5.0 Engine
03-02-2010, 12:23 PM
#61
03-02-2010, 12:41 PM
#62
Drifting
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: Prescott AZ
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-02-2010, 01:13 PM
#63
Le Mans Master
True it is better for a road course. However, you could do a lot better then both for a course. The Challenger & Camaro have the edge in styling and, word of mouth for now. Amazing just how crazy people are over the Camaro as it has been out for some time. At the Chicago auto show one of the most attended auto shows in the nation people were waiting in line to sit in and, take pictures of the Camaros as the Mustangs sat with hardly a soul around them. Soon when the Z/28 gets the 556 HP engine the king of stock muscle will be Chevy.
03-02-2010, 02:37 PM
#64
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Happiness is Busch in Victory Lane!
Posts: 13,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '09 & '12, '14
What everyone fails to miss is the title of this thread.
Forget Weight and HP #'s... They are secondary to the Marketing Machine about to occur around the "5.0"
The 5.0 is legendary in Mustang History and many will buy just to say they got the 5.0 version.
We will have the rebirth of Ford vs Chevy we had in the late 80's!!!
Forget Weight and HP #'s... They are secondary to the Marketing Machine about to occur around the "5.0"
The 5.0 is legendary in Mustang History and many will buy just to say they got the 5.0 version.
We will have the rebirth of Ford vs Chevy we had in the late 80's!!!
03-02-2010, 04:10 PM
#65
Drifting
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Central Jersey, Union County N.J.
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
but it got me from point A to B and through the winter and it had a Fact/Stk 400 cu in motor. After that i've owned a few rust buckets. My point is after finally owning several performance cars i've learned how to appreciated them and what each one has to offer.
Last edited by chazc6; 03-02-2010 at 08:20 PM.
03-02-2010, 04:19 PM
#66
Drifting
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Central Jersey, Union County N.J.
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
Amazing.... I like cars...especially American muscle type cars. So to me a Mustang's a pretty nice car & I'd consider buying one. I also like Camaro's & Challengers too. Now, that being said, they're are not Corvettes. But, what is? I'm glad they came out with a new engine. However, the main reason is competition forces everyone to get better. The next Vette will probably have a 5.5 liter 450 HP small block in it. It just goes on & on...and that's actually a good thing. 
If the Fords cost more (like the C4 ZR1's & the Northstars did) then they won't survive. I think Ford learned & profited from GM on that as well.
PS as far as GM & Ford sharing!? Here's a trivia tid bit for you. I owned a 64 GTO with an all syncro 3 speed manual on the floor tranny. Blew the gears one day back then when hit an ice patch. Had a heck of a time getting another 3 speed. Why? Because it was a Ford trans. Pontiac used them a the standard GTO 3 speed in the 64,65 & 66 GTO's.
If the Fords cost more (like the C4 ZR1's & the Northstars did) then they won't survive. I think Ford learned & profited from GM on that as well.
PS as far as GM & Ford sharing!? Here's a trivia tid bit for you. I owned a 64 GTO with an all syncro 3 speed manual on the floor tranny. Blew the gears one day back then when hit an ice patch. Had a heck of a time getting another 3 speed. Why? Because it was a Ford trans. Pontiac used them a the standard GTO 3 speed in the 64,65 & 66 GTO's.
You have any pics of your 64 GTO.
Last edited by chazc6; 03-02-2010 at 08:21 PM.
03-02-2010, 05:49 PM
#67
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,247
Received 5,444 Likes
on
2,270 Posts
I think Ford's new 5.0 looks like an interesting engine. There are advantages and disadvantages of overhead cam designs, and advantages and disadvantages of overhead valve (cam-in-block) design.
By the way, those who keep bringing up the "high tech" "low tech" "modern" "outdated" terms when talking about OHC v. OHV might consider OHC is old tech.
History
The first DOHC engines were two valve per cylinder designs from companies like Fiat (1912), Peugeot (1913), Alfa Romeo (6C- 1925, 512 - 1940), Maserati (Tipo 26, 1926), and Bugatti (Type 51, 1931).
Which also corresponds with the time frame OHV engines began going mainstream as well.
One isn't "newer" or "higher" tech than the other. They are simply different tech, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Travis.
By the way, those who keep bringing up the "high tech" "low tech" "modern" "outdated" terms when talking about OHC v. OHV might consider OHC is old tech.
History
The first DOHC engines were two valve per cylinder designs from companies like Fiat (1912), Peugeot (1913), Alfa Romeo (6C- 1925, 512 - 1940), Maserati (Tipo 26, 1926), and Bugatti (Type 51, 1931).
Which also corresponds with the time frame OHV engines began going mainstream as well.
One isn't "newer" or "higher" tech than the other. They are simply different tech, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Travis.
03-02-2010, 07:10 PM
#68
Le Mans Master
Sorry, the only picture is an old blurred one. However, it was midnight blue with a light blue buckets & a white top ( it was a convertable) . I had chrome wheels with baby moons & I traded it in on a brand new 68 Roadrunner after I got rear ended by 2 kids in a 65 Corvette no less. Many many moons ago my friend...
03-02-2010, 07:39 PM
#69
Drifting
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Central Jersey, Union County N.J.
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
Sorry, the only picture is an old blurred one. However, it was midnight blue with a light blue buckets & a white top ( it was a convertable) . I had chrome wheels with baby moons & I traded it in on a brand new 68 Roadrunner after I got rear ended by 2 kids in a 65 Corvette no less. Many many moons ago my friend...
Last edited by chazc6; 03-02-2010 at 07:43 PM.
03-02-2010, 09:47 PM
#70
Race Director
The fuel mileage is similiar, but only because of the much lower displacement.
still get 25-30 mpg like my Vette then I might be impressed. Just my .02.
Last edited by vvv90; 03-02-2010 at 10:10 PM.
03-02-2010, 10:20 PM
#71
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Conroe Texas
Posts: 35,242
Received 865 Likes
on
608 Posts
CI 1-4-5-8-9-10 Vet
St. Jude Donor '03,'04,'05,'07,08,'09,'10,’17
It won't fit in the present C6 Corvette - maybe. I don't think you want to be telling any engineer that something can't be done. Any major engine redesign for the Corvette will most likely come with the next generation. That is not to say a 5.5L will come sooner, but if built on the same LS platform, that is not a major redesign.
Huh? I'm not telling GM Engineers (some of the finest automotive engineers period) anything.
Another common misconception is that DOHC engines are "high tech", but OnPoint reveals an often overlooked fact.
History
The first DOHC engines were two valve per cylinder designs from companies like Fiat (1912), Peugeot (1913), Alfa Romeo (6C- 1925, 512 - 1940), Maserati (Tipo 26, 1926), and Bugatti (Type 51, 1931).
Which also corresponds with the time frame OHV engines began going mainstream as well.
One isn't "newer" or "higher" tech than the other. They are simply different tech, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Travis.
The first DOHC engines were two valve per cylinder designs from companies like Fiat (1912), Peugeot (1913), Alfa Romeo (6C- 1925, 512 - 1940), Maserati (Tipo 26, 1926), and Bugatti (Type 51, 1931).
Which also corresponds with the time frame OHV engines began going mainstream as well.
One isn't "newer" or "higher" tech than the other. They are simply different tech, with different advantages and disadvantages.
Travis.
03-02-2010, 10:23 PM
#72
Race Director
People also think Turbo's are high tech.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
History
The turbocharger was invented by Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi. His patent for a turbocharger was applied for use in 1905.[1] Diesel ships and locomotives with turbochargers began appearing in the 1920s.
The turbocharger was invented by Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi. His patent for a turbocharger was applied for use in 1905.[1] Diesel ships and locomotives with turbochargers began appearing in the 1920s.
03-02-2010, 11:48 PM
#73
Le Mans Master
When i was in high school i was luckly enough to drive the family station wagon to school and on dates, can you imagine trying to be cool in a full size station with wood paneling on the side but it got me from point A to B and through the winter and it had a Fact/Stk 400 cu in motor. After that i've owned a few rust buckets. My point is after finally owning several performance cars i've learned how to appreciated them and what each one has to offer.
but it got me from point A to B and through the winter and it had a Fact/Stk 400 cu in motor. After that i've owned a few rust buckets. My point is after finally owning several performance cars i've learned how to appreciated them and what each one has to offer.
03-03-2010, 08:09 PM
#74
Team Owner
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Conroe Texas
Posts: 35,242
Received 865 Likes
on
608 Posts
CI 1-4-5-8-9-10 Vet
St. Jude Donor '03,'04,'05,'07,08,'09,'10,’17
Turbos are used to compensate for a small, er, ahh, ahumm, displacement
While turbos make a GREAT addition to an existing engine (i.e. aftermarket power adder), for a clean sheet design - OEM, I'll take a big motor with it's low end TQ, simpler design, (less maintenance, less to fail) any day. Now, add a turbocharger to that, and you got something.
However, to start with a smaller engine and add a turbocharger, or 4 V DOHC heads to it in order to put it on equal footing with the larger displacement engine which is physically smaller, cost less to build, has better fuel economy, and costs less to maintain - is silly.
Now it would be considered "cool", trendy, advanced, hi tech, evolved, european, etc, but it is still silly and inferior to the larger, NA, pushrod engine.
03-03-2010, 08:13 PM
#75
Le Mans Master
Turbos are used to compensate for a small, er, ahh, ahumm, displacement
While turbos make a GREAT addition to an existing engine (i.e. aftermarket power adder), for a clean sheet design - OEM, I'll take a big motor with it's low end TQ, simpler design, (less maintenance, less to fail) any day. Now, add a turbocharger to that, and you got something.
However, to start with a smaller engine and add a turbocharger, or 4 V DOHC heads to it in order to put it on equal footing with the larger displacement engine which is physically smaller, cost less to build, has better fuel economy, and costs less to maintain - is silly.
Now it would be considered "cool", trendy, advanced, hi tech, evolved, european, etc, but it is still silly and inferior to the larger, NA, pushrod engine.
As usual old friend.
03-03-2010, 08:29 PM
#76
Drifting
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Central Jersey, Union County N.J.
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
03-04-2010, 04:33 PM
#79
Le Mans Master
