Who says stock Yank motors don't make power...

[deadtom]

'Running ... through a set of dyno headers'

'Sending instructions to the LT1’s direct-injection fuel system was a Life Racing F88 GDI8 ECU. The headers were equipped with O2 sensors for each cylinder, giving Muzio complete control over fuel metering.'

'“The power increase was from the tuning and headers,” says Muzio.'

[DanielSan]

deadtom said:

'Running ... through a set of dyno headers'

'Sending instructions to the LT1’s direct-injection fuel system was a Life Racing F88 GDI8 ECU. The headers were equipped with O2 sensors for each cylinder, giving Muzio complete control over fuel metering.'

'“The power increase was from the tuning and headers,” says Muzio.'

I'm glad it's not just me that read that and thought it didn't sound right.

[anonymous-user]

RoverP6B said:

85bhp/litre from pushrods without any forced induction, and GM sandbagging on true output by 70bhp... take that, those of you who insist all great engines are DOHC!

http://www.lsxtv.com/news/danzio-performance-basel...

Totally irrelevant number generator^^^

They ran the engine on a dyno, without any cats or exhaust system,no air box either, no FEAD/ancilaries, on an aftermarket EMS running who knows what spark advance / fuelling & injection timing, on premium fuel, and at who knows what intake air temp or coolant temp, and still got just 85bhp litre. That's hopeless!



The OEM claimed numbers will be for an installed engine, with a production EMS running to the required tailpipe emissions limits with an intake and exhaust system that meets all the necessary noise limits too. That, my friends, is a WHOLE different kettle of fish........

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 26th April 16:03

[DonkeyApple]

Horse Pop said:

What they're doing with a supposedly outmoded technology like a NA pushrod V8 is pretty amazing really.

That's really the point. GM have proven many so called gurus very wrong with the design achievements in the heads of their pushrods.

Very many people for many years have screamed that DOHC is superior and GM have shown that it is not superior just different.

I'm not a GM fan but I won't deny that the LS series has been quite spectacular and that if anyone spends some time reading up on the clever bits like their cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing they will also see the smarts in this engine.

It is definitely worth noting that an NA AMG 6.2 v a 6.2 LS built to the same standards don't differ in any meaningful terms in BHp, torgue or economy.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

That's really the point. GM have proven many so called gurus very wrong with the design achievements in the heads of their pushrods.

Very many people for many years have screamed that DOHC is superior and GM have shown that it is not superior just different.

Which is of course why all current F1 engines use a push rod actuated valvetrain, what with it being equally as good as OHC........... oh, wait a minute.


Lets get real here, pushrods are a good solution in terms of cost, keeping things simple, and in some cases, reducing the engines package volume. They are however no where near as good as a direct actuated valve train in terms of both ultimate power and maximising the area under the power curve.


In the case of large capacity, low reving V8 engines, push rods work fine, because you aren't chasing every last bhp from each litre. The other important point is that pushrods are somewhat incompatible with heavily boosted downsized engines, which of course is the way the world is going.......

As a reference, if you take a typical European 2.0 DI 4 valver, making around 175bhp in OEM trim, and remove all it's boundary losses (no intake,no cats/silencers etc, no ancilaries) you typically see approx 105 to 110 bhp litre without any internal engine hardware changes at all.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

It is definitely worth noting that an NA AMG 6.2 v a 6.2 LS built to the same standards don't differ in any meaningful terms in BHp, torgue or economy.

Which N/A 6.2 LS engine makes 518 bhp as std?

[007 VXR]

I have a LS2 6.0 making 681bhp

[anonymous-user]

Or you could try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uusx_2F4kgY .1450HP

My own American V8 makes 133 hp/litre. That's over 800hp.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 26th April 19:41

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

It is definitely worth noting that an NA AMG 6.2 v a 6.2 LS built to the same standards don't differ in any meaningful terms in BHp, torgue or economy.

Which N/A 6.2 LS engine makes 518 bhp as std?

Built to the same standards. It's there in the words.

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

That's really the point. GM have proven many so called gurus very wrong with the design achievements in the heads of their pushrods.

Very many people for many years have screamed that DOHC is superior and GM have shown that it is not superior just different.

Which is of course why all current F1 engines use a push rod actuated valvetrain, what with it being equally as good as OHC........... oh, wait a minute.


Lets get real here, pushrods are a good solution in terms of cost, keeping things simple, and in some cases, reducing the engines package volume. They are however no where near as good as a direct actuated valve train in terms of both ultimate power and maximising the area under the power curve.


In the case of large capacity, low reving V8 engines, push rods work fine, because you aren't chasing every last bhp from each litre. The other important point is that pushrods are somewhat incompatible with heavily boosted downsized engines, which of course is the way the world is going.......

As a reference, if you take a typical European 2.0 DI 4 valver, making around 175bhp in OEM trim, and remove all it's boundary losses (no intake,no cats/silencers etc, no ancilaries) you typically see approx 105 to 110 bhp litre without any internal engine hardware changes at all.

Don't recall mentioning F1 engines or I4s. Was merely looking at comparable DOHC stock V8s.

[DonkeyApple]

If you look at a standard crop of current V8s you can see that old pushrod tech is still holding its own.

The Merc M273 comes in at around 70/ litre for both bhp and torque. The AJ 5L and the GM LT1 are both 75/L for both metrics and Ford Coyote is a little higher.

Then look at those 4 very similar examples and the crappy GM product is cheaper to build, cheaper to run and may even be more durable.

As the OP says, it's not the slam dunk that most believers in DOHC would believe.

Once we are all legislated out of big displacement engines or if we all suddenly start commuting in F1 cars then the pushrod is not likely to survive but clearly at present, in the real world, it is alive and kicking and holding its own very well against more exotic products.

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

It is definitely worth noting that an NA AMG 6.2 v a 6.2 LS built to the same standards don't differ in any meaningful terms in BHp, torgue or economy.

Which N/A 6.2 LS engine makes 518 bhp as std?

Built to the same standards. It's there in the words.

Exactly, those standards being "production" standard, ie, as you buy it off the shelf from the manufacturer. The 6,2 AMG makes 518 bhp as std, in worldwide Emissions/homologation format. So which N/A LS engine makes that power as std?

If you're going to start using aftermarket tuned engines then you're on to even more of a looser, as for an NA/A engine power is directly proportional to RPM, and you're always going to be able to make a Direct Acting valvetrain rev higher than a push rod one (witness the V10 F1 engines at 20krpm/~325bhp/litre !)

[Benbay001]

RoverP6B said:

You can get 100bhp/litre out of pushrod V8s too, but only really by boring them out

I spot a flaw.

[Troubleatmill]

And then you look at the Nurburging times.......


... The odd crappy GM V8 seems to be:

ZR1 - 5 seconds+ faster than a Gumpert Apollo, Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, Lambo Aventador LP700-4, Enzo, McLaren, 911 GT2.... etc etc etc
Z06 - 2 seconds+ faster than a Gumpert Apollo, Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, Lambo Aventador LP700-4, Enzo, McLaren, 911 GT2.... etc etc etc

Fill your boots.
https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/


And the LS7.R ( Pushrod ) was named racing engine of the year 2006. https://forums.finalgear.com/general-automotive/ls...

And an LS7 engine is just £10,794. Try finding a similarly powered Merc unit... ( try 2-3 times the price )

Yeah... pushrods are just arse gravy...

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

It is definitely worth noting that an NA AMG 6.2 v a 6.2 LS built to the same standards don't differ in any meaningful terms in BHp, torgue or economy.

Which N/A 6.2 LS engine makes 518 bhp as std?

Built to the same standards. It's there in the words.

Exactly, those standards being "production" standard, ie, as you buy it off the shelf from the manufacturer. The 6,2 AMG makes 518 bhp as std, in worldwide Emissions/homologation format. So which N/A LS engine makes that power as std?

If you're going to start using aftermarket tuned engines then you're on to even more of a looser, as for an NA/A engine power is directly proportional to RPM, and you're always going to be able to make a Direct Acting valvetrain rev higher than a push rod one (witness the V10 F1 engines at 20krpm/~325bhp/litre !)

But, as we all know, the AMG engines are built to a higher standard than conventional Merc engines. Ergo, my very simple remark that you'd need to apply these same standards to an LS build if you were to try and compare legitimately.

Step back just one generation and you can see standard Merc V8s producing less than their LS counterparts. The fact that the M278 series now have turbo'd makes it harder to compare.

You can argue all you like and try and throw in as many variables and changes as you like but the basic numbers are there and the OP is spot on with his observation.

[anonymous-user]

Troubleatmill said:

And then you look at the Nurburging times.......


... The odd crappy GM V8 seems to be:

ZR1 - 5 seconds+ faster than a Gumpert Apollo, Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, Lambo Aventador LP700-4, Enzo, McLaren, 911 GT2.... etc etc etc
Z06 - 2 seconds+ faster than a Gumpert Apollo, Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, Lambo Aventador LP700-4, Enzo, McLaren, 911 GT2.... etc etc etc

Fill your boots.
https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/


And the LS7.R ( Pushrod ) was named racing engine of the year 2006. https://forums.finalgear.com/general-automotive/ls...

And an LS7 engine is just £10,794. Try finding a similarly powered Merc unit... ( try 2-3 times the price )

Yeah... pushrods are just arse gravy...

All irrelevant.


We are talking about push rods and specific output. No one is arguing that you can't make a cheaper engine using push rods, you can. The point is that engine WILL not make as much power as an engine with Direct Acting valvetrain (and yes, that engine might be more expensive to make)

Anyone who actually understands how an engine works will be able to see that valve acceleration is the principal limiting factor to power output, and having a bendy, heavy push rod between the camshaft and the valve limits valve acceleration, which is why no true high performance engines use them (outside of some very specific circumstances, such as the old indy car reg that allowed push rod engines to have a large swept capacity to make up for there lower power potential)

[Troubleatmill]

Max_Torque said:

All irrelevant.


We are talking about push rods and specific output. No one is arguing that you can't make a cheaper engine using push rods, you can. The point is that engine WILL not make as much power as an engine with Direct Acting valvetrain (and yes, that engine might be more expensive to make)

Anyone who actually understands how an engine works will be able to see that valve acceleration is the principal limiting factor to power output, and having a bendy, heavy push rod between the camshaft and the valve limits valve acceleration, which is why no true high performance engines use them (outside of some very specific circumstances, such as the old indy car reg that allowed push rod engines to have a large swept capacity to make up for there lower power potential)

And of course the competition has nothing to complain about then....
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/02/corvette-racin...



Just to spell out the important bit...
"“I sit on several FIA engine councils and it always comes up from our competitors. Whether it’s Porsche, Ferrari, or Aston Martin, they’re always complaining about what they perceive of as the advantages the two-valve engine has [over] their [designs], and want the two-valve engine penalized, said Fehan. “To that I say, ‘go back to the road car—if the two-valve engine is that much better for racing you ought to put it in your car.’ To which they have no answer.”

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/02/corvette-racin...

[Hamish Finn]

Benbay001 said:

RoverP6B said:

You can get 100bhp/litre out of pushrod V8s too, but only really by boring them out

I spot a flaw.

Ha ha! The voice of common sense!

[anonymous-user]

DonkeyApple said:

You can argue all you like and try and throw in as many variables and changes as you like but the basic numbers are there and the OP is spot on with his observation.

As usual, the fan boys are blinded by their faith!


There is no such thing as a "standard build" for an engine. OEM engines, in std states of tune are the best way of removing "variables" in fact. They have to run on pump fuel, they have proper, witnessed power homologation (not some random made up / exagerated "tuner" power figure), they have production durability, and EMS calibrations suitable for worldwide useage.

So the "basic numbers" aren't there. Std 6.2 LS engines make about 430 bhp.



The best possible comparison is an OEM standard engine. The reason an OEM yank V8 like the LS series doesn't have a very high specific output is because it has pushrods!



(If you're talking about "Tuned engines" then i'm having an F1 engine as my "ultimate" tuned standard, and no push rod engine is going to get within 100bhp/litre of one of those!)

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

You can argue all you like and try and throw in as many variables and changes as you like but the basic numbers are there and the OP is spot on with his observation.

As usual, the fan boys are blinded by their faith!


There is no such thing as a "standard build" for an engine. OEM engines, in std states of tune are the best way of removing "variables" in fact. They have to run on pump fuel, they have proper, witnessed power homologation (not some random made up / exagerated "tuner" power figure), they have production durability, and EMS calibrations suitable for worldwide useage.

So the "basic numbers" aren't there. Std 6.2 LS engines make about 430 bhp.



The best possible comparison is an OEM standard engine. The reason an OEM yank V8 like the LS series doesn't have a very high specific output is because it has pushrods!



(If you're talking about "Tuned engines" then i'm having an F1 engine as my "ultimate" tuned standard, and no push rod engine is going to get within 100bhp/litre of one of those!)

Max, try and swerve the insults. You're not a child.

Stop deliberately ignoring what is written and stop being deliberately obtuse.

Not a GM fanboy as both you well know and as I wrote in my first post on this thread. This showing you've not read but just decided to have an argument at any cost.

Go back and read properly and start again. Night.