[MelvinJ]

Didn't Yamaha develop the heads on the ill-fated SHO 3.9L V8, whose bad cam drives had a tendency to lead to completely ruined engines? Or did they just work on the original SHO V6.

As I recall, the Taurus SHO V8's performance was none too impressive either, but the exotic engine drove the costs beyond what most customers would pay.

Stew, you're a Ford guy or so it seems. Am I all wet on this?

 

[MelvinJ]

I looked at the www.v8sho.com site, and Yamaha did design everything from the head gaskets on up on the V8 SHO motors. SHO owners have several lawsuits against Ford on these engines because the cam drives let loose pretty early and it's a zero clearance engine, so when they go, the engine is gone. One article on the site said it's a $13,000 engine to replace!

At one point on the site, they blame Ford for the defect instead of Yamaha, although if Yamaha designed everything from the head gaskets on up, it's hard to see why.

Anyway, I hope Yamaha has their act together on this one, and if these motors cost $13,000, they had better be much more than works of art.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by saugatak@Jun 21 2004, 10:14 AM
Stewacide, I like the Navigator better than the Escalade b/c I love the Navigator's interior, but there is NO WAY that the Navigator's engine is better than GM's pushrod.

Have you ever seen the size of Ford's DOHC v8s and SOHC Triton V8s? Compared to the 5.3L, 5.7L and 5.8L v8s of GMs, they're huge. Plus, the pushrods make power much lower in the powerband, so have a lot more useful power.

And compare the gas mileage. GM's pushrods don't need to rev as high to generage power so they save on gas.

The only advantage that Ford's OHC v8s have is NVH, because they do sound more refined, but that is the ONLY advantage.

I don't even agree with the NVH arguement. Read any test of an Expedition vs. a Tahoe/Suburban, and the GM V8 is more refined. Ford's SOHC V8 is about the least refined on the market, and since the the DOHC in the Nav is basically the same engine (with even more moving parts), I don't see how it's any better. It's another case of attributing refinement to DOHC, when it has little, if nothing, to do with it. It's simply building an engine right, with good balance, low tolorances, and good isolation.

I've read in several tests (C&D, Aug 2002, I think is one) that the GM V8 almost matches the Lexus derived DOHC V8 in the Toyota trucks (and has more power and better mileage). Ford trucks never get good marks for engine refinement.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by stewacide@Jun 21 2004, 04:00 PM
It's no secret the Navi' has less horsepower (look at the specs!). However these are supposed to be luxury vehicles, so smoothness and refinement should be priority #1. There's simply no way GMs engineers are so wonderful and Ford's so bad that the old, mass-market 16 valve GM v8 is smoother than the new, designed-for-lincoln 32 valve Ford w/ timing. The Navi' is also getting the Jag' 6-speed auto next year, which should put even more distance betwen it and the Cadi'.

Only on this site could stateing the Navigator is superior to the Escalade have people jumping all over you

GM's old mass market 16V V8 is in it's eighth model year. Ford's new designed-for-Lincoln 32-valve w/timing dates it's basic architecture back at least a dozen years to the introduction of the 4.6L modular V8. If you want to talk specific variants, the Escalade's LQ9 came out in 2002, Ford's Intech 5.4 came out in the late 90's. No matter how you slice it, the old vs. new arguement you made makes no sense.

Your arguement about refinement being more important than performance probably rings true for Lincoln buyers - they're certainly not there for the power like Cadillac buyers, but I still challenge you to find anything published that says the Navigator's engine is more refined than the Escalade's. I looked, couldn't find any. Maybe BlueOvalNews did a test and said it was better....

The 6-speed coming next year still won't make up for the power deficit of the Navigator. It might help out it's pathetic mileage, which is 1 mpg less city/highway due to it's inefficient engine than the much more powerful Escalade . Lincoln's much smaller Aviator with the weaker still 4.6L Intech gets the same mileage as the Escalade.

If the quality of the Navigator is so high, I find it odd that it's never scored higher than 2 out of 5 stars in the JD Power IQS since it's redesign, while the Excalade got a 3 stars in 2003 and 4 stars in 2004. Maybe that's why they sell about 30% more Escalades than Navigators, and that doesn't include the EXT and ESV.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by Hudson@Jun 21 2004, 08:49 PM


GM's engine can trace its heritage back to 1955 (yes, there is a direct connection even though it's been updated many, many times). The 5.4L in the Lincoln can only trace its history back to 1992, even though the 5.4L is significantly different from the 4.6L you're comparing it to.

No, no, no. The third gen V8 shares it's 4.4 inch. bore spacing. That is absolutely it. The Gen II's could definitely be traced back to the original small block. Gen 3 - clean sheet of paper in 1997.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Jun 22 2004, 01:38 PM
The Escalade sells much better because more rappers are using it each and every single day. Despite the fact that H2's and 300C's have slowed Escalade's down a little bit, everything is going well.
The Navigator and Escalade are badge jobs. Quick ways to get stuff done, and so is the 9-7x. Saab will replace the 9-7x with its 'own unique' form of an SUV. They just wanted to get an SUV out on the market quick because they were losing owners to SUV's.

Crossover definition: An SUV that looks like a wagon, lower to the ground, seating 5 passengers or more, and it is just another way to say 'gas guzzling SUV' in terms some people just don't understand....

Yes, rappers are entirely responsible for the Escalade's success! :lol:

I don't think anyone can give crossover's a very precise definition, but I must say that many of them get gas mileage that's barely lower than comparably sized station wagon, because that's pretty much what they are - station wagons that sit up a bit higher.