Yes. I have a 2003 Mustang GT. What does that have to do with my comments?Originally posted by sykboy@Oct 31 2003, 03:08 PM
you know, I read usa1's comments earlier and decided not to respond, I knew people would have something to say about it. It is obvious that his avatar is from a OHC 4.6L Rustang(am I wrong?). HA!
Maybe I'm biased in doubting the GM line about OHV engines in their cars. Then again, so is everyone else in the car industry since they are putting their R&D efforts elsewhere.
My points were where the industry is moving and how GM will probably lose the PR war again on this engine.
I don't design engines for a living and I don't claim to be the end all expert on these thing. As far as I can tell no one else here is a real expert either.
People tout the low cost aspects of a OHV engine. GM's accountant's like this, but I don't care if the engine is cheaper for them to build unless it means their products cost less out the door.
People tout the small size advantages of OHV engines. Where is GM using the packaging efficiencies of these motors to do things no one else can do styling wise? The hood line on the Malibu is so tall and ungainly that it looks like you could put a big block under there. The Grand Prix still has the silly-long front end overhang. The thing limiting the hood lines heights on most cars are related to the height of the MacPherson strut towers and not the engines. Maybe, the Corvette benefitted stlying wise from the OHV engine, but the XLR hood with the Northstar sure looks low and sleek insprite of it having a large OHC engine.
OHV engine (specifically 2V engines) put out lots of low end toque compared to 4V engines. That why the application in trucks makes sense. I'm not bashing GM for having OHV 2V engines in their truck models since there is a logic there.