RE: Re: Death of the Pushrod

From: Craig Baltzer (Craig.Baltzer@anjura.com)
Date: Sat Oct 30 1999 - 23:59:51 EDT


I'd like to add to the example. Which has more displacement:

1. Mustang - 4.6l
2. Camaro/Firebird - 5.7l

Put the "pushrod" 5.0l (305) in the Camaro/Firebird and try again if you
want a "real" comparison...

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron [mailto:acolona@i-55.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 12:28 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: DML: Re: Death of the Pushrod

I nominate you for president. the only thing I'd like to add is an example.

1. mustangs - ohc
2. camaro's/firebirds - pushrods

Who is faster? Dodge built the 4.7 for gas mileage, efficiency, and to
charge more for replacement parts.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:33 PM
Subject: DML: Death of the Pushrod

> Ya know, I really hate to rain on your "The days of the pushrod engine
is
> over" parade but it's simply not true. There was a reason the 318 & 360
> engines lasted for so long: THEY PRODUCE POWER! A pushrod engine will
always
> out do an OHC engine for torque purposes. Horsepower isn't everything.
> I believe it was a few weeks ago where someone posted up to the list
that
> they went to the track and a Cummins Turbo Diesel RAM wiped them all out.
> Talk about an archaic engine, an in-line six with pushrods and all the
ancient
> engine technology that diesels represent.
> When you are racing, you want gobs of both HP and Torque. Never give
up
> one for the other and call it and "advancement", because it's not, it's a
> "compromise". Advancement is a gain in all categories, anything else is
just
> a 'change'.
> The 4.7's represent a more 'efficient' engine. Lighter and quicker to
> respond, but they can't handle all the gizmos people like to tack onto
them
> like nitrous and such: they are aluminum engines with the weaknesses of an
> aluminum engine. Because the engine is already near it's peak efficiency,
> there's not much you can do to it to make it "better".
> The 5.9 and 5.2 engines will always be able to out power the 4.7 in
both HP
> and Torque, but not until they are brought up to the efficiency level of
the
> 4.7 engine. That requires aftermarket goods. There is no substitute for
> cubic inches save and entire engine concept change... like oh, a
turbine...
> All car magazine's suck, no matter which one they are. They are
puppets of
> their reporters biases and of their advertisers. They always make
compromises
> since they can never compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges
because
> there's really too many differences in vehicles. If someone wants to give
MT
> a fair comparison, take a supercharged or nitrous'd R/T to them and tell
them
> to whip out the Lightning and go for their tests then. Until then, I
suggest
> all you R/T owners should write them a nasty letter and tell them they
suck
> and their testing techniques are extremely unscientific and biased since
they
> don't even have a clue enough to compare proper engine types...
>
> Shaun H.
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:18:35 EDT