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.

PewterWSSicc

I am not gonna say which engine is more advanced. It is jsut two different ways of doing the samething. They both make similar power each different way.

gnxs

There are alot of errors in your information and assumptions, but since trying to get obviously biased people (from both sides of the argument) educated is a lost cause here, I'll refrain from even trying.

You guys are exhausting.

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.

PewterWSSicc

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.

stik6shift93

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.......

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.

stik6shift93

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

chuntington101

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.

transamman400

iTrader: (1)

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...

eurocobra

Those were the pre-production models. READ THE OTHER THREAD. ITS A FACT. 550 RWHP

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

StoleIt

iTrader: (3)

Oh ya the vette is cheap therefor it sucks...because we haven't heard that arguement before from exotic owners.

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

Youre a salesmans wet dream.

Slow50

No, i'm just Blue Oval owner

chuntington101

if you love cars then you need to play GT3 or wait for GT4 to come out (it bin put back over here yet again), well worth it. as for the TVR, thats why the director of TVR stop the production, it was just going to be too dangerous. it was quite easy for them to make the power. they just bolted 2 of their inline 6's together. the indavidual units are good for about 400bhp and with some head work it was easy to get the 880bhp the road car was to have. the racer only ran about 600bhp in the British GT series as they had to run VERY small restrictor on it! so all they planned to do for the road cars engine was remove them!

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.

Big-DEN

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...

Snoozer

Too many. Can't keep up with you. They will all be answered by the end of the day

Did I say that? Don't assume what I think. Read on...

Figure this one out. You said power doesn't make a single difference in top fuel cars (i.e. your own self created shitpile).

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.

Kind of hard to point fingers when I do nothing but respond to your posts in seperated quotes.

Why is it superior? We already ran the numbers. Figure out the difference between "superior" and "more advanced".

lmfao, and you do? We're about to see in the next quote...

This is the best yet kid: your own words from the previous quote:

"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.

Hmmm, take a base 4.6 NA 4 cam modular motor, then do the same things to it that the LS6 had done to it. Now thats a fair comparison. Guess which engine is still superior? Still laughing? Just remember, no is laughing at you, just with you

Since you already stated don't know anything about Ford motors...I shouldn't explain the ridiculous increase in power that swapping 4 cams out provides to these engines. If your brain contained any logical thinking power, you might realize the 2 different types of engines just might have many similarities, including (gasp) your precious heads.

The numbers are out there and already stated in this thread, do it yourself.

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.

LOL, as opposed to what numbers? The #'s of your fellow internet warriors? This begs a question from me, wtf #'s ARE you using?

Don't give me that underrated **** either about the LS7, underrating is not exclusive to GM if you can get the hint.

**** I'll say. Convenient for you; I typed the answer to that -days- ago. Put down the pipe crackhead.

Ah yes, the ONLY question I asked you expecting a reply and you still won't answer. I believe your referring to this:

"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.

BJ can read this one too. I never said there was 7 second NA 4.6, in fact I never said anything about any Ford running 7's. Slow down and get your reading right. Just because I said something about LS1s not running 7's all motor doesn't mean there is/was a 4.6 that is. The assumptive **** you bring in response to my posts baffles me. Just read the text for what I said please, its getting old.

Five Star Ford, Fort Worth Texas. Feel free to call them.

EDIT: Ask for Josh Gregory.

Your a moron. Of course everyone is paying above invoice; invoice is 124,000 on a GT. No GT will EVER sell below invoice, unless a dealer needs a loss as a write-off. As far as credibility, your posts are doing you huge favors.

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.

Nittany_marine

iTrader: (7)

Where's the love, guys? lol

Snoozer

So? Whats the power to weight ratio of a bike running 9's compared to a car running 9's. Riddle me that.

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.

Again, upgrade a factory 4.6 4V in the same manner and your right back where we started.

BTW, until a LS7 appears from the factory in a -modern- production car, call someone who gives a **** cause its a crate till then.

And the Z06 won't go over MSRP when it hits floors... Keep kidding yourself. Pricing the GT @ markup and the Z06 @ MSRP is kinda, well, gay of you.

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.

Snoozer

See my comments to stickshift about being a persnickety bitch.

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.

That would make it (the Boxer) the most superior of those listed, because its making better use of what it has in terms of producing power. Advanced is all the non power advantages of the engine, an example being the numerous pushrods advantages over modulars.

Also, you ran the #'s wrong on the Ford GT. It should be
550hp/7.7 liter = 71.4

The tigershark thing was . It isn't production and Vortech's aren't exactly known for their displacement. Centrifugals will warp any hp/liter comparison.

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.

Its a stroked small block and there isn't a whole lot left to do from a NA standpoint to the engine within a safe tolerance. LS7 will be making most of its upgraded power from N20, SC's or Turbo.

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.