Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jpd80
The coyote was not designed from scratch, it uses the 4.6 Mod V8 deck height and bore spacing,
allowing an existing engine machine line used reduces delivery time by around 12 months.
I know it's going into the revamped Essex factory in Canada but the machinery set up is
basically the same as used in the previous 4.6 engine lines at Romeo and Cleveland
|
That was not the point of my post.
That is why I said "basically" scratch. As discussed above it had some limitations from its 'mod' heritage but this did not speed up development, however mentioning this in full in my previous post would have sidetracked my argument and it has nothing to do with this thread.
Whether or not Coyote is a "New" engine in the true definition of the word is not the topic of this thread, Mr Dowlings article, my post within the thread, nor the majority of the other posts, so can we please discuss it elsewhere.
To clarify:
The example was mentioned to negate the argument Dowling had stated in regards to it taking "2 years" to engineer the existing production GM supercharged LS engines into a HSV. This compares to the time it took Ford US to develop and engineer Coyote from BASICALLY new.
This also includes the local development work to engineer Coyote into our Falcon (and maybe as speculated developing different specification levels including a unique supercharged version.)
However I can partly justify my previous bracketed claim by referencing the official confirmation from Harrop Engineering about its program with ford. Unlike Mr Dowling who references no one, does not preface his claims with 'rumoured' and states all of his claims as fact.
HSV could safely engineer, develop, test and release a Supercharged Commodore in as little as 12 months, maybe less.
So why then Mr Dowling if it takes Ford US, FPV and Harrop Engineering 2 years to design, construct, test, redesign, retest, trial, ship to Aus, modify, and retest coyote would it take HSV the same period of time to take an existing engine from the GM catalogue and put it into their products if they so desired?
These facts make it clear that Mr Dowling has very little concept of the reality of engine development/transplant programs and more broadly the automotive industry. This discredits not only this paragraph, but the article as a whole and also his complete body of work.
My contention is still: Josh Dowling is not a credible automotive journalist. He relies to heavily on rumour and speculation instead of fact and is beholden to journalistic trends and hyperbole.
Unfortunately some are so happy to not be receiving another ill-advised pasting from Mr Dowling that they are all to willing to accept an equally ill-advised, baseless puff piece.
How Chuck Norris allows Josh Dowling to continue his existence is a travesty I hope to soon see rectified.