WhiteDiamond

The definition of High Tech probably differs greatly amoung this crowd, but I will add something I find very interesting. Our ex-Ford 5.4L Triton motor cost Ford something north of 1 billion in capital expenditure to produce. This motor was(is) weak and underwhelming in every aspect. What about over-head cam is so great about high tech? For my example to come about, our current Escalade has 85 more horse-power from the factory, 0.6L more displacement and is getting 1.3mpg BETTER gas milage in a vehicle that weighs less than 100lbs different from the Ford. Also, the last time I checked many of the heads/cam combo LS1/LS6s out there are well over 400rwhp and fully capable of being driven everyday. My personal WS6 with MTI Stage II pieces put down 432rwhp through cats and passed IM240 roller emissions in Maricopa county and idle/2500rpm testing here in Colorado. I also got 27 to 28mpg in my everyday driving with this WS6 here in Colorado(75% highway, 25% city). If this is considered low tech, I couldn't care less. It runs, it runs hard, and it makes other companies look rediculous sometimes. Bean counters be damned, but they may have pulled the right wire if they kept GM from going over head cam.....

I personally am looking forward to the Gen IV in the Y-body....In line and waiting for mine.

Todd

PacerX

iTrader: (4)

I wish everyone who calls the LS1/LS6 family low tech had the opportunity to park an F-car next to a 2001 Cobra and pop the hoods.

The difference in physical size of the two motors is stunning. The LS1 is literally dwarfed by the longer, taller, and wider mod motor... and the LS1 is packing an extra liter of displacement.

It took Ford a supercharger and an iron block to match the output of the LS6, that should speak volumes right there.

Ragtop 99

iTrader: (7)

This is comical. Sure the LS6 is a great motor but pleeeeease don't act like its the pinacle of engineering in affordable cars. Can you imagine the power, drivability, and mileage we would have with a decent variable cam timing and lift system. Don't talk to me about SII heads here, I'm talking about from the factory with the warranty intact. Besides, even with SII heads a variable system would still improve the performance. It doesn't need to be an ultra deluxe system. Even the ford focus has used variable exhaust valve timing to meet pollution control and this is on a $13k car.

Oh and don't get me wondering where my 5 sp automatic is. :p

Cheatin' Chad

iTrader: (3)

Ever sat down and looked at what it would've taken to put cam phasing on a pushrod motor when they designed the GEN 3? The costs were signifigant. R&D alone would have cost seven figures. Not to mention the cost for tooling. Prices are coming down at a steady rate no due to technological and manufacturing advances.Also VVT will become neccessary to meet new emissions demands.
Variable valve timing is nice but the same basic effects can be had with displacement. VVT will not make your car do magical things.in in a nutshell it adjusts cam timing (of course lift too if designed that way) based on RPM. How much of a difference would it make if you could retard your cam 2* below 3500rpm and advance it 2-4* above that figure? It would make some difference of course but nothing earth shattering. I personally would rather just have more displacement. Eliminating VVT and adding displacement cuts down on the amount of moving parts in the engine thus improving reliability while keeping costs down. I personally do think the LS motors are the best as far as affordable performance goes. If you know about an engine that is better by all means please clue me in.

As far as your 5-speed auto. That's in the BMW 5 series. They used a GM 5 speed auto up until a year or so ago.Price check one a 5-series lately? I personally don't want the Camaro/Firebird being priced anywhere near the 5-series.Besides I don't feel a 5-speed auto would add much to the performance/drivability of the f-bodies. Especially when you factor in the price increase.

We all bitch about how much cars cost. Hell the cost of the F-body is one of the things that helped kill them off. Adding things that are really good for bragging rights and not much else would have only made it worse.

66ImpalaLT1

This thread is talking about the Gen IV engine detailed in the SAE paper. I noticed that a cam phaser mounted under the water pump was mentioned.

Obviously the cost is not too high now.

Eric

PacerX

iTrader: (4)

That's correct. In engineering you can basically predict that as a trend over time, costs on certain things will drop. ESPECIALLY as certain targets move.

One of those targets is horsepower. We are in the middle of what may be the greatest OEM horsepower war ever - largely lead in North America (and Australia) by GM. As the numbers contiune to move up as the requirement for entry into the market, the business case changes.

Given the climate of 1994-1996, when the LS1 was really beginning to come together, I think it is undeniable that the LS1 family IS God's gift as far as high horsepower, light weight, naturally aspirated, low emissions, low cost engines. Given radically less weight and complexity, it managed to power a roughly 3500 lbs. car to better acceleration, and match the fuel economy of the absolute best Honda could do with an engine and layed the smack down on Ford in a serious way.

Now, the constraints are different, the business case has changed (there is no $23,000 car for it to power) and the 3v head has become feasible - largely due to the fact that the horsepower target for the base Corvette jumped 75hp, and the target for the Z06 jumped nearly 100hp.

Don't have what I call "enthusiast's myopia". Horsepower is not the only constraint an engine is designed to. It is VERY important, but in the overall scheme, emissions and fuel economy are even MORE important (mostly because the government demands it). Given the current climate and state of technology, displacement has been and remains the easiest way to make a high horsepower, LIGHT WEIGHT, efficient and clean motor.

GM proved it once with the LS1 family. They're about to do it again.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

Let's get back to what the new LSx motor is going to be. 3 valve heads. So two intake valves and one big exhaust valve. Will the intake manifold have 16 runners then? Or will it still have 8 and then the runner bifurcate in the cylinder head? I think the FORD Mod Motors are this way ... Perhaps it is not efficient to split the runner in the cylinder head ......
I also wonder if this engine might also be a reason the F-body was cancelled. If the cylinder heads are 1 inch wider it would have to be on the exhaust side, there would be almost no room for exhaust manifolds much less headers. This also means swapping the new 3 valve heads onto our F-bodies may not work.

TaTommyWS6

AMEN!

At least someone is thinking straight!

PacerX

iTrader: (4)

I need to take a close look. If they don't bifurcate, that generally means twin injectors per cylinder, which is better for emissions with two intake valves (injector targeting).


Nope. A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard put the nail in the coffin of the F-car.

Ragtop 99

iTrader: (7)

I've seen a site with variable lift as an aftermarket unit and it was expensive but everything GM for development is expensive. But ford, honda, toyota all spend the money to do it.

look at the range of timing duration in a honda VTEC. it is much more than +/- 4* advance plus a change in lift.

I agree displacement is cheap and easy (that's why I have a Camaro and not a Cobra), but efficency counts too, not to mention the public good that comes from burning a little less fuel when I'm not at WOT
Everything BMW does is expensive. Last I looked, an A5 was not a $5k option over a M6 in a 5 series.

[quote]

LS1derfull

Honda makes cars???? I thought they only made Generators and motorcycles!!!

N3kidFrog

just to throw in some random tid bits of what i think is high tech and what the ls1/ls6 is.

first technically all engines are really old technology just cleaned up. as per one guys said about the s2000 motor is that they reached a volumetric efficency more than any other engine out there while that's not really high tech it's using what you got to the maximum ability.

high tech normally means taking something normal and using something abnormal to produce better results. aka varible length runners on intakes during rpm changes, varible valve timing, pressure waves in air to maximize flow.

to me high tech started once we hit efi but that's now old. the next biggest high tech is camless or all together remove the entire valvetrain aka coates spherical rotating valves.

Mike98WS6

iTrader: (5)

All I have to say is that it will be an awesome engine to run.

Malicious

iTrader: (1)

The coates spherical valvetrain setups are f'in sweet! Definitely not a cheap solution but the idea was right

The highlander

Gm did let a few things out to make ls1edit possible...

Anyways...

Robert... go read... what do you call a tech engine??? an honda S2000 engine or the NSX engine??? PLEASE!