Why does Ford give same engine for auto? - Page 4 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

nester7929 · 10-05-2010, 10:16 PM

The new 5.0 is about 3 years more advanced than the LS3, so it's perfectly reasonable that it makes similar power with better fuel economy. I'm sure the GEN V engines will be a bit better than the 5.0 when they hit also.

*DGthe3* · 10-05-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbt

If the new 5.0 was getting it's ass kicked at the strip compared to it's competition I would agree with you however that is just not the case.

Its more than an engine that determines the performance of one car vs another.

motorhead · 10-05-2010, 10:32 PM

You know the old saying, "If you want to go fast drive a chevy. If you want to save gas drive a ford."

Revo1 · 10-05-2010, 11:19 PM

It's a pretty standard practice- I'd never seen anyone offer a separate engine for each tranny before Camaro...

usmc8411 · 10-05-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Different companies...different methods. To my knowledge, Ford does not have a displacement on demand feature available in its powertrains. Similarly, The LS-series engine is old. Certain efficiency innovations the Mustang's engine employs are not currently available in GM engines.

The L99/A6 combo was the brainchild of mpg goals. DoD was not compatible with manual transmissions, so it could only be paired with the automatic transmission. And the 'down tuning' is a side-effect of the fuel-saving feature. The lower-profile cam, mainly.

When you stop to think about it...25mpg hwy is better than some large cars...The V6 CTS only gets 26.

Ford was able to get similar numbers in their own way.

Hope that answered the question.

My l99 gets about 22 highway real world. My cts gets upwards of 30. You might have the awd cts miles or the non direct injection.

For the manual guys that think the ls3 is superior Id like to see you guys put your money where your mouths are instead of puffing your chest out because you bought a manual...lol.

Sax1031 · 10-06-2010, 12:08 AM

I think it was purely economical decision based on the situation GM was and had faced when putting the Camaro out to the public.

ViperTomcat · 10-06-2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revo1

It's a pretty standard practice- I'd never seen anyone offer a separate engine for each tranny before Camaro...

Dodge has two different versions of the 5.7L Hemi that goes into the Challenger. One is (under) rated at 372 HP with an auto and the other is (again, under) rated at 376 with the manual.

usmc8411 · 10-06-2010, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeSS

the manuals are faster at 1/4mil and 1/2 mile... of corse professional drivers

LOL at this blanket statement. Anyways 1/2 mile...what is this Fast & Furious.

Number 3 · 10-06-2010, 05:02 PM

Ahhhhh, might as well weigh in.

First, kudos to FoMoCo. The new 5.0 is a pretty sweet engine. Very little to base any disrespect on.

First of all, OHC vs OHV. That is the big reason for both the FE and the HP of the 5.0. Lay the HP and torque curves over the top of one another and I'm sure you'll see the difference. HP is nothing more than the speed at which an engine can deliver torque. It's why diesels make great torque and low HP. On the flip side, it's why a little 4 cylinder can make nice HP but no torque. Larger (heavier) pistons and an OHV don't make for high revs. What is the red line of the 5.0 anyway? Anyone know? I thought it was 7,000 RPM or higher. And assuming the 5.0 does it, you can use VVT on both the intake and exhaust while the single cam on the OHV doesn't allow quite as much flexibility even with VVT for improved FE.

For a push rod engine, the LS3 is about as high tech as you can get.

And as for performance flexibility, do you want to put a cam in an LS3 or 4 in a 5.0? $$$$

Again, mad proper respect to FoMoCo for the effort. They deserve a lot of credit. But Ford has been putting OHC engines in trucks for some time now so putting that technology in the Mustang is only surprising that it took so long. They were dragging along with some old school powertrains.

And to the drag strip comments..............still boils down to the Mustang being a much smaller car.

So can I get better FE numbers with a smaller and lighter car with the same engine? Yes, absolutely. Mass is huge for City numbers and the smaller car is huge for the highway. And although a lot of threads have been devoted to it, the Camaro is based on a large sedan architecture. It's just simply a bigger, heavier car.

wbt · 10-06-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 3

Again, mad proper respect to FoMoCo for the effort. They deserve a lot of credit. But Ford has been putting OHC engines in trucks for some time now so putting that technology in the Mustang is only surprising that it took so long. They were dragging along with some old school powertrains.

And to the drag strip comments..............still boils down to the Mustang being a much smaller car.

So can I get better FE numbers with a smaller and lighter car with the same engine? Yes, absolutely. Mass is huge for City numbers and the smaller car is huge for the highway. And although a lot of threads have been devoted to it, the Camaro is based on a large sedan architecture. It's just simply a bigger, heavier car.

Ford has been putting OHC motors in the Mustang since '96.

Mustang is 200lbs. heavier than the Camaro. Not a huge diff. Roughly .2 in the quarter. It is a better 1/4 mile car because of gearing and the SRA; not so much weight.

*DGthe3* · 10-06-2010, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbt

Ford has been putting OHC motors in the Mustang since '96.

Mustang is 200lbs. heavier than the Camaro. Not a huge diff. Roughly .2 in the quarter. It is a better 1/4 mile car because of gearing and the SRA; not so much weight.

I assume you meant lighter, right? And its closer to 250, but thats splitting hairs.

Anyway, isn't the gap between the GT and the SS about 2 or 3 tenths ... almost exactly the difference that can be attributed to the weight?

usmc8411 · 10-06-2010, 08:56 PM

I would be daring enough to say that theres almost 0 difference in times between the mustang and camaro. There was big hype, but now pretty much no evidence to support it.

8cd03gro · 10-06-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc8411

I would be daring enough to say that theres almost 0 difference in times between the mustang and camaro. There was big hype, but now pretty much no evidence to support it.

The proof is in the fact that the 5.0 has already matched and beaten the best (known) stock ls3 time/trap and we're just now hitting prime time for super low DA and good temps. I would expect a 12.4x out of someone soon, MAYBE quicker somewhere like Etown. I think it's closer than 2-3 lengths though on average. It's pretty much a drivers race with a slight edge to the 5.0 unless your comparing auto to auto, that's a different story.

*Milk 1027* · 10-06-2010, 09:08 PM

so many ignorant comments....

10-05-2010, 11:19 PM	#46
Revo1 Don't Like it? Suggit. Drives: 2010 2SS/RS Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 14,832 View My Garage	It's a pretty standard practice- I'd never seen anyone offer a separate engine for each tranny before Camaro... __________________ "Tops off, tach up baby- loud and proud!" A Camaro lover from day one- 1996 3.8 V6 Camaro, to 1996 5.7 LT1 Camaro Z28, to the sold 2002 5.7 LS1 Camaro SS, and NOW, a [I]6.2 L99 VR 2SS/RS: XS Power stainless full exhaust, Airaid CAI, BMR drop springs and sways, custom tune by Cal Speed- 411rwhp

10-06-2010, 05:02 PM	#51
Number 3 Hail to the King baby! Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 12,183 View My Garage	Ahhhhh, might as well weigh in. First, kudos to FoMoCo. The new 5.0 is a pretty sweet engine. Very little to base any disrespect on. First of all, OHC vs OHV. That is the big reason for both the FE and the HP of the 5.0. Lay the HP and torque curves over the top of one another and I'm sure you'll see the difference. HP is nothing more than the speed at which an engine can deliver torque. It's why diesels make great torque and low HP. On the flip side, it's why a little 4 cylinder can make nice HP but no torque. Larger (heavier) pistons and an OHV don't make for high revs. What is the red line of the 5.0 anyway? Anyone know? I thought it was 7,000 RPM or higher. And assuming the 5.0 does it, you can use VVT on both the intake and exhaust while the single cam on the OHV doesn't allow quite as much flexibility even with VVT for improved FE. For a push rod engine, the LS3 is about as high tech as you can get. And as for performance flexibility, do you want to put a cam in an LS3 or 4 in a 5.0? $$$$ Again, mad proper respect to FoMoCo for the effort. They deserve a lot of credit. But Ford has been putting OHC engines in trucks for some time now so putting that technology in the Mustang is only surprising that it took so long. They were dragging along with some old school powertrains. And to the drag strip comments..............still boils down to the Mustang being a much smaller car. So can I get better FE numbers with a smaller and lighter car with the same engine? Yes, absolutely. Mass is huge for City numbers and the smaller car is huge for the highway. And although a lot of threads have been devoted to it, the Camaro is based on a large sedan architecture. It's just simply a bigger, heavier car. __________________ "Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley

10-06-2010, 09:08 PM	#56
Milk 1027 Camaro➎ moderator Drives: '13 BLK 1LE Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: AZ Posts: 13,567 View My Garage	so many ignorant comments.... __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2011 Ford 5.0L (Coyote) Crate engine on sale...$6,999	All-Or-Nothing	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	24	01-06-2012 07:22 PM
Ford unveiling Boss Mustang Aug. 13th?	All-Or-Nothing	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	329	08-26-2010 10:27 AM
List of Intakes that will work with the TVS-2300 MagnaCharger	JJ2010	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	26	03-19-2010 02:11 AM
Edmunds: 2010 Ford Mustang First Look	Scotsman	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	32	11-23-2008 09:55 PM
Ford Flex: Reclaiming land lost to imports, from coast to coast	Scotsman	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	0	04-16-2008 12:56 AM

10-05-2010, 10:16 PM	#43
nester7929 Rice Harvester Drives: 2014 Bright Yellow 2SS/RS Join Date: May 2008 Location: Plainview, TX Posts: 1,449	The new 5.0 is about 3 years more advanced than the LS3, so it's perfectly reasonable that it makes similar power with better fuel economy. I'm sure the GEN V engines will be a bit better than the 5.0 when they hit also.

10-05-2010, 10:32 PM	#45
motorhead Drives: Love the one you're with Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Downtown Charlie Brown Posts: 11,850	You know the old saying, "If you want to go fast drive a chevy. If you want to save gas drive a ford."

10-06-2010, 12:08 AM	#48
Sax1031 Drives: 2000 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Elgin,SC Posts: 2,707	I think it was purely economical decision based on the situation GM was and had faced when putting the Camaro out to the public.

10-06-2010, 08:56 PM	#54
usmc8411 Account Suspended Drives: 2010 camaro Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: hannibal mo Posts: 207	I would be daring enough to say that theres almost 0 difference in times between the mustang and camaro. There was big hype, but now pretty much no evidence to support it.