High Powered Pushrod technology is better than High Powered Quadcam Technology

[PuRpS]

to the guy that stared this , your a bit of a dick

give the ford mod motor 50 yeard of development and see how much power it makes

the ls1 based motor is used in tones of car in the US where it gets deleloped , the ford mod motor we get here is in the F type trucks over there , hence the lack of part for it Vs the part you can get for the ls base motor or even the 4.6l mod motor (mustang)

technology is the only way

[Green X]

I can't wate to see how everybody's tone change if Ford stick a 6.0ltr DOHC V8 up along side the LS2 , or if the 5.4 Boss in the GT becomes a 320KW engine.

P.S Diesels have been using 4 Valve heads for years behind Push rod engines, i have a neat Photo of a set of V8 Cat heads on my phone.

[J.C.]

Originally Posted by PuRpS

to the guy that stared this , your a bit of a dick

give the ford mod motor 50 yeard of development and see how much power it makes

the ls1 based motor is used in tones of car in the US where it gets deleloped , the ford mod motor we get here is in the F type trucks over there , hence the lack of part for it Vs the part you can get for the ls base motor or even the 4.6l mod motor (mustang)

technology is the only way

I'm sorry, but I'd check my spelling very carefully before I'd post a comment about people/persons being "dicks". :

[DougM]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

You are basing your opinion in regards to fuel economy on what exactly?
Every test ive read backs up the claim it is great on fuel for what it is.
Even if you dont believe the manufacturers claim, Natural Resources Canada rates it at 14.3L/100km city, 8.2L/100km highway and 11.6L/100km combined.
Real owners are reporting similar results.

If you can find evidence that its a gas guzzler then by all means post it up.

On the LS1 forum guys are complaining that in the city they're VE's are only getting 18-20 litres per 100k's......Thats about right.....My V6 Vz(company car) only gets 13.5 to 14.5 in the city....My custom tuned XR6T was better on fuel than the V6 commy and was good for 310fwkw!!! My 1 and only time at WSID I got a 13.4 et....

I know We're talking V8's here but the new tech XR6T lets you have your cake and eat it too....Performance and economy when you need it!!! Buy buy chev!!!

I've also been told by my Holden driving mates that yes the LS1-2 is very light but the bores are so thin that a re-bore is risky!!! Is that true???? Who wants to resleeve a block each rebuild.......

As for the BOSS, even the Mustangs have gone back to the 3valve OHC heads....Maybe that's where we get the torque back.....They also have the 5.0 Cammer crate angine....Better bore stroke ratio than 5.4.....

[andrewts]

Well I have nothing against any type of technology, be it pushrod or Quadcam, but there are a few interesting points made in the first post. I haven't read the rest of the thread though, so if I am responding improperly, please be nice to me. :

If the Big LS V8 has more power, more torque, more economy, a nicer note, is less complex, cheaper, easier to work on, has more available parts and will still be good after half a million kilometers, then who really cares what the power per litre is on the engine. You'd be pretty desperate to have to say that your engine is better because it has more power per litre. The sound may not be as important as the other stuff, but I believe is enhances the motoring experience.

My $0.02.

[Rollin]

As mentioned in the first post, power per litre doesn't mean anything.

If a 200kg 2 litre engine makes 200kw and a 100kg 6 litre engine makes 200kg, both having exactly the same external dimensions, which is better?

I'd pick the lighter engine any day. Not to mention the fact that a 200kw 2 litre is bound to be highly strung and only good to drive when it is being hammered.

Power per litre - who cares?

Power per kg, or power per total Volume (ie, the amount of total space the engine takes up in the car, rather than the combined capacity of each cylinder) is a much more important thing.

Unfortunately, the LS engines are bloody good (once you stop them using oil and piston slapping etc etc etc) compared to the Boss. Not to say the Boss isn't a good motor, but it is MASSIVE externally, is a smaller capacity INTERNALLY, more complicated and more expensive to modify.

Same for the M5 motor. Oh My God that engine is the stuff wet dreams are made of, but it would get toasted by an LS7 for ease of maintenence, cost to build and service, power output, packaging etc etc etc.

I don't like them facts, but them's what they are.

[Falc'man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falc'man
Wow so an unopened Boss is quicker than an opened Chev LS even with a distinct weight disadvantage to the Boss.
GO THE BOSS

My pursuit is the quickest unopened Boss ( NA )and has only run 11.76 so it has not matched the quickest LS1 boys, but I raced at over 1700 kg

Thanks RATTER. At at least you knew what I meant. Plus, I should have had inverted commas on "opened"... since they're claiming to be unopened but they're not.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by DougM

I've also been told by my Holden driving mates that yes the LS1-2 is very light but the bores are so thin that a re-bore is risky!!! Is that true???? Who wants to resleeve a block each rebuild.......

Bores are thin on the LS2/LS7 as you can see, buts thats because of the 4in bore. Its no different to any Euro engine. Gotta to use all the available space you can.
Unlike the Boss which is as big as a 460 :



When engines can now do 250k kms easy if serviced regularly re-boring is irrelevant in this day and age. When was the last time someone with a late model car had to re-bore?

[DougM]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Bores are thin on the LS2/LS7 as you can see, buts thats because of the 4in bore. Its no different to any Euro engine. Gotta to use all the available space you can.
Unlike the Boss which is as big as a 460 :



When engines can now do 250k kms easy if serviced regularly re-boring is irrelevant in this day and age. When was the last time someone with a late model car had to re-bore?

I mentioned reboring from a performance point of view...I can't imagine those 9-10sec unopened chevs lasting 250000km's!!!!!

[owl]

Originally Posted by DougM

I mentioned reboring from a performance point of view...I can't imagine those 9-10sec unopened chevs lasting 250000km's!!!!!

HAD 3 boss engines in my GT; i'st one used heaps of oil ,2n'd one would'nt idle ,had to be removed and replaced 3'rd one was a slug that guzzled fuel finally gave up and now own a HSV VE BEST car i've owned goes like stink great on fuel and uses no oil ,so much for hi teck ohc verses dinosour pushrod

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Rollin

As mentioned in the first post, power per litre doesn't mean anything.

If a 200kg 2 litre engine makes 200kw and a 100kg 6 litre engine makes 200kw, both having exactly the same external dimensions, which is better?

I'd pick the lighter engine any day. Not to mention the fact that a 200kw 2 litre is bound to be highly strung and only good to drive when it is being hammered.

Power per litre - who cares?
.

Who cares = probably the guy paying to fuel the 6L.

[merlin]

I should probably add I care about 4 things in an engine:

- Power
- Fuel Consumption
- Driveability
- Longetivity.

How these are achieved I don't really care, I especially don't care about what actuates the valves...

[Sourbastard]

dumbest.

thread.

ever.

atleast since the last pushrod vs OHC thread.