2000Firehawk

iTrader: (248)

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-111-9-26.pdf

Pages 5 & 6....

The new GEN IV small block is here...

Heads are only 1" wider than the LS1 head...

Because of the high output 500HP, the new water pump produes twice the 80 gal/min of the LS1 water pump...
So thats why the Meziere LS1 street EWP is 55 gal/min vs the LS1 race EWP of 35 gal/min...

This engine will rev to 7000 RPM & it can safely go to 8000 RPM...

New two phase oil pump because of the DOD system... Switches between high & low flow as needed...


Dave

991LE

iTrader: (2)

Seems like a much more efficient design for the heads. That horizontal pushrod or whatever seems a little weird though

RyebreadZ28

iTrader: (1)

Does anyone think that they'll be able to get over 40mpg on the highway with the DOD?

I wonder how different camshafts are going to be for it... and how expensive aftermarket rockers will be...

I wonder if the Gen 4 can fit into an F-body... I would imagine the computer is completely different, and some fabrication would be required in terms of accessory brackets, but if this is the new Vette engine, its definitely impressive.

robertbartsch

Honda had a 3 valve motor in 1980; it had an overhead cam, however...

...so now Chevy is only 24 years behind...

2000Firehawk

iTrader: (248)

Maybe the rockers are Titanium... so no aftermaket rockers will be needed...

It's alot cheaper nowdays to make stuff out of Titanium, & GM is suppost to have Titanium in this engine, if the rumors are correct...

Honda may have had 3 valves 24 years ago... But we will have 500HP...

Dave

Visceral

iTrader: (1)

well, that sure looks like the next Z0x motor. 6.3l, DoD, variable cam timing, 3 valves, and a 7000 redline safe to 8000. huh.

Im impressed.

BIGBOS

Thats going to be one stout motor....

Draco

and with spark plugs between the valves on the top of the head, plug/wire changes will be soooo much easier!

robertbartsch

...i would not get your hopes up too soon; this is only a prototype engine and lots of features could be scalled back....

the General tried variable piston engines in the Cadillac before with very poor results....hope this is not a dog too...

for example, the prototype Gen 3 had overhead cams and 4 valves like the newer Ford motors ...it was cancelled in favor of the underhead cam two valve motor we have today

....beancounters made this decision,,,,

...i assume it would not be diffucult for a Gen 3 to make 500HP at the flywheel if it was 6.3 liters (what is that anyway - 383CI?) ..so what is the fuss...

SSactionLs1

could these heads bolt up on ls1?

Cheatin' Chad

iTrader: (3)

How so? Your behind now if you don't choose to use something right away? Almost every manufacturer in racing used disk brakes before Ferrari. They aren't exactly known for being technologically backward. Your train of thought is flawed. Please seek advice before posting again

Cheatin' Chad

iTrader: (3)

[quote ....beancounters made this decision,,,,

[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge the engineers had a large part in this decision. The use of the in block cam was dictated in part by the hood line and engine bay of the C5 as well as other vehicles.Besides that bean counters make decisions on everything in every auto company. Again a tired argument.

robertbartsch

Yeh, I know but I am sick of hearing how high-tech our engines are....

...last time I checked my ls6 had an underhead cam, and it is a two valve motor - OK so now the block is alumium and the intake is plastic....so what?

I like our engines since they are easy to work on, have a bunch of aftermarket parts to build power....but please don;t say our engines are high tech (...just bull, really)

..three valve pushrod motor with variable timing - OK but definately not high tech

blk~2000~Z28

Original post on 3 valve heads
Why did it take so long for someone to answer my question? This is the same head I was talking about and the article I read was pretty sure that it would be backward compatable.

66ImpalaLT1

robert, over head cam engines have been around as long as piston engines. It seems like you've fallen for the ridiculous argument that they are more high-tech.

500hp is very impressive from a factor built, naturally aspirated engine that meets EPA standards.

Eric

HydroDesign

Right on, robertbartsch.
lerajie, your thinking is flawed, or rather lack of thinking. You brought up Ferrari, arguably the most technologically advanced cars in the business. How many valves per cylinder do they have?...thats what I thought. What kind of gear boxes do they have?...right. Where is the engine mounted relative to the frame?...a no-brainer Why does GM find it so hard to use such enlightened, proven designs?? They need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the new high tech table to compete.
I want a sequential gearbox. Guess I need a Ferrari.

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

At this point, honestly, even DOHC motors aren't necessarily high tech. What makes the LSx motors high tech has nothing to do with cam placement or valve count... it has to do with cylinder head (port) design, and the engine management.

We take it for granted that we can tune our cars for pretty much any setup just by using LS1 Edit... most (if not all) other modern performance cars have to either make do with the stock programming, use replaceable chips (*coughL98dayscough*), use piggyback controllers, or go straight to a stand alone like a FAST or Haltech piece.

hondakiller

iTrader: (3)

well if YOU wanna pay 150k for a corvette or 75k for an f-body then sure itll have a sequential gearbox with a 550hp 32v DOHC 5.7l v-8 mounted amidships but for the rest of us who dont want to spend an arm and a leg to go fast, we'll stick with good ole pushrods and lame automatic transmissions

btw, just for the record OHC engines came out BEFORE pushrod motors. also, henry ford's 1903 racecar had a crude form of variable valve timing on it. high tech indeed.

as for OUR motors not being high tech, find some other "high tech" engines that weigh less than 400lbs fully oiled and ready to go, that make 405hp and get 30mpg on the highway and will run without a peep for 100k miles or more. good luck. this engine is decidedly more than the sum of its parts.

in all honesty, who really gives a damn how many valves per cylinder it has or what its valvetrain setup is? will it make you feel better to tell people you have 32 valves versus 16? RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS, to borrow from a bad infomercial, are all that matters.

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

No, you can get a sequential gearbox on virtually any motorcycle if you feel like rowing gears yourself, or, if you feel like paddleshifting, you can get an M3 or a Toyota MR2 Spyder.

As for why GM doesn't use some of the same toys that Ferrari does... well, because even the Z06 is ~1/2 the price of a Ferrari. Toys cost money. Additionally, when was the last time that you saw a Ferrari with 50,000 miles on it?? No, I can't remember, either... those high-winding (low torque, I might add) Ferrari motors are VERY maintenance-intensive. OOOOOHHHHHHH, but their SO high tech. Who f'in cares, if it has to go in for (relatively pricey) service every 5000 miles??

Let's see... do I want a ~$50k car that is fairly durable and has lots of upgrade potential or a ~$100k car that is relatively fragile and is already close to its maximum potential??

Well, considering that I haven't yet managed to land a job making well into the six figure range, I think I'll take the $50k car and keep my sanity. Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, as I see a LOT more 'Vettes than I do Ferraris.

robertbartsch

Burnout:
That is exactly my point; GM did not make LS1Edit. An aftermarket company did. Carputing did so becuase they can make money doing it....same with all other after market companies...

As I said I like our engines since there is a lot of after market stuff you can buy to improve performance...

...just do not call our engines high tech - they are really very low-tech...they happen to be big realitively speaking so you can bolt on parts and go like stink... ..this at a cost much less than a Ferrarrri...