Jump to content

2016 Mustang GT vs. 2016 Camaro SS mag comparos


Recommended Posts

truth be told, garage tweeks are more complex now......either with fords 5.0 or GMs 6.2...damn emmisions....durability?...I think both engines are pretty bullet proof...I do wonder how long Chevy will continue with the 6.2 though, just seems old school...admire the defiance against trend in a way though...but how long before they give in and follow trend and play catchup again....we shall see. Buddy just bought a 15 Camaro, once over the styling the engine sounds downright amazing. His brother ironically bought a 15 Gt Mustang and added an aftermarket exhaust...not as deep, but still glorious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But GM has done a masterful job with their OHV engines in...simplicity

 

Yeah. GM's LSes are real simple. Except they're not.

 

And if you think Ford's in the middle of a 20+ year long mistake with respect to the mod motors--one that's not going to end anytime soon, if ever--then why are you even still a 'fan'? Switch to the company that's building 'simple' motors that have to shut off half their cylinders just to be competitive with the mods.

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah. GM's LSes are real simple. Except they're not.

 

And if you think Ford's in the middle of a 20+ year long mistake with respect to the mod motors--one that's not going to end anytime soon, if ever--then why are you even still a 'fan'? Switch to the company that's building 'simple' motors that have to shut off half their cylinders just to be competitive with the mods.

Come on Richard. It takes more than an engine to make a car. I have never owned anything but Fords all my life except a Mazda once and only because Ford owned a big stake of them. I am just as true blue as you. I never said that the MOD motor was a bad engine, now did I. I have owned a few. And yes, I don't know how much longer GM will keep making the LS series motors and when and if they will ever go to OHC engines. But my point was that Ford switched to MOD motors for emissions and GM didn't and are still passing what the government is mandating 20 years later with "old" single cam OHV engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my bet is the ECUs have improved exponentially over the years countering ( or in VWs case gaming ) inherently less efficient engines. And Im not so sure Ford switched to MODs for merely emission purposes, perhaps they saw bigger potential and longevity as two areas that needed addressing that the older drivetrains couldn't attain. I mean, how many vehicles is GMs 6.2 in? Vette, Trucks, Camaro and Caddys right? I would be curious to compare GMs take rate ( across their product lineup ) compared with fords 5.0..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my point was that Ford switched to MOD motors for emissions

 

They didn't just switch for emissions reasons, and you don't seem to understand the emissions reasons.

 

The mods, from the get-go were intended for wider use than the LS motors. The mods were intended to be used in everything from trucks to luxury vehicles.

 

GM was stuck using two separate V8 programs in order to provide a suitable luxury motor (the Northstar), until they said, 'heck with it' and started putting the 6.2L in Cadillacs because the Northstar wasn't a very good motor--it certainly lacked the 'room for growth' that the Mod had--and it was also not very reliable.

 

Secondly the emissions reasons have nothing to do with a supposed inability of any pushrod engine to meet emissions, and everything to do with Ford's pushrod 385 & Fairlane series being unable to meet emissions.

 

To put it simply, Ford needed a more flexible V8 that would be cleaner than their existing pushrod motors. They went with an exceptionally overbuilt motor that, 25 years into the running is still capable of being improved.

Edited by RichardJensen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Richard. It takes more than an engine to make a car. I have never owned anything but Fords all my life except a Mazda once and only because Ford owned a big stake of them. I am just as true blue as you. I never said that the MOD motor was a bad engine, now did I. I have owned a few. And yes, I don't know how much longer GM will keep making the LS series motors and when and if they will ever go to OHC engines. But my point was that Ford switched to MOD motors for emissions and GM didn't and are still passing what the government is mandating 20 years later with "old" single cam OHV engines.

 

My wild, shot-in-the-dark guess?

 

Subaru will retire the boxer engine and BMW will phase out the I6 before GM gives up on the small-block pushrod V8. And, honestly, that's fine with me. Every automaker needs to have a "thing," IMO, and that's theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They didn't just switch for emissions reasons, and you don't seem to understand the emissions reasons.

 

Secondly the emissions reasons have nothing to do with a supposed inability of any pushrod engine to meet emissions, and everything to do with Ford's pushrod 385 & Fairlane series being unable to meet emissions.

 

 

First you say they didn't switch for emissions reasons, then you say the 385 & Fairlane series (302W / 351W) being unable to meet emissions. They didn't have any other V8 engines at that time. So they did switch to meet emissions or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you say they didn't switch for emissions reasons, then you say the 385 & Fairlane series (302W / 351W) being unable to meet emissions. They didn't have any other V8 engines at that time. So they did switch to meet emissions or am I missing something?

 

I said you misstated the emissions issue.

 

Your ongoing implication is that Ford *incorrectly* concluded that future emissions standards could only be met by an OHC engine:

 

see:

 

my point was that Ford switched to MOD motors for emissions and GM didn't and are still passing what the government is mandating 20 years later with "old" single cam OHV engines.

 

The fact is that, like GM (which retired the old SBC block at about the same time), Ford needed a new V8 engine.

 

Unlike GM, which was ALSO working on the Northstar V8, the program for the Ford V8 required luxury vehicle applications, as well as trucks and entry-level product.

 

Thus reasons for replacing the 385 & Fairlane were as follows:

 

- tightening emissions regulations necessitated A NEW MOTOR.

 

- wider application than the LS block suggested that this new motor would be better received if it was an OHC motor.

 

Follow the logic?

 

'We need a new V8 to pass emissions (and probably also to meet customer NVH expectations), and since we're doing a new V8, it should probably be an OHC setup so we can use the engine in Lincoln products.'

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM was stuck using two separate V8 programs in order to provide a suitable luxury motor (the Northstar), until they said, 'heck with it' and started putting the 6.2L in Cadillacs because the Northstar wasn't a very good motor--

'We need a new V8 to pass emissions (and probably also to meet customer NVH expectations), and since we're doing a new V8, it should probably be an OHC setup so we can use the engine in Lincoln products.'

What Lincoln got the Mod motor? And wasn't GM's Northstar engine a OHC? Edited by Sizzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe it was...

 

Yes. The Northstar was. It also had a bizarre combination bearing cap/skirt thing that was notorious for warping.

 

I believe that the weakness of the Northstar's bottom end was its essential limitation, and the reason why it never had more than 320hp--odd super-charged STS-V notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some details here. :)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series

 

"Capable of producing 300 hp (224 kW) out of its 4565 cc displacement, the Northstar featured a cast aluminum 90° V8 block with 102 mm (4 in) bore spacing split into unitary upper and lower halves. The lower crankcase assembly supported the crankshaft without conventional main bearing caps. An oil manifold plate with an integrated silicone gasket forms the oil gallery under this. A typical oil change used 7.5–8 quarts of oil."

Edited by Edstock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe that the weakness of the Northstar's bottom end was its essential limitation, and the reason why it never had more than 320hp--odd super-charged STS-V notwithstanding.

 

That's one thing we know was NOT an issue on the mods. Ford GT's pushing 1000+ HP with stock bottom ends. Countless FI Mustangs. Yeah, the mods are pretty stout.

Edited by fordmantpw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who (like many here) lived through the early 1980's resurgence of the Mustang (I had the 82 GT with T-Bar and 5-Speed) vs Camaro magazine wars and followed it into the 1990's when the cars really started to suck - and suck real bad - all I can say is that it is great to see both GM and F and C bringing us some incredible cars - which our children will know is/was the pinnacle of gasoline cars - before we all go green one day.

 

Not to be nit picky, but the 82 GT only had a 4 speed. (SROD) 5 speed wasn't available til late 83 models.

I had an 82 GT w T-Tops also. :)

Loved that car, had it for over 12 years and 170,000 miles.

It was as quick as any 305 Camaro/Firebird until 3rd gear. going from 2nd to the 1:1 3rd gear was just too much of an RPM drop.

Eventually went to a 351W and T-5 after 130,000. Only race it ever lost was to a Turbo T/A. :)

 

Brian

06 Tungsten Vert

10 CinnaSHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...