motortrend: mustang GT beats SS and SRT8
#81
Launching!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 297
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)
take away cubic inches and HEMI/LS engines are weak.
#83
TECH Enthusiast
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i dont care what ford does. who really does? my points have nothing to do with ford. my point is, GM doent HAVE to build these big motors(cubic inches displacement).
5.3 liter 320hp is only 80-100hp below what it needs to be to compete with the ls-3, 6.2 hemi, 5.0 coyote.
a purpose built 4.8 can surely be built for pure racing to beat a stock ls-3/hemi/coyote, but that isnt 50 state legal.
i think gm could truly rule with a 5.0 - 5.5 liter dohc 500hp engine. and get great gas mileage.
#84
TECH Enthusiast
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
if you could see my driveway right now, there is a 99 jeep wrangler, 96 cadillac SLS, 2000 cadillac deville, a 36 foot 454 powered GM chasis motorhome, and a mustang gt. there will be a 2007 cadillac CTS-v when i pay off the new 2011 GT.
im not brand specific. but american UNION built for sure.
IF gm can DI these motors and get 30mpg EPA it would be a miracle. if they could congratulations. they had better do it before gas reaches $4.00 a gallon again, or its all over.
im not brand specific. but american UNION built for sure.
IF gm can DI these motors and get 30mpg EPA it would be a miracle. if they could congratulations. they had better do it before gas reaches $4.00 a gallon again, or its all over.
#85
TECH Enthusiast
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
all of my family has either worked at the DELCO plant in kokomo indiana, or at the chrysler transmission plant there. my family and union brothers are COUNTING on GM to get it right and not fold.
#86
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
one dimensional thought is why chevy went bankrupt. maybe chevy needs to keep making large inch motors and die like it deserves. im frustrated with the hp king mindset when so much is at stake.
And what is Ford doing? Making less power with MORE weight, MORE size, and WORSE gas mileage.
you and others like you think $4.00 a gallon fuel costs need 6.0-7.0 liters and 24mpg. we are headed to 3.00 a gallon this very day. people besides knuckle draggers look at EPA mileage rating and say "no thanks". both the ford, chevy, and dodge muscle cars had better get with it.
i never said the LS isnt superior in making power. who cares when chevy cant sell them on percieved inefficiency. how much power does a 4.8 vortec make? hardly any is the answer.
im dropping it. there's no way to get through that GM doesnt need big inch motors. cadillac 4.6 is a great motor. i drive two of them.
You need to get off the whole "displacement argument", it is IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is physical size and weight.
#87
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i dont care what ford does. who really does? my points have nothing to do with ford. my point is, GM doent HAVE to build these big motors(cubic inches displacement).
5.3 liter 320hp is only 80-100hp below what it needs to be to compete with the ls-3, 6.2 hemi, 5.0 coyote.
a purpose built 4.8 can surely be built for pure racing to beat a stock ls-3/hemi/coyote, but that isnt 50 state legal.
i think gm could truly rule with a 5.0 - 5.5 liter dohc 500hp engine. and get great gas mileage.
5.3 liter 320hp is only 80-100hp below what it needs to be to compete with the ls-3, 6.2 hemi, 5.0 coyote.
a purpose built 4.8 can surely be built for pure racing to beat a stock ls-3/hemi/coyote, but that isnt 50 state legal.
i think gm could truly rule with a 5.0 - 5.5 liter dohc 500hp engine. and get great gas mileage.
Find me a 500hp sports car that can get 19/26mpg. GM is the ONLY one doing it, and they are doing it with a 7L engine that is physically smaller, and lighter than most V6s on the market...
#88
Staging Lane
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tucker, Georgia
Posts: 75
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)
![Google](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/google.gif)
#89
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
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)
Clearly you don't get it at all. A smaller displaced LSx based engine would NOT get better gas mileage. And especially a bulky, heavy DOHC engine wouldn't get better gas mileage making the same power.
Find me a 500hp sports car that can get 19/26mpg. GM is the ONLY one doing it, and they are doing it with a 7L engine that is physically smaller, and lighter than most V6s on the market...
Find me a 500hp sports car that can get 19/26mpg. GM is the ONLY one doing it, and they are doing it with a 7L engine that is physically smaller, and lighter than most V6s on the market...
#93
Restricted User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
GM does have a smaller DOHC V8 making nearly 500hp. The LC3 motor is 4.4L and puts out 469hp with a supercharger. Problems being - it's damn expensive, and gas mileage is only so-so. It's not bad, but it's nothing compared to the LS motors.
See again we are at this stupid argument that GM uses low-tech motors. It's just a retarded argument when these low tech motors are beating EVERYTHING else out there in EVERY category - they are smaller, lighter, more efficient, they make more power, AND on top of all that, they are cheap to fix. It's really hard to make an argument against that, you just have nothing to stand on.
See again we are at this stupid argument that GM uses low-tech motors. It's just a retarded argument when these low tech motors are beating EVERYTHING else out there in EVERY category - they are smaller, lighter, more efficient, they make more power, AND on top of all that, they are cheap to fix. It's really hard to make an argument against that, you just have nothing to stand on.
#94
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 678
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)
GM does have a smaller DOHC V8 making nearly 500hp. The LC3 motor is 4.4L and puts out 469hp with a supercharger. Problems being - it's damn expensive, and gas mileage is only so-so. It's not bad, but it's nothing compared to the LS motors.
See again we are at this stupid argument that GM uses low-tech motors. It's just a retarded argument when these low tech motors are beating EVERYTHING else out there in EVERY category - they are smaller, lighter, more efficient, they make more power, AND on top of all that, they are cheap to fix. It's really hard to make an argument against that, you just have nothing to stand on.
See again we are at this stupid argument that GM uses low-tech motors. It's just a retarded argument when these low tech motors are beating EVERYTHING else out there in EVERY category - they are smaller, lighter, more efficient, they make more power, AND on top of all that, they are cheap to fix. It's really hard to make an argument against that, you just have nothing to stand on.
#95
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Stockbridge, MI
Posts: 724
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)
GM does have a smaller DOHC V8 making nearly 500hp. The LC3 motor is 4.4L and puts out 469hp with a supercharger. Problems being - it's damn expensive, and gas mileage is only so-so. It's not bad, but it's nothing compared to the LS motors.
See again we are at this stupid argument that GM uses low-tech motors. It's just a retarded argument when these low tech motors are beating EVERYTHING else out there in EVERY category - they are smaller, lighter, more efficient, they make more power, AND on top of all that, they are cheap to fix. It's really hard to make an argument against that, you just have nothing to stand on.
See again we are at this stupid argument that GM uses low-tech motors. It's just a retarded argument when these low tech motors are beating EVERYTHING else out there in EVERY category - they are smaller, lighter, more efficient, they make more power, AND on top of all that, they are cheap to fix. It's really hard to make an argument against that, you just have nothing to stand on.
#96
![Lightbulb](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon3.gif)
Some even have 7 speeds.
#97
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wilmywood NC
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
After driving my buddies T/A with a 6 speed, I was jealous at how low the rpms were in 6th gear.
That .50 gear ain't no joke for highway mauling.
#99
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
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)
The 7/8-speed transmissions are more to always be able to have the engine in the right part of the powerband. Not necessarily for maximum gas mileage was cruising.