This was a good read: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1206_2012_chevrolet_camaro_zl1_vs_2013_shelby_gt500/ I'm not putting up quotes because I don't want to spoil the experience. (As someone else implied recently, Motor Trend has been improving by leaps and bounds lately.)
handling, and road holding, and harshness are very important to today's journalists. Consumers are still fickle and brand loyal
in 2003, the SVT Cobra Mustang made 390 HP with a supercharged 4.6 DOHC V8 The Enzo made 651 Wth a difference of 261 HP (claimed v. claimed)... will the new Ferrari Supercar make a total of 900+? Rumors say so... (Hybrid electric drive + direct drive). The Mustang is a heck of a car from the factory, for sure; as is the ZL1.
It's not a GT500 but I am really enjoying my new 2013 Mustang GT Premium with the Brembo brake package, Recaro seats and 3:55 rear gears. Fun car and still comfortable as my daily driver.
Just read the similar comparo test on C&D. I am also a follower of UK's Top Gear, and I have often find it irritating that the hosts always comments on how Americans does not and can not build good cars. However, as much as I hate it, I have to say that I somewhat agrees with them. Can someone please educate me on why Ford insist on using such pre-historic suspension setup on what would be an amazing car ? Is there actually an advantage to using such a system over a more modern suspension ? And why does Chevy continue on insisting using Pushrod engines over SOHC or DOHC designs ? Thanks.
Pushrod motors are cheaper to make, they're shorter which makes them a little easier to package, and have a lot more torque at the bottom of the rpm range because they have both less reciprocating weight and less initial resistance to deal with. Plus, there's a massive aftermarket for these engines and a solid tradition of tinkering with them.
this^ they are also significantly lighter because there is much less hardware needed in the valvetrain. a fully dressed LS V8 is a few lbs lighter than the (nissan) DOHC VQ-series in my frontier. the CG of an OHV engine is also much lower since the weight is focused lower.
The latest camaro engines also feel like a fan missing part of a blade when they rev, which is not very high, and yet do not have cams optimised for low end torque which should be thier strength. A motor that has a wide powerband like an OHC motor makes a car more exploitable on the road. The difference was easy to decipher when the gen4 vette could be had as a Calloway and a Zr1. While the ZR1 may have had slightly less power it was infinitely more useable and enjoable to drivem especialy on a twisty road. cars are not just about performance specs to 60 but about driving experience and for that an OHV motor is seriously in second place. GM though has little money to develop a really good OHC engine, appears to have abandoned the northstar, and so is a purveyor of OHV V8's which are relatively cheap to make, and yes you can push up the power figures esp with supercharging, but they are still not round quick revers. GM tried for many year to continue with an OHV V6, but the mnarket has so moved on that now they also have OHC V6. If you want tosee the difference try any Chrysler jeep with the old OHV v6 and compare it to the newer pentastar OHC V6. The OHV makes a great boat engine though, lots of continous torque at relatively low revs, inexpensive to make and the vibes and noise work with the whole boat thing. Plus as said in the post above there are generations of tinkerers familair with the chevy, and hop up parts are relatively cheap. The mustang uses an antique rear suspension because the bean counters thought they would save a few 100$ per car. Apparently as it is enginered for the mustang the production flow is relatively so low that the savings in relity were not there. Also to cover the whole thing up there was the PR excuse that customers prefered it for drag racing as it was more robust and simple. Yet all the newer mustangs Boss 302 shelby etc seem to be designed to enhance road course driving.
OHV engines still work, and Chevy has done well with them. I get why they still use them. As for the IRS in a mustang, I dont know. 99-04 Cobras had it, and it worked pretty well. But there were issues with hop on the strip. And the Boss handles amazingly for a solid axle. As for the Boss and Shelby, I view the Boss as the track car, and the Shelby for the street and strip. Both cars are amazing for the price, and if you consider where they came from.
Rather than just saying the technology is old and therefore bad look at the results. The LS-6 in my CTSV revs to 6800 rpm and doesn't feel like it is missing a fan blade. Also didn't the Mustang beat the BMW M5 at the track?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrhW6W7eZDI&list=UU5rBpVgv83gYPZ593XwQUsA&index=1&feature=plpp_video[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrhW6W7eZDI&list=UU5rBpVgv83gYPZ593XwQUsA&index=1&feature=plpp_video[/ame]
Yeah so if we put a mustang motor in a camaro which weighed what a mustang did, we might have something that truly stood out. With classic detroit logic these cars are illogicaly compromised by the bean counter mentality that the consumer wont know the difference. Or that we will like them as bang for the buck, kinda like a $25 blkowjob, its cheap but do you really want it. Why cant GM do a modern engine ala mustand, and as ford had great rwd irs platforms from Jag and even lincoln surely they could have built a better mustang. I mean the pieces are all on the shelf. In GM's case its understandable, they really dont do modern V8 and have zero development $ for a modern engine..
The LS7 was the motor sports motor of the year in 07. Saying this isnt a modern motor is simply foolish. How many motorsports wins has this given Chevy in all ends of racing? Furthermore Ford tried to put a IRS in the 03/04 cobra and people swapped it back because it was 100lbs lighter. So Ford cut the middle man out and just did it right the first time, Cobra owners are usually drag racers not road racers and IRS doesnt lend itself to drag racing like a solid does.
agree^ there's all kinds of modern tech in the LS engines. saying that they are archaic because they still have an OHV layout is ignorance, these aren't the old cast iron pushrod motors of yesteryear.
GM has developed modern V8s. Cadillac has used the north star for years. I think most of it boils down to the accountants in control of R&D. The V6 I'm the camaro is a modern engine. And powerful. Just shows they have the technology, but choose not to use it.
I must comend you on a thoughtful post! The ohc motor also has higher revs, example 9500 rpm on the 458 versus 5500 or so for American ohv. You can also have a faster rev up on a ohc motor. The ohc motors also can have varible valve lift or varible cam timing which does not lend itself to OHV motors. Having said that the newer cars from Chevy like the ZR1 drive and acelerate very nicley. Other vthan the point mentioned both cars including the GM are so refined it is very had to tell when driving. I think the ZR1 handles better and pulls harder than a 458. The 458 sounds better and looks awesome like it is from another planet. I do not know why GM went away from the northstar. whatever the "bean counters" did I submit it was not enough so we got bankrupcy. Someone mentioned the "unique rear end of the Mustang. It is not unique only obsolete. A solid axle and no independent suspension. Ford did that because they did not want to spend the capital $'s to design a modern rear end. But again for most driving most people can not tell and as consumers we got a less expensive car that is a blast to drive. Life is good Lee
You can buy a LS9, supercharged 638hp crate motor, from the factory for about $21k. For a mere $14k [approx ] you can buy the 427ci, 505hp LS7. How much does it cost to buy a 458 motor from the Ferrari factory? How about the 430 motor? Yes, the LS engines may be "primitive", but holy smokes, that is a ton of hp for for not a lot of cheddar....
Yep this is true. Also most american blocks are sand cast and not even investment cast. Sand cast are more porous and therefore weak. To compensate the designers must beef up for strength. This makes the engines very heavy. This is most American engines but not all. This is one reason American cars are so cheap to buy. They are in some cases very powerful engines, Europeans will tell us the Americans have never made a car that can go around a corner well. In the past this was very true and still exists today in a small way. American cars have gotten better in road feel and handling. The bewer Vettes and the Ford GT as examples! Not talking Ferrari or Lamborginni but every day drivering cars I think the eurpoean offerings are still better. I have not been over there for many years but I was always amazed on there road feel and handling. I used to say yes but American cars are more reliable, and that was true. But today most cars on both sides have improved and come closer together. Lee
