No, according to him, THAT. IS. STUPID.

 

i dont think it will be overkill when AMG release the twin turbo version!!

this is a great engine and i cant wait to see what it can produce whenthey get their hands on it!

Chris.

 

From what I understand the AMG motor is not at the limits of it's displacement capability yet either.

 

Would like deck heigh, bore, stroke, connecting rod, piston compression height, journal sizes, and weights for the AMG lower end.

I was saying the main support system on the LS7 looks a bit sturder witht he extended oil pan rail and 6 bolted mains with the cross bolt dea.

 

When you start having displacements as big as the 6.2 amg and the ls7.. variable valve timing can pick up lots of power... The more displacement you have the more power you lose when you pick your fixed came profile

 

In heads, that term means an entirely different thing.

 

You act like you do in one post and then not in the next. I'm just pointing out the clear contradictions in your "position," if it even qualifies for that title.

 

Notice that this is just one more of his "OMG you don't like per liter? OMG! who doesn't like that!!!" posts. Not a shred of argument as to its value; just repeated incredulity that anyone would not see the obvious value of power/L.

--------
Argument from personal incredulity

Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:

* "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true" (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
* "That's not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying." (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of "people in general" is claimed to agree with the speaker's opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.)
--------

 

My position has never changed. Show me an exact contradiction. At worst I have done nothing but play devil's advocate. We have wondered off extremely far from the original relevance of this thread, and I have no ambition to do so any farther. This was about the LS3 at one point, although it may be hard to believe by now.


.
I said torque per liter is an interesting stat to regard. Why? What is so different about the LS1 and the LS6? Both engines are pushrod style v8s, and both engines displace the exact same amount of air, and yet the LS6 builds more power. Why? Because it builds more revs, and it breathes better, reflected in it's higher specific torque output. How is this a worthless engine statistic? You are the one making all the claims, I am just disputing them. Why does the burden of proof fall on my shoulders, when I didn't start making claims as absolute as you did? I simply stated even hp/L can be an interesting stat, and you went off on your tangent, and when burdened for proof by someone besides me no less, you come off with nothing but "what a professor told you." You also claimed much earlier on that the "OHC guys have lost this arguement", and yet who has agreed at all here with you? I really don't want to argue about this stupid crap with you anymore; you obviously feel that your opinion is of higher value than mine, and I don't have any desire to waste more than a few minutes online, so think what you will.

Besides, I haven't ever used phrases like OMG or newb. Do you believe this is a good debating posture, or are you actually a teen or preteen l33t internet hax0r?

 

I think tq/l is irrelevant and a rediculous argument.

Now if it took into account RPM, and the advantages of running higher RPM, it'd be better.

Oh yah, that's hp/l. Quite frankly, the torque numbers are completely unimportant as to how the car performs. That's what gear ratios and torque converters are for. And that's why an LS1 Camaro walks all over a LT1 Camaro, despite having near identical tq/l and max torque numbers. And that's why my 3.4l DOHC walks all over a 3.4l OHV, despite making near identical tq/l numbers, and max tq numbers. It's all about HP.

You all complain and complain that the BMW 5.0l V10 makes no low end. Have any of you ever driven one? It doesn't need low end. The only reason the engine is ever below 5,000rpm is for idle. If you smash the throttle from a stop, the tach instantly shoots to 5500rpm, where the tires chirp until it hits 8,000rpm, where it taps to 2nd with more chirping. If you are cruising along, getting great MPG, and a LS1 Camaro tries to pass you, just lay into it a little. Before you can look, the tach is somewhere between 5500 and 8,000rpm. Quite frankly, if you need the power, it's there, all the time.

 

The burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the positive claim: that power (that's hp or tq) per Liter is a useful metric for comparing engines. Coming up with a lone example with two engines that are identical in size and weight proves nothing. Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day. I've made it perfectly clear many times over why power / L is useless (focusing around the fact that it only serves to minimize liters, which is the opposite of what one wants, and the fact that Liters are not a good measure of size or weight)

I thought it the most appropriate way of characterizing your argument, since it consists of nothing but childish fallacies such as the one of incredulity.

And claiming that you were "playing devil's advocate" is a very convieniant way of admitting to your contradictions while dismissing them. Look, either you care about weight and size or you don't. If you do care about them, then you have no ground on which to advocate Liters in your equations.

 

That is why I said MOST OHC motors. I will not argue on the point of the amg motor other than one thing, what is is the cost?

 

I do know the LS7 dynos at about 525-550, so it is definitely underrated from the factory. If you remove the factory computer nerfing, it gains a good 20+ hp, as well.

Assuming the Mercedes engine dynos 510hp, then both are about equal in power/weight (slight advantage LS7). And the LS7 definitely beats it in torque and thus the power curve.

I'd say that the AMG motor only proves the point: given that the LS7 will gain another 100 HP if you so much as sneeze at it (i.e. headers and a tune), and given the huge difference of cost, it really just shows how great the LS7 is.

Does anyone have some better dynographs of the mercedes to overlay with the LS7? The higher torque indicates its curve will be better, but it'd be neat to see...

 

black_night, i would have thought a set of custome headrer anda good tune would only be marginally more for the AMG as it would be for the LS7. and even if there was a reasonable diffrence, i still think you would pick more up in the AMG.

just my thoughts and im english so what do i know?? lol

thanks CHris.

 

Got any proof? Every LS7 dyno I've seen is in the 450 range. The only one that I've seen over 500 had headers, full exhaust, and a tune.

Secondly, the motor wasn't "nerfed." GM doesn't use a tune to restrict power anymore, that was in the 80s. Now that isn't to say power can't be gained from a tune, the power is typically gained in ignition timing, where the factory has to take into consideration that drivers won't check spark plugs, might not run premium, etc. Thus GM has to set the timing curve to be on the safe side, especially at high RPM, where a stock car will usually dive rich and pull a lot of timing. For example, a custom dyno-tuned chip on a stock Lumina Z34 made me 6whp more max; but, at redline, it was making 23whp more.

The engines are not underrated. SAE doesn't underrate engines, that's the point. The only way to do it is to stop the dyno before it makes max power. For example, the Cobalt SS. 205hp stock, and they dyno over 200 everytime. This is because SAE stopped at 5500rpm, whereas fuel cutoff is not until 6400rpm, and the engine keeps gaining power up past 6200rpm. The LS7 falls off after 6,000rpm, so we know this isn't the case.

 

On earth? Because MB dynos at 759hp in magic fairy land.

I ate Frosted Flakes for breakfast this morning and thus I will spend 7 hours on the phone. Thats about as logical as your corrilatoin.

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

How on earth the MB engine proves LS7 will respond well to mods and the LS7 is a great engine is completely beyond me.

 

Yes, 450 AT THE WHEELS. I've seen 450-470. What exactly would that be at the crank? That's ~520-550 at the crank, which is exactly what I said. ALL of the numbers given in that post are at the crank because that's what the Mercedes numbers are. Don't want to compare apples to oranges.

Search is down right now, but google got me this:

471 RWHP stock LS7:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...30#post4405730

Katech dynos the stock LS7 at 530hp at the crank:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iv-internal-engine/496186-introducing-world-s-first-ls7-f-body.html

I'd say Katech is a pretty reliable source.

Call it what you like, they gain 20+ hp from tuning alone.

Call it what you want: they dyno 520-550. They put 450-470 to the wheels. And they certainly put down the MPH to back it up.

 

Yes, Trey, in the real world they dyno that, not magic fairy land. See above.

Your insults are baseless. Unless you're going to point out something specifically false about what I said, I can't even respond. There is nothing to respond to because you haven't made any argument at all.

 

When you say "dyno at 550" its pretty reasonable to assume it DYNOED at 550hp, not that it dynoed at 460hp and you used a generic conversion factor to get 550hp.

Fact of the matter is you have absolutely no idea what the drivetrain losses are for this vehicle. Their engine dynoed 530hp at the crank. That is a 5% difference over the factory rating. Conversion factors aren't perfect, neither are dynos. Conditions wont be SAE standard and the engine is broken in. Seems perfectly reasonable to be and certainly a far fetch from your implied 550rwhp and even 550bhp.

Having more peak torque doesn't say ANYTHING about the power curve, torque curve or how good an engine is. When two engines make equal power, argueing "its better because it has more torque" is the equal of saying "its better because it has more rpm."

How on earth the MB engine proves LS7 will respond well to mods and the LS7 is a great engine is completely beyond me. Even if the LS7 picks up 250rwhp from farting in the gas tank, the MB engine doesn't prove a damn thing.

 

It is all about HP. I agree. Tq/L is irrelevant to how an car will perform. I don't believe I actually ever said it was. However, once upon a time this thread was actually about an engine, not a car, and tq/l is, at least I consider, can be an interesting stat as far as engines go. It alone does not quantify an engine (or even come remotely close), but I recall that after I stated it can be a rudimentary way to gauge how an engine is breathing, I was promptly told I was an idiot for even regarding it when looking at it, without much cause for why I was.

This is to clear up any confusion. I don't believe anything per liter has any merit to the way a car performs. I never said it did. Go ahead, look. I didn't. I thought this was a debate on engine dynamics, although clearly now it is not.






You really think you are something else, don't you?

And you so have made it completely black and white, for ease of your own understanding. This is why I don't like agrueing about stuff over the internet, you can't put emphasis on anything (at least not well), and I can't force anyone to read a post like I wrote it. I guess you win, internet tough guy, because I am not going to waste anymore time warping some guys post with stupid bickering. I am actually sort of suprised to see this not locked yet.

Thanks for keeping it mature though. That really shows me much about your character.


In regards to your response to trey:


No man, everything you say is baseless. I am sure you are going to come up with another way to sling mud at me, but who exactly are you going to try and impress? I get the feeling you say more than your fair share of idiotic **** around here on a regular basis.