Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Vitesse Motorsports
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Chevy Camaro vs...

Chevy Camaro vs... Comparison of Chevy Camaro versus its competition. *NO STREET RACING STORIES*

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-12-2013, 09:01 PM   #51
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irnwkrkev View Post
LOL at all the myths. Who's really in a bubble!

If it's obsolete why are two of the largest automobile manufacturers making them to this day and have them planned for well into the future?

Today's pushrod engines can hold their own. The LS9 was the highest horsepower V8 engine produced until the GT500 came out in 2013!
I cannot answer your question regarding why GM is still using the pushrod design in their V8 yet they don't use the pushrod design in the V6 and 4 cylinder. It defies logic.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:03 PM   #52
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irnwkrkev View Post
You sir have just lost all credability!

LOL. I probably deserved that one. Hey, I wanted a cheap, quality car that held its resell and got good fuel economy. And I was poor at the time. Sue me.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:06 PM   #53
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Displacement is not limited in an overhead cam motor. That is a myth. And overhead cam motors do not weigh more per cubic inch than a pushrod motor. Another myth. The reason overhead cam motors are smaller is because they can get the HP they need with less displacement--more HP per cubic inch. That is also why all cars (other than GM V8 and Dodge V8) use overhead cams. All cars. Do you not understand that fact. The pushrod motor is an obsolete design.
So you are saying DOCH engines don't weigh more per cubic inch when the Coyote is a 5.0 and weighs roughly the same as the 6.2 LS3?

Displacement is not limited in any engine but the physical size of the DOCH limits the displacement in certain situations.

If that wasn't the case, why doesn't Ford put the 6.2 in the Mustang, build it like the Coyote and blow GM out of the water?

The reason? It won't fit. Look at what they had to do to get the 5.4 in the Cobra R.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:07 PM   #54
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
It does it with less DISPLACEMENT, not a smaller engine. It also has CNC ported heads, different cams and different exhaust. It's not a direct comparison to the LS3.

DOHC engines have
higher center of gravity
larger external dimensions
weight less

Most cars are not V8s. Most are 4 bangers or V6s which do not have the same packaging problems as a DOCH V8.
Well, the Boss 302 is slightly hopped up, but it is not that radical. They really just did some slight changes to it, other than the forged parts which are more for reliability and not HP.

I still say you are exaggerating all the size, weight, center of gravity, etc. Those are not as large of a difference as you make them out to be. The packaging is not some big problem either. Again, the GT500 engine has more displacement than the 5.0 and it fits in the Mustang just fine.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:08 PM   #55
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
I cannot answer your question regarding why GM is still using the pushrod design in their V8 yet they don't use the pushrod design in the V6 and 4 cylinder. It defies logic.
Packaging.

The V6 is a 60* V so it is narrower at the top, meaning they can run DOHC and it won't be overly wide.

The I4 is vertical, so packaging really isn't an issue there.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:13 PM   #56
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Well, the Boss 302 is slightly hopped up, but it is not that radical. They really just did some slight changes to it, other than the forged parts which are more for reliability and not HP.

I still say you are exaggerating all the size, weight, center of gravity, etc. Those are not as large of a difference as you make them out to be. The packaging is not some big problem either. Again, the GT500 engine has more displacement than the 5.0 and it fits in the Mustang just fine.
So you don't think CNCing the heads is radical?

I am not exaggerating the size. Have you seen a picture of an LS swapped in to a Mustang? There is plenty of room around the engine.

The 5.8 also uses deposited iron linings in the cylinder bores instead of pressed in liners because they couldn't use them. The bore diameter is the largest they could get in that block. The Ford Modular uses a bore spacing of 3.973" (if I remember right off the top of my head), while the LS uses a 4.40" bore spacing.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:13 PM   #57
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So you are saying DOCH engines don't weigh more per cubic inch when the Coyote is a 5.0 and weighs roughly the same as the 6.2 LS3?

Displacement is not limited in any engine but the physical size of the DOCH limits the displacement in certain situations.

If that wasn't the case, why doesn't Ford put the 6.2 in the Mustang, build it like the Coyote and blow GM out of the water?

The reason? It won't fit. Look at what they had to do to get the 5.4 in the Cobra R.
The GT500 is a 5.8 liter and it fits fine in the Mustang. The reason the base mustang has the 5.0 is because it is a historical size motor for the Mustang--not because of some "packaging problem". Ford could build a 6.2 coyote (with a redesign) and it would weigh about the same as the current coyote and fit just fine in the Mustang. The problem with the coyote is that Ford did not contemplate needing a larger motor. It just went with the 5.0 for marketing and history purposes. I actually hope Ford does build a larger coyote, which I know it can do, to prove me right. The packaging is a myth. Yes the overhead cam head is wider, but it does not need to be that much wider when going from a 5.0 to a 6.2. The bore between the two is not that much. Some of it is done with stroke.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:21 PM   #58
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So you don't think CNCing the heads is radical?

I am not exaggerating the size. Have you seen a picture of an LS swapped in to a Mustang? There is plenty of room around the engine.

The 5.8 also uses deposited iron linings in the cylinder bores instead of pressed in liners because they couldn't use them. The bore diameter is the largest they could get in that block. The Ford Modular uses a bore spacing of 3.973" (if I remember right off the top of my head), while the LS uses a 4.40" bore spacing.
No I don't think CNC the heads is radical. I have never seen an LS in a Mustang.

So there is less than a half inch in the bore size (that is about what I thought). If the coyote used the same bore size (if it could), the head would not have to be more than half inch wider. You make it sound like it would add ten inches and 400 pound to the motor. That is why I said you are overplaying the "packaging" myth. Yes the OHC head is wider, but it fits and it can fit on a 400 cubic inch motor and fit in the Mustang if Ford would have designed it that way. Ford just went all in on a 5.0 without any thought to displacement flexibility, and it got boxed into that size. Ford needs to dump the 5.0 and build a coyote for more cubic inches.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:25 PM   #59
TexasChile
 
Drives: Toyota
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 50
Guys I have enjoyed the spirited debate. I am going to surf around some so I will let you guys have at it for a while. The LS is a great engine and I am thinking of buying one, so I am not some Ford troll. My ex-father-in-law used to work at an auto parts store and he told me he sold more Ford parts than any other make, which told me Ford must have a lot of problems. I did have a Ford truck one time and it was always having mechanical problems of some kind. LOL.
TexasChile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 09:38 PM   #60
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
The GT500 is a 5.8 liter and it fits fine in the Mustang. The reason the base mustang has the 5.0 is because it is a historical size motor for the Mustang--not because of some "packaging problem". Ford could build a 6.2 coyote (with a redesign) and it would weigh about the same as the current coyote and fit just fine in the Mustang. The problem with the coyote is that Ford did not contemplate needing a larger motor. It just went with the 5.0 for marketing and history purposes. I actually hope Ford does build a larger coyote, which I know it can do, to prove me right. The packaging is a myth. Yes the overhead cam head is wider, but it does not need to be that much wider when going from a 5.0 to a 6.2. The bore between the two is not that much. Some of it is done with stroke.
And I said the bore of the 5.8 was the MAX they could do. They could not do a 6.2 on the Coyote block.

A DOHC engine would make more power than OHV engine of the same displacement but me a MUCH larger engine overall.

OHV and DOHC are two different ways to produce similar results. It just takes OHV engines more displacement to produce equal power while DOHC engines are physically larger.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 01:11 AM   #61
Nessal


 
Drives: Lotus Exige
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: CA, Bay Area
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
The Coyote is a much better engine from a technical perspective for performance, but it is limited by cubic inches. If there was an LS7 sized coyote, that would be one bad engine. The LS engine is a great engine for durability, but nobody on the planet Earth uses push rods in engines other than GM, and for good reason: Over head Cams are much more sophisticated and efficient for performance. An LS would not have a prayer against a coyote if the LS was limited to 5.0 cubes. The LS only competes because it uses more cubes to make up for its obsolete push rod design. Push rods are obsolete much like the flat head design was obsolete by over head valves. I don't understand why GM insists on using push rod engines. Of course, I also don't understand why GM insists on using fiberglass on Corvettes. No car company on Earth other than GM uses fiberglass--its used on cheap replica cars and bass boats. By the way, I am not a Ford guy. I have always been a GM guy but I do like the old Fords and Mopars too. Just keeping it real and honest. By the way, I am looking into buying a Camaro 1LE.


LOL.

The fact of the matter is that Chevy never had to stray from a pushrod because it works so well. Tell me WHY do they NEED to go to a overhead cam design? I would love to hear this one. The Corvette is one of the best performers out there and still uses the "outdated" design that you tout as being inferior while being one of the most efficient. How many other big displacement V8's out there can get the same MPG with the power output. And do you seriously not know why they use fiberglass for the body? No other car companies use fiberglass besides cheap replicas and boats? Ever heard of Lotus?
Nessal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 01:19 AM   #62
Nessal


 
Drives: Lotus Exige
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: CA, Bay Area
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Displacement is not limited in an overhead cam motor. That is a myth. And overhead cam motors do not weigh more per cubic inch than a pushrod motor. Another myth. The reason overhead cam motors are smaller is because they can get the HP they need with less displacement--more HP per cubic inch. That is also why all cars (other than GM V8 and Dodge V8) use overhead cams. All cars. Do you not understand that fact. The pushrod motor is an obsolete design.


You do understand that just because an engine has bigger displacement does not mean the form factor has to be bigger right? You don't seem to be able to grasp that point.
Nessal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 03:37 AM   #63
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
The GT500 is a 5.8 liter and it fits fine in the Mustang. The reason the base mustang has the 5.0 is because it is a historical size motor for the Mustang--not because of some "packaging problem". Ford could build a 6.2 coyote (with a redesign) and it would weigh about the same as the current coyote and fit just fine in the Mustang. The problem with the coyote is that Ford did not contemplate needing a larger motor. It just went with the 5.0 for marketing and history purposes. I actually hope Ford does build a larger coyote, which I know it can do, to prove me right. The packaging is a myth. Yes the overhead cam head is wider, but it does not need to be that much wider when going from a 5.0 to a 6.2. The bore between the two is not that much. Some of it is done with stroke.
The only "MYTH" here is that a pushrod motor is obsolete.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 03:40 AM   #64
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
Guys I have enjoyed the spirited debate. I am going to surf around some so I will let you guys have at it for a while. The LS is a great engine and I am thinking of buying one, so I am not some Ford troll. My ex-father-in-law used to work at an auto parts store and he told me he sold more Ford parts than any other make, which told me Ford must have a lot of problems. I did have a Ford truck one time and it was always having mechanical problems of some kind. LOL.
Why are you thinking of buying one? You obviously do not understand nor appreciate the engine and from my grasp on things you would be better suited in a japanese car. Why buy something you think is antiqued and obsolete and performs poorly? I can save you money right now and tell you that your chances of being happy in one is unlikely since you don't understand it.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 04:24 AM   #65
VADER SS L99


 
VADER SS L99's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS L99
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 2,516
This is funny and the whole HP per displacement sounds like a ricer excuse. What does it really matter since the LS3 makes more power.

A. The LS3 makes more power and torque than a Coyote. Period.
B. The LS3 gets the same mpg as the Coyote.
C. The LS3 weighs less than the Coyote.
D. The LS3 has less moving parts than the Coyote.
E. The LS3 cost less to mfg than the Coyote.
F. The LS3 exterior deminsions are smaller than a Coyote

The whole the Coyote makes more power per displacement is a excuse. If GM made a pushrod 8.0 that made 450HP, 450 tq, weighs 450lbs, got 26mpg,and cost 9k vs a Ford DOHC V8 4.0 that made 440HP, 440TQ, weighs 460lbs, 26mpg and cost 10k what does it really matter that the GM engine is twice the displacement. It makes more power, weighs less, exterior deminsions are smaller, gets the same mpg and cost less to produce. GM motor FTW

If the Ford marketing team hadn't got their claws into the Coyote all this would be a mute point and there would be no debate. The Ford engineering team wanted to take the aluminum 5.4 that they already desinged, put the Coyote DOHC heads, intake and VVT on it with 11.1 compression but the marketing team in their wisdom said no lets bring back the 5.0 so the car will sell better. If Ford had made a Coyote 5.4 the whole LS3 VS Coyote would be dead. The whole Camaro vs Mustang would have also been dead and well the Camaro would have probably died as well. A 5.4 Coyote would have had a minimum 450HP with much more torque than it has now all while costing the same or less to mfg and alot less to R and D.
__________________
BLK/BLK 1SS/RS Ordered 11-01-2009 Took delivery 12-22-2009.
VADER SS L99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 11:17 AM   #66
antimatr
 
antimatr's Avatar
 
Drives: 4 wheels + engine
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 62
I find it pretty funny that TexasChile dismisses the LS and other pushrod motors as obsolete, yet the overhead cam engine has been around for over a hundred years...

There were quite a few reasons why I went with my 5.0 over the Camaro in the end, but the engine sure as hell wasn't one of them. I could give f***-all about whether an engine's pushrod or OHC, as long as it's reliable, affordable and makes the power/torque I want.
__________________
Current: 2011 Ford Mustang GT (Sterling Gray Metallic, Brembo pkg., HIDs/Security Pkg, 3.55s), to be disposed of ASAP
Future: 2015 Dodge Challenger R/T Scat Pack (Sublime Green Pearl, Driver Convenience Pkg, 8A)
antimatr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 11:56 AM   #67
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by antimatr View Post
I find it pretty funny that TexasChile dismisses the LS and other pushrod motors as obsolete, yet the overhead cam engine has been around for over a hundred years...

There were quite a few reasons why I went with my 5.0 over the Camaro in the end, but the engine sure as hell wasn't one of them. I could give f***-all about whether an engine's pushrod or OHC, as long as it's reliable, affordable and makes the power/torque I want.
Actually since you seem to know more about history, do you know which is actually the older design? Pushrod or overhead cam? At some point I heard the pushrod motor came after the overhead cam, but have no way of verifying if that is true or not.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 08:19 PM   #68
302-412
 
Drives: 2013 Ram Express
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 228
VVT on a pushrod engine (unless it's a Viper) is just for emissions, on a DOHC with dual phasers it allows you to change the overlap and increase the powerband of the engine. Right now why would Ford need more than 5.0 displacement? And do the pro pushrod boy's think a HD is in the same league as the typical DOHC motorcycle engine? I agree about the physical size but LS engines are limited to port size, and spark plug placement, the Chrysler HEMIS are much closer to being the "state of the art" push rod engine being held back by very limited aftermarket support.
302-412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 09:10 PM   #69
mikeyg36
The GT Troll Hundred
 
mikeyg36's Avatar
 
Drives: Cammed '12 2SS/RS LS3 '15 Z/28
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by 302-412 View Post
VVT on a pushrod engine (unless it's a Viper) is just for emissions, on a DOHC with dual phasers it allows you to change the overlap and increase the powerband of the engine. Right now why would Ford need more than 5.0 displacement? And do the pro pushrod boy's think a HD is in the same league as the typical DOHC motorcycle engine? I agree about the physical size but LS engines are limited to port size, and spark plug placement, the Chrysler HEMIS are much closer to being the "state of the art" push rod engine being held back by very limited aftermarket support.
__________________
Click For Build Thread ***CAI Intake, ARH LTs, FSP Big NA Cam, Tuned By Matt@FSP***
mikeyg36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 10:55 PM   #70
antimatr
 
antimatr's Avatar
 
Drives: 4 wheels + engine
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbass View Post
Actually since you seem to know more about history, do you know which is actually the older design? Pushrod or overhead cam? At some point I heard the pushrod motor came after the overhead cam, but have no way of verifying if that is true or not.
I wasn't quite sure myself, so I looked around the web and automotive books scattered around the house and the earliest OHV engine I could find was developed in 1902 by Buick.

Then I was surprised to learn that an engineer named John Wilkinson had designed and built an overhead cam engine...in 1898. Which would mean that OHC engines had predated OHV engines by four years...
__________________
Current: 2011 Ford Mustang GT (Sterling Gray Metallic, Brembo pkg., HIDs/Security Pkg, 3.55s), to be disposed of ASAP
Future: 2015 Dodge Challenger R/T Scat Pack (Sublime Green Pearl, Driver Convenience Pkg, 8A)

Last edited by antimatr; 06-14-2013 at 11:39 PM.
antimatr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 11:34 PM   #71
cbass

 
Drives: .
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by antimatr View Post
Then I was surprised to learn that an engineer named John Wilkinson had designed and built an overhead cam engine...in 1898. Which would mean that OHC engines had predated OHV engines by four years...
Making OHC engines the old, antiqued design.

In all seriousness both have their place and both can be made to work very well but to call a push rod engine obsolete or antiqued and a OHC superior is just asinine and misinformed. Various top muscle cars and sports cars use push rod designs very succesfully.
cbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 05:12 AM   #72
302-412
 
Drives: 2013 Ram Express
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36 View Post
And your point is?
302-412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 06:40 AM   #73
big hammer

 
Drives: 2002 ws6
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: manitoba
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasChile View Post
I cannot answer your question regarding why GM is still using the pushrod design in their V8 yet they don't use the pushrod design in the V6 and 4 cylinder. It defies logic.

what is a manufacturers objective when designing an engine for their vehicles? is it to win a ricer math argument? or are fuel economy, reliability, HP and cost of production the main goals?

does ricer math have any value in the real world?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black GT View Post
Couple months ago we a few of us were at the track playing with one of my buddies 2010 Z06 automatic.Between 4 of us NO ONE was able to get out of the 12's.

I believe torque managnent was killing us that night, when launching the car would take off and fall flat on it's face.
big hammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 06:41 AM   #74
big hammer

 
Drives: 2002 ws6
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: manitoba
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by antimatr View Post
I wasn't quite sure myself, so I looked around the web and automotive books scattered the house and the earliest OHV engine I could find was developed in 1902 by Buick.

Then I was surprised to learn that an engineer named John Wilkinson had designed and built an overhead cam engine...in 1898. Which would mean that OHC engines had predated OHV engines by four years...
yup. and Pontiac was using OHC engines in the firebird in the 60's.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black GT View Post
Couple months ago we a few of us were at the track playing with one of my buddies 2010 Z06 automatic.Between 4 of us NO ONE was able to get out of the 12's.

I believe torque managnent was killing us that night, when launching the car would take off and fall flat on it's face.
big hammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 09:04 AM   #75
toehead93


 
Drives: 2014 2SS/1LE
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: wpb fl
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by 302-412 View Post
And your point is?
He is trying to say you got it wrong. VVT in the L99 is there to increase low end torque and high end HP which out does nicely with results similar to the Viper. It is more for power then fuel economy which is why the L99 has AFM.
__________________
Used Racing Brake 2 Peice Rotors for sale:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344754

Summit White 2014 2SS 1LE
Recaros, NPP exhaust, Nav
2010 2SS A6 - sold.
toehead93 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.