RE: PH Blog: Why US muscle still rules - for now
Discussion
LuS1fer said:
Captain Muppet said:
Yes there is, there is better technology. Just because a statement rhymes doesn't mean it's true.
That would be true if the equivalent Euro engines developing the same power were more frugal. They're not. There is also no replacement for achieving the same end with greater displacement and simplicity rather than complicated engines designed to keep European dealers in servicing fees. A single cam V8 weighs less than a DOHC V8 and a cam chain doesn't need expensive replacement.. Arguably the single cam and pushrods employed by GM are lighter still and avoid the weight and height of a cam carrier and higher CofG that necessarily brings.
Or you can just make the whole thing bigger for the same headline numbers in an engine that feels worse.
Or fit a supercharger.
There is no replacement for displacement if your primary target is an increased torque curve and you need to maintain low BOM costs while ignoring the tooling investment for new components and also not have to worry too much about the engineering costs of validating durability of new systems while also accepting worse fuel consumption and ensuring easy recyclability.
Never make definitive statements in engineering without listing all the qualifying factors that make it true. Even US engine designers don't believe displacement can't be replaced sometimes.
Axe Murderer said:
he difference in America, is that the quoted horsepower is net (at the rear wheels).
Nope bhp is and always has been quoted at the flywheel using an engine dyno. Never at the driven wheels. Net, or rather SAE Net replaced Gross HP figures in around 1973. This introduced standards to adhere too, such as running a full exhaust, ancillary devices, emissions items as well as introducing correction factors for humidity, temp and DA. Captain Muppet said:
Why make this some kind of international competition? Take a push-rod V8. Port it, fit titianium con-rods, forged crank with windage knife edges, forged pistons, machine the combustion chambers so the knock limit is the same on all cylinders, fit sodium filled valves so you're not overfueling to control exhaust temperatures, titanium pushrods, hydroformed fabricated camshaft, smaller TV damper, lighter flywheel, metal matrix block. BHP and Torque increases everywhere, response is improved, your rev limit goes up and your vehicle economy improves at steady speeds. Displacement stays the same. Technology doesn't have to be a new thing, technology can just make the things you have already work better.
Or you can just make the whole thing bigger for the same headline numbers in an engine that feels worse.
Or fit a supercharger.
There is no replacement for displacement if your primary target is an increased torque curve and you need to maintain low BOM costs while ignoring the tooling investment for new components and also not have to worry too much about the engineering costs of validating durability of new systems while also accepting worse fuel consumption and ensuring easy recyclability.
Never make definitive statements in engineering without listing all the qualifying factors that make it true. Even US engine designers don't believe displacement can't be replaced sometimes.
The simple answer is costs.Or you can just make the whole thing bigger for the same headline numbers in an engine that feels worse.
Or fit a supercharger.
There is no replacement for displacement if your primary target is an increased torque curve and you need to maintain low BOM costs while ignoring the tooling investment for new components and also not have to worry too much about the engineering costs of validating durability of new systems while also accepting worse fuel consumption and ensuring easy recyclability.
Never make definitive statements in engineering without listing all the qualifying factors that make it true. Even US engine designers don't believe displacement can't be replaced sometimes.
Even the direct injection 3.6 DOHC litre engine in the Camaro making 307hp comes in a car you can buy for $23000.
Nobody needs all that stuff. The response I get from my 4.6 V8 is more than quick enough and Americans don't really want all this high tech stuff for the sake of it. the 3.6 shows they can do it and Ford have done much the same for what are base models.
Would I want to see a 2 litre turbo in a Mustang - why would I?
The sodium filled valves are already there and titanium pushrods are fitted in the dry sump Z06 but part of that requires hand assembly which is why they have favoured the blown 6.2 in the ZR1.
I suppose much depends on your market. If it weren't for the brainwashing masquerading as VEL tax bands here. we wouldn't really be looking at 1.0 Ecoboost engines.
swerni said:
If they were quoting at the rear wheel instead of at the fly the figures would be lower than UK ones not higher
I thought that was the case.300bhp/ton said:
Nope bhp is and always has been quoted at the flywheel using an engine dyno. Never at the driven wheels. Net, or rather SAE Net replaced Gross HP figures in around 1973. This introduced standards to adhere too, such as running a full exhaust, ancillary devices, emissions items as well as introducing correction factors for humidity, temp and DA.
That's not my understanding. For example, my '02 Camaro SS is officially rated at 325 horsepower, but it's closer to 345. Isn't that the difference between flywheel and drive wheels?Axe Murderer said:
hat's not my understanding. For example, my '02 Camaro SS is officially rated at 325 horsepower, but it's closer to 345. Isn't that the difference between flywheel and drive wheels?
That's nothing to do with fly and rwhp, that's to do with GM lying about the engine output to make the Corvette appear more powerful. When they tested a 98 C5 against a 98 Trans Am (345 vs 305) they put out about the same at the back wheels.Axe Murderer said:
That's not my understanding. For example, my '02 Camaro SS is officially rated at 325 horsepower, but it's closer to 345. Isn't that the difference between flywheel and drive wheels?
If you look GM in a brochure it'll say 3xxbhp SAE Net. (number will vary depending on exact model year and spec). All SAE Net figures are at the flywheel as it's part of adhering to the standards.In the case of the LS1 Fbody, it is well know that GM 'underrated' them. For why we can only speculate. However most likely it was to create the appearance of a bigger performance gap between the fbody's and the Vette.
It also lends to easier production, build one motor, but simply advertise it as different HP levels. Another view is, it allowed GM to up the HP over the years without actually needing to do anything to the motor itself for the large part. So start of claiming it makes even less HP than it really does, then each year slowly up the amount you advertise.
But afraid it's still a flywheel figure.
Stig said:
masermartin said:
I couldn't agree more with your Nurburgring comment Chris - posting a time around a race track like the 'ring is completely missing the point of these cars.
But... but... did you say £35k?
...in the US. £55-60k once landed here.But... but... did you say £35k?
I looooooooove my m3's and c63's but my word if i had 40k to spend and it could be on a camaro instead of an m3 or a c63 id do it in a heart beat and never ever regret my decsion.
strangly enough I was just on the usual car advert sites looking for a car thats a little different, started looking at pontiacs, srt8's, challangers, in the uk we have cliche stuff from the germans.
the german stuff is great, if not brilliant! just not speical - just too clinical now with no soul
Edited by IATM on Wednesday 4th July 22:19
why 'o' why would anyone post a comment such as "I hope nobody buys one over here.."
Variety is the spice of life and having some fun and maybe even stupid cars in the mix is good for everyone. You don't have to like the cars, and by god you don't have to buy one, so whenever you get asked just say they are great, and maybe they might just broaden our autogene pool a little bit.
Variety is the spice of life and having some fun and maybe even stupid cars in the mix is good for everyone. You don't have to like the cars, and by god you don't have to buy one, so whenever you get asked just say they are great, and maybe they might just broaden our autogene pool a little bit.
The £31,501 was from autoebid.com (price upped a little since yesterday) and is quoted as the maximum you would pay.
Anyone used them?
http://www.autoebid.com/buy-new-cars/CHEVROLET/CAM...
Anyone used them?
http://www.autoebid.com/buy-new-cars/CHEVROLET/CAM...
A technicality...
In their homelands, the Mustang and Camero are Pony cars, not Muscle cars.
The original 1964 Mustang (which started the Pony car class) is rather diminutive when you see it in the flesh:
Other Pony cars at the time included the Chevrolet Camero, Dodge Challenger, AMC Javelin and Plymouth Barracuda.
The Muscle cars of the day were a class size up (both weight and power). Examples included:
Now over time the Mustang and Camero have grown (like most cars) in weight and power. The current 5.0L V8 412 hp Mustang GT weighs ~3,600 lbs (a smidge less than a 4.0L V8 M3 coupe I might add), this GT500 is a bit north of 3,800 lbs.
But even with this significant weight/power growth, they're still considered 'Pony' cars Stateside for legacy reason.
I'll put away the anorak now...
Karl.
In their homelands, the Mustang and Camero are Pony cars, not Muscle cars.
The original 1964 Mustang (which started the Pony car class) is rather diminutive when you see it in the flesh:
- The base 170 cu in (2.8L) inline-6 Mustang made 101 hp and it weighed a tad under 2,500 lbs.
- The top line 289 cu in (4.7L) V8 with 280 hp weighed in at ~2,800 lbs.
Other Pony cars at the time included the Chevrolet Camero, Dodge Challenger, AMC Javelin and Plymouth Barracuda.
The Muscle cars of the day were a class size up (both weight and power). Examples included:
- 1964 Oldsmobile 442 with a 400 cu in (6.6 L) V8 was about 3,600 lbs
- 1966 Dodge Charger with a 426 cu in (7.2L) V8 was about 3,800 lbs
Now over time the Mustang and Camero have grown (like most cars) in weight and power. The current 5.0L V8 412 hp Mustang GT weighs ~3,600 lbs (a smidge less than a 4.0L V8 M3 coupe I might add), this GT500 is a bit north of 3,800 lbs.
But even with this significant weight/power growth, they're still considered 'Pony' cars Stateside for legacy reason.
I'll put away the anorak now...
Karl.
IATM said:
aaaanddddddddddd here lies the problem - i just wish, really wish they would bring it to the uk with the steering on the correct side for lets say 40-50k? and i seriously think they would be a HUGE hit !!
But it wouldn't sell.Vaux imported a load of HSVs and they didn't sell well. They are RHD out the box.
Ford were watching to look at importing FPVs and didn't.
And it's looking like they'll be the same car (camaro -> HSV, Mustang -> FPV), but re-skinned in the next generation.
The UK doesn't want that. It wants a tiny engined diesel, with a BMW badge and M-Sport stickers.
Bibbs said:
But it wouldn't sell.
Vaux imported a load of HSVs and they didn't sell well. They are RHD out the box.
Ford were watching to look at importing FPVs and didn't.
And it's looking like they'll be the same car (camaro -> HSV, Mustang -> FPV), but re-skinned in the next generation.
The UK doesn't want that. It wants a tiny engined diesel, with a BMW badge and M-Sport stickers.
yep for the handful of people that would actually buy one there are 100's of people that say they want one but don't really. There is also the ever present badge snobbery issue, after all whether its better or not to many; "it's still just a Ford".Vaux imported a load of HSVs and they didn't sell well. They are RHD out the box.
Ford were watching to look at importing FPVs and didn't.
And it's looking like they'll be the same car (camaro -> HSV, Mustang -> FPV), but re-skinned in the next generation.
The UK doesn't want that. It wants a tiny engined diesel, with a BMW badge and M-Sport stickers.
Bibbs said:
IATM said:
aaaanddddddddddd here lies the problem - i just wish, really wish they would bring it to the uk with the steering on the correct side for lets say 40-50k? and i seriously think they would be a HUGE hit !!
But it wouldn't sell.Vaux imported a load of HSVs and they didn't sell well. They are RHD out the box.
Ford were watching to look at importing FPVs and didn't.
People want a Mustang or Camaro. Not a Cougar or a Skylark Grand sport. It's the same with the new stuff.
wjk_glynn said:
A technicality...
No good being an anorak if you can't spell Camaro though.While you are technically right, the distinction between pony and muscle cars blurred in 1969 when they started dropping big blocks in them and the entire conecpt changed. I imagine a modern Camaro is not much smaller than an old full-size muscle car.
It is not just the name either. A few years ago, hardly anyone in the UK knoew what a Camaro was though were wiser to the Trans Am thanks to Knight Rider and Smokey and the Bandit.
However, not even putting a GTO badge on the Monaro in the US could save it from being cruelly ignored. I think part of that was the fact this was an "import" from Australia and the Americans do like a bit of selective xenophobia. I say selective as the Camaro is built in Canada but was still embraced as "all-American". Oddly enough, the Canadian Oshawa factory sounds Japanese...
Cledus Snow said:
I Don't know, I think it's that the Monaro and VXR8 don't have the right name. If you look at the prices of older Muscle cars, The ones with the good name/badge are worth more than the less well known stuff.
People want a Mustang or Camaro. Not a Cougar or a Skylark Grand sport. It's the same with the new stuff.
Maybe.People want a Mustang or Camaro. Not a Cougar or a Skylark Grand sport. It's the same with the new stuff.
The HSV was the Pontiac GTO in the states. Seemed to sell well.
I suppose the Commodore and Falcon names mean a lot more to Australians, than others outside.
But if you are after a 'name badge', you would buy a Ford or a Vaux.
Interesting thing, car names and what bells they ring.
As good as they are and as well known and lauded over as they are over in Oz, 'Holden' and 'Monaro' meant absolutely nothing to most people over here in the UK when they first appeared; most people still wouldn't 'recognise' the name(s); in addition to European and Japanese cars generally, US cars seem to register strongest with most UK folks, I guess maybe mostly because of Mr Ford bringing the first cars to the masses those many many years ago and more significantly, all sorts of TV programmes, songs, films and film stars which familiarised us with them almost on a daily basis.
I would say that the most iconic names are those which you actually don't need to prefix with the maker at all, so in the case of US 'Sports Cars' (or Pony Cars or Muscle Cars, whatever you want to call them), that means Mustang, Camaro & Corvette/Stingray, to which three or so years ago, one would have certainly added Firebird. And perhaps Challenger, although very few other than full-on petrolheads in the UK really knew that name.
So, put the steering wheel on the right hand side (irrespective of whether or not PHers think it necessary or not, because in overall sales terms it certainly would be), price them right and IMO, they will sell well here: all three of those names have great credibility with most people the 'wrong side' of 35/40 or so. In terms of the two subject cars, especially the Mustang. What a great name that is.
As good as they are and as well known and lauded over as they are over in Oz, 'Holden' and 'Monaro' meant absolutely nothing to most people over here in the UK when they first appeared; most people still wouldn't 'recognise' the name(s); in addition to European and Japanese cars generally, US cars seem to register strongest with most UK folks, I guess maybe mostly because of Mr Ford bringing the first cars to the masses those many many years ago and more significantly, all sorts of TV programmes, songs, films and film stars which familiarised us with them almost on a daily basis.
I would say that the most iconic names are those which you actually don't need to prefix with the maker at all, so in the case of US 'Sports Cars' (or Pony Cars or Muscle Cars, whatever you want to call them), that means Mustang, Camaro & Corvette/Stingray, to which three or so years ago, one would have certainly added Firebird. And perhaps Challenger, although very few other than full-on petrolheads in the UK really knew that name.
So, put the steering wheel on the right hand side (irrespective of whether or not PHers think it necessary or not, because in overall sales terms it certainly would be), price them right and IMO, they will sell well here: all three of those names have great credibility with most people the 'wrong side' of 35/40 or so. In terms of the two subject cars, especially the Mustang. What a great name that is.
LuS1fer said:
Captain Muppet said:
Why make this some kind of international competition? Take a push-rod V8. Port it, fit titianium con-rods, forged crank with windage knife edges, forged pistons, machine the combustion chambers so the knock limit is the same on all cylinders, fit sodium filled valves so you're not overfueling to control exhaust temperatures, titanium pushrods, hydroformed fabricated camshaft, smaller TV damper, lighter flywheel, metal matrix block. BHP and Torque increases everywhere, response is improved, your rev limit goes up and your vehicle economy improves at steady speeds. Displacement stays the same. Technology doesn't have to be a new thing, technology can just make the things you have already work better.
Or you can just make the whole thing bigger for the same headline numbers in an engine that feels worse.
Or fit a supercharger.
There is no replacement for displacement if your primary target is an increased torque curve and you need to maintain low BOM costs while ignoring the tooling investment for new components and also not have to worry too much about the engineering costs of validating durability of new systems while also accepting worse fuel consumption and ensuring easy recyclability.
Never make definitive statements in engineering without listing all the qualifying factors that make it true. Even US engine designers don't believe displacement can't be replaced sometimes.
The simple answer is costs.Or you can just make the whole thing bigger for the same headline numbers in an engine that feels worse.
Or fit a supercharger.
There is no replacement for displacement if your primary target is an increased torque curve and you need to maintain low BOM costs while ignoring the tooling investment for new components and also not have to worry too much about the engineering costs of validating durability of new systems while also accepting worse fuel consumption and ensuring easy recyclability.
Never make definitive statements in engineering without listing all the qualifying factors that make it true. Even US engine designers don't believe displacement can't be replaced sometimes.
Even the direct injection 3.6 DOHC litre engine in the Camaro making 307hp comes in a car you can buy for $23000.
Nobody needs all that stuff. The response I get from my 4.6 V8 is more than quick enough and Americans don't really want all this high tech stuff for the sake of it. the 3.6 shows they can do it and Ford have done much the same for what are base models.
Would I want to see a 2 litre turbo in a Mustang - why would I?
The sodium filled valves are already there and titanium pushrods are fitted in the dry sump Z06 but part of that requires hand assembly which is why they have favoured the blown 6.2 in the ZR1.
I suppose much depends on your market. If it weren't for the brainwashing masquerading as VEL tax bands here. we wouldn't really be looking at 1.0 Ecoboost engines.
Good, that was the point I was trying to get across.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff