Thanks for making his point...5.3L > 4.6L  I'm pretty sure I learned that back in preschool.  So the trailblazer has a bigger motor and gets the same mileage...I think the victory there goes to GM!  And gee...given the choice of nearly 400HP and 2 mpg less ON THE HIGHWAY, and what...300 for the explorer...I think I'll take my extra 100 ponies...

"Obviously most Car Crafters, had they been running Ford, would have chosen to match or beat the LT1/LS1 F-bodies on power off the showroom floor.  But with appropriate modifications,  the Modular-powered Mustangs can be more than a match for any F-body"

Are you talking about running a Modified Modular engined Mustang against a stock F-body? It wouldn't surprise me if it won, but dollar for dollar modifications on both will yield more power in the F-body.  You need more money and modifications to the modular engine to make it as competetive.

So when Cadillac supercharged the Northstar, they were just making up for "shoddy engineering work?"   And the $100,000 VaporVette that incites so much awe and anticipation uses a supercharger as a crutch to cover for GM's inability to match the Japanese?

Of course, such myopia ignores that proper turbocharged or supercharged production engines can offer much more torque over a much wider operational range than a naturally-aspirated engine, even one with tricks such as VTEC and variable runner intake manifolds.  In fact, forced induction is simply the cheapest, most reliable way to build a broad power band, other than perhaps adding cubic inch displacement (which often isn't an option due to production volume, market perceptions and CAFE standards). 

Moreover,  it simply lacks perspective to suggest that a rare,  over-the-counter racing engine which cost more than a whole car in the 1960s (or even use of OHC technology in exotic imports) means that developing American OHC and DOHC V8s for ordinary cars sold to ordinary people at ordinary prices isn't a "modern" technological breakthrough of historic proportions.  How many Car Crafters in 1969, 1979 or even 1989 would have believed that any of the Detroit 3 would ever offer a 500 hp lightly-supercharged DOHC 32-valve V8 to the general public?  On the other hand, given the extremely quick development of Trans-am engine technology though mills such as the Boss 302 and others, A 7000-rpm production pushrod engine was entirely expected (albeit delayed by a few decades).  And aluminum became a cutting edge technology for production engines over forty years ago (including such milestones as the aluminum 196-cube Rambler 6 and the turbocharged Oldsmobile Jetfire.

So while what's "modern" may be relative, simply remaking a Kettering-style OHV out of aluminum and plastic and slathering on EFI with a few hot rod hop up tricks (e.g. roller rocker arms) isn't really as "modern" as putting nearly a full-blown OHC racing-style engine on the street in ordinary sedans, trucks and pony cars, now is it?

Moreover, when judging whether something is "modern" or not, the efficiency of it, measured in this case by horsepower-per-cube IS relevant.   Five hundred hp is nothing remotely new.  But downsizing it into a liveable form with decent fuel economy, seamless, almost maintenance-free operation and 100,000+ mile reliability actually is.  While GM has chosen the lonely road of continuing development on the old-school OHV, Ford has lead the low-cost V8 sector by bringing technology formerly reserved for cost-prohibitive exotics down to Main Street.  Horsepower-per-cube is simply just a shorthand way of illustrating the differences.  

Obviously the LSx would be a better performance engine and--dare I say it-- a more "modern" engine if it offered forced induction, more than two valves per cylinder and/or OHC valvetrain technology.

A simple technical analysis shows why.  According to well-known engineering sources, 

Anyone else notice everybody else is gone??  Its the five of us fighting here (TurboTed, TheSilverBuick, Dr511sj, 71_bigblocknova, and myself).  This is turning into that stupid "rich but not stupid" thread.  I'm out.  I don't care about OHC...I'm going this weekend to get a 66 Olds 425 for my 85 Delta 88.  Its got a regular old bathtub combustion chamber, two valves, a non-adjustable valvetrain, pushrods, a carb, and even a points distributor (ok...thats getting changed...but still).  And you know what...I'll take 365 HP and 470 ft-lbs of torque...I was under the impression that this is what the mag was all about...low buck stuff that runs good...I'll take my big cubes and ancient design over any modular ford...and actually...over any LS...well...almost any LS series engine (I gotta little IROC that would love an LS7...).  I've said my piece...you can refute it all you want...but the time involved in finding research for this is crazy...we should really just have carcraft do the story...they have access to more research than we do.  
68 Olds Cutlass ~ 350 Rocket
85 Delta 88 ~ 425 Rocket
02 Silverado 4X4 ~ 5.3L

NO.  5.3+ the added complexity of cylinder deactivation+ less vehicle weight = 4.6. 

 When Ford equips its V8s with cylinder deactivation (which will occur at some point given governmental and market pressures) they will have similar MPG increases.

Given that nobody in the aftermarket is working yet with "Displacement on Demand" and that it probably is too computer-intensive and complex for most Car Crafters to seek out (and that neither DCX nor GM offer it on the top-level performance models), cylinder deactivation doesn't factor into this discussion, except as an explanation as to how a larger V8 can match the mileage of a smaller one.

If it were up to me, I'd like a 600-cube mountain motor with four valves per cylinder, cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing  real flex-fuel capablilty and forced induction (hopefully intercooled turbo).  I don't foresee any of the Detroit 3 accomodating my dream engine, though.

Or at least I'd like to be able to convert a stoked BBF to "Displacement on Demand" with aftermarket parts. 

Of course, the coming development of HCCI engines probably makes this entire debate moot. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cal/HCCI/

Get an engineering degree...then you can talk to me about engineering  
68 Olds Cutlass ~ 350 Rocket
85 Delta 88 ~ 425 Rocket
02 Silverado 4X4 ~ 5.3L

Above the 750 hp level on the street (which is easily, reliably and cost-effectively achievable using stock Ford blocks and heads along with a decent power adder), other factors are going to matter more than power.   Besides, anyone with more than 700 hp is probably in the top 1% of all street cars anyhow, so the chance of getting beat is minimal at best.  
*****
TURBO TED --Internationally known as the "John Force of the Yugo Racing Association."

Sergeant-at-Arms and immediate Past President of the SoAL Yugo Owners Group.

I have no idea why GM is spending money on the Northstar system, on their N/A engines they make pretty good power for the size and the supercharger really doesn't add a whole lot.  I think that is intentional though because they don't want to up set their flagship engine the LS series.  But at least the Northstar systems have some complex computer engineering in their design and drivability management.  The only computer management that Ford's done on their v-8 is the ignition and fuel delivery which has been done for over 20 years.  I was accused of speculating GM supercharging the LS (when I had already read it) then coincidently posts about it started popping up here.  I haven't seen anything about Ford developing Cylinder Deactivation Systems, that is speculation. GM talked about it for two or more years before it came out.  Fords still playing catch up.  As for Turbo or Supercharging, I never said anything against them, eventually I want to put an accesory drive S/C on my 8.5:1 455 Buick engine. My problem, I will say again, is acting like Ford has done something innovative and revolutionary when both their engine design and fuel/ignition management are old technology.  The fact you can take a stock block and let the one percenters build it to reliable 750hp is only coincidence because they build heavy under-engineered engines.  (look at russian jets, tanks and construction equipment, they do the same thing) The aftermarket has just maximized what Ford should be taking more advantage of but they don't.  When I see some real "technology" go into that Modular V-8 I'll start having some respect for it regardless of power output or efficiency. 

I've enjoyed our discussion. Best of luck with the 425 Olds.

(BTW, I wonder what a 425 would do with a pair of cheap, rebuilt T4s, a charge-air cooler, a splash of water injection . . . . )

Thanks...dunno how one would do with forced induction...its got a forged crank and rods...but right now I'm on an extremely tight budget...I'm still worried about the rearend...little 7.5 isn't going to hold much power...and I'm not sure I can afford an 8.5 even if I can find one.  Eventually it may be blown...but not now.  
68 Olds Cutlass ~ 350 Rocket
85 Delta 88 ~ 425 Rocket
02 Silverado 4X4 ~ 5.3L

I'm sure those who hack and tune EEC IV, EEC V and Spanish Oak processors will be enlightened to know how simple Ford's computer systems are.

Given that many current Fords use drive-by-wire electronic throttles, electronic stability control, computer-controlled five or six-speed automatics and have sufficient engine managment power to achieve LEV or ULEV emissions certification, its simply unfair to suggest that Ford hasn't really done anything along these lines in twenty years.   Ford's 3V modular has a computer-controlled cam advance mechanism in addition to drive-by-wire and computer-controlled spark, fuel and emission systems.  Fords over the past twenty years have also used variable intake manifold runners (SHO Taurus, SVT Focus), variable volume intake plenums (F-series Modular V8s), electronic torque management (Thunderbird Turbo Coupe), electronic ride control (several Ford and Lincoln models), variable cam phasing (SVT Focus).

BTW, the argument that Ford's factory tough Modular blocks mean that they are "underengineered" simply makes no sense.  The blocks are built tougher to increase NVH suppression. If they will withstand three horsepower-per-cube or more, how does that translate into being "underengineered?"   That sound just like the sort of "overengineering" Car Crafters ought to be seeking out as the sound basis for reliable performance engines.  Or would you rather the OEMs force us to buy a $2000+ aftermarket block to get the durability we need?

I am glad you feel as passionate about that side as I do mine, it is no fun when someone gives up too early.  Because I no longer work at a GM or Ford dealer, nor am I a Chevy enhusiast, nor am I an engineer I can can only go on from here with vague memory and speculation. 

At the time I worked at the Ford-Mercury dealer (~4years ago) none of Ford's V-8s held even a LEV label when GM's F-bodies held an LEV and the Corvette held an ULEV.  A lot can change in those years and a quick internet search of both Ford's and GM's websites didn't yield me any results in today's V-8 cars. 

The Driveby wire technology is used by nearly every manufacture today in one vehicle or another, ride control management is also common, cam phasing in 4bangers is also fairly common today in imports, I'd like to see more of it in the V-8 department.  I wasn't aware about variable volume intake plenums in the trucks, but it doesn't surprise me it would help with low end torque building which 3V and 4V engines need. 

I still think the block is under engineered, just because bulkyness/weight coincidently add strength doesn't make it a well designed engine.  I agree it is certainly in Car Crafter's best intentions to have a nice factory base to build on (I have no idea what the LS limitations are)  but from what car manufacture's build and other disscussions here the Factory is usually interested in pleasing the government and green people before us, therefore building a more fuel efficient lighter block is in their interest, but they didn't, I don't know why but I highly doubt it was to cater to the aftermarket.  Correct me if I am wrong on this point, I think I've read somewhere that the Modular engine block can't be bored or stroked much beyond it's 5.4L displacement which really limits the possibilities of what us Car Crafters can do with it to Cams and Forced Air.  I can't even count all the displacement, bore-stroke, connecting rod legth-stroke combinations built on older Ford engines and old/new chevy ones and all the other makes, but it seems like the Modular V-8 is Capped out around 5.4L give or take a few tenths.  (I know 14.7psi essentially doubles the engine size, but many of us, for racing rule reasons or otherwise rather run displacement over forced induction). 

People will stick with what they know and feel the more comfortable with regardless of what others think, I should know I run Buick's and will continue to do so probably for the rest of my life regardless of all the Chevy and Ford engine/parts availibility. So the debate continues.

you still ignore the little facts. the trailblazer ss would weigh in at 4500 lbs. the 5.3 with 4wd will get the same as an exploder 2wd, the 2wd trailblazer gets 16/22 and still make more power than the ford. and if the 4.6 can make an easy 700 h.p with just a supercharger and tuning, then why isnt it in the gt?  

If you don't believe me, read Richard Holdner's book of dyno tests on the Modular V8s.

http://www.amazon.com/Building-5-4l-Ford-Horsepower-Dyno/dp/1932494200/sr=1-1/qid=1160162929/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4980148-2010326?ie=UTF8&s=books

Obviously Ford didn't set the GT on "kill" because they have to offer a drivetrain warranty (including a 50,000 mile emissions warranty) and they have no control over the maintenance or conditions of use.  And they knew full well that some folks with enough dough to swing a house-priced exotic car wouldn't leave it alone for long, so they designed in some "worst case" margin for tuning error. 

Sure they could have made a lot more power with a more complex supercharging or turbocharging system, but like all engine packages, it was engineered to be easily and quickly installed in initial assembly.

And certainly Ford's legal department didn't want the company to get too far out there on the edge.  Ford's tendency has been to test the waters  at new power levels with specials (Cobra Rs, GT) and then plunge in with more volume models (SVT Cobra, GT500).

BTW, the Trailblazer's LS2 only makes EIGHT more horsepower out of FORTY FOUR MORE CUBES (hardly the model of efficiency)  Ten minutes of bolt-ons will have the 3V Modular well ahead of that.  And the Chevy's stuck with an old-fashioned four speed automatic, but the Explorer has a SIX-speed automatic  AND IRS for smoother operation.

And given Trailblazer SS's MSRP of over $31,000 (topping $35,000 fully equipped), it'd probably make more sense to buy a cheaper , more fuel effiicient 4.6 Explorer and a power adder.  Considering that bone-stock 3Vs can be boosted to around 500 rwhp without cracking open the long block, the thousands one would save by scoring an Explorer would go a long way toward building an SS and SRT-8 killer out of the Ford.

Food for thought.