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

[Troubleatmill]

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?

How about these GM 6.2Litre LS engines. They make more NA power than 518 bhp...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...

And... they are not expensive.

Edited by Troubleatmill on Sunday 26th April 22:16

[Troubleatmill]

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?

How about these GM 6.2Litre LS engines. They make more NA power than 518 bhp...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...

And... they are not expensive.

Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 27th April 12:30

[007 VXR]

The Vambo said:

007 VXR said:

LittleEnus said:

007 VXR said:

I have a LS2 6.0 making 681bhp

Wow you must be really cool!

Grow up

To be fair, he isn't called Big Enus

[anonymous-user]

Troubleatmill 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?

How about these GM LS engines. They make more NA power than 518 bhp...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines...

And... they are not expensive.

Did you miss the "as std" part? Those are "LS based racing engines" according to the web site, and even then, they only make roughly the same power as the fully EU type approved (Eu6 emissions, driveby noise etc etc) production AMG engine!


If we are allowing race engines, the (inlet/rev restricted) SLS AMG GT3 engine makes 552bhp, and the (downstroked) 5 litre M159 AMG race engine makes 650bhp even with the mandatory 7500rpm limiter necessary for sports cars!!

[Speedy11]

Max_Torque said:

Did you miss the "as std" part? Those are "LS based racing engines" according to the web site, and even then, they only make roughly the same power as the fully EU type approved (Eu6 emissions, driveby noise etc etc) production AMG engine!


If we are allowing race engines, the (inlet/rev restricted) SLS AMG GT3 engine makes 552bhp, and the (downstroked) 5 litre M159 AMG race engine makes 650bhp even with the mandatory 7500rpm limiter necessary for sports cars!!

How do you define standard? And I ask again how much for a create M156? which the ever reliable wiki says "The engine was designed to be a naturally aspirated racing unit"

[anonymous-user]

Speedy11 said:

Max_Torque said:

Did you miss the "as std" part? Those are "LS based racing engines" according to the web site, and even then, they only make roughly the same power as the fully EU type approved (Eu6 emissions, driveby noise etc etc) production AMG engine!


If we are allowing race engines, the (inlet/rev restricted) SLS AMG GT3 engine makes 552bhp, and the (downstroked) 5 litre M159 AMG race engine makes 650bhp even with the mandatory 7500rpm limiter necessary for sports cars!!

How do you define standard? And I ask again how much for a create M156? which the ever reliable wiki says "The engine was designed to be a naturally aspirated racing unit"

Easy. "standard" is the format in which you buy the engine in a car from the highstreet main dealer. That means the engine is worldwide type approved, meets sensible durability requirements, and is "mass produced" (obviously, production volumes vary by brand / model)


One thing that can't be argued is that an LS engine is a "cheap" engine in terms of bhp/£ (or $) But some of that low costs comes from relatively high production volumes and decent mass production (ie cost optimised) techniques.


For example, you can buy a 2.0 duratec from Ford Power Products for around £1250. Add a set of throttle bodies, and a decent exhaust manifold, and for approx £2k you've got over 100bhp/litre. The reason the base engine is cheap is because Ford make "sh*t loads" of them ;-)

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 26th April 22:45

[ZX10R NIN]

RoverP6B said:

Honda had to push their engines to upwards of 8000rpm and they made virtually no torque. You can get 100bhp/litre out of pushrod V8s too, but only really by boring them out, destroking them and making them rev to kingdom come. This is a great big thumper of a V8 - and don't forget, a C63 AMG with Performance Pack, from a marginally bigger engine (6208cc vs 6162cc), made only 487bhp - this thing is nearly 50bhp up on that.

Hate to burst your bubble on this one but the 6208cc Merc lump makes 525BHP 464lb/ft Torque it's detuned when it's put in the C63, so you're case doesn't stack up.

[Speedy11]

Max_Torque said:

Speedy11 said:

Max_Torque said:

Did you miss the "as std" part? Those are "LS based racing engines" according to the web site, and even then, they only make roughly the same power as the fully EU type approved (Eu6 emissions, driveby noise etc etc) production AMG engine!


If we are allowing race engines, the (inlet/rev restricted) SLS AMG GT3 engine makes 552bhp, and the (downstroked) 5 litre M159 AMG race engine makes 650bhp even with the mandatory 7500rpm limiter necessary for sports cars!!

How do you define standard? And I ask again how much for a create M156? which the ever reliable wiki says "The engine was designed to be a naturally aspirated racing unit"

Easy. "standard" is the format in which you buy the engine in a car from the highstreet main dealer. That means the engine is worldwide type approved, meets sensible durability requirements, and is "mass produced" (obviously, production volumes vary by brand / model)


One thing that can't be argued is that an LS engine is a "cheap" engine in terms of bhp/£ (or $) But some of that low costs comes from relatively high production volumes and decent mass production (ie cost optimised) techniques.


For example, you can buy a 2.0 duratec from Ford Power Products for around £1250. Add a set of throttle bodies, and a decent exhaust manifold, and for approx £2k you've got over 100bhp/litre. The reason the base engine is cheap is because Ford make "sh*t loads" of them ;-)

Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 26th April 22:45

You mean like an LS3 with 525 BHP? The engine even comes with a "General Motors limited 2 year / 50,000 mile parts & labor warranty." That to me is standard, durable and mass produced.

I agree they aren't great for bhp/litre (which unless you are racing is pretty much irrelevant) however everything else power, torque, reliability, price, economy, packing, weight etc they are more than a match for EU engines.

[skyrover]

Indeed... why does power per litre even matter if the fuel consumed is the same or better?

[anonymous-user]

Speedy11 said:

You mean like an LS3 with 525 BHP? The engine even comes with a "General Motors limited 2 year / 50,000 mile parts & labor warranty." That to me is standard, durable and mass produced.

But is that LS engine homologated for the road? The links above show "race" engines making 525bhp with no exhaust aftertreatment at all.

As far as i can tell, the most powerful normally aspirated LS engine of 6.2l capacity makes 430bhp in homologated production format?

[Olivera]

FYI, the Merc V8 in the SLS AMG Black Series was tuned to produce 622bhp, just over 100 bhp/litre and sold in all markets.

[Coatesy351]

[quote=Troubleatmill


Now... of course it isn't a pushrod - and needs a rebuild after pretty much every run... but it is doable...
http://www.arizonacorvetteenthusiasts.net/topic/24...

[/quote]

With a few exceptions over the years top fuel engines are pushrod.

[RoverP6B]

CrutyRammers said:

This crap again? The Honda engines made the same amount of torque as any other engines their size, but they extended the power band upwards by about 3000 rpm as well. They did make less torque than larger engines producing the same power at lower rpm, as you'd expect.

There are certainly benefits to pushrods, packaging, weight, and parasitic drag being the ones I'm aware of.

Compare a Honda VTEC 2.0 to a VW or Vauxhall engine of the same size - I think you'll find the Honda motor is wider of bore, shorter of stroke, enabling it to rev higher and make that power. You have to rev them much harder to get to the torque than with most 2-litre fours.

Mr2Mike said:

One thing you aren't taking into account. The power and torque figures for American engines (whether original or tuned by the aftermarket) are notoriously full of BS.

Yes, that's the point. It turned out GM were sandbagging - the engine made a lot more power and torque on the dyno than the book figures.

ZX10R NIN said:

Hate to burst your bubble on this one but the 6208cc Merc lump makes 525BHP 464lb/ft Torque it's detuned when it's put in the C63, so you're case doesn't stack up.

The M156/M159 goes as far as 618bhp in the SLS, but it never makes more than 470ftlb AFAIK - compared to 525ftlb for the near-identically-sized GM pushrod lump.

Max_Torque said:

Did you miss the "as std" part? Those are "LS based racing engines" according to the web site, and even then, they only make roughly the same power as the fully EU type approved (Eu6 emissions, driveby noise etc etc) production AMG engine! If we are allowing race engines, the (inlet/rev restricted) SLS AMG GT3 engine makes 552bhp, and the (downstroked) 5 litre M159 AMG race engine makes 650bhp even with the mandatory 7500rpm limiter necessary for sports cars!!

I think Troubleatmill rather went off at a tangent. The bog-standard LT1 is making 530bhp N/A, fully emissions/noise approved etc.

Toltec said:

Not sure what the op is trying to prove, if I was building a Cobra or LMP replica a then one of the modern American V8 crate engines would be perfect.

Trying to combat the prejudice evident on this board against American cars and engines!

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.

That's what GM and countless tuners have been doing ever since the OHV V8 arrived on the scene. Just like an LS7 is a handbuilt, bored-out, blueprinted race version of an LS3. You can destroke these motors to make them rev, fit tougher valve springs and VTEC-like revs are entirely possible, but you wouldn't want to live with it on a daily basis, because it's going to be about as civilised as an irritable, hungry tiger.

Max_Torque said:

a bendy, heavy push rod between the camshaft and the valve limits valve acceleration, which is why no true high performance engines use them

Which is why they don't just make pushrods out of any old heavy, soft metal. As for true high-performance engines, the 5.8 litre NASCAR pushrod V8 makes 850bhp @ 9000rpm or thereabouts...

Max_Torque said:

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

The LS is no longer the latest tech... it's been replaced by the LT... and the new LT1 is making 530bhp from the same 6162cc block and bottom end as the LS3. 100bhp just from the heads and direct injection.

[AER]

RoverP6B said:

The LS is no longer the latest tech... it's been replaced by the LT... and the new LT1 is making 530bhp from the same 6162cc block and bottom end as the LS3. 100bhp just from the heads and direct injection.

LT1 makes 460hp in the US-homologated C7 Corvette. If 530hp was street legal and reliable, do you think they might have sold it as such?

[RoverP6B]

AER said:

LT1 makes 460hp in the US-homologated C7 Corvette. If 530hp was street legal and reliable, do you think they might have sold it as such?

That's what GM say. The truth is it's making 70 more bhp than estimated. GM aren't alone in sandbagging - it's well-known that BMW and Porsche BHP claims are often rather conservative.

[GravelBen]

skyrover said:

LS & MX5 engine photo

Its always funny when people post photos of a stripped down LS next to other engines complete with manifolds and ancillaries to try and show how compact the LS is.

[McWigglebum4th]

GravelBen said:

skyrover said:

LS & MX5 engine photo

Its always funny when people post photos of a stripped down LS next to other engines complete with manifolds and ancillaries to try and show how compact the LS is.

Are you trying to tell me that the yank engine would need a crank and a sump to work

You just hate americans you damn comiee

[skyrover]

GravelBen said:

skyrover said:

LS & MX5 engine photo

Its always funny when people post photos of a stripped down LS next to other engines complete with manifolds and ancillaries to try and show how compact the LS is.

Makes little difference to the overall dimensions... but tbh these were the first pics that came up on google image search.

The first pic alone should be enough, the LS series are tiny engines.

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

Speedy11 said:

You mean like an LS3 with 525 BHP? The engine even comes with a "General Motors limited 2 year / 50,000 mile parts & labor warranty." That to me is standard, durable and mass produced.

But is that LS engine homologated for the road? The links above show "race" engines making 525bhp with no exhaust aftertreatment at all.

As far as i can tell, the most powerful normally aspirated LS engine of 6.2l capacity makes 430bhp in homologated production format?

And Max, as you well know, the AMG engines are built to a different standard to Merc units. And that is exactly why I added the caveat that the LS unit were to also be built to the same standard.

Step back to compare NA Merc units to LS and you'll see the somewhat enormous difference involved.

Or, stop ignoring the other units proffered as examples like the Ford or AJ series. They, like the Merc all serve as good examples of factory units not delivering any returns significantly deviant from GM's.

And, again, no one is talking about smaller capacity engines where the obvious performance advantages of a DOHC set up really shows and no one is talking about F1 engines. And everyone knows that AMG units are built to higher standards than Merc units. And so do you.

[RoverP6B]

GravelBen said:

Its always funny when people post photos of a stripped down LS next to other engines complete with manifolds and ancillaries to try and show how compact the LS is.

Ignore the ancillaries and manifolds, just look at the size of the block and heads... especially the LS next to the Ford Modular DOHC V8.