Hmmm...so I just heard there will be a 500hp and 550hp LS7
11-23-2004, 11:33 PM
#102
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree hp/L is a meaningless number. But it does not mean that a small engine with a high hp/L can not perform. My 2.0 liter N/A with 4.77 ring and pinon runs 13.5 in the quarter at 102. Not bad! for 121 cubic inches
And only 135 lbs of torque at the rear wheels and 200 hp at the rear wheels. I'm no superlight weight either. At 2800#'s(no driver) i'm no porker but not a light weight. No turbos or super charger or nitrous.
HP/L is truely a meaningless number as far as performance. But it does hold its weight in terms of engineering.
Lets face it the true number when it comes to performance is hp/lbs.
I'm no import guy or a domestic guy! I own both. I buy what suits my fancy.
V-8 or inline 4. Any guy that likes engines likes 11 to 1 compression and 9000 rpm or v-10's with face distorting torque.
Anyone that say hp/L is meaningful in performance is clueless!
And only 135 lbs of torque at the rear wheels and 200 hp at the rear wheels. I'm no superlight weight either. At 2800#'s(no driver) i'm no porker but not a light weight. No turbos or super charger or nitrous.HP/L is truely a meaningless number as far as performance. But it does hold its weight in terms of engineering.
Lets face it the true number when it comes to performance is hp/lbs.
I'm no import guy or a domestic guy! I own both. I buy what suits my fancy.
V-8 or inline 4. Any guy that likes engines likes 11 to 1 compression and 9000 rpm or v-10's with face distorting torque.
Anyone that say hp/L is meaningful in performance is clueless!
11-24-2004, 09:32 AM
#104
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mooobunnny
Most C5 Z06's I have seen were well over $50,000....maybe it is just me....
lil2liter,
200hp is a good hp/L number for an NA 121cid 4-banger - I don't think anyone's denying that. The point here, though, is twofold:
1) hp/L is a meaningless statistic when it comes to performance - just as you yourself have pointed out. It has no effect on the ultimate performance potential of the vehicle (well, except maybe that the potential is limited). HP/lb is a MUCH more meaningful number - although not necessarily significant by itself either (e.g. gearing, traction, suspension, etc., must also be factored).
2) Designing an engine in a vacuum may result in a DOHC V8 for example making a ton of hp/L. In the real world, however, this engine must also be utilized in a chassis. Can the LSx series of engines be made to have more power? Certainly - this board is testament to that. The key, though, is to look at the parameters to which this engine was designed by the factory. With that in mind, GM has engineered a wonderful pushrod V8 engine that meets or exceeds all of the targets specified for the vehicles into which it is installed. There was simply no need to spend the $$ to design a heavier, larger, more complicated, and likely less fuel efficient DOHC V-8. IMO, the good engineering practice is not only to ask what CAN be done, but also how efficiently can we do it and how simply and elegantly can we do it. Technology for technology's sake appeals only to the dreamers anyway.
[rant] I absolutely hate the "advanced technology" and "poor American engineering" arguments brought forth by many in the media and the armchair engineering community. I have full confidence that with GM's resources and a desire to do so, they could design and build an engine making hp/L that would be astonishing, but they also understand the bigger picture. So, low tech or not, its all relative. [/rant]
11-24-2004, 10:50 AM
#105
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And not to forget, the LS1 is very high tech indeed.
It's just that GM doesn't find it necessary to raise cost by utilising every engineering aspect to an advanced automobile powerplant. Individual throttle body per cylinder, DOHC 4v or 5v/cylinder, Variable exhaust tuning (Ferrari et al, BMW, and possibly porsche and M-B) are definitely very valuable technologies to an engine, but not necessarily vital. These designs demonstrate very little efficiency, not to mention their low cost effectiveness. I believe the LT5 engine has demonstrated some of that marketing potential gone bad.
The simplicity and reliability of GM's native designs have kept them on par with a broad consumer market. It was also humourous to hear a report (can't remember what info source) stating how the majority of American automotive technology has proven more reliable than their european counterparts.
To pay close to six figures compared to paying something like +50K for 500HP, not to mention lower maintenance costs is definitely a question that crosses both the commercial and the consumer mind.
It's just that GM doesn't find it necessary to raise cost by utilising every engineering aspect to an advanced automobile powerplant. Individual throttle body per cylinder, DOHC 4v or 5v/cylinder, Variable exhaust tuning (Ferrari et al, BMW, and possibly porsche and M-B) are definitely very valuable technologies to an engine, but not necessarily vital. These designs demonstrate very little efficiency, not to mention their low cost effectiveness. I believe the LT5 engine has demonstrated some of that marketing potential gone bad.
The simplicity and reliability of GM's native designs have kept them on par with a broad consumer market. It was also humourous to hear a report (can't remember what info source) stating how the majority of American automotive technology has proven more reliable than their european counterparts.
To pay close to six figures compared to paying something like +50K for 500HP, not to mention lower maintenance costs is definitely a question that crosses both the commercial and the consumer mind.
11-25-2004, 11:01 AM
#106
Originally Posted by Fulton 1
IMO, the good engineering practice is not only to ask what CAN be done, but also how efficiently can we do it and how simply and elegantly can we do it. Technology for technology's sake appeals only to the dreamers anyway.
11-25-2004, 02:14 PM
#107
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NHRATA01
GM's pushrod LS6 did everything the ZR1's fancy 32v DOHC LT5 did, did it better, and at a much lower cost (ie not a $25k+ engine option).
). I suppose the whiz-bang stuff appeals to the average Corvette owner and probably to the rich guy trying to impress his friends, but I'll take elegant simplicity any day. 
11-25-2004, 06:48 PM
#108
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Puyallup, Washington
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Montana took a beating in the end of the movie "Scarface". Looks like Mr. Montana has finally taken a shotgun blast from the back........ I hear nothing but silence. Rest in Peices FORDBOY.....BOWTIE madness baby!!!!!!!!!!
11-26-2004, 01:44 PM
#109
Originally Posted by Fulton 1
I couldn't agree more. As much as I loved my ZR-1, it was somewhat of a PITA due to its complexity (and discontinued GM parts ). I suppose the whiz-bang stuff appeals to the average Corvette owner and probably to the rich guy trying to impress his friends, but I'll take elegant simplicity any day.
). I suppose the whiz-bang stuff appeals to the average Corvette owner and probably to the rich guy trying to impress his friends, but I'll take elegant simplicity any day.
11-26-2004, 07:21 PM
#110
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bink
I guess I'm not the average Vette owner - Good!! I'll take the Elegant Simplicity anyday = Small Block Chevy/LSx
11-28-2004, 12:33 AM
#112
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fulton 1
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.
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.
Still, the only argument I have heard so far that really is a true rebuttal is the argument that:
You don't want a "maxed" out motor from the factory bc of insurance costs (if you think an LS7 car will less than an M car you're crazy) or a desire to tune it (which is a bit like AMD underclocking a CPU just so you can feel like you OC'ed it yourself imo but I understand the desire to tinker
might even dab into gentoo one of these days...). Also I don't know about you, but I think that most LS7 customers are willing to forgo ULEV status for 100hp. Anyone who wouldn't please respond and join in.Also I didn't mention mass because it varies far too much, and I viewed this as more of a powerplant thread. Again, I still am inquiring about aftermarket mods that would improve the HP/L (maybe a cost estimate for a mild, noticable improvment at least?)
ALSO I would like to say that I know nothing of this other guy that calls himself Tony Montana......it isn't like this is an unpopular name though. Perhaps we can all agree that Scarface is a great movie?
Last edited by Tony Montana; 11-28-2004 at 12:40 AM.
11-28-2004, 09:07 AM
#113
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Red Stick, LA
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By not maxing out the power available in an particular engine the manufacturer avoids costly warranty work, avoids liability lawsuits, and has room to grow when a competitor releases a more powerful engine (ie, the diesel wars going on now). The biggest is probably the warranty work. You max out an engine, you stress the engines internals.
11-28-2004, 09:44 AM
#115
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tony, what you are forgetting is that most folks purchase a big-inch v8 because they make power everywhere. i've no doubt that the ls7 will make useable power from right off idle all the way to redline. some ppl like that. personally, i like the fact that i don't have to rev the berries off of my car to get down the road at a pretty good clip. fat torque curves make day to day living in a street car much easier, imo.
11-28-2004, 12:08 PM
#116
Just to be clear, this argument is about the following:
There are two engines: they both have equal peak power ratings: 500 hp.
One is a big displacement engine that is not at its peak potential hp/l.
The other is a smaller displacement engine that IS at its peak potential hp/l.
EVERYONE except Tony wants the first one. Tony wants the second. Tony is a dumbass with a euro/ricer mentality who thinks that HP/L will get him down the 1/4 mile faster than HP/LB or overall HP or HP under the curve.
Tony will not shut up nor will he get lost when he's been soundly thrashed. He starts to backtrack and switch his arguments around. Isn't it wonderful when you can pretend that the dumb s*** that comes out of your mouth never happened? It's a particularly bad form of lying and it's an instant banning on a few boards that I know of...
There are two engines: they both have equal peak power ratings: 500 hp.
One is a big displacement engine that is not at its peak potential hp/l.
The other is a smaller displacement engine that IS at its peak potential hp/l.
EVERYONE except Tony wants the first one. Tony wants the second. Tony is a dumbass with a euro/ricer mentality who thinks that HP/L will get him down the 1/4 mile faster than HP/LB or overall HP or HP under the curve.
Tony will not shut up nor will he get lost when he's been soundly thrashed. He starts to backtrack and switch his arguments around. Isn't it wonderful when you can pretend that the dumb s*** that comes out of your mouth never happened? It's a particularly bad form of lying and it's an instant banning on a few boards that I know of...
11-28-2004, 04:27 PM
#117
TECH Junkie
Join Date: May 2003
Location: its fucking cold
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm too lazy to go abck through pages of this and copy and past quotes, so i'll jsut dive right in.
To Tony Montana-
1) you're an idiot. As it has already ben stated, hp/l doesn't win races, power under the curve does. My bike has 200 hp/l, and run's 11's, and tops out around 170 mph.....but put it in a 3000 pound car and it's a dog. The same engine in my truck would run like complete ****, and the 50 hp/l 6 cylinder would outperform it with 1/4 the hp/l.
2) you're and idiot
3) i don't know if i mentioned this before, but you're an idiot.
4) even if the new M3 has more hp/l than the LS7 it will still have less hp, that means it will be slower.
And to the person that made the comment about c5 Z06's being 50K. If you paid more than 42K for a NEW C5 Z06 you got screwed. Not that they weren't worth the sticker price, GM just made so many, and had so many rebates that one could be had for SIGNIFICANTLY below sticker.
To Tony Montana-
1) you're an idiot. As it has already ben stated, hp/l doesn't win races, power under the curve does. My bike has 200 hp/l, and run's 11's, and tops out around 170 mph.....but put it in a 3000 pound car and it's a dog. The same engine in my truck would run like complete ****, and the 50 hp/l 6 cylinder would outperform it with 1/4 the hp/l.
2) you're and idiot
3) i don't know if i mentioned this before, but you're an idiot.
4) even if the new M3 has more hp/l than the LS7 it will still have less hp, that means it will be slower.
And to the person that made the comment about c5 Z06's being 50K. If you paid more than 42K for a NEW C5 Z06 you got screwed. Not that they weren't worth the sticker price, GM just made so many, and had so many rebates that one could be had for SIGNIFICANTLY below sticker.
11-28-2004, 06:18 PM
#118
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by black_knight
Just to be clear, this argument is about the following:
There are two engines: they both have equal peak power ratings: 500 hp.
One is a big displacement engine that is not at its peak potential hp/l.
The other is a smaller displacement engine that IS at its peak potential hp/l.
EVERYONE except Tony wants the first one.
There are two engines: they both have equal peak power ratings: 500 hp.
One is a big displacement engine that is not at its peak potential hp/l.
The other is a smaller displacement engine that IS at its peak potential hp/l.
EVERYONE except Tony wants the first one.
Also, I won't even bother replying to BlueSix's arrogant reply. It is really a shame that such an informative debate has to be ruined by closed-minded flamers with nothing better to do than call someone who disagrees with you "an idiot". And to the fool who thought I had bought into some Euro mentality, you're claim is almost as dumb as this BlueSix character. Engines like the BMW 4 liter V8 in the ol' 540i (not the M5 V8) and the legendary Mercedes Benz 5.0L V8 (which if i recall is Pushrod and SOHC) don't fit into your euro stereotype of "overcomplication". Why the hell some of you guys insist on resorting to personal insults whenever someone disagrees with you I will never understand....and it's a shame because there are so many people here that can actually hold an argument without being childish
. Sure I am no mechanic, but even if my argument is horrible (I don't think it is) I don't think it warrants such a responce. I really really hope you aren't a mod....that would be sad.Also I am still inquiring about any potential aftermarket mods to the LS7, although this forum is starting to have a sour taste...please no more flames some of us actually are capable of civilized conversing
Last edited by Tony Montana; 11-28-2004 at 06:31 PM.
11-28-2004, 06:23 PM
#119
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
NO. I would like the first one to LIVE UP TO ITS POTENTIAL.
11-28-2004, 06:27 PM
#120
TECH Junkie
Join Date: May 2003
Location: its fucking cold
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
NO. I would like the first one to LIVE UP TO ITS POTENTIAL.
This is a website dedicated to making an engine live up to its potential, not about an engine that can't be made better.
Once again you have proven my theory that you are an idiot.