Bolt on 5.0, beats 4th gen 427 stroker camaro SS
!["MAC"'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%237f3b59' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
03-03-2014, 02:53 PM
#664
03-03-2014, 03:19 PM
#667
10 Second Club
03-03-2014, 03:23 PM
#668
03-03-2014, 03:30 PM
#669
Which is all fine and good...but the extra 1/2 horsepower per cubic inch just MAY make up for a 50lb difference in engine weight and a little more difficulty with packaging. Seeing as Ford designs their vehicles around these "ginormous" engines, packaging is out of the way, so that leaves us with what? Oh...it'll take an extra 10 cubic inches to eliminate the deficit caused by the "heavy" modular design. An excellent argument, given that the nearest Ford/GM competitive products already have an ENORMOUS gap in displacement...in favor of GM no less.
03-03-2014, 03:31 PM
#670
10 Second Club
Which is all fine and good...but the extra 1/2 horsepower per cubic inch just MAY make up for a 50lb difference in engine weight and a little more difficulty with packaging. Seeing as Ford designs their vehicles around these "ginormous" engines, packaging is out of the way, so that leaves us with what? Oh...it'll take an extra 10 cubic inches to eliminate the deficit caused by the "heavy" modular design. An excellent argument, given that the nearest Ford/GM competitive products already have an ENORMOUS gap in displacement...in favor of GM no less.
03-03-2014, 03:33 PM
#671
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is all fine and good...but the extra 1/2 horsepower per cubic inch just MAY make up for a 50lb difference in engine weight and a little more difficulty with packaging. Seeing as Ford designs their vehicles around these "ginormous" engines, packaging is out of the way, so that leaves us with what? Oh...it'll take an extra 10 cubic inches to eliminate the deficit caused by the "heavy" modular design. An excellent argument, given that the nearest Ford/GM competitive products already have an ENORMOUS gap in displacement...in favor of GM no less.
03-03-2014, 03:34 PM
#672
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-03-2014, 03:36 PM
#673
7 Second Club
03-03-2014, 05:01 PM
#675
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether the Ford or GM engine is better really shouldn't be in question here. If you need more cubes to make the same or more power, that engine is positively less efficient especially if it doesn't match fuel economy.
The reason I posted this is because I've read several comments about the big heavy Ford 5L. It's about a max of 15lb different from the typical aluminum LS engine. That's not much but it is way bigger.
The reason I posted this is because I've read several comments about the big heavy Ford 5L. It's about a max of 15lb different from the typical aluminum LS engine. That's not much but it is way bigger.
03-03-2014, 05:20 PM
#679
7 Second Club
03-03-2014, 05:22 PM
#680
TECH Senior Member
MAC, please PLEASE STFU, you're not helping.
C'mon, with all the hard googling you've been doing, you can certainly do better than that...
Assuming these numbers are correct, the BB engines are actually SMALLER than the mod motor:
http://www.onallcylinders.com/2013/0...popular-swaps/
You're saying that like it matters for some reason. Poor argument when the weight and size difference is heavily in favor of the LS7. So not only does the LS7 make more power/torque at a cheaper price, but its also smaller and lighter. Why does the displacement matter again?
Not if the weight and size doubles.
But it doesn't make up for it. Its physically MUCH bigger. As far as the "rated" weight of the engine Id like to see how Ford actually weighs them, as Im willing to bet their "dressed" weight has quite a few less things than GM's dressed weight (which is turn key with flywheel and clutch).
Im not talking strictly about the Mustang vs Camaro, Im talking hypothetically if you were to be building a car. Remember we are talking about just the engines, not the cars involved.
:facepalm: *cough corvette cough*
Arn't you the one always trying to convince people you are not a mustang fanboy? Why are you going out of your way to defend what is obviously the bigger, heavier engine of the two? I have a feeling that if it were the other way around your argument would be very different.
Not even close on size. Weight is negotiable, but see the comments above, Im betting Ford's definition of "dressed" is different from GMs. Id also like to see a third party verify the dressed and undressed weight.
Regardless you still end up with the LS3 being smaller/lighter/cheaper with more power/torque at the end of the day, displacement again being irrelevant.
I've bolded the issue here, there is not a "need" but rather a "choice/want". GM doesn't "need" more displacement, they CHOOSE to use more displacement instead of higher RPMs with a more expensive valvetrain. You end up getting better drivability, and a better powerband with more low end torque with no weight or physical size handicap, so why not? Why would you not use something like a 7L+ application when its the same size and weight of something like a 4.8L OHV equivalent engine or 3-4L V8 OHC equivalent in size??? Who cares what the displacement is if its lightweight and small?
Assuming these numbers are correct, the BB engines are actually SMALLER than the mod motor:
http://www.onallcylinders.com/2013/0...popular-swaps/
You're saying that like it matters for some reason. Poor argument when the weight and size difference is heavily in favor of the LS7. So not only does the LS7 make more power/torque at a cheaper price, but its also smaller and lighter. Why does the displacement matter again?
Which is all fine and good...but the extra 1/2 horsepower per cubic inch just MAY make up for a 50lb difference in engine weight and a little more difficulty with packaging. Seeing as Ford designs their vehicles around these "ginormous" engines, packaging is out of the way, so that leaves us with what? Oh...it'll take an extra 10 cubic inches to eliminate the deficit caused by the "heavy" modular design. An excellent argument, given that the nearest Ford/GM competitive products already have an ENORMOUS gap in displacement...in favor of GM no less.
Im not talking strictly about the Mustang vs Camaro, Im talking hypothetically if you were to be building a car. Remember we are talking about just the engines, not the cars involved.
Arn't you the one always trying to convince people you are not a mustang fanboy? Why are you going out of your way to defend what is obviously the bigger, heavier engine of the two? I have a feeling that if it were the other way around your argument would be very different.
Not even close on size. Weight is negotiable, but see the comments above, Im betting Ford's definition of "dressed" is different from GMs. Id also like to see a third party verify the dressed and undressed weight.
Regardless you still end up with the LS3 being smaller/lighter/cheaper with more power/torque at the end of the day, displacement again being irrelevant.
Whether the Ford or GM engine is better really shouldn't be in question here. If you need more cubes to make the same or more power, that engine is positively less efficient especially if it doesn't match fuel economy.
The reason I posted this is because I've read several comments about the big heavy Ford 5L. It's about a max of 15lb different from the typical aluminum LS engine. That's not much but it is way bigger.
The reason I posted this is because I've read several comments about the big heavy Ford 5L. It's about a max of 15lb different from the typical aluminum LS engine. That's not much but it is way bigger.