2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

Are you talking about the ever so rare Quad 4 HO W41 that was in Olds? It had a red engine cover. That was like back in 1992 I think. It was 2.3L. You might be talking about that. It was 190HP stock and very noisy.

"The Olds Quad 4 was the first production, four-valve, DOHC four cylinder engine built by General Motors. When it was introduced in 1987, it was heralded as a revolutionary new design that was expected to be as historically significant as the original Olds Rocket V8 was in 1949. "

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/ar49935.htm

leaftye

They use air springs for the valves.

Here's my list. Not much is very far off, and each of these things are already used in production engines, but not all in one engine, and that's what I'd like...for all this to be in one engine:

Valvetrain: electromagnetic or hydraulic valves with variable actuation length and rate (speed). I don't really care how they work at the valve, as long as the computer can fully control each valve. This would allow displacement on demand, low lift for low rpm torque and high lift for high rpm hp. It also creates the potential to switch to 2-stroke mode. No throttle bodies would be required with this system.

Fuel injection: direct injection that allow multiple squirts per cycle. While this won't necessarily increase power, it will allow greater power levels with sound levels equal to lower hp engines without DI. This also needs to support as many different fuel options as possible. With DI and electromagnetic valves, it should be possible to run diesel.....and fuels like E10 and E85 are a given.

Coatings: reflective coatings on the all combustion chamber faces, as well as the exhaust port. Slippery coatings on the inside of the crankcase and under the valve covers (if anything still needs oil with valve solenoids) to get oil back to the pan faster, and also on the bottom of the piston, on the rods and the crank to reduce windage losses.

Dry sump oiling: further reduce windage losses, and hold the oil rings to the cylinder walls better. Provides better protection for the engine during start-up and cornering.

Oil squirters: spray the bottom of the pistons and the valvetrain....unless the valve solenoids work well enough to not require additional cooling.

Materials: I'd love exotic materials like titanium, ceramic composite, carbon carbon, beryllium and magnesium. That's probably never going to be affordable, so I'd be happy if GM used forged steel cranks and rods, cast aluminum block and forged aluminum pistons and at least 220,000 psi hardware throughout.

chuntington101

six speed, no mate i was on about the XE engine, the for farther to the Ecotec that gm uses today. the thing was amazing and i think cosworth worked on the head!

leafty, thanks for the info. i knew they used air somewhere as they run gas coolers for the system.

oh and it sounds like you need a job at GM! lol the higher up the better i my eyes! great wish list!

Chris.

3valGenIv

Finally GM will bring out the Push Rod 3valve per cylinder small block. According to GM it is less expansive to build than the DOHC and capable of making big power and meet all EPA standereds

chuntington101

i think i have found whta the new GM V should be based upon!

see here http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...149644203&q=V8

i think it would make a cracking engine! fuel econamy might be a little efffcted though! lol

Chris.

distortion_69

iTrader: (20)

Stronger rods/bolts, drop in replacement forged pistons from factory..

The better oiling system is always a plus..

I'd like to see some weight reduction on the engine myself.. any weight lost is awesome IMO. Especially in our nose heavy cars.

Peace,
Josh

leaftye

The LSx is already one of the lightest engines out there....compared to anything. It's hard to expect it to get much lighter, but I still expect it to be refined into becoming stronger, more powerful, more efficient and quieter. The things I mentioned in my post earlier would take care of the last three, but only additional engineering, FEA and casting techniques would help with strength until materials science advances enough for us to use something other than aluminum for the block, and steel for the crank and rods.....for example, I'd love to see more beryllium, and a couple ferrous alloys and Ti alloys, and also some ceramics and composites of all kinds....still far from practical for any of that though.

I'm with you on your other points, except for forged pistons...maybe as a prepaid special order (with LS7 manufacturing techniques), but not as dealer stock.

distortion_69

iTrader: (20)

Personally.. I think selling the crate motor with the option for replacement forged pistons would be a great idea.. doesn't even have to be in the car itself if it's not viable.. but being able to order is a great option.

I'm not talking about a huge weight reduction.. a lighter pulley would be great.. we are shaving 8#'s off with aftermarket ones... lighter manifolds (they are heavy as hell).. lighter rotating assembly.. there's tons of room to shave off 25lbs or so.

This is of course included in the overall package of a well engineered engine.. Just knocking off a few pounds in the process of doing the other stuff is always great.. they've knocked a few pounds off of the ls2 over the ls1.. never hurts to build on that

Peace,
Josh

Richiec77

iTrader: (3)

Better Water Pump. The new one on the LS2 is barelly keeping up with demand during hard use. The stock one that originally came out on the LS1 isn't that bad of a design, but $50+ termostats is nuts.

Better connecting rod bolts. The rod bolts are know to be the main weak link for the rotating assy.

Stronger Connecting Rods. These are indeed great pices that GM made. BUT, Moding happens and people would be much happier knowing the rotating assy will be that much stronger.

Pistons. Use a stronger material and/or work on the week points. The ring landings tend to break, and the center of the piston can become brittle from heat cycling. Adjusting those 2 weak areas can make the piston much stronger. Look to the Ford 4.6 to see what they are doing right on the bottom end.

Better rocker arms. There are alot of threads floating about where the
needle bearings have fallen out and caused major damage to the engine as a result.

Pushrods? IT's a double edge argument here. I know the stockers are designed to flex in the event of a PV contact. That can save the engine from further damage, but these things are too weak. One missed shift near red-line or a stuck selenoid in the transcan cause these puppy's to bend for no good reason. (I'm guessing a little PV happened in those cases. So my argument is double edged) If that's the case, then a little more Valve spring would be more desired able to keep it from happening.

The newer heads look great flow wise (L-92), but they look REALLY thin is some critical areas. Namely near the valve guide in the port and the rocker base. Too thin for comfort.

Other then that, things are still looking strong and this platform is really taking off. It was a VERY fitting replacement to the 350 Chevy V-8 and prices are starting to come down into it's territory and $$$ per HP range quickly. (Keep up the good work)

chuntington101

if you want a really light engine design take a look at the new for Duratec! its fanominal! most all ally 2.0ltr engines run at about 110kg and the duratec is even lighter than the super light Rover K series at about 95-97 kg! als ohave a look a BMW new in-line 6s. i think they are using magnesium ally but they have cut a quiet a bit of weight of the engines!! soi thiunk there is allways room to shed a few pounds. getting rid of the liners and using Nikle-whatever coatings will help shed a few lbs.

a dry sump as standard would be good. and also allow you to drump the engine thus reducing the centre of gravity.

Chris.

leaftye

95 kg = 209 lbs

Is your quoted weight dressed? That figure definitely isn't the weight for a fully dressed turbo 2L Duratec...which barely produces more than half of what a LS2 puts out. If the Duratec 2.0L actually weighs 110 kg, then it's not even comparable to the LSx engines. If you think it is, I have a 3 lb gas trimmer engine for you!

A dressed LS2 is 443 lbs. Not bad at all considering it's twice the engine and then some, in many more ways than weight.

A dry sump would not allow the engine to sit any lower than it sits in the C5/C6 as it still requires a sump for the oil to be picked up from, especially since some stroker engines required the C5 oil pan to be trimmed for clearance.

Distortion, I'm sure you meant balancer and the pulley attached to it because the other pulleys I've checked out on my LS1 are plastic, and fiber reinforced plastics at that. I'm okay with the balancer assembly being heavy because they're cheap for GM to manufacture, better suited to some people, and easy for us to replace.

Overall, I'm very happy with most things that GM already does with the LSx line. The weak points except for pistons (rod bolts, rockers, balancer, water pump) are easy to replace, at least in Corvette's. I've been very impressed with the engineering of the C5/C6 because all the parts that need to be upgraded for track duty are very easy to replace compared to any other car I've worked on. The parts that are difficult to upgrade are top notch. Try removing the intake manifold in a 2nd gen CRX, and you'll know what I'm talking about!

distortion_69

iTrader: (20)

Dropping 10.. 20.. 25 more lbs is not impossible.. They've done it in the past generations.. they have done nothing groundbreaking. I think their is always still room for improvement in order to engineer a truly phenomonal motor. I'd be happy with a 10lbs loss even..

Most importantly.. I want a way to get to the lifters, without pulling the damn heads. Or some stronger lifters.. one of the two.

Peace,
Josh

chuntington101

95ishKG is the dressed weight of the Duratec

and the head is amazing, something F1 enginers would be proud of!!!!

as for the acssesability of everything well thats coz they are two totlay difffrent designs! most front wheel drives a re a bitch to work on becasue they are design to be compact notthing like the vette engine bay design/setup!

and i dot know why the lsx seems to have a weak bottom end! evos are laying down near to 1000whp at 45psi on 2 bolt mains!!

Chris.

briannutter

Ford didn't seem to be fighting too many lawsuits with the '87 to '93 mustang GT with it's forged pistons. My exact years may not be perfect, but those who complain ought to hear my '03 Wrx wagon clackin' in sub 0 temps with cast pistons.

Blue Devil seems like a good formula; the European's need superchargers to match the power of a "low tech" 2v engine. The Jap's can't comprehend anything other than "horsepower per litre". To bad they can't figure out horsepower per dollar.

So how about we add a CTS-V supercharger and intercooler to the LS7 short block (add Wiseco Pistons and the variable valve timing of the new Escalade motor. Seems like just a couple of '06 technologies put together to make enough power to beat the best of '08. Mark my words.

chuntington101

well you dont see to many vettes rallying do you??? the scooby and evo are just lead offs of rallying. the fact that they use small cc turboed engines is to comply with regs.

and as for cost, over here you can buy and mod a new Evo for much less than the cost of a Vette!!! and around a track the evo will be quicker!!!!!

not that i dont like the vette, just saying the facts

but a superchargerd LS7 from the factory would be great!!!!!!

Chris.

PS. not bashing anyone with the above statments, just telling it how it is.

dailydriver

Maybe a heavily modded Evo or STi will take a stock C5/6 on a road course, but it would take more money into either of those than the total cost of a C6 ZO6 to take said ZO6 on the same road course (with equivalent tires of course)!

BTW, I'd love to see GM get back into the WRC, (let's face it, their aborted Group A Calibra program was half-assed at best ) They should just take a Cobalt, put a fully built/forged/boosted Ecotec in it with a good Haldex/XTrac/Torsen AWD system and trans and kick some azz!!!

chuntington101

dailydriver, i have just checked the top gear power laps (where they get a racing drive that my mate know but wont tell me to race around their track) and it seems that vette (ZO i think) is about 2 seconds faster!

know i know im going to sounds funny here and you can have a go if you like but i have read in a very good mag that the Evo is quicker than a Porsche and the top gear guys says it not so im not too sure!!!

anyway (lol after my little bitch hehe) a new evo will set you back about £30K here. and the new Z06 (with the LS7) wll set you back £60K. so that leaves you with £30K to spend on mods. well a decnt set of brakes and a turbo, set of cams,intake& exhaust and the other little bits wil set you back about 10K and should save about 4 seconds off the clock! so they are pretty close!! but i stll feel the evo would have it and you can buy a nice audi sor something to run around in with the change! lol

would be nice to see Vauxhall (the Uks GM) to get back into rallying. they would probaly go for an astra style car (likr they use for the British touring cars). its not like it cant be done as ford has had a great package with the Focus, not to mention Pug.
but i stil cant see them beating the Citreon for a few years!

thanks Chris.

Wesmanw02

iTrader: (4)

I think you are incorrect about Ethanol not burning cleaner than gasoline. Alchohol based fuels tend to be much cleaner than petroleum based ones, just look inside an engine after running alchohol compared to one running gas or diesel. Alchohol natuarally cleans things, its a solvent, whereas gas and diesel contain petroleum and leave carbon behind when they burn. E85 should definitely be better for emmissions than straight petroleum.