GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

And the fuel mileage on that Mercedes engine?

Its rated at 16 mpg, even though it displaces 44 less cubic inches than the LS7. That's a 33% deficiency in economy compared to the LS7's 24. The Benz gets 2/3 the milage with 90% of the cubes.

If 4V is so much more efficient, shouldn't the Benz be making at least 28 mpg or more, particularly since it is a smaller engine? Seems poorly engineered to me.

Thanks, that's what I figured Looks like the LS is a bigger cam away from the same mileage (or better ;)) and same power (or better ;D) than the Benz. Got a car to look up the Smog Score on that engine too?

[38P]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

And the fuel mileage on that Mercedes engine?

Its rated at 16 mpg, even though it displaces 44 less cubic inches than the LS7. That's a 33% deficiency in economy compared to the LS7's 24. The Benz gets 2/3 the milage with 90% of the cubes.

If 4V is so much more efficient, shouldn't the Benz be making at least 28 mpg or more, particularly since it is a smaller engine? Seems poorly engineered to me.

Here's a massive 4700-lb S-Class that gets 18 with the 518 h.p. engine http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/merc...192/specs.html

Let's review. A small, aerodynamic corvette packed with aluminum and carbon fiber barely tips the scales over a ton and a half and it get 24 mpg with a 505 h.p. 7 liter engine. That's fine.

And huge Mercedes sedans and coupesthat weigh nearly two and half tons get 33% worse mileage? Is anyone surprised?

[38P]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

Remember, we're talking about GM's hot-air claim that the bombshell they're plugging at SEMA next Tuesday will be a game changing engine. And my original point (which is now lost) was that GM would need to do something more than just another . . . yawn . . . LS.

The gossip says the engine will be an emissions-legal swap-in for any car,

IF they some how got a CAFE certification or something like it to make the LSx engine emission compliant for nearly any vehicle THAT would be serious game changing. Of course we're just speculating and I find my take highly optimistic.

Given that the EPA certifies engines by chassis, I think it would be impossible.

The LS is "dominant" because of gross institutional bias, Ford's idiotic failure to push affordable DOHCs into the parts pipeline and production line, and the Mod's inherent lack of cubes (the bore center problem). And it's not the first time that Chevy has achieved more popularity with a technically-inferrior product (See 1955-57 SBC versus Gen I Hemi).

The Bolded is exactly the problem, they circled it ;) (I had too :P) By using the word "technically" you proved the point that the LS engine is the better of the two engines in even your mind.

Not at all. While I'm objective enough to see that Ford has lost a golden opportunity to bury GM and seize more of the performance market, it doesn't follow that I think the LS is a "better" engine. It's certainly bigger. But its plugged up with 1950s induction technology. I can't imagine buying one (although I've driven plenty of vehicles so-equipped).

But, I guarantee you . . . yes, GUARANTEE YOU . . . that had Ford used the Windsor bore centers on the Modular and foregone the "dead ends" of the 2V and 3V SOHCs for performance use, the LS would have failed to catch on as anything other than a niche performance engine. As a matter of fact, I'd speculate that if Ford would have done that from the get go, the LS wouldn't look anything like what it does now.

...

It can. And I hope Ford quits fiddling around and does it!

Woulda coulda shoulda....... Not the world we live in, if they can get a bigger bore engine to be more efficient (higher mpg's, less emissions) with the DOHC they might have a shot, but if they can't (as the 4.6L and 5.4L haven't netted the advantage of either) then they are just going to dig themselves into a deeper hole convicing the EPA to let them make them. They've already climbed the small displacement and just supercharge it to catch the competition tree.

Most certainly there are bore size limits for emissions-compliant port-injected engines (we're in the infancy of the direct injection era, so I'm not going to foreclose the possibility of an advance in technology here.

From an emissions and NHV standpoints, the Mod did exactly what Ford wanted. It was just compromised for FWD cars that Ford mostly never built. The wide-bore center Boss V8 that's almost here in the SVT RAPTOR is a SOHC with some fairly big slugs. And there's a possibility of a DOHC Boss discussed . . . .

I will admit that the 800-lb elephant is CAFE. And 35 m.p.g. CAFE is going to put the brakes on a lot of V8 development, regardless of where the valves are. So time may run out before an optimal big DOHC V8 is produced. (and the LS crowd will likely keep patting themselves on the back for the next forty years).

[Schtauffer]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

Let's review. A small, aerodynamic corvette packed with aluminum and carbon fiber barely tips the scales over a ton and a half and it get 24 mpg with a 505 h.p. 7 liter engine. That's fine.

And huge Mercedes sedans and coupes that weigh nearly two and half tons get 33% worse mileage? Is anyone surprised?

Excellent point.

What about the trucks that weigh 5500 lbs and knock down 20 mpg's or better with an LS engine? Sure, they only make 300 horse or whatever, but they're pushing a pretty heavy brick through the air.

[LS1 ZR2]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

Everyone will know Tuesday morning, at 10:40 a.m. Vegas time. :D

Some might know Monday night, but they will have to know who to ask. :-X

[38P]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

mod motors are so hot that they only race ........MOD MOTORS
none in nhra comp , pro mod , dirt track ... just showroom stock racing hondas or the bankrupt fun ford weekend

This is just so full of half-truth . . . http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...rid/index.html (2,300 h.p. DOHC modular 6.31 @229 "three-time AA/AT and three-time BB/AT NHRA Competition Eliminator record-holder")

Name one DIRT TRACK SERIES IN AMERICA WHERE DOHC V8 ENGINES ARE LEGAL! ONE! WOO? No. IMCA? No. NASCAR Weekly? No. DIRT? No. . . . .

Besides, this isn't a "flame the Modular" thread!

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

Besides, this isn't a "flame the Modular" thread!

That's why I'm going to call it quits

I think we both agree DOHC is great when optimized, and even better when at similar displacements as the competition, and that Ford (and my opinion is really ANY manufacturer of V-8 OHC/DOHC engines) dropped the ball with the OHC/DOHC potential.

But we disagree on the LS being developed out of technology that has out lived it's usefulness. I think it's been highly optimized and refined to remain very very competetive, and you think it's a 1950's relic ;D

[Aircooled]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

Let's keep score for naturally aspirated V8 engines, say 4.0 to 8.0 liters.

HP/cu. in. ---> DOHC V8
HP/$ ---> Pushrod V8

HP/$ conclusion isn't necessarily true.

Ok, name one Naturally Aspirated OEM v8 that has a better hp/$ that the 430hp, $6000 LS3.

HP/lb ---> Pushrod V8

Also not clear.

Again, name one naturally aspirated DOHC V8 that beats the LS3's ~1 hp/lb. And no exotics (cars over $80k) allowed

HP/engine compartment volume (will it fit?) ---> Pushrod V8

Certainly there can be packaging challenges. But a wide-bore center DOHC could be packaged in the space of old-school big blocks.

So, you are saying that OEM's have underhood real estate to spare?

Read up on GM's development of the GEN III. GM freely admits that the best Gen III heads are short on airflow compared to good DOHC heads. However, when packaged into a mass market vehicle, the best way to achieve all of GM's performance goals was through relatively big cubes, pushrods, and tall gears. This was not a bean counter decision, this was a thorough engineering analysis.

[38P]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

Read up on GM's development of the GEN III. GM freely admits that the best Gen III heads are short on airflow compared to good DOHC heads. However, when packaged into a mass market vehicle, the best way to achieve all of GM's performance goals was through relatively big cubes, pushrods, and tall gears. This was not a bean counter decision, this was a thorough engineering analysis.

Sounds more like a thorough rationalization. Other "thorough engineering analyses" have produced such hits at the Vega, the FWD X-Cars, the swing-arm IRS Corvair, the Iron Duke, the Pontiac 301, the Cadillac 4100, the Oldsmobile Diesel . . . .

I'm fully aware of GM's internal debate after the DOHC Mercury Marine-powered ZR-1. OHV was deemed good enough (I guess now that's "Good enough for government work" ;D)

Nearly every engineering decision balances cost, benefit, reduction in complexity, manufacturing difficulty, and other factors. And while it's true that GM's bludgeon produces enough h.p. to satisfy marketing without upsetting the lawyers, at a price pleasing to the bean-counters, and with a primitive simplicity unnoticed by most buyers (and celebrated by some technophopic Bangshifters), it's also true that by not choosing to maximize induction potential (four valves, DOHC, turbos) GM left A LOT of power potential on the table.

I might have done the same thing if I'd have been pulling the trigger on a billion-dollar engine program in the early 1990s (I doubt it, but I might have been that myopic). But for Ford, which was already committed to the REAL future, failing to correct the "bore spacing" problem and exploit DOHC at popular price points is inexcusable.

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

IF they some how got a CAFE certification or something like it to make the LSx engine emission compliant for nearly any vehicle THAT would be serious game changing. Of course we're just speculating and I find my take highly optimistic.

Any pre-OBDII vehicle! Nice! If this happened in 2000, one of the crate packages probably would be in the Skylark now.

[427]

Re: GM Performance Parts Pre-SEMA Teaser Video: A Crate Engine that Changes the Industry?

You seem to have a connection with Ford Motor Company, can you tell us anything about the pushrod V8 I have seen running around the dragstrip in the Don Bowles car? Kind of looks like a LS, but it might be longer. Would be interesting if they release it at 4.5 bore center.

Kurt

Read up on GM's development of the GEN III. GM freely admits that the best Gen III heads are short on airflow compared to good DOHC heads. However, when packaged into a mass market vehicle, the best way to achieve all of GM's performance goals was through relatively big cubes, pushrods, and tall gears. This was not a bean counter decision, this was a thorough engineering analysis.

Sounds more like a thorough rationalization. Other "thorough engineering analyses" have produced such hits at the Vega, the FWD X-Cars, the swing-arm IRS Corvair, the Iron Duke, the Pontiac 301, the Cadillac 4100, the Oldsmobile Diesel . . . .

I'm fully aware of GM's internal debate after the DOHC Mercury Marine-powered ZR-1. OHV was deemed good enough (I guess now that's "Good enough for government work" ;D)

Nearly every engineering decision balances cost, benefit, reduction in complexity, manufacturing difficulty, and other factors. And while it's true that GM's bludgeon produces enough h.p. to satisfy marketing without upsetting the lawyers, at a price pleasing to the bean-counters, and with a primitive simplicity unnoticed by most buyers (and celebrated by some technophopic Bangshifters), it's also true that by not choosing to maximize induction potential (four valves, DOHC, turbos) GM left A LOT of power potential on the table.

I might have done the same thing if I'd have been pulling the trigger on a billion-dollar engine program in the early 1990s (I doubt it, but I might have been that myopic). But for Ford, which was already committed to the REAL future, failing to correct the "bore spacing" problem and exploit DOHC at popular price points is inexcusable.