gnxs

Well said!

gnxs

You're really not trying too hard with the Cobra then.

- $7,000 to get 500rwhp in the Cobra?????? You got robbed!
- 140 rwhp more and they're close in a drag race?????? Who was driving the cobra, your grandmother?

gnxs

6 speed LS1s in f-bodies have 3.42s. Duh!

Plus they have 6-speeds and the Mach 1's only have 5-speeds, further adding to their tq. multiplication. I don't have the transmission gearing ratios in front of me, but I bet the LS1's ratios are better in 1st through 4th.

stik6shift93

Snoozer you make me laugh. How are they getting faster? I guess you think that power is the only thing that makes a car get quicker , there are several other factors. Tell me why they use a clutch that slips nearly the whole way down the track if they could use more power??

Next i want you to elaborate on why the 5.4l is superior so i can shoot you down.....

For the issue with gm's motor makes as much power per liter as ford just do the math, i could care less about comparing quarter miles times. If you take a minute to pull your head out of your *** you'd know that quarter mile time isn't necessarily indicative of power. 5.7l ls1 put 300-320 to the wheels through a manual, what's a ford na ford 4.6 motor do 260ish to the wheels? Whats the new 5.0l 3v motor do compared to the 9 year old ls1? lmao. Do the math and you'll find they're very similar hp/liter numbers. Oh and don't worry i'm not even gonna bring up the ls6 that makes another 50hp more to the wheels with the same dispacement, so you can go on living in your little happy fairy tail.

As for the mach 1 comment, show me one that's run 12.66 which is the fastest a bone stock ls1 has gone.

You say there are modular 4.6 aluminum blocks that make more horsepower than any ls1 you've ever seen, go ahead and show me. They're not gonna get it done without forced induction. Simple fact is that fords motors can't do anything without a power adder.

Also I'm going to give you a challenge since fords ohc motors are so much more superior. Go find any naturally aspirated one 4.6, built to hell and i'll show you a built ls1 that makes more horsepower per liter naturally aspirated.

As for your last comment go out and find me a new ford gt at 140,000, and i promise i'll stop ripping you apart on here. The fact of the matter is you can't they go from 180k-220k, do the math there slick.

Oh and another thing, i'm going to give you a piece of advice before you go posting. KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH, OTHERWISE YOU LOOK STUPID

Snoozer

Stock Mach's have hit 12's, however it's rare. When I said same time I meant within .1-.2 second.

270-285 is low for a mach unless you took it to the dyno right off the lot. But it doesn't matter; the NA 4.6 is making at least the same power as the 5.7 LS1 @ the crank, on top of the fact that the LS1 is far more efficient in many areas already mentioned.

Ya, someone else preached the pushrod sermon and needed to be shut up. Wasn't trying to hijack the thread.

Bad guess. Here is why they do:
1) It works.
2) Modular isn't as advanced.
3) It's WAAAY more reliable right now.

But no one is allowed to throw an assload of money in a GT? Like I said before, the GT will be faster when its all said and done. And the Z06 will have always cost less money.

What Ford lover in here has said "that old technology crap..." about pushrods? I know I haven't; off the top of my head skimming through the last 12 pages, it seems the GM supporters keep bringing it up.

Overpriced definetly. I just heard that Ford is building these cars for about 80 grand a piece not including fixed production costs per unit. Dealer invoice is 124,500 and MSRP is 139,000. Ford is grossing ~44,000 per unit on these things, with a total production run of at least 5,000 cars! Too bad they can't pass on some of that savings.

Snoozer

Yep. Primary reason why? They have more funding.

Thanks.

No ****, gotta love penalties from the rules to boosted and mid engine cars. I'm suprised teams show up with the S7.

Know whats -really- funny? I just ran the #'s and the 2000 NA 5.4 4V makes more power per liter than the LS7.

stik6shift93

I hope a 40thousand dollar factory car would take more money to compete against racing platforms that cost several times the amount of the corvette. Why don't you share those numbers with us, also i don't think you can compare any numbers to the ls7 seeing as nobody really knows what kind of power it makes.
Also why don't you give us the numbers that each time recieves from their backers so we can compare for ourselves. You seem to talk a lot but don't present any cold hard facts

Gen3Benz

iTrader: (4)

Which is it (slower S7 lap times EVERY race) the penalties or the funding?
Anyone know what series/class the GT will be racing in?
Are they not going to race them for fear of the control arms blowing apart?

Snoozer

Calm down. Don't guess what I think. Instead reread what I said in reply to the stupidity that was your own words below.

You:
"Power is not an issue in top fuel cars, it wouldn't make a SINGLE difference if they squeezed and extra 6% power wise..."

Me:
"So they wouldn't need all that power anyways if they really did have traction problems as you stated. How exactly are they getting faster over the years if power has nothing to do with it?"

Stop and fu(king think about it if you still can't figure YOUR self-created shitstorm out.

Ya like the way I've done nothing but turn your arguments? This post will be no different.

I played your game and answered your questions. Now answer mine; don't be the bitch and do all the asking. Once you answer mine I'll play again with you.

I don't know, is it 260? Look it up then see how you've shot yourself down again.

Shouldn't be hard, this was already clarified a couple of posts previously.[/QUOTE]

1) It's a brand new joke.
2) Debate without changing the subject

LMFAO, are you SERIOUS?

Ls1 to Ls6 main differences:
* More aggressive camshaft
* Revised intake valves
* Low restriction intake manifold
* Compression for the LS6 is 10:5.1, LS1 is 10:1.1
* Screenless/designed MAF
* Revised airbox and exhaust.

WOW, a modded and revised LS1. Holy ****, no other engine including a modular 4.6 is ever allowed to do that.

You just own me kid...damn

The mach 1 is inferior to the cars with the LS1 in them in the 1/4. The engines make the same power, or within 3% if you want to continue being the persnickety bitch you are about this.

Your quote:
"i could care less about comparing quarter miles times."

So why bring it up AGAIN?

, did any the LS1s out there running 7's do it all engine?

Simple fact is the new modular fords are making more hp per liter from the manufacturing plant NA vs. NA, no matter what bullshit spin you can put on it.

What math? That’s not math...you really are just dumb, coupled with a complete lack of argumentative/debating skills.

Here let me change the subject. How many production C6 Z06's are there? Ya thought so stfu tool.

Little does your feeble mind understand, that -MOST- of the GT's are being sold at 140,000. Know why? The owners of the dealership are buying them for themselves. An auto group owner in Texas owns seven (7) Ford GT's; he didn't release ANY of his allocation to the public. And it has been confirmed that more than 4 Ford GT's have been sold to the general public on a waiting list for over 3 years @ MSRP by honest dealers who don't gouge.

Priceless, its like I'm typing for you.
You must be referring to this:

"Power is not an issue in top fuel cars, it wouldn't make a SINGLE difference if they squeezed and extra 6% power wise..."

"If you take a minute to pull your head out of your *** you'd know that quarter mile time isn't necessarily indicative on quarter mile time"

"Oh and don't worry i'm not even gonna bring up the ls6 that makes another 50hp more to the wheels with the same dispacement, so you can go on living in your little happy fairy tail. "

"...go out and find me a new ford gt at 140,000"

"the ZO6 is going to go for more like a 1/3 of what the gt goes for "

And finally the best one:
"i promise i'll stop ripping you apart on here"

If you stop posting, I promise you'll start looking smarter here.

Snoozer

Both, are you trying to make a point?

No do you?

lmao, ya they're just gonna take one right off the showroom and track it without changing anything.

Snoozer

lol, and how many of us really will?

Just take what GM has released about it.

manufacturer rated 390 hp from the 5.4 4V NA engine.
manufacturer rated 500 hp from the 7.0 LS7 engine.

Run the numbers.

And save the underrated **** for someone who cares about speculation and not facts.

Why don't you go find the numbers if you don't believe me?

Besides, you think big hitter teams disclose what they spend and what they get in sponsor/factory money? Gimmie a break.

Take a look at the series, its not hard to figure out what teams have the funding. The cold hard facts are right in front of you, figure them out for yourself.

Big Jimbo

Did any all motor 4.6 mod-motors run 7's or 8's without a power adder.


You said the 5.4 made more power per liter than the LS7. I think the reason is because the Manufacturer is producing these motors which in turn must go through emission and all sorts of other bullshit. I meen come on. The SRT-4 motor puts out more power per liter than the LS7 and the 5.4(390hp).....who gives a ****.

Just because a motor makes XXX amount of horsepower from the factory doesnt mean its better than something else. Those arent ur exact words but thats sort of what it sounds like when u say that the 5.4 makes more power per liter than the LS7. I mean, that IS what ur saying right?(predicted response from snooper: "no" obviously)

And about the dragster comment: I live in florida and go to the Gatornationals in Gainsville once a year with my dad (62 years old ex-AA-Gas drag racer). We talked to Connie Kalitta before we left(whome my dad use to be friends with and dated his sister). A couple words out of his mouth i could remember were that those top fuelers could drop off around a couple hundred horsepower without even hurting times, and in turn could possibly gain a few hundredths-thousandths of a sec. I obviously cant prove that so you can disregard that if youd like.

But i dont think i can argue with you anymore since im only 17 years old and short on knowledge. You are simply smarter than me and probably everyone else in this room and im sure have a nicer car or have more money than me.
Gotta go get ready for high-school, college(Eng. 1101 and Comp. Apps. for business), and work tomorrow.

Jimmy

eurocobra

you dont have $90,000......wake up

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

Ive read a few pages in this thread.. and it reminds me of a broken record. Same ole bullshit over and over again.

All Id like to add is that itll be interesting when GM pulls that Ace from under their sleeve and build a modernized LSX engine with maybe DOHC and factory boost... throw some forged internals into it and the game will be over. OVER.. PERIOD. Look at what they do currently with N/A motors.

Im a car enthusiest... I dont take sides.. performance is performance in my eyes. Who cares what emblem is on it... both the GT40 and C6 ZO6 are awesome cars.... bottom line is if your rich enough to afford and buy a GT40 this argument doesnt mean a damn thing. So why the hell are we arguing?

transamman400

iTrader: (1)

I'm sorry to add to this chaos but...

In actuallity, power has nothing to do with how many valves or camshafts you have. It has to do with how efficiently those components can work to actually create power, I.E. proper combustion, maximization of power peaks and average horsepower, air flow, exhaust flow...all these things.

Another has to do with what expectations do the motors really need to meet. Could GM make more power out of it's motors? Yes, very much so as we have found out. Could Ford out of the 4.6? You bet. But these two companies have to deal with many, many factors.

1. Research and Development. I think we all know that GM sticking with a pushrod motor has saved them lots of money...because as already stated, we are way more familiar with them. I would not agree that pushrod motors are more advanced completely though. Ford has gone it's own route with its performance V8s, and has put much research and development into the OHC construction of engines. The SOHC 4.6 motor certainly has progressed at a much quicker rate then the DOHC motor because the SOHC really doesn't have any benefit over a pushrod motor, as it only has 2 valves per cylinder, albeit 2 camshafts (but there is no advantage to that, it is just nessesscitated out of the lack of pushrods). And...I'm sure it's actually cheaper for them to make DOHC V8s to make more power simply because it's easier. I guess you can call me crazy but it makes sense to me.

2. Production Costs. Again, the award goes to the pushrod motor for cheapest assembly because of much smaller amount of moving parts. Fewer parts mean less cost to build obviously. GM is a business and they are in business to make money. This is rule #1 at GM: maximize profits. They're products may not be as refined but that is because as far as they have learned, they don't need to be to make money. Ford I believe goes by a different philosophy, and that is to deliver a product that is to be more refined and modern (assumed or actual) to the customer. The difference is black and white. That is why there is this debate in the first place.

3. Repair cost to customer, lifetime of engine. I'm not going to say either motor is more reliable, I won't be the judge. But both companies need to meet a standard of quality and reliability. GM is not a risk taking company, and does not want to start out with a new design that may compromise reliability and the customer's opinion of their product. Ford, is probably a lot more bolder...and when they switched to the modular motor accepted the challenge. But with this, they also need to sastify the customer with power and reliability. The power outputs could definetely be enhanced on these vehicles, but EVERYONE, EVERY-ONE on every car forum recognizes modifying compromises reliability every single time. A big company needs to make something that will last. Also, I would say that the pushrod motor wins in this category in repair cost and time of repair.

4. Customer Base. The Ford Mustang's customer base is probably a good bit different from the Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac Firebird and GTO's customer base. My mother drives a Ford Contour. She loves the way the last style Mustangs looked...if she had the money she would own one. This is from a person who typically thinks 2 door cars aren't all that practical for transportation. This is a great accomplishment for a performance vehicle to surpass the boundaries of sensibility to attract a woman in her 40s to buy a performance vehicle. Someone of this demographic doesn't want to be overwhelmed with horsepower. They are perfectly happy with their smooth, refined 4.6 liter motor that makes great power without seeming too out of line with their reasonable notions of a car. The Mustang is the epitomy of success in this example. The Camaro and Firebird are more cars that focus on the fun to drive factor and muscular car appeal. These are cars that are designed where a person has to be in a certain frame of mind to really enjoy the car, and the people that do love them. In this case, it is also a great success. The Mustang is trying to offer something for everyone, and the F-body is trying to offer everything for somebody.

In the end, somebody will prefer the 4.6 modular for it's smooth running tendencies, power to size ratio, and assumed or actual refinement. Others will stick with the LSx series for more potential power, cheaper power, and ease of configuration.

In the case of Z06 vs GT, they are in the same performance league. They are NOT in the same price, or customer league. The Z06 is trying to appeal to the guy (or girl) who makes a pretty comfortable income who wants to have fun and flex their adventerous side a bit. The GT is just all-out trying to compete with the supercars for a bit less dough to get on the playing field. People who choose a GT over a Z06 aren't doing it for performance reasons. The same as people who choose a Mustang GT over a Camaro or otherwise. They like the car for what it is. Also, the same could go for the Z06 and not buying it for performance. Even if it performs better, some who own one would maybe want a GT more anyway.

Diversity is good. I am glad that performance cars are rare. It makes them that much more special. That would suck if every car had a pushrod V8. It would also suck if every car had a 4.6 or 5.4 mod motor. The beauty of cars is diversity. The real superiority of a car is measured in your mind only, not by anyone else. You won't change somebody else's mind, so don't try to. Accept the differences of the two and end the discussion.

chuntington101

Avengeance. thanks for sum up what would have taken me 5000 words and countless posts to do. would be ace to see the LS7 with narrow DOHC heads and indavidual throttle bodies per cylinder (like BMW do), veriable length intakes and varieable valve timing and lift. GMC wouldn't need to use FI then as i bet the motro would be making 700bhp. also if hight was a problems then all they need to do is fit a dry sump system and lower the engine!

come on guys, are you still saying that a coration like this would not appeal to you! all the torque that you get now, but with mega top end to!

thanks Chris.

EDIT: Transamman400. what about SOHC engines with 4 valves per cylinder, like the BMW Mini engine and the awesome Merc V12 twin turbo (3 valves per cylinder)???? Push rods have less moving parts?!?!?!?!?!? Are you insane? SOHC engine- cam, follower, valve. Push rod engine- cam, follower, push rod rocker, valve. Where is the reduction in moving parts???? And on the life time of an engine/reliability, how do GM drive the cam at the minute? I ask coz (I don’t know, and) chain technology has come on leaps and bonds over the years, and as engines get bigger (to feed our power hunger) but the bays stay the same, manufactures have to find ways to shorten their engines. This is why Audi use chain drive in the RS4’s V8, coz it wont fit otherwise. And ford new Duratec is also chain drive, as are most of the high performance bike engine! So if you use a chain to drive a cam to drive a push rod, then why not use a chain to drive a cam and do away with the push rod?????

Just coz you love the LSx engine don’t mean you cant nick ideas form other to make the dam thing better! Stop being a ***** and embrace the 21centry and the technology that comes with it.

stik6shift93

Snoozer why don't you start addressing my issues instead of diverting the subject. So why don't you simply answer all my questions directly in the post.

You don't think top fuel cars have traction issues? Tell me why you can see them spin on the big end going 200mph then? They regulate power through a slipper clutch, go and ask them what they'd do with an extra 6% power? Often they detune the cars because the can't get the power they have currently down. Figure that one out

I notice you still keep diverting the subject, directly tell me why the 5.4l is a superior motor, so like i said i can shoot you down. The fact of the matter is i get the feeling you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Don't go and ask me question about what ford motors do because i don't know, so why don't you answer the questions i've asked you.

I'm sorry you don't consider the ls6 a fair motor to compare , wonder why that is, lol. Gm simply took and made the motor more efficient, i'd hate to see what would happen if manufacturers didn't improve on their setups. You also evidently don't understand that a lot of the power also comes from new cylinder heads on the ls6, that's probably the biggest difference and ops you left that out . But hey i guess that doesn't count right

Show me that it puts power within 3 percent and i'll believe it, give me numbers to back up your mouth and i'll believe it. I honestly hope you're not using factory rated hp numbers to determine what you're saying.

Hey where's the gt for 140,000 , competely left that one out. That's what i call a convenient memory.

I'm also still waiting for you to find a modded modular na 4v and i'll get you a modded ls1 that makes more power per liter, did we forget to address this too

Show me this modular na ford running 7's please........

Show me this dealership and i'll believe you, everyone i see buying gt's are paying above invoice. You need to back up your words because right now you obviously don't have any credability.

stik6shift93

Bwahahahhahahahaaa

transamman400

iTrader: (1)

Ok, what I stated was not for or against the pushrod motor. I was explaining why GM has stuck with it. I think that modular motors are great...the 4.2 I6 in our Trailblazer is a great motor and has plenty of power, pretty rev friendly as well. It would be a neat motor to put in a car. I'm not afraid to embrace technology at all, I like Ford's approach toward their performance V8s and I think they should keep going with it. The comment I made about less parts...I should have been more specific, I was referring to DOHC motors.

About 3 valve and 4 valve configured SOHC motors...I knew I forgot something in that post. Those are amazing motors, and I never put down any modular motor in my post, sorry if I might have looked like I was. 3v, 4v SOHC motors are superior in my mind, because these motors do all that DOHC do with less parts. In all honesty, this is one of the best engine designs around I beleive. Really, the main factors are:

1. The design of the car and
2. The design of the motor, based on the design of the car.

The Corvette has a lower hood that would make it impossible for a OHC motor to fit because of their tallness. Therefore, a pushrod motor is almost required to fit the Corvette's design purpose.

The GT is mid engined, so it's problem is more the length of the motor. Being mid engined, a taller motor is better because (I'm not sure how long the LS7 is but I would assume at least a noticeable amount longer dimensionally) it has limited space length wise.

As far as superiority of the engine design...OHC vs. Pushrod, the designs in themselves are not superior in either way really. What is superior is the execution of design.

Big Jimbo

With respect, chuntington, I dont think Transam was taking any sides on that post. He gave plenty of respect to both sides. You can ask alot of people which motor has more moving parts 4.6 quad-cam or an LS1. I know thats what a bunch of me and my buddys thought a long time ago. I always thought that because the 4.6 (QC) had 4 cams. I honestly think the pushrod motor is more reliable through my own little expericnces. My dads '93 astrovan survived 350,000 (V6 multi-port FI) and never had a problem. I have a friend with a '93-ish Blazer with a 4.3 V6 with 305,xxx miles My '92 Sierra has 202,3XX miles and still running hard. Thats with changing the water pump. I over heated it once and it started ticking real bad. We replaced the heater core and and the pushrod reset. Im sure other peoples experiences are different.

Im sure the GT will pull the Z06 in the 1320 but all around i think its going to go to the Z06 simply because of the price. I dont know and i dont think anyone else does but we'll find out in a couple months and i'm sure it will probably be a huge surprise.