SparkyJJO

iTrader: (11)

Why??? No thanks, not as a replacement to what we have. As an additional option, sure why not, make appealing stuff for everyone, but not to replace NA big cube engines. No point.

justin455

Most people seem to ignore the very very basics of business on this subject. With an adequate demand and potential profit, there will be supply.

The trick is to un-brainwash the average consumer into realizing that MPGs have more to do with engine load/torque/and gearing than engine displacement.

the_merv

iTrader: (88)

I'm not, just throwin out there what alot of people are saying..lol..

gmcamaro74

Here is my question:
Everyone seems to jump on very quickly to the no decrease in replacement side. Would you still feel this way if they could in fact build a direct injection 5.5 liter engine that made absolutely the same power curve, or even a better power curve, yet it made that power with a Direct Injection, or Direct Injection Turbo and mileage boosted into the 35 range?

Just ask Ford, they seem to have replaced displacement pretty damned well with the Coyote. Ask most people who know cars on an unbiased basis and the Coyote is a hell of a lot more impressive than the LS1, LS2, or LS3.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

If a given 5.5L makes X horsepower with direct injection, then one can only assume that the same setup would make more power and torque (and likely moreso at lower rpms) with more displacement. I think it would be impossibile for a 5.5L to make the same power and torque curve throughout the typical street engine rpm range as the exact same engine at, say, 6.5L.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I fully understand the benefits of a reduction in rotating mass acheived by smaller displacement engines. I also understand how this can be a very desireable trait in certain racing applications where continual high rpm operation is expected, and gearing is matched to maintain a given window of peak engine performance.

HOWEVER.....

We are talking about an OEM stock street application here. You want as much performance coming off idle as possibile, while still maintaining a decent redline and power/torque as close to that redline as possibile. GM has done an excellent job of designing the LSx to acheive this, with continual redline improvement even as displacement has increased. I see no reason to reduce displacement now.

In a street car/engine, give me cubes and give me lots of them. As many as possibile.

1) You can't compare the 13 year old LS1 to Ford's newest engine. Remember, when the LS1 hit the Camaro in 1998, Mustang GT was churning out an eye-popping 225hp. Compare apples to apples. While we're at it, maybe we should also discuss how a 1998 Camaro V8 was still out-powering the Mustang GT in 2010.

2) What nightmare in hell did you have where there were a bunch of unbiased car people who thought the new 5.0 was more impressive than an LS3? Man, I'd wake up in a cold sweat after that one!

justin455

Agreed on all accounts. Smaller engine will never have the same power curve/delivery of a bigger cube engine. The feeling can be similar, but it would take other things into account such as gearing...at the expense of efficiency.

The 5.0 Coyote is awesome, but the majority of it's "impressibility" derives from the mustang not sucking as a whole, relatively out of the blue.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Mustang GT gained ~100hp in one model year. That stands out as impressive; but it's humbled by the consideration that just one model year ago the GT still struggled to match GM's 1998 performance levels.

I too like the new Ford 5.0. But rather than offering Ford a cookie for a "job well done", I'm still in the camp that says: "what the hell took so long?!"

93sspcoupe

imo the only way gm will be doing away with the ls motors is if they developed an even better motor.

daGOOSE

what are they gonna d start putting 4.6's between the fender wells?

Striker

iTrader: (1)

The bottom line is that GM has perfectedthe pushrod design. A lot of the Ford nut swingers always contemplate and mention the fact that it is an old design etc etc.....but it works and it works damn well.

As RPM WS6 mentioned, the off idle torque provided by them is magnificent, plus the pull to redline is smooth and never falls flat on it's face....unlike the LT1 cars from what I've heard

LS14EVR

iTrader: (3)

An inlaw of mine works for GM in the engine department for R&D. All he has been telling me for the last 2 years is their BIGGEST job has been the next gen of V8's. That's all he would/could say. I said, really, with all the gas price increases etc, I thought it would be something smaller. He said, nope! Sorry, that's all I have for my 0.02

justin455

This is probably the worst thing I hear from people. OHC is just as old as OHV. In the early days of internal combustion engines they tried everything. OHV worked for quite some time based on performance and simplicity. If anything the trend of OHV engines is old, not the technology. The trend towards OHC reemerged with the gas shortages of the mid-late 70's. Smaller engines, smaller cars, "similar performance" from the more advanced engine. Both designs have their place and pulling all the way past 7,000 rpms is fun, but for a performance application I will take instanst, raw torque everytime.

Striker

iTrader: (1)

So are you in an agreeance with my statement or otherwise?

BlackBirds

iTrader: (24)

V8's aren't going anywhere. The demand for performance machines with big engines will always exist, so there will be a company to cater to them.

cjmatt

iTrader: (4)

When GM stops selling LS's, I'll stop buying GM's

disc0monkey

iTrader: (10)

speaking of off idle performance anyone drive the new twin turbo V8 bmw 5 series. WOW

if GM has something like that planned for the future then we are in good shape.

robertbartsch

During the bankruptcy in the winter of 08, it has been reported that Obama said in meetings discussing the massive government bailout that, "why can't they [GM] just make Corrollas"?

This was meant to imply that all v-8 motors, trucks and SUVs should be eliminated and that GM should make only small fuel effcient cars.

As much as I hate government intervention, Obama should be running GM and Ed Whitacre should be the U.S. president.

THErobertH

i heard a couple months ago from a fairly reliable source that gm was sticking with the pushrod designs, the only reason i see them going OHC or DOHC is cam timing for gas mileage, but even then people are still shocked when i tell the stock LS1s an LT1s get an easy 25 mpg highway

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

In the end, I'd really like to see GM stick with OHV V8s forever (preferrably 350ci+ displacement too). But, if that doesn't happen, it won't be the end of the world. I'll just keep driving my old cars if I have to. We will never run out of small block Chevys of any gen (I or IV or anything inbetween). The engine block in my Nova is almost 40 years old, it's been rebuilt before and can be again.....for another 40 years more. (next time I think it's gonna be a 383ci though.... )

gyrene2003

^^^^Im with u RPM!!! Im def gonna g atleast 383 next time. I also agree that when GM steps away from LSX motors, i might just step away from GM! But i really dont think the platform is going anywhere! People are only ragging on the LS3 right now cause its in the camaro, and the coyote motor is in a much lighter mustang, not the engines fault. People fail to realize, the GT is still just trying to catch the GM coattails in performance, just now they seem to of caught up, but not because of the motor, its the car. If the LS3 stinks, take a new 5.0 stock and run a new base model vette!!!!! Same thing, power to wieght of the whole car, not just an engine thing, cause the vette would RAPE said 5.0!