Tired of hearing 5.0 all over this Forum

[cbass]

Originally Posted by Stew

You are totally missing the point......... I don't give a flying rats ass about hp per liter, just the HP a motor is capable of. Again, you are only comparing the base 5.0, what about the boss 5.0? And why do you keep going to turbo 6s, small high revving 9000 rpm 4 cylinders that make no torque, it really isn't comparable, yes using that logic it may have 480 HP, but 200 pound feet of torque, not even in the same ballpark., at least keep it V8 to V8. the point is the 5.0 is not only challenging the LS3 in HP, but isn't too far off with torque and it is not running anytype of power adder. now if you want to really get into scematics, BMW had a 400 HP 5 liter V8 in 2000......

Actually you are missing my point. Why are you only focusing on displacement?

The mustang GT makes 30 less peak torque. The Boss 302 makes 40 less peak torque. Depends if you want to call that challenging or not.

Look at the powerband charts though. From 3K rpm to below the LS3 is making around 75 more tq. Maybe a little more or a little less. From 3500-5000 rpm the LS3 retains a torque advantage of 30-40. From 5000-6300 rpm the torque advantage starts dropping from around 25 to equal at 6300 rpm. The redline on the LS3 comes 300 rpm later at 6,600 rpm.

It manages to do this without DOHC, without VVT, without 4 valves/cylinder, and without high rpm. Isn't it more impressive that a pushrod engine with 1 cam, no direct injection, no vvt, and 2 valves per cylinder is able to do that against what you call a more modern engine? Yet it suffers no penalty for the extra displacement? Not in weight. Not in space it takes up in the engine compartment. Not in fuel economy.

The Boss engine is an impressive engine, but it is essentially a high rpm, hand built engine with ported heads from the factory. What are hand built LS3's able to make compared to the boss 302's? You talk about it being unfair to compare to a high revving engine, but yet the boss 302 is just that. It makes peak power at 7400 rpm with a redline of 7500 rpm.

I also assume you are going to say the LS7 is not fair to bring up either because of displacement? Although it makes 505 hp from it's 2 valve design with a redline of 7100 rpm.

Even more confusing is you are impressed with Ford's 6.2L V8 with 2 valves per cylinder and no VVT making 412 hp, but brush off GM's 6.2L v8 with 2 valves per cylinder and not VVT making 426-436 hp based on application?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by cbass

Actually you are missing my point. Why are you only focusing on displacement?

The mustang GT makes 30 less peak torque. The Boss 302 makes 40 less peak torque. Depends if you want to call that challenging or not.

Look at the powerband charts though. From 3K rpm to below the LS3 is making around 75 more tq. Maybe a little more or a little less. From 3500-5000 rpm the LS3 retains a torque advantage of 30-40. From 5000-6300 rpm the torque advantage starts dropping from around 25 to equal at 6300 rpm. The redline on the LS3 comes 300 rpm later at 6,600 rpm.

It manages to do this without DOHC, without VVT, without 4 valves/cylinder, and without high rpm. Isn't it more impressive that a pushrod engine with 1 cam, no direct injection, no vvt, and 2 valves per cylinder is able to do that against what you call a more modern engine? Yet it suffers no penalty for the extra displacement? Not in weight. Not in space it takes up in the engine compartment. Not in fuel economy.

The Boss engine is an impressive engine, but it is essentially a high rpm, hand built engine with ported heads from the factory. What are hand built LS3's able to make compared to the boss 302's? You talk about it being unfair to compare to a high revving engine, but yet the boss 302 is just that. It makes peak power at 7400 rpm with a redline of 7500 rpm.

I also assume you are going to say the LS7 is not fair to bring up either because of displacement? Although it makes 505 hp from it's 2 valve design with a redline of 7100 rpm.

Even more confusing is you are impressed with Ford's 6.2L V8 with 2 valves per cylinder and no VVT making 412 hp, but brush off GM's 6.2L v8 with 2 valves per cylinder and not VVT making 426-436 hp based on application?

My point is that the small displacement makes the 5.0 every bit as impressive as the LS3, you said it was iverrated, it is not. it does what is advertised and then some and has been shown that a LOT is left on the table from the factory. Not to mention that how versatile it is to be used in the GT, the Boss, and the F-150 successfully with just minor changes. The point is that you are trying to make the LS3 seem like such a better engine when it is simply isn't, both are great and just go about their business in different ways.

[DaBears]

This thread has gotten ridiculous and should be shut down

[cbass]

Now if you want to see a really impressive v8 with vvt and 2 valves per cylinder, then all you have to do is look at the 6.4L Hemi. Look at the torque advantage throughout the powerband compared to a LS3. I actually don't think it's as great as that chart shows because the the LS3 line is wavy, which implies that it was pulling timing for some reason. But the difference between the two is significant no matter what. Imagine how much torque the coyote 5.0 would give up compared to the 6.4L Hemi when it gives that much against the LS3.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by cbass

Now if you want to see a really impressive v8 with vvt and 2 valves per cylinder, then all you have to do is look at the 6.4L Hemi. Look at the torque advantage throughout the powerband compared to a LS3. I actually don't think it's as great as that chart shows because the the LS3 line is wavy, which implies that it was pulling timing for some reason. But the difference between the two is significant no matter what. Imagine how much torque the coyote 5.0 would give up compared to the 6.4L Hemi when it gives that much against the LS3.

Can't argue with that, the 6.4 Hemi does unnatural things haha. Can't wait until the stick the 8 speed auto behind that beast.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by cbass

...
The Boss engine is an impressive engine, but it is essentially a high rpm, hand built engine....

There is nothing "hand built" about the Boss 302 engine. It goes down the same assembly line that the "regular" 5.0 does (the Essex Engine Plant in Ontario).

You have some good arguements/points, but when you make statements like this (and the cam statement you made yesterday), you really start to lose credibility.

Highly recommend checking facts before you post something as....well...a fact.

[Sax1031]

give me high rpm horsepower + gear and you can keep the torque.

with the way most people talk about torque around here I can't for the life of me figure out whey they are not running diesels in their vehicles.

[upflying]

Five-O is slang for cop.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

There is nothing "hand built" about the Boss 302 engine. It goes down the same assembly line that the "regular" 5.0 does (the Essex Engine Plant in Ontario).

You have some good arguements/points, but when you make statements like this (and the cam statement you made yesterday), you really start to lose credibility.

Highly recommend checking facts before you post something as....well...a fact.

I will agree that the motors are not "hand built". I was exaggerating. I will concede to that. The roadrunner, however, gets special attention that a typical mass produced engine typically does not and that is it gets cnc ported heads. I think Ford claims an additional 2.5 hours of work on the heads. This is something typically done by an aftermarket head porter.

The VVT I never claimed allowed duration changes. I said that with tuning the VVT it could be the equivalent of a cam swap in a LS3 motor. Here is where you got nit picky. I understand that the VVT in the coyote can only adjust overlap and not lift or duration, but lift adjustments in a stock head don't always result in extra hp. It depends if the lift it optimized for the head flow already or not. If it is, then extra lift without additional porting to the heads can up with with no extra power. If it is not for whatever reason, then there is power to be found with additional lift. I think the VVT overlap adjustment crosses the line into a LS3 cam swap with certain limits and it can be done without opening the motor.

It depends on if people are touching the VVT in these tunes. I don't know the answer to that.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by cbass

..fThe VVT I never claimed allowed duration changes. I said that with tuning the VVT it could be the equivalent of a cam swap in a LS3 motor. Here is where you got nit picky. I understand that the VVT in the coyote can only adjust overlap and not lift or duration, but lift adjustments in a stock head don't always result in extra hp. It depends if the lift it optimized for the head flow already or not. If it is, then extra lift without additional porting to the heads can up with with no extra power. If it is not for whatever reason, then there is power to be found with additional lift. I think the VVT overlap adjustment crosses the line into a LS3 cam swap with certain limits and it can be done without opening the motor....

We'll agree to disagree on this one. An LS3 does need any head work to pick up BIG power with a cam change. Sure, changing the cam timing is a big benefit for the 5.0, but not even close to the same league as doing an LS3 cam swap (btw...my Vette has an LS3, and I literally just got off the phone with MTI concerning cam/intake/exhaust mods).

And yes, tuners are most certainly changing cam timing in the 5.0s.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

We'll agree to disagree on this one. An LS3 does need any head work to pick up BIG power with a cam change. Sure, changing the cam timing is a big benefit for the 5.0, but not even close to the same league as doing an LS3 cam swap (btw...my Vette has an LS3, and I literally just got off the phone with MTI concerning cam/intake/exhaust mods).

And yes, tuners are most certainly changing cam timing in the 5.0s.

It gets tricky there because then you have to try to find out what has the biggest effect on power on your cam changes for a particular engine. Was it the lift, duration, or overlap or any combination of those? You could have changed the lift and duration, but maybe the extra lift gave you nothing and it was all duration. It's honestly hard to pinpoint it without more testing as different engines respond differently and one engine may respond well to extra lift while another may not.

[Bob Cosby]

LOL. Ok. I'm new to this engine stuff, so thanks for the education.

Have a nice day!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

LOL. Ok. I'm new to this engine stuff, so thanks for the education.

Have a nice day!

lolol

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by cbass

Why waste time on the coyote? The S2000 motor in the Honda's made 120 hp/L naturally aspirated and it was only a 2L 4 cylinder. At 4 L it would have been 480 hp and that's still 1L smaller than the 5L on the mustang with half the cylinders!

Originally Posted by cbass

Even more confusing is you are impressed with Ford's 6.2L V8 with 2 valves per cylinder and no VVT making 412 hp, but brush off GM's 6.2L v8 with 2 valves per cylinder and not VVT making 426-436 hp based on application?

All horsepowers are not created equal. How they are delivered matters, too. Again, the level and flatness of the LS3 torque curve is more impressive to me than its horsepower. The S2000 has no torque. It may be rated 240 hp, but I bet it doesn't feel like it. Similar problem with comparing the Ford 6.2L and LS3. The LS3 has more a little more horsepower, but the Ford actually has a little more torque.

Ultimately, I don't like simply comparing engines by looking at horsepower. Different engines have different purposes, and are thus set up differently to do different things. I had a chance to drive a Scion FR-S last week. 200hp sounds impressive, but it only had 151 ft-lbs and not until 6400 RPM. In other words, it has a very steep, sharp power peak at the very end of its RPM range. Just driving around normally, my 170hp Alero felt more potent in comparison. However, because it falls off quickly about 5000 RPM, the Olds would lose badly in any actual race...again, different engines, different strengths.

Originally Posted by cbass

Now if you want to see a really impressive v8 with vvt and 2 valves per cylinder, then all you have to do is look at the 6.4L Hemi.

Was the 6.4 Hemi on that dyno chart stock? If it was, Chrysler has waaaay underrated it at 470. To make 450 RWHP, it would have to be around 525 at the very least.

Originally Posted by Sax1031

give me high rpm horsepower + gear and you can keep the torque.

with the way most people talk about torque around here I can't for the life of me figure out whey they are not running diesels in their vehicles.

Just different philosophies, I guess. I believe that torque matters, because I drive on public roads, not on race tracks. When driving on public roads, you rarely use horsepower, you use torque. I run at 1900 RPM on the interstate, not 6000 and above.

And I actually do like diesels. I'm holding off on deciding what my next daily driver will be until after the Cruze diesel comes out and I can look at it. My family recently bought a VW TDI wagon (replaced a Ford Edge). I can tell you, that diesel with its 140 hp is surprisingly strong, whereas the Edge with its 265 hp felt constantly bogged down in almost all situations.

I just drove it 4000 miles out west in the mountains on a vacation. It has plenty of passing power (usually without having to shift), and cruises at speed and climbs hills better than any V8 powered car I've ever driven. On the highway, There wasn't a single hill on the whole trip it couldn't easily climb in high gear. Trust me, torque matters.