Hmmm...so I just heard there will be a 500hp and 550hp LS7
#21
Staging Lane
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Fulton 1
There was some supposed "insider info" at one of the other sites noting that the higher hp version (ZO6-R as some like to call it) will be a club racer setup. I'm guessing this would be something like the Viper Competition Coupe. Just a guess though...
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
R is the first letter for rice. Not to rude or anthing but lets leave the "R"s where they come from.........imports.
#22
11 Second Club
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by MAD_RACING
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
R is the first letter for rice. Not to rude or anthing but lets leave the "R"s where they come from.........imports.
what about cobra R ?
![Icon Confused](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_confused.gif)
#24
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The point of no return...
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by MAD_RACING
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
R is the first letter for rice. Not to rude or anthing but lets leave the "R"s where they come from.........imports.
#25
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Why so many liters? 7.0L doesn't sound like it will get decent MPG....they should be able to do this with 5
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
![Argh](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/argh.gif)
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas
![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
#26
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (4)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 2MuchRiceMakesMeSick
I have heard so many rumors about the LS7 its rediculous. Ill belive it when I see it all thougth this one does sound a little bit more reasonable.
#27
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Why so many liters? 7.0L doesn't sound like it will get decent MPG....they should be able to do this with 5
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
![Argh](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/argh.gif)
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas
![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
![Smilylazer](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/smilylazer.gif)
#29
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by CamaroJoe
Say Hello to my little friend ![Smilylazer](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/smilylazer.gif)
![Smilylazer](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/smilylazer.gif)
I bet it will sound ok though
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
Last edited by Tony Montana; 11-14-2004 at 11:46 PM.
#30
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Why so many liters? 7.0L doesn't sound like it will get decent MPG....they should be able to do this with 5
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
![Argh](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/argh.gif)
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas
![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
#31
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Why so many liters? 7.0L doesn't sound like it will get decent MPG....they should be able to do this with 5
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
![Argh](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/argh.gif)
I wonder how much that will cost just to keep it fed with gas
![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...
![Guns](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_guns.gif)
So it should be DOHC 5.0L with variable valve timing and weigh 100 lbs more, and take up twice the space in the engine compartment, right?
Not to mention that as the specific power output goes up, gas mileage goes down. Why do you think the LS1 gets better fuel economy than the F20C? The larger displacement makes enough torque down low to spin the engine at 1700 RPMs at highway speed, giving it better fuel economy than the torqueless wonder 2.0L 240 HP inline 4.
There is no mystery to the equation... Air + Fuel = power. The power output of the engine is more closely related to the fuel economy than engine displacement is. A 5.0L engine with 500 HP would likely consume more fuel than a 7.0L with 500 HP because the 7.0L would have more low-end torque and be able to cruise at a lower engine speed.
#32
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Velocity
![Guns](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_guns.gif)
So it should be DOHC 5.0L with variable valve timing and weigh 100 lbs more, and take up twice the space in the engine compartment, right?
Not to mention that as the specific power output goes up, gas mileage goes down. Why do you think the LS1 gets better fuel economy than the F20C? The larger displacement makes enough torque down low to spin the engine at 1700 RPMs at highway speed, giving it better fuel economy than the torqueless wonder 2.0L 240 HP inline 4.
There is no mystery to the equation... Air + Fuel = power. The power output of the engine is more closely related to the fuel economy than engine displacement is. A 5.0L engine with 500 HP would likely consume more fuel than a 7.0L with 500 HP because the 7.0L would have more low-end torque and be able to cruise at a lower engine speed.
Yeah, but the thing is that "torqueless wonder" is still making 120hp per liter. And depending on the engine it could be making 85 lb/ft per liter....more than the "big V8". Still I can't wait to see how affordable the engine will be. Perhaps someone will do another project to get it into another chassis. And no I don't wish it was a DOHC 5.0 liter, I just wish it made at least 100hp per liter...
![Ripped](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/ripped.gif)
#33
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Yeah, but the thing is that "torqueless wonder" is still making 120hp per liter. And depending on the engine it could be making 85 lb/ft per liter....more than the "big V8". Still I can't wait to see how affordable the engine will be. Perhaps someone will do another project to get it into another chassis. And no I don't wish it was a DOHC 5.0 liter, I just wish it made at least 100hp per liter... ![Ripped](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/ripped.gif)
![Ripped](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/ripped.gif)
![Engarde](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/engarde.gif)
Besides... your main gripe was fuel economy, not HP/L. Changing your argument like that, after being rebuked, makes me almost want to call "troll" ... we'll see...
#34
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Velocity
There is no more useless statistic than HP/L
![Engarde](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/engarde.gif)
Besides... your main gripe was fuel economy, not HP/L. Changing your argument like that, after being rebuked, makes me almost want to call "troll" ... we'll see...
![Engarde](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/engarde.gif)
Besides... your main gripe was fuel economy, not HP/L. Changing your argument like that, after being rebuked, makes me almost want to call "troll" ... we'll see...
with that said, I do hope to see many unique and cool projects with this engine
![Cheers!!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_cheers.gif)
#35
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Fuel Economy was a concern only because I was thinking what my concerns would be as a potential customer in a few years for one. As far as HP/L being useless....well if thats useless to you then so be it, it will always be a factor in my purchasing decisions
with that said, I do hope to see many unique and cool projects with this engine![Cheers!!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_cheers.gif)
with that said, I do hope to see many unique and cool projects with this engine
![Cheers!!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_cheers.gif)
This is a fact that you cant get away from, it doesn't matter how big or small the engine or whether it is NA or blown, if it is tuned correctly and the A/F ratio is correct it will use about this much fuel.
Of course it doesn't take much Hp to run a car at constant speed so we are not always at WOT.
Actually the LS1 is an extremely efficient engine and does not get hit with a gas guzzler tax. Also it is a very clean running engine and has a federal low emission rating allowing the elimination of EGR.
Now beyond all that if your still worried about fuel economy Honda makes nice reliable cars for transportation
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
#36
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Yeah, but the thing is that "torqueless wonder" is still making 120hp per liter. And depending on the engine it could be making 85 lb/ft per liter....more than the "big V8". Still I can't wait to see how affordable the engine will be. Perhaps someone will do another project to get it into another chassis. And no I don't wish it was a DOHC 5.0 liter, I just wish it made at least 100hp per liter... ![Ripped](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/ripped.gif)
![Ripped](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies3/ripped.gif)
To illustrate, my WRX is currently making about 280 fwhp out of a 2.0L 4-cylinder. This equates to a very decent 140hp/L (turbo, of course). The thing is still a dog under about 3000rpm and you HAVE to be in the right gear to go from a roll. The 2.0L engine displacement was mandated by WRC rules. Now, when Subaru released the STi for the American market they knew they were going to need more torque for streetability. So, guess what, they upped the displacement to 2.5L. Its only common sense.
Oh, and BTW, when stock my SS (with less than half the specific output)averaged about 5mpg better gas mileage than the Subaru.
![Secret2](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/secret.gif)
Last edited by Fulton 1; 11-16-2004 at 08:06 AM.
#37
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas-freakin'-Texas
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Tony- what you're forgetting is that all of the super-high hp/L motors have to be spun to the frickin' moon in order to make hp. Often (usually) this results in a motor that has no ***** where most (street) driving is done- idle to maybe 3000 RPM.
If you really want to get excited about hp/L, go no further than the Mazda RX8... 1.3L, 238 hp... 183 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.5 in the quarter in a sub 3100 pound car and is EPA rated at 18 mpg city, 24 highway (if you get the 238 hp version with the manual transmission). Impressive.![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Or, since you sort of brought it up, let's look at the S2000. 2.2L, 240 hp (watch out for that scorching torque number, though... 162 ft/lb!!!!)... 109 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.0 in the quarter in a sub 2900 pound car and is EPA rated at 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway. Amazing.![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Compare this to the C6, with a 6.0L, 400 hp motor... a measly 66.7 hp/L. Yet, the C6 weighs close to 3200 pounds, runs the quarter in 12.7 seconds, and is rated at 18 mpg city, 26-28 highway (26 with the automatic, 28 with the 6 speed).
So... where's that hp/L argument?? It's not in the mileage... the S2000 gets a whopping 2 mpg better than the C6 in city driving and worse mileage on the highway... the RX8 (our hp/L king!!) doesn't even do THAT well. Don't give me the "it has a 6 speed" argument, because both the RX8 and the S2000 do, too; sure, the gear ratios in the "hp/L" cars are shorter... because they HAVE to be. If you put a T56 behind either of those other two motors, just getting the car rolling would be enough of a trick, much less getting them to run down the highway in 6th would be nearly impossible. The hp/L argument isn't in the performance, either... both the RX8 and the S2000 weigh less than the C6, yet they can't keep up. Why?? Both cars have a hp/L ratio that is FAR superior to that of the 'Vette, right?? Basically, what we have here is a set of real world examples as to why something can look good on paper, but just doesn't cut the mustard when the rubber meets the road.
BTW- don't bother with the "But the C6 is a more expensive car!!" argument, either... 'cause then we'll have to take a look at the $89k NSX, the $86k Porsche Carrera S, and the $152k Ferrari Modena.
If you really want to get excited about hp/L, go no further than the Mazda RX8... 1.3L, 238 hp... 183 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.5 in the quarter in a sub 3100 pound car and is EPA rated at 18 mpg city, 24 highway (if you get the 238 hp version with the manual transmission). Impressive.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Or, since you sort of brought it up, let's look at the S2000. 2.2L, 240 hp (watch out for that scorching torque number, though... 162 ft/lb!!!!)... 109 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.0 in the quarter in a sub 2900 pound car and is EPA rated at 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway. Amazing.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Compare this to the C6, with a 6.0L, 400 hp motor... a measly 66.7 hp/L. Yet, the C6 weighs close to 3200 pounds, runs the quarter in 12.7 seconds, and is rated at 18 mpg city, 26-28 highway (26 with the automatic, 28 with the 6 speed).
So... where's that hp/L argument?? It's not in the mileage... the S2000 gets a whopping 2 mpg better than the C6 in city driving and worse mileage on the highway... the RX8 (our hp/L king!!) doesn't even do THAT well. Don't give me the "it has a 6 speed" argument, because both the RX8 and the S2000 do, too; sure, the gear ratios in the "hp/L" cars are shorter... because they HAVE to be. If you put a T56 behind either of those other two motors, just getting the car rolling would be enough of a trick, much less getting them to run down the highway in 6th would be nearly impossible. The hp/L argument isn't in the performance, either... both the RX8 and the S2000 weigh less than the C6, yet they can't keep up. Why?? Both cars have a hp/L ratio that is FAR superior to that of the 'Vette, right?? Basically, what we have here is a set of real world examples as to why something can look good on paper, but just doesn't cut the mustard when the rubber meets the road.
BTW- don't bother with the "But the C6 is a more expensive car!!" argument, either... 'cause then we'll have to take a look at the $89k NSX, the $86k Porsche Carrera S, and the $152k Ferrari Modena.
#38
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The point of no return...
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by BurnOut
Tony- what you're forgetting is that all of the super-high hp/L motors have to be spun to the frickin' moon in order to make hp. Often (usually) this results in a motor that has no ***** where most (street) driving is done- idle to maybe 3000 RPM.
If you really want to get excited about hp/L, go no further than the Mazda RX8... 1.3L, 238 hp... 183 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.5 in the quarter in a sub 3100 pound car and is EPA rated at 18 mpg city, 24 highway (if you get the 238 hp version with the manual transmission). Impressive.![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Or, since you sort of brought it up, let's look at the S2000. 2.2L, 240 hp (watch out for that scorching torque number, though... 162 ft/lb!!!!)... 109 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.0 in the quarter in a sub 2900 pound car and is EPA rated at 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway. Amazing.![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Compare this to the C6, with a 6.0L, 400 hp motor... a measly 66.7 hp/L. Yet, the C6 weighs close to 3200 pounds, runs the quarter in 12.7 seconds, and is rated at 18 mpg city, 26-28 highway (26 with the automatic, 28 with the 6 speed).
So... where's that hp/L argument?? It's not in the mileage... the S2000 gets a whopping 2 mpg better than the C6 in city driving and worse mileage on the highway... the RX8 (our hp/L king!!) doesn't even do THAT well. Don't give me the "it has a 6 speed" argument, because both the RX8 and the S2000 do, too; sure, the gear ratios in the "hp/L" cars are shorter... because they HAVE to be. If you put a T56 behind either of those other two motors, just getting the car rolling would be enough of a trick, much less getting them to run down the highway in 6th would be nearly impossible. The hp/L argument isn't in the performance, either... both the RX8 and the S2000 weigh less than the C6, yet they can't keep up. Why?? Both cars have a hp/L ratio that is FAR superior to that of the 'Vette, right?? Basically, what we have here is a set of real world examples as to why something can look good on paper, but just doesn't cut the mustard when the rubber meets the road.
BTW- don't bother with the "But the C6 is a more expensive car!!" argument, either... 'cause then we'll have to take a look at the $89k NSX, the $86k Porsche Carrera S, and the $152k Ferrari Modena.
If you really want to get excited about hp/L, go no further than the Mazda RX8... 1.3L, 238 hp... 183 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.5 in the quarter in a sub 3100 pound car and is EPA rated at 18 mpg city, 24 highway (if you get the 238 hp version with the manual transmission). Impressive.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Or, since you sort of brought it up, let's look at the S2000. 2.2L, 240 hp (watch out for that scorching torque number, though... 162 ft/lb!!!!)... 109 hp/L!!! WOW!!! It runs a 14.0 in the quarter in a sub 2900 pound car and is EPA rated at 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway. Amazing.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Compare this to the C6, with a 6.0L, 400 hp motor... a measly 66.7 hp/L. Yet, the C6 weighs close to 3200 pounds, runs the quarter in 12.7 seconds, and is rated at 18 mpg city, 26-28 highway (26 with the automatic, 28 with the 6 speed).
So... where's that hp/L argument?? It's not in the mileage... the S2000 gets a whopping 2 mpg better than the C6 in city driving and worse mileage on the highway... the RX8 (our hp/L king!!) doesn't even do THAT well. Don't give me the "it has a 6 speed" argument, because both the RX8 and the S2000 do, too; sure, the gear ratios in the "hp/L" cars are shorter... because they HAVE to be. If you put a T56 behind either of those other two motors, just getting the car rolling would be enough of a trick, much less getting them to run down the highway in 6th would be nearly impossible. The hp/L argument isn't in the performance, either... both the RX8 and the S2000 weigh less than the C6, yet they can't keep up. Why?? Both cars have a hp/L ratio that is FAR superior to that of the 'Vette, right?? Basically, what we have here is a set of real world examples as to why something can look good on paper, but just doesn't cut the mustard when the rubber meets the road.
BTW- don't bother with the "But the C6 is a more expensive car!!" argument, either... 'cause then we'll have to take a look at the $89k NSX, the $86k Porsche Carrera S, and the $152k Ferrari Modena.
Besides, hp/l...? As long as I have good hp and good tq, I could care less.
Oh, and expect great NA numbers from the LS7 after some aftermarket builders get their hands on them. You are right about saying 500 hp from 7.0L isn't impressive, but do you seriously expect GM to release a 600-700 HP motor form the factory?
#39
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by CamaroJoe
Gasoline engines use approximately .5lb of fuel/Hp/Hr with some very efficient engines getting into the .45 lb/hp/hr area.
This is a fact that you cant get away from, it doesn't matter how big or small the engine or whether it is NA or blown, if it is tuned correctly and the A/F ratio is correct it will use about this much fuel.
Of course it doesn't take much Hp to run a car at constant speed so we are not always at WOT.
Actually the LS1 is an extremely efficient engine and does not get hit with a gas guzzler tax. Also it is a very clean running engine and has a federal low emission rating allowing the elimination of EGR.
Now beyond all that if your still worried about fuel economy Honda makes nice reliable cars for transportation![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
This is a fact that you cant get away from, it doesn't matter how big or small the engine or whether it is NA or blown, if it is tuned correctly and the A/F ratio is correct it will use about this much fuel.
Of course it doesn't take much Hp to run a car at constant speed so we are not always at WOT.
Actually the LS1 is an extremely efficient engine and does not get hit with a gas guzzler tax. Also it is a very clean running engine and has a federal low emission rating allowing the elimination of EGR.
Now beyond all that if your still worried about fuel economy Honda makes nice reliable cars for transportation
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
#40
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by GregWS6&z28
not under $25k, but $30K would be likely. The WS6's were selling for $30-$33K, not to mention the Firehawk's pushing $35K+