The GTO benchmark.

[zondaland]

RC 45, You have essentially said that what I proposed is being done by the Monaro/GTO already. Fair enough, to some extent it is. However my method has one advantage. Wheelbase. Yes the LS2/6/7 may be small for its capacity. Hoewever it would have been very easy for them to have gained the same power out of say a four litre engine. Surely you would agree that a four litre engine would be smaller in footprint. As it would be smaller they would not need to place so much emphasis on low weight. With a smaller wheelbase the car would have a sharper turn in. Although I guess American cars taditionally don't give a crap about turn in.

And Graywolf similar argument. Regardless of how compact the engine is compared to its competition I am interested in how much smaller it could be. Most people prescribe to the theory of 'it is better than others' I disagree, I look at how good it could be. On this basis I feel that Chev/GM have gone the wrong direction. Of course they would have had reasons, no doubt they wanted to leave plenty of space for the aftermarket tuners to stick their goodies.

On the note of GTO's drifting then you obviously have not seen anything of the Australian drift scene, we've got utes out there for some insane reason. Or the Evo article where they took the Monaro VXR to a drift event.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by zondaland RC 45, You have essentially said that what I proposed is being done by the Monaro/GTO already. Fair enough, to some extent it is.

As long as you remember this - LS6 powered Vettes routinely put up 28mpg numbers on the open road - I knwo, I do it often. (City cycle is about 12mpg the way I drive though )

Originally Posted by zondaland However my method has one advantage. Wheelbase. Yes the LS2/6/7 may be small for its capacity. Hoewever it would have been very easy for them to have gained the same power out of say a four litre engine. Surely you would agree that a four litre engine would be smaller in footprint.

No it won't be. The LSx block is quite narrow, short in lenght and height.

Originally Posted by zondaland As it would be smaller they would not need to place so much emphasis on low weight. With a smaller wheelbase the car would have a sharper turn in. Although I guess American cars taditionally don't give a crap about turn in.

Please educate yourself. When it counts, the cars are designed with "turn in".

How would a smaller heavier engine be an advantage?

Originally Posted by zondaland And Graywolf similar argument. Regardless of how compact the engine is compared to its competition I am interested in how much smaller it could be. Most people prescribe to the theory of 'it is better than others' I disagree, I look at how good it could be. On this basis I feel that Chev/GM have gone the wrong direction. Of course they would have had reasons, no doubt they wanted to leave plenty of space for the aftermarket tuners to stick their goodies.

I will leave gray to answer his quesiton, but I am waiting for your argument to move out of "hypothetic" into reality.

How could the engine be smaller when we have already showed you that similar powered SMALLER capacity engines are actually LARGER in physical size.

Originally Posted by zondaland On the note of GTO's drifting then you obviously have not seen anything of the Australian drift scene, we've got utes out there for some insane reason.

No = I have seen all I need to know about the "drift" scene.

What a bunch of fucking tripe.

Just because you can't get around the track fast - you go and screw with the suspension till it just slides about "for style points".

I have a special salute to the "drift scene" -- Drift this :fist:

Originally Posted by zondaland Or the Evo article where they took the Monaro VXR to a drift event.

I have an article in the Good Housekeeping where they test out a Wet.Dry Vacuum cleaner as a sex aid... Makes for good reading but other wise not really worth a fuck..

[T-Bird]

Originally Posted by zondaland RC 45, You have essentially said that what I proposed is being done by the Monaro/GTO already. Fair enough, to some extent it is. However my method has one advantage. Wheelbase. Yes the LS2/6/7 may be small for its capacity. Hoewever it would have been very easy for them to have gained the same power out of say a four litre engine. Surely you would agree that a four litre engine would be smaller in footprint. As it would be smaller they would not need to place so much emphasis on low weight. With a smaller wheelbase the car would have a sharper turn in. Although I guess American cars taditionally don't give a crap about turn in. And Graywolf similar argument. Regardless of how compact the engine is compared to its competition I am interested in how much smaller it could be. Most people prescribe to the theory of 'it is better than others' I disagree, I look at how good it could be. On this basis I feel that Chev/GM have gone the wrong direction. Of course they would have had reasons, no doubt they wanted to leave plenty of space for the aftermarket tuners to stick their goodies. On the note of GTO's drifting then you obviously have not seen anything of the Australian drift scene, we've got utes out there for some insane reason. Or the Evo article where they took the Monaro VXR to a drift event.

Well you do realise that the LSx engines are shorter than an M3 engine right? it took both Ferrari and Porsche atleast 5.7 liters to get to the 600 hp mark N.A. and those engines aren't that small. The lsx engines are as small as they can get seeing as the things have been pushed to 427 ci from 346 I doubt they have much left in them. a reliable 4 liter pushing 400 hp NA would be very hard to do Honda's have done it yes but reliable not really and they sound all gay and leaf blower like. You need the size to get the Torque. there is also the cost thing to consider, it wouldn't be cost effective to make 400 hp 4 liters for a $30k USD vehicle. remember the fact that they will have to develop an all new engine aswell. And if you've ever been to the US you would know that we have alot of very twisty tight roads around here aswell as someflat out long haulers.

[blah]

Originally Posted by godspeed06 the m3 has less power and costs more than the GTO -- hence "underpowered".

Ones a BMW and ones a Pontiac though. Funny because if Pontiac according to lutz if the BMW of GM.

[zondaland]

Well yes, I have been to the US, I was 2 at the time, can't say the roads left a big impression on me.

I'm sure that you would have many tight roads, I dare say it would be very difficult to create a country based solely on straight roads. I was more referring to the stereotype of American cars that go hard in a straight line then get scared at the sight of a corner, an argument over the merits of that particular stereotype I really couldn't be bothered getting into.

You have all said that the LSx engine is supremely tiny in its dimensions, I'm sure you are all right, and I don't wish to question you but has anybody got the actual dimensions of the engine, and the dimensions of say an M3 engine as a comparison. I cant find them with a quick search.

You have also said that it is lighter than anything else. While I'm sure you have reliable sources I fail to understand how it is that GM has this engine that is lighter, more economical, smaller and more powerful than the engine of an M3 engine, yet when it comes to engine awards it is the M3 engine that is ahead. There was a thread here somewhere with links, anyone want to dig it up feel free.

Yes a short wheelbase is not the only factor in getting a car to turn-in better. It is however a relatively simple way to aid turn-in, and it is an effect that is reversed when the wheelbase is lengthened. My point was that a car with a slightly heavier engine but shorter wheelbase (with all other things being equal) would have an equivalent turn in.

As for drift I'm not a fan of that style of racing. I was merely replying to your point that ' "drift" and "gto" don't really go together...'

As to a reliable 400hp out of a four litre engine the Ferrari f430 pumps out 483 hp from a 4.3L engine. Thats 83hp more than the corvette with an engine almost 30% smaller. Obviously I woul never expect GM to tune an engine to the same extent as Ferrari do. Perhaps 4 litres is a little ambitious. However there is no reason why a 4.5L couldnt produce the same power. While you all say that the LS is a very compact design, I am not aware of any reason why if they had made a 4.5L engine it would be bigger than their current design.

I hadn't actually looked at the fuel mileage that the LS engines produce prior to this thread. I must say it is very impressive for an engine of that size to be able to be that economical. However again I don't see any reason why if they produced a smaller engine it would be any less economical.

Please understand that I have changed my arguments somewhat. I accept your points that the Corvette seems to have an M3 beat on the spec sheet. In terms of driver feel, unless somebody wants to throw me the keys of both cars I am not going to comment.

My argument is that GM could have gone down a different route in the design of their engines, and I feel that this route would have given them a better engine, obviously they didn't. And presumably they had solid reasons for not going down the route that I am proposing they could/should have. I would also hope that their engineers know an enormous amount more about the intricacies of engine design to what I know. Presumably there are advantages to their route over mine, maybe at some point in the future I'll look back at my current opinions and wonder what sort of a crackpot idea it was that I had concocted. But for the moment I really can't understand what benefit they have derived from going down the low tech large displacement route compared to what they would have achieved if they had gone down the high tech (relatively) low displacement route. If you have fundamental reasons why the route that they took is better than the route I am advocating please give them to me. If you are merely going to point to the fact that what they have produced is currently better than something else, then please don't bother, because we will all just grow old throwing examples at each other.

[RC45]

^^ Oh - so apart from practical, economical, engineering and physics reasons - apart from proven track record, loyal following and actual performance in the real world - you want another reason why for example the C5 Z06 got a 5.7 push rod V8 insteand of some poofta 4.xl DOHC blah-blah-blah?

Herer is why:

http://media.rc45.net\media\whyz06.zip

You can't do this with an M3 or M5 or even E55 for that matter - let alone a 360 or 430.



Thanks you very much...

[T-Bird]

Lowtech there's that word again used by all the haters out there that have probably never seen a fully working engine outside a car before that don't realise the amount of technology that's in the LS engines. Coil-on-plugs, cnc machined and ported heads from the factory (I don't think BMW does that on their cars) Sodium filled valves, titanium valves, lightweight rotating assembly, Titanium Connecting rods (rare in even racing applications) 4140 chrome-moly Steel Crankshaft etc... Granted that's in the LS7 here's the main specs for the LS7: Camshaft Specs

Rocker-ratio intake: 1.80:1

Rocker-ratio exhaust: 1.80:1

Degrees Duration:

At camshaft: Intake: 0.331 in. Exhaust: 0.328 in.

At valve: Intake: 0.593 in. Exhaust: 0.588 in.

LS7 General Specs

Engine type: Cam-in-block 90-degree V-8 Block configuration: Cast-aluminum with pressed-in cylinder sleeves and 6-bolt, forged-steel main bearing caps

Bore x Stroke (mm/in): 104.8x01.6/4.125x4.00

Displacement: 7.0L/427ci

Crankshaft: Forged steel

Connecting Rods: Forged titanium

Pistons: Cast aluminum

Compression Ratio: 11.0:1

Cylinder Heads: CNC-ported aluminum; 70cc chamber volume

Valve size, intake (mm/in): 56/2.20 (titanium)

Valve size, exhaust (mm/in): 41/1.61 (sodium-filled)

Camshaft: Hydraulic roller; 15 mm (.591 in) lift (intake and exhaust)

Rocker arms: 1.8:1; offset (intake only)

Air intake: Composite manifold with 90mm single-bore throttle body

Fuel: Premium required; 91-octane minimum

Horsepower: 500 (373 kW) @ 6,200 rpm

Torque (lb-ft): 475 (644 Nm) @ 4,800 rpm

Engine redline (rpm): 7,000

[graywolf624]

You have all said that the LSx engine is supremely tiny in its dimensions, I'm sure you are all right, and I don't wish to question you but has anybody got the actual dimensions of the engine, and the dimensions of say an M3 engine as a comparison. I cant find them with a quick search.

Ls1 dimensions:
http://www.paceparts.com/index.asp?P...=Custom&ID=586
No clue for m3 engines, but clearly if its a common swap it at very least isnt considerablly larger.

You have also said that it is lighter than anything else. While I'm sure you have reliable sources I fail to understand how it is that GM has this engine that is lighter, more economical, smaller and more powerful than the engine of an M3 engine, yet when it comes to engine awards it is the M3 engine that is ahead. There was a thread here somewhere with links, anyone want to dig it up feel free.

Engine awards like anything else are arbitary and based on the in thing. Need I show you the pt cruiser and american awards for 300c as cars of the year?



So let me get this straight.. Your arguement is.. It could be better?

How do you know that? How do you know that theoretically that combinations is the best real world set with current money for the given cost, weight, size, and hp requirements? You havent shown a competing example so far that would refute that claim.

[GTO]

Bah BMW engines, yeah right.

Everyone ones if you want power and speed on the quarter mile its LSx all the way, when was the last time a BMW or Ferrari run 10's??

Power from Ferrari is from reving the shit of them 10K redline!

Low reving is good, LSx have torque, thus good fuel economy and being N/A you can punch it when you want.

LSx could be better?, easy twin turbo kit, Whipples super charger, 700HP+ "Oh look whats that spec in my mirror, why its teh M3"!

Whats great about LSx engine is the ease and gains from tuning, one thing that BMW engines are are tuner unfriendly.

PLus LSx are teh best sounding engines

[zondaland]

Looks like T-bird has answered the question. They have simply gone down the route of using a different set of technologies to what everybody else looks at. From what you all say and from the figures that it turns in a straight line it seems to work pretty well for them.

Graywolf, if you read the last paragraph of my last post carefully you will find that I said "I feel that this route would have given them a better engine" then I also said "presumably they had solid reasons for not going down the route that I am proposing they could/should have" and "Presumably there are advantages to their route over mine". I will happily admit that I don't know that the engine I was proposing would be better than what they created. What I was wondering is what reason GM had for choosing the route that they did. RC45 and T-bird have given me a couple. That 'classic' muscle car idle and also that they put a whole heap of high tech in other parts of the engine. Maybe getting that 'classic' sound out of the engine was considered a must, if so I can well understand why they would pursue the route that they did. It certainly seems that they have made up any disadvantage that they would theoretically incur by improving other parts of the engine. Full credit to them for them doing this. Looks like they have managed to make a very good engine, without following the mob.

As to the PT cruiser winning awards, pleas tell me thats not true.

[graywolf624]

As to the PT cruiser winning awards, pleas tell me thats not true.

It was motor trends car of the year a few years back.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by zondaland Looks like they have managed to make a very good engine, without following the mob.

And this wasn't self evident how?

:roll:

[zondaland]

Basically my thought was that they hadn't got a very high hp/litre ratio out of the engine. However as you have shown that having a large displacement engine doesn't seem to have given them the compromises that I presumed it would have I will accept that they have a quality if unorthodox engine.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by zondaland Basically my thought was that they hadn't got a very high hp/litre ratio out of the engine.

And who cares? WTF does HP/L have to do with a $50,000 car weighing 3100lbs, producing 405hp (385 in 1st year trim) running 0-60 in 4s, stopping 60-0 in 105ft or running to 175mph - or even lapping the Nurburgring in 7m56s?



Why would this even be a factor in any thought process?

Here is an example of an engine matched to a chassis - which is all you need for a winning forumla - period.

The rest of the academic debate numbers , are just that - academic.

Please explain why you "concern" was valid - at all?

Originally Posted by zondaland However as you have shown that having a large displacement engine doesn't seem to have given them the compromises that I presumed it would have I will accept that they have a quality if unorthodox engine.

I just want to know why you even had doubts? I mean - FFS - even the HSV cars have a 500hp 427 engine - so again, how is the resulting car "lacking" anything?

This is what happens when people buy into the crap.hype, trash, lies and propoganda of uninformed and amateur moto-jouralists.

"Facts" that are really non-issues become the root source of all sorts of urban legend.

Again - explain why the low HP/L number and simple valve train was a concern if the engine matched the car - even in the case of the GTO...?

[zondaland]

I expected that a larger capacity engine would be associated with a larger footprint and more weight. Thus a larger engine would compromise overall car design, and a heavier weight would reduce acceleration and cornering speeds. However as you have made clear GM have managed to make the engine more compact than smaller displacement rivals, and weigh less.

Exactly how did I say that the car was lacking anything. And to answer your last line, why would I want to reiterate what I have just said, for some sort of edification of yourself?