Why GM should NOT build a DOHC V8

[G. David Felt]

Thank you Wings! Up Vote 1 for a nice overview of what you do and your take on the OHV versus OHC issue. Like many of us that are engineers, we do have our own view of what we like best and works best and I have to totally agree with you on your comment about younger engineers who should now better about hardware components and yet do not.

 

I have found many of today's mechanics are more parts replacement people than actual mechanics that have the training to troubleshoot and figure out why something is working or not working right. Replacing parts is a small part of the over all picture in what really is the root cause of the complete problem.

 

Engineers seem to be going this route as many out of college are not wanting to put the time in to learn the history and understand the changes that have gotten us to where we are today in technology be it the engines, transmissions or computers that control everything.

 

Hopefully through civil debates online we can open up the amazing world of auto's and the computers used to run them now to a new generation of people that can catch the bug of loving auto's.

[ccap41]

ccap,

I work at Ford as a powertrain product development engineer / design and CAE analyst of upper end systems.  I wear several hats, because they happen to fit. I say that, because I am part of a dying breed in this industry that recognizes OHV and carburetors as more than just a museum piece, as well as someone who knows how to wrench on my own motors, having built many in my day.  Trust me when I tell you, the young whiz kids today are far more comfortable around an Android phone and Twitter accounts, than they are around my elaborate home tool set.  Just the way of things, I guess.  But it's pretty embarrassing when I have to explain fundamental engine components to employees who have been with the company long enough to know better. 

 

So, I read backwards to find your full question, but I am not certain I have it all. But I will try to answer what I can.

 

What I have tried to convey in this thread, is that there is no clear winner in valve train architecture choice, overall, and that application, packaging, cost, etc, and even driving style and yes subjectivity can have an impact on perception and certainly when choosing between OHV or OHC families of engines.  They each offer unique benefits to the other, and to complicate matters further, they have to balance them overall within a brand's portfolio of vehicles or at least, an engine family that fits many. As I see it, the balance has been found to clearly be favored toward OHC, for reasons established and learned through many years.  And contrary to some beliefs, marketing is only a small part of the reason a corporation would choose to throw so much capital and effort. GM has done well with OHV larger engines, especially where torque is needed, but it seems to have recognized the limitations in smaller applications, hence their decision to mostly abandon it.

 

And regarding the benefits of both, what I do know is that as you increase in displacement, specifically bore size for larger valve sizes, you can quickly recover some of the negatives of single valve OHV - that is why big OHV V8's still work effectively. But normally, it comes down to maximizing  volumetric efficiency of the air pump known as an IC engine.  Also, allowing for several cams will check the negative column for added friction, complexity, etc.....but it also checks the pro column for huge gains in vol-eff, especially due to twin VCT control.  Next up, packaging. We all know a twin cam head is bigger, hence the bigger package. But those negatives are small, and really only present themselves as such when packaging a small sports car where gaining fractions of a percent gains are noticed.  Obviously, OHC is more stout and capable of higher rpm's, due to the tight and rigid package of VT mechanisms relative to the load-inducing cam -- whereas OHV needs long pushrods that complicate that delicate and carefully engineered kinematic balance, and without maximizing machining and design costs to mitigate those limitations, you are stuck with them.. Placement of the plug in the center is also favored for 4v OHC, wrapped around the central plug..... where OHV is off-center, typically, and just slightly more difficult to hit that perfect stoichiometric balance, to achieve cleaner more efficient combustion, and appropriate burn rates.

 

A misnomer I have read here, is that you can just up-size a push-rod motor to match power of smaller OHC.  Well yes, you can, but things fall off the table, like fuel economy and emissions, as it gets harder to maintain good burn combustion, the larger the combustion chamber is.  Think Hemi, that had 2 plugs to help with that.

 

And finally, one of the reasons why DOHC and even GTDI is gaining in popularity, is because engineering has to recognize that futuring into new technology and advances of systems and sub-systems, will get you those additional gains you seek easier.  That's just a fact.  The analogy I use, is that today's GTDI engine is complex enough, kind of like a top end stereo system with many control knobs for tuning.  But from what I see and are learning, is that not only are we not sizing and tuning properly, but they are throwing in many more control knobs (think EGR cooling benefits, Miller cam cycle benefits, cam friction reduction technologies coming, etc....) and suddenly, that high fidelity audio you thought you had in tune....is capable of far, far more.  

Wow, Thank You Wings! Much appreciated.

[El Kabong]

It's a nice spiel.

And yet, I see very mixed results for Ford power plants, especially on the FE end of things.

It would appear that there is a yawning gap between theory and execution. Pushrods have a place in the automotive universe, and will continue to going forward.

[ccap41]

You've seen mixed results with their n/a v6's and v8's?

[El Kabong]

Absolutely.

I read here that Ford is doing so well with those engine configs, but then I read their advertising and all I see is EcoBoost all the time.

And, of course, then there's the usual stuff that the spiel leaves out: the conpetition isn't resting with pushrods.

Bottom line: Ford has their way, as do everyone else. In the context of this thread, GM has pretty good choices regardless of how it chooses to go.

[ccap41]

Completely leaving out the EcoBoost engines as I know your feelings on them(and their mixed reviews are very obvious - very hit or miss it seems) where have there been mixed reviews of their n/a engines?

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

The endless 'spiel' we usually have to endure regarding EcoBoost seems to be focused only on varied fuel economy, observed through casual testing and pseudo-journalistic exposure.  

 

Sorry, but it took me several tank fulls before I learned how to best optimize my mpg. Not sure how a couple hours on a test track can accomplish that.

And by optimize, I mean gaining another 1 - 1.5mpg in my Fusion, putting it right about where the regulated numbers claimed.  And at the end of those few tanks of fuel, the net cost to me is far too small to even bother to calculate.  But the engines deliver pretty well today, and will soon deliver far better.  No NA engine can match the combinations of advanced sub-systems that are under development currently.

 

Short story that's even shorter.....GTDI is the future of IC engines that is just now starting to get some tuning traction.  All automakers should know this already, or they won't be around long enough to matter.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Wings4Life

[El Kabong]

I'm sure the automakers have taken this post under close advisement.

In the meantime, Ford continues to saddle folks with EB's sketchy fuel economy. As for their N/A engines, the ones that spring immediately to mind are the 3.7V6 (cob) and Coyote (nice, but why does it still have port fuel injection?).

Ford doesn't do anything special when it comes to engines, with the exception of the flat-crank 5.2. Nobody is losing any sleep trying to keep up with them.

Edited September 5, 2015 by El Kabong

[Guest '68 440 Charger]

I'm sure the automakers have taken this post under close advisement.

In the meantime, Ford continues to saddle folks with EB's sketchy fuel economy. As for their N/A engines, the ones that spring immediately to mind are the 3.7V6 (cob) and Coyote (nice, but why does it still have port fuel injection?).

Ford doesn't do anything special when it comes to engines, with the exception of the flat-crank 5.2. Nobody is losing any sleep trying to keep up with them.

Why does the Darts 1.4T not have DI? Or the 2.0L or 2.4L? Why do the Pentastar variants not have DI? Why does not one single HEMI variant have DI? Why do you constantly bash Ford while turning a blind eye to FCA?

[El Kabong]

A few reasons:

-Mopar builds fun stuff that I like.

-I kinda don't let them off the hook. When's the last time I praised the Dart?

-Mopar doesn't have a paid shill cheerleader posting every single company press release.

-Mopar has product development dimes for Ford's dollars, and manages to make fun stuff that I like.

...so, yeah.

[Guest '68 440 Charger]

A few reasons:

-Mopar builds fun stuff that I like.

-I kinda don't let them off the hook. When's the last time I praised the Dart?

-Mopar doesn't have a paid shill cheerleader posting every single company press release.

-Mopar has product development dimes for Ford's dollars, and manages to make fun stuff that I like.

...so, yeah.

So yeah...

You're just a basher who has double standard. Thread after thread, and ones that have no relation to Ford, you somehow try to deflect and bash Ford, while remain mum on FCA that your whining over Ford for. I've never seen someone so desperate to bash and be negative.

[El Kabong]

Not sure what part of "I kinda don't let Mopar off the hook" you didn't get.

Spare us (mostly me) your whining.

Edited September 6, 2015 by El Kabong

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

'off the hook??'

 

right.

 

Raise your hands if anyone here on these boards has ever seen bong bash mopar anywhere close to the amount he degrades Ford.

 

And I could ask the same about any other brand as well.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

I'm sure the automakers have taken this post under close advisement.

In the meantime, Ford continues to saddle folks with EB's sketchy fuel economy. As for their N/A engines, the ones that spring immediately to mind are the 3.7V6 (cob) and Coyote (nice, but why does it still have port fuel injection?).

Ford doesn't do anything special when it comes to engines, with the exception of the flat-crank 5.2. Nobody is losing any sleep trying to keep up with them.

Why does the Darts 1.4T not have DI? Or the 2.0L or 2.4L? Why do the Pentastar variants not have DI? Why does not one single HEMI variant have DI? Why do you constantly bash Ford while turning a blind eye to FCA?

 

 

It's because he loathes too many EcoBoost commercials so much, is my guess.

I wonder how he felt about all the 'Got a Hemi' ads?

Edited September 6, 2015 by Wings4Life

[surreal1272]

 

A few reasons:

-Mopar builds fun stuff that I like.

-I kinda don't let them off the hook. When's the last time I praised the Dart?

-Mopar doesn't have a paid shill cheerleader posting every single company press release.

-Mopar has product development dimes for Ford's dollars, and manages to make fun stuff that I like.

...so, yeah.

So yeah...

You're just a basher who has double standard. Thread after thread, and ones that have no relation to Ford, you somehow try to deflect and bash Ford, while remain mum on FCA that your whining over Ford for. I've never seen someone so desperate to bash and be negative.

 

You really didn't read a thing he said did you?

[surreal1272]

Funny, during the "Got a Hemi" ads, I don't seem to recall molar fanboys constantly posting Mopar and Hemi PR articles to show their allegiance and constantly shove down other posters throats, whether they wanted to see it or not. That is a CLEAR difference between fretting about some ads and fretting about someone's non-stop PR push.

 

Clear difference. 

[El Kabong]

'off the hook??'

 

right.

 

Raise your hands if anyone here on these boards has ever seen bong bash mopar anywhere close to the amount he degrades Ford.

 

And I could ask the same about any other brand as well.

You could.

And I wouldn't give a rat's round cornhole anyways.

On a possibly related note: anyone want to talk about what Car and Driver thought about the EB engine in their Lightning Lap Mustang?

[El Kabong]

Well, seriously. All those EB commercials were praising it to the skies, right? And in the case of Lightning Lap, it was in a 39-grand Mustang, right? And that Mustang wasn't as quick around VIR as a Mini that cost five grand less, right?

I anxiously await your downvotes :D

[FordCosworth]

Well, seriously. All those EB commercials were praising it to the skies, right? And in the case of Lightning Lap, it was in a 39-grand Mustang, right? And that Mustang wasn't as quick around VIR as a Mini that cost five grand less, right?

I anxiously await your downvotes :D

Wrong thread. There is a thread for discussing Lightning Lap performance. But you deflecting to Ford yet again speaks volumes of your negative narrative.

I've never seen someone so obsessed that goes so far out of their way to bash an automaker.

[El Kabong]

Just responding to posts like #513 and #514... and laughing at all the sad-sack downvoting :D

[G. David Felt]

Is there any more thought on this thread in regards to the topic of WHY GM SHOULD NOT BUILD A DOHC V8?

 

If Not then I ask the admin to lock this thread and stop the stupid banter of the wasted above page.

 

Thank you,

[El Kabong]

IMO, GM should not build a DOHC V8 because the LS smallblock makes it unnecessary.

But that's just me.

[cletus8269]

Is there any more thought on this thread in regards to the topic of WHY GM SHOULD NOT BUILD A DOHC V8?

 

If Not then I ask the admin to lock this thread and stop the stupid banter of the wasted above page.

 

Thank you,

 

I'll bite. I remember a certain discussion years ago actually about the whole dohc vs push rods deal. my basis for push rods over dohc actually comes from when GM gave it a go. My argument had to deal with the LT5 from the 90's model ZR-1 and the LS6 from the 04 Z06. 

 

1995

LT5 5.7L

 

405 HP @ 5800 RPM

385 FT/lbs @ 4800 RPM

11:1 comp ratio

 

whereas 

 

2004

LS6 5.7L

 

405 HP @ 6000 RPM

400 FT/lbs @ 4800 RPM

10.5 : 1 comp ratio

 

to me its pretty impressive that they were able to squeeze out identical performance from an engine with the same displacement and completely different layouts. one being so complex i was told by a GM mechanic that they were to remove the engine and send it to mercury marine for service, the other an inherently simple design that has stood the test of time. from what i understood the knowledge gained by the LT5 engines was later used in the northstar engines for caddy. while good engines, they were pretty lack luster stacked against the competition. The LS series of engines have become pretty much cemented in time as a performance power house.

[G. David Felt]

North star was a Good engine, but not a great engine and while it had HP, it is like all DOHC V8 engines lacking in Torque. Why have a bunch of HP that never really gets used and you have to near redline it to get all your torque plus HP.

 

Fact is that the simpler Pushrod engines did the job with much less complexity, easier time in maintenance and over all longer life. I see more DOHC engines needing major repairs and they have not lived 100K let alone 200K miles.

 

No I am not talking about the blah bland 4 banger designs that for the most part are all about MPG and have lack luster get up and go, but the V6 and V8 engines that seem to leave much to be wanted.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I think what people seem to misunderstand is that having DOHC architecture does not preclude you to less low end torque.  That's mostly about the cam, assuming similar displacement parameters.  The amount of added friction is minimal, and only a tiny factor, especially with roller finger follower valve train. In  engine design, torque primarily comes from two things, primarily the amount of crankshaft arm leverage (stroke), or a large bore that has more surface area pushing down on that lever arm....or both. GM's 6.2L happens to have a good balance of both, and thus, better low end torque by default and yet is capable of good high rpm hp as well.  But as you setup any cam on a DOHC or pushrod, assuming similar displacement, where you place that torque in the powerband is completely by cam design. imagine shifting that torque mountain to the left or right (earlier/later) in the rpm band, having torque start at about 500 rpm....but hp falling off early at about 4200 rpm.  Been there-done that. I cammed my 340, which is typically a screamer at the high end, to get a big block feel.  I hated it.  If you can imagine a nice snappy, Diesel like yank from the hole....that falls on it's face way too soon.  It's really pretty much that simple.

 

So as we compare current or recent powertrains, just remember to consider all the parameters in a more relative way, IE, displacement (borexstroke).  So of course that 4.6L can't match the 6.2L in torque.  But you can match it of course per displacement.

 

I think the new Ford 5.2L is an example of how a performance tuned DOHC V8 can benefit with excellent torque and superior hp, where it matters most...in a performance environment.

[G. David Felt]

I think what people seem to misunderstand is that having DOHC architecture does not preclude you to less low end torque.  That's mostly about the cam, assuming similar displacement parameters.  The amount of added friction is minimal, and only a tiny factor, especially with roller finger follower valve train. In  engine design, torque primarily comes from two things, primarily the amount of crankshaft arm leverage (stroke), or a large bore that has more surface area pushing down on that lever arm....or both. GM's 6.2L happens to have a good balance of both, and thus, better low end torque by default and yet is capable of good high rpm hp as well.  But as you setup any cam on a DOHC or pushrod, assuming similar displacement, where you place that torque in the powerband is completely by cam design. imagine shifting that torque mountain to the left or right (earlier/later) in the rpm band, having torque start at about 500 rpm....but hp falling off early at about 4200 rpm.  Been there-done that. I cammed my 340, which is typically a screamer at the high end, to get a big block feel.  I hated it.  If you can imagine a nice snappy, Diesel like yank from the hole....that falls on it's face way too soon.  It's really pretty much that simple.

 

So as we compare current or recent powertrains, just remember to consider all the parameters in a more relative way, IE, displacement (borexstroke).  So of course that 4.6L can't match the 6.2L in torque.  But you can match it of course per displacement.

 

I think the new Ford 5.2L is an example of how a performance tuned DOHC V8 can benefit with excellent torque and superior hp, where it matters most...in a performance environment.

 

Wings I get what you are saying, but let me ask you this as I have never really gotten a good answer myself.

 

WHY does the pushrod engines seem to have a flater torque curve than the DOHC ending up with Pushrod's having more torque than I see out of any DOHC engine?

 

Pushrods always have higher torque than HP for the most part and you get it all the way to red line with HP still pulling. My trailblazer SS AWD is a perfect example of punch in the gut feel as you accelerate all the way into triple digits.

 

DOHC as I have experienced has a fun factor also but I never get that gut feel of force pushing you back into the seat and at the high end I also do not feel that the engine is still pulling strong.

 

Interesting is that we are not the only ones to debate the pushrod versus DOHC debate and plenty of wrong info is out there.

 

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f19/pushrod-v8-vs-dohc-v8-verdict-82942/

https://www.allpar.com/eek/cams.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/pushrods-versus-overhead-cams-part-38-modern-v-8s-from-gm-and-amg-slug-it-out

http://killwithfire.blogspot.com/2011/10/dohc-vs-pushrod-vs-diesel-which-engine.html

 

Have to say that I found all the links with info that was valid and interesting, plus plenty of ignorance especially those that say pushrods or far more heavier than DOHC engines and make less HP / Torque than DOHC design. Really interesting to see the wide variety of knowledge on the subject.

[El Kabong]

I take issue with claiming that the 5.2 has superior torque. Car and Driver has already proclaimed that it is powerful but peaky after their first drive, as are all flat-crank V8 engines. That's just a reality of the design.

DOHC and OHV are each valid layouts. One just has the high ground in the PR department.

[ccap41]

I take issue with claiming that the 5.2 has superior torque. Car and Driver has already proclaimed that it is powerful but peaky after their first drive, as are all flat-crank V8 engines. That's just a reality of the design.

DOHC and OHV are each valid layouts. One just has the high ground in the PR department.

So everybody but GM has high ground in the PR department..? Oh and the HEMI Ram's as well. Just 'cmon man. You're trying to jab at Ford for a design we aren't even talking about here(EcoBoost - GTDI). This is about non-boosted engines, I thought. And if we are talking about turbo DOHC and OHV then we all know(even if you don't like it) that these new turbo motors make gobs of low end torque(per displacement - from all brands).

 

Which does bring me to the DOHC/OHV.. Still my question with tuning remains with the two setups but I'm curious/guessing that the DOHC when accompanied with a turbo has more tuning capabilities than an OHV setup. That would be another reason so many have moved to the DOHC setup. But that is just a guess/question to be answered.

[Guest wings4life]

Wanted to continue my thoughts on torque.

And I wanted to do it with the two top relative DOHC and OHV V8 engines from Ford and GM, the LS7 & Voodoo.

Here are their respective HP & Tq graphs:

 

 

So what I said earlier suggested that valvetrain architecture has little to anything to do with output numbers and curves. That is heavily influenced by bore and stroke, or basically, displacement – first and foremost.  Next to that is cam design.  And finally, RPM range.

 

Look at the formula for HP, which is HP = Torque * RPM / 5252

 

If you plug in the LS7 numbers,

 

HP = Tq peak * (averaged RPM between peak hp & Tq values) / 5252 = ~500hp

 

If you were to spike that RPM up another 1K RPM, you get 588hp.  But you can’t spike it up any more, because you are limited by the OHV design.  And the LS7 is absolutely the most race engine ready V8 GM has ever made, with exotic titanium rods and valves and completely CNC’d combustion system surfaces (ports and chambers, etc.).   And, it is using 7 liters of displacement to get it’s numbers, especially torque from the 4” crank arm.  It is basically a 427ci race engine, that costs plenty to manufacture.

 

By comparison, the much smaller displacement 5.2L (429ftlbs and 526hp) is little more than an over-bored coyote (stroke is essentially the same, but rounded slightly to 93mm) with better breathing heads (ported intake/exh ports only) and a very NON-EXOTIC flat steel crank, although unconventional. Even the block is cheaply produced with some extra ribbing as needed to handle stresses.  It costs far less to manufacture than an all-out LS7, because it does not need exotic materials to achieve higher RPM’s like the LS7 absolutely needs due to it’s typically RPM restricting OHV arrangement, which would probably be around 500rpm’s shy of the 7K peak.  And that is where a lot of your HP is coming from, right there, recalling the HP formula.

 

So although I love both engines and both approaches as an engine guy, I personally would choose the one with more HP in these types of application, where speed and rpm’s are your friend.  Why?  All the torque in the world right at launch, is mitigated anyways to avoid wheel-spin, so too much too soon, is not helping anyway.  So having a decent amount at launch that is perhaps better tractable, and offers more high RPM peak power (not to mention, the coolest sound my ears have ever heard in a V8), in an environment that favors high RPM, simply impresses me more. 

 

But that’s just me.

Anyway, this is some of what I know and some of what I believe.

Take it at least for that much.

[El Kabong]

So. Anyways.

First off, no-I was criticizing the NORMALLY-ASPIRATED, flat-crank 5.2.

No, actually, I was criticizing a certain poster's claim that it had "superior" torque than the competition, presumably the LS7.

And it clearly does not, again judging by the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is entirely beside the point, however, because it doesn't even have more peak torque than the basic LT1 that currently represents the state of the art in GM's pushrod lineup.

Like I've been saying: pushrods have a place. In this case, ahead of DOHC. Sorry, but facts is facts.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Anyways,

 

as I mentioned earlier, the 5.2L has 'Excellent torque' and 'superior hp' using far less displacement.

 

And as I have also mentioned several times now, both DOHC and OHV have their places and benefits.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Wings4Life

[El Kabong]

Internal displacement, to be precise. But ok. At this point I am content to sit back and let the stopwatches (eventually) tell the tale. I am predicting 0-60 times in the 3.8 second range on the GT350. It will be quick, and you will have to work to make it so.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Correction, the engine does the work, and loves to do it and spin freely, because it was designed to do so.

[El Kabong]

Uh-huh.

In much the same manner as, say, a Honda S2000.

I await with great interest the numbers generated by an Alpha Camaro SS, as well as those generated by the Shelby. There will probably be some interesting results.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

S2000?

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Why on Earth would anyone associate that underpowered engine to a powerful V8? Hopefully not because the voodoo is capable of higher rpm than an OHV engine, which should not equate it to the seriously under powered S2000, with only about 160ftlbs of torque and about 240hp.  

 

The reality is that a plain coyote is plenty quick for most folk, and far easier to lay waste to any S2000.  So having far more torque and hp that comes on much sooner, stronger and faster with the voodoo.....is hardly work, but pure fun.

[El Kabong]

They are both peaky. They both must be worked hard. Pretty straightforward comparison.

Like I said: they're not my words, they are Car and Driver's words. As I have told you many, many times before, if you have a beef with a car mag, go write the car mag. I just report what they write.

[FordCosworth]

Well rumour has it GM will be building a DOHC V-8, albeit a Twin Turbo GDI one. It's rumoured to be 4.0L

[El Kabong]

Ah well.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Well rumour has it GM will be building a DOHC V-8, albeit a Twin Turbo GDI one. It's rumoured to be 4.0L

 

Sounds like a great idea.

 

Hopefully, it will not be too 'peaky.'

[El Kabong]

Twin turbo V8 engines will be a lot of things. "Peaky" is not one of them, unless you go out of your way to retain that feel, like the Ferrari 488.

Under load, it may exhibit fuel consumption more in line with a large N/A V12, but as long as any potential efficiency gains are stated in this light it should be a non-issue. My understanding is that Cadillac is pursuing this mainly for brand-differentiation and NVH reasons anyhow. If they go ahead with it it will doubtless be a great powertrain.

[FordCosworth]

Wings4Life,

Since you were able to provide a dyno graph of the Voodoo HP/TQ vs the LS7, what are the chances of finding/creating one for the 5.0L in the 2015 F-150 vs the 5.3L in the 2015 Silverado?

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I will check a bit later. That would be a good comparison 

[FordCosworth]

I will check a bit later. That would be a good comparison

I also think it would be a good comparison.

Thank you.

[G. David Felt]

 

I will check a bit later. That would be a good comparison

I also think it would be a good comparison.

Thank you.

 

Awesome guys, that is really good input and I know many of us would love to see those comparisons.

 

Would be good to do this in a Mustang vs Camaro 4,6 & 8 comparison chart of current models.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Here are several charts instead, one for the latest 5.3L engine and the other is for previous gen steel F150 powertrains, that includes the 5.0L, but is slightly down from the latest.

 

 

[ccap41]

Is it my eyes or is the 5.3 making more torque at 2000rpm than the 6.2?

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I don't know cap, something seems funky with that last Ford chart.

Check out this graph that lists all the recent F150 engines, minus the 2.7L.  Having a hard time finding relative comparisons of that.

 

Anyway, looking at it, I recognize what I recall vividly with my old truck, was that the 5.4L had a lot of torque and right away, and would actually peak at 390ftlbs when running ethanol.  It could not win any drag races, primarily due to it's weight, but the engine itself was not worthy of the negativity it garnered, IMO.

 

Anyway, here it is.....

 

Edited September 11, 2015 by Wings4Life

[G. David Felt]

Very interesting, I suspect if we reviewed all automakers, we would find that there are plenty of engines that had far better Torque curves but due to bloated weight of the auto they were thought of as lacking.

[Guest Lupiano]

Honestly, you really have to be an ignorant fanboy to argue pushrod is better than OHC. Period.

[Drew Dowdell]

Honestly, you really have to be an ignorant fanboy to argue pushrod is better than OHC. Period.

 

It's situational.  Anywhere you can fit a DOHC V8, I can fit a pushrod multiple liters larger, and probably add a supercharger on top.

 

Pushrods are so much smaller in their eternal dimensions it lets them have much much larger internal dimensions. 

 

And really... the CTS-V engine is far superior to the M5 or E-AMG in power... and not just by a little bit... there are significant power advantages in the CTS-V.