High Powered Pushrod technology is better than High Powered Quadcam Technology

[Tiapan]

Originally Posted by Green X

No, it's the only way they could get it to pass emissions standards with morer power was to increase capacity,

The Boss V8 made a emissions legal 320Kw in the form of the DJR cars, yes?.

In a few months the Boss engine will be doing 302Kw Vs 307kw for the LS2 that is over .5 of a litre bigger.

You can't compare a Boss V8 to a LS1/LS2 the later have had big development $$ spent on them for Chev sports cars, Ford Australia took a V8 out of a U.S SUV and tweaked it, with cobra heads and custom intake manifold.

hats off to Green X, exellent stuff

[seXCmont]

hey while we are at it why dont we throw in the 6iT engines that are more economic and well can be easily modified to eat up an LS1. guys from street fords managed to out drag a ls1 SS vx with intake and exhaust mods in a stock XR6T BA ute which is also heavier.

[70caprigt3k]

One point i would like to make is that the LS engine has been around for many year in many guises and therefore has had extensive development over the at least 20 year period it has been in action so you would think they would know what works by now and what doesn't.

On the other hand overhead cam technology with variable valve control/timing (whatever they want to call it) although its been around for years is still in the big scheme of things new technology and therefore hasn't had even close to the amount of development. Once the OHC variable valve control/timing engines have had the development of the pushrod engine they will be miles ahead.

(I still love my pushrod engines though : )

[FPV8U]

Wouldn't the fair way to compare this be same capacity with different technology?

Didn't/Doesn't Chev have a 5.4L V8 called the 'Northstar' or something like that pumping out around 210-215kw...

Personally i think the LS Engines are great value with big potential (So they should with the capacity), but considering how well the boss 290 does against engines with a .6L capacity advantage after bolt on's and a tune, i'd love to see a 6.0L Boss V 6.0L L98 or LS2...

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not even a Corvette C6 Z06? :
And yes its faster than an M5. :

I love the Z06 no doubt but no way I would have that over an M5

[Ryan]

Edit- Don't worry. Original quote deleted.

[smiley]

Nothing wrong with fancy bits to get you over the line, Have a look at the latest m3's (when they were still N/A I6's). 6 throttle bodies and dual vanos timing, smaller cubes than the falcon yet making unbelivable N/A power as well as great performance to suit. And i'm talking instant power throughout the rev range, not wait till 3k before it starts going performance. I could only imagine the 5L v10 would be great and responsive too.

[sleekism]

Case in point: The only way a OHV engine is able to produce substantial horsepower is by increasing capacity, reducing fuel economy and low rpm torque.

In an age of emission laws OHC matched with VVT is the only way to go even in classic muscle car era the OHC Ford engine (cammer) was king.

The motorcycle industry is a good indicator of the future of the car industry and there the OHC engine is king and the OHV has been subsided to cruiser duties.

The LS7 may power corvettes but the humble Modular SUV truck engine powers supercars such as the Ford GT and the record breaking Koniesegg CCR

[Piotr]

An F1 engine is DOHC with no fancy variable valve timing, no variable intake actually no variable anything. Yet they rev to over 20,000rpm and produce ~850hp from 2.4L.

Show me a Pushrod that comes close.


The reason a LS7 has more torque than a BMW M5 is because it has an extra 2L in capacity. Show me a 5L pushrod engine that matches the BMW M5 engine.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I love the Z06 no doubt but no way I would have that over an M5

If some rich bugger gave me a choice of a Z06 or an M5....I'd pick the M5.
I'd then sell it and buy a Z06, hand it over to Mr Lingenfelter and keep the $100k change.

[XR Martin]

Fact is the LS7 weighs 32kg less, yet produces more alot more torque.
Another fact is if the M5 had the LS7 it would be a quicker car.
Technology means nothing if it actually doesnt give any real World benefit.
What exactly does Hp/l mean behind the wheel? Nothing. What you want is total hp, total torque, and the least amount of weight. Which the LS7 has.

Also the fuel economy of the C6 Z06 is rated at 16mph city and 26 hwy which is virtually spot on with a 911 Turbo (similar HP and similar weight)

As for mods, the M5 engine is at its limit without spending mega $$
LS7 only needs a tune, exhaust and a cam to make another 100-150hp. Add heads and you're well over 100hp/L. All for less than a service on a M5 :

It also shits all over the Boss motor. They are something like 100kg heavier : And as big as a 460 big block :

[Barry_v]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Case in point: The only way a OHV engine is able to produce substantial horsepower is by increasing capacity, reducing fuel economy and low rpm torque.

increasing capacity reduces low rpm torque?

[XR Martin]

Stock Corvette Z06 runs 10.8 1/4mile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469NvIOiz7U

[muppet]

I seem to remember an Aus designed and built overhead cam engine running in top fuel many years ago . They were allways saying it had massive potential . The thing was it got flogged by the pushrod motors all the time and was never heard from again lol . But in a road car motor I would say ohc will long outlive pushrods , and be flogging pushrod motors in the power stakes as well . I love my clevos (and will more than likely never own another V8 ) but pushrods are like playing records and saying they sound beter than CD's .

[5.4 GT]

Anybody driven an M5 5litre V10 or Z06 LS7 7litre V8 here?

[exrtnz]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

It also shits all over the Boss motor. They are something like 100kg heavier : And as big as a 460 big block :

Another fact or 2 - The 2 are very even in power and tourqe
- 30kg less than the boss engine not 100kg, which is nothing :

[Steffo]

Yep. The V10 isn't great. Sorry but a 5.0L engine to make 500hp @ 7750rpm and 384ftlbs (520Nm) @ 6100rpm isn't impressive. Especially when stuck in a 1755kg sedan body, something that's supposed to be an effortless executive express, and there you go.

It's overcomplicated and expensive and fails to acheive any sort of goal except cost lots of money and give off some fancy badge thing.

The LS7 is typical American though. Bigger is better? Yes and no. Its huge for no reason. The 377kW 637Nm it makes can easily be made with the 6.0 LS2 or 5.7 LS1. There is absolutley no need whatsoever for the extra capacity, except perhaps the marketing of 427ci?

The Viper is a funny one though... 8.0L V10 for 450hp, grew to 8.3L for 500hp and now is growing to 8.4L for 600hp. Big displacement = cost-cut engineering. Small displacement super revs = expensive and pointless to show off some sort of name.

What you want is a mix of the two... like the 6.2 V8 that AMG makes. 378kW @ 6800rpm, 630Nm @ 5200rpm... with 500Nm from 2000rpm, 530Nm from 3000rpm etc etc.

Or the 4.2 Twin Turbo V8 from the old RS6, didn't even rev to 7k, didn't need to. Or the 911 Turbo's 3.6 Twin Turbo engine... again doesn't rev like mad, doesn't need to, and is on peak torque at 1950-5000rpm and out-peaks the stupidly big LS7 anyway.

In the end there is never going to be a real answer... you're always going to have companies like BMW and Ferrari, who go to extreme lengths to do everything the hard way just to "prove," some technical prowess. Then you'll have companies like GM and Ford, who do everything the cheapest way possible to sell lots of cars. Then fence sitters like Porsche, Mercedes, Audi etc etc... who do a bit of everything, but usually what makes the most sense.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Stock Corvette Z06 runs 10.8 1/4mile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469NvIOiz7U

That's not stock! Those tyres are a mod. :P

Don't forget, Ranger is a one and only. Its not a repeat performance. 99% of the time, they're a mid-high 11. Or a low 12 in the hands of Joe Average.

[owl]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Fact is the LS7 weighs 32kg less, yet produces more alot more torque.
Another fact is if the M5 had the LS7 it would be a quicker car.
Technology means nothing if it actually doesnt give any real World benefit.
What exactly does Hp/l mean behind the wheel? Nothing. What you want is total hp, total torque, and the least amount of weight. Which the LS7 has.

Also the fuel economy of the C6 Z06 is rated at 16mph city and 26 hwy which is virtually spot on with a 911 Turbo (similar HP and similar weight)

As for mods, the M5 engine is at its limit without spending mega $$
LS7 only needs a tune, exhaust and a cam to make another 100-150hp. Add heads and you're well over 100hp/L. All for less than a service on a M5 :

It also shits all over the Boss motor. They are something like 100kg heavier : And as big as a 460 big block :

At last, an intelligiant assesment ,well said

[MYVYSS]

Originally Posted by DaveO_SP

Anybody driven an M5 5litre V10 or Z06 LS7 7litre V8 here?

Drove the Z06 last weekend, and all I can say is OMG, i loved my LS1 in the SS and i thought it was a real go getter, that was until I jumped into the Vette, Seriously this thing scared me, the punch when you hit to Go button was nothing short of spectacular, there was a "slight" delay in accelaration but once it kicked in, you were off, I drove the car ONLY with Traction on, as even with it on and the temp being 35+ degrees, I was still getting a fair amount of chirps and twitching from the back end of the car. There where 3 levels of traction, None, Competitive Driving and Full Traction, I was in the Auto. (still too scred to drive a manual over here) and I can tell you now I turned the salesmans face a lovely shade of white. Was a lovely note from the back of the car with the roof down, and gear changes were quite smooth, at full noise first to second there was a substantial twitch in the rear, I could only imagine how much these cars would whip around in the wet or with traction off.

As for the BMW, I have driven the M3 and a Few older M5's (they are cheap as chips here) Yeah sure they have a nice note, but for actual fun and pure power, I would take the Vette every single time. I was considering buying a vette here, but after test driving it for about 45 minutes, I realised I couldnt afford to die in a road crash here, it really is insane,

driving the Z06 like a normal person and just cruising was a great experience, 6 Speed Auto was sitting on around 1400ish revs at 65 Mph.

One thing I will say the steering on the Vette i found very Heavy!!! compared back to my SS or the BM's it really did feel like I was driving without Power Assisted help. Oh and the Bose sound system standard in the Vette had a lovely sound as well.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Piotr

An F1 engine is DOHC with no fancy variable valve timing, no variable intake actually no variable anything. Yet they rev to over 20,000rpm and produce ~850hp from 2.4L.

Show me a Pushrod that comes close.


The reason a LS7 has more torque than a BMW M5 is because it has an extra 2L in capacity. Show me a 5L pushrod engine that matches the BMW M5 engine.

1/The f1 engine only rev's to 20,000 rpm because it doesent have a cam.
the valves are pnumaticly operated.

2/The overhead cam is as old as the pushrod (1920's)technology

3/Man has a bad habit of over engineering a simple designe and making it less reliable

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Piotr

An F1 engine is DOHC with no fancy variable valve timing, no variable intake actually no variable anything. Yet they rev to over 20,000rpm and produce ~850hp from 2.4L.

Show me a Pushrod that comes close.


The reason a LS7 has more torque than a BMW M5 is because it has an extra 2L in capacity. Show me a 5L pushrod engine that matches the BMW M5 engine.

Any Australian V8 Supercar makes over 630hp with their 5 litre pushrod motor.

[xr8ted]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Any Australian V8 Supercar makes over 630hp with their 5 litre pushrod motor.

And would such an engine hold together for 250,000km without any problems. I dont think so! And an F1 engine? Even worse! I dont think you can compare racing engines with road car engines.

[J.C.]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This thread will go no where FAST.. stupid topic with even stupider comments..

Disappointing comment coming from someone who is apparently a valued and respected member of this forum.
The gent is entitled to start any thread topic that he wishes. Whether you or I think that it is stupid or not is irrelevent (however, there are boundaries) and the thread has progressed since and I wish to add a comment of my own.

1. Pushrod engines are still used in the aviation industry to this day, happily making over 220kws at 2200rpm (eg).
2. Pushrods have been around for many, many years ....... hence, they have been labelled as old technology, but it wasn't when all were enjoying the performance potential and its sweet sound .... that still seems to work OK for some.
3. OHC with variable valve timing has (in my opinion) the potential to out perform in the horsepower stakes on a engine dyno (but at what cost?). One of the contributing factors is the tuning ability and parameters that are available on the engine management system. (Ford has proven this during developement of the Boss engine. I have been lead to believe they achieved big numbers during tuning and durability testing. Bigger cooling towers were required).
4. The 5L Windsor was the first pushrod 5L engine in its class to produce over 1000hp (source: Windsor performance).
5. Ferrari have been using OHC engines for many years (LeManns, where they had trouble keeping up with the LARGER capacity Windsors and , due to the excessive rpm required to stay in touch, were failing).
6. Drag cars (and boats) still use old pushrod technology to propel themselves down the track, achieving 5-6 sec 1/4 miles.

We can all debate the pros and cons for days on this topic, but if approached from the right angle, can be beneficial to future car buyers and project builders alike. At the end of the day, its what the individual wants that truely matters.

Just for the record, if Ford could somehow increase the capacity of the Boss (say with the 6L block), I would more then happily inspect the bank balance and line up for one of its performance products. However, I'd most likely hold onto my dirty old pushrod Windsor.

[4Vman]

It is a "loaded" topic... i sure you can work it out...

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by exrtnz

Another fact or 2 - The 2 are very even in power and tourqe
- 30kg less than the boss engine not 100kg, which is nothing :

Umm?
Boss 5.4 290kw/520nm
LS7 376kw/646nm

LS7 weight 202kg
Boss weight: Unsure, but the 4.6 DOHC is 600lbs, or 272kg

Also 30kg sitting over the front suspension is alot, letalone nearly 100kg.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by J.C.

1. Pushrod engines are still used in the aviation industry to this day, happily making over 220kws at 2200rpm (eg).

Yes but the aviation industry doesn't really have to worry about the same things as the automotive industry such as emissions. Hell GA planes can still use fuel containing tetra-ethylene lead yet car makers stopped designing cars to use it over 20 years ago. (Not having a go and yes I do know why they still use it in aircraft).

2. Pushrods have been around for many, many years ....... hence, they have been labelled as old technology, but it wasn't when all were enjoying the performance potential and its sweet sound .... that still seems to work OK for some.

Both technologies are as old as each other and I don't agree with people who automatically assume because something is newer it is better (and it isn't newer so that doesn't count here anyway).

3. OHC with variable valve timing has (in my opinion) the potential to out perform in the horsepower stakes on a engine dyno (but at what cost?). One of the contributing factors is the tuning ability and parameters that are available on the engine management system. (Ford has proven this during developement of the Boss engine. I have been lead to believe they achieved big numbers during tuning and durability testing. Bigger cooling towers were required).

Yeah OHC with Variable valve timing is definitely the way of the future though I once saw a company who made heads with a rotary valve system, I think it was called a 'Coates engine'. Can find it at http://www.coatesengine.com/index.html

We can all debate the pros and cons for days on this topic, but if approached from the right angle, can be beneficial to future car buyers and project builders alike. At the end of the day, its what the individual wants that truely matters.

True enough but I disagree with people who suggest that all cars nowadays are 'overengineered' and that computerisation was the worst thing that happened to cars. If they want to see an example of engineering gone wrong I suggest they look at some of the more recent Japanese cars that used carburettors - hideously complicated just to avoid putting in EFI (and to meet emissions standards). I think virtually all car makers have switched to EFI of some sort now but I still have nightmares looking at some of those abominations that they came up...

[ED Classic]

When the Chev was 5.7 and only 220kw it was pretty effecient. Have a look at the fuel consumption comparos in the new Motor Mag and those 6 litres make Fords Turbo 6s look like they should get a green friendly award.

As for the rest of the debate I suppose we could argue internal dimensions all day but the pushrod has to work much harder, is much less refined, getting towards the end of its potential for road cars, and why do you see hardly any factory blown pushrods (if at all) vs squillions of blown Quad cams?? Fact is both engines can make enough power without one but the pushrod would be good for a 30,000km warranty tops while those Mercs and Stang engines will go on and on easy.

[ACTIV8]

"Oh and the Boss eats both the Gen1 and 2 V8's for V8 growl IMO"

Really?

Someone care to educate me as to how to achieve that?

I love my GT, it has extractors and basically a straight through system, it's very loud and it certainly sounds like it means business when you stand on it but it isn't a patch on the LS engine for sound...and that shits me.

If anyone has made one of these buggers sound awesome, tell me how.

[ltd]

The aviation engines making over 220kw at 2200 rpm are typically 9.7 litre capacity engines, such as the Continental 540 cubic inch engine. Pretty poor power on something that has 130/100 octane fuel.
These engines designs are over 40 years old and haven't changed much at all.

Reciprocating engines are incredibly inefficient for the little power they put out full stop. Have a look at the Pratt and Whitney PT6 engine. Engine the size of your gear box and 2000 shaft horsepower. Have a look at the biggest reciprocating engines in the world; cost is astronomical and they put out less power and talk than a 777 engine (rated at 150,000 shp).
Simply put, pistons are tremendous masses (at speed) inside an engine which have to change direction instantaneously, creating a further loss in efficiency, create tremendous heat (another loss of energy), create noise, and at best utilise a paltry 30% of the joules of energy in fuel to create mechanical power.
Turbines on the other hand run purely on heat and are thereby over 75% efficient.
This is where the future is going, specifically as engines like these can run on anything flammable ie not oil, are more reliable, and are far more efficient on a fuel quantity per HP basis. Ford has tinkered with these engines in the past, and BMW is playing with them now.
Pushrod VS OHC; who cares. Both are as old and as outdated as one another although; multi valve engines will always be more efficient on their fuel burn.