High Powered Pushrod technology is better than High Powered Quadcam Technology

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by gmkila

for f@!k sake all i am sayin is i'd rather drive an old xy than any of those cars i know i'm not goin around a corner any where near as quick as them but i dont care u cant beat old muscle

If you had said quarter mile to begin with there would have been no confusion. To assume makes an *** out of u and me. _2:

Besides, some of the XYs do circulate rather well, and with the right car it's easy to corner and lap faster than the mentioned cars, even with a pushrod powered car.

[gmkila]

cool well i mean 1/4 mile

[seXCmont]

Im with gmkila, old muscle all the way. theres quite a few aftermarket mods out these days and I think a track old muscle falcon will soon be lived.
the right brake suspension setup to get the power to the ground and your laughing.
Old Muscle all the way.
I also think this thread is getting a waste of time because with all these facts people are throwing out and countering its still going to come down to preference and what you truly live for, whether it be the aussie or US old school style big cube 8s or newer technology based european style.

[sleekism]

Just have to make a point that more valves doesn't mean more power, Yamahas have 5 valves and don't necessarily make more power and don't get me started on the Honda N500 8 valve per cylinder that didn't appear to be that succesful due to their complexity.

I think SOHC 2 valve is probably lineball with OHV as OHV engines are now considering fitting VCT to their single camshaft in the block but the ability of DOHC to vary both intake and exaust valves thus allowing better airflow will prove the winner.

And for those who claim OHV can be really smooth just look at the evolution of the 250ci to the Barra now, sure the 250 crossflow was a pretty smooth engine and revved well but the Barra190 simply blows you away

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Just have to make a point that more valves doesn't mean more power, Yamahas have 5 valves and don't necessarily make more power and don't get me started on the Honda N500 8 valve per cylinder that didn't appear to be that succesful.

I think SOHC 2 valve is probably lineball with OHV as OHV engines are now fitting VCT to their single camshaft in the block but the ability of DOHC to vary both intake and exaust valves thus allowing better airflow will prove he winner.

And for those who claim OHV can be really smooth just look at the evolotion of the 250ci to the Barra now, sure the 250 crossflow was a pretty smooth engine and revved well but the Barra190 simply blows you away

4 valves per cylinder is superior to both 2 and 5 valve per cylinder as far as curtain area is concerned.

[Falc'man]

The only good thing going for the LS7 I think would be that it weighs 6kg more than the upcoming 4.0L V8 in the M3 (310kW?)... Sure specific power is low (55kW/L) compared to the BM's 75kW/L but mass (or the lack thereof) has to count for something. And then the torque...
It seems GM have decided to take this route simply for the reason it can put more out with less mass and compactness. It may be working for them now, but what are they going to do when Fomoco unleashes its OHC Hurricane in a couple of years... release a 10L big block?

[sleekism]

I thik 55 kw per litre in the BOSS is quite remarkable considering it doesn't have VVT. Some may consider the BOSS hi tech but DOHC without QIVCT is a huge waste.

I think this has probabl been raised before but QIVCT would be a great help to the BOSS.

Remember that the BOSS is easily capable of 300 plus kw figures but FPV preferred to fatten up the torque curve and thus it got 290kw.

If Ford fits QIVCT to the BOSS than they will be able to push huge power figures without sacrificing low down torque

[madmelon]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

They weren't all naturally aspirated either.

750kg is bloody heavy. That's about half a family car and almost twice a race car!

The point wasn't if they were naturally aspirated or how heavy they are- it's that they're both OHC.

Anyway...how long do people think there will be arguments like this when the following technology is available...?

http://www.sturmanindustries.com/mai...eActuation.htm
(watch the video)

http://www.valeo.com/automotive-supplier/Jahia/pid/1468
(take note of last line in writeup)

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=0910

[Falc'man]

Sleekism, the Boss's quadcam setup is old architecture, so to have them take vct wouldn't be viable. (I'm no expert on that matter, but thats what I read somewhere).
But you're right when you consider the specific power, its pretty good... When it was released it put out more power and torque than Mercs 5.4 VCT 3V (which was released about the same time). Pity it weighs so much.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Sleekism, the Boss's quadcam setup is old architecture, so to have them take vct wouldn't be viable. (I'm no expert on that matter, but thats what I read somewhere).
But you're right when you consider the specific power, its pretty good... When it was released it put out more power and torque than Mercs 5.4 VCT 3V (which was released about the same time). Pity it weighs so much.

Error.
Just checked the power ratings of the Merc's 5.4 and it pulls 285kW@6000rpm and 530Nm@2800-4800rpm, a little more torque and at a broader rev range than the Boss290. Sorry for the misinformation. Like someone before mentioned, its the "area under the curve" which counts most.

[merlin]

I'll take a small-mid capacity turbo DOHC car anyday, over an ancient big displacement pushrod V8 that chews threw fuel like no tomorrow. You can read manufacturers paper fuel figures all you want but in the real world I wouldn't even be able to afford the fuel for an LS7, and there in lies the big advantage of DOHC. You see all I care about is the real world and driving a fast car to work everyday, not race tracks or big old muscle cars that are so fragile you can only take them out once a year...

GM use capacity to compensate for their lack of forward progress, it will bite them in the a$$ soon enough.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by madmelon

The point wasn't if they were naturally aspirated or how heavy they are- it's that they're both OHC.

Anyway...how long do people think there will be arguments like this when the following technology is available...?

http://www.sturmanindustries.com/mai...eActuation.htm
(watch the video)

http://www.valeo.com/automotive-supplier/Jahia/pid/1468
(take note of last line in writeup)

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=0910

And radial engines are pushrod. So what?

Knowing these kinds of forums, the arguements will still persist even when camless engines are on the market.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by merlin

big old muscle cars that are so fragile you can only take them out once a year...

Hey cumon,old muscle cars are anything but fragile,in fact the older they are the longer they seem to last.
sure they suck fuel like its free,and they dont have todays standards of creature comforts,but since when have they been anything but utterly reliable?
I didnt think anyone could seriously think that???

[seXCmont]

Nuggets right on that one. My old XC is more reliable than my bosses old car and his mates cars which are over 20 years younger(found that out the hard way, should have taken the XC down). I use my Xc as a daily everyday and its fair unfortunate but its out in the weather aswell, and its seats are more comfortable than my dads AU series 3.

[mr_xr8]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Awesome.
I still stand by my more working parts, more problems theory.

so by this statement all piston engines are no good compared to a rotary

[ratter]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Out of curiosity, do you know whats the quickest unopened LS1/2?

11.0 in a ute that weighs 1360 kg (APS Frankston) and the next best is 11.4 (I think) from another comm (GM Motorsport)that weighs 1400 kg (their BOSS class regulated weight), but the LS1 replace valve springs and still class them as unopened so I'm not sure what the quickest time is for one using original springs, but that's another argument in it self

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by merlin

I'll take a small-mid capacity turbo DOHC car anyday, over an ancient big displacement pushrod V8 that chews threw fuel like no tomorrow. You can read manufacturers paper fuel figures all you want but in the real world I wouldn't even be able to afford the fuel for an LS7, and there in lies the big advantage of DOHC. You see all I care about is the real world and driving a fast car to work everyday, not race tracks or big old muscle cars that are so fragile you can only take them out once a year...

GM use capacity to compensate for their lack of forward progress, it will bite them in the a$$ soon enough.

Not really..........

GM have been able to re engineer their dinosaur tech PUSHROD V8 to outperform the BOSS Quadcam in terms of fuel efficiency despite the bigger capacity ??

I'm not entirely convinced that the QUADCAM multivalve technology is all that relevant in the BIG capacity V8 application. It seems easier to extract performance from CAPACITY and weight reduction ( alloy composition ) rather than fandangling around with multivalve applications.

I understand the theory behind applying multivalve, multicam efficiencies to smaller capacity engines as it increases the breathing capacity and engine flexibilty in high revving examples, far beyond standard , but it just doesn't seem to translate that well into the larger capacity engines......thus far..........not sure why ???????

Perhaps it needs to be matched better with the overall engineering. The BOSS is NOT a high revving V8 so maybe it ain't utilising the best that the multivalve technology has to offer. Could be a mismatch ???

[Piotr]

Originally Posted by ESP

Perhaps it needs to be matched better with the overall engineering. The BOSS is NOT a high revving V8 so maybe it ain't utilising the best that the multivalve technology has to offer. Could be a mismatch ???

I think thats the major problem with the BOSS. It has a nice good flowing head but doesn't use its capacity to flow. Its also pretty basic as far as DOHC engines go, give it a better bore/stroke ratio, some more revs, and Variable Valve timing and you have a much better engine. But then again that adds cost and weight.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by nugget378

Hey cumon,old muscle cars are anything but fragile,in fact the older they are the longer they seem to last.
sure they suck fuel like its free,and they dont have todays standards of creature comforts,but since when have they been anything but utterly reliable?
I didnt think anyone could seriously think that???

Yeah I didnt mean to bag the old muscle cars (came across that way though), just trying to make a point, that hey I would love to own one, but realistically you couldnt drive one to work everyday (not that this has much to do with OHC vs OHV anyway).

[merlin]

Originally Posted by ESP

Not really..........

GM have been able to re engineer their dinosaur tech PUSHROD V8 to outperform the BOSS Quadcam in terms of fuel efficiency despite the bigger capacity ??

I'm not entirely convinced that the QUADCAM multivalve technology is all that relevant in the BIG capacity V8 application. It seems easier to extract performance from CAPACITY and weight reduction ( alloy composition ) rather than fandangling around with multivalve applications.

I understand the theory behind applying multivalve, multicam efficiencies to smaller capacity engines as it increases the breathing capacity and engine flexibilty in high revving examples, far beyond standard , but it just doesn't seem to translate that well into the larger capacity engines......thus far..........not sure why ???????

Perhaps it needs to be matched better with the overall engineering. The BOSS is NOT a high revving V8 so maybe it ain't utilising the best that the multivalve technology has to offer. Could be a mismatch ???

My point was I wasn't comparing it to the BOSS I was comparing it to mid size DOHC turbo's ala XR6T, STi, 911 ect.

[sleekism]

Has anybody removed the rev limiter on the BOSS? What can it safely rev to?

My INTECH VCT is a traditional long stroke engine and seems to almost slam into the rev limiter, I have heard rumours of people removing the rev limiter on the Barra and it making huge amounts of power higher up in the Rev range.

My main question is whether with stronger reciprocating parts eg. forged pistons would the BOSS be able to rev even higher and thus create more horsepower?

I'm starting to think that while the BOSS is an awesome engine it's two generations old stemming from the early 90's and maybe FPV should let the Typhoon leapfrog the GT as Ford Oz appears to invest more into their engines than Ford NA

[ratter]

The power level on the boss does not really increase much past the factory limiter with an unopened motor, but unlike some motors where to power falls off quickly, it will hold the power steady (maybe a small or jump or 2) at revs higher than than the limiter, which allows later gearchanges which will have the car shifting and keeping more into the power range of the motor

[GT 4eva]

IMO i think ford should bring back the 351 in an all alloy motor, they had a ICON of an engine that was pure magic!!!. Then they bring out a 260kw BOSS motor(which sounds awesome and goes hard) cast iron motor that makes no sense to me way to heavy and effects the handling way too much. When this motor first come out in the BA i thought fianally we will flog these holdens but the 5.7 all over it, and once again we had to rely on the XR6T to beat them(just like the XR6's before it). Ford please stop pussy footing around and give us a V8 Ford lovers want and need.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by ratter

11.0 in a ute that weighs 1360 kg (APS Frankston) and the next best is 11.4 (I think) from another comm (GM Motorsport)that weighs 1400 kg (their BOSS class regulated weight), but the LS1 replace valve springs and still class them as unopened so I'm not sure what the quickest time is for one using original springs, but that's another argument in it self

Wow so an unopened Boss is quicker than an opened Chev LS even with a distinct weight disadvantage to the Boss.
GO THE BOSS :sm_headba

[BadMac]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Out of curiosity, do you know whats the quickest unopened LS1/2?

This is the Top 10 fastest stock internal LS1 list with FI/NOS from LS1Tech

1. Catapolt - 9.641@141.??mph
2. The Juggernaut - 9.643@138.39mph
3. 1 Bad Z - 9.690@135.01mph
4. Gimp98tnt - 9.744@134.??mph
5. next - 9.78?@132.??mph
6. TwntrboCE - 9.85?@138.12mph
7. NOSWS6 - 9.89?@136.46mph
8. JustaZ - 9.93?@134.??mph
9. Jenibella - 9.948@136.63mph
10. Charles Cyrus - 9.979@132.67mph

Note before you moan, you asked for the fastest UNOPENED, NOT the fastest Unopened normally aspirated.

I'll find the NA ones in a minute, bit busy right now.

[Big Mike]

Why don't we start using superior technology?

This is 480 mm wide, 570 mm high, just over 1 metre long, weighs just over 60 kg, burns anything liquid you stick in it, preferably diesel.
It produces 235 kW @ 6,000 rpm and 575 Nm @ 1,500 rpm. The engine spins at 5.83 times the output shaft speed, has output shafts front and rear, burns everything almost completely and therefore is even better for the environment. And for the record, driving at 100 km/h means 30,000 hours between major services equates to about 3 MILLION kilometres.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by merlin

I'll take a small-mid capacity turbo DOHC car anyday, over an ancient big displacement pushrod V8 that chews threw fuel like no tomorrow. You can read manufacturers paper fuel figures all you want but in the real world I wouldn't even be able to afford the fuel for an LS7, and there in lies the big advantage of DOHC. You see all I care about is the real world and driving a fast car to work everyday, not race tracks or big old muscle cars that are so fragile you can only take them out once a year...

GM use capacity to compensate for their lack of forward progress, it will bite them in the a$$ soon enough.

You are basing your opinion in regards to fuel economy on what exactly?
Every test ive read backs up the claim it is great on fuel for what it is.
Even if you dont believe the manufacturers claim, Natural Resources Canada rates it at 14.3L/100km city, 8.2L/100km highway and 11.6L/100km combined.
Real owners are reporting similar results.

If you can find evidence that its a gas guzzler then by all means post it up.

[ratter]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Wow so an unopened Boss is quicker than an opened Chev LS even with a distinct weight disadvantage to the Boss.
GO THE BOSS :sm_headba

My pursuit is the quickest unopened Boss ( NA )and has only run 11.76 so it has not matched the quickest LS1 boys, but I raced at over 1700 kg

[ratter]

Originally Posted by BadMac

This is the Top 10 fastest stock internal LS1 list with FI/NOS from LS1Tech

1. Catapolt - 9.641@141.??mph
2. The Juggernaut - 9.643@138.39mph
3. 1 Bad Z - 9.690@135.01mph
4. Gimp98tnt - 9.744@134.??mph
5. next - 9.78?@132.??mph
6. TwntrboCE - 9.85?@138.12mph
7. NOSWS6 - 9.89?@136.46mph
8. JustaZ - 9.93?@134.??mph
9. Jenibella - 9.948@136.63mph
10. Charles Cyrus - 9.979@132.67mph

Note before you moan, you asked for the fastest UNOPENED, NOT the fastest Unopened normally aspirated.

I'll find the NA ones in a minute, bit busy right now.

I bet they are not using totally standard internals





Gauranteed all have had valve spring changes

[Rollin]

[img]hxxp://www.fordforums.com.au/attachment.php?attachmentid=32733[/img]

What is it? I want one! Actually...I want two.


P.S. Faling that, 4.0L I6 Turbo FTMFW