The kicker is 19 MPG vs upwards of 30 MPG.

Tradeoffs have to be made.

 

Nice Video of SLS Black test sample in action...engine sounds nice. Page is in german so hit translate in the Chrome browser ....http://www.sportauto.de/marken/news/...e-6085633.html

Cheers

 

Wow, could Mercedes have made the car any uglier than that? I doubt it!


The guys who don't like the C7 styling need to take a look at that abortion. Can we say aggressively ugly?

 

Good publication ( Sport Auto ).. couple of interesting Corvette links...

Laptimes... http://www.sportauto.de/rundenzeiten...itHH&order=ASC

Review...http://www.sportauto.de/vergleichste...b-4806450.html

Cheers

 

Could be one of the reasons for the development of a 10 speed transmission.

 

Its actually pretty cool looking. I drove a regular SLS recently. You'd probably like it a lot if you like Corvettes. They drive pretty similarly and its very loud even stock.

 

Cool looking? Indeed.

It looks like a high school seniors dream car with all the ricey scoops, dooflickeys, and that retarded JC Whitney park bench bolted on the back of it.

 

Looks like the SLS GT3 racecar to me. Different strokes for different folks but its probably already sold out. Badass ride IMO.

 

You've lost your mind! That thing kicks the C7 in it's nut sack!
At least from the rear...you know what it is.

 

Wrong....C7 wrote the JC catalog!

 

No...it didn't.

 

Did I get it backwards? Hate when that happens!

 

Humm.. I would think a 7100-7200 rpm LT1 redline would enable the C7 to get to 60 mph without a shift in low gear.. Makes a sub-4 sec 0-60 time easier to do ....

Cheers

 

That could be a problem. The base car could do 0-60 without a shift but the Z51 probably couldn't. Wouldn't want the base car to have quicker 0-60 than the Z51

 

That AMG V8 is supper nutty. I would say it's low tech because it only has cam phasers on it but those heads...good god... they flow ~390. They are a work of art. If the engine is the heart of the car the heads are the heart of the engine and those heads are gorgeous. That said, the LFA engine is still my favorite of all time.


As for this rev limiter would it be possible it's variable? If I'm not mistaken the GT500 has a rev limiter that's either 6200rpm or 7000rpm depending on temperature but more importantly duration. More than 8 seconds at over 6200rpm throws the 6200rpm redline. Seems like the dumbest redline I've ever seen but Mustang drivers never seem to do circuit racing or autocross so it probably doesn't matter for the usual application.

 

Its not dumb at all considering how much stroke that crankshaft has. The piston speeds are ridiculous.

 

Sure, but SAE didn't seem to mind that it's a 8 second thing. The LS/LT blocks could probably cheat a few HP too that way.

 

I stepped up and bought the paper since I was curious.

As the other posters say, on page 28, in Figure 55, there is a graph comparing Gen 5 6.2L to Gen 4 6.2L. LT1 and LS3 are specifically named in the caption and on the data series labels. The X-Axis has engine speed from 1000 to 7000 RPM every 1000 RPM. The Y-Axis has no scale, but each "minor" axis on the Y is in 10 kW increments. The power curves for both engines are overlaid. Eyeballing on the graph, it appears the LT1 has ~26-28 Nm more tq than LS3 at around the same ~4600 rpm (LT1 appears to peak slightly earlier). The LS3 power graph stops at the 6600 rpm, while the LT1 graph proceeds to ~7200 rpm. Peak HP in the LT1 occurs at approximately 6800 rpm and drops off 8-10 HP by cut off. At peak, the HP appears 26-27kW higher than LS3.

26 Nm = ~20 lb ft
26 kW =~ 35 HP

That puts the LT1 at ~444 lb ft of tq and ~465 hp using base exhaust LS3 numbers.

The graph only shows the upper ~180 kW, Nm of power/tq, so it is squished a bit.

In the graph, caption, and blub discussing figure 55, there was no mention of fuel used, or if they were "official certified SAE". The LT1 was called out specifically, but it is possible that this graph is having them run it at higher RPM than will be allowed in a stock production C7. Eyeballing the graph, if the LT1 was only reved to 6600, the peak number does not change much since peak power occurs around that area.

It is what it is.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation CPhelps.

Sounds like a great engine to me. I was just looking at a dyno chart on my 350Z (basically stock @ 164,000 miles), and it hits peak torque @ 4800 RPM but drops considerably after that. Peak power is at 6100 RPM (245 to the wheels), but the peak is pretty sharp and by redline (6600 RPM) the power has dropped significantly (down to 225).

Pretty impressive if the LT1 can indeed rev to over 7000 RPM and only drop 8-10 HP from peak. Seems like they really have managed to maintain the torque well over the full power band.

-T

 

It's possible that the graph is computer modeling simulation numbers without production intent manifolds/exhaust and 450 is the estimate for what it will actually do in the car, but it seems odd because the way the comparison was set up implied apples to apples comparison with LS3. I would think that if they were over spinning it for analysis purposes it wouldn't have such a high power peak since the other components such as cam and intake and values would not be sized for power higher than they intended to spin, but maybe vvt allows the cam to keep up.