black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Why? Do you have even one rational reason why you are so concerned with HP per liter? Personally, I could care less what it makes per liter. I don't live in Europe where they tax engine displacement. I would be more concerned about how many hp it makes per pound of weight.

If I had to choose between two engines that, everything else being equal, one made 50 hp per liter and the other made 100 hp per liter, but the 50 hp/liter engine made 100 more hp overall, I would choose the 50 hp/liter.

Actually, even if they had the same total output, I would STILL go with the 50 hp/liter because I know it would respond better to MODIFICATION.

But, honestly, you need to get you head out of the Euro/Jap magazines and realize that there is no reason to desire output per liter. The LS1 weighs less than, say, the SOHC ford and has higher output. It also weighs less than the 4g63 mitsu 4-banger, which I believe is a 2.0 liter engine! You think about that!

Tony Montana

What if both engines were "alloted" the same number of liters? Weight is one thing but the 4g is a notoriously heavy engine (funny example to pick eh?) and the fact remains that unless you drive like an EPA loving grandma(shifting early, etc) you will get worse gas mileage on the less advanced high displacment engine. And with twice as much power per liter, maybe mods WON'T be needed? Instead of an engine that responds well to mods, how about an engine that is already realised it's full potential? I know GM is capable of this and I hope they go towards this direction (and with influence they WILL)

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

That's an odd question to ask. When, why and how would this happen in the real world? I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by "less advanced." I would say that the LS1 is "more advanced" than the 4.6 SOHC ford, due to its high-flow heads, distributorless design, all-aluminum contruction, etc. It's physically smaller, it's lighter, it makes more power, and it gets better gas MPG. There are plenty of ways to make an engine "advanced," and OHC construction isn't always the best way.

Also remember that we now have cylander deactivation.

Like others have said, higher-displacement engines can be geared with tall gears to save gas, while lower-displacement engines cannot.

Blasphemy! Haha, no seriously, I would not personally like that. Anybody could go out and buy an engine from the factory that was really fast and had no mod potential, provided that they had enough money. Look at every BMW "M" car for the last 10 years and that's EXACTLY what you will see: expensive, complicated, non-moddable engines with high hp per liter. But GM has made an engine in the LS series that can match or beat BMW in performance by simply doing what europe is unwilling, for silly ideological reasons, to do: ADD DISPLACEMENT.

Frankly, I hear from people all the time who are unwilling to add displacement because it is "cheating" or "cheap." I call those people "scrubs" or "ricers." Here, read this article on "playing to win:"

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/featu...toWinPart0.htm

Simply put, those who look at features such as "hp per liter" aren't "playing to win." That is an irrational, self-imposed rule and I have yet to hear so much as a simple "WHY" from any of its proponents. It's as if you're saying "your engine may make more power than mine, but mine has more bananas attached to it." Well, that might be true, but SO WHAT?

How does that make your engine better than mine? Does it make your car faster? No. Easier to drive? No: harder in fact! Less expensive? Nope: usually MORE expensive! Lighter? Nope! So what's the point? NOTHING. It's all because of European and japanese taxes on displacement, which - like many things in those countries - MAKES NO SENSE.

Go ahead and live in your silly little self-invented world where hp per liter has ANY effect whatsoever on anything. I'm going to live in my world where hp per lb and hp per dollar and overall hp are more important factors. And if we meet at the track, who will win?

That's precisely what I will speak out AGAINST.

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

Tony, you obviously missed my post.

Anyhow, riddle me this... would you rather have:

A) a 3000 pound car with a 2.5L, 300 hp motor (120 hp/L)

-OR-

B) the same 3000 pound car with a 5.0L, 400 hp motor (80 hp/L)

Your argument about "alloting" displacement is absurd... sure, some race classes limit displacement, but 99.999% of us can run any size motor we want.

SSactionLs1

which car is going to make more power off of boltons? a 500hp 7.0 or a 240hp 2.2L?

the 7.0 will probably get a good 50whp from boltons..
the 2.2..maybe 10whp..

MAYBE...spent alot of time with "Vtec"... wasted alot of money trying to make them less slow..

didnt work.

distortion_69

iTrader: (20)

It'd be neat if they kept the ls1 and threw heads similar to afrs on it, and a slightly larger cam and tried to coax another 50-100 horses out of it.. and it is claimed that afrs actually get better gas milage than factory.. more power, similar drivability habits, but at the same time.. I'd much much rather have 7.0l of displacement to give more room for growth. To me, keeping the motor low key and high in displacement is sorta like a Supra/Cobra with forged internals and low boost. It leaves tons of room for growth. Obviously GM could release a 500 hp 6.0L motor without sacrificing too much bottomend, but then when you mod it, it wouldn't stack up quite as well against some of the more common modified 03 cobras, GN's, Supras and other FI cars on the roads today. Modify the cylinder heads, throw a thumpin camshaft in a 7.0l that will probably respond to mods even better than the LS1 with a better intake to erase some of the bottleneck of the ls6. It will likely eclipse the 550rwhp+ that alot of guys switch to solid rollers to get. I, for one, will love it when people start modifying the LS7 and it makes as much power as most modified FI cars would on pump gas. This is going to be such a big boost for the LSx platform that we will be seeing some pretty ridicolous performance out of heads/cam LS7's.. cars doing what we have strived to do for the past 6-7 years in a matter of a year or two. It should have came with 7.0L to begin with

Peace,
Josh

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

Give me a forged bottom end, big displacement, and some nice stock heads and I'll be happy.

If the heads are as badass as some have said and the intake is nicely sized, I could see a 500fwhp LS7 picking up a ton of power with just a set of LG LT's, a cam swap, and some tuning.

This will be especially fun in a ~3000lb vehicle

B T

I agree with you BurnOut.
I've have lived without torque for far too long.

Just on a side note:

My OEM Mazda RX-7 (same displacement engine as the RX-8) workshop manual I paid $100 for that all Mazda dealer techs use...under engine specs for a 13b 1.3 liter rotary the specs are 1.3 x 2 for liter size or 1308 cc x 2.
That would make it 2.6 liters because each "rotor" is "1.3 liters" and it uses 2 rotors

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

B T- that's interesting... I always assumed that each rotor/housing was ~.65L, because the 13B is (obviously) a 2 rotor setup w/ an advertized displacement of 1.3L, and the 20B is a 3 rotor setup with an advertized displacement of 2.0L (would be more or less consistent with the .65L per rotor/housing... 1.3L + .65L = 1.95L). Huh... nonetheless, I s'pose I can't argue with the shop manual.

Anyhow, the point is that hp/L means nothing outside of certain classes of racing where displacement is limited.

Poik

I can't believe someone started an argument about GAS MILEAGE on a MUSCLE CAR forum, and actually LOST. Oh, technology these days . And the point of the 7L, bringing back the muscle engine that originally made the Corvette so badass. When was the last time you saw a 427 in a passenger car at the dealership?

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

Great time to be a car enthusiast, isn't it?

rdavis93

The only problem I see is that it's gonna be big bucks. Hand built engine-sweet, but expensive. I heard the vettes are gonna cost like $72k and that gets close to viper price.

B T

Oh my god BurnOut!
I guess it's really a 3.9 liter...

<<<<WARNING>>>>

Take two asprin before even trying to read this.
Oh, and grab two beers to put em down with!
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_15...tm.htm#1546392

Poik

Very good thread, my mind hurts as well.

Tony Montana

Frankly, I'd rather take the 5.0L motor and have it made by whoever makes the 2.5 so it makes 120hp/L. Which would you rather have: a 5.0L 400hp/400tq or a 5.0L 540hp/347tq ? Also, I don't know about you, but if I bought a performance car I wouldn't want it to run out of juice at 3k no matter how powerful it is. Also, if you take EPA gas ratings at face value, I really feel for you.

Poik

Just because someone makes a 2.5L engine make 120hp/L, doesn't mean they can make a 5.0L make 120hp/L. And in response to "running out of juice at 3k..." Just because small displacement engines don't make power until 3k rpm doesn't mean that the reverse holds true, and that big displacements have no power after 3k rpm. What are you even trying to say?

92CamaroReallySlow

Ok tony, if you havent realized that you are wrong completely and have lost the argument by now then I dont know what to say. Black Knight has said how hp/L means absolutly nothing...the fact that you have less cylinders/displacement isnt our problem its theirs. If someone wants to spend uptine billion dollars on making a 4 banger a 13 second car they can go ahead and do it, but they shouldnt go crying about having less cylinders and less displacement and how it has really high hp/L. Now if you go to a dsm site you might find some more support in your case, but I dont think there are too many on this site that share a similar view. I dont mean to be an ***, but I hate it when someone in any respect argues less displacement/less cylinders is better in any way. (unless its a stock toyota prius versus a ls1, then yea, it gets better gas milage...)

distortion_69

iTrader: (20)

"Frankly, I'd rather take the 5.0L motor and have it made by whoever makes the 2.5 so it makes 120hp/L. Which would you rather have: a 5.0L 400hp/400tq or a 5.0L 540hp/347tq ? Also, I don't know about you, but if I bought a performance car I wouldn't want it to run out of juice at 3k no matter how powerful it is. Also, if you take EPA gas ratings at face value, I really feel for you."

WTF does that question have to do with the real argument at hand. Of course we'd rather have 5.0l 540hp vs. 5.0 400hp. Thats not anything close to what we are arguing about. What we ARE arguing about is would you rather have 5.0 540hp engine with a crappier torque curve and less overall potential or a 7.0 that makes the same horsepower, and has more potential (my main concern). In addition to this, the car will likely get the same or better gas milage when driving in low revs, have a far better torque curve in the same exact weight package and will be relatively cheap to replace or repair.

I think I'd choose the 7.0L. As well as every single person on the board with a brain... The only people who use the hp/l argument are tired of loosing and so have to come up with excuses to make themselves feel superior to the person whose actually winning. Not to mention, you can't just say ohh.. they made a 2.0l that makes 120hp/l.. so do that to a v8. Diminishing returns my friend. But in the long run.. especially in the FI world.. a built big cube engine is going to make more power, more streetably than a small cubed engine. If you don't think this is true then you obviously haven't seen the vids of 2000hp mustangs being driven in the snow to the mcdonalds.. lol. More cubes = More power.

The car is going to make a certain power level (say 500 hp). No matter what. Obviously they can't make it 700hp.. 800hp.. theres just no way they could get away with it. There are rules ya know. Hell, we are lucky to be getting that much. We can either have a small engine, with far less potential.. or a large engine with much more potential. There is no downside to the large engine except that it'll be alot easier to kick your *** (since with big cubes you obviously don't want a new vette, you will more than likely have something slower). I think its obvious where my choice would be. I'll be the one waiting a few years til prices have came down..buying a 7.0l, and building it up to 550rwhp to go beat up on Supras that are on pump gas with nothing but my engine.. Then if I want to pick on the bad boy race gas 03 Cobras/Supras, it'd oly take 5-10lbs of boost to eat them up without even really taxxing the engine.

As far as gas milage. My guess is you obviously don't have a LSx based vehicle. My f-body is heavier than a vette and when it was near stock last year got about the same ratings as advertised. Even when I removed the skipshift it was about the same. I didn't actually start loosing gas milage til I put 4.30 gears in, and a big cam.. Even then I was making 420rwhp and still getting well over 25mpg on the highway and 15-ish in town (enthusiastic driving)..

Peace,
Josh

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I think that the above post, along with him totally pretending my last post doesn't exist, is certifiable proof that this guy is a looney.

Oh, and distortion_69 makes another good point: GM is only going to put so much HP into a production engine; they have to contend with lobbyists and scaremongers and "concerned mothers." If they are going to build a 500 hp engine, I would rather it be one with a lot of displacement and a lot of potential, that way I can make it into a 900 hp engine for a fraction of the cost of buying a 900 hp factory car.