 
     |
| archie is gettin bashed on streetfire? (Page 26/53) |
|
Jrgicehc
|
MAR 16, 05:19 PM
|
|
FYI the LS7 makes more horsepower and torque than every one of those engines except for the murcielago engine. if you read that article you would see why the LS7 is "new technology". just because a motor doesnt have a OHC or DOHC doesnt mean its obsolete or "old technology"
|
|
|
|
Leafy
|
MAR 16, 05:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Jrgicehc:
FYI the LS7 makes more horsepower and torque than every one of those engines except for the murcielago engine. if you read that article you would see why the LS7 is "new technology". just because a motor doesnt have a OHC or DOHC doesnt mean its obsolete or "old technology" |
|
But the engines I've listed are smaller displacement, and more efficient. Therefore more HP per Cubic inch. Therefore it's a Better Engineered engine. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
|
crzyone
|
MAR 16, 05:47 PM
|
|
The LS7 is a great engine. Compact and powerful. 505hp is impressive. Could a 7L motor make more power with DOHC heads? Definitely. It would also increase the weight and size of the engine which is a downside.
Pushrod and DOHC engine both have compromises. You won't see many 7L engines as small as an LS7. Its specific output should also make it a reliable engine. It is definitly more advanced than the SRT-10 which puts out comparable power but with 2 more cylinders and 8.3L displacement.
This is a stock ZO6 getting into the 10s on street tires. There is nothing wrong with the LS7.
http://forums.corvetteforum...thread.php?t=1876797[This message has been edited by crzyone (edited 03-16-2008).]
|
|
|
|
FIEROPHREK
|
MAR 16, 07:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Leafy:
But the engines I've listed are smaller displacement, and more efficient. Therefore more HP per Cubic inch. Therefore it's a Better Engineered engine. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
who cares if the are more efficient? If your racing the damn thing your not worried about miles per gallon or any of that crap. It's about power to the ground. Well since i mentioned miles per gallon the 07 Zo6 with the LS7 get 16 city and 26 highway
http://www.autosite.com/con...19803/action/summary
Where as the ferrari f430 gets "fuel consumption 15.4 mpg (combined cycle)" (im guessing thats an average between city and highway)
http://www.ferraricars.org/.../specifications.html
Don't get me wrong though the ferrari motor is an enginering masterpiece but it is not nearley as mass produced as the LS7 or LSx varients. The ferrari motor has also never made it in the back of a fiero either. The LSx motor has and they are a very nice piece. The components are of a high quality in casting and machining. The "better engineered" comment baffles me. It is still an internal combustion engine what makes it so special? That it can turn X amount of RPM ? Those good ole boys in nascar are turning their SBC's to 9k and up. I know "thats a race engine though" but does it really matter? if you dump the money into a SBC , LSx it can turn those revs too. It once again comes back to "how much are you willing to spend?" .
Sorry to get off topic but the pissing and moaning has gotten old . It is obvious that hammit aka shaunna ,shaunbag ,shauniqua is STILL pissed at Archie for not hiring him to work on / install V8's into fiero's . That is one he!! of a grudge to hold LOL. i wonder if Shaunna is gonna get a timeslip for his car anytime soon. I would love to see if my sig is true or not . What does everyone else think?
------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
 [This message has been edited by FIEROPHREK (edited 03-16-2008).]
|
|
|
|
FieroWannaBe
|
MAR 16, 07:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Leafy:
But the engines I've listed are smaller displacement, and more efficient. Therefore more HP per Cubic inch. Therefore it's a Better Engineered engine. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
I'm sorry the're not.
If you pay close attention to the simple law of conservation of energy you would know this.
ALSO:
power IS energy over time.
Lowering time or increasing energy are the only ways to increase power
increase energy = more fuel burned>> energy can only come from fuel. This done by increasing flow = more fuel enters, more displacment = more room for fuel, both are realy good for this and also go hand in hand, finally more fuel mass can be pushed through the ports by putting it under pressure, still the same mass of fuel must be burned to get the same energy (dependant on combustion efficiency).
lower time = in order to lower the time one needs to decreases the time betwwen one power stroke to another, this is done by a higher angular velocity (more RPMs) or more cylinders to distiubte the power strokes (BTW higher rpms engines burn fuel less efficiently than at low rpms due to valve overlapping and typically burn up more fuel at peek power than an engine with the same power rating at a lower rpm.)
And I don't agree with you because going to school as an engineer at a engineering school, has taught me many things, and allowed me to understand many things better. Enough to know your fuzzy logic is wrong. GM keeps its image of Big displacement with its modern corvette, and has spent lots of money and time with brilliant engineers to develop its latest LSx offerings. These engines offer extremely flat torque curves that produce lots of torque at the engines entire operating range. They are very lightweight, much lighter than a V8 with DOHC heads, this is becuase the density of aluminum is constant and more volume = more mass, and todays DOHC enignes do use up more material than a similarly size pushrod engine Due to the head construciton. And calling the current corvette engine lesser engineered than that of its compition is a great Insult of the engineers that desinged it. These engines are powerfull, light, strong and manufactured at a much lower cost than the competition.
My last comment, operating both engines in thier peak power ranges, and you will easily see by the wallet-gas-o-meter neither is muich more efficient than the other at converting fuel to power.
This will be my only contribution to this steaming pile of thread.
Correct me if I have said a anything false. Im open to learn things.
--edited for clean up and corrections--[This message has been edited by FieroWannaBe (edited 03-16-2008).]
|
|
|
Formula88
|
MAR 16, 07:32 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Leafy:
But the engines I've listed are smaller displacement, and more efficient. Therefore more HP per Cubic inch. Therefore it's a Better Engineered engine. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
No, I wouldn't.
2004 GTO LS1 6-speed, 5.7L puts out 350 HP (61HP/L), and can was rated at 17 mpg city / 29 highway.
2006 Solstice 2.4 Ecotec 5-speed, puts out 177 HP (73HP/L), and was rated at 20 mpg city / 28 highway.
The "stoneage" engine makes twice the horsepower and still returns similar fuel economy, in a much larger car. The Solstice manages to put out more HP/L, but uses almost the same amount of fuel as the V8 to do it.
But the real question is, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
|
|
|
|
Emc209i
|
MAR 16, 08:43 PM
|
|
I would. And just for the sake of arguing with you John, being that you are all way off the original topic.
2008 Nissan R35GTR- VR38DETT -GR6 6-speed, 3.8L put out 480hp (126HP/L).
Also, type "Corvette Killer" into google and see what comes up. GM is building the LS9 to update the "dated" LS7.
|
|
|
|
TiredGXP
|
MAR 16, 08:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Formula88
|
MAR 16, 08:49 PM
|
|
So, because a 2008 Nissan R35GTR- VR38DETT -GR6 6-speed, 3.8L put out 480hp, it's ok to stalk and harass people who don't prefer that engine?
That's what all this started about. Even if everyone agrees on what engine is most efficient, again, why does that matter? Why does that give people carte blanche to troll, harass and stalk someone who prefers a different type of engine?
|
|
|
|
FIEROPHREK
|
MAR 16, 09:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
