However, since the 6.1L is a pushrod engine a cam swap will be simple. Increasing torque could be a simple affair. Not like our OHC Modular engines...

 

I am happy that dodge is going to make such an engine. Personally, I'd like to see a smaller displacement V10 from ford (like a 4.6 with 2 more cyls) and 4 valve heads.

As to the origional post, I got a tad confused. Did they mean aturally aspirated or all of their engines? The 6.1 is not dodge's highest specific output engine (stock production) ever, naturally aspirated it is , but the turbo 3 2.2L 4 cyl of 1991-1993 featured 100 HP per liter. And the Neon srt4 is aloso higheroutput.

 

UM.... Corey, the origional 426 hemi did not turn 500 RWHP.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/dyno-test.html

Here's a dyno sheet from back in '65 on a 426. It is noted that the intake and exhaust are NOT stock. But, realize, back them, 420 HP on a naturally aspirated engine was unheard of. I know a '79 Trans Am with the 403 big block only turns 220! Those old V8s were hugely inefficient, and didn't turn much power! The 305 they put in the T/As starting in 1980 only turned 150 HP. I could get a Neon to do more than that without much trouble!

 

remember the ls1 camaro and firebirds? those cars were actually underrated. very few mods and they are in the 12's i9n the 1/4. whatare they advertised, 330 at the crank?

 

I heard that they are going to make a SRT-8 Dakota with that stuffed in it. I wonder how ford will answer?

 

They'll probably beef up the 5.4 or stuff the 4.6 below the hood of the ranger. Who knows?

 

The 426 street HEMI did dyno at around 500hp. Not shown on this dyno sheet but on others. Chrysler was hesitant to rate the 426 at 500hp for insurance purposes. This is not information that I am making up either. Tom Hoover himself stated this.

Tom Hoover - Main developer of the 426 HEMI V8 (also worked on earlier HEMI V8s)

 

I'd like to see how much it does.

 

Hey BigRyan. I have also read Mention of that new Ford 6.2L. Also read that it was also still in early planning stages...but any word if it will have a Hemispherical design? I know they had one back in the '60s i think even before the Dodge.

 

I'd also like to comment on the "specific output" issue.... my Dodge Avenger (which is a POS dog) has a 2.0 L four cylinder that is rated at 140 HP. That is 70 horses per liter, which is essentially the same (but incrementally more, if we're splitting hairs) as this new engine.

And, if turbo engines get into it, I believe the second gen eagle talon had 210 horses from a 2.0L 4G63, which would be 105 hp/liter.

Those people need to get their facts straight.

 

If ford would do this and offer it in a 4x4 I would be first inline to order one. It would have to be better than their gutless 4.0 V6 that gets 15 MPG no matter how you drive it. I'd bet money if they would put the current 4.6 in a Ranger it would get 20+ and have all the power you need.
Thats what I dont understand why would FoMoCo think I would buy a Ranger Supercab 4x4 with a weak gas drinking V6 for 28K when I can buy a fullsize of the same configuration with a V8 for 30K and get just the same if not a little better gas mileage. I know that my pricing may not be perfect but I'm pretty close (I think, if not someone can correct me).
Now if the would put the GT 4.6 or the 3V 5.4 that would be something.

 

If you really want to start that, mid 80's BMW F1 cars had 1500hp out of their turbo charged 1.5l engines...
1000hp/liter!!!

I garuntee that I could get a Naturally Aspirated V10 to make far more torque than a Naturally Aspirated 6.1 "Hemi" with mods.
The current OHV engines aren't like the OHV engines of old, they are like our modular engines, close to their maximum possible power output stock...

 

Yeah, but I'm just talking about stock engines from Mopar. That article says: "The 425-horsepower, normally aspirated 6.1-liter HEMI is the highest specific-output engine ever offered by the Chrysler Group. Its 69.8 horsepower-per-liter rating exceeds even that of the legendary 1966 'Street HEMI.'"

I'm just calling BS, since my POS 5 year old Dodge has that high of a specific output, and many turbo mopar models over the years have been even higher.

 

You misunderstood my post, I think.

I do not doubt that a V10 could produce more torque. I was simply saying that for DC to move the torque curve around it would be an easier affair mechanically and still retain it's "Modular----as you called it----design" versus the V10.

Mainly because it is easier to swap the cam (1) in the 6.1 than the 2 Overhead cams (along with new balance shaft) in the V10's heads.

Also, keeping with DC theme of using the same engine (5.7) in varied platforms (truck SUV, car) I can see them doing the same thing with this 6.1L but tuning it for torque.

They may do electronically but if they want to compete with the V10s torque output they'll have to do it mechanically.

 

Ok, I understand now both benwantland, and Monsta.

I imagine that the 6.1l will be used in a truck, with longer intake runners and prehaps a slightly lower compression ratio...