[unkillsam]

Pictures say 1000 words, and not to veer this thread to ENGINES again. But the way you are typing, the Mustang will have to look like a F650, in order to fit a Coyote.

I think the hood line of the Mustang looks just fine, fitted with a Coyote. And if a Push Rod engines are truly superior for performance and packaging, Why does GM use OHC engines in all of their Compacts? Well Cars in general where space is an issue. While in trucks, where there is plenty of space they still use Push Rod engines?

Why does Ford's Technology allow it to match power curves with nearly 1/2 of the displacement? 3.5L verse 6.2?

I think you know the answers to all these questions. 4-cylinder engines only require 1 head as there is only 1 bank of cylinders. Also, large displacement 4-cylinders tend to run not so smoothly so clearly OHC is the way to go.

Secondly I really like your choice of word's "Ford's Technology" Direct Injection, Turbocharging, and smaller displacement is something Ford did not invent, plenty of other manufacturers had done the same thing before including GM. Ford just happened to attach a name to the technology and market the crap out of it.

Comparing the current 3.5 Ecoboost and the 6.2 V8, the 2016 Lincoln Navigator has the highest hp/tq ratings of all the Ford products using the 3.5L displacement Cyclone block. The Navigator makes 380 hp @5,250 rpms and 460 lb/ft torque at a very low 2,750 rpm. In 2WD configuration it get 16/22/18 mpg and can tow 9,000 lbs.

Now the GM competitor to the Navigator would be the Escalade. The Escalade has a 6.2L V8 that makes 420 hp at 5,600 rpms and 460 lb/ft at 4,100 lbs. In 2WD configuration the Escalade gets 15/22/17 mpg and can tow 8,300 lbs.

Now I would argue why do I need a V6 and twin turbochargers, which Ford claims improves fuel economy by 20% and reduced emissions by 15%, when in an objective comparison it's just about equal in most respects to a naturally aspirated V8. Ford has the edge for 2WD, but when you compare 4WD the GM K2xx trucks with 6.2L V8 beat the Ford EcoBoost products in highway mileage.

 

[bballr4567]

Why does Ford's Technology allow it to match power curves with nearly 1/2 of the displacement? 3.5L verse 6.2?

Did you REALLY just ask that?

 

[doh]

I think you know the answers to all these questions. 4-cylinder engines only require 1 head as there is only 1 bank of cylinders. Also, large displacement 4-cylinders tend to run not so smoothly so clearly OHC is the way to go.

Secondly I really like your choice of word's "Ford's Technology" Direct Injection, Turbocharging, and smaller displacement is something Ford did not invent, plenty of other manufacturers had done the same thing before including GM. Ford just happened to attach a name to the technology and market the crap out of it.

Comparing the current 3.5 Ecoboost and the 6.2 V8, the 2016 Lincoln Navigator has the highest hp/tq ratings of all the Ford products using the 3.5L displacement Cyclone block. The Navigator makes 380 hp @5,250 rpms and 460 lb/ft torque at a very low 2,750 rpm. In 2WD configuration it get 16/22/18 mpg and can tow 9,000 lbs.

Now the GM competitor to the Navigator would be the Escalade. The Escalade has a 6.2L V8 that makes 420 hp at 5,600 rpms and 460 lb/ft at 4,100 lbs. In 2WD configuration the Escalade gets 15/22/17 mpg and can tow 8,300 lbs.

Now I would argue why do I need a V6 and twin turbochargers, which Ford claims improves fuel economy by 20% and reduced emissions by 15%, when in an objective comparison it's just about equal in most respects to a naturally aspirated V8. Ford has the edge for 2WD, but when you compare 4WD the GM K2xx trucks with 6.2L V8 beat the Ford EcoBoost products in highway mileage.

Ok, explain V6's. Is it because they are shorter for transverse mounting? Then why not Push Rod for more compact head size? Or why not Flat Head, where you get both Smaller Heads and Compact Block size?

I would argue, that having 1/2 of your cylinders just going along for the free ride, isn't as efficient overall, as only having 3/4 of the cylinders in the first place.

 

[The Voice of Doom]

The narrower Vee angle of most V6 engines makes them appropriate for transverse mounting, regardless of cylinder head. Since they tend to be tilted forward the rear head sticks up to nearly vertical, which is typically where the hood peaks.

Flathead designs are woefully inefficient, because much of the energy released by ignition is wasted in the nook off to the side of the combustion chamber where the side valves live.

 

[doh]

Did you REALLY just ask that?

Ok, so I will use "Ford's use of Technology" Other than that though. Just as I would Call GM's approach, is "Use of Technology"

 

[doh]

Flathead designs are woefully inefficient, because much of the energy released by ignition is wasted in the nook off to the side of the combustion chamber where the side valves live.

I realize that. My question is, "When will the efficiency of OHV, and AFM really be questioned?" Yes Gasses escape and enter the same way, but the mechanics of the valve train changing direction 180 degrees, and 1/2 of the displacement just moving for when it is needed.

 

[The Voice of Doom]

Modern OHV engines get much of their efficiency from the fact that intake tech has advanced to the point that your cylinder head need not be perforated like Swiss cheese with valve ports. These days DI tech does such a good job of metering fuel and deciding how much (and how often!) it should be injected per combustion event that DOHC has less of an advantage.

In terms of NVH, the two OHV V8 engines out there have the preferred Vee angle already, and the sheer number of reciprocating parts ensure that any unpleasant vibrations are lost in the shuffle anyhow. In any event, it's not exactly like DOHC is immune to these issues: C/D were rather critical of the 5.2 Voodoo's NVH characteristics in their review of the Shelby 350 GT.

 

[The Voice of Doom]

(I'll add that variable valve timing is a big help as well in this regard)

 

[JBsZ06]

Do we really need a discussion regarding ohv v8 engines from gm versus dohc turbo charged v6 engines in a thread about a cooperative venture of GM s and fords ten speed automatic transmission?

The transmission and joint venture are an exciting aspect today's American brands working together to take on the worlds best.


I can't wait to hear the test drives of the 10 speed automatic ZL1.

I doubt I'll get a chance to test drive one for quite some time.

I think the ten speed automatic if done correctly as Mark Reuss stated in one of the videos would be a reason to buy the ZL1 over the 1LE 6 speed manual...

I'm sure the raptor will be excellent with the ten speed automatic too.

I'm not really a performance pickup truck buyer yet I admire what ford has created.

 

[The Voice of Doom]

The latest thread on the ZL1 has as its source a report that GM did all the design work for the 10-speed. If true then it probably means Ford was tasked with castings, calibration, and durability work.

 

[doh]

The latest thread on the ZL1 has as its source a report that GM did all the design work for the 10-speed. If true then it probably means Ford was tasked with castings, calibration, and durability work.

Which would be a good thing, I heard second hand, twice removed. That Ford had figured out a programing issue with the JV Transverse 6 speed, before GM, which is why they debuted it earlier than GM.

And also, is not the JV 6 speed, the tranny with Wave Plate problems in Traverses,etc?

What both companies could use is a Dual Clutch Transverse. The Getrag that Focus, Fiesta uses is very problematic.

 

[Extreme4x4]

So you extrapolated that from one little line in the one article that mentions that GM engineered the 10-speed.............. completely ignoring all of the reports that Ford took the lead on the 10-speed??

I am sure that GM had engineering input on the transmission, just as Ford did on the 9-speed, so they can each claim engineering on both trannies.

 

[The Voice of Doom]

So you extrapolated that from one little line in the one article that mentions that GM engineered the 10-speed.............. completely ignoring all of the reports that Ford took the lead on the 10-speed??

Alrighty then.

There's no extrapolation. That's flat-out what the reporter said.

Makes sense too, when you think about it. If Ford wants the EB Raptor to be bulletproof, then bolting in prototype 10-speeds for a coupla years ought to do the trick.

 

[07SIERRA]

The truth about cars had an article on it and he even states Ford took the lead on it http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/12/exclusive-inside-look-fords-new-10-speed-transmission/

 

[The Voice of Doom]

So... you have your source and I have mine. That's ok.

More importantly from a product point of view is that GM will quite possibly be the first to use the thing. It's possible that the Mustang GT will get it in the summer but given that the Caamro already has eight ratios as is, it's not likely to close the performance gap too much.

Elsewhere, certain supposed Ford insiders were talking about some kind of extended period where Ford would have exclusive use of the transmission. The ZL1 would seem to put a dent in his cred, if nothing else.

 

[07SIERRA]

So... you have your source and I have mine. That's ok.

More importantly from a product point of view is that GM will quite possibly be the first to use the thing. It's possible that the Mustang GT will get it in the summer but given that the Caamro already has eight ratios as is, it's not likely to close the performance gap too much.

Elsewhere, certain supposed Ford insiders were talking about some kind of extended period where Ford would have exclusive use of the transmission. The ZL1 would seem to put a dent in his cred, if nothing else.

The article in the link I posted, the patents for certain things in the actual design of this transmission were filed by Ford themselves. If GM was the one designing it I would imagine GM would of filed them...it's OK for you to believe GM did it but we gave pretty good proof Ford did it or most of it. Ford can design and engineer many different things to you know,not just GM

 

[unkillsam]

Ok, explain V6's. Is it because they are shorter for transverse mounting? Then why not Push Rod for more compact head size? Or why not Flat Head, where you get both Smaller Heads and Compact Block size?

I would argue, that having 1/2 of your cylinders just going along for the free ride, isn't as efficient overall, as only having 3/4 of the cylinders in the first place.

OK. Like you said 90% of V6 engines are transversely mounted. They are also, for the most part, 60 degree V, so they are already more compact then a 90 degree V. Now if you wanted to use a 90 degree V like the Buick 3.8, you pay for that in NVH, levels I don't think acceptable in 2016.

You can argue about which technology is more efficient all you want, but by using objective comparison between 2 competing products such as the Escalade and Navigator, it's not that hard to figure out that Ford's claim of 20% increased FE and 15% reduction in emissions are not born out by objective EPA testing.

 

[unkillsam]

Do we really need a discussion regarding ohv v8 engines from gm versus dohc turbo charged v6 engines in a thread about a cooperative venture of GM s and fords ten speed automatic transmission?

The transmission and joint venture are an exciting aspect today's American brands working together to take on the worlds best.


I can't wait to hear the test drives of the 10 speed automatic ZL1.

I doubt I'll get a chance to test drive one for quite some time.

I think the ten speed automatic if done correctly as Mark Reuss stated in one of the videos would be a reason to buy the ZL1 over the 1LE 6 speed manual...

I'm sure the raptor will be excellent with the ten speed automatic too.

I'm not really a performance pickup truck buyer yet I admire what ford has created.

I thought the discussion relevant. As a GM fan in general, and a big fan of the LS/LT motor, i am concerned about this level of co-operation between Ford and GM. What if this leads to sharing engine technology where the only difference is in tuning, just like the transmissions? I don't want a GM version of EcoBoost in Silverado or Corvette.

And still I want to know why Ford took the lead on development when GM has demonstrated with the 8L90 that they have superior tech right now compared to what Ford offers.

 

[JBsZ06]

The car makers will tend to use individual motors while transmissions are much less likely to be seen by consumers as a deciding factor...

See how ZF is being used by so many brands...

The discussion of ohv versus dohc has been beat to death...besides we all know GM engineering is superior to ford!