Ford = OHV

[Captiva Fan]

So, a car that is faster than a F430 yet uses less fuel is bad engineering? Z06 Corvette!

Seriously though, unless you've got speed-humps in your work car-park you could comfortably drive the F430 to work daily; yet the Z06 would be a serious PITA. There are almost-unusable Lotus 7 replica thingies which cost lots less, are quicker, and use considerably less fuel than the Z06 ... and they're even less multi-purpose.

Still ... along those lines, an Elfin with an LS7 would be, well, interesting.

[EfiOz]

I think what Bill is trying to say is that grabbing 20% extra power/torque by making the engine 20% larger is a furphy. The only time I get interested in aproduction engine these days is when they say release an engine that's 20% smaller and makes 10% more power. Now that's art.

If anyone in the business could fark up a DOHC V8 it would be Ford. The engine by itself is very good but it's as if no one bothered to ask what it was going to be fitted to. A 90deg layout was dumb to begin with and how they make a head that big is beyond me.

Add two more cylinders to a Duratech and call me in the morning.

[Ze]

chev did and they never looked back

The LT5 was never a mainstream engine , it was a specialist engine that was built by mercury marine.

If anyone in the business could fark up a DOHC V8 it would be Ford. The engine by itself is very good but it's as if no one bothered to ask what it was going to be fitted to. A 90deg layout was dumb to begin with and how they make a head that big is beyond me.

Why the hell is a 90 degree layout dumb for a V8? anything other than a 90 degree layout is stupidity for a v8.

[arcane]

Seriously though, unless you've got speed-humps in your work car-park you could comfortably drive the F430 to work daily; yet the Z06 would be a serious PITA.

Modern-day Porsche's are even better in this regard. The 997 Turbo's have a very impressive fuel economy (given the power they make; from memory, the combined consumption is mid-to-high 13L/100km), and are a very daily-drivable car.

[EfiOz]

Why the hell is a 90 degree layout dumb for a V8? anything other than a 90 degree layout is stupidity for a v8.

Packaging wise (which is 50% of current engine design) it's dumb.

[EfiOz]

Modern-day Porsche's are even better in this regard. The 997 Turbo's have a very impressive fuel economy (given the power they make; from memory, the combined consumption is mid-to-high 13L/100km), and are a very daily-drivable car.

That's actually the one thing a Porker kills a Ferrari for in every day driving.

[Captiva Fan]

Modern-day Porsche's are even better in this regard. The 997 Turbo's have a very impressive fuel economy (given the power they make; from memory, the combined consumption is mid-to-high 13L/100km), and are a very daily-drivable car.

Without knowing the reality, my guess would be it's because the Ferrari's n/a engine is probably somewhat more on the "bleeding edge" than the turbo 911's engine; in terms of tune, at least. The 911 "only" puts out an extra half-again power over the n/a version, despite running over a bar of boost; it might be advanced in terms of weight-versus-strength, electronics etc, but it's probably not tuned right on the performance edge 'cos it's got all that boosty safety-net behind it.

[rj_astra]

Without knowing the reality, my guess would be it's because the Ferrari's n/a engine is probably somewhat more on the "bleeding edge" than the turbo 911's engine; in terms of tune, at least. The 911 "only" puts out an extra half-again power over the n/a version, despite running over a bar of boost; it might be advanced in terms of weight-versus-strength, electronics etc, but it's probably not tuned right on the performance edge 'cos it's got all that boosty safety-net behind it.

The 911 Turbo engine is one of the few turbo petrol engines with variable vane turbo chargers. A few ECU tweeks from APR and the 911 Turbo puts out some nice power figures.

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...rsche_911.html

[260BC]

A DOHC engine is bigger than an equivalent displacement single OHC or pushrod engine, particularly in a V form. Assuming all are decent modern designs of course. The bigger engine is therefore less efficient in space utilisation, requiring a bigger engine bay to accomodate it and therefore requiring a bigger car which uses more materials and is heavier.

Tell me again which engine is most efficient for everyday transport use?

[RealizE]

The bigger engine is therefore less efficient in space utilisation, requiring a bigger engine bay to accomodate it and therefore requiring a bigger car which uses more materials and is heavier.

Tell me again which engine is most efficient for everyday transport use?

By that reasoning, a rotary should be the ultimate engine for efficient everyday transport.

[Billzilla]

A DOHC engine is bigger than an equivalent displacement single OHC or pushrod engine, particularly in a V form. Assuming all are decent modern designs of course. The bigger engine is therefore less efficient in space utilisation, requiring a bigger engine bay to accomodate it and therefore requiring a bigger car which uses more materials and is heavier.

Tell me again which engine is most efficient for everyday transport use?

A twin-cam engine four-valve by about 20% over nearly anything else.

[Dave]

A twin-cam engine four-valve by about 20% over nearly anything else.

in what sense?

[260BC]

By that reasoning, a rotary should be the ultimate engine for efficient everyday transport.

Whats a rotory, is that an engine? :D

[260BC]

A twin-cam engine four-valve by about 20% over nearly anything else.

Bill, in a V configuration the twin cam is far bulkier. Perfect example with which I am very familiar is the Nissan VG30, single and twin cam versions, virtually the same block so its an ideal comparo.

But with a straight four the difference is a hell of a lot less.

[Nero]

SOHC can still be 4v...why would ford bother with 2v?