Your problem is your speaking in theories without providing any evidence that proves your theory. I have effectively disproved your theory at this point by provide example after example of how 4 valve OHC switch overs drop in fuel economy. So far the benchmark is 28 mpg on the highway done by a 6 liter OHV, that benchmark has not been exceeded yet.

Not the W-body Impala (which weighs over 3700 pounds BTW), if you know half as much as you claim to know, you would know that my reference to LT1 Corvette spec engine and 4L60E for the powertrain was a reference to the mid-90s Impala SS, not the W-body 5.3L Impala which was originally rated at 28mpg and is still pretty low tech in comparison. It just proves further that despite all the technology upgrades and everything else MB has in its advantage it can't outdo a very low tech car (curb weight was above 4000lbs; meanwhile, the Benz was below 4500 lbs). Besides your complaint about apples to oranges, you provided the challenge, I answered it with the information that was available. Also this was not the heaviest version of these cars the heaviest version (the Cadillac version) weighed 4447 pounds and still achieved 26 mpg. The weight difference between the Mercedes S-Class is a mere 18 pounds.

What is the matter with being able to match an offering using a 56 lower cubic inches without resorting to doubling the number of valves, without using the latest technology (VVT and Direct Injection), using practically the same compression ratio, while having to overcome current regulations that the 426 never had to go through and a lot better fuel mileage and making more affordable for the common man? That is quite noteworthy, not to mention that the 6.1L is no where near the best they have to offer. The new 392 produces a lot more hp & torque than the 426 did in fuel injected form using a very simple FI system, or equal torque and a lot more hp on a more simple carborated system. Also it has been 42 years not 45. If you so deeply love Ford's engines, why don't you just do us all a big favor and just buy a Mustang so then you can have the "high tech" engine with the must have items. Just don't come crying to us when pushrod models kick you high tech behind.

I don't give care about your fear of the environment besides that is not what we are discussing here. There are "experts" on both sides of the issue so don't give me the I'm backed up by experts crap, because so far your backed up by yourself and so far, you have very little credibility.

You complain about the sources I have used against you and the evidence I have used but your problem is you have provided nothing but snide remarks. If you want to debate, then debate, I you just want to be a commentator who does nothing but source himself, then waste someone else's time.

Where have they added a multidisplacement system on the Modular engine? Which model has it? Unless this is in the plan stage somewhere or they have done a pathetic job of making the public aware, they do not have one. I believe you are confused with Variable Camshaft Timing which is NOT a multidisplacement system. If I have to explain what that is to you, someone is really out of his league.