LS1 was in more vehicles than just F-Bodys, so , just because "Mustang lives", that doesn't mean it's motor "won"...

Again, who cares about HP per litre? It's a lame arguement... there is no point to it.

 

I'm not going to get into a huge debate about it. Like I said, apples and oranges. Heck, I could say the Toyota motor in the Lotus Elise is better. It gets 50 mpg, weighs less and goes faster. But I doubt you'll see the point of that. As far as the 4.6L is concerned, you'll have to pick which variation of it you're comparing to the LS1 or LS6 - whichever you're using for the comparison. We know that the 4.6L s/c makes more power. We know the 4.6L 2V in the real world can get over 30 mpg, more than any LS1 I know of. Also, if the LSx was so incredible and changed the world so much, why is it going away? Something better always comes along, even in GM land.

Fact is, you're being subjective. Now, post some real world OBJECTIVE stats for me. As far as I'm concerned you can **** farther and I'll even tell you that you win if it makes you feel happy, but you're not changing my opinion or what I've observed.

 

LOL, the 4.6L is in more than Mustangs too. You apparently didn't get my jabbed in the humorus sense it was implied in. I didn't get into specifics about hp/l until after you brought it up...but I don't think it's any more lame than the GM enthusiast excuse that Ford is cheating because they put a blower on a smaller motor. Face it, the 04 Cobra kicks any Camaro's *** and regular Vettes *** too. I haven't lost any respect for the Vette, it's still a nice car with a good motor. I never said I didn't like the LS1 or that it was a bad motor

 

All I said was "Who cares about horsepower per litre"....

I stand by my statement that it is a totally lame and pointless arguement.

 

soo... hypthetically speaking, if a given 7.0L V8 were to be making 250hp and 300ft-lb tq vs a hypothetical V6 that was displacing 3.6L and was making 260hp and 280ft-lb tq you'd still say the displacement argument is lame?

ok, ok, how about a 12L V16 that was making 150hp vs a 2.5L I4 that was making the same?

I'm not saying that every comparison should come down to displacement, or that its always a valid argument, but I don't think its lame at all. Its all about POTENTIAL to make power. A larger engine has (or should have!) more potential to make power than a smaller engine. Now, it doesn't nessesarily look BAD, but it doesn't look good either for the company which engineered and built the bigger underachieving engine. But it IS percieved as inefficiency.

Yes, pushrods cost less, yes they can be made as smooth and quiet as DOHC engine, yes they can have really good HP/ltr ratios, but the majority of them are truely old and inferiour. Especially the GM V6s. I agree, they are disgraceful. Reliable, but disgraceful.

I thought we were all gearheads here, no? We all get excited by new technology that makes more out of less all the time! More bandwidth through the same telephone line, more hard drive space in the same sized (physical) package, etc, etc, etc.

So why do you all turn up your noses at the displacement argument?

 

If the Toyota 1.8 in the Elise EVER gets close to 50MPG, I'll buy one of the cars, file it down into little shavings, and eat it.

Oh wait, I have an Elise coming in this summer. I'll let you know when it gets worse mileage than my 1998 Corvette.

 

I agree with Darth that HP per Litre is totally irrelevant unless both engines have the same displacement. What HP it has is what HP it has...period. Same reason all this "they had to add a supercharger to compete" stuff is stupid. All that matters is the output/results, not the innards. Price, power, weight, efficiency, and reliablility is how you measure the value of a powerplant, not displacement or specific method of power production.

If the bigger displacement motor gets equal mpg, does that not mean it is MORE effecient in the specific displacement argument?

Besides, performance is not about peak HP, or even peak TQ...it is about net effective power in the useable RPM range. Not low end tq, but net power. OHC motors are notorious for being very peaky and having average output well below an OHV motor below power peak. The LS1 will put more power to the wheels over a broader RPM range, and unless you have a 12 speed tranny in order to keep you at peak RPM constantly, you are going to be slower.

I'm not sure how an engine that is less displacement, less efficient per litre in terms of MPG, more peaky, larger, heavier AND more expensive "wins" vs. the LS1 or any of the LS family for that matter.

Same old arguments I've been hearing for years about how OHC is more "advanced" and therefore must be inherently better.

If more cubes and OHV acheived similar or better performance in all areas and costs less, how is this not an intelligent business decision?

If you're going to buy a car...and say you are not a car guy at all, maybe you're buying a work van for your small business. Your choices are an OHC motor that is 200 hp lets say and an OHV motor that although it is older tech, its less complicated (more reliable), gets the same MPG, and puts out 225 hp instead, and the vehicle costs less. Which vehicle are you going to buy? lets say you have zero brand loyalty.

 

Around town, the Elise should do much better than the Vette on avg.... but on the highway, the difference, if there is any isn't going to be much.


Hp/L in itself is a lame argument. So is any single spec drawn out and taken out of context..


The reality is, pushrods shooting thru the heads itself comprimises the pathways, reducing airflow.. Perhaps the multivalves also help in flow (although we'll see with the new 3 valve pushrod heads).. So the DOHC designs win out there.


Pushrods win out with its relative simplicty and cost, and the ability to package more displacement in an overal external weight and size dimensions... So what its lacking in flow, is usually more than made up in sheer displacement that they can fit in a relatively small and light pacakge, to help pump the air thru..


All in all, each engine package has its disadvantages and advantages.. In the end, I still like pushrods and I'm excited to see the next gen iterations from GM and DC.

 

I agree with this entirely in a theoretical argument. The OHC engine should have more freedom in terms of intake runner design and therefore more potential flow.

But all we can deal with here is realities, which means existing engines. And when comparing existing engines, the LS family wins in most categories. Ever flowed a 4.6 head guys? They can't tough an LS1 head and even custom porting won't yeild much flow. If you don't believe that call Total Engine Airflow in Bowling Green KY, they've been experts in mustang heads for years and in the last 4 years have made a name for themselves in GM stuff as well. They know cylinder heads...

Anyway, my point I guess is that GM overcomes design limitations by increasing displacement and modifying runner design. THe tall, skinny runners effectively eliminate any concern about pushrod placement. THey've maximized the design potential.

And again, like I said, if it wins in nearly every measure, why is it not better? Simplicity is is genious IMO.

 

At what RPM? what compression? whats the gas milage? there are other factors. Is the 7.0L 8.5:1 and at 1000RPM vs. a 2.5L 12.1:1 at 8000RPM.

It is going away because of the LS2, which is the next evolution of the LS1

 

You're taking the argument out of context. What about size? MPG? Reliability? You cannot compare engines w/o all these factors. If the they get equal MPG and are equally reliable and also of equal size & weight, of course higher output wins.

But lets say the 7.0L puts out 270 hp...weighs less, gets slightly better MPG, and is smaller and easier to package. (Which is the case LS1 vs. 4.6). Then which is the better motor? Does it matter how much cylinder volume it contains if all the above criteria are wins for the "bigger motor"?

 

Ohhhhhh K.....

Your the one that said 'Mustang wins!" not "4.6 Wins!" when we're only talking about 4.6 vrs. LSx, so however humorous it was, it wasn't part of the argument.

He was saying ho HP/L doesn't matter in the first place, then you decided to take HP/L further as if it meant something?

Speakings of gas milage, what does the '04 Cobra get compared to the similar powered Z06? Sure it kicks a regular 'Vettes *** (although not by much and only in a straight line), but how does it stack up to the still naturally aspired LS6?

Oh...and their not killing off the SB, its evolving, like it has been for decades...

 

When people compare the LS1 to the 4.6 SOHC Ford I agree with the people who say its an apples and oranges comparison. The 4.6 is way tamer, in every aspect, and is meant to run on 87 octane. The DOHC motor is much better, but the displacment difference is still there.

I think a more fair comparison displacement wise would be comparing the LS1 to the 5.4 DOHC motor. Lets face it, Ford wasnt concerend at all with chasing F-body hp numbers, and if it was a concern, they could have easily placed in the 5.4 motor in the Mustangs for not much more, if any extra expense.

The Cobra R for example, displaced 5.4 liters (330 ci vs the LS1's 347) and made 385 hp @ 6250 rpm and 385 lbs.-ft. @ 4250 rpm . This was on a low 9.6:1 compression ratio and I believe the car was rated at 16/25 for gas milage. Thats pretty good when compared to the Gen III smallblocks.

I know it was a limited edition car, but hte 5.4 engines are more than plentiful and not expensive to produce. The only thing about this motor that was special was the intake manifold.

The only point I'm trying to make is that if Ford wanted, they could easily make a LS1 calibre motor without a supercharger.

 

OK, since some of you guys bring up crazy, artificial arguments about how HP/L seems to matter...

Hows this for potential? LS6 gets 70+HP/L

Dang, is that better than a naturally aspired 4.6? I believe so...

 

You also have to consider cost into the equation. How much do you pay for a LS6 powerd car?

The LS6 is probably no more expensive to produce than a LS1, but the extra power commands a higher premium. Its just like the Cobra R motor I brought up. The motor was probably cheap, but the Cobra R definately wasnt.

Comparing cost and intent, I think the DOHC 4.6 and the LS1 are pretty close. 320hp vs 350hp... the LS1 is nicer yes, but the engines have slightly different purposes and audiences. You dont see the LS1 in very many European sports cars do you? Theres a reason.