Boss Mustang: It's coming.
05-17-2010, 05:01 PM
#61
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,492
Ford had some pretty tight cost targets to meet with the 5.0 so I dont think its nessecarily a case of GM falling behind on port injection. Rather GM is ultimately putting all thier eggs in the DI basket where the 5.0 guys had to figure out a way of getting 9/10ths the performance of DI at 5/10ths the price. Once they get their ROI on the 5.0, Ford will probably implement DI.
05-17-2010, 05:12 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elgin,SC
Posts: 604
From the way I understand it the gains from DI come from being able to up the compression. I could be wrong though.
And the new 5.0 uses some direct injection tech in the motor. Just not full on DI yet.
The Ford 5.0 engineers said just adding DI and nothing else was worth about a 1% gain in hp, if I remember correctly.
And the new 5.0 uses some direct injection tech in the motor. Just not full on DI yet.
The Ford 5.0 engineers said just adding DI and nothing else was worth about a 1% gain in hp, if I remember correctly.
05-17-2010, 05:15 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: City of Champions, MA, USA
Posts: 1,214
From the way I understand it the gains from DI come from being able to up the compression. I could be wrong though.
And the new 5.0 uses some direct injection tech in the motor. Just not full on DI yet.
The Ford 5.0 engineers said just adding DI and nothing else was worth about a 1% gain in hp, if I remember correctly.
And the new 5.0 uses some direct injection tech in the motor. Just not full on DI yet.
The Ford 5.0 engineers said just adding DI and nothing else was worth about a 1% gain in hp, if I remember correctly.
05-17-2010, 06:00 PM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Not according to Ford engineers on a naturally aspirated engine...
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...apability.html
High boost capability was also protected in the 5.0L's design in the form of heavier main webbing in the cylinder block and optimized head fastener sizes and locations. According to Ford engineers, the greater benefits of direct injection are in supercharged and turbocharged applications. In normally aspirated engines, the advantage may be in the range of 1 percent, they say. But it's good to know that Ford has incorporated the capability for direct injection and significant boost levels into the 5.0L's basic architecture. And it's also good to know the company has let us know. That means maybe we should plan on seeing such an engine at some point in the future. It's possible.
05-17-2010, 06:01 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
05-17-2010, 06:11 PM
#66
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 1,215
Does anyone know if GM has the "COPO" name tradmarked? After RS, SS, Z/28, does Camaro have the names to match up with Mustang? Seems like Ford has a slew of Shelby derivatives along with GT, Mach I, Boss, heck even SVO. GM has the COPO cars, granted they weren't badged as such, and a few names that don't stir much emotion like Type LT and Berlinetta. I don't see IROC having much relavance (do they even run the IROC race anymore?), and Yenko/Nickey/Dana have always struck me as "tuner" packages.
05-17-2010, 06:19 PM
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Does anyone know if GM has the "COPO" name tradmarked? After RS, SS, Z/28, does Camaro have the names to match up with Mustang? Seems like Ford has a slew of Shelby derivatives along with GT, Mach I, Boss, heck even SVO. GM has the COPO cars, granted they weren't badged as such, and a few names that don't stir much emotion like Type LT and Berlinetta. I don't see IROC having much relavance (do they even run the IROC race anymore?), and Yenko/Nickey/Dana have always struck me as "tuner" packages.
05-17-2010, 06:27 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 1,215
"COPO" isn't a name and was never sold as a brand. It stands for Central Office Production Order and was used mainly on fleet vehicles included taxis and police sedans. Furthermore, they weren't just COPO Camaros, the variations actually had a number, usually COPO 9561 or 9560. Some of the Yenko et al tuner packages actually were COPOs.
05-17-2010, 06:34 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Personally, I think there's already more than enough Camaro "brands" with LS, LT, SS and Z/28.
05-17-2010, 09:33 PM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
Anyway, I think a lot of GM GenV's reputed horsepower gains would come from positioning the pushrods outside the line of the intake ports.
Note, the above is not fact, just my brain tickin'.
05-17-2010, 10:46 PM
#72
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
I really think the Camaro can do fine with three clearly deliniated models.
1) Budget GT.
2) Luxury GT.
3) Performance GT.
Last edited by Z284ever; 05-17-2010 at 11:30 PM.
05-17-2010, 11:16 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
No, Ford's fuel injection scheme is about as close to DI as a port injected engine can get so there will be no big gains when/if they do implement it.
Despite being a port injected engine, its closer in operation to a DI engine since fuel is injected directly into the combustion space as opposed to firing at the back side of a closed valve just before it opens.
Despite being a port injected engine, its closer in operation to a DI engine since fuel is injected directly into the combustion space as opposed to firing at the back side of a closed valve just before it opens.
05-18-2010, 12:52 AM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Not even, Ford stretched the same unibody chassis that had under-pinned the 67-70 Mustangs so they could fit the 429 in the car. The Torino wheel base was 117" for the Coupe as opposed to the 109" Wheel base on the 71-73 Mustang. They shared alot of parts though, so I could see where the confusion is (control arms and rear ends being the most obvious).
I sort of figured that the '71 Mustang was the equivalent of a SWB Torino, sort of like the '10 Camaro is an SWB Commodore. Regardless of how they got there (starting from the '70 Mustang and enlarging rather than starting from the '70 Torino and shrinking), the result was the biggest Mustang ever.
Unfortunately, there were very few tests of the Boss 351, due to the death of muscle cars. It was likely one of the top 3 musclecars of 1971.
05-18-2010, 08:36 AM
#75
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,492
You consider LS and LT to be "brands" of Camaro? I think that's taking it a bit far.