5.0 vs Ecoboost interesting results...

[1MileCrash]

So, onward with your 5.0 vs. 6.2 arguement.

Do you honestly believe that ~420 horsepower is all that the 6.2 is capable of, naturally aspirated? Same thing as your LT1 statement.

I'm sorry. It's wrong.

Soon, Top Fuel will be switching over to V6's!!!! Imagine the faster times they'll have now!!! They better shorten the track from 1000 feet to 660!

i'm not saying that it's all that it's capable of. i argued that these are the numbers that the factory puts out so that is what we should be basing this conversation off of. factor power vs factory power. not what people do to them aftermarket with different heads and cams and big bore kits and nitrous kits and turbos and superchargers and whatnot. stock for stock. that was what my argument was based off of. no "ownage." those were the numbers that the LS1, LT1, 5.0L, 4.6L, etc etc all put out as specified from the factory. based on that info it challenges the notion of displacement as a requirement for big power.

[Packy]

Eh - we all know that you know the nature of the arguement.

I know. Just adding fuel.

[1MileCrash]

for the sake of argument you guys might be interested in seeing this stuff. these guys have been making high hp v6 cars for quite some time now. i haven't kept an eye on them recently but it looks like they are making some very high hp 4 cylinders as well.

http://www.zzperformance.com/grand_prix/index.php

2.4 liter LE5 accomplishments- 11.83@ 113.78, 356whp

2.0 liter LSJ accomplishments- 10.7@ 134 mph, 609whp -06 turbo'd Cobalt SS

Fastest M62 powered Cobalt- 12.32@ 114+

Fastest M62 powered Ion- 12.2@ 119+

Fastest LNF- 11.43@ 126mph, 510whp sae (27psi), 11.43@ 126mph (23psi)

First LNF Cobalt in the 11's on a stock turbo!

The Worlds fastest FWD 3800- 8.6582 @ 158.97mph

Highest HP FWD 3800 870WHP

[blackSS01]

Anyone else catch the real issue here??

The 5.0 is making under 300 rwhp yet with full bolt ons and DR's can run low 11's? That doesn't make any sense what so ever! The 5.0 is rated at 400+ in the GT's.

[justinmc978]

Anyone else catch the real issue here??

The 5.0 is making under 300 rwhp yet with full bolt ons and DR's can run low 11's? That doesn't make any sense what so ever! The 5.0 is rated at 400+ in the GT's.

trucks always get de-tuned v8s

[Packy]

trucks always get de-tuned v8s

It is not that they are detuned. They just have a different power band to compliment more low to mid range stuff for hauling/towing.

[0rion]

think about it guys. the LZ9 3.9L v6 that GM has puts out 240hp and 240tq normally aspirated. only a few years ago the only other v6 GM had that would put those numbers out was the supercharged 3.8L. everyone always talked excitedly about how great the supercharged 3.8L was because it had the same power as a smallblock v8 but in a lighter, smaller, and more fuel efficient package. those engines are pushing the edge of what the LT v8s put out only a few years previous. and yeah so they aren't up as high as the LS series v8s were and are in the same model years.

the point being is that power output from v6 engines has dramatically increased over the years. probably the best case in point is the new DOHC 3.6L in the camaro putting out 310+hp. that's literally neck and neck with the LS1 engine. and the only reason that the v8 camaro puts out more power than the base models is because they upped the displacement of the v8...from 5.7L up to 6.2L moving the hp threshold up 100hp from 320hp to 420hp. 0.5L displacement increase resulted in 100 additional hp on relatively the same engine.

whereas they have been tinkering around with n/a v6 engines and have been able to take two engines that are roughly the same displacement (3.5L vs the 3.6L) and tweak the injection style, the style of the cam setup, and add vvt and make a 110hp increase while only increasing the displacement by 0.1L.

so i think that there is a LOT that can be done with v6 engines to make big power with or without power adders. yes of course a larger v8 engine will 9 times out of 10 make more power than a v6 will...but that's only because you have two extra cylinders. the 4.3L n/a v6 engines only made upwards of 200hp with the same geometry of the larger 5.7L sibling making up to 300hp. and comparable model year v6 engines of smaller displacement made virtually the same hp ratings as the 4.3L if not more in some cases (3.4L SFI, 3.4L DOHC, 3.8L n/a).

as much as they have been ridiculed, ford toyed with the 4.6L for almost 20 years and just by changing fuel setups and head setups was able to push the same basic engine from a pissy 200hp back in the early 90s to 320hp by 2000. no change in displacement...just changes in fuel and air delivery. i see ford as being a big leader when it comes to thinking outside the displacement box. yes they might languish behind from time to time because they don't move forward with a newer design...but they aren't continually just putting a bigger engine into the car to make more power. they are seeing what they can do with what they have to make more power.

then take the fact that ford is already pushing the envelope of their new 5.0L engine and getting 410+hp out of it compared to the camaro 6.2L making 430+hp. with a 1.2L disadvantage ford has used a different head setup and fuel setup to make almost the same power. in fact ford has outdone the 6.2L on the boss 302 by pushing the same 5.0L to 440+hp. so ford has proven that comparing v8s alone that "there's no replacement for displacement" is not all that accurate any longer.

GM would be wise to start investing in turbocharger setups for their v6 product line for their cars and trucks just as ford has done to remain competitive.

I quite reading this entire thread right there. You're reading into it what you want. How much torque does that 3.6L make because the LS1's made 350 ft/lbs. Torque wins drag races. Your statement that the no replacement for displacement adage is less and less true is false. Mod for mod the higher displaced motor wins that battle every time. That boosted 6 isn't even making the numbers of a bone stock LS3.

[1MileCrash]

stock for stock numbers orion. torque may be lower on the new 3.6 DOHC than the LS1, but keep in mind that had you said in 2002 that these numbers would have been possible with a n/a v6 engine most people would just laugh.

it doesn't matter if the ecoboost v6 isn't making the same numbers as a stock LS3. what matters is that if ford decides to put it in the mustang it will make bigger numbers than the v6 camaro that it would be pitted against at the dealership. everyone always talks about the v8 version of the pony cars, but they seem to forget that most of the sales of these cars comes from the base v6 model. people still want performance in the base model car but they can't make the jump to the more expensive v8. if you offer a higher performance base level car than your competition you can take the day. it's not about the ecoboost v6 needing to make more power than the LS3...like i said...it just needs to make more power than the v6 camaro if they put the ecoboost in the mustang.

and with the impala ss gone there is no more family muscle sedan for the time being from GM so ford has the clear edge with the SHO in that niche segment.

[justinmc978]

^agree unless you want to count charger invading on some of that market for the muscle sedans, but there again I think those two cars appeal to two differennt groups of buyers..

[1MileCrash]

^agree unless you want to count charger invading on some of that market for the muscle sedans, but there again I think those two car appeal to two differennt groups of buyers..

that's true forgot about dodge at the moment. nice designs but too heavy and i don't much care for dodge. still...valid.

[FasstChevys]

i'm not saying that it's all that it's capable of. i argued that these are the numbers that the factory puts out so that is what we should be basing this conversation off of. factor power vs factory power. not what people do to them aftermarket with different heads and cams and big bore kits and nitrous kits and turbos and superchargers and whatnot. stock for stock. that was what my argument was based off of. no "ownage." those were the numbers that the LS1, LT1, 5.0L, 4.6L, etc etc all put out as specified from the factory. based on that info it challenges the notion of displacement as a requirement for big power.

I call bullshit again. In 1972, the LS5 454 cu. in Chevy had 270 horsepower.

Try again.

[1MileCrash]

I call bullshit again. In 1972, the LS5 454 cu. in Chevy had 270 horsepower.

Try again.

no idea what you are talking about here or what point you are attempting to make. context.

[FasstChevys]

no idea what you are talking about here or what point you are attempting to make. context.

The point is, it doesn't matter what year it is, or what "the factory" advertises for horsepower.

Rewind back to the statement - "there's no replacement, for displacement"

There isn't. Larger cubed engines have always, and always will have the most power potential, as long as the playing field is level - which means the comparison must include two n/a engines, two FI engines, or whatever. Comparing n/a to FI, NO2, or whatever you want to come up with - doesn't hold water.

[justinmc978]

Rewind back to the statement - "there's no replacement, for displacement"

There isn't. Larger cubed engines have always, and always will have the most power potential, as long as the playing field is level - which means the comparison must include two n/a engines, two FI engines, or whatever. Comparing n/a to FI, NO2, or whatever you want to come up with - doesn't hold water.

why? who set these rules? is it fair to say that? why not judge on the basis of cost to build? what about other factors besides speed such as drivability, weight, MPG, reliability, etc?

[Transamws6]

why? who set these rules? is it fair to say that? why not judge on the basis of cost to build? what about other factors besides speed such as drivability, weight, MPG, reliability, etc?

I agree with you man, I really hate it when people recite that little statement, it's so old, pointless and stupid. Different motors make their power in different ways. Besides at the end of the day, numbers only matter so much out there on pavement.

On another note, I'm impressed with the Ecoboost for sure. I personally would not buy it over the a 5.0 if I had the means because I just like my trucks with V8's (Not that the Ecoboost isn't a great alternative), it's just my little weird issue.

This is also a good alternative to the 6.2 it seems like. I've read a few guys opinions that claimed that the power differences between the two aren't enough to justify buying a 6.2 over one, when you consider the gas mileage + efficiency differences between the two.

[snaggeltooth]

The point is, it doesn't matter what year it is, or what "the factory" advertises for horsepower.

Rewind back to the statement - "there's no replacement, for displacement"

There isn't. Larger cubed engines have always, and always will have the most power potential, as long as the playing field is level - which means the comparison must include two n/a engines, two FI engines, or whatever. Comparing n/a to FI, NO2, or whatever you want to come up with - doesn't hold water.

engineering>Displacement .. If there was no replacement for displacement top fuel would be using 600-700cid engines but there is a place where bigger is not better ..... Look at NASCAR, why did they drop the big 400+ CID blocks ... because they found a smaller displacement engine would make same HP and weigh less ...

[jad628]

Displacement is the fundamental, and while you can vary boost, exhaust, valve timing, camshafts, etc., you are basing everything else on the displacement.

To me, starting with greater displacement is usually the better choice.

[snaggeltooth]

Displacement is the fundamental, and while you can vary boost, exhaust, valve timing, camshafts, etc., you are basing everything else on the displacement.

To me, starting with greater displacement is usually the better choice.

I think we just grew up in a age where that was true .. your best 60-70s engines was in the 427ish CID range.. Somewhere someone said that 300hp+ motors was a must..With the eco-boost Ford is just embracing our modern age ...

[Blackbuick1987]

The most impressive part is that this Ecoboost is putting out V8 level power and is still getting 22mpg in a full size heavy ass truck.

[jad628]

I think we just grew up in a age where that was true .. your best 60-70s engines was in the 427ish CID range.. Somewhere someone said that 300hp+ motors was a must..With the eco-boost Ford is just embracing our modern age ...

You might be right, but I'm also of the opinion that more displacement equals less fuel economy, and that's one - if not the main - reason for less displacement by the makers. I think improvements in gearing are going to prove more important than engine development. The addition of 5, 6, 7 and now - if I've heard correctly - 8-speed automatic transmissions have made huge improvements to performance and fuel economy at the same time.

The ECOboost is impressive, but so is a LS1 M6 getting 30mpg highway.