Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday October 1, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-11-2013, 10:02 AM   #276
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Turbo 4 mustang would be win, IMO. But that bit about the paddle shifters... Is the mustang going to axe manuals soon too?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 12:52 PM   #277
FaastLegacy
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 11671
Join Date: Oct 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
Turbo 4 mustang would be win, IMO. But that bit about the paddle shifters... Is the mustang going to axe manuals soon too?
Doubtful. Ford doesn't have a dual clutch capable of handling the V8 Mustang's power and Ford actually sells more manual GTs than they do autos. The V6 is a slightly different story, mostly because they sell a bunch of autos to fleets.
FaastLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 01:05 PM   #278
mhoward1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9481
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: FFR Challenge #43
Vehicle:
2011 Carrera 4s
2009 BMW M5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaastLegacy View Post
Doubtful. Ford doesn't have a dual clutch capable of handling the V8 Mustang's power and Ford actually sells more manual GTs than they do autos. The V6 is a slightly different story, mostly because they sell a bunch of autos to fleets.
They would probably do what everyone else is doing, buy it from another company. Just like Porsche bought theirs from ZF.
mhoward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 01:28 PM   #279
fredzy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 317270
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Erie, PA
Vehicle:
15 WRX, WRB 6MT
14 CX-5

Default

There will be some serious fake engine noise coming in through the speakers of the 4-cylinder 'stang, that's all I have to say.
fredzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 03:52 PM   #280
ForceFed4
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 7370
Join Date: Jun 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Bethesda, MD
Vehicle:
2013 5.0
SGM

Default

If that's true, I suspect it's going to push the "base" GT significantly up in price. I'm not sure where else they're going to make room for a mid-level engine option in the current lineup.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too happy with a turbo-4 at or near the current V8 GT's price. It's fine as a "base" engine option, but it's no substitute for a V8 in a pony car, regardless of what the numbers are.
ForceFed4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 04:00 PM   #281
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceFed4 View Post
If that's true, I suspect it's going to push the "base" GT significantly up in price. I'm not sure where else they're going to make room for a mid-level engine option in the current lineup.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too happy with a turbo-4 at or near the current V8 GT's price. It's fine as a "base" engine option, but it's no substitute for a V8 in a pony car, regardless of what the numbers are.
I'd be okay with them eliminating the v6 all together from the lineup. The 6 will always be the girl car, regardless of packages. The turbo 4 would make it an interesting choice between the mustang being split for the tuner base and muscle base. I could see both being very valid starting platforms and constant arguing on forums for which is the better platform if the 4 is both cheap enough and easy to +boost. I think that would be a good thing for Ford.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 04:26 PM   #282
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

I agree. A turbo 4 would/could be a great option to replace the V6. Would probably have a larger aftermarket following than the V6.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 04:30 PM   #283
Skunkers
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 115480
Join Date: May 2006
Location: St. Pete, FL
Vehicle:
2002 RSX-S
Desert Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
^ I think your observations are fair within the context of what's been said in this thread.

However, my stance is reflective of the decisions that the Ford engineers actually made during development of the Coyote, and why they made them. This article outlines the specifics, and is an excellent read about the development of the Coyote:

2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Coyote

Given the specific details outlined in the article I think the position I hold is defensible, but that said I'm sure there will come a time when DI on the Coyote will happen. If you read the article you'll see that that was actually the plan from the start. And, as we have precious few details about the actual next-gen Mustang V8, everybody is assuming it will not have DI... that remains to be seen. Though I think it's unlikely the bottom line is we don't know.

Lets face it the Coyote (and Roadrunner) are so far beyond - technology speaking - what is currently offered by GM and Dodge I think Ford has some buffer. If we assume that the 2014 Corvette LT1 is going to find a home in the next Camaro, then maybe that'll push Ford to put DI on the Coyote.

I guess we'll see, but it all sounds good to me.
I read that article back when it came out, and I think most here are well-aware that the Coyote is future-proofed to accept DI. Nothing in that article really specifically states that DI is ruled out due to production cost, which was my point.

The Camaro getting the LT1 is indeed an assumption, but a fairly safe one; GM typically rolls out new SBC tech in the Corvette and that architecture quickly becomes the defacto workhorse V8 from that point on. It's not economically feasible to have an engine sold exclusively in the base Corvette and nothing else. That's how they've done pretty much every recent update, from LT1 to LS1 to LS3.

Even if some occasional rumors contradict it, it seems fairly safe to assume the next Camaro/Stang will rock DI V8s at launch, and if they don't, then a little horsepower one-upmanship practically guarantees that they will a year or two later.
Skunkers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:31 PM   #284
arf80
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 125580
Join Date: Sep 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: North NJ
Vehicle:
2011 WRX 5dr
OBP

Default

The mustang is fun as hell to drive and all, but 420hp from a 5.0 isn't super impressive in 2013, is it? Surely there's a ton of room to grow there, especially with DI.
arf80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:48 PM   #285
SWP n Gold
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 110783
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Stamford, CT
Vehicle:
2010 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arf80 View Post
The mustang is fun as hell to drive and all, but 420hp from a 5.0 isn't super impressive in 2013, is it? Surely there's a ton of room to grow there, especially with DI.
If 420bhp from a 5.0L isn't impressive, then you must think the LS3 is garbage at 426bhp from a 6.2L
SWP n Gold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 09:10 PM   #286
heavyD
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 194216
Join Date: Nov 2008
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Vehicle:
2013 STI Sport-tech

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arf80 View Post
The mustang is fun as hell to drive and all, but 420hp from a 5.0 isn't super impressive in 2013, is it? Surely there's a ton of room to grow there, especially with DI.
That engine is an absolute gem. I miss it every time I step on the throttle of my STI. No comparison whatsoever as the 5.0L is one of the best engines in existence today regardless of price.
heavyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 09:27 PM   #287
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWP n Gold View Post
If 420bhp from a 5.0L isn't impressive, then you must think the LS3 is garbage at 426bhp from a 6.2L
I was JUST going to bring up that same example. And the Vette with the LS3 definitely is not slow.

It's not quite 100 hp/liter yet, but not many NA V-8s of this capacity outside of the Italians (and the very best variant of AMG's 6.2-liter that sits inside the SLS Black Series' engine bay) are there. But for Ford to have gone from 300-ish hp from the 4.6-liter to just about a full 100 hp more from the 5.0-liter is a BIG achievement.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 11:03 PM   #288
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWP n Gold View Post
If 420bhp from a 5.0L isn't impressive, then you must think the LS3 is garbage at 426bhp from a 6.2L
I actually do. Any engine that isn't getting at least CLOSE to 100hp/L is garbage, I don't care if larger displacement makes that more difficult because of mass or whatever excuse someone will make up. There are plenty of race application engines that are those displacements with 100hp/L or more and plenty of smaller race-inspired engines that easily meet that metric.

M3, BRZ, s2000, 458; list goes on with a wide range of engine types, price ranges, etc. Should not give them lenience because it's rare in what is being offered now.
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 11:12 PM   #289
mhoward1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9481
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: FFR Challenge #43
Vehicle:
2011 Carrera 4s
2009 BMW M5

Default

But HP/Disp has no value what so ever. It's an empty metric. Even using to measure "efficiency” is wrong because it doesn’t take into account RPM. It doesn’t tell you the amount of power per stroke, only the peak HP/overall displacement.

If you want to talk efficiency then argue fuel rates, burn %, power per stroke, etc. Better yet, talk about things that actually effect performance like HP/lb, HP/physical size, etc.
mhoward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 11:25 PM   #290
DeeezNuuuts83
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 34406
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern California
Vehicle:
2006 Evolution IX
graphite gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
I actually do. Any engine that isn't getting at least CLOSE to 100hp/L is garbage, I don't care if larger displacement makes that more difficult because of mass or whatever excuse someone will make up. There are plenty of race application engines that are those displacements with 100hp/L or more and plenty of smaller race-inspired engines that easily meet that metric.
Most applications of AMG's 6.2-liter V-8 have it somewhere between 72-85 hp/liter (outside of the SLS). I have never heard anything about that motor being garbage, and I certainly didn't think it was garbage when I got a chance to ride in one in its weakest form (~450 hp). The LS motors have underwhelming hp/liter, but the performance they generate is great, they're fairly bulletproof and get pretty good highway mpg. Sure, it's because it has such a tall top gear, but it can handle it. Give any car with 100 hp/liter that kind of ratio and we'll see how it deals with it at freeway speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
M3, BRZ, s2000, 458; list goes on with a wide range of engine types, price ranges, etc. Should not give them lenience because it's rare in what is being offered now.
With the exception of the Italian, none of those were really class-leading in terms of performance as a direct result of the engine. The M3 may have exceeded the 100 hp/liter ratio for a while, but MANY reviews including both cars seem to prefer the C63's engine, despite its ~72 hp/liter ratio. The BRZ may have 100 hp/liter, but its engine is underwhelming, despite meeting the metric that apparently dictates to you whether an engine is good or not. The S2000 had 120 hp/liter, which at the time was a record for an NA car, but they increased displacement and decreased its specific output for the sake of torque since the 2.0-liter was so miserable for the first 2/3 of the rev range, and frankly it was mediocre after it was pushed to 2.2-liters. And even when it was in its sweet spot, it wasn't exactly blowing the doors off of cars either.
DeeezNuuuts83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 11:28 PM   #291
AllAWD
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 17079
Join Date: Apr 2002
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Alexandria, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhoward1 View Post
But HP/Disp has no value what so ever. It's an empty metric. Even using to measure "efficiencyĒ is wrong because it doesnít take into account RPM. It doesnít tell you the amount of power per stroke, only the peak HP/overall displacement.

If you want to talk efficiency then argue fuel rates, burn %, power per stroke, etc. Better yet, talk about things that actually effect performance like HP/lb, HP/physical size, etc.
This...stick to the primary measure that we care about, not secondary metrics.

Who cares if they make a 7L engine that makes 200hp so long as the efficiency is good. (Yes, I know that's extremely unlikely given physics.)
AllAWD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 01:25 AM   #292
samagon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 26859
Join Date: Oct 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: undisputed COMBAT! champion
Vehicle:
of TXIC
I also like (oYo)!!!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhoward1 View Post
But HP/Disp has no value what so ever. It's an empty metric. Even using to measure "efficiency” is wrong because it doesn’t take into account RPM. It doesn’t tell you the amount of power per stroke, only the peak HP/overall displacement.

If you want to talk efficiency then argue fuel rates, burn %, power per stroke, etc. Better yet, talk about things that actually effect performance like HP/lb, HP/physical size, etc.
I like to use BMEP, but then, I always have been a nut for VE. This of course has nothing to do with the capability of the car on a track, just the theoretical limits of a given engine. such as that on the BRZ, with a BMEP of nearly 190 psi, it's pushing some serious limits of efficiency for a NA engine. Doesn't make it a faster car though.

for comparison's sake on the BMEP, the 2.0 s2000 made about the same BMEP...

edit, and that coyote engine in the mustang that is so crappy for not having DI? 194 BMEP. it's a good engine.

Last edited by samagon; 03-12-2013 at 01:50 AM.
samagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:29 AM   #293
zzyzx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 815
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Florida
Vehicle:
2013 Boss 302 White
2000 2.5 RS Coupe Silver

OMGHi2U

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRXHillClimb View Post
I actually do. Any engine that isn't getting at least CLOSE to 100hp/L is garbage
So the M3 rated at 19 MPG and 420 HP / 295 TQ is superior to the GT which is rated at 420 HP / 390 TQ and 26 MPG, not to mention the Boss at 444 HP and the same MPG. And that's solely because the M3 is 4.0L and the Mustang 5.0L.

Got it!

Here's a dyno graph of this "garage" engine with bolt-ons and a tune that was recently posted (it's a Roadrunner, not Coyote):



Look at that - it only makes about 2X the peak torque of an S2000 from 2000 to 7800 RPM. (at the wheels!)
zzyzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 09:48 AM   #294
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zzyzx View Post
So the M3 rated at 19 MPG and 420 HP / 295 TQ is superior to the GT which is rated at 420 HP / 390 TQ and 26 MPG, not to mention the Boss at 444 HP and the same MPG. And that's solely because the M3 is 4.0L and the Mustang 5.0L.
You seem to be under the impression that the coyote is a bad engine. even @ 420 hp, it's still amazingly close to 100hp/L given it's size and complexity (more moving parts). I was more flaming the vette engine.

I look at it as it's harder to extract more power out of a smaller engine, especially in excess of 100hp/L, so when I see something like the s2000, I know that the engine is really close to maxed out, at least with reliability still in mind. You can keep stock internals on the f22, do bolt on's, tune, and get to 250 whp up from 200, but it's still pretty high strung as it is.

Conversely, it's easy to simply add power by adding displacement and straining the parts less, also using lower quality parts (i.e. not forged internals , not coating the cylinder walls with low friction stuff, not beefing up valvetrain to keep up with the inevitable higher RPM to get that power).

So when I see a statistic like that, it makes me feel the engineers did a better job creating a high-strung machine with smaller margins instead of setting a power goal and just building the easiest way to that spec.

Trust me, I love the coyote, I know it's good, but when they add DI, it will be just that much better. I simply would prefer it to be at the start of a new chassis run as opposed to 1/2 way through it, because they would be able to address any issues with the new engine at the 1/2 way refresh instead of dumping in something else that could have a slew of problems, and ending with the last year of the chassis being the only stable one, just before they come out with a new chassis that has even MORE improved tech.

I like mid year cars because they seem to be a happy medium between buggy cool new tech and finalized outdated stable chassis.

P.S. It's ONLY about 2.5 x the displacement of an f20c, so it should be making 2.5x the torque, though flat torque curves are amazing and I wish I had one .
WRXHillClimb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 09:52 AM   #295
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

I was waiting for this topic to degrade to the point where I would like to entertain it adding to it. My favorite past time is LS bashing. So lets review.

somebody called the Coyote and the LS engine garbage, wrong on both cases
Then somebody said that HP/Liter is meaningless, wrong again
Next somebody used MPG to compare efficiencies of two differnt car with two different engines, you cannot do that!
Let me shed some much needed perspective on this, as I have argued this for eons.

First,The Coyote V8 is a stunning peice of work, that is light, powerful and efficient. Dependiong on what source you pick it is lighter than or equal to any LS engine pre 2011 or 2012. It is a slightly bigger engine, but Ford mananged to get the weight way down, which is incredibly impressive. That motor will live on for YEARS as it was so ahead of almost anything in its relative price range.

The LS engines, while simple and crude are EFFECTIVE and work darn well (see Corvette LeMans victories). The GM engineers of 65 years ago managed to squeeze a lot of displacement into a small package. Displacement breeds torque. Torque means you can have insane tall 5-6 gears and get mpg. This is a workable package. While not high tech and fancy, it does work.

I find the Coyote V8 in the Mustang a higher evolution of a V8 than the LS engines, as they get more power out of a smaller Internal diameter. They are better at converting gas and air to HP.

Which is a good segway into HP/Liter. Same old arguement. Some people say it is useless, other quote it as a measure of efficiency. There is not black and white answer to this. Both sides make a good point. The truth is HP/Liter is a good metric, but it is not the end all/be all metric. My best support for this is the ubiquitous 5.7 liter Chevy V8, the old 350. In 1977, it had 5.7 liters displacement and made 165 HP. Fast forward to 1992 and the same 5.7 liters displacement made 375 HP. HP/Liter is a devastatingly accurate measurement at how good those two engines were. So to dismiss it entirely is rediculous. Sure some large displacement engines have small exterior dimensions. As far as efficiency that is a meaningless statistic, other than being able to lower the hood.

The BMW engine is a jewel, but trying to get good MPG was obviously not what was on the mind of BMW when they built that car. They could have made 6th gear a huge 0.5:1, but it would not have been happy lugging around at low revs as that engine was made to sing. It could have done it, but lugging around at low rpm what an M3 is about?

MPG is only good as a metric to compare entire drivetrain/chassis combinations. Too many tricks can be played with gearing/aero and you guys know it. A Camaro would get crap mileage in pure city driving. Using MPG to to quote engine efficiency is a HUGE stretch of the facts, while ignoring others.

When the Coyote does get DI, it is going to give GM something to worry about. If they ever decide to make a 5.5 or 6 liter coyote (um wolf at that point?) it is going to be a stunningly good package.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:30 AM   #296
warpath
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 84622
Join Date: Apr 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: -=OT B-Lister=-
Vehicle:
2010 EVO X GSR
1992 MKIII Supra

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I was waiting for this topic to degrade to the point where I would like to entertain it adding to it. My favorite past time is LS bashing. So lets review.

somebody called the Coyote and the LS engine garbage, wrong on both cases
Then somebody said that HP/Liter is meaningless, wrong again
Next somebody used MPG to compare efficiencies of two differnt car with two different engines, you cannot do that!
Let me shed some much needed perspective on this, as I have argued this for eons.

First,The Coyote V8 is a stunning peice of work, that is light, powerful and efficient. Dependiong on what source you pick it is lighter than or equal to any LS engine pre 2011 or 2012. It is a slightly bigger engine, but Ford mananged to get the weight way down, which is incredibly impressive. That motor will live on for YEARS as it was so ahead of almost anything in its relative price range.

The LS engines, while simple and crude are EFFECTIVE and work darn well (see Corvette LeMans victories). The GM engineers of 65 years ago managed to squeeze a lot of displacement into a small package. Displacement breeds torque. Torque means you can have insane tall 5-6 gears and get mpg. This is a workable package. While not high tech and fancy, it does work.

I find the Coyote V8 in the Mustang a higher evolution of a V8 than the LS engines, as they get more power out of a smaller Internal diameter. They are better at converting gas and air to HP.

Which is a good segway into HP/Liter. Same old arguement. Some people say it is useless, other quote it as a measure of efficiency. There is not black and white answer to this. Both sides make a good point. The truth is HP/Liter is a good metric, but it is not the end all/be all metric. My best support for this is the ubiquitous 5.7 liter Chevy V8, the old 350. In 1977, it had 5.7 liters displacement and made 165 HP. Fast forward to 1992 and the same 5.7 liters displacement made 375 HP. HP/Liter is a devastatingly accurate measurement at how good those two engines were. So to dismiss it entirely is rediculous. Sure some large displacement engines have small exterior dimensions. As far as efficiency that is a meaningless statistic, other than being able to lower the hood.

The BMW engine is a jewel, but trying to get good MPG was obviously not what was on the mind of BMW when they built that car. They could have made 6th gear a huge 0.5:1, but it would not have been happy lugging around at low revs as that engine was made to sing. It could have done it, but lugging around at low rpm what an M3 is about?

MPG is only good as a metric to compare entire drivetrain/chassis combinations. Too many tricks can be played with gearing/aero and you guys know it. A Camaro would get crap mileage in pure city driving. Using MPG to to quote engine efficiency is a HUGE stretch of the facts, while ignoring others.

When the Coyote does get DI, it is going to give GM something to worry about. If they ever decide to make a 5.5 or 6 liter coyote (um wolf at that point?) it is going to be a stunningly good package.
The Cobra's 5.8L not a coyote family engine??
warpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:37 AM   #297
mhoward1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 9481
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: FFR Challenge #43
Vehicle:
2011 Carrera 4s
2009 BMW M5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I find the Coyote V8 in the Mustang a higher evolution of a V8 than the LS engines, as they get more power out of a smaller Internal diameter. They are better at converting gas and air to HP.

Which is a good segway into HP/Liter. Same old arguement. Some people say it is useless, other quote it as a measure of efficiency. There is not black and white answer to this. Both sides make a good point. The truth is HP/Liter is a good metric, but it is not the end all/be all metric. My best support for this is the ubiquitous 5.7 liter Chevy V8, the old 350. In 1977, it had 5.7 liters displacement and made 165 HP. Fast forward to 1992 and the same 5.7 liters displacement made 375 HP. HP/Liter is a devastatingly accurate measurement at how good those two engines were. So to dismiss it entirely is rediculous. Sure some large displacement engines have small exterior dimensions. As far as efficiency that is a meaningless statistic, other than being able to lower the hood.
As we have had this discussion before, I donít have the same view on HP/L for a factor of efficiency because it doesnít take into the fact of RPM, or the actual volume of gas/air that is converted into power. Given the extra RPM used to create the power, they are almost dead even with ~77.2 peak HP per RPM per CL, and the GM has a great area under the curve. I am not trying to take anything away from the Coyote as I think itís a great motor. I am just stating my issue with the HP/L measurement being used at all, with no regards to actual volume used.
mhoward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:47 AM   #298
Scooby921
Merci Buckets
Moderator
 
Member#: 88606
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Clarkston
Vehicle:
2011 GMC Sierra
'13 JCW

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
When the Coyote does get DI, it is going to give GM something to worry about. If they ever decide to make a 5.5 or 6 liter coyote (um wolf at that point?) it is going to be a stunningly good package.
I don't think GM has that much to worry about. They have yet to add new () features like overhead cams, more than 2 valves per cylinder, and variable valve timing to the small block V8...things the Coyote already has. So if a Coyote 6.0L starts to stomp the LT1 by 100hp GM has plenty of things they can design into a new engine to increase output. The sacrifice will be packaging and weight. If and when they finally do add these "new" technologies I would also expect efficiency to improve.
Scooby921 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:52 AM   #299
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Ah but they have. They have added variable valve timing on this last itteration, and on a few itterations before if I recall. And I know GM COULD incoroporate those, but as of yet they have not HAD to, when a simple overbore and stroke got them more power.

You understand I was assuming that GM WILL NOT add a 4 valve head as they have stubbornly kept with 2 valve heads since the mid 50's. I can see them ditching the pushrods soon enough though. Keeping with just 2 valves per cylinder is too much of a handicap.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:01 AM   #300
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhoward1 View Post
As we have had this discussion before, I donít have the same view on HP/L for a factor of efficiency because it doesnít take into the fact of RPM, or the actual volume of gas/air that is converted into power. Given the extra RPM used to create the power, they are almost dead even with ~77.2 peak HP per RPM per CL, and the GM has a great area under the curve. I am not trying to take anything away from the Coyote as I think itís a great motor. I am just stating my issue with the HP/L measurement being used at all, with no regards to actual volume used.
I get what you are saying but you are in the weeds at bit and into the grey area that is not black and white.

Simple quesiton, not being able to look at torque curves to see rpm which 5.7 liter engine was better the 1977 350 or the 1992 350?

You know the answer.

The area under the curve is a DIRECT effected by displacement and compression. Nothing magcial about it. Want to bump up your area under the curve, bore the motor out 0.030 and leave everything else alone.

I will put it to you another way, Keeping the current compression ratio VE of the cylinder heads constant if GM made its 6.2 a 5.0 and left everything else alone it would make crap for power compared to the coyote.

Like I said HP/Liter is an interesting metric, but it is NOT the only one you should look at. It certainly cannot be ignored.

The area under the curve is a useful stat as well, and directly effects how an engine feels when you drive it. Also, as fun as HP/Liter is, what about Torque/Liter...

That is fun to compare as well.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Refreshed Mustang coming in 2013, next generation to be 2015 model AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 20 08-07-2011 01:42 PM
Rumormill: 2015 Ford Mustang to get 2.3-liter EcoBoost AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 25 06-05-2011 08:26 PM
New Braille Battery 2015 - $120 shipped psmBoXer Private 'For Sale' Classifieds 7 01-27-2006 02:02 PM
Wal-Mart Seeks to Double Truck Fuel Economy by 2015 FunkerVogt Political Playground 25 12-19-2005 03:44 PM
What will our Subie look like in 2015? wallew Off-Topic 44 07-10-2005 03:18 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.