silly s2000
Teching In
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TransAminal
Dude you're an idiot. The LS7 is one of the best production motors ever created, and you're disgracing it by saying that they "should use the tech that Honda and Toyota use" - why, so it can be a no-torque 800lb huge *** engine that takes up the whole engine bay and uses more fuel?? Are you retarded?? It makes 505HP, sounds awesome, and still manages 27MPG on the highway.
Do us all a favor and refrain from posting, its making everyone dumber.
Do us all a favor and refrain from posting, its making everyone dumber.
I think you missed his point.....
IF the LS7 was a DOHC 32V Motor with Variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust side, it would make well over 600hp.
Problem, is its cost would go up.
And the 27 mpg on the higway...very decieving...I get 28 in the CTSV in 6th gear.....but I AVERAGE about 14.
11 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Sterling VA
Originally Posted by unit213
Here's an idea. You post...I'll moderate. Ok? Thanks. 
...and you might want to tone down your negativity a bit or you might
find yourself on the receiving end of the ban stick.
...and you might want to tone down your negativity a bit or you might
find yourself on the receiving end of the ban stick.
I remember when i first came on here you wanted to ban me after 5min. You sent me a pm and you know I wasnt talking out of my *** so you let me stay, thanks
11 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Sterling VA
Originally Posted by CTSVSL65AMG
I think you missed his point.....
IF the LS7 was a DOHC 32V Motor with Variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust side, it would make well over 600hp.
Problem, is its cost would go up.
And the 27 mpg on the higway...very decieving...I get 28 in the CTSV in 6th gear.....but I AVERAGE about 14.
IF the LS7 was a DOHC 32V Motor with Variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust side, it would make well over 600hp.
Problem, is its cost would go up.
And the 27 mpg on the higway...very decieving...I get 28 in the CTSV in 6th gear.....but I AVERAGE about 14.
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
12 Second Club
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: ca
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
Thank you too,
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
also, i don't see what vvt would do for an engine with so much displacement? you can tune the valve timing for high horsepower on top and still get gobs of torque at low rpm just from the displacement. i guess it may be needed to compensate if you went to 3 of 4 valves per cylinder since that would end up moving the torque peak higher in the band... right? aren't most engines with the variable timing stuff are of relatively small displacement? i thought it was to allow high hp at high rpm but still get reasonable torque at lower rpms, something they would otherwise lack.
as an aside, yamaha just recently switched back to 4 valves per cylinder from 5 in their race bikes ( the 600 at least ) to pull the torque curve back down in the rpm range. sometimes you can have too much tech i guess.
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
Thank you too,
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
Thank you too,
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
cost would go up but would it really be that much? I know they would charge more because there are more parts but the real cost would be in the tech.
Not to mention it would weigh a lot more, take up more room, and have less low end power. There is no point. Simple as that, just drop the issue. The LS7 is an engineering marvel, stop trying to explain how you think you could make more power than GM's world class engineers.
Launching!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
From: Arizona.
OHC layouts don't rob low end torque. VVT does not either. In fact if done right it improves it. However deficient Hondas might be in the low end, they would be even worse if not for VTEC. Think of what a hi-po cam can do to a LS1s low end. NO imagine the same effect to a BXX. What VTEC and all that other stuff does is allow for a much less aggresive timing profile down low to preserve torque and then use the more aggressive part up top. Basicly, to apply it to an LSX; Imagine a 224/228 on a nice LSA up to about 3500 and then a G5X3 after that. Yummy.
Basicly OHC and VVT dont rob low end. Many cars with them simply have less because they dont have the kind of displacement taken for granted on here. The bast way to make power on limited revs is still to have plenty of volume to combust it in and or a way to force it in. Hence the 454 in the tow truck and the Terminator down the street making god knows how much torque at 3500 or your dads Turbo Diesel. (which has both and a crap ton of compression)
But again, no free lunch. More R and D (like millions, not thousands) more coplex production and yes higher costs. In addition to concerns like space constraints. Its harder to do VVT on a OHV. And we alreayd know what OHC does for size.
BUT. What I realy want to see is variable rockers for the LS7. They have them for the 5.3 and they seem to be pretty friggin awesome. You could get some more lift up top using variable ratio rockers to take advantage of all the flow from the new intake and heads.
Basicly OHC and VVT dont rob low end. Many cars with them simply have less because they dont have the kind of displacement taken for granted on here. The bast way to make power on limited revs is still to have plenty of volume to combust it in and or a way to force it in. Hence the 454 in the tow truck and the Terminator down the street making god knows how much torque at 3500 or your dads Turbo Diesel. (which has both and a crap ton of compression)
But again, no free lunch. More R and D (like millions, not thousands) more coplex production and yes higher costs. In addition to concerns like space constraints. Its harder to do VVT on a OHV. And we alreayd know what OHC does for size.
BUT. What I realy want to see is variable rockers for the LS7. They have them for the 5.3 and they seem to be pretty friggin awesome. You could get some more lift up top using variable ratio rockers to take advantage of all the flow from the new intake and heads.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo 11 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Sterling VA
Originally Posted by Sparetire
OHC layouts don't rob low end torque. VVT does not either. In fact if done right it improves it. However deficient Hondas might be in the low end, they would be even worse if not for VTEC. Think of what a hi-po cam can do to a LS1s low end. NO imagine the same effect to a BXX. What VTEC and all that other stuff does is allow for a much less aggresive timing profile down low to preserve torque and then use the more aggressive part up top. Basicly, to apply it to an LSX; Imagine a 224/228 on a nice LSA up to about 3500 and then a G5X3 after that. Yummy.
Basicly OHC and VVT dont rob low end. Many cars with them simply have less because they dont have the kind of displacement taken for granted on here. The bast way to make power on limited revs is still to have plenty of volume to combust it in and or a way to force it in. Hence the 454 in the tow truck and the Terminator down the street making god knows how much torque at 3500 or your dads Turbo Diesel. (which has both and a crap ton of compression)
But again, no free lunch. More R and D (like millions, not thousands) more coplex production and yes higher costs. In addition to concerns like space constraints. Its harder to do VVT on a OHV. And we alreayd know what OHC does for size.
BUT. What I realy want to see is variable rockers for the LS7. They have them for the 5.3 and they seem to be pretty friggin awesome. You could get some more lift up top using variable ratio rockers to take advantage of all the flow from the new intake and heads.
Basicly OHC and VVT dont rob low end. Many cars with them simply have less because they dont have the kind of displacement taken for granted on here. The bast way to make power on limited revs is still to have plenty of volume to combust it in and or a way to force it in. Hence the 454 in the tow truck and the Terminator down the street making god knows how much torque at 3500 or your dads Turbo Diesel. (which has both and a crap ton of compression)
But again, no free lunch. More R and D (like millions, not thousands) more coplex production and yes higher costs. In addition to concerns like space constraints. Its harder to do VVT on a OHV. And we alreayd know what OHC does for size.
BUT. What I realy want to see is variable rockers for the LS7. They have them for the 5.3 and they seem to be pretty friggin awesome. You could get some more lift up top using variable ratio rockers to take advantage of all the flow from the new intake and heads.
That about sums up VVT. I belive you would make a good bit more tq down low, idle good, and still save on gas
12 Second Club
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
From: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted by CTSVSL65AMG
I think you missed his point.....
IF the LS7 was a DOHC 32V Motor with Variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust side, it would make well over 600hp.
Problem, is its cost would go up.
IF the LS7 was a DOHC 32V Motor with Variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust side, it would make well over 600hp.
Problem, is its cost would go up.
Teching In
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TransAminal
It would go up by a significant amount. It would cost GM hundreds of thousands in R&D to design the motor, plus it would cost them hundreds if not thousands more to actually build them. That cost would get passed on directly to the buyer in the form of a higher MSRP, which nobody likes.
Not to mention it would weigh a lot more, take up more room, and have less low end power. There is no point. Simple as that, just drop the issue. The LS7 is an engineering marvel, stop trying to explain how you think you could make more power than GM's world class engineers.
Not to mention it would weigh a lot more, take up more room, and have less low end power. There is no point. Simple as that, just drop the issue. The LS7 is an engineering marvel, stop trying to explain how you think you could make more power than GM's world class engineers.
You have no idea how variable valve timing and electronic lift control work based on this statement.
I think the LS7 is great, but an engineering marvel?? Why? Its a 7 liter pushrod making about 70 hp per liter.
Its a great bang for the buck, the car as a package for the $$'s is a marvel, no doubt, but the engine its self...no more impressive than the LS6, which makes nearly identical HP/Liter numbers.
Teching In
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dailydriver
Even if the purchasers of Z06s were willing to absorb the costs, that engine simply WOULD NOT FIT in a current C6/y body platform! You would also have to add in the cost of a total redesign. It might be cool in a new, mid-engined Vette, but now you're into the $150K+ range, and the purists would hate/reject it wholesale.
You are over exagerating the dimensional increase that would result. But its a mute point. GM does not have the overhead to fund massive R&D to develope variable valve technology. They will continue to use lots of CC's and FI.
Too bad they will be bankrupt in 10 years.
12 Second Club
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
From: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted by CTSVSL65AMG
You are over exagerating the dimensional increase that would result.
Too bad they will be bankrupt in 10 years.
Too bad they will be bankrupt in 10 years.
I apologize in advance if this is not what you are implying. But you almost sound like those import ONLY loving a$$hats on bobistheoilguy.com who are sitting there rubbing their hands together in absolute, ecstatic glee over the prospect of GM going under. I myself am not too happy about this, EVEN if they somehow really do deserve that fate.
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,841
Likes: 5
From: Earth
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
Thank you Unit.
I remember when i first came on here you wanted to ban me after 5min. You sent me a pm and you know I wasnt talking out of my *** so you let me stay, thanks
I remember when i first came on here you wanted to ban me after 5min. You sent me a pm and you know I wasnt talking out of my *** so you let me stay, thanks
Owning a car outside of the LSx family and having differing views
doesn't make one a troll. IMO, you can offer a lot of insight here.
All car enthusiasts are welcome. Many people join and are not LSx
fans, but they soon become one.
if its not broke why fix it, the GM small block has been driving american industry for over 50 years, what engine last this long for this price and still can kick *** at racing over and over?........none
that doesnt mean that GM is close minded and just makes one dimensional motors the GM sb has developed over the years and has adapted well over time with changes in the market, and its not like GM doesnt make other motors theyre putting decent amounts of money into the eco-tec's,diesels, and pretty soon hybrids and the hydrogen parternship with shell gas stations
that doesnt mean that GM is close minded and just makes one dimensional motors the GM sb has developed over the years and has adapted well over time with changes in the market, and its not like GM doesnt make other motors theyre putting decent amounts of money into the eco-tec's,diesels, and pretty soon hybrids and the hydrogen parternship with shell gas stations
Banned
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by CTSVSL65AMG
You have no idea how variable valve timing and electronic lift control work based on this statement.
I think the LS7 is great, but an engineering marvel?? Why? Its a 7 liter pushrod making about 70 hp per liter.
Its a great bang for the buck, the car as a package for the $$'s is a marvel, no doubt, but the engine its self...no more impressive than the LS6, which makes nearly identical HP/Liter numbers.
I think the LS7 is great, but an engineering marvel?? Why? Its a 7 liter pushrod making about 70 hp per liter.
Its a great bang for the buck, the car as a package for the $$'s is a marvel, no doubt, but the engine its self...no more impressive than the LS6, which makes nearly identical HP/Liter numbers.
Way to bring in the ricer arguement of HP/L. Who the hell cares?? I mean honestly, what difference does HP/L make?? Ricers like TURBOS2K with 2.0 Honda engines bring that **** up, have some dignity.
You really should educate yourself on the engineering behind the LS7, here's an article that was posted earlier, educate yourself and stop talking ****:
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml
Originally Posted by CTSVSL65AMG
You are over exagerating the dimensional increase that would result. But its a mute point. GM does not have the overhead to fund massive R&D to develope variable valve technology. They will continue to use lots of CC's and FI.
Too bad they will be bankrupt in 10 years.
Too bad they will be bankrupt in 10 years.
But thats just what happens when your paying your employees so much and give them excellent retirement/benefits and they are unionized, those 200,000 plus workers not counting the retired ones are taking its toll on GM as well as having so many brands.(buick,sabb,pontiac.....etc)
Thats why japanese companys save so much money and can put more into R&D and reliability/marketing.........because they dont pay there mostly non american non union workers as much and dont offer 70 different cars like GM does, they can concentrate all there efforts on the few cars they offer and dont have to spend as much on payrolls/benefits/union crap
i think honda really needs a V-8 i cant stress enuff how underpowered the NSX and ridgeline are compared to the competition........and more now that they have competition frmo other japanese brands with nissan(350z,new skyline),toyota(lexus,new surpa)
11 Second Club
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Sterling VA
Originally Posted by TransAminal
I happen to have a good understanding of how VVT and electronic lift control work. I mentioned that using OHC design instead of OHV almost always results in a decrease in low end torque. Its just a characteristic of overhead cam vs. pushrod valtrain setup.
Way to bring in the ricer arguement of HP/L. Who the hell cares?? I mean honestly, what difference does HP/L make?? Ricers like TURBOS2K with 2.0 Honda engines bring that **** up, have some dignity.
You really should educate yourself on the engineering behind the LS7, here's an article that was posted earlier, educate yourself and stop talking ****:
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml
Way to bring in the ricer arguement of HP/L. Who the hell cares?? I mean honestly, what difference does HP/L make?? Ricers like TURBOS2K with 2.0 Honda engines bring that **** up, have some dignity.
You really should educate yourself on the engineering behind the LS7, here's an article that was posted earlier, educate yourself and stop talking ****:
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml
Some of you guys say a DOHC V8 with VVT would not fit in the new vett. If you had a motor with this then it would not need to be as big. You could get away with a 5 Lt motor, not 7.0 and still make more power. With a dry sump and the smaller motor Im sure it would work just fine.
I agree with you guys when you say the Union is killing GM. I wish they could get rid of the union. If people wanna work for GM then they work with out the union. Who ever wants to stay with the union gets fired.