OK which do you think is better and of course why. No bashing please just answers w/ some fact behind them.
Choices are the GM Gen IV small block or the latest Ford batch of Mod motors.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447
the 3v 4.6 needs bolt-ons+ported heads+tune to make as much power to the wheels as a corvette ls1 stock. and the ls motor weighs a buttload less, takes up less space under the hood, and still makes more torq with above comparison. more poeple may like the mustangs, but as far as the motor, they are still trying to catch up.
imo, they should of kept perfecting the windsoe instead of make the move to the mod motor. they would be quicker today becouse of it
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
when you beat someone in a civic people wine and make excuses
when you beat someone in a cavalier they pull over and check under thier hoods
^^ I have to agree, and I'm a ford guy.
One thing I will say is that the new 3V apparently responds VERY well to bolt-ons. The mustang guys have been comparing it to the old 5.0, which responded to simple bolt-ons better than just about any other motor built.
Ford seems to be much more interested in forced-induction small blocks than getting high-hp NA. Not really sure why they're going about it that way. Fuel economy? Maybe it's just easier?
J.J. Lecznar wrote:... bring ur @!#$ over here and i wil blow what u have to hell.... ill put @!#$in 200 dollars on it...
*wipes tears from eyes*
Quote:
the 3v 4.6 needs bolt-ons+ported heads+tune to make as much power to the wheels as a corvette ls1 stock.
That's an idiotic argument. The LS1 is 5.7 litres; the ford is 4.6. that's 1100 cc's more displacement, it should make more power. It's the same, percentage wise, as comparing my 2.4 to a 3.0. Wouldn't you expect a 3.0 to make more than 150 horsepower?
Quote:
and the ls motor weighs a buttload less
Link? are you sure it weighs significantly less? They're both all aluminum; and although the LS1 has an advantage in valvetrain, it's a larger displacement motor, so I'd think they'd be close.
Despite that though, I actually do prefer the GM engines. Maybe it's just the car they put them in or the 6 speed, but 400 horsepower that gets 30 mpg is damn nice, and the powerband is excellent(In my opinion). For top of the line motors though, I prefer Ford's SC motors, for the crazy ease potential.
So I guess it's a toss up.
"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."
LSX for the win.
However, I myself will be getting a 4 valve mod in a day or so, due to the great price.
Ultimately, I want an LS1 in anything but a GM (unless its a 'vette).
O noes!
Quote:
That's an idiotic argument. The LS1 is 5.7 litres; the ford is 4.6. that's 1100 cc's more displacement, it should make more power. It's the same, percentage wise, as comparing my 2.4 to a 3.0. Wouldn't you expect a 3.0 to make more than 150 horsepower?
point is they are kind of put in the same class
when f-bods were around it was the ls1 vs. 2v and 4v mustangs
ford uses the 2v in many trucks and gm uses iron blocked ls derived motors in thier trucks
03-04 cobras vs. c5
dispite the displacement difference I think the argument is perfectly valid
Quote:
Link? are you sure it weighs significantly less? They're both all aluminum; and although the LS1 has an advantage in valvetrain, it's a larger displacement motor, so I'd think they'd be close.
I thought the 3v motors were iron block. but what I do know for fact is that the 4v motor(excluding mach 1) is over 450lbs block+heads. and if you have ever seen the two motors side by side on an engine stand the ls motor is waayyyy smaller.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
when you beat someone in a civic people wine and make excuses
when you beat someone in a cavalier they pull over and check under thier hoods
All I have to say on this is that thankfully both brands didn't do what Chrysler did with the hemi. That 4-6-8 firing is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard of, and if you're buying a "HEMI" you shouldn't be too worried about gas mileage.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
John Wilken wrote:All I have to say on this is that thankfully both brands didn't do what Chrysler did with the hemi. That 4-6-8 firing is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard of, and if you're buying a "HEMI" you shouldn't be too worried about gas mileage.
variable displacement ie older than you think. gm invented it in the early 80's and put it on caddys. the system worked great in testing but for some reason in the real world it failed miserably. my grandparents had a 4-6-8 caddy. the systef failed and the car had to be toed back to the dealership. where they replaced the whole motor with just a regular v8.
now alot of motors have variable displacement. including monte carlo and the v6 honda oddesy
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
when you beat someone in a civic people wine and make excuses
when you beat someone in a cavalier they pull over and check under thier hoods
NUTCASE . wrote:variable displacement ie older than you think. gm invented it in the early 80's and put it on caddys. the system worked great in testing but for some reason in the real world it failed miserably. my grandparents had a 4-6-8 caddy. the systef failed and the car had to be toed back to the dealership. where they replaced the whole motor with just a regular v8.
now alot of motors have variable displacement. including monte carlo and the v6 honda oddesy
I remember those caddy's. The ones that didn't catch fire would blow holes in the pistons when they first went into 8cyl mode.
I've read where hybrids will shut off and restart the gas engine, but I didn't know about other on-and-off cylenders in new cars. Maybe it's just me, because I can't get my fire to idle smooth, but I can see when these cars get a little older they're going to be a nightmare to troubleshoot.
OK, no flames, waaay off topic. Which engine do I think is better? Neither. Bring back the 454 big block with a carb, distributor and maybe a power steering pump.
But I'm an old guy, that's what I know best.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Mod motors are disposable, IMO. They wear way too easy, and start going downhill WAY too fast after 150K miles. Plus, they're more complicated then they ever needed to be.
Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!
Your 4.6 motor from ford may have less displacement, but if you look the motor itself is bigger than even the 7.0L ls7. And I am sure it weighs more.
And for the record GM will start using the same system again but a working one this time on their v8s.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447
Have any of you ever owned either of these motors??????
I have both..... Corvette and Mustang
The 4.6 ford is a slug (STOCK) Poor performance, non existant torque, restricted in everyway..
Now start bolting on the extras, to the tune of about 2k+ and now you have a potent package. But you still wont touch an LS1 (STOCK) w/o forced induction/NO2.
Do the same mods to an LS1 and your looking at paying about double for the mods, but well worth it in the end.
It all depends on what you look for in a motor.
If you are looking for a motor that will give you big returns for little money, buy the 4.6.
If you want a motor w/almost unlimited potential, and you have a spare 20k in the bank, get the LS1...
JMHO
I have a LS2.
The gen IV small blocks are the LS2,4, and 7 so far
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447
size doesnt matter......... you dont need a big motor to make big power....... even tho the new mustangs are nice and like said above there being compared to the old 5.0s where they respond well to mods...... I still would go gm.....
In a labratory environment the Ford engines do extremely well but alas this is not a labratory environment we live in and things like dirt and heat KILL those mod engines FAST! Thats why Ford had to come out with 5W20 motor oil so they would have a thin enough oil to handle the real world.
Gm's design is from 1955 but it works and it works great so why screw with it.
I'd have to say the GM engine is WAY better then the Ford for not only power production but in longevity as well.
More power, lasts longer, handles more crap, GM for the win.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I think Ford oughtta go back to the flat-heads...
Not for anyother reason than saying "That thing got a flat-head?" is pretty cool.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
God Bless the LSx.
"Turbochargers were for people who can't build engines"
- Keith Duckworth, Father of the Cosworth V8. Winningest motor in F1 history
What part of GMs engines are from 1955? I am just curious.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447
An engine is basically a self-powered air pump. Air goes in, air goes out. The more air you flow, the more power you make. It's that simple. So bigger engines make more power THE END.
However...
We also run into problems of smoothness. Now in 1962 you could conceivable have taken a 4 cyclinder car and pumped it up to about 200-300hp with a fair amount of ease. But it would have idled like a funnycar and guzzled gas like crazy and been borderline undrivable. Today's 4 valves per cylinder and fuel injection and all that don't make MORE power, they just make the engine smoother as it's pumped up to make more power.
So, with that in mind you compare both engines. The GM has a definite advantage when it comes to cubic inches and size but that OHV design is going to screw it in the rev department. Ford, with it's SOHC will outdo it every time. Not neccesarily revving higher or making more power. But making power across the rev range. Like, for example, it'll make 200hp at 2000rpm, and 300hp and 3000rpm, and 275hp at 4000rpm and 250hp at 5000rpm and 225hp at 6000rpm FOR EXAMPLE. With the OHV, the GM engine is going to be more likely to be slipping and sliding all over the place. The power wouldn't be as smooth.
BUT...
Here's another problem and one that I've run into trying to modify my own 2200 OHV LN2 engine on my Sunfire. The problem is the computer used to monitor/control the engine. You can have the most modifiable engine in the universe, but if the damn computer won't let you do anything what's it matter? In this GM is a better engine because you can switch it to a carb and completely remove the computer from the equation.
Which one is better? I'd say off the top of my head that the Ford is better for high revving autocross and the GM would be better for street driving and drag racing.
GM has the wonders of HP TUNERS helping them for PCM management. And actually I would say that GM makes more power across the rev range. Hell the LS2 makes 300+lb//ft of tq at 1500 rpms. I would guess that the power would be more peaky w/ the ohc setup. I dont have any ford dyno sheets to see.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447
Sappy96 wrote:GM has the wonders of HP TUNERS helping them for PCM management. And actually I would say that GM makes more power across the rev range. Hell the LS2 makes 300+lb//ft of tq at 1500 rpms. I would guess that the power would be more peaky w/ the ohc setup. I dont have any ford dyno sheets to see.
I didn't mean specifically. I was commenting more on the attributes of the designs rather than how Ford or GM V8's act in real world dyno tests. If you say GM's better I believe it. I think Ford has potential though, but at the same time I have to stand in awe of how much GM's pushed the OHV design.
Yes, almost if not all motors have potential. But remember just when you talk about GM they also have the northstar v8s. STS pushes 469hp out of a 4.4L s/c engine. The 03-04 cobras were rated at 390 out of the 4.6L s/c engine. Sure alot of cobras had more than advertised but not 70+ horses.
05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447
Quote:
STS pushes 469hp out of a 4.4L s/c engine. The 03-04 cobras were rated at 390 out of the 4.6L s/c engine. Sure alot of cobras had more than advertised but not 70+ horses.
Most people(Including Panoz) believe the 4.6sc to put out around 420ish at the crank, on average. But then again, knowing GM, I'd say the northstar is underratted too.
"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."
There's also another aspect of engine internals that matter. Stroke lenght and cylinder width.
Let's say you have two engines with identical displacement. One engine has a long stroke and small cylinder width, and the other has a short stroke and wide cylinder width. One will rev like crazy and make power until you zip the engine through redline and the other one will be torquey as all hell but have no top end.
Like I said, all depends. As for power due to forced induction, it all depends on how much PSI the blower/turbo gives the engine and if the air coming in the engine is ice cold or not.
The Cadillac XLR with 4.4 Northstar S/C
12PSI of boost and 443hp with a bore of 3.7 inches and stoke of 3.3 inches
The Ford Mustang Cobra with 5.4 SOHC S/C
13.5PSI of boost and 500hp with a bore of 3.552 inches and stroke of 4.165 inches
They're fairly similar and the Northstar has the advantage of making a lot more power for it's size, but look at that gigantinormous stroke advantage that the Mustang has. Lots of revving there. The Northstar's gonna make all it's power down low, Mustang's gonna keep going. Truth be told, I like em both. The "advantage" really comes down to whatever bias you may have.
