All Paw turbo fans gone quiet ??? Next Germany.....

[EatRex]

Has anyone else noticed a sharp decline in the number of letters from imported car fans in Motor & Wheels lately ? For a time there a couple of years back whenever a HSV or Ford was on the front cover (and justifiably so)they went ferel. Dinosaurs they would scream, irrelevant, too heavy. Well since their darling little rex has put on weight and become an ugly duckling they seemed to have disapeared. Or has the Bob Lutz message (god love him) of "there is more to engine technology than the position of the camshaft" hit home a little bit. Not content with just silencing the Japanese crew Mr. Lutz will soon be giving a right royal two finger salute to Germany when the "super" Corvette (and yes surely HSV GTS) packs 373kw from a pushrod V8. Gee isn't that 500 horsepower and exactly the same power as M5 ?? Oh but the V10 draws on technology directly from F1 doesn't it. Long live cubic inches and the iconic Chevrolet smallblock.

EatRex.

[the mooch]

squeezing 500hp from a 6 litre plus engine isn't exactly rocket science for todays engineers, but when you start making 100hp per litre or more (as in the M5) while trying to maintain reliability, driveability and refinement, I'd imagine the task would be a lot greater. If money were not the issue, I'd take a 5lt M5 engine in my SS anyday. Anyone know if it can be done? :lol: :lol: :lol:
BTW, without the rex, evo et al we probably wouldn't have Coupe' 4........

[EatRex]

You raise some good points there however the GM Powertrain guys also have to consider cost and the GenIV is produced in much much greater numbers than the BMW Motorsport V10. Is all that technology really necessary ? And I dont know about you (and no I haven't driven one) but I can live without Coupe 4.

[the mooch]

Your original post makes no reference to volume numbers or build costs; nor do my posts for that matter. Don't know about you but i get tired of hearing about where the cam/s lie. People slagging ls1's because of OHV configuration are just purely narrow-minded, pigheaded wxxkers. That said, anybody that thinks OHV is the be all and end all are kidding themselves; because I pose this question to you: HYPOTHETICALLY, if GM released a 4 cam 32 valve OHC version of the ls1/ls2 cost effectively, would you want one under your bonnet? Methinks yes. Personally I don't care how the power is made as long as it is reliable, fuel efficient, within budget, and sounds good. I am a Holden man thru and thru, but you don't hear me knocking evo's, skylines or XR6T's. Or M5's for that matter.

[Merlin]

squeezing 500hp from a 6 litre plus engine isn't exactly rocket science for todays engineers, but when you start making 100hp per litre or more (as in the M5) while trying to maintain reliability, driveability and refinement, I'd imagine the task would be a lot greater. If money were not the issue, I'd take a 5lt M5 engine in my SS anyday. Anyone know if it can be done? :lol: :lol: :lol:
BTW, without the rex, evo et al we probably wouldn't have Coupe' 4........

what he said.

[VeeTee346]

HYPOTHETICALLY, if GM released a 4 cam 32 valve OHC version of the ls1/ls2 cost effectively, would you want one under your bonnet? Methinks yes.

Why though?

If it's because this new OHC design offered even better fuel economy and more power than the excellent OHV design we already have does, then yes I'd buy it. (Mind you, I wouldn't welcome the new maintenance cost of periodically replacing the timing belts.)

If it's for any other reason (and I'm sure we're all over the 1980's number-of-valves envy) then no, I wouldn't.

Somehow, BMW and co manages to produce large engines with quad OHC banks that still offer superior fuel economy and power - but at this price point these efficiencies are gained elsewhere in the engine design as well, and they far surpass the extra inherent drag of an OHC valvetrain.

[Phido]

GM does make a multivalve V8.. Its northstar, its a okay engine, 4.6L..

But Australia is better served with the LS1/2 range.

Australia is one of the few places where big capacity engines with big power rule, I think it would be sad if Australia started making cars like everyone else.

[ATOMIC MALOO R8]

GM does make a multivalve V8.. Its northstar, its a okay engine, 4.6L..

But Australia is better served with the LS1/2 range.

Australia is one of the few places where big capacity engines with big power rule, I think it would be sad if Australia started making cars like everyone else. Iagree with you.

[F6 Hoon]

You raise some good points there however the GM Powertrain guys also have to consider cost and the GenIV is produced in much much greater numbers than the BMW Motorsport V10. Is all that technology really necessary ?

Interesting to see GM producing these engines. These engines are produced in a country (US of A) with only 5% of the worlds population, yet consumes 25% of all the worlds oil resources. Their car manufacturers believe 15 - 20 mpg fuel economy is quite acceptable. Their government won't sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Maybe now you'll see why technology is important. It enables car manufacturers to produce engines that burn less fuel, produce lower emissions and generate more power :idea:

[ls1 VN]

GM does make a multivalve V8.. Its northstar, its a okay engine, 4.6L..

But Australia is better served with the LS1/2 range.

Australia is one of the few places where big capacity engines with big power rule, I think it would be sad if Australia started making cars like everyone else.

I agree, but another chev variant, the ZR1 corvette motor LT5. 4valve,quad cam,cams are chain driven not belt.Bore&stroke 3.90"x 3.66"
Designed by Tony Rudd of Lotus for GM at a cost of 17 million pound.

[the mooch]

Interesting to see GM producing these engines. These engines are produced in a country (US of A) with only 5% of the worlds population, yet consumes 25% of all the worlds oil resources. Their car manufacturers believe 15 - 20 mpg fuel economy is quite acceptable. Their government won't sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Maybe now you'll see why technology is important. It enables car manufacturers to produce engines that burn less fuel, produce lower emissions and generate more power :idea:
And we're in bed with these people :eek:

[GTS JaZzA]

Maybe now you'll see why technology is important. It enables car manufacturers to produce engines that burn less fuel, produce lower emissions and generate more power :idea:


so how do the ls2's fuel consumption compare to these more technological advanced engines around the same power?

[vxcalaiszzz]

Interesting to see GM producing these engines. These engines are produced in a country (US of A) with only 5% of the worlds population, yet consumes 25% of all the worlds oil resources. Their car manufacturers believe 15 - 20 mpg fuel economy is quite acceptable. Their government won't sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol.


God bless 'em :goodtime:

[F6 Hoon]

so how do the ls2's fuel consumption compare to these more technological advanced engines around the same power?

Dont know about fuel economy, but the 6.0l in the AMG SL65 produces 450kw and 1000nm of torque. Fuel consumption would surely be comparable to the LS2 at 100km/h steady cruise ;) Power isn't however :lol:

[BOONTA_LS1]

Dont know about fuel economy, but the 6.0l in the AMG SL65 produces 450kw and 1000nm of torque. Fuel consumption would surely be comparable to the LS2 at 100km/h steady cruise ;) Power isn't however :lol:

Lets strap two turbos on it also.. :D im sure it would give it a run in the power stakes then ;)

[dominik]

Dont know about fuel economy, but the 6.0l in the AMG SL65 produces 450kw and 1000nm of torque. Fuel consumption would surely be comparable to the LS2 at 100km/h steady cruise ;) Power isn't however :lol: I like the twin turbos comment. Sure, the SL65 is a torque monster but how about the price tag? You could put $300,000 toward a house, drive a pretty nice LS2, and still have some change left in your pockets.

[dominik]

Btw, I did a little research on the fuel economy issue, SL65 vs. Corvette C6:

Car, MPG City ... MPG Highway, kW, Torque, 0-100kph
SL65 AMG: 12 ... 19, 450kw, 1000nm, 4.2 sec
C6 Corvette: 18 ... 28, 298kw, 546nm, 4.1 sec

The LS2 Corvette leaves it for dead in fuel economy, is the first to reach 100kph, and can be tuned up to ridiculous power, and on a budget in comparison to having a Merc juiced up. And besides, those geniuses at Brabus can only squeeze a marginal amount of extra power from the already expensive Merc/AMG cars, so there's really no contest here.

[SSbaby]

HYPOTHETICALLY, if GM released a 4 cam 32 valve OHC version of the ls1/ls2 cost effectively, would you want one under your bonnet? Methinks yes. Personally I don't care how the power is made as long as it is reliable, fuel efficient, within budget, and sounds good.

Yes and No.

YES: IFF GM produced a poweplant no heavier, as compact and as fuel efficient but more powerful than the equivalent OHV, definitely.

NO: Logic has it GM can't produce such an engine because it won't be lighter, compact, less thirsty,... Besides, I know I could afford to add a new cam to the good old OHV whereas I would baulk ($$$) at the notion of changing 4 cams, springs, etc... and I don't want my V8 engines blown.

[SSbaby]

OT: New pictures of 2006 Corvette Z06... and LS7.

http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showthread.php?threadid=10066

Couldn't resist!

[NinetySix]

i dont think comparing the AMG and the 'vettes 0-100kph times are a very good comparison of which is the better motor at all... i think all its really testing is the testers launching ability, the quality of the tyres, the ability of the chassis to put the power down and certainly the atmospheric conditions the tests were performed in.

how about 1/4 mile times with trap speeds?

also some data on how much each car weighs would be usefull, and im tipping the vette would be the lighter going by the fuel consumption figures...


also, how about a 1/4 mile time whilst towing a boat :lol: the torque that the turbos produce has some use ;)


EDIT: 3,245lbs for the vette and 4500+lbs for the AMG, real fair!

[NinetySix]

On that note i think most of the "all paw turbo fans" have gone quiet because their flag ship models are no longer produced. Ie skyline, silvia, 200sx, 3000GT or supra. all gone, production ceased and not likely to return.

their rally bred models are still going strong, but they go better on the dirt than on the road compared to the jap flag ships of the past :rolleyes:


its like comparing a KTM to a M5 :lol:

[Freaky]

from memory the merc is around 1800kgs. the vette is around 1350kgs. Could be wrong though

[dominik]

also, how about a 1/4 mile time whilst towing a boat :lol: the torque that the turbos produce has some use ;)

3,245lbs for the vette and 4500+lbs for the AMG, real fair!Don't hold your breath waiting around to see a $400k SL65 towing a boat :p

Weight wise it's not a fair contest, but then what's the difference in the retail price of these cars?

Btw, read up on what all that torque does to a set of tyres on the Merc when you really get it going around the Autobahn.

[Freaky]

torque for the merc was originally as high as 1350nm. The engineers had to wind it down due to chassis problems it created before production release.

[dominik]

torque for the merc was originally as high as 1350nm. The engineers had to wind it down due to chassis problems it created before production release.You're right Buckethead, they had to dial the torque down from 1300nm, but the good news for Merc fans is they'll get that extra torque (as if 1000nm wasn't enough :eek: ) in the twin-turbo V12 S/SL/CL 69 AMG models which are expected to be around the 700hp mark and deliver sprints to 100 in the 3s. Scary. That's Lamborghini territory. All that competition from Brabus and Kleeman must be making AMG take drastic measures. Apparently they've sorted out the gearbox issues and Pirelli (?) are developing street tyres for it capable of taking such a beating. Btw, it'd be nice to see a manual option for these amazing roadsters.

[NinetySix]

wonder how many pounds of boost they run .... immagine the torque if it was increased a few psi :cool: .... we've all seen what XR6T's do in that situation...


i want one :D and i would be sure to tow a boat with it! ill go check the bank balance..... :(

[F6 Hoon]

torque for the merc was originally as high as 1350nm. The engineers had to wind it down due to chassis problems it created before production release.

Hmmm, interesting. If the Merc engineers are worried about chassis problems with their cars I wonder how the Commodore chassis copes with the 400rwkw (twin)turbo kits?

[dominik]

wonder how many pounds of boost they run .... immagine the torque if it was increased a few psi :cool: .... we've all seen what XR6T's do in that situation...

i want one :D and i would be sure to tow a boat with it! ill go check the bank balance..... :(I heard it runs up to 22 psi of boost. Think of that in 6.0L V12 terms... no wonder it generates so much torque.