black_knight

iTrader: (1)

The whole premise of the thread is based on misinformation (i.e. ricer math). If the mods care about whether their "advanced tech" section spreads nonsense or facts, then they should lock this thread.

Quick Double Nickel

iTrader: (5)

The premise of the thread was based on a discussion of how to obtain higher output from LSx engine using advanced techniques found in engines of other manufacturers. You, and other people on here, couldn't see past the use of HP/L as a benchmark to start the discussion and subsequently spent 26 pages arguing against its use rather than focusing on the original subject. It's unfortunate that most, if any, of the usual information that is within this thread, or could potentially be within this thread, is lost somewhere within the 26 pages of bickering. So, yes, maybe it should be locked.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I asked you several times to admit that you were wrong to use HP/L in a ricer math way. Every time you tried to sneak it back in. You had your chance.

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

Oh ok I get your drift, you're wanting to know why they didn't produce it with more, when they easily could.

Well to be honest, there wasn't the need. Its competition was the Taurus SHO, not the Mustang. The SHO had about 220hp. As far as performance goes, both cars are pretty equal. The Z34 has more midrange and low end torque, but the SHO pulls a bit harder up high, and holds the power to 7,000 a bit better. However as it was, the SHO and Z34 could already pull the GT Stangs and the IROC Camaros of the same years! Any more power and it'd affect too poorly on GM, at the current levels they advertise the Z34 at 210hp, the IROC at 240 IIRC. And your IROC Camaro needs to have more power than your Lumina. This makes the average buyer think that the IROC will smoke it, and thanks to magazines and such, nobody really knew that a Z34 with a 5-speed could walk a 5.7 IROC, due to the better gearing, more efficient driveline, and the much more favorable power curve.

The 3.4 is really easy to squeeze more power out of. I can make 250hp using all stock parts from different years. A 96+ longblock with 91-95 cams, exhaust retarded 13*. But this does make the car idle a bit choppy, sound like it's cammed, and lose a bit of low end throttle response and power. So since they only needed 200-225hp, it worked out well. Buyers got the smoothest V6 GM has ever made until the new Caddy motors, with good low end power, and a screaming midrange and high end. However Grammy didn't like the noise, and Grampy didn't want to rev his Lumina out to the moon and back just to get on the highway.

Quick Double Nickel

iTrader: (5)

I had my chance to what? Start a thread by comparing the LSx to other engines? Or to use a commonly known measurement of engine efficiency? It may not have been your preferred method of quantifying an engine's output, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is a widely used method. Get over it already.

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

Let's change the question.

How can I make my LS1 make around 500whp without a power adder, and with the stock short block to save cash? This is a very common question, and one that HUNDREDS of LS1Tech members might not ask themselves directly, but mod their car in an effort to get closer to the mark (If not surpass it). How many members here have a H-C-I 346? I guarantee you nearly triplefold the ones who have a 400+ inch Camaro. These members are doing just this, increasing HP/L. Are they ricers? No, they just want more power, without cutting the 15 grand for an LS7 or a custom 408 short block. The 346 may never get to the power of the 400inchers of course, but it's enough to make a lot of LS1'ers happy, and their wives scared sh!tless

To answer the question, an LS1 cannot hit 100hp/l and retain stock drivability. It simply does not, and cannot, have the VE to do so. Without stock emissions, mpg, and drivability, it can be done, but you are going to end up with an LS1 that drives pretty poorly (Until you open it up of course). There just isn't a way to harness the head flow needed, at low valve lifts with only 2 valves/cylinder. So you need a wicked cam, with the best cylinder heads made, so that you open those valves up as far as you can, to attempt to get the flow needed to sustain 100hp/l. And as we can see from the production cars, you will pretty much need a kickass ITB intake, LTs and exhaust, the biggest f*cking cam you can find, the best flowing heads you can find, 12:1 pistons, and the supporting parts.

engineermike

Why would he "take his chance" to admit that he's wrong when he doesn't believe he's wrong?

dakkrin

i dont think the mustang engine has stock 100 hp/l na, terminator is a badass car but i believe its a 4v <100 hp/l engine

when i mod my car i dont try to get as much hp as i can thats only for bragging, if you're smart you try to utilize the power to your advantage, weight power curve whatever

DMONEY06

iTrader: (2)

?????

dakkrin

the response was for fieroz34 about a pushrod not getting 100 hp/l
was just stating some ohc cant either and hp/l is just a number to brag with with no basis on real performance as is mentioned by black_knight

germeezy1

I am perfectly happy with my 87 or 88 hp/liter....especially given a light weight car to use it in....thank you OHV!

And Fiero I still think the tranny was a weak link....its one reason the SHO didn't have more power is the crappy ATX they had to use with them.

The 4T60 absolutely emasculates the 3.4 Twin Cam and you really need to experience with the manual to get a real feel for the engine.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

See, even after this whole thread he still doesn't see that he's using ricer math. He thinks it is a legitimate and "widely used" method to gauge the value of an engine.

Time for the

FieroZ34

iTrader: (1)

I am perfectly happy with my 133hp/l, especially with my light car to use it in....thank you DOHC!

The tranny is a weak link. But that doesn't mean that that is why the cars didn't have more power. If they needed/wanted more power, they can build a tranny to hold it. Or in the case of the manuals, find a company that can build it for them. If the tranny was the weak link, the MTX cars would have significantly higher power levels (The 3.4's 5-speed was and is the strongest manual FWD tranny GM has ever built). It's simple, it would be suicide to sell your Taurus with more advertised hp than your GT Mustang, or your IROC Camaro.

The last statement I could not agree more with. The automatic does kill the 3.4 DOHC, if you bought it to be a performance car. It feels slow, the gearing sucks for acceleration, it can't even chirp the tires, etc. The engine REALLY shines with the stickshift. However I own and drive an automatic 3.4 DOHC (A 96 Z34), and really enjoy the car. It's got enough low end and midrange punch, and if I need more I just can't be afraid to punch it, let it kick down, and rev it up. I would rather have a 3800 S/C in this car, but I can't let myself own such a terrible piece of performance engineering.

Quick Double Nickel

iTrader: (5)

OK, now this is getting childish. I feel like your trying to tell the principal that I stole your lunch money. "See he's doing this . . . See his doing that . . . "

The last time I checked, you are not a moderator. Is that still true? It's a good thing, because as engineermike pointed out, any topic that you deemed to be "ricer math" (that seems to be the only term you know to define HP/L) would be instantly shut down. Anyway, the use of HP/L is not the point of this thread. I repeat, not the point of this thread . If you can possibly get past that point, then maybe we can move on.

Anybody know the term for HP/L phobia?

dakkrin

i have hp/l phobia
i dont think anyone should create an engine based on hp/l, or buy any vehicle just because it has good hp/l because its all useless numbers

i mean an r1 has less max hp than a 10r motorcycle talk, but they both have the same 1/4 mile times, its always about how the power is used

B T

"100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated"

This was the original post, "without" all of the gearing and friction stuff...







"useable power",,,wink wink....under and in the "curve".




I like turbos...



You guys are going to get us all banned.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

If you'd just admit you're wrong and stop using it then maybe this wouldn't have happened. But for some reason you keep clinging to ricer math. You keep saying that you weren't wrong to use it and there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to discuss this point, then start a clean thread and use absolutely no ricer math.

But you won't do that. You'll keep saying you did nothing wrong and keep throwing the ricer math around.

B T

-2 on da lock

engineermike

Eh. . .

(numbers quoted from SportRider)

'04 ZX-10R 9.92 @ 147.4 mph 161.8 hp
'05 ZX-10R 9.78 @ 148.5 mph 158.4 hp
'06 ZX-10R 9.76 @ 149.1 mph

'04 R1 9.93 @ 147.4 mph
'05 R1 9.92 @ 149.3 mph 159.8 hp
'06 R1 9.77 @ 147.8 mph

Not sure how you can draw said conclusion from that. . .

Mike

Stang's Bane

iTrader: (22)

The whole point of the discussion is that a 5.7L engine does not have to hit 100 hp/l to be more effective than a 4.6L engine that is pysically larger and heavier that does hit 100 hp/l. I would take a pushrod 5.7 at 85 hp/l over a dohc 4.6 at 100 hp/l anyday of the week. I would almost bet a paycheck that there is no measure of effieincy other than a hp/l statistic that the smaller engine would outperform the larger.