Holdens V8- Capacity or engineering excellence?

GTP290 · 03-05-2008, 01:38 PM

I keep hearing figures for Holdens LS2 and the upcoming LS3 and how much of a joke our BOSS engines are in comparism. Last time i looked Ford have 290 kws from a 5.4 litre and Holden 270kws from a 6 litre!(think 302 and 307 for HSV AND FPV)
Have they got a gun engine or is it just about the cubes theyre throwing at it, id say a bit of both, but why do they need to get bigger and bigger especially in times of high fuel prices and enviromental issues, why do they bag our smaller capcity engine when its producing around the same power?..Is it just me or do other people share my thoughts?

tapeworm · 03-05-2008, 01:46 PM

I laugh in Holden mans face at the fact our tiny 5.4 litre Boss pumps out more torque and has only 2kw less power than their 6.2litre monster. They just have big capacity going for them, they are by no means a technological marvel.

Powdered Toast Man · 03-05-2008, 01:51 PM

Yeah, it's capacity over technology for the GM V8. Have to give them kudos for keeping it simple and light though. But I guess you could call that good engineering, designing it light and compact so that you can have the large capacity.

Windsor220 · 03-05-2008, 01:55 PM

I reckon in a few years its going to bite Holden/HSV on the . With current fuel prices going through the roof and no signs of stopping, the perception of having a 6.2+ litre fuel guzzling engine isnt going to be a good thing.

Ford on the other hand is rumoured to be going back to 5.0l capacity.

In terms of power, I doubt a Chev pushrod engine at 5.4l would be able to match the BOSS under current emmision regs.

Bad Bird · 03-05-2008, 02:09 PM

The LSX series certainly have better naturally aspirated potential than the Ford motors.

Lazy litres is a good engine philosophy IMO.

FPV8U · 03-05-2008, 02:10 PM

The LSX's are good engine, but it's capacity over engineering excellence thats for sure.

Fairlane · 03-05-2008, 02:19 PM

Nothing wrong with capacity.

If they can make a alloy pushrod 6.2l engine thats relatively light, fuel economical and revvy, power to them I say.

The history of the automobile has been littered with examples of high technology, highly innovative, automotive disasters. The best cars and engines in history have been often the simplest and most durable.

I think Ford did a misstep with the Modular (GM did it to with Northstar) engines to be honest in the early 90s. Instead of making a complex small block V8. They should have made a good quality Alloy I6 for truck and large car (Crown Vic and the like) duties and made a modern pushrod 5.0l alloy v8- a simple durable succesor to the Windsor for larger pickups and as an option for large cars.

ILLaViTaR · 03-05-2008, 02:20 PM

Possibly off topic but can someone explain to me why the figures are always so close?

I mean there's like a 4 kw difference. Why don't ford just boost it a measly 5kw so they can say their engine is more powerful?

If ford have the technology and holden have to compensate with size, then can't Ford use their technology to build a similar capacity engine and get much more out of it power wise? (I'm assuming money is the issue?)

I'm sure there are obvious answers and this may seem like a stupid question to most, however it's something that's always bugged me.

Kryton · 03-05-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tapeworm

our tiny 5.4 litre Boss pumps out more torque and has only 2kw less power than their 6.2litre monster.

dont forget that our "tiny" 5.4l is a TRUCK engine.

BadMac · 03-05-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tapeworm

I laugh in Holden mans face at the fact our tiny 5.4 litre Boss pumps out more torque and has only 2kw less power than their 6.2litre monster. They just have big capacity going for them, they are by no means a technological marvel.

The 5.4 Boss is fully tapped out at 315KW (in the Factory, 3 year warrenty way, I know you can screw more out aftermarket) and correct me if i'm wrong but new neither old nor new Boss has more torque. In fact FPV wanted more for FG and just couldn't get it. Whereas the LS3 had to be detuned to 317KW and 550NM because the HSV drivetrain couldn't cope. Normally its a lazy 325KW and 570NM engine and is known to be quite capable of a lot more.

So I'd say using a big lazy 6.2l where you don't stress it and can just keep addding 10-15KW for each model revision is a pretty good business plan.

Powdered Toast Man · 03-05-2008, 04:33 PM

The 5.7 LS1 started life as a truck engine too. The LT1 was the stroked 5.0L that saw duty in the Camaro specials and the Vette.

Illavitar; I'd hate to see the size of the car they would need to fit that engine into lol. The 5.4 is big enough, can you imagine a 6.2L version

:

needaXYGT · 03-05-2008, 06:15 PM

i laugh at the fact that holdens 6.2ltr v8 is is being destroyed by fords 4ltr I6 turbo.

Jock260 · 03-05-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tapeworm

I laugh in Holden mans face at the fact our tiny 5.4 litre Boss pumps out more torque and has only 2kw less power than their 6.2litre monster. They just have big capacity going for them, they are by no means a technological marvel.

And the Boss's will still get destroyed...

ECOJET · 03-05-2008, 06:28 PM

nothing spectacular engineering wise on the LS motors... but as said, the excellence lies in its simplicity. People knock it for still using pushrods etc but the fact is its a very light motor and the latest 6.2L gets the same or better economy than the original 5.7L whilst making a stink load more power and torque.
Dont forget GM also had a very good quad cam v8 going with the ZR1 corvette, in the early 1990s this motor was making an easy 280kw and a lot of purists said it was the best engine they did and should of been kept but it was expensive to make and amongst other reasons it was dropped.

GTP290 · 03-05-2008, 06:53 PM

I wonder which engine would last longer though, our BOSS motors are hand built, and im pretty sure are blue printed and balanced, whats the expected life from respective holden and ford engines?

McobraR · 03-05-2008, 07:34 PM

does it really matter what excellence it is? its got more power than ours without even trying, more torque without trying, is lighter, and drinks less. Ok, maybe the SS has less power than the boss290, but it sill kills it in a straight line, and has a better torque curve even though it only has a few more NM.

gtp 2003: im asuming u have a boss 290, did u start this thread to help make u feel better in owning a boss290? yes the boss290 is a good V8, but comparing it to holdens is useless.... whether some of you guys wanna live a lie by bagging the holden V8, in the end, they sell more... and i hate that

:

RS350 · 03-05-2008, 09:08 PM

Food for thought Boss 315 5.4Ltr 58.3Kw per litre LS3 6.2 at 325 is only 52Kw per litre

Hunter · 03-05-2008, 09:23 PM

While fuel economy is a consideration, I doubt people who buy large v8s care that much about it and can probably afford the cost of running one.

But what I find more amusing is that Holden goes the capacity route all the time... something about sizes and compensation??

stockNAfairlane · 03-05-2008, 09:34 PM

I don't know why so many people argue about stock vs stock? 90% of the people on this forum would buy a car to modify it..

ECOJET · 03-05-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stockNAfairlane

I don't know why so many people argue about stock vs stock? 90% of the people on this forum would buy a car to modify it..

well thats where the LS blows the modulars right out the window... FI its probably fairly close, in fact you'd think with the far superior heads the modular would own the LS for its displacement, but N/A it's trumped.

Windsor220 · 03-05-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECOJET

well thats where the LS blows the modulars right out the window... FI its probably fairly close, in fact you'd think with the far superior heads the modular would own the LS for its displacement, but N/A it's trumped.

Has anyone actually gone all out with a NA Boss? I know theres been unopened ones into the 11s.

Buddy 1 · 03-05-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erusur

Food for thought Boss 315 5.4Ltr 58.3Kw per litre LS3 6.2 at 325 is only 52Kw per litre

Has anyone thought why then if the Boss makes so much Power 290kw out of its 5.4 litres how can a Less Powerful 270kw & old Design Engine thrash it on Performance lol

Do not get me wrong I am a Ford Supporter however I have also owned Holdens & I Laugh at one eyed Supporters from any Camp when they go on with Dribble saying one Engine is Crap etc only because it is the other Camps.

Credit where credit is due, until FG the Holden Camp with its VE V8 was in front both in the Engine & Design in many ways over the Ford effort.

Yeah I have a Ford Ute & not a Holden & that is because the BFII was a better Ute than the VZ though had the VE Ute been out I may have gone for it

Though I would prefer an I6 over the Holden 6 anyday so maybe not lol

Then again I may have gone for the 6 Litre

Anyway no Matter I am very Happy with my Ford Ute.

But yes the Old Holden Engine did or does better the Newer Design Multi valve Ford Engine (V8's only).

So get over it Guys & remember all Fords are not better than all Holdens.

ECOJET · 03-05-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torxteer

Has anyone actually gone all out with a NA Boss? I know theres been unopened ones into the 11s.

its sophistication is a strength and a weakness here.. the most common n/a mod is heads and cam and the average home mechanic for example can do a cam swap pretty easy on the LS motor in a day or weekend and after a tune drive away with 250rwkw+++. The modular however is a different ball game...you need to get 4 cams regrinded or even replaced, im not sure on the after market options but they wouldn't be overly huge especially not in Australia.

**GasoLane** · 03-05-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairlane

Nothing wrong with capacity.

That reminds me of the old popular Seppo saying...

"Thar aint no subsitute for cubic feet!"

The second most popular used to be...

"If she dont go, Chrome it!"

GTP290 · 03-05-2008, 11:33 PM

No I dont have to start a thread about something to make me feel better, the fact is Holden have got it right now with the LS engines, but it seems there 6 cylinder engines have taken a step backwards(suprisingly since it went the ohc route, maybe they should of kept it as a pushrod engine). I can see Holden or HSV making a limited edition supercharged 7.0 litre engined concept type vehicle. I heard on the Top Gear show that there are turbo kits for them aswell.
No ones really answered my question about the BOSS being blueprinted and balanced and whether it was a more durable longer lasting engine than the LS engines, can anyone enlighten me on that?

Noddy · 03-05-2008, 11:59 PM

Apart from the possible cost factor are there any other reasons why the 5.4 can't be increased to 6.0ci and also would this help with the lack of torque below 3000rpm?

Bad Bird · 04-05-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Food for thought Boss 315 5.4Ltr 58.3Kw per litre LS3 6.2 at 325 is only 52Kw per litre

That is a useless 'ricer' argument. The more important factor is horsepower per kilogram, and horsepower per volume. The LSX motors win at both. I love my Fords, but brand bias is ridiculous. You can get stupid naturally aspirated (and FI) power out of LS motors. I know a guy who got 370rwhp out of an LS1 with the only mods being Cam, Exhaust, Lid and Tune. Insanity...

Quote:

i laugh at the fact that holdens 6.2ltr v8 is is being destroyed by fords 4ltr I6 turbo.

Not only is it not totally true, but there is nothing funny about it at all. Forced induction is a substitute for cubic inches. Using CAMS (too small, IMO) correction factor, the Ford I6 is a 6.8 litre engine. I fail to see the humour.

GTP290 · 04-05-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noddy

Apart from the possible cost factor are there any other reasons why the 5.4 can't be increased to 6.0ci and also would this help with the lack of torque below 3000rpm?

it was stated on another thread that the 5.4 is actually is a 4.6 which is stroked

GTP290 · 04-05-2008, 12:39 AM

Not only is it not totally true, but there is nothing funny about it at all. Forced induction is a substitute for cubic inches. Using CAMS (too small, IMO) correction factor, the Ford I6 is a 6.8 litre engine. I fail to see the humour.[/QUOTE]

LOL, i got a laugh at the failure to see any humour there! not bad fuel economy from the old girl seeing shes a 6.8 litre

4Vman · 04-05-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

That is a useless 'ricer' argument. The more important factor is horsepower per kilogram, and horsepower per volume. The LSX motors win at both. .

Huh??? KW/L IS HP per volume...

:
HP or KW per kg of car weight will give an indication of overall performance potential of the vehicle, but isnt an accurate way to measure efficiency or engine technology.
The Boss motor has allways consistantly made more power per litre of displacement than the chev.., so the BOSS "wins"..
If you do the math you'll see the chev puts out roughly the same power per litre of displacement in its various HSV incarnations, the way they get more power is increase its capacity.