06 z06 vs fords gt-40
#261
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Well this one is for snoozer again. Sorry guys but i cant get over his comparison to the Mach 1. You said to the crank its the same power as the LS1. Well the Mach 1 was rated at 305 to the crank. Im not sure but i believe Camaros and Trans Ams where rated at 320 and the vette was 350. Well thats not the same to the crank. Some LS1's, except the vettes, make that much to the wheels. But most LS1's make the same numbers to the wheels that the Mach 1 makes to the crank. And again you said that they run same times, then backtracked and said, well within .1-.2 of a second. Well thats not the same times now is it. Oh and the final thing. The comparison is a Ford GT to a C6 ZO6 because they are both in production. The LS1 is no longer in production, so comparing it is a moot point. Ford had a year or two after its departure until they released the Mach 1.
Now back the C6 ZO6. I did work up those numbers.
390hp/5.4 liter=72.2
500hp/7.0 liter=71.4
550hp/5.4 liter=101.8
700hp/7.0 liter=100. (Gm's Corvette Tigershark with 6lbs on Vortech)
300hp/2.5 liter=120. (Subaru Impreza WRX STI)
You must have seen how in actuality the Subaru engine is the most advanced. Oh or is it that its force inducted and running hell of boost. Which doesnt leave as much room for advancement. Those are the real numbers. Yet the ZO6 does it all on motor. Ofcourse a vehicle with a power adder is gonna make more hp per liter. But the ZO6 still has a higher potential for power than the other car. That was your comparison though. The real comparison is the Ford GT. The ford GT obviously again due to the supercharger makes much more per liter. But, and this is just a ZO6 rating, not actual fact. Lets look at a couple of other interesting numbers.
Straight from motortrend Feb 2005, page 56.
The ZO6 is estimated to do 0-60 in 3.7, exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
The ZO6 has 6.3lbs/per hp, again exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
So from both of those numbers I see a really close resemblance in performace. Ofcourse there are other factors. But they are exact. And again, another point that is often passed up, the ZO6 will have a closer ratio transmission. Which will help it out in every course you take it to.
Now back the C6 ZO6. I did work up those numbers.
390hp/5.4 liter=72.2
500hp/7.0 liter=71.4
550hp/5.4 liter=101.8
700hp/7.0 liter=100. (Gm's Corvette Tigershark with 6lbs on Vortech)
300hp/2.5 liter=120. (Subaru Impreza WRX STI)
You must have seen how in actuality the Subaru engine is the most advanced. Oh or is it that its force inducted and running hell of boost. Which doesnt leave as much room for advancement. Those are the real numbers. Yet the ZO6 does it all on motor. Ofcourse a vehicle with a power adder is gonna make more hp per liter. But the ZO6 still has a higher potential for power than the other car. That was your comparison though. The real comparison is the Ford GT. The ford GT obviously again due to the supercharger makes much more per liter. But, and this is just a ZO6 rating, not actual fact. Lets look at a couple of other interesting numbers.
Straight from motortrend Feb 2005, page 56.
The ZO6 is estimated to do 0-60 in 3.7, exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
The ZO6 has 6.3lbs/per hp, again exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
So from both of those numbers I see a really close resemblance in performace. Ofcourse there are other factors. But they are exact. And again, another point that is often passed up, the ZO6 will have a closer ratio transmission. Which will help it out in every course you take it to.
#263
Staging Lane
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SW Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by PewterWSSicc
Well this one is for snoozer again. Sorry guys but i cant get over his comparison to the Mach 1. You said to the crank its the same power as the LS1. Well the Mach 1 was rated at 305 to the crank. Im not sure but i believe Camaros and Trans Ams where rated at 320 and the vette was 350. Well thats not the same to the crank. Some LS1's, except the vettes, make that much to the wheels. But most LS1's make the same numbers to the wheels that the Mach 1 makes to the crank. And again you said that they run same times, then backtracked and said, well within .1-.2 of a second. Well thats not the same times now is it. Oh and the final thing. The comparison is a Ford GT to a C6 ZO6 because they are both in production. The LS1 is no longer in production, so comparing it is a moot point. Ford had a year or two after its departure until they released the Mach 1.
Now back the C6 ZO6. I did work up those numbers.
390hp/5.4 liter=72.2
500hp/7.0 liter=71.4
550hp/5.4 liter=101.8
700hp/7.0 liter=100. (Gm's Corvette Tigershark with 6lbs on Vortech)
300hp/2.5 liter=120. (Subaru Impreza WRX STI)
You must have seen how in actuality the Subaru engine is the most advanced. Oh or is it that its force inducted and running hell of boost. Which doesnt leave as much room for advancement. Those are the real numbers. Yet the ZO6 does it all on motor. Ofcourse a vehicle with a power adder is gonna make more hp per liter. But the ZO6 still has a higher potential for power than the other car. That was your comparison though. The real comparison is the Ford GT. The ford GT obviously again due to the supercharger makes much more per liter. But, and this is just a ZO6 rating, not actual fact. Lets look at a couple of other interesting numbers.
Straight from motortrend Feb 2005, page 56.
The ZO6 is estimated to do 0-60 in 3.7, exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
The ZO6 has 6.3lbs/per hp, again exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
So from both of those numbers I see a really close resemblance in performace. Ofcourse there are other factors. But they are exact. And again, another point that is often passed up, the ZO6 will have a closer ratio transmission. Which will help it out in every course you take it to.
Now back the C6 ZO6. I did work up those numbers.
390hp/5.4 liter=72.2
500hp/7.0 liter=71.4
550hp/5.4 liter=101.8
700hp/7.0 liter=100. (Gm's Corvette Tigershark with 6lbs on Vortech)
300hp/2.5 liter=120. (Subaru Impreza WRX STI)
You must have seen how in actuality the Subaru engine is the most advanced. Oh or is it that its force inducted and running hell of boost. Which doesnt leave as much room for advancement. Those are the real numbers. Yet the ZO6 does it all on motor. Ofcourse a vehicle with a power adder is gonna make more hp per liter. But the ZO6 still has a higher potential for power than the other car. That was your comparison though. The real comparison is the Ford GT. The ford GT obviously again due to the supercharger makes much more per liter. But, and this is just a ZO6 rating, not actual fact. Lets look at a couple of other interesting numbers.
Straight from motortrend Feb 2005, page 56.
The ZO6 is estimated to do 0-60 in 3.7, exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
The ZO6 has 6.3lbs/per hp, again exactly the same as the Ford GT is on the same page.
So from both of those numbers I see a really close resemblance in performace. Ofcourse there are other factors. But they are exact. And again, another point that is often passed up, the ZO6 will have a closer ratio transmission. Which will help it out in every course you take it to.
You guys are exhausting.
![Sad](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_sad.gif)
BTW, from 1998-2000 LS1s in f-bodies were rated at 305 hp (320 hp with WS6 or SS package). From 2001-2002 those numbers were 5 hp higher, respectively. Everybody knows they were underrated. That's all I have the energy to mention at the moment and I have a feeling I'm gonna regret even that.
![Bang Head](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_banghead.gif)
#264
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
No you will not regret it. The numbers i was saying was for both the WS6 and the SS. Because even the Z28 and the Trans Am, Formula, or Firehawk mostly put down over 300 to the wheels each. We all know they where underrated because they share the same engine as the vette and they couldnt have them both have the same numbers. So that was my intent. Also those are the higher class F-bodies, just as the Mach 1 is the higher class Mustang. Not the highest though, as there is the Cobra. And i guess you can say for GM there is the C6, although thats a different body style. I am curious as to what other errors you have found in my post. Do you mind telling me those errors, a lot of it is opinion, but i am sure that all the actual numbers are factual. Atleast I hope that they where.
#265
On The Tree
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Naperville
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I didn't really find many errors at all gnxs, maybe you would care to elaborate a little. One thing though is that the gt40 motor make closer to 650hp rather than 550.
Pewter makes a good point that just because a motor makes more hp per liter doesn't necessarily mean it's more advanced. My carbed 600cc bike makes close to 200hp per liter but i wouldn't call it by any means advanced technology. The pcm can't even regulate anything on the motor. You have to look at the overall picture such as what kind of power the motor makes per it's weight and size. Also other things like fuel efficiency, emissions, what kind of power the motor make throughout it's powerband.......
Pewter makes a good point that just because a motor makes more hp per liter doesn't necessarily mean it's more advanced. My carbed 600cc bike makes close to 200hp per liter but i wouldn't call it by any means advanced technology. The pcm can't even regulate anything on the motor. You have to look at the overall picture such as what kind of power the motor makes per it's weight and size. Also other things like fuel efficiency, emissions, what kind of power the motor make throughout it's powerband.......
#266
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeah, those where the things i was trying to point out that where in the motor trend magazine. Which as i said, the power/weight ratio and estimated 0-60 was exactly the same on the two cars. I am curious stik6shift93 where did you get the number for the Ford GT at 550bhp. It was 500bhp like a year ago and just got boosted to 550bhp, was on the same page of the motortrend magazine, plus have seen it many other times as well.
#267
On The Tree
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Naperville
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Several of the ones i've seen around are putting 550 to the wheels. Now that i think about it, it's probably actually somewhere more around 590-615 at the crank considering it has less drivetrain loss than a conventional drivetrain
#268
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
transamman400, mate its cool i just get a bit hot headed sometimes, sorry!
i think your right about the hight issue. GM would need to restlye the front end to get a taller DOHC unit to fit, or move the thing right back into the cabin. and i dont think that either is likley to happen. maybe another solution would be to use and engine like this.
http://www.falconerengines.com/prod04.htm
now that would be entertaining! be even better if they could get the CC down to 8ltr with a shorter throw crank, make a REALLY good race engine then (asumming capacity limit is still 8ltr). and imagine that with 4 valves per cylinder!!!!
Oh sorry that has already bin done (well a 8ltr V12 with 48 valves) by TVR for the speed 12. anyone that has played GT3 will undestand why they refused to produce them on the road (bar one still here in the UK i think). similer weight to the race car but with nearly 300bhp more and less down force and smaller tyres! it was mad.
one the HP per Ltr thing, i would take a look at Honda, toyota and BMW to see just three that are making over 100bhp per ltr!
maybe i need to go and do an automotive engineering course at uni. then i could deign and build a head thats lower so it would fit. maybe put the cams either side of the head and use rockers to operate the valves.
thanks Chris.
i think your right about the hight issue. GM would need to restlye the front end to get a taller DOHC unit to fit, or move the thing right back into the cabin. and i dont think that either is likley to happen. maybe another solution would be to use and engine like this.
![Hail](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_hail.gif)
http://www.falconerengines.com/prod04.htm
now that would be entertaining! be even better if they could get the CC down to 8ltr with a shorter throw crank, make a REALLY good race engine then (asumming capacity limit is still 8ltr). and imagine that with 4 valves per cylinder!!!!
Oh sorry that has already bin done (well a 8ltr V12 with 48 valves) by TVR for the speed 12. anyone that has played GT3 will undestand why they refused to produce them on the road (bar one still here in the UK i think). similer weight to the race car but with nearly 300bhp more and less down force and smaller tyres! it was mad.
one the HP per Ltr thing, i would take a look at Honda, toyota and BMW to see just three that are making over 100bhp per ltr!
maybe i need to go and do an automotive engineering course at uni. then i could deign and build a head thats lower so it would fit. maybe put the cams either side of the head and use rockers to operate the valves.
thanks Chris.
#269
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Devils Lake, ND
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
No problem Chuntington, I think you just got passionate about your argument and so did the other guys and then it just kind of got out of hand. I'm just trying to rationalize both of your guy's point of views. I've never played GT3 but that sounds like one insane car! Amazing they would make the road going version so much more powerful with so much less control...
#270
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by PewterWSSicc
Yeah, those where the things i was trying to point out that where in the motor trend magazine. Which as i said, the power/weight ratio and estimated 0-60 was exactly the same on the two cars. I am curious stik6shift93 where did you get the number for the Ford GT at 550bhp. It was 500bhp like a year ago and just got boosted to 550bhp, was on the same page of the motortrend magazine, plus have seen it many other times as well.
#272
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Slow50
You guys read to much magazines, get real ,if you don't know whats good than you know what cost more , and thats why Ford GT is better than cheap Vette
#273
12 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Slow50
You guys read to much magazines, get real ,if you don't know whats good than you know what cost more , and thats why Ford GT is better than cheap Vette
#275
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by transamman400
No problem Chuntington, I think you just got passionate about your argument and so did the other guys and then it just kind of got out of hand. I'm just trying to rationalize both of your guy's point of views. I've never played GT3 but that sounds like one insane car! Amazing they would make the road going version so much more powerful with so much less control...
looking at it again i think if i where to spend my own hard earnd cash then i would get the vette (or maybe an EVO) and then buy one of these for the race track.
http://www.junoracing.co.uk/Photo%20gallery1.htm
or
http://www.adr-engineering.co.uk/sportii.htm
or
http://www.radicalextremesportscars....ge/sr3/sr3.php (but id wait for the SR8 to come out)
thanks Chris.
#276
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
LS7 don't need no shtinkin 4 valve heads.
With the 2 valves, and the right port this head packaging can do 450 or so CFM. Good enuf for 1000HP N/A.
The benefit of the 4 valves was for the amount of flow provided
the velocity is supposed to be higher due to smaller ports. You get
more valve area, but you got more friction for the air too with the small
ports.
You get advantage of some tricks - IE butterfly closing one port at low speeds and opening it at higher. So you have better low speed operation. This represents weight and more chit to break.
OHC is a mess because with this engine package you will have a long block which is physically bigger than a big block. All the valve train complexities do not make up for the cubes that couldve been had instead with the same space dimensions.
For example the 4V DOHC ford can go to about 5.7Lbut the LS1 can go to about 7.3L. LS1 is physically smaller, lighter, less moving parts, cheaper to work on, easier to work on and makes more power...
Other benefit of OHC was more but smaller valves providing the flow, so valve float is less of a problem and RPM can be higher.
With the TI intake valves the LS7 prolly has 10000 RPM capabilities in the valves themself. Its got the shaft rockers. Prolly some special pushrods and light solid roller lifters and it can get there.
Save OHC for engines which must be small and trying to get that last 5% out of em...
With the 2 valves, and the right port this head packaging can do 450 or so CFM. Good enuf for 1000HP N/A.
The benefit of the 4 valves was for the amount of flow provided
the velocity is supposed to be higher due to smaller ports. You get
more valve area, but you got more friction for the air too with the small
ports.
You get advantage of some tricks - IE butterfly closing one port at low speeds and opening it at higher. So you have better low speed operation. This represents weight and more chit to break.
OHC is a mess because with this engine package you will have a long block which is physically bigger than a big block. All the valve train complexities do not make up for the cubes that couldve been had instead with the same space dimensions.
For example the 4V DOHC ford can go to about 5.7Lbut the LS1 can go to about 7.3L. LS1 is physically smaller, lighter, less moving parts, cheaper to work on, easier to work on and makes more power...
Other benefit of OHC was more but smaller valves providing the flow, so valve float is less of a problem and RPM can be higher.
With the TI intake valves the LS7 prolly has 10000 RPM capabilities in the valves themself. Its got the shaft rockers. Prolly some special pushrods and light solid roller lifters and it can get there.
Save OHC for engines which must be small and trying to get that last 5% out of em...
#277
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
Why don't you simply answer all my questions directly in the post.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
You don't think top fuel cars have traction issues?
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
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 ![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
This entire thing about top fuel cars has nothing to do with anything else on my end, it was all centered around that one sentence.
It's pathetic that you could not figure this out. I just turned your words; I never even attempted to talk about it. Fu(king sad.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
I notice you still keep diverting the subject,
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
directly tell me why the 5.4l is a superior motor, so like i said i can shoot you down.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
The fact of the matter is i get the feeling you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
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.
"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.[/"
Nice job genius; way to cut your own throat. So if you don't know anything about ford motors, then how are you going to "shoot me down?"
Now I know I've wasted my time with you. I've met strippers smarter than you.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
I'm sorry you don't consider the ls6 a fair motor to compare
, wonder why that is, lol.
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
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
.
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
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'll give you a hint. 305 crank hp for the modular. 320 crank hp for the pushrod.
Oh wait that was basically (once again) the answer. I feel like I'm teaching math to a special ed student in here.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
I honestly hope you're not using factory rated hp numbers to determine what you're saying.
Don't give me that underrated **** either about the LS7, underrating is not exclusive to GM if you can get the hint.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
Hey where's the gt for 140,000
, competely left that one out. That's what i call a convenient memory.
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
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
.
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
"Now I want you to tell me how a pushrod engine is going to make more power than a modular one with 4 cams. Same CID vs. same CID."
It had nothing to do with a -NA- 4.6 vs -any- LS1 you can pull out of your ***. Get it right. Then do me the favor of answering my question. Oh wait you can't...you don't know about Ford engines as you already admitted. No wonder you need to change **** around to prove a point as so exemplified by your above quote.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
Show me this modular na ford running 7's please.........
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
Show me this dealership and i'll believe you.........
EDIT: Ask for Josh Gregory.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
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.
I've done nothing BUT back up my words. Take a lesson on doing it.
Like I said, if you stop posting you'll look smarter.
Last edited by Snoozer; 02-28-2005 at 11:54 PM.
#279
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
This is the one that makes me really laugh, so riddle me this how come a 185 horsepower motorcycle can run 9s but a 185hp car will be running significantly slower.Oh yeah that's right there's other factors like weigh , not to mention traction
Was it you that said power was not an issue? I can't remember.
Figure it out. I'm fu(king with you. See my previous post(s). Once again its all about the power comment from long ago.
Your a joke. I wouldn't even have to know what I was talking about to flat out own you.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
Sorry you just consider the ls6 a modded ls1 , i mean my god i guess it's a sin for manufacturers to revise their motors to make more power, since it's not like it's ever been done before.
BTW, until a LS7 appears from the factory in a -modern- production car, call someone who gives a **** cause its a crate till then.
Originally Posted by stik6shift93
Gt's go for 180-220k+, ZO6 price isn't listed yet but will go anywhere from 62.5k to 75k max, hmm do i need to pull a calculator out for you on this one
Not suprised.
With as many GT's available as Ford is going to make (already past 800 units BTW), it will be @ MSRP or damn close by the time the Z06 is available for public purchase. Then again why do I bother, your comparing a real car to a magazine article.
Wouldn't want to divert the subject, but I almost forgot: 6.6 @ 210 MPH on a true 281 CID modular.
Scroll down a little for details.
http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/
You can back it up here:
http://www.NHRA.com/stats/comp_record.html
I have now answered all your Q's.
Now lets see your superior 5.7 LS1. Since I already know that answer... you can win if you bring a legitimate 1/4 mile time thats faster from a 5.7L LS1.
This joint's a joke. I'm outta here after tonight.
Last edited by Snoozer; 03-01-2005 at 12:27 AM.
#280
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by PewterWSSicc
Well this one is for snoozer again. Sorry guys but i cant get over his comparison to the Mach 1. You said to the crank its the same power as the LS1. Well the Mach 1 was rated at 305 to the crank. Im not sure but i believe Camaros and Trans Ams where rated at 320 and the vette was 350. Well thats not the same to the crank. Some LS1's, except the vettes, make that much to the wheels. But most LS1's make the same numbers to the wheels that the Mach 1 makes to the crank. And again you said that they run same times, then backtracked and said, well within .1-.2 of a second. Well thats not the same times now is it. Oh and the final thing. The comparison is a Ford GT to a C6 ZO6 because they are both in production. The LS1 is no longer in production, so comparing it is a moot point. Ford had a year or two after its departure until they released the Mach 1.
It's within 3% like I said, 305 vs 320. You got me on the vette (thats a first, bout time someone did somewhere), even though it just had something more aggressive like tuning or exhaust. Otherwise the masses buying cars on stock hp #'s would be indifferent to the Vette/Camaro.
.1-.2 is driver difference. Besides you, no one seems to give a **** about that cause its understood. Since your hung up on the Mach 1 thing, F-bodies have advantages over the Mach in every category. Drag coefficient, parasitic loss, gearing, lighter engine weight, lighter car etc. etc. yet they run the same 1/4 time. Which makes it even worse for the LS1, while leading me to believe they are -at least- the same hp at the crank (ignoring the vette version).
Like I said before, no matter what BS spin you put on it (which this is another shining example), the LS1 is outclassed by a much smaller modular engine. Drop the Mach 1 thing, it's not helping anyways. The reason I mentioned "Mach 1" was for people to understand which 4.6 engine derivative I was referring too.
Originally Posted by PewterWSSicc
Now back the C6 ZO6. I did work up those numbers.
390hp/5.4 liter=72.2
500hp/7.0 liter=71.4
550hp/5.4 liter=101.8
700hp/7.0 liter=100. (Gm's Corvette Tigershark with 6lbs on Vortech)
300hp/2.5 liter=120. (Subaru Impreza WRX STI)
You must have seen how in actuality the Subaru engine is the most advanced. Oh or is it that its force inducted and running hell of boost. Which doesnt leave as much room for advancement. Those are the real numbers.
390hp/5.4 liter=72.2
500hp/7.0 liter=71.4
550hp/5.4 liter=101.8
700hp/7.0 liter=100. (Gm's Corvette Tigershark with 6lbs on Vortech)
300hp/2.5 liter=120. (Subaru Impreza WRX STI)
You must have seen how in actuality the Subaru engine is the most advanced. Oh or is it that its force inducted and running hell of boost. Which doesnt leave as much room for advancement. Those are the real numbers.
Also, you ran the #'s wrong on the Ford GT. It should be
550hp/7.7 liter = 71.4
The tigershark thing was
![Gay!!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_rainbow.gif)
And if you want to get creative about hp per liter... Ever heard of a Koenigsegg CCR? 171.5 hp per liter. Guess what. Its a 4.7L Modular Ford engine with a 3.3 liter supercharger.
Originally Posted by PewterWSSicc
Yet the ZO6 does it all on motor. Ofcourse a vehicle with a power adder is gonna make more hp per liter. But the ZO6 still has a higher potential for power than the other car. .
The GT has a Supercharged 2000 Cobra R engine. You can squeeze a lot more off the lot from the GT engine. With extreme modding, its anyone's game... that is yet to be seen.
"Straight from motortrend Feb 2005, page 56."
Magazines are posting many different stats for the Ford GT, I'm sure the Z06 will see the same thing.