The American V8s are put into sports cars such as the Stang, the Camaro, and so on. Those are hardly cars made for cruising, if anything the M cars are more cruising like due to being more comfy
Terrible US Engines
- Thread starter Eliot
- Start date
The American V8s are put into sports cars such as the Stang, the Camaro, and so on. Those are hardly cars made for cruising, if anything the M cars are more cruising like due to being more comfy
The Camaro is a cruiser, the Stang is what the Americans call a Pony Car, but it's more of a cruiser than a balls to the wall sports car ...at least it is in stock form. The Corvette is more sporting ...but even that has a different mix to an M car. The American cars are really designed with after market modifications in mind, rather than setup to be all they can from the factory, after market tuning is big, big business in the US.
exactly
the mustang is platform rather than a car like the corvette. The mustnag platform provides numerous different trims and engines, and ford know that the hardcore sportscar market is taken care of by the plethora of aftermarket tuners. I think shelby even gets some sort of factory backing doesnt it ?
Wait. Since when was ringing the neck of a High HP, Low Torque highly strung NA engine the definition of driving "Fun"?
In the real world power under the curve is what matters. We can talk about peak Horsepower and HP per CC numbers all we like but neither are going to have any real baring on how a car will perform day in, day out in the "real world".
In the real world power under the curve is what matters. We can talk about peak Horsepower and HP per CC numbers all we like but neither are going to have any real baring on how a car will perform day in, day out in the "real world".
I don't think that's a fair comparison. In 2005 the 4.6L Ford engine produced 300 HP (65 HP/L). In 2010 this engine produces 315 HP (68 HP/L) in the lower end variant of Ford's primary performance and muscle car.
The 4.0L M60B40 used in the E34 540i introduced in 1992 produced 286 HP (71 HP/L). The 4.4L M62(TU)B44 in your 540i, introduced 6 years later in 1998, produces the same 286 HP (still 65 HP/L 7 years before the Mustang) purely because it was intentionally undertuned!
The crux of the matter, is that in 1992 BMW were producing a V8 with a 4% better specific output than Ford are in 2010, despite BMW making it for a big executive saloon and Ford making it for a "muscle" car!
Last edited:
Well fair or not, they were the most similar engines I could immediately come up with on paper, one German and one American. The fact is, the less complex stang engine matches the BMW engine easily, I know the BMW could be made more powerful but then so can the 'stangs ...much more powerful and much more easily than the BMW engine.
Say what you want about American cars ...but engines they can do ...they really know how to build a good engine.
Say what you want about American cars ...but engines they can do ...they really know how to build a good engine.
depends what you set your stall out as "good"
european customers usually require different things, and the state of tune of the engines reflect this.
American companies dont sell the likes of the camaro and mustang over here for a reason - they are not designed with the european market in mind.
Chevy sell the corvette here officially - but that care is singularly focused and very competitive with Eu models. Shame that ford dont sell an official hot mustang over here with the top end of everything as it would definately sell.
Last edited:
I don't see how the M64B44 first released in 1996 producing 68 HP/L is somehow an equal match for the 2010 Mustang engine producing 71 HP/L. Firstly, they are released 14 years apart and secondly, they are in different segments.
You've essentially picked one of the lowest specific output BMW engines from two decades ago and compared it to a relatively high specific output American engine.. and there isn't a lot of difference. That tells you a lot about the state of the American engine. Take the non-GT Mustang... 4.0L with 210 HP... 52HP/L. Total dross tbh.
To say that American power output per litre is good is factually indefensible for all but a few very select engines.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
But the BMW engine is from 1996 not 2010.
The replacement for your engine, the N62, develops 367bhp in 4.8 form and 333bhp in 4.4 form? And thats from 2004/05..
I've just seen this and feel the need to say I disagree. Delivery is totally different to a Honda VTEC engine... completely. It's a high-revving V8 engine, but it is very flexible in the low range, producing peak torque at 3900 RPM and 85% of peak torque at 2000 RPM. Driving the new M3 makes you feel like you are driving a big V8 that seems to go on and on.
Because that is what a sports car is, it revs high and has high HP with decent/good torque.
High torque, low HP low rev. is truck engines not sports car engines.
[TW]Fox;16307039 said:
If it makes you feel better, we'll throw a 1996 engine into the mix then. 1996 Mustang SVT Cobra. Still produced 305BHP and 300FT-LBS of torque from a 4.6L V8. Still more "efficient" than a BMW V8 engine of a similar vintage.
Hold on a sec, the Ford Modular unit I was talking about actually first saw service in 2005 not 2010, I am talking about the outgoing Mustang engine. The M62TUB44 first saw service in 1998 the M62B44 saw service in 1996 that is true, so infact these engines are separated by 7 years. ...but you could pick the 1996+ Mustang SVT Cobra engine, the 4.6 modular V8 DOHC 32V unit, that produced 305bhp/300lbs/ft ...much the same as the engine that followed 9 years later ...which dropped to SOHC and 3v per cylinder for some reason, dropped 5bhp but made a bit more torque ...then again the standard Mustang GT of today ..well upto 2009 is directly comparable with the SVT Cobra of the 90s for power and performance ...which was actually a much higher end model than the GT of the day.
But lets take two very similar engines from the same era shall we; the 1996 BMW M62B44 with 286bhp/310lbs/ft and the Ford Modular V8 4.6L 32V DOHC unit from 1996 with 305bhp/300lbs/ft ...both engines have DOHC's both have 4 valves per cylinder and neither have variable valve timing. They are almost the same.
I love the BMW engine I really do, as you might imagine ...but I can't see how anyone could bash the 4.6 Modular V8 of the same period for having sub par figures, far from it, they are esentially the same ..well actually a fraction higher as you can see ...but that engine came in several states of tune depending on what it was it, trucks had less bhp and a bit more torque for instance.
But lets take two very similar engines from the same era shall we; the 1996 BMW M62B44 with 286bhp/310lbs/ft and the Ford Modular V8 4.6L 32V DOHC unit from 1996 with 305bhp/300lbs/ft ...both engines have DOHC's both have 4 valves per cylinder and neither have variable valve timing. They are almost the same.
I love the BMW engine I really do, as you might imagine ...but I can't see how anyone could bash the 4.6 Modular V8 of the same period for having sub par figures, far from it, they are esentially the same ..well actually a fraction higher as you can see ...but that engine came in several states of tune depending on what it was it, trucks had less bhp and a bit more torque for instance.
Last edited:
I love my Gen III LS. Granted it's not the most powerful 5.7l engine (about 340 bhp) but there's so much torque throughout the rev range that I don't know how I'll go back to euroboxes when I head back to London in the future *crys*.
I drove a Lincoln MKS with this engine the other week, fantastic engine, couldn't fault it! Just kept going.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Worth mentioning for those that missed it, or never realised, that America built much, much higher revving V8s long before either the Japanese or Germans did 
ZL1 for example, the '69 Camaro engine (as mentioned) went to 7500RPM from the factory, with an all-alloy engine and 2 valves per cylinder - so they can do it when they want, or need to!
10.48 Seconds @ 128.10 MPH factory standing 1/4
Part of the reason they never (until recently) heavily developed multivalve or OHC engines for the large-displacement engines was that a) there wasn't really the justification, b) everyone preferred driving the pushrod engines (even in back-to-back tests) and c) they could get just as much, if not more, power with less complexity and higher reliability - hence why many modern American V8s are still pushrod based.
Chevrolet for one spent a lot of time looking at (and making) 4 valve engines but in each instance the drivers, engineers and results showed the pushrod engines performed more in line with what they wanted, and could match the OHC equipped test engines, without effort. Obviously more work is required in the cylinder head and valvetrain area to keep flow up but nonetheless...
ZL1 for example, the '69 Camaro engine (as mentioned) went to 7500RPM from the factory, with an all-alloy engine and 2 valves per cylinder - so they can do it when they want, or need to!
10.48 Seconds @ 128.10 MPH factory standing 1/4
Part of the reason they never (until recently) heavily developed multivalve or OHC engines for the large-displacement engines was that a) there wasn't really the justification, b) everyone preferred driving the pushrod engines (even in back-to-back tests) and c) they could get just as much, if not more, power with less complexity and higher reliability - hence why many modern American V8s are still pushrod based.
Chevrolet for one spent a lot of time looking at (and making) 4 valve engines but in each instance the drivers, engineers and results showed the pushrod engines performed more in line with what they wanted, and could match the OHC equipped test engines, without effort. Obviously more work is required in the cylinder head and valvetrain area to keep flow up but nonetheless...
Last edited: