Generation IV Internal Engine 2005-2014 LS2 | LS3 | LS7 | L92 | LS9

C&D. calls the new LS7 a 6.4lt.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-21-2004, 06:25 AM
  #21  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
 
Classic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NC
Posts: 1,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Car and driver also said that MTI's motor in the supercar shootout was a big-block. And thats not the first time I've seen them call a big cube LS1 a big block. They aren't always the brightest out there.

This is just what I heard, but I believe the LS7 will have 2 valve heads, but the heads will be like mini-C5R designs
Old 10-21-2004, 08:00 AM
  #22  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
 
Fulton 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Classic
Car and driver also said that MTI's motor in the supercar shootout was a big-block. And thats not the first time I've seen them call a big cube LS1 a big block. They aren't always the brightest out there.
I saw that too and had to chuckle. I'm still amazed at how many people assume that any 427 is a big block - not so much here, but on some other forums (*cough* CF *cough*). Seems to be a tough concept to grasp.
Old 10-21-2004, 08:04 AM
  #23  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (9)
 
Gloveperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Fulton 1
I saw that too and had to chuckle. I'm still amazed at how many people assume that any 427 is a big block - not so much here, but on some other forums (*cough* CF *cough*). Seems to be a tough concept to grasp.
Same here. I didn't really chuckle, I got angry. Someone shouls write them a letter explaining them simple engine calculations.

-Todd
Old 10-21-2004, 12:58 PM
  #24  
PSM
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
 
PSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Gloveperson
Same here. I didn't really chuckle, I got angry. Someone shouls write them a letter explaining them simple engine calculations.

-Todd

I always thought the difference was the spacing of the cylinders The exhaust ports on a BBC were equally spaced where on a small blockthe two inside exhaust were ports close together. Is this any where close?


Because the ole 396 was a BBC yet the 427 was a SBC so CID doesn't make much difference
Old 10-21-2004, 02:08 PM
  #25  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (18)
 
DietCoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, GA
Posts: 3,869
Received 56 Likes on 49 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by PSM
I always thought the difference was the spacing of the cylinders The exhaust ports on a BBC were equally spaced where on a small blockthe two inside exhaust were ports close together. Is this any where close?


Because the ole 396 was a BBC yet the 427 was a SBC so CID doesn't make much difference
The difference is the block. A big block is BIG, has BIGGER parts, and BIGGER (physically) heads. With that comes more cylinder spacing, bigger coolant passages, etc. A small block is well, smaller in most/all respects.

Last edited by DietCoke; 10-21-2004 at 02:15 PM.
Old 10-22-2004, 07:22 PM
  #26  
z98
TECH Fanatic
 
z98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The 427 wasn't a SBC.
Old 10-22-2004, 07:33 PM
  #27  
PSM
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
 
PSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

My bad, the the 427 was stroked into the 454 wasn't it. Both had a 4.25" bore...

Last edited by PSM; 10-22-2004 at 07:45 PM.
Old 10-22-2004, 07:51 PM
  #28  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
 
Fulton 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by PSM
My bad, the the 427 was stroked into the 454 wasn't it. Both had a 4.25" bore...
Yeah, both were 4.25" bore. Here are bore/stroke numbers on most production SBC's and BBC's: http://www.mortec.com/borstrok.htm
Old 10-24-2004, 02:13 PM
  #29  
z98
TECH Fanatic
 
z98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Is no one else excited that there may be a 3100 lb 420 hp truck coming from Chevy?

???

I saw a 2WD colorado reg cab short bed yesterday and it got me thinking, if they were lowered and had a nice set of rims/tires on it they'd be pretty nice looking.

I WANT ONE
Old 10-24-2004, 09:42 PM
  #30  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
 
BurnOut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas-freakin'-Texas
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Z98- that 420 hp Colorado was built basically as a show car... same as the 572" "ZL1" Camaro that John Moss built back in the mid-90's. The Colorado was part of GM's "employee enthusiasm" program. While we may one day see a factory V8 in a Colorado, I wouldn't expect anything near 420 hp...

Sure, it'd be bad ***, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Old 10-24-2004, 09:44 PM
  #31  
TECH Fanatic
 
WS-Sick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The point of no return...
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by z98
Is no one else excited that there may be a 3100 lb 420 hp truck coming from Chevy?

???

I saw a 2WD colorado reg cab short bed yesterday and it got me thinking, if they were lowered and had a nice set of rims/tires on it they'd be pretty nice looking.

I WANT ONE
That would be nice though....
Old 10-25-2004, 12:50 PM
  #32  
z98
TECH Fanatic
 
z98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just put a gen III motor in a light truck, and I'll take care of the rest.

4.8, 5.3, 6.0, LS2, wouldn't matter.



Quick Reply: C&D. calls the new LS7 a 6.4lt.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 AM.