RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Perhaps you missed this post. This is the same info I've seen spread around the internet so far:

LS1GMCTruck

iTrader: (2)

Thank-You. Can't wait to learn more about these new series of LS engines!

Wimimc

iTrader: (2)

i tried to find the other article i read on it but no luck.

it was saying how it was a 427 block and used a xxx crank. the main purpose was to meet racing requirements of a certain displacement, they added direct injection and the engine made 440-480 horsepower and increased fuel economy.

i wish i could remember more.

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

This is all I could dig up

"An experimental engine was built based on L92 engine from Cadillac Escalade, GMC Yukon Denali and Hummer H2, and reported to generate 450 bhp (340 kW) on gasoline via direct fuel injection, increased compression ratio to 11.5:1, and a modified engine controller."

Kinda vague, I know......

FirebirdTransAm

iTrader: (3)

XpEdItIoUs

iTrader: (44)

More power and fuel efficiency.

SparkyJJO

iTrader: (11)

DOHC. Meh. I prefer OHV.

A.R. Shale Targa

iTrader: (2)

The single most notable change with direct injection is at least a full point
increase in static compression ratio. My belief is that without having to rely
on intake runner efficiency to keep the fuel molecules atomized, the engine is
able to stave off detonation with even higher cylinder pressures which as we
all know dramatically improves the average torque. Coyote 5.0s run 12:1 and
with variable cam timing, make crazy torque and run from idle to 7000 rpms.
Hopefully The General adds some good ol' cubic inches to this formula and
shows the blue ovals how it's done

LeanPocket

iTrader: (6)

this is silly

we're arguing about pokemon vs digimon, nobody cares

the complexity of ohc motors have always been there downfall IMO, northstar motors being a prime example, yuck.

Don't fix whats not broke
OHV>OHC KTHXBYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVS60...layer_embedded

wild wacky action bike>ohc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUNEm...eature=related

99VetteFRC

All the huge Top Fuel engines are pushrod engines. They get faster every year.

technical

I'm not singling you out, but that comment has been made several times over in this thread. The LS1 is a very compact simple engine that makes great power and that's a fact. It also took decades of development to get to those power levels. All the while I see OHC engine of equal displacement making as much power/torque e.g. LT-5.

I've worked on both types of engines and I can honestly say that the only reason OHC engines can be more complex is because the manufacturer made them that way. Like the ridiculous half/full power thing in the LT-5... Completely unnecessary. I've worked on BMW's original 3.0/4.0 DOHC V8 engines and thought those engineers must have been ******* high as hell to have designed that engine that way. But their 2.5,2.8,3.0 I6 engines were quite good.

Both designs have their pros and cons. In fact I've seen simpler head/cam/valve designs on OHC. The cam,lifter,pushrod,rocker system seems more complex to me. Also, how do I adjust the int/ex overlap in a single CIB OHV engine?

I'm not making an argument for or against either design. In the end it's only about what you are trying to accomplish. This debate rages on because it's purely subjective.

LeanPocket

iTrader: (6)

negative, ohc has its upsides but in all reality after a while fixing up or repairing a ohc vehicles just becomes counter intuitive because of how expensive/complex the design is.

ls1 has 1 cam
new 5.0 has 4 cams

TR trex cam = $300
cam package for new 5.0= $1000++++

more timing chains.. more moving parts

more valves.. I can go on

is a ohc design initially more efficient? imo yes
is it worth the extra cost in parts and labor? nope imo

technical

"IMO"

Like I said. It's subjective.

89 formula350

iTrader: (8)

IM sure they will adapt the direct injection to the current LSX but the DOHC I sure will find its way under most GM hoods as they need "cheap" ways to control cam phasing.

Its said they will move into more aluminum blocks to keep weight of vehicles down as well. time will tell and for now Im sure GM will hold on to this reliable platform as long as possible and rely on the smaller cube engines to meet average federal mandates in the product line. The feds will just stick LSX owners to pay smog tax

Metal Muscle

If it's direct injection, large displacement with a big stroke, all aluminum, and small sized, I'll be pretty happy with it.

What's the possibility of out of the ordinary things like a V12 or an I6 for new GM engines?

JD_AMG

I wouldn't assume things too fast here, just because the LS1 had years of engineering and testing put into it doesn't mean GM couldn't figure out how to get an extra ~20hp out of their current (LT1 at the time) production pushrod V8. Id bet GM took their time to get the reliability down, and to ensure they could be made for relatively cheap. Lets not forget the LS1 is very held back in stock form (on purpose, GM only wanted 350hp) - what was to stop them from putting in a different cam and better flowing heads (like the 405hp LS6?). -Their goal was an inexpensive, lightweight and compact 350hp engine, and then a 400hp engine for the Z06.

But being 200+lbs heavier, all around bigger, more complex and significantly more expensive.
If both engines are making the same power, wouldn't you want the lighter, smaller, cheaper one?

Head Hunter

iTrader: (14)

Not a V8 but I recall my old S2K reving up to or past 10k as well

technical

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just looking at the available engines at the time. In 1990 there was the LT-5 and L-98, two years later the LT-1, then '97 the LS1. I'd bet it was engine management that lagged the mechanical technology. And yes GM had to spend plenty of time making sure the LS1 was reliable, fuel efficient, emissions friendly, etc. But in 1992 there was a 405BHP LT-5 and a 300BHP LT-1. Same displacement, same emissions requirements, etc. I won't argue price, not even a little bit. GM only dipped their toes into the all aluminum DOHC thing and didn't invest in it. The C4 ZR1 was a specialty vehicle and Having Mercury/Lotus in the mix wasn't going to help the price tag.


I *might* want the cheaper, lighter, smaller engine in your scenario but it's not a lock. It's all about trade-offs. Given the same bottom end I can make more *horsepower* with DOHC and have more flexibility at the expense of money, size, and weight.

So if I'm an auto manufacturer building a car I have to factor in:
* target weight of the car
* target fuel mileage of the car
* target performance
* target price
* about a million other things...

Maybe I build a light car with a smaller engine that revs higher and makes speed through rpms and gearing.

Maybe I build a heavy car e.g. 4100lbs but don't want to add anymore weight by utilizing a heavy engine so I use 6.2 litres of all aluminum to pack a 420BHP punch.

Maybe I build a light car with 6.5 litres of displacement and DOHC and VVT and naturally aspirated and 750BHP and gearing and AWD then charge an arm, a leg, first born, and a hoagie for it.


It all depends on what you're trying to build.

1quickirocz

Based on the quality of GMs OHC engines i hope they never replace the LS engines with a OHC engine. the 3.6 liter is a prime example of GM getting rid of a great proven V6 (3.8) for a DOHC POS thats costing them all kinds of money. Didnt see any issues with the LT5 because nobody ever put any great mileage on them and GM didnt really design it.

BobDoLe

iTrader: (11)

what? are you living in the future?
coyote motors run 11:1 compression and use regular old fuel injection.
here's a picture of a coyote head.... http://image.streetrodderweb.com/f/3...otor-5-v8+.jpg
i see there's something there where an injector wants to grow out of. know anything about that?