cooperation has a bigger benefit to consumers then does competition, if they cooperate for example on an engine for their compact cars then they can effectively double the engineering budget for said engine. This would give you a better engineered engine which gives consumers the chance to buy vehicles that have better engineered engines. It is the same principle of GM and Ford going in together on the 9 speed FWD and 10 speed RWD transmission, they get to share cost with eachother.
History would have it that way. The Edge was the first to sport the last JV 6 speed FWD/AWD tranny.
There was a story from years back when GM turned 100, and Ford lit up their office lights to wish them a happy birthday:
I agree vis-à-vis sports cars like the Corvette, and I was looking at the layout of the Camaro engine bay with the supercharged ZL1 in it when I made that comment. Zero question there is more than enough room in that engine bay for a Coyote without dramatically altering anything about the styling or cowl height, it's enormously oversized as are the engine bays of most rwd cars that size in our era. I wouldn't expect any dimension but height to be an issue with any of the recent Ford smallblocks, and the 5.0L isn't a tall enough variant to cause a problem in that car. Corvette? Maybe.
You are correct about the 5.9L displacement, my quick and dirty calculations didn't account for the fact that the 5.2L gained some stroke over the 4.6L as well. But, if we're talking about something closer to a 5.8L displacement, which is a bigger difference in an under-square design than it may seem, then piston speeds and redline here would be just fine, as the bore used in the Voodoo block only needs just over 4 inches of stroke (4.05-4.06) to hit 5.8L displacement. For the record, that is right on top of the stroke used in the LS7 smallblock which has a 7 grand redline. And without question, a 5.8L Coyote with GT350 heads could easily trump the power figures of that same LS7 with a similar redline if they chose to make it so, given that I can't imagine many complaints. An all new engine is always nice, but I'm not sure why the above couldn't carry the mail just fine If the goal is increased power and displacement unless they are dead-set on a square or oversquare design, which they don't seem to be in general.
I would be shocked if Ford were considering a return to an OHV design as there really isn't much benefit in it for them at this point.
Can't you just go buy yourself an uncatted carb'd 502 with a TH400 and call it a day instead of constantly complaining to us about technology?
No, 6L80/90 was a pure GM design.
I don't think the better packaging of the LS/LT motor is a straw-man arguement. It just means that Ford does not have a true Corvette competitor that need the packaging advantages of OHV architecture. And I can't stand the arguement, well, Ford can do this or Ford can do that.
My problem is that I can't stand the argument that, because a brand doesn't do something, they can't. Sometimes that is the reality, but people pull that tired old yarn out more than is remotely justified, and this forum is no stranger to it. And I can't help but notice that while my argument that Ford not building a bigger Coyote is a choice bothers you, those arguing that it's due to some mysterious inability at Ford to add an inch to the deck height of an engine block don't. My point was simply that Ford doesn't build a bigger engine, or a pushrod engine, etc, etc, etc, for the same reason that GM doesn't do a myriad of things. That reason being that Ford doesn't see a compelling reason to spend the money necessary to achieve those things rather than spend that money elsewhere.
This is a big part of what Sergio wanted with all his partnerships talk. People wanted to believe his goal was to slash brands, but it had more to do with THIS type of development that is invisible to the customer.
I disagree. Sergio isn't right about much, but he is right to believe that we've reached peak automotive manufacturer. The heard is going to begin thinning in the upcoming decades and the weakest will be the first to fall, thus FCA will likely be the first of the big boys to get broken apart and have the remaining vultures pick over it's carcass. The best thing for FCA stockholders is to get ahead of the game before the return falls off a cliff.
But automakers wouldn't be weak if they stopped spending money duplicating things like engines and transmissions and the umpteen other unseen parts. Even platforms could be shared, with money spent differentiating exterior and interiors, and adding features and unique driving tunes (suspension, braking, handling, engine controls, etc). Most automakers are doing this themselves, sharing platforms with cars and CUVs, for example, but it could go alot further.
This isn't really true either. The issue is that there is increased competition and the cost of labor along with import/export tariffs and such make it very hard to be competitive in some markets. Your just going to see more overseas manufacturing.
