Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
Mac Dude

Ford versus Holden

Recommended Posts

A Ford driver whose ute had broken down has been sentenced for biting the ear of a passer-by who told him he should buy a Commodore.

 

Seems fair to me...

 

 

abc news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the ridiculous story...

 

 

I don't really like either.

 

Buuut If I had to choose, FORD for two reasons:

 

The evolved from pushrod engines.

 

Their utes are actually utes, and properly load rated, as holdens are showponies with useless suspension for ute tasks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this Ford ute driving maniac is also a big fan of Mike Tyson then? Quite the over-reaction. Gogo brand induced road rage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

The evolved from pushrod engines.

There's only one engine in the Holden line-up that uses pushrods - the V8. Pushrods have a number of advantages (and disadvantages) over OHC engines, with the main advantage being compactness, lighter weight, lower centre of gravity, less moving parts and parasitic loss. Given that most V8 engines don't rev much beyond 6000rpm anyway due to harmonic balance and crank counterweighting (unless they're high performance flat crank plane engines from the likes of Ferrari or BMW), most of the advantages of DOHC, which tend to manifest at high RPM, are lost on them anyway.

 

Put it this way, pushrods don't seem to have been an impediment to Chevrolet in the American Le Mans series, where Corvette teams held the top five positions in a field that included Aston Martin, Ferrari, Porsche and BMW (all OHC engined) in the GT Division in 2013.

 

I'll never understand the fatwa that seems to have been put on pushrod engines. It's like arguing that forks are better than spoons. Don't get me wrong, OHC engines are great, but simply saying that OHC is "better" than OHV is incorrect.

 

As for Holden vs Ford, I like them both... some people are just idiots.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the main advantage being ... less moving parts and parasitic loss.

I agree that pushrod engines work - and even concede that they may even be a superior choice in some circumstances, the above quote... Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

 

OHC: cam lobe presses bucket attached directly to valve stem.

 

Unless you're taking each individual link in the timing chain as a "moving part", I don't see how you come the conclusion you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the new entrants to the V8 Supercar series have also found it difficult to match the pushrods on power and efficiency despite them using newer engine setups...

 

I've usually been a Holden man myself, First car was a Holden. but agree with Morg on the utes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holden evolved from pushrod engines also... the Gen III V8 is still pushrod, the V6 was based on the archaic Buick engine until replaced not so long ago by the locally built one.

Ford's mainstay inline 6 has been OHC since 1988, the V8 only went OHC when the 5.4 replaced the injected 5 litre engine when the BA came out in 2002. Not to be confused with the current 5 litre which is DOHC.

 

I worked for a Holden dealer for a short time about 10 years ago. A PMSL moment there was the fact they had a customer's ute sitting in the workshop for maybe 2 months. It had a sticker with a bloke taking a piss on a Ford badge. The Holden ute itself... probably under a year old and waiting for a replacement Gen III engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

... the main advantage being ... less moving parts and parasitic loss.

I agree that pushrod engines work - and even concede that they may even be a superior choice in some circumstances, the above quote... Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

 

OHC: cam lobe presses bucket attached directly to valve stem.

 

Unless you're taking each individual link in the timing chain as a "moving part", I don't see how you come the conclusion you do.

 

My mistake, I meant less driven parts which equals less parasitic loss.

 

Holden evolved from pushrod engines also... the Gen III V8 is still pushrod, the V6 was based on the archaic Buick engine until replaced not so long ago by the locally built one.

Holden no longer uses the GenIII, they use GenIV, but yes, it is an OHV design.

 

Also, the last of the Buick motors came out of the factory in 2003. I guess it's subjective, but to me ten years is a fair while ago.

 

... the V8 only went OHC when the 5.4 replaced the injected 5 litre engine when the BA came out in 2002.

There's a good illustrative example.

 

Ford offered V8s at that time, the SOHC 3v, and the DOHC 4v. The 3v made 220-230kW and 500Nm, and the 4v made between 260kW in 2002 and up to 315kW in 2008 in the GT.

 

Both made less power than the GenIII, which in VY (2002) was making 235kW and up to 317kW in 2008 (HSV), were heavier, and ran out of puff towards the redline. The GenIII was a superior engine at the time, provided you got one without the piston slap and high oil consumption.

 

The current Ford "Coyote" engine is a very nice thing indeed, as is the 6 cylinder Turbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V8's are crap, strait six is the only way to go for my money (or maybe a 12cyl)

 

imo, more important than OHC or OHV is if the engine is over square, the venerable chev can (and has) be built with varying piston, rod and stroke combos and although each will essentially be the same chev they will have quite varied characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only substitute for cubic inches is more cubic inches.

 

V8s crap - no. OK, they can be thirsty, real thirsty.

 

But if you modify a 4 or 6 to provide similar power and the other variables are alike (weight, air resistance etc) then the smaller engine will use practically the same amount of fuel and to get that performance you're providing much less mechanical sympathy.

 

That said, in the modern day the modest sized sixes provide more than enough for most applications.

 

I could go on about fuel, but realistically even though we get ripped off compared to many places, in adjusted terms it's probably cheaper to do 100km now that it was in the mid 1980s.

Edited by Rybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

V8's are crap, strait six is the only way to go for my money (or maybe a 12cyl)

 

imo, more important than OHC or OHV is if the engine is over square, the venerable chev can (and has) be built with varying piston, rod and stroke combos and although each will essentially be the same chev they will have quite varied characteristics.

V8's are not crap! There's lots of advantages - the main one being lots of cylinders in a fairly compact package (being no longer than a 4 cylinder).

 

But yeah, love straight 6s. Completely balanced, so no need for crank counter-weighting or balance shafts. It's a shame that they're dying out. Once the Ford I6 dies in 2016 only BMW will still do them. It's a massive shame as you're right, a straight 6 is a really nice thing. Nobody does them anymore because they're long and tend to spear into the cabin in a frontal collision. So whilst they're pretty much the best engine from a rotating balance perspective (along with flat 4 and flat 6), they're being sacrificed at the altar of "packaging".

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what Ford can do with the final Falcon update. Might get myself into the final XR6 Turbo once the current lease runs out in 3 years.

Edited by xyzzy frobozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Crap' may have been a bit harsh,

 

it shits me though, that compromises are chosen over simple good design, even by performance manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Simple good design" is in itself a compromise.

 

The cheap/easy solution for an engine would be plenum-chamber fuel injection, single in-block camshaft, minimal ECU and old style cast iron exhaust manifold.

 

Essentially what the market provided in the late 1980s. Fuel economy and performance levels 20% or more worse off than what you can get today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you modify a 4 or 6 to provide similar power and the other variables are alike (weight, air resistance etc) then the smaller engine will use practically the same amount of fuel and to get that performance you're providing much less mechanical sympathy.

Unless that engine is a modern 4 or 6 cylinder turbo diesel. In which case you can have it all; AND an assload of smoke to shame the opponent :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

"Simple good design" is in itself a compromise.

 

The cheap/easy solution for an engine would be plenum-chamber fuel injection, single in-block camshaft, minimal ECU and old style cast iron exhaust manifold.

 

Essentially what the market provided in the late 1980s. Fuel economy and performance levels 20% or more worse off than what you can get today.

I think what Betzie was referring to was the cylinder configuration itself.

 

Straight 6 engines are rotationally balanced, so there is no need to add counterweights or power robbing balance shafts to damp vibration, unlike I4s, V6s and V8s. So pretty much all of the most popular engine designs are compromised from a balance point of view. The reason these engines are popular is not because they are the best engine design, but because they are the easiest to fit into cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×