JD_AMG

The LS6 is faster, makes same power, more torque, is lighter, cheaper and smaller. OHV > OHC.
You are embarrassing yourself now.

25psi

You're comparing an 18yr old car to an LS6 lol. Nice comparo.

My1st Truck

iTrader: (8)

Dude that guy is smart and that article says it all!

JD_AMG

And you are comparing a $2,000 engine (L89) to a $20,000 engine (LT5).
Seriously almost none of your arguments are legit, and most are completely illogical and false.
Recapping: The LT5 added well over 100lbs of bulk to the LT1. The LT5 didn't get any better gas mileage. The LT5 almost doubled the cost of the C4. While it was a good engine to mod, and supposedly bulletproof, it is inferior to the LSx engines of today for a good production sports car.

25psi

Show me a link to the cost of an LT5? Secondly, where the trans the same in the LT5 and LT1/4

Irunelevens

That's more the construction of the LTx motors to the LSx motors. The LSx motors as a whole are better. Much of the weight difference between the ZR1 and the regular LT1 Vettes was due to the extra oil pump, the bigger wheels/tires, and the 3" wider rear bodywork. And again, we're comparing today's engines to a motor that was designed more than 20 years ago.

Irunelevens

LT5s were ~$20k. Designed by Lotus, built by Mercury Marine. And yes, they used the same ZF 6spd transmission.

JD_AMG

Good read:
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...t5-engine.html

GMmexican

iTrader: (7)

http://www.zr1netregistry.com/ZR1_about.htm

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Excellent, excellent points.

While only indirectly related to this discussion, please allow me to point out that NO OTHER manufacturer, import or domestic, has been able to bring a performance car to market that could do ALL (ie: power/acceleration/top speed, handling/braking, build quality, comfort/interior space, styling and FUEL ECONOMY) that a base model Corvette can do for anywhere even remotely close to the same price. None.
Cutting edge/high tech? With all of that world renowned German and/or Japanese engineering and marketing skill, no one else even comes close.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I do believe that all ZR1s (and later L98s) had the ZF but I'd thought there was some point during LT1/LT4 production that the T-56 took over for the ZF?

Irunelevens

As far as I know, all C4 6spds were ZF transmissions. And the Corvette has hands-down been the "for the money" king since the C5 was released. And the C6 has actually brought the interior/build quality to levels that can be considered competitive with the best. But you also have to realize that to people who want (and can afford) the best, regardless of price, there are still some things left to be desired. I'm a Corvette guy through and through, but I can still see faults. And thus, areas for improvement.

25psi

Where does it say the motor was 20k? For a car that cost 31k, I highly doubt the motor alone would cost that much

KW4life06

iTrader: (12)

OHC can be a more efficient design, but like with everything it has its ups and downs. OHC engines make much higher hp numbers per litre compared to older engines. The downsides being cost, size, weight. The v6 market is going mostly ohc due to the fact that even with the increase in size, its usually not as big of an issue due to it still being smaller than a v8. It does make more power than older pushrod v6s. In retrospect, its trade off for gaining weight is worth the gained efficiency and power.

As for ohv v8 vs ohc v8, the same hurtles apply but now you have even greater increased mass, weight, and therefore costs by going ohc. On average, the hp/L might be higher on ohc engines, but you can have higher displacement, smaller, cheaper engines make the same power. That = higher hp/$.

The reason lsx based engines DO tend to be more efficient mileage wise is they were designed around fuel injection, and to move high amounts of air with little restriction. Compare intake runner sizes from a gen1 sbc to a gen3.

Overall, it creates 2 completely different directions you can go to make power. Each has its flaws, and pros. Mod vs LS, Mod has the advantage of going to a 4 valve setup, which is not cost effective for a ohv setup. LS has the advantage of either going higher displacement base, or changing a single cam to increase air flow.

In the end, theres no v8 that has completely over shrouded the competition (although I do like to think ls style engines overpowered the competition for quite some time, but I'm baised). The only real upper hand I can think of from one setup to the other is the advantage of a forged rotating assembly

KW4life06

iTrader: (12)

And to a prior comment made by 25psi, as of now theres no planned ohc engine planned for vettes or any performance v8. The Northstar OHC V8 replacement that was in design was cancelled. Before design began on the ls1, it was a great debate whether to go ohc or ohv. The guys that designed the ls1 aren't from the stone age, for the same reasons listed above, they chose to design an ohv engine.

texas94z

1+ Good post.

Take the ZR-1 for instance. GM produced a 90's exotic 400hp dohc LT5 motor that revolutionized GM's v8 heritage. They named it king of the hill for a reason. But the downfall of the dohc LT5 was the pricetag. Im guessing the GM was going to take the dohc route for the future of SBC, but looked at the ridiculous cost and said no way. Then came the pushrod LS series. The LS series are very cheap, very simple, and very efficient for a world leader v8. The LS series will replace the sbc v8 as the world's greatest v8 engine because of those factors.

Ford's picked the ohc/dohc v8 route with success. They produce v8 line that virtually all parts are interchangeable, I believe thats where the word modular comes from. They sell thousands of fleet v8 cars and trucks to government bodies. Also, engineered a arguably strong ohc/dohc motor. All of those factors keep cost down.

GM and Ford are truly deeply in love money and would rather keep it in their pocket. Both use new technologies to produce engines that are competitively efficient and competitively priced. The LS and Mod motors are winners in that category.


GM and Ford are long time best friends and worst enemies. They brutally compete for sales and bash each other in the media on the weekdays. Then, they race/compete their cars on the weekends for bragging rights not for a quarterly profit. However, Ford needed to bolt on a supercharger to their Modular engines to compete and sometimes beat the LS series for racing bragging rights. GM did the same with the lsa and ls9 and gave the middle finger to Ford. Boost is the future and GM was late to the game.

Irunelevens

I agree with your whole post EXCEPT that last part. Mach 1 ring a bell? And I'd wager that (comparing engines) the GT500/'03-'04 Cobra engine is just as strong/easy to modify, if not moreso, than the LSA and the LS9. So I wouldn't exactly call that "gave the middle finger to." And before the "Corvettes are better than Mustangs" **** starts flying, I am comparing motors only, not cars.

texas94z

This is the exact response that makes the the rivalry between Ford and GM simply bad ***.

I was only talking about motors too. The Mustang and Vette are to completely different animals. The Mustang is a profit maker, the Vette is a race car champion. It is so easy to make power with boost. Ford just got an early start and GM just now caught on.

JD_AMG

You need to read more carefully:
"The price of the basic coupe was $31,979, but with the addition of the ZR-1's special performance package listed at $27,016, the car was not meant for the faint-hearted or bargain-conscious. It's reported that some dealers asked and were paid $100,000 for the then ultimate in American sports cars. "

"2,044 ZR-1s were built at a sticker price add-on of $31,683" etc. etc.

The 1990 Zr1 PACKAGE was a $31,000 package over the base coupe. So in other words the 1990 ZR1 brand new cost $58,995.

And if you would kindly read the link I posted earlier you would see:
"And, given an estimated $25,000 price premium for the LT5 engine, the cost of this small increment of power is astronomical."

25psi

I stand corrected