Cripes, let this die.

We'll know soon enough what it really runs on a regular basis at a track.

From the information we have so far, LS1 F-car vs. '05 GT = driver's race, with the GT taking the LS1 out of the hole (because of gearing) and the LS1 running it down up top (because of the power advantage).

Saying anything more or less than that is just stupid at this point.

Arguing about it is even dumber.

 

you cant compare the Gt to the GTO. wanna know why? because the GTO isnt out yet. there are no dyno numbers. no track times. nothing. its just all speculation.

and why an lt1 over a 4.6? the 4.6 having 3 valves per cylinder has a greater chance at making better numbers on paper. the lt1 does make good numbers but i would rather have something smaller that makes better numbers.

 

God, here we go again...

SMALLER?

What planet are you on???

The only way the 4.6 is smaller than the LT1 is in displacement. Other than that the damed thing is a boat anchor. It's freaking HUGE.

Displacement means NOTHING unless you are racing in a displacement-limited class.

 

GTO isnt out yet? Someone better tell Darth and NikiVee that.

 

Thanks glovesperson... how about that ... 100rwhp more... even mod vs mod the ls2 is a far superior engine...

3valves per cylinder isn't much if it isn't making hte power.. i would have hoped that that engine would make more or less the same power as the ls2 since it has 50% more valves vs 30% more displacement???? that is following your logic...

The reality is that i bet the ls2 heads flow better than those 3 valve heads... in the end it proves that the head design from that 4.6 is totally crap if with more valves you can't do more flow than with 2v/cyl

as a matter of fact... i have a video where a SVT guy says.. "there is no way we could make the power we wanted out of the 4.6, so we forged it and strapped a supercharger to it."

 

displacement determines powerband sometimes. a smaller engine will most likely have a longer powerband, something that makes a car faster than off idle torque. so i go back to my original statement. i would like a smaller displacement higher revving engine.

Al, reading comprehension buddy. i was talking about the 05 GTO. i dont know of any that are out yet. but i could be wrong like i was with the dyno numbers.

 

Actually no... i prefer the bigger displacement engine making the same HP.. why?? because it will make more torque overall than the smaller engine... And you know... the more torque you get overall means you get more hp overall means you get to the top rpm range faster, which means accelerates faster.

if not... why don't you put a v6 DOHC honda engine on the Camaro since it had 270HP also... its a lot smaller... lets see how it pulls the camaro w/o the torque.. and it has 4valves and it has VTEC... sorry bud...

 

Bull**** it does. Displacement has NOTHING to do with the ability to rev. You can see differences due to the "squareness" of the engine, but a square 5.7 liter is going to out-power a square 5.0 liter if all other things are held constant.

In truth, due to the fact that larger displacement motors can provide adequate torque for driveability with far more radical cam timing events (and thereby wind out further), the situation is even WORSE for the smaller motor.

They can run bigger valves, more radical cams, better rocker setups, have higher flow heads (since displacement for a given design usually means that the cylinder heads themselves grow along with it... look at the heads on a small block Chevy vs. a big block Chevy some time...) all while maintaining better driveability and higher average power.


Then welcome to the "Club of the Terminally Slow".

Anything you can do to a little motor, I can do to a big one - and get more out of it for less money.

 

You have it bass ackwards. If we are going to make a generalization about the powerbands with regard to displacement, than the larger displacement motor generally has a much wider band, whereas the smaller motor will be nothing but a peak near the redline. None of this is really academic, because the cam has more to do with the shape of the curve than the displacement. What you see are small motors that are setup to make as much power as possible, which means the sacrifice of low end torque for peak power. The may end up with as much peak power as a motor with greater displacement, but they will be more "peaky."

 

Have you ever heard of "small man syndrome"? Its actually deamed a true psychological disorder. Maybe there should be a new disorder for the Ford Boys called "small engine syndrome"!

 

Or "more cams"! hehe

 

Sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.

02 Camaro total production = 42,098
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread...threadid=56795
02 Firebird total production = 30,690
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread...hreadid=113481

That's a total F-body production of 72,698. Not stellar by any means, but far removed from 20k. I honestly don't understand why people continue to dog the 4th gens by painting a bleaker picture than there was. I personally think 72k total production is pretty good considering all advertising had been pulled and the decision to kill it had been made 5 years earlier.

 

Since you bring it up - http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...maro+lt1+sales

Post #12 has the total F-body numbers against Mustang. Notice what happened in 97 before the bottom fell out of the F-body program.

 

The GT that was tested was an AUTO. With around 275 rwhp on a dynojet, the 5spd should be low 13 second capable.

 

And the "high tech" LS-1 never made the power that the "low tech" L-88 Vette made back in '67. Point????? Stupid argument.