3.8 V6 Camaro vs 4.7 V8 Mustang
#11
I might have let out a tiny little detail...it wasn't a straight up drag. It was a 40 roll, whoever got to the next interstate interchange first won. The 88 GT was a straight up drag though.
#12
It is a pushrod based engine, correct? it's not OHC.
It only has 2 valves per cylinder, is that also correct.
So, with those dyno numbers, and I assume they are WHP, otherwise, the figures are FWHP which is done with the engine out of the car.
So, let's go with WHP at 216 WHP. if you have a manny tranny in awesome shape, then you would experience @ 10% driveline loss from engine to rear wheels so divide 216WHP by .9 and you get 240 FWHP. If you have an auto tranny, then it's around 15% driveline loss so divide by .85 and you get 254 FWHP.
This from a stock motor with 2 valves per cylinder, does not have variable valve timing etc.
I find those numbers to be quite impressive as it is over 1 HP per cubic inch considering 230 cubic inches and a stock engine. Heck, in that same year, Honda, who is one heck of an engine builder was getting 1.2 HP per cubic inch with 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing and your dyno figures claim 1.1 HP per cubic inch with 2 valves, pushrods and bone stock.
I am missing something here.
#13
OK, so here is where my knowledge of the 3.8 is lacking
It is a pushrod based engine, correct? it's not OHC.
It only has 2 valves per cylinder, is that also correct.
So, with those dyno numbers, and I assume they are WHP, otherwise, the figures are FWHP which is done with the engine out of the car.
So, let's go with WHP at 216 WHP. if you have a manny tranny in awesome shape, then you would experience @ 10% driveline loss from engine to rear wheels so divide 216WHP by .9 and you get 240 FWHP. If you have an auto tranny, then it's around 15% driveline loss so divide by .85 and you get 254 FWHP.
This from a stock motor with 2 valves per cylinder, does not have variable valve timing etc.
I find those numbers to be quite impressive as it is over 1 HP per cubic inch considering 230 cubic inches and a stock engine. Heck, in that same year, Honda, who is one heck of an engine builder was getting 1.2 HP per cubic inch with 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing and your dyno figures claim 1.1 HP per cubic inch with 2 valves, pushrods and bone stock.
I am missing something here.
It is a pushrod based engine, correct? it's not OHC.
It only has 2 valves per cylinder, is that also correct.
So, with those dyno numbers, and I assume they are WHP, otherwise, the figures are FWHP which is done with the engine out of the car.
So, let's go with WHP at 216 WHP. if you have a manny tranny in awesome shape, then you would experience @ 10% driveline loss from engine to rear wheels so divide 216WHP by .9 and you get 240 FWHP. If you have an auto tranny, then it's around 15% driveline loss so divide by .85 and you get 254 FWHP.
This from a stock motor with 2 valves per cylinder, does not have variable valve timing etc.
I find those numbers to be quite impressive as it is over 1 HP per cubic inch considering 230 cubic inches and a stock engine. Heck, in that same year, Honda, who is one heck of an engine builder was getting 1.2 HP per cubic inch with 4 valves per cylinder and variable valve timing and your dyno figures claim 1.1 HP per cubic inch with 2 valves, pushrods and bone stock.
I am missing something here.
#14
Well, Ford really has had its pants down on Mustang development for... oh, the past 30 years or so.
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_mustVScam.htm
Even up to the '08, '09 models, my stock IROC-Z can still play ball, and it's as old as I am.
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_mustVScam.htm
Even up to the '08, '09 models, my stock IROC-Z can still play ball, and it's as old as I am.
#15
Actually, check your facts first, stock:
http://www.camarosource.ca/php/camar..._info_2&bmid=1
The only possible difference is if GM never certified the numbers and purposely under-rated it, like they did in the 2010 (304 HP) vs 2011 (312 HP) V6 Camaro -- even though they are actually both exactly the same.
http://www.camarosource.ca/php/camar..._info_2&bmid=1
The only possible difference is if GM never certified the numbers and purposely under-rated it, like they did in the 2010 (304 HP) vs 2011 (312 HP) V6 Camaro -- even though they are actually both exactly the same.
Last edited by libertyforall1776; 05-11-2010 at 11:55 PM.
#16
If the motor was yanked to be rebuilt then I can see that being done, but otherwise???
Anyway, to all, does the 3.8 have 2 or 3 valves per cylinder?
#17
OK, so the previous owner pulled the engine to run it on an engine dyno to get the numbers vs just putting it on a roller dyno and getting the wheel numbers?
If the motor was yanked to be rebuilt then I can see that being done, but otherwise???
Anyway, to all, does the 3.8 have 2 or 3 valves per cylinder?
If the motor was yanked to be rebuilt then I can see that being done, but otherwise???
Anyway, to all, does the 3.8 have 2 or 3 valves per cylinder?
#18
The difference is a 97 Z28 is a 5.7 liter and the 97 Mustang has a 4.6 liter. So if you do the math the camaro has 1.1 liters more and its a chevy so its just better.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post