The GTO benchmark.

[zondaland]

You yanks really like your Vettes dont you?

As far as pushrods I wasn't particularly clear. Overall the engine can certainly be lighter. The problem that I have is that they are an extra inertial mass. Also my understanding is that pushrod engines generally can't rev as high as DOHC or similar engines. There is a reason after all why the vast majority of car companies have adopted DOHC or similar in their performance cars.

Ah well, looks like you've got all the answers for me. Although for some reason I still prefer the BMW. Maybe its just a matter of indoctrination along the lines of European cars are always better. Maybe when the new M3 comes out the equation will change. Intersting mileage figures though.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by zondaland You yanks really like your Vettes dont you?

Correction, we (and that includes ex-pats who live here) really like performance cars.

Originally Posted by zondaland As far as pushrods I wasn't particularly clear. Overall the engine can certainly be lighter. The problem that I have is that they are an extra inertial mass. Also my understanding is that pushrod engines generally can't rev as high as DOHC or similar engines.

I guess my 2001 pushrod topping out at 6600rpm in stock trim and reliably handling 7000+rpm with aftermarket valve train is a low revving 5.7l V8?

Originally Posted by zondaland There is a reason after all why the vast majority of car companies have adopted DOHC or similar in their performance cars.

I guess the news 7000+rpm limit on the new 427ci (7l) LS7 in the C6 Z06 didn't get down under yet..?

Originally Posted by zondaland Ah well, looks like you've got all the answers for me. Although for some reason I still prefer the BMW. Maybe its just a matter of indoctrination along the lines of European cars are always better. Maybe when the new M3 comes out the equation will change. Intersting mileage figures though.

Not at all - it is an anti-American car bias that is unjustified and falsley perpetuated.



I now hand over to gray for the one-two...

[zondaland]

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by zondaland There is a reason after all why the vast majority of car companies have adopted DOHC or similar in their performance cars. I guess the news 7000+rpm limit on the new 427ci (7l) LS7 in the C6 Z06 didn't get down under yet..? Originally Posted by zondaland Ah well, looks like you've got all the answers for me. Although for some reason I still prefer the BMW. Maybe its just a matter of indoctrination along the lines of European cars are always better. Maybe when the new M3 comes out the equation will change. Intersting mileage figures though. Not at all - it is an anti-American car bias that is unjustified and falsley perpetuated.

Can I ask what exactly one car manufacturer sticking to pushrods in their engines and getting them to rev respectably has to do with the majority of car makers adopting DOHC or similar?

As for an anti-American car bias, no, merely an appreciation of different things from cars to what the American manufacturers are putting in their cars. Also a preference for technology to do the extra work rather than larger displacements or wider rear tyres. I would remind you that BMW felt that even a 5 litre engine would result in a V8 having too large a displacement for each cylinder. Hence the reason for the M5 having a V10 (in part).

As to high revving, well as a comparison the Enzo has a six litre. Also naturally aspirated, massively more powerful and revs to over 7500. Even a supercharged Koenigsegg develops peak power at 6900 rpm.

For something slightly less tuned you can go for a toyota engine in lotus that redlines at 8 350.

Yes you can get a pushrod engine to rev hard, however you have extra unnecessary inertia in the engine, why make life hard for yourself? Clearly the majority of car manufacturers have decided that there isn't a lot of point, that they are better off going for a DOHC system.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by zondaland Can I ask what exactly one car manufacturer sticking to pushrods in their engines and getting them to rev respectably has to do with the majority of car makers adopting DOHC or similar? As for an anti-American car bias, no, merely an appreciation of different things from cars to what the American manufacturers are putting in their cars. Also a preference for technology to do the extra work rather than larger displacements or wider rear tyres. I would remind you that BMW felt that even a 5 litre engine would result in a V8 having too large a displacement for each cylinder. Hence the reason for the M5 having a V10 (in part). As to high revving, well as a comparison the Enzo has a six litre. Also naturally aspirated, massively more powerful and revs to over 7500. Even a supercharged Koenigsegg develops peak power at 6900 rpm. For something slightly less tuned you can go for a toyota engine in lotus that redlines at 8 350. Yes you can get a pushrod engine to rev hard, however you have extra unnecessary inertia in the engine, why make life hard for yourself? Clearly the majority of car manufacturers have decided that there isn't a lot of point, that they are better off going for a DOHC system.

Maybe the real answer is the others all chasing high expense hi-tech got it all wrong.

What does a crate M5 V10 cost?

The 400hp, 5.7l LS6 crate motor is $5,000, and the latest price for 500hp, 7l LS7 is $15,000.

So we have cheaper, lighter, more fuel efficient and simpler in design.

Those seem to be good traits.

[zondaland]

Yes, for sure the new Chev has good traits. There would be something seriously wrong if the company that sells most cars of anybody in the world built a dud engine. Particularly when they plan to use it in so many different cars.

However it seems to me that it is not opening up any new frontiers, there is nothing that you could point to with that engine and say "that is groundbreaking" or even "that is pushing technology" (that I am aware of). Instead it is a basic and strong engine. For their sakes I hope that others don't leave them behind.

Yes the mob may have got it wrong, but if they had then why is it that they are all using that technology in their F1 cars, or in any other form of racing where they are allowed to?

[blah]

Originally Posted by Global Hemisphere Originally Posted by GTO I did bag this car out in a thread but I still think its great compared to whats out there on the Market. Holden definatly did well with the Monaro, its still a cool car. As for a bench mark?......no M3 is a benchmark everyday supercar, Louts elise benchmark for handling and the WRX benchmark for performance, drivablity at family car prices. However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon. The over priced under powered M3 gets a different category than the GTO? Why? They both have 2 doors and a back seat and are RWD... It’s just one cost a lot less and will blow the doors of the other, either in a straight line or around a track.... Yeah better let the M3 keep that seperate category....

Underpowered? Hmm interesting since the M3 runs the exact same time as a GTO, and would more than likely leave the porky GTO for dead through some twist and turns. I dont know what category to put the GTO under. Is it a valid Mustang Cobra fighter? Well if thats true then why bring back the Camaro with a different chasis.

[godspeed06]

the m3 has less power and costs more than the GTO -- hence "underpowered".

[SilviaEvo]

at first i thought this thread was about the 288 or 250 GTO which are REAL bench marks not the new Pontiac. i mean it is a pretty good car but it just isnt as good as say a Corvette or a M3. those two would leave teh Pontiac through the twists and also one of the most important things to consider is the FUN you have from driving the cars. with the M3 you enjoy the sense of driving and RC will surely back me up on this one that the Corvette is probably more fun to drive than a Pontiac. in the end it is just a beefed up Grand Prix.

[T-Bird]

Originally Posted by SilviaEvo at first i thought this thread was about the 288 or 250 GTO which are REAL bench marks not the new Pontiac. i mean it is a pretty good car but it just isnt as good as say a Corvette or a M3. those two would leave teh Pontiac through the twists and also one of the most important things to consider is the FUN you have from driving the cars. with the M3 you enjoy the sense of driving and RC will surely back me up on this one that the Corvette is probably more fun to drive than a Pontiac. in the end it is just a beefed up Grand Prix.

I wouldn't call the GTO a beefed up Grand Prix by any means whatsoever. I mean the Grand Prix is FWD to begin with and they don't make a 2 door version anymore, You can buy the Grand Prix with a V8 fwd *gasp*. The GTO is fun to drive because of the fact it's soo damn tail happy. I got to test drive one at school and it can really pull and slide. Shit if I had $60k to blow I would build built a Drift GTO.

[RC45]

LOL -

"drift" and "gto" don't really go together...

It's almost like "torquey" and "japanese import" ---

[T-Bird]

Originally Posted by RC45 LOL - "drift" and "gto" don't really go together... It's almost like "torquey" and "japanese import" ---

He seems to win every time.

[graywolf624]

Yes you can get a pushrod engine to rev hard, however you have extra unnecessary inertia in the engine, why make life hard for yourself? Clearly the majority of car manufacturers have decided that there isn't a lot of point, that they are better off going for a DOHC system.

First some perceptions you need cleared up. A pushrod is actually a newer technology then overhead cam engines. The overhead cam came first, and given the tech in the ls2, youd be hard pressed to arguing the engine is not tech advanced (good examples would be the major innovations on the ls7). Hell even if your right, whats the point of fixing something if it isnt broken. If the pushrod version is lighter, more fuel efficient, smaller in stature.. what again is the point of switching in the real world. Dont give me some theoretical numbers about hp/liter. Give me something real. What at the end of the day for joe racer driving the car does it gain?

Second, The majority of manufacturers in the 80s decided to do mcpherson struts cause it was the in thing to do too.. Yet we all know from a conceptual standpoint that sla is far superior. Hardly a great arguement. It crosses over to racing too, as does the fact that the corvettees seem to consistantly win there classes. You need to realize that the sbc family are fantastic engines and that the use of dohc versus pushrods is more based on what type of setup your looking for and the particular engine itself rather then any sort of superiority(each has +s and -s).

i mean it is a pretty good car but it just isnt as good as say a Corvette or a M3.

30000 dollar car... 45 and over 50 grand cars.. Am i missing why this is even being compared?

As to high revving, well as a comparison the Enzo has a six litre. Also naturally aspirated, massively more powerful and revs to over 7500. Even a supercharged Koenigsegg develops peak power at 6900 rpm.

Be a little realistic here man, your comparing 2 cars that are mostly about there engines and cost more then 5x as much... Pick a more every day car pushing out the same amount. There are chevy small blocks pushing out 900 and 1000 hp for alot less then either of those engines. An unlimited budget we could just point to the f1 engines and say everything else is obsolete.

So what is it now, you keep changing your arguement. First it was fuel consumption and size under the hood. Then it was weight. Then you visited revs. Whats the next excuse?

[zondaland]

Ok so you dont want theoretical numbers about horsepower per litre. Well lets use the S2000 as a real world example. Lets use the older model that revved to 9000 rpm. That was a two litre engine. It developed 120 bhp per litre. Now the Chev/GTO/Monaro engine develops 400 odd horsepower out of a six litre engine. To extrapolate the S2000 engine to a six litre you would get 720 horsepower. Obviously you cannot say all of that quite that simply. Any larger displacement engine will struggle to match a smaller engine in terms of hp/litre. However it is clear that Chev could get the same power out of a smaller engine as they have got out of their current engine if they chose to.

As to advantages of DOHC or similar systems. Lets look at what I think the GTO could do with an engine of this type. Usually the GTO is simply a car to get to work in, or to drive down the highway. In these situations it will generally operate in the range of 1-3 thousand revs. So have a camshaft that is tuned to be perfect for the nature of the engine at about three thousand. Then above four thousand you can have the second cam come in. Suddenly the engine develops that slug in the back of extra power, instead of wheezing its way to the redline on a cam designed for three thousand rpm it suddenly surges towards its 6500, 7000 rpm redline on a new wave of power. The second cam would allow the engine to develop a dual characteristic. When it is cruising it would (in theory) have better fuel consumption. When revving hard it would have extra power.

[graywolf624]

However it is clear that Chev could get the same power out of a smaller engine as they have got out of their current engine if they chose to.

Apparently that went over your head..

Hp/liter is solely theoretical and accademic. It has no bearing on any real world performance under the hood... unless for some odd reason you arbitrarily limit the engines liters just for some scientific test.


So why outside of acedemia, should I give 2 shits about the size of the engine if it has a smaller footpring and weighs less?

Suddenly the engine develops that slug in the back of extra power, instead of wheezing its way to the redline on a cam designed for three thousand rpm it suddenly surges towards its 6500, 7000 rpm redline on a new wave of power. The second cam would allow the engine to develop a dual characteristic. When it is cruising it would (in theory) have better fuel consumption. When revving hard it would have extra power.

One major problem with your theory, pushrods can use variable valve timing to do the same thing.

GM takes the pushrod engine to the next level in the spring by equipping a 3.9-liter V6 with variable valve timing. This will be the first of its type. A solenoid control valve is built into the variable timing housing at the crankshaft's timing gear.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...tml?page=3&c=y

Care to try one more go?

[RC45]

Originally Posted by zondaland Ok so you dont want theoretical numbers about horsepower per litre. Well lets use the S2000 as a real world example. Lets use the older model that revved to 9000 rpm. That was a two litre engine. It developed 120 bhp per litre. Now the Chev/GTO/Monaro engine develops 400 odd horsepower out of a six litre engine. To extrapolate the S2000 engine to a six litre you would get 720 horsepower. Obviously you cannot say all of that quite that simply. Any larger displacement engine will struggle to match a smaller engine in terms of hp/litre. However it is clear that Chev could get the same power out of a smaller engine as they have got out of their current engine if they chose to. As to advantages of DOHC or similar systems. Lets look at what I think the GTO could do with an engine of this type. Usually the GTO is simply a car to get to work in, or to drive down the highway. In these situations it will generally operate in the range of 1-3 thousand revs. So have a camshaft that is tuned to be perfect for the nature of the engine at about three thousand. Then above four thousand you can have the second cam come in. Suddenly the engine develops that slug in the back of extra power, instead of wheezing its way to the redline on a cam designed for three thousand rpm it suddenly surges towards its 6500, 7000 rpm redline on a new wave of power. The second cam would allow the engine to develop a dual characteristic. When it is cruising it would (in theory) have better fuel consumption. When revving hard it would have extra power.

How about someone come up with a nice alloy, light, small footprint, low profile, simple mechanics, big bore engine that lets you rumble at 1100rpm at 60mph sipping fuel at 28mpg all day - then when you down shift and push the go pedal it screams to 6600rpm almost ripping your head from your shoulders allowing you to dispatch of anything this side of half a million dollars????

Oh - wait - they do, it's called the LS6 - and it's new younger brother the LS2 and it's high-on-cocaine nephew, the LS7.