Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2009
#141
![Lightbulb](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon3.gif)
Not only that but the ZR1 as a whole also weighed almost 200 pounds more overall than the base LT1. Some (most) of it was due to the motor and I'll assume that some was due to some heavier duty supporting pieces to accept the more potent (and again, physically heavier/larger) motor as well as more standard content and larger rear wheels/tires.
Still an awesome performer though and capable of solid 12 second passes which was not at all common back in 1990.
Still an awesome performer though and capable of solid 12 second passes which was not at all common back in 1990.
![Thumb](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/thumb.gif)
#142
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not only that but the ZR1 as a whole also weighed almost 200 pounds more overall than the base LT1. Some (most) of it was due to the motor and I'll assume that some was due to some heavier duty supporting pieces to accept the more potent (and again, physically heavier/larger) motor as well as more standard content and larger rear wheels/tires.
Still an awesome performer though and capable of solid 12 second passes which was not at all common back in 1990.![Thumb](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/thumb.gif)
Still an awesome performer though and capable of solid 12 second passes which was not at all common back in 1990.
![Thumb](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/thumb.gif)
#143
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Nod](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_nod.gif)
You may not be correct on that one.
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
#144
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
lol. Going by what other manufactures are producing with 3.5-3.8 liters:
350z 3.7 liter--334hp
Porsche 3.6--- 415
Theoretically, you should be able to produce in excess of 650hp n/a. The LT5 produces 105hp and 60lbft of torque more than the Lt1/4 and ls1 with the same displacement. And with todays technology(vvti) you should be able to with ease
350z 3.7 liter--334hp
Porsche 3.6--- 415
Theoretically, you should be able to produce in excess of 650hp n/a. The LT5 produces 105hp and 60lbft of torque more than the Lt1/4 and ls1 with the same displacement. And with todays technology(vvti) you should be able to with ease
#145
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The higher the horsepower, the harder the gains. Theoretcally, maybe that would work. In actuality, I'm doubtful. Otherwise viper engines especially would be making much greater power. I'd bet it'd be in the 500's whoever is making this 7L DOHC vvti. Still, potent for a N/A engine (probably making more than an ls7@7.0Ls) but again even if the manage to overcome the weight issue, how cost effective is it?
#146
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The higher the horsepower, the harder the gains. Theoretcally, maybe that would work. In actuality, I'm doubtful. Otherwise viper engines especially would be making much greater power. I'd bet it'd be in the 500's whoever is making this 7L DOHC vvti. Still, potent for a N/A engine (probably making more than an ls7@7.0Ls) but again even if the manage to overcome the weight issue, how cost effective is it?
M5 5.0 liter=500hp
Porsche 3.6 liter=416hp
350z 3.7 liter=334hp
LS-F(Lexus) 4.4 liter = 416hp
As I stated earlier, the LT5 made 106hp and 60lbft of torque more than the LT1/4 and while having the same displacement. It should be no problem for a DOHC 7.0 liter to make in upwards of 650-700hp n/a.
Cost I don't think should be a problem considering you're paying 105-120k for a ZR1 and 75k for a C6Z. Depending on the supply and demand, this will determine the price. Remember GM converted to DOHC in the new 6cyl Caddies and price is relatively the same as previous models.
#147
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It wouldn't produce any more power because GM only wanted 630hp. Do you honestly think they squeezed everything out of the LS9? If so you really are living in a fantasy land.
#148
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm talking about n/a vs n/a. Without the supercharger, the LS9 wouldn't make anywhere close to what a 7.0 liter dohc motor would make(c6z vs Dohc comparison). The Viper motor, although impressive, does not make the power it should with such as huge motor. Why do companies make dohc conversion for the lsx motors?
#149
12 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm talking about n/a vs n/a. Without the supercharger, the LS9 wouldn't make anywhere close to what a 7.0 liter dohc motor would make(c6z vs Dohc comparison). The Viper motor, although impressive, does not make the power it should with such as huge motor. Why do companies make dohc conversion for the lsx motors?
Your talking about fantasy land with **** that doesnt matter in the first place.
The real question is why dont more companies make DOHC conversions?
Because its a ******* waste of money.
#150
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
What makes you think it wouldnt be anywhere close? DOHC isnt the be all end all of motors....its merely another option. A more costly heavier option at that. Will it make more power...probably but not insane amounts.
Your talking about fantasy land with **** that doesnt matter in the first place.
The real question is why dont more companies make DOHC conversions?
Because its a ******* waste of money.
Your talking about fantasy land with **** that doesnt matter in the first place.
The real question is why dont more companies make DOHC conversions?
Because its a ******* waste of money.
So your telling me that the LT5 did not make a considerable amount more power and torque than the 5.7 in the LT1/4? LOL! What do you consider 106hp and 60lbft of torque more from the same displacement?
The conversion to make dohc motors from pushrod would be expensive, just as if it where visa versa.
#151
12 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Like I said, no **** there will be a difference. But your being an idiot by comparing a mass produced motor.
A the lt5 had a different bore and stroke, higher compression ratio, hand built using mostly race parts, better flowing heads and DOHC. Not just a DOHC lt1.
No **** it made that much more hp....its a ******* racing engine. Again you jump to irrelevent things to try and make a point.
Since you want to play stupid, how much more would it cost me to buy an lt5 over a lt1? Which is cheaper to mod????Fix???
Thanks for playing.
A the lt5 had a different bore and stroke, higher compression ratio, hand built using mostly race parts, better flowing heads and DOHC. Not just a DOHC lt1.
No **** it made that much more hp....its a ******* racing engine. Again you jump to irrelevent things to try and make a point.
Since you want to play stupid, how much more would it cost me to buy an lt5 over a lt1? Which is cheaper to mod????Fix???
Thanks for playing.
#152
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Like I said, no **** there will be a difference. But your being an idiot by comparing a mass produced motor.
A the lt5 had a different bore and stroke, higher compression ratio, hand built using mostly race parts, better flowing heads and DOHC. Not just a DOHC lt1.
No **** it made that much more hp....its a ******* racing engine. Again you jump to irrelevent things to try and make a point.
Since you want to play stupid, how much more would it cost me to buy an lt5 over a lt1? Which is cheaper to mod????Fix???
Thanks for playing.
A the lt5 had a different bore and stroke, higher compression ratio, hand built using mostly race parts, better flowing heads and DOHC. Not just a DOHC lt1.
No **** it made that much more hp....its a ******* racing engine. Again you jump to irrelevent things to try and make a point.
Since you want to play stupid, how much more would it cost me to buy an lt5 over a lt1? Which is cheaper to mod????Fix???
Thanks for playing.
It wasn't until 12 years later that the LS6 benefited from a higher-lift camshaft and higher-compression pistons to raise horsepower from 350 to 405, and torque from 340 lb.-ft. to 400 lb.-ft.
Toodles,
#153
12 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Is cheaper always better? Secondly, as you clearly stated, the LT1 was a massed produced motor. So the cost of performance parts would of course be cheaper. Supply and Demand.
It wasn't until 12 years later that the LS6 benefited from a higher-lift camshaft and higher-compression pistons to raise horsepower from 350 to 405, and torque from 340 lb.-ft. to 400 lb.-ft.
Toodles,
It wasn't until 12 years later that the LS6 benefited from a higher-lift camshaft and higher-compression pistons to raise horsepower from 350 to 405, and torque from 340 lb.-ft. to 400 lb.-ft.
Toodles,
Toodles??????? Are you some old english ****?
#154
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Like I said, no **** there will be a difference. But your being an idiot by comparing a mass produced motor.
A the lt5 had a different bore and stroke, higher compression ratio, hand built using mostly race parts, better flowing heads and DOHC. Not just a DOHC lt1.
No **** it made that much more hp....its a ******* racing engine. Again you jump to irrelevent things to try and make a point.
Since you want to play stupid, how much more would it cost me to buy an lt5 over a lt1? Which is cheaper to mod????Fix???
Thanks for playing.
A the lt5 had a different bore and stroke, higher compression ratio, hand built using mostly race parts, better flowing heads and DOHC. Not just a DOHC lt1.
No **** it made that much more hp....its a ******* racing engine. Again you jump to irrelevent things to try and make a point.
Since you want to play stupid, how much more would it cost me to buy an lt5 over a lt1? Which is cheaper to mod????Fix???
Thanks for playing.
"Most of the engines used in hi-performance race cars and race boats today, are modified from the engines designed for Detroit production automobiles in the 1950s and 60s.
The engines are based on an overhead valve head design with two valves per cylinder, driven by a single camshaft in the block through varied arrangements of tappets and push rods.
Granted, when first introduced, they were a far cry better than Henry Ford’s Flathead engines, that were in Vogue at the time, but not in step with modern day engine technology.
The American Auto Industry, once known for its world leadership, got left behind with the introduction of more efficient, four valve per cylinder, dual overhead cam engines, built in Europe and Japan.The valve train in Schubeck engines, closely relate to those Mercedes and Honda race engines.
Compare the similarities between Schubeck engines and the engines winning at Lemons and Indy. Starting with the valve train, for example, newer engine designs all use overhead cams proven to be less stressful by doing away with problems related to push rods and tappets. Fewer moving parts mean less reciprocating weight. Less weight helps the valve train operate in all rpm ranges with less effort and more efficiency.
Adding to a more relaxed valve train are the smaller and lighter valves and springs, also requiring less spring pressure to operate. Four valves over two valves per cylinder, affords a greater ability for the engine to breath, thereby increasing the volumetric efficiency for more power.
Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress."
The engines are based on an overhead valve head design with two valves per cylinder, driven by a single camshaft in the block through varied arrangements of tappets and push rods.
Granted, when first introduced, they were a far cry better than Henry Ford’s Flathead engines, that were in Vogue at the time, but not in step with modern day engine technology.
The American Auto Industry, once known for its world leadership, got left behind with the introduction of more efficient, four valve per cylinder, dual overhead cam engines, built in Europe and Japan.The valve train in Schubeck engines, closely relate to those Mercedes and Honda race engines.
Compare the similarities between Schubeck engines and the engines winning at Lemons and Indy. Starting with the valve train, for example, newer engine designs all use overhead cams proven to be less stressful by doing away with problems related to push rods and tappets. Fewer moving parts mean less reciprocating weight. Less weight helps the valve train operate in all rpm ranges with less effort and more efficiency.
Adding to a more relaxed valve train are the smaller and lighter valves and springs, also requiring less spring pressure to operate. Four valves over two valves per cylinder, affords a greater ability for the engine to breath, thereby increasing the volumetric efficiency for more power.
Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress."
http://www.schubeckracing.com/new2/i...position=52:52
#155
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
So you just told me nothing I didnt already know there. I gave you many reasons why the lt5 made more hp then a lt1. I never said that dohc doesnt make more power than a pushrod motor, its just not the greatest thing ever. You just like it because your an import nutswinger and thats pretty much all they use.
Toodles??????? Are you some old english ****?
Toodles??????? Are you some old english ****?
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Toodles,
#156
12 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress"
Like those Tundra camshafts breaking?
You can post all the links you want. Yes the engine breaths easier with dohc. i dont know how many times you like to hear it.
But the other end of the spectrum to your stupid racing post is that top fuelers and such all use pushrod motors.
Keep tooting your own horn though.
Like those Tundra camshafts breaking?
You can post all the links you want. Yes the engine breaths easier with dohc. i dont know how many times you like to hear it.
But the other end of the spectrum to your stupid racing post is that top fuelers and such all use pushrod motors.
Keep tooting your own horn though.
#157
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress"
Like those Tundra camshafts breaking?
You can post all the links you want. Yes the engine breaths easier with dohc. i dont know how many times you like to hear it.
But the other end of the spectrum to your stupid racing post is that top fuelers and such all use pushrod motors.
Keep tooting your own horn though.
Like those Tundra camshafts breaking?
You can post all the links you want. Yes the engine breaths easier with dohc. i dont know how many times you like to hear it.
But the other end of the spectrum to your stupid racing post is that top fuelers and such all use pushrod motors.
Keep tooting your own horn though.
13 camshaft broken out of 200k in the first year is less than the roofs that came off the Z06. I suggest you do a search, before bringing to light statistics you know nothing about.
Toodles,
#158
12 Second Club
iTrader: (16)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Your an import nut swinger regardless of what caddy uses. You know it, get over it, life goes on. I never said there was anything wrong with DOHC. Good Im glad Caddy uses it. God you ******* act like you invented mother ****** DOHC.
Plus you sound like a ****** when you say Toodles.
Plus you sound like a ****** when you say Toodles.
#160
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Topping today's list of reasons for performance engine failures, are broker valve train components. All because they are overstressed. Schubeck's solution to this problem is obvious and simple. Reduce the stress"
Like those Tundra camshafts breaking?
You can post all the links you want. Yes the engine breaths easier with dohc. i dont know how many times you like to hear it.
But the other end of the spectrum to your stupid racing post is that top fuelers and such all use pushrod motors.
Keep tooting your own horn though.
Like those Tundra camshafts breaking?
You can post all the links you want. Yes the engine breaths easier with dohc. i dont know how many times you like to hear it.
But the other end of the spectrum to your stupid racing post is that top fuelers and such all use pushrod motors.
Keep tooting your own horn though.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Like many other motor sport formulas originating in the United States, the NHRA favors heavy restrictions on engine configuration, rather than technological development. This restricts the teams to using many decades old technologies.
The engine used to power a Top Fuel drag racing car has its roots in the second generation Chrysler Hemi 426 "Elephant Engine" made 1964-71. Although the Top Fuel engine is built exclusively of aftermarket parts, it retains the basic configuration with two valves per cylinder activated by pushrods from a centrally-placed camshaft. The engine has hemispherical combustion chambers, a 90 degree V angle; 4.8" bore pitch and a 5.4" cam lift. The configuration is identical to the overhead valve, single camshaft-in-block "Hemi" V-8 engine which became available for sale to the public in selected Chrysler Corporation (Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler) automotive products in 1952.
The NHRA competition rules limit the displacement to 500 cubic inch (8194 cc). A 4.19" (106.4 mm) bore with a 4.5" (114.3 mm) stroke are customary dimensions. Larger bores have been shown to weaken the cylinder block. Compression ratio is about 6.5:1, as is common on engines with overdriven (the supercharger is driven faster than the crankshaft speed) supercharger
The engine used to power a Top Fuel drag racing car has its roots in the second generation Chrysler Hemi 426 "Elephant Engine" made 1964-71. Although the Top Fuel engine is built exclusively of aftermarket parts, it retains the basic configuration with two valves per cylinder activated by pushrods from a centrally-placed camshaft. The engine has hemispherical combustion chambers, a 90 degree V angle; 4.8" bore pitch and a 5.4" cam lift. The configuration is identical to the overhead valve, single camshaft-in-block "Hemi" V-8 engine which became available for sale to the public in selected Chrysler Corporation (Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler) automotive products in 1952.
The NHRA competition rules limit the displacement to 500 cubic inch (8194 cc). A 4.19" (106.4 mm) bore with a 4.5" (114.3 mm) stroke are customary dimensions. Larger bores have been shown to weaken the cylinder block. Compression ratio is about 6.5:1, as is common on engines with overdriven (the supercharger is driven faster than the crankshaft speed) supercharger