier to live with day to day, it was soft, had high upright seats, and a bigger trunk, (good girls car) while the F body was a sports car, smaller trunk, lower to the ground, harder to get in and out of (not a good girls car)

DanO

You dont realize there is more than one way to design an engine. You are stuck in your own mentalitiy of a single engine can be perfect for all applications if it makes alot of power and is lightweight. What about sacrificing weight for efficiency or trying to give a certain "feel" to a vehicle. Or that addding weight can possibly increase the efficiency

Look at diesel engines, fairly heavy.. but BSFC's in the mid/low .3 lb/hp-hr range. I'd love you to show me a gasoline engine that can do that all day, at peak torque none the less!!

Or you can get insanely high HP/lb with a formula 1 engine, but have a horribly annoying torque curve for street driving

Or you can have our LS1 which is decent for a mid sized car but not particularily light for its power, but it has an acceptable torque curve for street driving. If you think the LS1 is even remotely close to the best engine you are very narrow minded and have spent too much time on this site.

Basically, you fail to see why we have so many different engines in the world, Peak numbers dont mean crap.

Most importantly, if you can increase the efficiency and power density of a given displacement, you can always reduce weight and then you can do a study on durability vs weight and how long you truly want the engine to last.

You fail to see there is more than one way to skin a cat (another cliche for you)

And im sure you cant be as dumb as you come across...after this long, i am sure youre arguing for sheer entertainment value.

dakkrin

gm seems to be doing great, from the lt1,ls1, ls2, ls7...each is better than the last and gets good mpg, they're accomplishing exactly what needs to be done
you can think hp/l all you want but when you do you always have to consider other factors
power-weight ratio is usually the final outcome

B T

but have a horribly annoying torque curve for street driving

>>>




noise maybe?