MAD_RACING

iTrader: (2)

R is the first letter for rice. Not to rude or anthing but lets leave the "R"s where they come from.........imports.

jaberwaki

what about cobra R ?

02RedHawk

iTrader: (17)

Its a 7.0L making 500hp. You'll love the cool "Z06 500hp" emblems on the side panels.

WS-Sick

And what about the C5R? Seriously, some people need to realize what is and what isn't "ricey"

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

I am sorry but 500hp out of 7 liters is no feat...

Tudds

iTrader: (4)

i know... I heard the z07 has nitrous already installed... go tell the world..actually don't I just made it up..

70 TA

Say Hello to my little friend

Sharpe

iTrader: (7)

Or the turbo Buick Grand Nationals back in the 80's?

Tony Montana

I am sorry, but it just doesn't seem like anything special, and judging by your responce I think you agree deep down

I bet it will sound ok though

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

I hear Hondas get good gas mileage...

Velocity

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.

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...

Velocity

There is no more useless statistic than HP/L


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...

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

70 TA

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

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

Tony, you're not seeing the forest for the trees here. The only reason anybody gives a **** about Hp/L is due to European taxation on cubic inch displacement. This is a tired argument that has no basis in reality other than to make excuses for why a race was lost or espouse how technologically advanced your 4-banger is. On the track or on the street there is no reason to have a smaller displacement engine unless the rules prohibit it or there are design considerations that make it unfeasible.

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.

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

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.

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.

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.

WS-Sick

Well put.

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?

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

The ls2 doesn't get the gas guzzler tax either. Very impressive. I saw it in the gm/corvette inserts in the motortrend and car&driver magazines.

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

yes, the only way to compete with Ford is to get the 2007 camaro under 30k. Because the 25/27k mustang is a good performance/price. Rumored to be a 400hp ls2, damn I hope so.