PSM

iTrader: (2)

Since I browse the truck section often I happened to notice this...

https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240358


Read post #4 ..... Another guy calls him self Tony Montana....and this guy "claims" to own a Lightning.... so much for hp/L....

Velocity

I am still trying to figure out why someone like Tony would actually want a car to come from the factory with maxed out potential. Certainly, a 5.0L could come from the factory with 500 HP, and have little room for growth. Why would you want that? GM could also have an 800 HP 427 from the factory, but as someone said earlier that would have Concerned Mothers of America up in arms... I don't want an engine I can't mod and play around with. Why give me something that is more expensive and already maxed out, with no room for growth?

Also... most of the little 4-bangers with high HP/L output use turbos. Does Tony realize that actual A/F mix doubles for every 14.7 psi of boost -- effectively doubling the displacement of the motor? Those 2JZ Supras running race gas at 30 psi are effectively burning through gas like a 9 Liter motor. (Or is it 12 liter? 3+3+3 = 9 or 3*2*2=12 ? Not sure, but the point still stands.)

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

Its pretty clear that Mr. Montana is transmitting and not receiving. The point of how useless hp/L is as a performance indicator has been made repeatedly and illustrated clearly. Anybody who doesn't get it by now is either a little slow or is simply not listening...

Foxxtron

iTrader: (1)

If anybody reads the two articles mentioned, then research the history of those "European exotics", they tend to reveal that increasing the displacements tends to aid these "exotic" car engineers to streamline cost (not to be confused with price), improve reliability, and actuality improve mileage in some cases while of course, improving performance. Hp/L is still somewhat of a concern but it is really becoming less of an importance.

Just notice how Ferrari's top exotics (F40, F50, Enzo) have evolved? F40, small V8 twin turbo, F50 5vDOHC V12 with slightly larger displacement, then Enzo with a much larger displacement V12 than the previous two. Yeah the engine is heavy, but the performance for mileage is quite good, and the engine is actually sturdy enough the become an integral design with it's chassis, saving overall curb weight. I believe the McLaren F1, Saleen S7, and some other exotics to come obviously inherit these important traits.

If one looks at the Maserati site (Australian distribution, but nevertheless credible) they describe the difference between their older 3.2 turbo, and the current NA 4.2. I believe they mention how the efficiency of space is gained, while also gaining better mileage. Yeah, the hp/L seems lower, but again towards an earlier argument, the same type of fuel is combusted over the same rate, regardless of engine displacement.

Man we can go on and on about the absolute "hp/L" argument, but one question comes to mind. How many fuel stops can be afforded in an extended race? If there are two identical chassis vehicles of nearly same weight and weight distibution with a 700 HP engine, one with large displacement, better mileage, less hp/L, and another with smaller displacement, worse mileage but higher Hp/L, I believe that the one with better mileage will have the last words.

I think that the whole Hp/L argument is heavily exhausted throughout the performance auto industry. Yes it's important, but for a factory street car from ol' Jim (GM), a great way to put the corvette into extinction is to concentrate on nothing but very high Hp/L, thus driving it's price way high and making the driving experience less desirable for a broad consumer market. I'd just buy the car stock, then get some good aftermarket tuning. Then you'll save more money and get "higher Hp/L." Once again look at Lingenfelter for one example.

Concoerned Mothers of America? Ha! that's exactly what they are, mostly hipocrites.

Foxxtron

iTrader: (1)

BTW Tony, why don't you purchase one of those other "higher Hp/L" vehicles? From the perception of your posts, it would reveal that you have concoerns with aftermarket tuning.

I have to agree with the other's posts that it would make little sense to design the Corvette from the factory like those other cars, because GM doesn't need to be like Ford, Diamler-Chrysler, Ferrari, or whoever else. Much of the performance car publishing has shown little appreciation of a higher refinement in areas that are of small priority. Absolute Hp/L is indeed becoming a lesser issue.

Zeta

I am confident people will have fun with the LS7 *stock*.

I guess the only thing important to you Tony is the HP/l ratio.

The ratios most dear to me are HP/mass, and TQ/mass especially at lower RPM ranges.

Instead of spouting to this community about the greatness of HP/l, why not tell us why HP/mass is useless?

Tony Montana

Some would say the 1/4 mile is a worthless indicator of performance too. It is not a performance indicator, but it is an indicator of what the engine maker could do with a certain amount of displacement....sure a fan of the LS series will disregard the importance of HP/L but IMO this engine should be at least 600hp and 380-480 tq. And that would truly kick ***. Do you guys think that there will be any mods to fix it? Maybe you guys are satisfied but that hp/l ratio doesn't cut it for me...and I am not sure why you are defending it but to all their own.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I'm neither defending it nor attacking it. It is USELESS as a measure of PERFORMANCE, which is what I care about. As to that "not cutting it" for you, well, let me try to think of something equally absurd....

Um, your car's iron/carpet ratio is not acceptable to me.

Chris442

iTrader: (1)

I think you're getting to caught up in numbers that don't really demonstrate how a car performs. Peak HP and torque numbers are an indicator of a car's performance, but power under the curve in a usable RPM range. A large engine can give you good low speed power in addition to plenty of power in the higher revs used in a more "performance" situation. The only way that smaller engines can attain this type of versitility is through boost, and with a turbo there is still lag unless it is small.

If the standing 1/4 is a worthless indicator of performance, I guess that 60-0 braking, skidpad and slalom all are too. It is not an indicator of what a carmaker could do with a certain amount of displacement, but rather what they could do with a certain amount of air and fuel. If you wanted the motor to make numbers that you want, all you need is a big enough cam with enough head flow. That would give you a motor with poor response at slow speeds, but great power at high revs. Sure it'd idle like a Pro Stock car and would give crappy mileage due to the low VE at low engine speeds, but that would give the torqueless (relatively speaking) high HP motor you desire.

SSactionLs1

do you know what POTENTIAL is?

less hp from factory - lower insurance rates
means we pay lowere premiums, add a few boltons and get HUGE GAINS..something NO HIGH HP PER LITER CAR ON EARTH CAN DO..

period..

mzoomora

iTrader: (36)

Well, the only people that 1/4 mile times wouldnt be a big concern would be road race, road course cars and oval track cars. They are more worried about acceleration off the corner, from whatever speed that may be. So 0-100 isnt a big deal, 45-100 would be.
That said, those are purpose built race cars. 1/4 mile performance is a very good indicator of how a street car will perform in acceleration, more so than 0-60 seeing as how most races are over a distance, not to a given speed. 1/4 mile time isn't just an indicator of engine performance, but of total car performance- it isnt just the engine going down the track. There is rear gearing, trans gearing and suspension setup.
You could build a very complex small displacement engine with 4 overhead cams, etc, and rev it to the sky to make your 380-480 tq and 600 hp. Or you could build a forced induction engine, which is also complex, to make the same power. Or you could increase displacement which will deliver a smooth, wide power band that would make the whole car much more enjoyable to drive, and leave you with more room to improve on later. How many forced induction, street driven cars on this site surpass the 1.2-1.5 hp/l mark? Many with REAR WHEEL HP number.
A light weight, high horsepower engine with a large, flat torque curve that is reliable, relatively simple(compared to the high dollar engines you are talking about), and easy to modify. Whats not to like?

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

Tony, you're all over the map with your arguments.

First you were looking for mpg:

Then you were looking for hp/L:

And then you became so blinded by this ratio that you forgot that our buddy Isaac Newton pointed out that a=F/m:

Now, you're dragging 1/4 mile times into it, which is a serious mistake after touting the virtues of Ferraris and BMWs.

Look, bottom line is this hp/L doesn't matter! Its a neat piece of data, but it doesn't wholly explain anything. I'll give you yet ANOTHER example to illustrate:
I think we all agree that modern motorcycle engines get some of the best factory hp/L numbers of any internal combustion engines out there (RC cars notwithstanding ). Case in point - the Suzuki GSX-R1000 makes 165hp out of a mere 988cc, which is exceptional for an N/A engine running on pump gas. This translates to 167hp/L. Now, if you had this engine powering a 3100lb car and I had a "low tech" LS7 making a measly 71 hp/L powering the same car, I guarantee you that I would whoop your *** in any performance category you could dream up (except maybe braking). I wouldn't even be surprised if I got comparable mpg since your high tech engine has to work so much harder to get the mass of the car moving.

So you ask, "would we like an LS7 that made 600hp more than one that made 500hp"? Sure! But, you have to understand that there's more to it than that. You can't just translate hp/L from tiny engines to large engines - it doesn't work that way. Also, you continuously speak of peak hp numbers, which are not indicative of real world performance - they are merely a marketing ploy, into which I feel you've been suckered.

From the factory the LS7 will meet ULEV emissions standards, get 25+ mpg highway, and be tame as a pussycat on the street. If you want to trade off any of these attributes then you will certainly be able to wring more power out of it - an engine of this size will have a lot of potential. THAT is the benefit of the cubic inches that you hated so much in your earlier posts.

Velocity

Thoroughly.



Maybe now he'll go away?

jdp244

Why would you want such a hp biased engine??? Torque is where its at bro. If I had a motor with 600 hp then I would want the tourqe to be greater than or equal to the hp number.

Keith

KTM has a 125 that puts out 34hp. An amazing 272 hp per liter.

But who cares, cause all it can do is wring its nuts out to get that power. I prefer torque plain and simple. And so does a lot of people on this board.

Fulton 1

iTrader: (9)

oh, oh, I want one of those in my ZO6!

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Everyone, congrats on spotting the looney. It's inspiring to see that he is completely alone here in his madness. It lets me know I'm in a good place with good people.

But there is one thing I think I should address. Several folks here say that they like a motor to have "torque" or that torque is more important than horsepower. That's not exactly true. You guys are right in what you want, but not technically right in how you're saying it. Probably because it's f***ing complicated.

Let me try to explain: An engine that has a peak torque number that is higher than its peak HP number generally has a torque curve that peaks low in the rev range. This results in that engine having a lot of HP in that same range, since HP is a number calculated from torque. Properly, what you are looking for is not "torque over horsepower," but rather, "large amounts of power at low-mid revs." There do exist engines with 1000 peak TQ, but no significant HP. It IS possible, and that kind of engine will not result in a fast car. So peak TQ isn't everything anymore than peak HP is everything.

Remember that an engine with much higher peak HP than TQ is simply one with a peaky TQ curve. If an engine made a TQ curve that was horizontal: say 100 lb/ft straight across the board, you would see its HP start way low and get higher the more you revved. Look up the equation and you'll see why.

My point? Peak HP and TQ numbers can really only vaguely tell you what's going on, and you don't want "TQ over HP" so much as you want a good fat power curve! (that is, BOTH hp and tq!)

Foxxtron

iTrader: (1)

Yes, I agree. While Hp/L is interesting, it tends to be misleading. And the mention of EPA loving grandma? It proves useless to argue, because on much of the High Hp/L engines, most of the professional reviews tend to warn consumers that if you drive hard, your fuel will pay hard also.

It's also funny how much of my previous contacts 10 years ago in college were swearing by the Hp/L, but still to this day have little to reinforce it's optimal quality (nothing but the ratio itself, since we all are aware of the LS1's weight, cost, and compact size). I also think it's humourous how some can consider a turbo charged powerplant weighing less and being compact by neglecting the turbocharging system and other vital components.

NHRATA01

iTrader: (10)

Hp/L is absolutely a useless measurement. Here's my standard rebuttal to ricers I see on every board, using an analogy:

Say you run a manufacturing plant, and you have 2 tools availible for purchase. Each tool is of similar external size and weight. One is slightly lighter, but the difference is near negligable and has no bearing on its effectiveness. The tools are different in that one tool has 8 dies, and the other 4. However the tool with 4 dies has a cycle time of about 1.5 times faster per die then the tool with eight. So one die on the tool with eight can produce 1 part per minute, and one die on the tool with four can produce 1.5 parts per minute. But over the course of 1 minute of running, the 8 die tool will produce 8 parts, the 4 die tool will produce 6. Additionally, the 4 die tool requires more electricity to run during that 1 minute.

Now knowing those facts, say you have room for exactly 20 tools in your factory of either type. Which do you chose?

BBQLS1

You sound like an IE or misplaced ME