well then, even out the weight and then start again. some of the fastest
production cars made are all pushrod engines. Could you imagine an OHC
viper. YUCK!!!! no torque!
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Baltzer <Craig.Baltzer@anjura.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 9:59 PM
Subject: DML: RE: Re: Death of the Pushrod
> 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 - 12:19:02 EDT