OnPoint

Would be considered sports car blasphemy to change the small block bore centers.

Kind of like why Porsche artificially holds down the Cayman in power so it doesn't unseat the 911 which has an inferior drivetrain layout.

Atho, the latter should happen IMO, but not the former.

Bill17601

I am biting the bullet and buying the 450 HP C7. I have learned to suffer from years of driving low horsepower 435 / 427's, and 375 HP mechanical fuel injected small blocks, those who want more will get it when the demand slows.
It is just a matter of learning to accept the things we can not change..

JoesC5

Suaveat69

I was told because of "tradition".

WHT

Why would they.

Optimum size, weight and packaging. Don't mess with a good thing.

B747VET

Starting with the 265, then 283, then 327, and all the way to today's LT1, the 4.4 is the longest running engine family in automotive history.

They don't change it because it is a winner ... a bit of automotive genius if you will.

As many on here know, the 4.4 "small block" is actually NOT a small block. The term "small block" is simply a GM in-house nickname ... an unfortunate choice ... that just sprang up internally after the bigger blocks like the 454 and maybe the 409 (?) were born. They could just as easily have nicknamed it the "power house" or the "super block" or perhaps more wisely, they should just call it what it is, the "4.4" ...

Unfortunately, machismo and ego being what they are, nobody wants a small block, "Mongo want BIG BLOCK!"

Think of "small block" as an affectionate nickname for one of the greatest engine designs in automotive history. Just remember it ain't small.

jvp

Compared to the rat, the mouse motor most certainly is small. But who cares?

jas

AORoads

JoeC5: "...Increasing the bore spacing would have increased the weight of the engine as the engine would be longer and GM would have had to spent tons of money to purchase new transfer machining lines. A longer engine will also not fit into the box that a smaller engine fits into. That means much of the product line would have to have an enlarged engine compartment to fit the larger engine, thus more hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. "

And, WADR, therein lies your problem, OP. You think it's the President's money when, in fact, it's everyone else's money---yours, mine, every GM worker, and every non-GM worker.

You also don't seem to give serious consideration to JoeC5's points above. Because it really ISN'T all about the money. But money does count---especially when it's not yours, or just yours to the tune of 1/311 millionth.

Frizzle86

I guess, Ford, Audi, BMW, hyundai need to stop making turbo cars.

hklvette

As a point of fact, Turbo and hybrid cars can be built to beat/ "ace" the EPA mileage test cycle. Ford has been doing it with their ecoboost and Energi lines quite effectively.

ctusser

Are you a friend of Bill W?

EyeMaster

Another point of fact. Taking a turbo / supercharged engine and making it NA, you get even more efficient. There's a loss of energy by trying to compress the air to use it. But this is not the place for that debate...

OnPoint

Compression ratio makes the biggest impact on fuel economy. The higher you can run compression on an FI engine the better fuel economy you'll see. That's the main reason for the difference in fuel economy b/n an LS7 and an LS9, the latter having a significantly lower CR.

JoesC5

Depends on how they are engineered. My factory Supercharged Mercedes get 21/29MPG. When not in boost mode, my supercharger has a electric clutch(same as on the A/C compressor) that disengages the supercharger's rotors and a bypass valve directs the incoming air from the air filter around the supercharger to the intake manifold.

85scott

I think GM should have put the LS7 in. So I'm sure the 1st reason GM didn't do it is because it would increase the base price too much. And probably hurt sales.

The other reason being the environmental & safety lobby from DC pressure GM to spend all it's money on boring things nobody wants. And unfortunately the crooks have a stranglehold on Big Gov.

BlueOx

NO THANK YOU. If I want an LS7 there are lots of cars out there now with them.

SCM_Crash

I couldn't disagree more. The LT1 is a far more efficient motor. It makes more power per liter and does so with less fuel usage per horse power.

As for the "boring things nobody wants", I'd really like you to not talk for me. If by boring things you're referring to DI, VVT and/or AFM, you're wrong. I want all 3 of them.

The LS7 is prohibitively expensive. It uses titanium for lots of parts. In special lower production volume cars it makes sense to have such an expensive motor. But when you're going to mass-produce 20-30K cars per year, the cost of that titanium would actually go up... Not down. That's using a LOT of titanium, an already rare metal as it is.



I will DEFINITELY take the LT1 over the LS7 any day.