Roadfrog

Alright!! Enough already!! I surrender!! Don't shoot, you might hit my Corvette!!

There have been plenty of good points made including some of mine I think.

Let's all lighten up a bit.

:D


[Modified by Roadfrog, 3:24 AM 1/14/2004]

jschindler

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

BTW, do you need a good marketing/sales guy?

Roadfrog

Actually I do. Someone that has successfully sold heavy, complicated road equipment and implements through a dealer network to contractors, municipalities, govt. agencies. The job is in the Northeast.

So as not to be accused of using this as a job board.....Corvette owner preferred.

This is opening is real! :steering:

jschindler

If it was in Texas we'd talk. I'd love to sell that stuff.

need-for-speed

welcome home :grouphug: :jester

Mitch Alsup

Go here, and you will see that this is not true. (Ignoring the cost issue, and ignoring the TQ issues) I am including the intake and exhaust maifolding in the volume computations. See post 3 for F355, post 4 for F360 and post 13 for the LS1. Any corrections would be appreciated.
http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthr...t=architecture

The F355 and F360 engines are actually smaller than the LS1/LS6 engines, do not weigh as much, and produce similar HP numbers. There is also a comparison of various 12 cylinder engine architectures.

It is possible to define package volume differently and get the LS1/6 to fit in a differently shaped package that the F355/F360 engines would not fit into.

A good part of the 'volume' loss in the Ferrrari engines compared to the LS1/6is the 4-5 inches of wet oil sump volume not existing in these dry sump engines.

In addition the Porsche GT3 engine and Turbo engines are smaller and competitive HP wise with the LS1/6.

This is not a slam against any LS1/6, GM, or even pushrods engines. But it is (simply) demonstrably not true that the LS1/6 occupies a smaller volume than similar HP engines (cost not so much an object) of other architecture.

Tom73

Mitch,
All it does is tell me I am not logged in when I try to pull up the attachment.
tom...

Guru_4_hire

Are they including the turbos?

need-for-speed

To use some of the info that you (in the spirit of fairness) provide yourself, wet sump / dry sump and naturally aspirated vs. forced induction are not apples to apples comparisons. And cost is ALWAYS a consideration. In fact, $$/ unit of performance (not to mention looks) is Corvette's strongpoint. It's just that it is difficult to quantify performance other than 1/4 mile times and lap times, But repeatedly winning showroom stock class events, sales, and longevity of the model are a good yardstick.

SWCDuke

You can't ignore torque, which is why I SPECIFICALLY mentioned it. That is a key context of my argument. You don't run a car engine constantly at the power peak, and only rarely see it. Peak torque and torque bandwidth are the most important characteristics of a street engine as that is what provides the highest average power across the rev range from off idle to the rev limit.

When you factor in torque and torque bandwidth the examples you brought up get blown away by Corvette engines, which produce 80 percent of peak torque barely off idle. The F360 doesn't achieve 80 percent of its paltry 275 lb-ft until nearly 4000 revs. Below that they perform like any other 3.5 liter car weighing 3100 pounds, which is leisurely by high performance sports car standards. Ever drive one?

The Porsche flat six is torquier than the Ferrari V-8, but still misses Corvette's low end and mid range torque/power levels by a mile. Both these engines have to be on a boil rev-wise to make the kind of power that a Corvette makes 2000 revs lower. If you want to compare a turbocharged Porsche engine, compare it to boosted Corvette engines which make over 500 lb-ft and over 500 HP with similar torque bandwidth to the production engine.

The V-12 in the Maranello is weaker down low than a Corvette V-8, but much stronger on top. Beyond this it is heavy and bulky as are all V-12s compared to V-8s of similar displacement and the Ferrari V-12 requires a lot more than the approximate 2 foot per side cube that contains a Corvette engine.

If you want to judge engines purely on the narrow one dimensional parameter of peak power, go ahead, but you'll mislead yourself. We use engines over a wide range of operational parameters, and the most objective way to evaluate engines of comparable peak power is to compare their peak torque and torque bandwidth, not the number of cams or valves per cylinder, not to mention those "high-tech" '71 Vega rubber timing belts that Ferrari says should be changed every 5 years or 30K miles (more on this later).

Engine mass and package volume is not necessarily something a buyer need be concerned with, but they play a significant roll in the size, weight, and useable space of the finished car. As far as cost is concerned, most buyers consider it, whether they admit it or not. I know guys who broke the bank to buy Porsches and Ferraris, and I know guys who can afford them, but don't think they're a good value, and don't want to support the dealer welfare system that requires about $5-7000 in maintenance every 5years or 30K miles, so they drive other marques. Everyone has their own set of priorities.

Dave Hill and GMPT talk about torque bandwidth and as time passes more people are getting it. Ferrari and Porsche understand torque bandwidth too, but they don't talk about it and hope that their customers will remain ignorant of the subject.

Duke





[Modified by SWCDuke, 8:33 PM 1/14/2004]

WhiteDiamond

Maybe those people buy a Ferrari or Porsche will understand it when a C6 gives them a little spanking ;) I think many of us can agree with Duke's comments without having to use exotics as an example. Take a drive down to your local dealerships and test drive some of the new cars. My wife and I recently got done looking for a 4 door vehicle for heavy abuse, family duty. There are plenty of examples of vehicles in this range without low end torque and with broader torque curves. You can feel this difference immediately. It is interesting how many of the peaky power car companies have gone to variable valve timing and variable intakes to try and broaden their torque curves.

Todd

scorp508

They did it with the LS1. :)

Mitch Alsup

BTW, I agree with all the statements that SW and need-for-speed posted.

I was imply arguing aginst the singular point that: the LS1/6 is the smallest package of a given power level. It is not.

It is a great engine, it is the smallest packaged 5.7 litre engine, it has impressive TQ, HP and MPG,.........doesn't cost much

But it will not fit in a smaller box than the Ferrari or Porsche engines (including intakes and exhausts.)

SWCDuke

Who was arguing that point? As a reminder, the following is exactly what I said in my first post of this thread:

"Once again, Corvette pushrod engines produce more power and GREATER TORQUE BANDWIDTH [emphasis added] per pound of engine mass and cubic foot of package volume than almost any other available automotive engine regardless of architecture or price."

The combination of "power and greater torque bandwidth" speaks to the average output across the entire rev range (which is how we actually use automotive engines), not just peak power.

Duke

bhamvett

:withstupid:

Guru_4_hire

The underrated the old L88 from 550ish to 425ish....

WhiteDiamond

When GM raised the LS1 from 345hp to 350hp there where changes made that could justify the increase. The cam specs changed, that is a biggie...
Todd

need-for-speed

:iagree: they also added the Z06 throttle body and intake manifold....

Scorp, please explain your comment :confused:

scorp508

5hp difference is 0 in my book. The difference in power between a hot day and cold day will be more than that.

scorp508

And the LT4 clearly made more like 350hp when tested even though the papers said 330 to keep the LS1 buyers happy.:)