High Powered Pushrod technology is better than High Powered Quadcam Technology

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Not here to create a thread just to start arguements but I have been doing a little bit of research on a few car forums and have come to this conclusion.

An LS7 motor is 32kg lighter than a M5 V10, and produces more peak power, alot more torque, with a usable torque band.
Not to mention its production costs would easily be under half the price.
Ofcourse that doesn't make the engine in the M5 any less impressive though.

BMW chooses the route of more complicated and heavier engines to make power. While their engines are impressive, they are too complex for their own good and they lack torque compared to a smaller and lighter pushrod engine.

A Simple large engine that makes gobs of usable power anywhere in the powerband is always better than a more complicated engine that is heavier, has a more peakier powerband, and a lot less torque.

Not to mention, the more complicated an engine is, the more expensive it is to fix and more likely things will break. The LS7 will also get better gas mileage and sound better.

As proven even with the LS1/2 vs Boss290 here, the LS engines although much less technology driven, with just a increase in cubes is capable of revving higher, putting more power down and in general being alot easier to expand its performance on.

Thats not to say the BOSS engine is not as good, it could easily be argued that if it were 5.7 or 6 litres it would be more powerful and it would be.
However it would also be alot heavier, drink more fuel and still has more working parts for things to go wrong.

The LS1 makes plenty of torque down low. It just has a smoother powerband than say the old 5 litre. That is why the 351 will feel faster down low, but it really isn't.

Well thats all the ramblings from me anyway.
Feel free to contribute and disprove anything I've said.

[Lukeyson]

can't beat cubic inches.

[Polyal]

Not starting an argument? The title doesn't suggest that.

[Yellow_Festiva]

What's the capacity of the V10?

The LS7 is the 7 litre right??

If the V10 is smaller (and I think it is) what sre the outputs of each engine per litre?

Some figures would be nice.

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

What's the capacity of the V10?

The LS7 is the 7 litre right??

If the V10 is smaller (and I think it is) what sre the outputs of each engine per litre?

Some figures would be nice.

LS7 = 7 Litre V8
M5 = 5 Litre V10

There is a fairly big cubes gap but as I was pointing out the M5 has alot of fancy stuff like individual throttlebodies and such as well as an extra 2 cylinders.

[Big Mike]

What a stupid statement. Seriously, if technology wasn't better than rubbish, modern European engineers would use rubbish. Alas, they use technology because of its reliability and finite controllability. Japs, use technology for similar reasons. Yanks, and therefore Holden, use age-old rubbish. Want proof? Sure.

My 1988 5L V12 BMW has travelled 270,000 km or so. It has a total of ONE rattle. Adelaide Motors have done the heads on ONE of these M70 engines, on a very rough car, which would indicate hard driving and little maintenance, and had travelled 650,000 km when this work was carried out.

A 1988 5L VN Commodore, is an absolute piece of sh.. if ever there was. Rattling and smoking, the clunking rubbish engine has ONE kW more than Ford's standard 6 at the time, uses a damnsite more fuel - and oil - than my BMW, is unquestionably falling apart internally and cosmetically, and no amount of regular maintenance would keep the engine going past 270,000 km without some expensive reconditioning work.

New vehicles are the same - the BMW M5 you mention is far more economical and responsive than the clunker you are comparing it with. The Chev motor may have more actual "grunt", but its not better by any stretch of the imagination. The BMW is smoother, quicker at responding to changes in requirements, will last many times the life of the clunker, and is finitely adjustable at every degree - as opposed to a fixed solid rod/lifter arrangement which can ONLY wear and lose accuracy by its very design. Its inadequate, outdated, inferior design.

Oh by the way, isn't this a forum for enthusiasts of Ford products?

[mik]

it be interesting to see a comparison of these engines at 300,000 k`s, does`nt the m5 v10 make 385 kw?

[bonspeed]

Ok, but wouldn't the LS7 almost be at the end of its development? surely there is scope for more power from the others, I mean the pushrod V8 has been around for what 40 years now? yes they make good power but to make anymore they are going to have to add more cubes, what can we see in 2020' pushrod motors with 15 liters in capacity?

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

What a stupid statement. Seriously, if technology wasn't better than rubbish, modern European engineers would use rubbish. Alas, they use technology because of its reliability and finite controllability. Japs, use technology for similar reasons. Yanks, and therefore Holden, use age-old rubbish. Want proof? Sure.

My 1988 5L V12 BMW has travelled 270,000 km or so. It has a total of ONE rattle. Adelaide Motors have done the heads on ONE of these M70 engines, on a very rough car, which would indicate hard driving and little maintenance, and had travelled 650,000 km when this work was carried out.

A 1988 5L VN Commodore, is an absolute piece of sh.. if ever there was. Rattling and smoking, the clunking rubbish engine has ONE kW more than Ford's standard 6 at the time, uses a damnsite more fuel - and oil - than my BMW, is unquestionably falling apart internally and cosmetically, and no amount of regular maintenance would keep the engine going past 270,000 km without some expensive reconditioning work.

New vehicles are the same - the BMW M5 you mention is far more economical and responsive than the clunker you are comparing it with. The Chev motor may have more actual "grunt", but its not better by any stretch of the imagination. The BMW is smoother, quicker at responding to changes in requirements, will last many times the life of the clunker, and is finitely adjustable at every degree - as opposed to a fixed solid rod/lifter arrangement which can ONLY wear and lose accuracy by its very design. Its inadequate, outdated, inferior design.

Oh by the way, isn't this a forum for enthusiasts of Ford products?

Awesome.
Yeah I just wanted the other side of this story since I dont know the full story on motors like that.

I didnt make this to start arguements as I previously said, I just want to know what everybody elses opinions are.

Also that M5 motor while I agree on alot of your points, its still more expensive by a long shot whether it be to build or to maintain.

I still stand by my more working parts, more problems theory.

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by bonspeed

Ok, but wouldn't the LS7 almost be at the end of its development? surely there is scope for more power from the others, I mean the pushrod V8 has been around for what 40 years now? yes they make good power but to make anymore they are going to have to add more cubes, what can we see in 2020' pushrod motors with 15 liters in capacity?

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

I suppose GM switched to 6 litres as the standard to make the engine lazier and have more usable torque with minimal effort.
Excellent though when you throw a couple of mods on.

[bonspeed]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

I suppose GM switched to 6 litres as the standard to make the engine lazier and have more usable torque with minimal effort.
Excellent though when you throw a couple of mods on.

makes sense I suppose and there is no denying it that they are an excellent motor, I have a question , Is there any limit to these things? holden have been doing, computor and cam, intake and exhaust changes for what seems like 10 years. When I think chevs, cos lets be honest thats what they are I think lingenfelter. What sort of power are these boys getting out of LS7's these days?

[PepeLePew]

Dude I find it hard to agree on the LS1 having low down torque, even when edited/modified.

My manual VX was gutless below about 3000rpm standard AND edited but ate the road above it 3000. After heads and a heavily overlapped cam with tuning by 'those who know what they are doing' it still didnt have that real low down shove, but motored from 2500rpm+ (well ate rubber as well as road) up to her 300rwkw max.

Excellent engine other than that....loved the sporting character to it, unusual for a big cuber.

Of course having been in the passenger seat of a turbo equipped LS1 once upon a time THAT had savage torque almost everywhere

[sexr6tasy]

I think i remember reading half you argument in the latest wheels magazine bmw wins holden loses the end

[4Vman]

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

[bonspeed]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

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

Your stupid.

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

Of course. However there are things like emission standards and warranties to consider.

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by bonspeed

Your stupid.

Uhhh was that sarcasm I detected?

[bonspeed]

I sometimes get a little bemused by the attitude of some people, yes this is a ford forum but I don't understand why people are so "diehard". What is the harm in talking about other brands? Not every thread HAS to be about ho's.

[Sapper]

Risky topic......

There's a little bit more to it than just "one valvetrain type is better than another." To take the original example, the V10 is able to have a varied valve overlap throughout the rev range (thanks to DOHC and BiVANOS) which means it can have a larger useable rev range, rev higher (other factors also exist here) and hence, have shorter gearing for better acceleration.

Another thing to consider is that the 4 valve per cylinder arrangement behaves very differently to a 2 valve arrangement with respect to airflow through the heads.

There's even more to consider than what's mentioned here.

[MoreHPformyXR6]

Originally Posted by VenomST

Risky topic......

There's a little bit more to it than just "one valvetrain type is better than another." To take the original example, the V10 is able to have a varied valve overlap throughout the rev range (thanks to DOHC and BiVANOS) which means it can have a larger useable rev range, rev higher (other factors also exist here) and hence, have shorter gearing for better acceleration.

Agreed way two simplistic snippet to say one valvetrain is better than another in post1.

[Tiapan]

i like the 'ls7 uses less fuel' bwahahaha! only a holden fan would say that,

oh ls7's do sound good, but c'mon a v10 revving to 8,000rpm eats the chev for lunch

[4.9 EF Futura]

Camshafts?? Seems unecessary!!

EVA...

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ftpw012.html

[sleekism]

Look GTS300 has a point that cubic inches count for a lot.

The reason a Ford 4 Litre shits all over japs is the pure extra capacity which also means when u modify a large capacity engine there is lots of easy cheap power.

The problem with the Chevrolet family is that they are WAY too overstressed.

I've had mates with 5.7 litre Holdens and they have suffered high oil consumption, fruked conrods and an engine that sounds like a coffee blender.

7 litres in a small block is not good for reliability and in the end you will find a 5.4 Litre BOSS with QIVCT will produce lots of economic and reliable horsepower comparable to a Chevy engine.

The Chevy engines are brilliant but they are a ticking time bomb.

[Barry_v]

I'd say something intelligent, but nobody else is bothering. so...

camshafts belong in the block

[marcosambrose]

Originally Posted by sleekism

7 litres in a small block is not good for reliability and in the end you will find a 5.4 Litre BOSS with QIVCT will produce lots of economic and reliable horsepower comparable to a Chevy engine.

The Chevy engines are brilliant but they are a ticking time bomb.

I agree completely!

I think its silly to compare a BMW v10 to a Chev 7-Litre, the BMW motor has so much more refinement and technology which translate into a more crisp and refined power delivery to the wheels..

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Tiapan

i like the 'ls7 uses less fuel' bwahahaha! only a holden fan would say that,

oh ls7's do sound good, but c'mon a v10 revving to 8,000rpm eats the chev for lunch

LS7 revs to 7100rpm is good enough for me. :

[INJECTED_250]

so whens the holden red 202 comming back into production...

[MITCHAY]

LMAO there's no way I'd get an LS7 powered car if I could afford an M5 regardless of what technology is better

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

LMAO there's no way I'd get an LS7 powered car if I could afford an M5 regardless of what technology is better

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

[Green X]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

I suppose GM switched to 6 litres as the standard to make the engine lazier and have more usable torque with minimal effort.
Excellent though when you throw a couple of mods on.

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.

I am not denying the Chev engines are a good motor cause they are, But you take a OHV and a DOHC V8 of the same capacity and my money will be on the DOHC every time, the fine tuning capability's on them is so much better .

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