I recently watched a comparo of the LS3 and Coyote engines and it seemed that the Ford engine had literally no advantages. It's physically larger, it's heavier, it's less powerful, it's more expensive and it's not as efficient.
Is there some reason Ford doesn't just build a pushrod LS copy that I'm missing? Smoothness? An aura of "high tech?" Factory constraints?
Thats how its always been. Idk why but 5.0 vs gm 5.0 or 5.7? No comparison. Modular 4.6 vs lt1 or ls1 no comparison. Eras didnt match but ford 4.6 dohc vs gm dohc lt5? No comparison. Coyote is still a modular iirc and the newest lt1 is pretty awesome i think even still being a pushrod motor its amazing. Only reason the new 5.0 is so loved is because it makes great power for a ford.
Need to clear the air, if i was given the chance to buy a brand new car today it would still be a new mustang gt. Just saying the gms have always beaten them out. Fact of life
Yeah, it seems weird with Fords OHC/DOHC V8s. Like, in the mid nineties, I don't really understand how the 4.6 was in any way an improvement on the 5.0 and I can think of LOTS of ways it was worse. Like, it was humongous, heavy, no more powerful, a PIA to work on and the 5.0 in my mom's Explorer got better mileage than the 4.6 in my dad's T-Bird.
I mean, holy E36 M3 that's a huge engine with lots of complicated bits replacing a tiny engine with fewer complicated bits and almost the same capability.
Given all this, it seems odd Ford doesn't use pushrod V8s like GM and Chrysler do.
The only real area that the GM mill doesn't surpass the Ford engines is sound. Those Fords just sound better. Now put a big old nasty cam in one and they sound good, but stock for stock there is no doubt.
An old Ford engineer may or may not have told me about all the awesomesauce pushrod development they did in the 80s (things like crossflow 300 I6s and aluminum head 600ft/lb 460s that would meet emissions for decades) that was canned (along with some of the people pushing it) because it was decided by the higher up people that OHC was the way to go, in a hurry, hence the rather lackluster mod motor.
Nick (picaso) Comstock wrote: The only real area that the GM mill doesn't surpass the Ford engines is sound. Those Fords just sound better. Now put a big old nasty cam in one and they sound good, but stock for stock there is no doubt.
Agreed. There's a reason I now have a side-exit muffler delete on the Slamther. Still need to align my new panels, though. 
Especially given the Ford F1 V8s from 67-on among other things they have in their archives along with all of the development work in NASCAR, Indy, NHRA/IHRA, etc.
Weirdly, Ford's 4-cylinder efforts have seemed much more successful compared to GM's. The SVO, the XR4Ti, the Turbo Coupe, their collaboration with Mazda and their efforts in Trans-Am, GT and GTP racing among others.
Part of it is marketing -- to a lot of the world, pushrod engines are "antiquated" technology. Also, OHC engines have an advantage in specific power (power/displacement) and in a lot of other countries cars are taxed based upon displacement, so an engine that makes the same power at 30% less displacement has to pay less tax to those governments. It's also designed to share a lot of the manufacturing tooling with other OHC motors they make, so it was cheaper to produce than a unique pushrod engine.
None of these really matter to enthusiasts, but they do matter to accountants and car company executives.
because it makes for some great power gains when you add boost. The 5.4 was such a stout peice that the modular world record was run with a factory block and is faster then the billet block ls1 record. Is it as cheap or easy as an ls? Nope but its been proven over and over that an ohc engine is more effecient at making power.
-signed the guy who still prefers the windsor.
dropstep wrote: Nope but its been proven over and over that an ohc engine is more effecient at making power.
It depends on what kind of efficiency you're looking for.
OHC motors are better for specific power -- power per cc of displacement. The thing is, though, that's a figure that you really only care about for artificial reasons, either government regulations or race class rules. Pushrod motors usually have better power/weight and power/volume ratios, at least when you're talking about biggish V8s.
I own 3 DOHC motors (Miata, Odyssey, Audi), 1 pushrod (duramax) and one none-of-the-above (FD).
Funny thing is, when GM was designing the LS1 for use in the C5, they actually built two test mules, one with an all-new pushrod 5.7L V8 and one with an all-new DOHC 32V 5.7L V8. Then they had the press drive them and refused to let them look under the hood, or tell them what the drivetrains were. The press hands-down preferred the pushrod V8 and it then became the LS1
I like them both. However if money was no object I would love a whipple blower equipped coyote.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: Yeah, it seems weird with Fords OHC/DOHC V8s. Like, in the mid nineties, I don't really understand how the 4.6 was in any way an improvement on the 5.0 and I can think of LOTS of ways it was worse. Like, it was humongous, heavy, no more powerful, a PIA to work on and the 5.0 in my mom's Explorer got better mileage than the 4.6 in my dad's T-Bird.
That has been my impression of Fords modular engine from the time I first saw one. That thing is incredibly huge for its displacement. Like you, I just don't get it. Not at all.
It was the mod motor that started turning me away from Fords. I manage a small fleet of trucks and vans, and when the vans started turning up with the broken sparkplug issues that were an expensive PITA to fix, I started buying Chevys and haven't looked back.
One thing to consider also is that the LSX series mills are extremely well developed. One would be hard-pressed to improve upon them with a clean sheet pushrod design.
To consider the importance of development in engines, consider that when Harley Davidson changed from flathead to OHV on their racebikes, the OHVs were slower for the same displacement! The OHV team riders were pissed that privateers on flatheads were spanking them on the track. That changed of course, but it was remarkable how dialed-in they made that obsolete engine design.
foxtrapper wrote:DaewooOfDeath wrote: Yeah, it seems weird with Fords OHC/DOHC V8s. Like, in the mid nineties, I don't really understand how the 4.6 was in any way an improvement on the 5.0 and I can think of LOTS of ways it was worse. Like, it was humongous, heavy, no more powerful, a PIA to work on and the 5.0 in my mom's Explorer got better mileage than the 4.6 in my dad's T-Bird.That has been my impression of Fords modular engine from the time I first saw one. That thing is incredibly huge for its displacement. Like you, I just don't get it. Not at all.
The SOHC 4.6Ls are bigger than a Ford FE 427 and the DOHC 5.4Ls are physically larger than even the 90-day wonder, the Ford 427 SOHC Cammer. Now if you want to talk impressive Ford OHC engines, the 427 Cammer was one.
< Clarkson > Pushrod engines were invented by two men in a shed in 1827, and they have hardly advanced since then. < /Clarkson >
A little tid bit that doesn't make a difference here is that the architecture of the LS block is almost a direct copy of the modular Ford.
If you consider when these engines were developed, which is years before they were introduced, each manufacturer had to decide which way to go. Each took a different route, not knowing for sure what the future would bring. It turned out that GM ended up with the better design.
But Ford has always left something on the table with their engines to allow the aftermarket to pick up on. This isn't a totally bad idea, since they can stress their engines less for warranty purposes and let the aftermarket provide the gains the customer is looking for. They didn't design the Coyote block to withstand extreme boost because they didn't know any better.
bravenrace wrote: But Ford has always left something on the table with their engines to allow the aftermarket to pick up on.
GM has as well. I mean, when a tune, cam and intake change can find 100hp in some of the truck LSx's that's leaving a lot on the table IMO.
I should have said in comparison to GM. Meaning that Ford rarely puts out more power than a comparable GM, but its not because they can't.
bravenrace wrote: I should have said in comparison to GM. Meaning that Ford rarely puts out more power than a comparable GM, but its not because they can't.
Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense. 
I'm a pushrod fan, and I'll parrot what I understand, though it's already been said a few times
-For weird rules like tax per displacement, OHC is better
-For a while, DOHC was a "high-tech" thing
-with pedestrian crash laws, the dramatically lower hood afforded by a pushrod engine isn't as incredible
That's all I got.
In reply to DaewooOfDeath:
I recently picked up a 5.0 Fox body Mustang . One thing I noticed is that for a relatively small car with a relatively large engine, there is plenty of space in there to work and get to things. I've only done some basic work (alternator, belt, hoses, etc.) so far, but from looking at it all the front accessories, sensors, etc. seem pretty easy to get to.
I was also looking at early SN95's and asking prices clearly reflect a preference for the 5.0 over the 4.6 cars in my area.
codrus wrote: Also, OHC engines have an advantage in specific power (power/displacement) and in a lot of other countries cars are taxed based upon displacement, so an engine that makes the same power at 30% less displacement has to pay less tax to those governments.
Is this really relevant when you get up to V8 sized engines? When I think of displacement based car taxes I think of 660CC Kei cars.
You'll need to log in to post.
