6.0 vette: 28 mpg
7.0 vette: 26 mpg

4.6 expedition: 17 mpg
5.4 expedition: 16 mpg

I think that's the 3rd time I posted that, but no one seems to like it. Notice how I didn't compare a Ferrari to a Chevy, a BMW to a Ford, or a Rotary to an Abrams. TOO MANY VARIABLES! When playing on an even field, smaller engines get better gas mileage! I'm surprised that you guys don't know this. I think you're actually in denial because its a mark against the mighty LS1.

 

personal attacks lol....torque this....gear that...hayabusa is better than a caterpiller...yada yada yada...
one thing I know is this.....LS1 > LT4

 

All good points in terms of economy daily drivers, but in terms of performance engines, you are missing some factors.

Getting as much power as possible while remaining affordable, small and light. This is where the LSx series shines. And these engines don't have a torque deficit, so it is not a neccessity to have aggressive gearing (which increases gas consumption).

LS series is successful due to it's power, weight, cost and not to mention that it's gas mileage isn't awful either. Before getting defensive, note that I'm not saying OHC isn't useful. There are numerous situations in which I would prefer OHC to OHV. It just seems (and I may be wrong) that you are continually implying that OHV's have no advantages in any situation.

 

Show me a stock long block 4.6 making 800rwhp NA.

NA the 4.6 isn't so hot.

With Forced Induction the 4.6 can do very well, no question about it. It's pretty sad it takes a power adder to actually get much power out of the 4.6

See Ford really missed the boat with the 4.6 engine. A "5.0" mod motor with a 4 inch bore & 3 inch stroke plus 4 valve heads, now that would have been sweet NA.

 

go compare the 4cyl in the older S10s to the 6cyl.. the 6 gets better real world mpg


(lol, i know your point, but i just wanted to point out it is possible to go too far the other direction.... and size isnt everything... efficient design comes into play too.)

 

I'm not denying any of that stuff. The LSx met it's stated goals beautifully. But, as time goes by, performance and cost will start taking a back seat to fuel mileage.

Mike

 

Show me any engine within reasonable bounds making 800 rwhp NA. The poster said that the 5.0 makes a better basis for a modified engine. This is simply not true. A stock long block 5.0 will never make 800+ rwhp by just adding boost. A stock long block 4.6 DOHC will and has many times.

It's a 4.6 liter engine making 300+ hp stock. I guess the same statement holds true for the LS1?

Ford missed the boat with the 4.6??? An engine versatile enough to make 190 hp in a pickup, 215, 265, 320, then 380 hp in a mustang - capable of over 800 rwhp without pulling a valve cover. And cheap to produce also. Yea. . . they sure missed the boat on that one. . .

Mike

 

The LS7 is just part of the package that makes the Z06 an affordable lightweight car...I want to have my cake and eat it too...I want awesome power right off idle and good mid range and a top end to die for...thats what the LSx motors are good for.

 

Just making a point, can you see where Im coming from?

 

The LS7 is also limited produciton and hand built, but its less than half the cost of a Hartley V8...
Your looking over the fact that the Hartley V8 is going to be expencive no matter what, using light weight materials and revving to 10,000+ RPMs. Thats the beauty from the simple pushrod engines, inexpencive, lightweight, small.
It's kinda ironic I think, even though you say its not what "you want[small displacement high hp/l]" but your not practicing what you preach. If BMW's 4.2L V8 is trully that much superior to GM's V8s why isnt it under your hood, or being swapped under many hoods of various cars like the lSx engines?

 

6L vette: 400hp
7L vette: 500hp

4.6 expedition: 230hp
5.4 expedition: 300hp

Think that might have anything to do with it?

 

Then lighter cars are needed, not smaller displacement engines in heavy cars...

 

i'm sure he'll find some skewed fact or figure somewhere to refute this

ps- everytime a post is made on this thread god kills a kitten.

 

I personally like AMG's new approach to building engines better than BMW M's approach. Big Cubes and high revs....now thats what makes the LS7 so special.

 

Unless they are whittling the LS7 block and crank out of billet aluminum and steel by hand, it's not limited production in the same sense as the Hartley.

It's 2 production Hayabusa motors spliced together! Nothing exotic there but 2 plain jane production engines put together. It's the LS7 that has titanium valves and connecting rods. The 'busa motor has neither. And my "more advanced" (170 hp/liter) ZX-10R motor has [gasp] aluminum valvespring retainers and a whopping 40 lb of seat pressure on the to get a 13,000 rpm redline. Real exotic stuff there. . .

Inexpensive? Yes.
Lightweight and small for the displacement? Yes. A 425 lb 427 is impressive.
Lightweight and small for the power? No.

Hey, I love my big motors! We all do! That's not been my point through all of this. My point is that engines will get smaller displacement over time, and if we want to continue to enjoy our sport, we're going to have to settle(?) for more hp/liter.

ONCE AGAIN, the BMW 4.2 WAS NOT designed for the same goals as the LSx. It wasn't designed to be cheap, nor was it designed to be light weight. There were plenty of other factors that went into play there.

 

As far as I know, you don't cruise making 500 hp.

6L vette at cruise: 42 hp and 28 mpg
7L vette at cruise: 42 hp and 26 mpg

4.6 expedition at cruise: 64 hp and 17 mpg
5.4 expedition at cruise: 64 hp and 16 mpg

I'm sure lighter cars are on the way also.

Mike

 

this is a pretty cool topic, made an account just to kill off a couple cats, hehe

but as i recall this topic is about hp/l, which as everyone shows its useless to do

and it seems that larger displacement doesnt necessarily mean less mpg, as was shown with the rx-8 vs ls1, different type of motors but trying to achieve the same goal, to move the car, and ls1 does it with better mpg

170 hp/l zx-10 is awesome, but i believe it wont budge a tank if that was placed in one...hp/l doesnt mean anything

 

Ah, so you admit that from an all-out performance perspective, HP/L is nonsense!

A Dyno!

But I already did answer. I said it's fine to use it in certain speculations of what changing displacement might to do a motor. (not necessarily what changing configuration will do) But change too many variables and it falls apart. But the problem... once again... is in thinking that hp/l makes an engine "better." It doesn't. More power and less weight makes an engine better.

No you bloody lunatic! For the millionth effing time: they do it because they are DISPLACEMENT LIMITED CLASSES! I said NVH is the other reason. Argh!

Nope, still nonsense. BMW makes an engine with more HP than the original LS1. (and less TQ; but you don't care about that supposedly... even though you drive a car with TQ because it has TQ...)

(bold mine)

Except with the LS1, apparently. Yup, must be magic.

The fbody failed to sell because it had big doors, plastic interior, and a hump in the floor. Not because it had a tall 5th and 6th gear.

You're still not seeing my point. When GEARED the same, yes larger engines get worse mpg. But what YOU claim is that you should gear smaller motors more to make up for lack of TQ. If you do THAT, then they WON'T get better gas mpg. If you don't believe me then look at the s2000 and Ferrari and all other small displacement N/A performance cars.

It depends on how much they mandate mpg. If they do it a lot, then yes there will be smaller motors. And you know what else? slower cars!

The LS7 can gain 100 hp with headers, tuning, and maybe a cam. I severely doubt you can do that with the BMW. Who is maxed out?

The 1000 hp can. The HP/L can't do sh*t. As I said before: Hp/L with Liters added = just plain HP. The "L" cancels out of the equation.

In a car they aren't! I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that such a motor might last 100,000 miles in a 350 lb bike... but put it in a 3600 lb car and you have yourself a different story.

I don't believe you. If it could be done, someone would be doing it. I'm not saying I know for sure you're wrong, but I don't believe your claim. There's a lack of evidence.

 

I'm going to have to agree with you there.

...At the cost of? Fuel economy! Moreso than just using a bigger engine, in many cases.

You're right; rotaries can't be compared to piston engines like that. I believe that there was, however, the example of the truck 4 banger vs V6. And the (heavier) Camaro vs the S2000.

Fine, when it happens then we'll see.

That wasn't a personal attack. You are displaying a failure to use common sense and look at real world examples.

 

Oh, lord. The 5.0 aftermarket is way better than the 4.6 aftermarket.

The LS1 weighs less and makes more power and TQ. Only idiots give a sh*t what the HP/L is.

Yes. The LS1 mops the floor with it.