buffman

iTrader: (9)

The CTS-V is a modern Production car that comes w/ the LS6..

Matt

transamman400

iTrader: (1)

Hey Snoozer, not to stir up trouble or anything but the LS6 was in the C5 generation Z06...and the CTS-V? I guess by reading that last post I got the impression you thought it wasn't a production car engine.

The 4.6 wins the fastest stock displacement motor run though. I hope he doesn't try to argue that. The fastest 4th Gen (LT1) is in the mid to low 7s I believe. The LS1 is at high 7s (I think?) because the blocks can't hold together any faster then that.

The LS1 is 346 CI so is the LS6

For actual power being put to the ground, the F-Body actually beats the Vette. It's onlybecause of parasitic loss like the IRS. The Vette is still faster (aerodynamics, lighter). Dyno testing has proved- an LS1 is an LS1 is an LS1. No matter badge, or brand...Z28, SS, WS6, Formula...they all are within 10 hp of eachother between individual engine variances. All the F-body ratings are complete bogus.

I do agree though that the Mach 1 is also underrated. It's true output is probably somewhere around or maybe even above 330 hp. It's HP difference is made up probably by that it has shorter gears (3.55 vs. 3.42) and the fact that it can hold a gear longer (it does make a slight difference). All and all a pretty equal match up with quite a huge difference in power being made.

I think it comes down to though...that in truth (not bashing at all) the LS1 is at 60% of it's power producing potential NA and the Mach 1 is at 80% of it's power producing potential NA. This is from our point of view (normal people who like to modify their cars), so the situation could be different in the bigger scheme of professional draggers...but that really comes down to how much money and research is made. For FI, right now the modular IS winning the game. This is partly because 1. So far it's been easier to get this sort of power from modular 2. There hasn't been as much advancement for pushrod FI 3. So far, they can't keep a LS1 together to run a faster time.

Again Snoozer not flaming you or the modular motor, just making some points...just trying to be civilized and point out my point of view. I definetely respect your views.



Who the **** cares about how much over MSRP they are gonna be, god. Not now at least. Or especially if you can't afford one anyway. Then it doesn't matter how much cheaper it is than the GT cause you can't afford that either. I'm sorry but I was hoping this thread was dead as rightfully it should be. Nobody should be talking about price or superiority per dollar unless they actually own a 06 Z06 and are having an argument with an actual GT owner. Let the owners of the cars fight their own arguments.

Snoozer

Number Typo. Fixed it.

Much appreciated. I tried to understand everyone who had a coherent POV in here.

Modular motors aren't some type of holy engine; I own a pushrod car, made by GM. However, I'm not biased by that fact. I took the other side in here just to see the reactions.

This is my last post; I have better things to do than (for the most part) toy around in here.

chuntington101

the CCR now thats a car and a half. screw the Bugatti Veyron, it weighs to much, the CCR is the best supercar in the World at the mo. or untill the new Zonda comes out.

and to the person (cant be bothered to go back and look) who said something like "who needs carppy 4 valves per cylinder?" my answer is GM for thier the smaller engines where packaging is less of an issue.

thanks Chris.

mr. peepers

Ive been catching up on the last several pages, and I still smile at some of the points made. A lot of people will make points about a stock GT, and explain the aftermarket upgrade potential of the Z06. I guess I wont ever understand.

Just a thought to ponder....

If you took the 4.6L Mach 1, OR the 5.4L and removed the roots blower, do you all think the CR would be as low as they are? Last time I checked, the F-bodys have a CR from 10.1-5:1. The other motors are 10.1:1, and 8.4:1 (Although I did use a Lightning spec's, its a 5.4L with an Eaton blower.).

stik6shift93

Snoozer rather than wasting my time having a pointless conversation with you over the boards why don't you just hit me up on aim, and we can carry out this conversation one on one, then we'll see just really how smart you are. My aim is brad97z

chuntington101

so whats the most someone has got from ANY NA push rod engine, be it race or street. the multi valve guys have got this one made. last years BMW F1 engine, a repputed 950bhp from 3.0ltr. and trust me, l have seen one of these units and they are tiny!

Chris.

Snoozer

The conversation(s) are over on my end.

I went back through and reread everything from my first post till this one. If someone needs to prove their "smarts" or I.Q., be it on this board or AIM, the burden is CLEARLY not on my shoulders. I'm not going to bother with a AIM conversation when you can't finish the discussion here...I'm still waiting for you to produce the LS1 that was promised (by you) to have more power per liter than any modular I listed.

Big-DEN

Without blowers I presume?

Snoozer

And what does that engine redline at? Might have something to do with the power.

When I was talking about the 4V thing it was never really about the valves, it was mostly about the quad cams. Most of the Ford 4V engines offered in new cars are quad cam. I should have been more specific.

Its the multiple cams that matter, and thats how the small displacement Ford modulars are making big power in a way that pushrods can't. Same thing with your BMW engine above.

The difference in valves really don't matter for hp gains for conventional engines but I'm not familiar with engines operating at that RPM level so perhaps they do up in that high range. I thought the 5V Ferrari F50 engine was a worthless setup, even though it made 720 hp naturally aspirated on DOHC 4.6L modular.

Snoozer

Ya sure, turbos work fine. What part of my quote was misunderstood?




What is it with this place and power adders? Who gives a ****. Power is power and any engine can do it.

Show me a confirmed LS1 running better than 6.6 in the 1/4 or making more than 380 hp/liter, as promised before you (stickshift) edited your post to say NA, and you win.

Big-DEN

How about this. What about an LS1 doing better than 7.0 in the 1/4. A 6.6 now... If the LS1 is not doing 7.0 or greater today, all they have to do is study the setups used on the ford side and adopt it over.

Anyhow, when we start talking about power adders. Aren't we essentially talking about racing the power adder itself and the engine just contains it.

Big Jimbo

If anyone wants to go into extremes about Hp per liter than check out Lingenfelters 2.2 liter ecotec (GM 4 banger) turbo 1200hp motor which he pretty much ended his life in (with great respect). Do the math. Thats 600hp per liter

chuntington101

1200bhp from a turbo Eco???? thats mad. i thought these engines where strong but thats taking the ****. i have seen the 4G64turbo units in EVOs tunning out over 900 on meth but 1200! take it was in a drag car.

now if i could get half that and put it into a 800kg VX220 Turbo then it would give me 750bhp/ton!

and if i dropped it into a 600kg Caterham then it would be 1000bhp/ton! thats getting close to F1 cars of the early 90's

thanks Chris.

PS. got any links to this mad engine?

EDIT: Snoozer, i know what you mean. having seperate cams for the inlet can exhaust is the best way as it lets you swing the tming idapendentaly of each other. now on a FI car (well turbo anyway) this is good as you can dial out overlap and thus reduce the chance of the inlet charge escaping through the exhaust. and on N/A motors it lets you run more or less overlap so you can optimise the timing of the mods you have!

Snoozer

I'll let you know right now, the LS1 isn't.

We can talk about anything which might happen in the future on either side of the fence. Lets stick to the here and now...Didn't they already "adopt" over the technology? Big Jimbo's listed engine looks like a prime candidate anyways.

Thats wrong today and it was wrong 40+ years ago.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...ford-427cammer

These things made 1000 hp N/A like naptime on 60's technology/carbs. Nevermind their power when used in top fuel configurations. Ford should crack open their own history books on this one.

Big Jimbo:

Isn't that a DOHC 4V engine? Its badass anyways. Don't show it to the (lol) "there is a replacement for displacement" guys

Chun:

It's on the NHRA record list. I think its still the fastest 4 banger in the world. 6.99 seconds.

Big-DEN

Tell me why a C5R block, max ported C5R heads, SHeetmetal custom computing and same turbo and ducting won't make similar HP on the LS1 as it does the ford?

Same or similar HP in a similar built chassis should yield similar numbers. So just because the LS1 hasn't doesn't mean it CANT, it just means someone didn't decide to build one yet.

Big-DEN

The "cammer" was SOHC.

Not to say that a 427 big block, pick your choice can't make 1000HP or over today with the current crop of heads and pushrods...

02 Camaro SS

iTrader: (4)

what's with all the hp/liter talk? This isn't a ricer forum

Cal

iTrader: (1)

Ha ha it's all in a name. The original Ford GT40 was offically called a Ford GT also. The name GT 40 was started by car magazine writers that were refering to it being 40 inches high.

As far as handling goes, the new Z06 does very well for a front engined car, but the GT has more potential with it being mid-engined and having a lower center of gravity and less frontal area.

Big Jimbo

Damn right. I'd like to know how large of valves are on that baby. Turbo's prolly bigger than the motor itself.

Warren Johnson's making 1320 horses out of a N/A 499ci chevy. I wouldnt doubt his motors spitting out the most numbers in his class since that guy tunes his carbs and motors and what not himself. I just hope professors "day" isnt to soon. I admire him and that car.