100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated
#641
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by mzoomora
It could be done if the powerband started where the other engines do. Look at the gearing in the cars that have high hp/l N/A engines. They are almost all going to be manual transmissions and performance cars with shorter gearing. A LS7 with heads and cam could make 700fwhp and still be plenty driveable by many peoples standards. Keep in mind it wouldn't be in a Impala, it would be in an American Supercar, so the driveability standards are going to be different.
Most car engines that reach or surpass that mark are F/I anyway, what do you think a turbo LS7's powerband would look like with the proper cam? It would be a great driver and probably do 30+ on the highway and cruise around town great.
There are aftermarket companies getting mid 600's estimated fwhp with minor mods, so dont you think GM could do it with all of their resources? There is a dyno of a LS3 out there that did 423rwhp with just a tune and LT's, stock engine from the intake to the oil pan. Add in heads and a relatively mild cam for another 100rwhp(it has been done on GenIII engines) and all of the sudden you 100hp/l is right there.
GM could do it, they just choose not to for whatever reason, who knows, maybe hp/l is just as important to them as it is to me.![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Most car engines that reach or surpass that mark are F/I anyway, what do you think a turbo LS7's powerband would look like with the proper cam? It would be a great driver and probably do 30+ on the highway and cruise around town great.
There are aftermarket companies getting mid 600's estimated fwhp with minor mods, so dont you think GM could do it with all of their resources? There is a dyno of a LS3 out there that did 423rwhp with just a tune and LT's, stock engine from the intake to the oil pan. Add in heads and a relatively mild cam for another 100rwhp(it has been done on GenIII engines) and all of the sudden you 100hp/l is right there.
GM could do it, they just choose not to for whatever reason, who knows, maybe hp/l is just as important to them as it is to me.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Yes I totally agree, I think the reason is that they are already the top of the food chain, why waste your chess moves in the first round....I am sure it is coming, jus only as much as we need to be the best performers out there for the money.
-MOVIN
#642
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I dont know if this was mentioned before, I didn't take the time to read all 33 pages, but the first production motor to exceed the magical 100hp/liter was the BMW M series V12 used in the McLaren F1.
#643
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
Since there has been only 32 pages of discussion I thought I might type my opinion.
HP/L as used by the common population is a pretty irrelevant. It doesn't necessarily tell you which motor is "better" than another one (ie the F20C versus LS1). There are too many requirements for a production engine to say that one measure of output is the be all and end all.
On the other hand, measuring the specific output is not completely useless. Compare the F20C to another engine in the 2L range. Or compare the LS6 to LS1. Or LS6 to LT5 (LS6 has less displacement by 35cc if I remember correctly
). Or even lid/exhaust LS1 to a stocker.
The point is that HP/L can be useful especially if you are constrained by displacement taxes or in a racing class. But just as important are HP/kg, HP/$ and HP/physical volume, especially in the real world.
I think these points were made to a large extent way back before page 10.
PS. As an aside about the F20C, it was revised for the NA market as the F22C1 with an extra 400cc due to longer stroke, 900 less revs, the same HP (so less specific output, down to 109.1hp/L) and more torque. This was because nobody liked the F20C in real life. The moral of the story is even Honda will reduce specific output if need be![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
HP/L as used by the common population is a pretty irrelevant. It doesn't necessarily tell you which motor is "better" than another one (ie the F20C versus LS1). There are too many requirements for a production engine to say that one measure of output is the be all and end all.
On the other hand, measuring the specific output is not completely useless. Compare the F20C to another engine in the 2L range. Or compare the LS6 to LS1. Or LS6 to LT5 (LS6 has less displacement by 35cc if I remember correctly
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
The point is that HP/L can be useful especially if you are constrained by displacement taxes or in a racing class. But just as important are HP/kg, HP/$ and HP/physical volume, especially in the real world.
I think these points were made to a large extent way back before page 10.
PS. As an aside about the F20C, it was revised for the NA market as the F22C1 with an extra 400cc due to longer stroke, 900 less revs, the same HP (so less specific output, down to 109.1hp/L) and more torque. This was because nobody liked the F20C in real life. The moral of the story is even Honda will reduce specific output if need be
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
I also highlighted your last post because it reminded me of something. The NSX, Honda's supercar, does not even make 100 peak bhp / L. Does that make it inferior to the Honda engines that do make 100 peak bhp / L? Heck no, it's a top of the line engine with good torque and hp for it's weight.
#644
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
![Thumbs up](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
As I already posted, the thread originator simply wanted to know if we could achieve 570 hp and keep stock-like driving characteristics from the LS1. He knew, by benchmarking the Japs and Germans, that the specific output had been achieved with other designs and simply wanted to discuss if it was possible with the LS1. (there, I said it and danced around the term hp/liter, though hp/liter is the very thing that can answer this question)
Once again, my answer to this question is to find a production engine that makes alot of power using a 2v head, scale it based on displacement (this is where hp/liter comes into play), then adjust it based on piston speed limitations.
Once again, my answer to this question is to find a production engine that makes alot of power using a 2v head, scale it based on displacement (this is where hp/liter comes into play), then adjust it based on piston speed limitations.
#645
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
Some of the 5.4's were only 1" taller than the LS1 in overall height, again, depending on intake manifold.
I am also certain that NVH was weighted very heavily in that list.
You and I will never know what all was on the list or how heavily each was weighted, but I can assure you the goals were not the same as the AMG engine or especially not the LS7.
You picked the BMW engine as a comparison because you knew it was heavy and happened to have a high hp/liter.
I bet I could find some low-hp/liter pushrod engines that maximized displacement but make the BMW look like a lightweight and a powerhouse.
I think the one point you're missing is that NO engine was EVER designed with hp/liter as the only goal that governed every aspect of the engine design.
As I already posted, the thread originator simply wanted to know if we could achieve 570 hp and keep stock-like driving characteristics from the LS1.
He knew, by benchmarking the Japs and Germans, that the specific output had been achieved with other designs and simply wanted to discuss if it was possible with the LS1. (there, I said it and danced around the term hp/liter, though hp/liter is the very thing that can answer this question)
As I said,
The engines used as examples of 100 hp/L by the original poster are completely different configurations from the LS series and comparing them to the LS series on a hp/L basis is entirely invalid. There are things about the LS series (cost, weight, size) that give it less hp/L but also make them superior to those "lofty" imports.
To ask "why can't we make 100 hp/L like the imports" is senseless. The answer is: because we don't want to get the bad things that come with configuring your engine to make hp/L instead of hp per size/weight/cost."
It's the "like the imports do" part that is messing this up. If we made power "like the imports do" then the LS series would suck "like the imports do." Understand that there are very good reasons that the LS series is not like the imports - things that make them superior to the imports. Sure, they make less hp/L, but what would you rather have? Hp/L or the stuff that makes the car actually go?
This isn't mere semantics. This isn't a matter of my getting on his case for using a word or two wrong. These are some very bad premises. The question could be made valid but the poster has so far refused to do that. Based on his first three replies (which completely missed my point; rephrasing to hp/cubic inch, and then rephrasing to "specific output") I don't think he is really listening and utterly refuses to even consider the idea that he may have done something wrong.
Are YOU ready to talk about how to achieve 570 hp from a 350 engine while retaining stock-like driving characteristics and drop the "hp/liter is ricer math" bit?
#646
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Louie83
The NSX, Honda's supercar, does not even make 100 peak bhp / L. Does that make it inferior to the Honda engines that do make 100 peak bhp / L? Heck no, it's a top of the line engine with good torque and hp for it's weight.
And saying that it will tell you the better engine if the displacements are equal is silly. Equal displacements cancels the displacement out of the equation.
#647
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
Not my point. I was simply saying the 5.4 was bigger than the 4.6
Originally Posted by black_knight
That's odd, since the last M3 was known for being loud, raspy, and metallic sounding.
Originally Posted by black_knight
So, translation: you're talking out your ***.
Originally Posted by black_knight
then we can only look at the facts: more hp/L, more weight, more cost, less power. Because this is even possible (and quite frequent, actually), hp/L is a senseless means of comparing the worth of engines.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Yes, to show that such a thing is possible and therefore it is nonsensical to use hp/L to compare the worth of engines.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Maximized displacement for what exactly? Not size/weight obviously! So therefore what does this have to do with my point? Nothing.
Pick an engine that increased hp/liter with the goal of decreasing size/weight and then you're on a fair playing field. Oh, but wait, the LSx loses then, and we can't have THAT on THIS website. . .
Originally Posted by black_knight
Engine builders for displacement limited racing would beg to differ, I imagine. Hp/L is definitely near the top of their lists and for them it actually makes sense - they have an artificial limit on displacement.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Listen, I asked him to rephrase it without using ricer math and he didn't do it. If he was simply asking that, then he has had ample opportunity to simply ask that.
"As I already posted, the thread originator simply wanted to know if we could achieve 570 hp and keep stock-like driving characteristics from the LS1. He knew, by benchmarking the Japs and Germans, that the specific output had been achieved with other designs and simply wanted to discuss if it was possible with the LS1.
Once again, my answer to this question is to find a production engine that makes alot of power using a 2v head, scale it based on displacement (this is where hp/liter comes into play), then adjust it based on piston speed limitations. Again, I ask you black_knight, how would you go about answering this question and what is wrong with my approach?" -engineermike
Originally Posted by black_knight
The engines used as examples of 100 hp/L by the original poster are completely different configurations from the LS series and comparing them to the LS series on a hp/L basis is entirely invalid.
Originally Posted by black_knight
To ask "why can't we make 100 hp/L like the imports" is senseless. The answer is: because we don't want to get the bad things that come with configuring your engine to make hp/L instead of hp per size/weight/cost."
Originally Posted by black_knight
It's the "like the imports do" part that is messing this up. If we made power "like the imports do" then the LS series would suck "like the imports do." Understand that there are very good reasons that the LS series is not like the imports - things that make them superior to the imports. Sure, they make less hp/L, but what would you rather have? Hp/L or the stuff that makes the car actually go?
If you were to take the technology that the imports use to achieve high hp/liter, then apply to an engine with alot of liters (LSx), then what do you wind up with? Alot of horsepower, which IS the stuff that makes the car actually go, and the crux of the thread! We don't have to all switch to 4-bangers to enjoy higher hp/liter.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I don't think he is really listening and utterly refuses to even consider the idea that he may have done something wrong.
I offered several times to do just that but every single time the original poster has brought the ricer math back into it and insisted he did nothing wrong.
I offered several times to do just that but every single time the original poster has brought the ricer math back into it and insisted he did nothing wrong.
Do we go into your threads and tell you that you asked the wrong question?
Mike
Last edited by engineermike; 07-07-2007 at 07:19 PM.
#648
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
actually torque is the stuff that makes the car go and horsepower is a function of that. Dynometers specifically measure torque and engine rotational speed and horsepower is calculated from their findings. When talking about engines and their worth it's important to know that horsepower marks the highest possible output from the engine in a single instance. Torque is similar except that this measurement is 80% true for the rest of the useable revline - at least for LSX motors anyway.
In real life, the '98-on-down v8 mustang made a bit more horsepower than the 96-02 f-bodies of that time, which means that a race would be close, but the 'stang should just barely edge me out, right? Well no because mustangs made back the have a 68 ft-lb advantage in torque over me, so I've got no chance. With a Civic Si, nothing changes, except the increase in distance between my car and his. Even with 100 hp/L, That's not a race. That's not even an argument.
In real life, the '98-on-down v8 mustang made a bit more horsepower than the 96-02 f-bodies of that time, which means that a race would be close, but the 'stang should just barely edge me out, right? Well no because mustangs made back the have a 68 ft-lb advantage in torque over me, so I've got no chance. With a Civic Si, nothing changes, except the increase in distance between my car and his. Even with 100 hp/L, That's not a race. That's not even an argument.
#649
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
engineermike has hit all my points exactly. I posted a simple question on how we can achieve 570 horsepower from 5.7L. I used the examples of the import engines not because it's an apples to oranges comparison with regards to engine design and layout, but because, frankly, I know of no other comparable engine that does it. Is there a pushrod, 2 valves per cylinder, production engine that we can compare the LSx to besides the new Hemi? If there is, please let me know. Also, I think that it's pretty pathetic that we have to limit a comparison of an engine to a domestic counterpart. Just because a different manufacturer chose to take a different route to obtaining power than the beloved pushrod engine, doesn't automatically disqualify them from outperforming the LSx engine in several categories, or warrant them being called a "ricer". I'm pretty impressed with Toyota's new 5.7L V8 with 380 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque. Sure it's DOHC, and it may way more than an equivalent displacement LSx engine (maybe it doesn't), but do you think that matters to 99% of the people who buy these things? Buyers like it because it has got great horsepower and torque for its displacement and gets good gas mileage while maintaining low levels of NVH and has a ULEV II emissions rating.
Now, I know that looking strictly at a specific output from an engine in no way defines its entire potential or its ability to move a vehicle. But, the good thing about large displacement engines is that even in a situation where an engine is tuned for maximum horsepower, there is usually a good amount of torque also being produced, so it's a win-win situation. There is no way a 6.0L engine that has 600hp will have a maximum torque reading in the 200 lb-ft range, even if the engine is DOHC and reaches peak horsepower at 7,000rpm. If that engine was tuned to make 1200hp NA then maybe it would only make 200 lb-ft, but most likely it would still make more.
Now, I know that looking strictly at a specific output from an engine in no way defines its entire potential or its ability to move a vehicle. But, the good thing about large displacement engines is that even in a situation where an engine is tuned for maximum horsepower, there is usually a good amount of torque also being produced, so it's a win-win situation. There is no way a 6.0L engine that has 600hp will have a maximum torque reading in the 200 lb-ft range, even if the engine is DOHC and reaches peak horsepower at 7,000rpm. If that engine was tuned to make 1200hp NA then maybe it would only make 200 lb-ft, but most likely it would still make more.
#650
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Quick Double Nickel
...I'm pretty impressed with Toyota's new 5.7L V8 with 380 horsepower and 400 lb-ft of torque. Sure it's DOHC, and it may way more than an equivalent displacement LSx engine (maybe it doesn't), but do you think that matters to 99% of the people who buy these things? Buyers like it because it has got great horsepower and torque for its displacement and gets good gas mileage while maintaining low levels of NVH and has a ULEV II emissions rating...
2007 Tundra 4x4 crew cab (5.7 liter DOHC) versus 2007 Chevy 4x4 crew cab (6.0 liter pushrod)
Cost: $41,494 vs. $41,054
Weight: 5,637 lb vs. 5,457 lb
Power rating: 381 hp vs. 367 hp
Torque rating: 401 ft-lb vs. 375 ft-lb
rwhp: 320 rwhp vs. 295 rwhp
test average gas mileage: 14.4 mpg vs. 12.7 mpg
Quarter mile: 14.8 @ 94 mph vs. 15.5 @ 88 mph
source:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=119281
I really shouldn't have brought this up, though, as it's part of the defense of DOHC and that debate was already over.
Mike
#651
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
Let's see, I think we've been through this already. . . but more hp/l = not necessarily more weight
Something tells me there's more of the latter than the former.
You don't think that BMW could have built a light engine if they wanted to? Do you think that their engineering staff is incapable of building a lighter engine like the AMG folks did?
His original question pretty easy to follow and made sense.
I've asked you this question at least 3 times and you seem to dodge it every time:
I'd say comparing the VVT gains from the LS3 vs LS2 and extrapolating that out to the LS7 would be valid, so long as you put the caveat out there that it's only a guess. You have to be careful with this kind of guess, though; you can't compare any two engines just because they're both 2v.
And one thing you definitely shouldn't do is compare two engines of totally different architecture, such as OHC vs pushrod. You can't just "apply" the former to the latter, you're basically talking a total redesign where you might compromise some integral parts of the engine (such as its light weight and compactness, for example)
As I already posted, the thread originator simply wanted to know if we could achieve 570 hp and keep stock-like driving characteristics from the LS1.
He knew, by benchmarking the Japs and Germans, that the specific output had been achieved with other designs and simply wanted to discuss if it was possible with the LS1.
There are you happy? I'm answering the question. But my point remains that the question has an invalid premise behind it (that you can just outright compare unalike engines on the basis of hp/L).
If the imports achieved 100 hp/liter with a 2v cylinder head, then is it too much to ask if we can get there with the LSx while retaining the 2v head?
One thing that you can not deny is that high hp/liter is indicative of an engine that has a well tuned and high flow induction and exhaust system.
For instance, something that is easy to do with small, light valves might be impossible to do with big, heavy valves. Take CVT transmissions, for instance: they work pretty well for low power engines. But scale one up to work on a high-power engine and then it becomes so heavy that you lose any advantage you would have gained and then some. Hell, on top of that there are economies of scale. Something that is relatively cheap to do for a small engine might be prohibitively expensive to do for a large one. There are a million considerations like this which mean you can't simply say that a 4.0 German engine makes 100+ hp/L and our LS series doesn't so why don't we do like the Germans and then we'll make 570 hp?!?
And that's without even bringing up the fact that the 4.0 German mill is heavier than the LS7 is at 7 liters.
Am I the only one impressed by a highly developed and effective induction and exhaust system?
I don't tend to be impressed by a "highly developed and effective induction and exhaust system" that is so big and heavy that it eliminates the whole point, which is making the car go. Impressive is when you can swap an engine out into another car and it will actually make it go faster. That is why the MB engine is far more impressive to me than the BMW.
The reason is because I care more about the end result of what works in reality than how "impressive" something is on paper. It's like cars that are total dyno queens but don't knock down good quarter mile times. Some people are impressed by that. Not me.
If you were to take the technology that the imports use to achieve high hp/liter, then apply to an engine with alot of liters (LSx), then what do you wind up with?
There, I have given more than enough detail. My objection is not some kind of knee-jerk, thoughtless categorical reflex to a mention of "hp/L." The original question, as asked, is invalid. It contains faulty assumptions. Trying to answer it, as asked, would be impossible.
So, once again and after due consideration...
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
![Locked ...](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/lockd.gif)
Not as a knock against anyone, as such, but because the entire premise of this thread is invalid. The question is flawed so as to be unanswerable. What answer, as such, is possible, I have given. Enough is enough!
#653
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
As I already said, the turbo 'busa motor was simply a convenient example since it has the same hp as an LS1 but less torque. ....the example really had nothing to do with a turbo 'busa engine. It simply used that engine as an example because it made the same hp as an LS1 but with less torque.
>>>
>>>
![Thatfunny](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/thatfunny.gif)
#654
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Interesting:
I don't see NVH there.
Originally Posted by Gerhard Richter, vice president of BMW M Power
"Our targets were higher revs, more horsepower, yet lower fuel consumption."
#655
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by engineermike
Man, I wish you didn't bring that up. This is a freakin' embarrassment for Chevrolet:
2007 Tundra 4x4 crew cab (5.7 liter DOHC) versus 2007 Chevy 4x4 crew cab (6.0 liter pushrod)
Cost: $41,494 vs. $41,054
Weight: 5,637 lb vs. 5,457 lb
Power rating: 381 hp vs. 367 hp
Torque rating: 401 ft-lb vs. 375 ft-lb
rwhp: 320 rwhp vs. 295 rwhp
test average gas mileage: 14.4 mpg vs. 12.7 mpg
Quarter mile: 14.8 @ 94 mph vs. 15.5 @ 88 mph
source:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=119281
I really shouldn't have brought this up, though, as it's part of the defense of DOHC and that debate was already over.
Mike
2007 Tundra 4x4 crew cab (5.7 liter DOHC) versus 2007 Chevy 4x4 crew cab (6.0 liter pushrod)
Cost: $41,494 vs. $41,054
Weight: 5,637 lb vs. 5,457 lb
Power rating: 381 hp vs. 367 hp
Torque rating: 401 ft-lb vs. 375 ft-lb
rwhp: 320 rwhp vs. 295 rwhp
test average gas mileage: 14.4 mpg vs. 12.7 mpg
Quarter mile: 14.8 @ 94 mph vs. 15.5 @ 88 mph
source:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=119281
I really shouldn't have brought this up, though, as it's part of the defense of DOHC and that debate was already over.
Mike
Not really an embarrassment at all, the only bad thing is that GM didnt have 6.2l production at full speed and could only offer it in the Denali, but that will be corrected next year.
#656
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Why would you want to limit yourself to 100hp/L on the LSX anyway? Thats only about 570~600hp, depending on which displacement you choose. We've got FI people on this board that have already exceeded that and GM's New block (The LSX) is good for 2,500 hp (Good luck getting there on pump gas though...)
If 100hp/L is good, then certainly 2-300hp/L would be even better, right? On such a great engine, stopping at *just* 100hp/L is a waste of potential.
If 100hp/L is good, then certainly 2-300hp/L would be even better, right? On such a great engine, stopping at *just* 100hp/L is a waste of potential.
![Bang Head](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_banghead.gif)
#657
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
It doesn't have to necessarily be more weight.
Originally Posted by black_knight
So what? The point is that a bigger displacement does not mean a bigger engine. That is the only point I need to make and it is eminently true.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Well obviously they didn't do it. So either they couldn't do it or they were being idiots. Either way, one thing they were trying to do was limit displacement.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I know you don't believe that, but a 5 liter V10 is a displacement-limited engine. That's a small displacement for a v10.
Originally Posted by black_knight
So either way, they set hp/L as a higher priority. So either way they sucked and it was because of hp/L.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I'm not interested in that question.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I don't care if you use it to guesstimate the effects of changes on engines that have very similar configurations.
Originally Posted by black_knight
I don't know why you think I'm dodging since I told that to you several times.
Originally Posted by black_knight
And one thing you definitely shouldn't do is compare two engines of totally different architecture, such as OHC vs pushrod. You can't just "apply" the former to the latter, you're basically talking a total redesign where you might compromise some integral parts of the engine (such as its light weight and compactness, for example)
Originally Posted by black_knight
Yes, but he only wanted to know that because he benchmarked the imports and thought that since they do it why can't we. And I'm saying that benchmarking different configuration engines on the basis of hp/L is not sensible. The engines he's talking about may have "achieved" 100 hp/L but they did so in ways that we would not want applied to the LS series. As I said, the LS series has less hp/L for very good reasons; reasons which make them superior to the small-displacement imports. I just don't see the sense in taking inferior engines and saying "why can't we be more like that?"
Originally Posted by black_knight
And I say no it is not. Or at least, you wouldn't want to do so. Because sometimes specific output comes at the cost of other things... more important things. Things you don't want to compromise.
Originally Posted by black_knight
There are you happy? I'm answering the question. ..
Originally Posted by black_knight
It depends on the engine. How different is it from the LS series? Would making the LS series like it be easily done or would it compromise the advantages of the LS design? Also, would it cost a ton when we could just as easily up the displacement? Questions like that need to be asked.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Things that work on small engines don't necessarily work on large ones. If you happened to be a master engineer who had extensively studied both designs, you might be qualified to say whether the one had anything that could be applied to the other. .. For instance, something that is easy to do with small, light valves might be impossible to do with big, heavy valves...Hell, on top of that there are economies of scale. Something that is relatively cheap to do for a small engine might be prohibitively expensive to do for a large one. There are a million considerations like this which mean you can't simply say that a 4.0 German engine makes 100+ hp/L
Originally Posted by black_knight
I don't tend to be impressed by a "highly developed and effective induction and exhaust system" that is so big and heavy that it eliminates the whole point, ...
Originally Posted by black_knight
Likely, you end up with crap. Because it doesn't work that way.
Originally Posted by black_knight
Originally Posted by Gerhard Richter, vice president of BMW M Power
"Our targets were higher revs, more horsepower, yet lower fuel consumption."
I don't see NVH there.
"Our targets were higher revs, more horsepower, yet lower fuel consumption."
I don't see NVH there.
Mike
#658
10 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by racer7088
I agree with you engineermike in that for ultimate power the 4V head has the potential for better breathing per square inch of bore area so it will allow more potential piston speed and more potential rpm on any engine. It also does this with smaller and thus lighter valves so it also alllows more rpm that way as well. The advantage of the lighter valves really takes off as rpm starts to increase.
Now you keep RPM way down with extremely large strokes and the advantage is much less, hence the LSx family beating the DOHC stuff in economy and power quite regularly in the rpm range that real cars that have to last for 200K miles run in since it has still great breathing and less frictional overhead due to it's much more simple pushrod design.
Now you keep RPM way down with extremely large strokes and the advantage is much less, hence the LSx family beating the DOHC stuff in economy and power quite regularly in the rpm range that real cars that have to last for 200K miles run in since it has still great breathing and less frictional overhead due to it's much more simple pushrod design.
![](http://www.dallas-powerhouse.com/IMG_0846.jpg)
Erik, you are right on the money.... stock Porshe Engine with all the bells and whistles... vs a LS2 block going in the same car. hmmmmmm To make power seems like those German's and Euro fellas have to add losts of size without the displacement!
![](http://www.dallas-powerhouse.com/IMG_1086.jpg)
looks like he now has room to put a turbo in there... and beat up on some TT 911's??
#659
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Forteen3GT
Erik, you are right on the money.... stock Porshe Engine with all the bells and whistles... vs a LS2 block going in the same car. hmmmmmm To make power seems like those German's and Euro fellas have to add losts of size without the displacement! ...
Mike
#660
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I've explained the flaws in the original question. The benchmarking is all wrong. Even Engineermike, in a sideways fashion, is admitting this. It is not Engineermike who needs to rephrase the question, however. The original poster needs to understand his incorrect assumptions and misuse of benchmarking. (i.e. ricer math)
I'm not too hopeful of that, though. If he was prepared to actually listen and consider the possibility that he might have done something wrong, I would think he would have done it by now.
I'm not too hopeful of that, though. If he was prepared to actually listen and consider the possibility that he might have done something wrong, I would think he would have done it by now.