is anyone else amazed with the ls1 motor?
08-11-2011, 09:11 AM
#1
is anyone else amazed with the ls1 motor? you know when i actually think about it, gm couldnt have designed a better motor.......i mean think about it. How restricted is the ls1 and it still makes 345 hp. In an fbody it cant be getting the best airflow, and still makes great power. the oem cam is such atiny cam and it still makes 345 hp. the manifolds also choke the hell out of these motors. as far as intake goes, the ls1 intake does alright......i just cant beleive that fordtried so hard and could only get 280 hp out of the DOHC 4.6. then gm works hard to get a performing motor, and pretty easily they make 345 first try. these motors justhave so much potential in them. I think even gm surprised themselves in 1997.
08-11-2011, 11:58 AM
#3
you know when i actually think about it, gm couldnt have designed a better motor.......i mean think about it. How restricted is the ls1 and it still makes 345 hp. In an fbody it cant be getting the best airflow, and still makes great power. the oem cam is such atiny cam and it still makes 345 hp. the manifolds also choke the hell out of these motors. as far as intake goes, the ls1 intake does alright......i just cant beleive that fordtried so hard and could only get 280 hp out of the DOHC 4.6. then gm works hard to get a performing motor, and pretty easily they make 345 first try. these motors justhave so much potential in them. I think even gm surprised themselves in 1997.
I'd think in 2011 they'd be near 500 HP with 350cid engines....but the top ends just aren't that good to feed these things the air they need.
.
08-11-2011, 12:17 PM
#4
the lt1 never made 405, the lt4 even only had like 325-335. all they need to do is put a better supercharger on the zr1 so it canhang with the supersnake a little better. ls9 needs better liners. any idea how muchboost the supersnake puts out?
08-11-2011, 12:20 PM
#5
true, but not as nearly efficient at all........70s small blocks may be 400 hp, but they were seeing 10-12 highway mpg.......405 hp ls6 sees 26+. See thats what i'm also amazed with...........lots of power with great fuel economy............ 350 hp 4th gen gets 28-30 mpg, while the 280hp 4.6stang might see 18-20
08-11-2011, 12:35 PM
#6
true, but not as nearly efficient at all........70s small blocks may be 400 hp, but they were seeing 10-12 highway mpg.......405 hp ls6 sees 26+. See thats what i'm also amazed with...........lots of power with great fuel economy............ 350 hp 4th gen gets 28-30 mpg, while the 280hp 4.6stang might see 18-20
GM really falls short on our top ends, but with the LS7 heads and intake they made a nice leap from just one year to another.
.
Trending Topics
08-11-2011, 03:10 PM
#8
My favorite small block was in my 70 Vette. The LT-1 350 370 HP. What a gem of an engine. Add headers and some larger jets and hang on. The old 375 HP 327 was a screamer too. Chevrolet was always at the head of the class HP per CI.
Al
Al
08-11-2011, 04:47 PM
#9
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: pa
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the lt5 was making around 400 hp in the 90's but that was ina partnership with lotus so can we say we really built it? plus it was a dohc engine definetley not the traditional small block of the past....
08-11-2011, 05:21 PM
#11
As far as the motors of the real old days, those were rated in gross HP and are not comparable to SAE net. The switch was 1971-1972 and could be a huge difference in rated output for motors that were essentially unchanged from the previous year... like a 35% reduction for the Caddy 500cu in V8.
08-11-2011, 11:01 PM
#12
And the LT5 was actually assembled by Mercury Marine, not GM.
As far as the motors of the real old days, those were rated in gross HP and are not comparable to SAE net. The switch was 1971-1972 and could be a huge difference in rated output for motors that were essentially unchanged from the previous year... like a 35% reduction for the Caddy 500cu in V8.
As far as the motors of the real old days, those were rated in gross HP and are not comparable to SAE net. The switch was 1971-1972 and could be a huge difference in rated output for motors that were essentially unchanged from the previous year... like a 35% reduction for the Caddy 500cu in V8.
Al
08-12-2011, 09:34 PM
#13
now if only gm now made a motor that would compete with the 750hp supersnake........the 6-7 psi that the ls9 does isnt enough.......how about some thicker liners and lets see some 14-16 psi..........that would give the supersnake a run......any idea how much boost the supersnake has?
08-13-2011, 07:10 AM
#14
now if only gm now made a motor that would compete with the 750hp supersnake........the 6-7 psi that the ls9 does isnt enough.......how about some thicker liners and lets see some 14-16 psi..........that would give the supersnake a run......any idea how much boost the supersnake has?
LS1 is an amazing motor but you cant really say that GM nailed it right out of the gates.
LS1 is just a Gen 2 LT1. GM learned a lot from computer based ignition, and injection. Building blocks. Compare the first 4.6 to the one in the 2010 Mustang GT...theres a little difference.
You also have to think about when they were designed. When did Ford start on the 4.6 and when did GM start on the LS1? Think about the computers available at the time to design these engines.
GM had a huge head start in that they used a traditional architecture. Coil packs, heads, aluminum vs iron, and other subtle changes is all GM did from Lt1 to Ls1. Not downplaying it but Ford went from a once carbed 5.0 to a DOHC V8 Fuel Injected. Im a GM fanboy through and through but Kudos to Ford for having the ***** to do a DOHC motor themselvs and stick with it. Much less throwing it in their most popular car.
08-13-2011, 10:08 AM
#16
think about it, what parts can you swap from lt1 to an ls1? maybe like 1-2. the lt1 was simply a fuel injected 1st gen small block. you cant really say the ls1 and lt1 are similar because besides displacement, they really are not.
anyway, can anyone answer mysupersnake questions?
08-14-2011, 05:21 PM
#18
ADD much?
LS1 is an amazing motor but you cant really say that GM nailed it right out of the gates.
LS1 is just a Gen 2 LT1. GM learned a lot from computer based ignition, and injection. Building blocks. Compare the first 4.6 to the one in the 2010 Mustang GT...theres a little difference.
You also have to think about when they were designed. When did Ford start on the 4.6 and when did GM start on the LS1? Think about the computers available at the time to design these engines.
GM had a huge head start in that they used a traditional architecture. Coil packs, heads, aluminum vs iron, and other subtle changes is all GM did from Lt1 to Ls1. Not downplaying it but Ford went from a once carbed 5.0 to a DOHC V8 Fuel Injected. Im a GM fanboy through and through but Kudos to Ford for having the ***** to do a DOHC motor themselvs and stick with it. Much less throwing it in their most popular car.
LS1 is an amazing motor but you cant really say that GM nailed it right out of the gates.
LS1 is just a Gen 2 LT1. GM learned a lot from computer based ignition, and injection. Building blocks. Compare the first 4.6 to the one in the 2010 Mustang GT...theres a little difference.
You also have to think about when they were designed. When did Ford start on the 4.6 and when did GM start on the LS1? Think about the computers available at the time to design these engines.
GM had a huge head start in that they used a traditional architecture. Coil packs, heads, aluminum vs iron, and other subtle changes is all GM did from Lt1 to Ls1. Not downplaying it but Ford went from a once carbed 5.0 to a DOHC V8 Fuel Injected. Im a GM fanboy through and through but Kudos to Ford for having the ***** to do a DOHC motor themselvs and stick with it. Much less throwing it in their most popular car.
