LS1 Volvo

I remarks still hold true for the Heavier than Mustang F-bodies, and with the older version of the LS motor. As for the Super Charging, it might not be Car Craft but in Hot Rod (Nov '06) they are talking about GM going with a Super Charged version of an LS motor. And to compare Apples to Apples, take the Automatic Versions of an F-body versus the Automatic version of the Ford and the Heavier F-body still gets better mileage out of a bigger engine, simply more efficient.  As for the Price Tag of a GT500 I don't see them showing up anywhere near the numbers of Vette's or older F-bodies.  As for multiple valves, you only need them if the bore is too narrow to support the air flow the engine is capable of with "only" two valves. Sure small four bangers need them because of the small bore, and the last 50 years of two valve engines prove that two valves on a well designed intake and head (and cam) are fully capable of supplying the air flow to an engine with sufficient bore diameter, which the LS has.  You mention extra cubes helping make the difference on between the 2v versus 3v and 4v engines, to argue this is self defeating, to say that 2v couldn't feed a 281-331 engine, how are they going to feed a larger engine? Easily, you can get that kind of horsepower out of 281-331 engine with 2v.  I build Pontiacs and Buicks, so I am not positive, but there are probably a hand full of chevy engines out there in the 281-331 range pumping out that kind of power (for trans am or bracket racing?) and you neglected to mention, were those 750+hp motors naturally aspirated or pressurized?  If it is pressurized then I am sure it has been done on 2v and probably for cheaper.  As for cheap production blocks,  GM still uses Iron versions of the LS in the Trucks, which should be just as easy to find in the junk yard as any "modern" Ford V-8. 

Looking at the Blue Devil Vette, the rumors are now certainly starting about GM supercharging the LS motor.  
-
The Silver Buick- '77 Skylark coupe w/ a Fuel Injected Buick 455&TKO-600, '72 Centurion Conv't - 455w/TH400, '67 T-bird 4Dr (suicide) w/428&C6. Needing to replace a '69 Firebird 400.

http://www.bangshift.com/forum/index.php?topic=6189.0

OHC adds weight to the block and heads to support the extra cams...basic fact of life...the support has to be there...not to mention you now have to get oil HIGHER in the block (farther away from the mains) just to keep everything lubed up...the closer the cam is to the mains, the better oil drain-back...not a big factor...but another advantage.  The only advantage to overhead cams is slighly reduced friction, and less VALVETRAIN weight...neither of which are really all that big of a deal with roller cams, roller rockers, increased technology in valvetrain materials, and increased technology in the placement of the cam itself...NASCAR manages to run its OHV motors up to 9000+ RPM.  The all aluminum structure of an LS1 reduces weight...thereby increasing fuel economy...cant blame GM cuz Ford doesn't feel it necessary to reduce the weight of its engines...

GM HAS expressed intrest in supercharging an LS based engine...

http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/11836/spied-2009-corvette-stingray.html

New techonology is EXOTIC...thats kinda the point...if its not exotic, its not new...

The LS7 is an 2V pushrod motor...the same thing you've been attacking as ancient...not "modern".  The LS7 is exotic...duh...and will run with the best of Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Ford, and whoever else you can think up that uses "modern technology" in OHC and variable valve timing and whatever other new name you think is cool.  You still haven't addressed how an OHV motor can possibly out-rev an OHC motor...you only left us with the lame excuse that the LS7 isn't popular enough. There is a ton of technology involved in that motor.  One of which is titanium connecting rods.  Guess what...titanium has been around forever...it wasn't until recently that we started figuring out how to manufacture it.  You didn't discuss the sodium-potassium filled exhaust valves...thats certainly not ordinary.  Or how bout the composite intake, multiple coil packs, 15 degree cylinder heads, drive-by-wire throttle control, raised port intake design, minimizing rotating masses (done with finite-element analysis...very slick...ever done it?  Its fun), roller cams with more and more lift for a given duration...only done with increasing technology, the optimized combustion chambers...still working on those...nobody knows what the hell is going on there...computer models are still being created...or how bout the behive valve springs that are oh so popular...first found in the LS1...thats new.  

Are you going to tell me that a crankshaft made today is the same technologically compared to a crankshaft from the 60's???  Crankshafts...now thats an old idea...thats not modern at all...yet...people keep making them...keep spending millions of dollars researching how to make them better...

As for the ALMS Vettes;
"As a result, the Corvette C6.Rs must weigh 176 pounds more than the Aston Martin DBR9s. The Corvettes are also required to use proportionally smaller engine air restrictors than their British competitors."

Taken from  http://www.corvetteracing.com/history/2006releases/houston/houston1.shtml

According to you...the weight difference is actually about 200 lbs...IN RACING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  THAT IS SIGNIFICANT!!!!  NOT "ONLY"!!  People in IRL are B(*&ng about Danica Patrick because of her weight advantage...probably only about 80lbs there!  Can you imagine if John Force's car weighed 200lbs more than everyone else...HELLO!!!!  Two tenths of a second in a class that competitive...IT IS A BIG DEAL.  The Corvette weighs more...and has proportionally smaller air restrictors than the Aston Martins...but I guess that dominance still doesn't matter does it...

Boosting is better? Really? You mean, running an engine at more than one atmosphere is better than in a vacuum??  The Aston Martin is not blown...so who cares.  

So Ford races in lower level racing classes to boost their numbers...great...who cares...most of its probably not factory sponsored.  Race in ALMS or F1...on the world stage...then I'll be impressed...Grand Am is nothing.  I know that the Saleen S7s try to compete in the GT1 class with the Corvette...but they generally finish last...behind even the Aston Martins.

NASCAR is the biggest joke when it comes to advancing anything...the rules are so stringent there is hardly any room for development.  Jeff Gordon's team came out with a new chassis design for the Winston about 10 years back...guess what...NASCAR outlawed it because it was too fast...too much of an advantage.  NASCAR is hardly the stage for any kind of real development.  Making that much power out of that few cubic inches with rules THAT stringent...thats impressive.  I'm sorry...but a stock car has nothing at all in common with a production car.  Not to mention they are the most hypocritical organization in the country...but thats a different argument.

"In comparison, former SVT chief engineer John Colletti hated deep overdrives because he didn't like the compromise on highway responsiveness (he felt a performance car should have some punch, even in top gear) and he would not allow them on any SVT product." ~dr511scj

You know...an engine is really really responsive if you just leave it in first gear...lotsa fun.  Just cuz the former SVT chief engineer is too stupid to figure out how to downshift doesn't mean GM engineers are as dumb...at least they give the option of better mileage...and leave it to the driver to drive in a lower gear to obtain responsiveness.

You are hung up on the names involved...you have no idea how much engineering is involved with any of this...you don't know how long it took to develop the LS1 block...or how many problem area's they had to fix...it doesn't have a cool name...so you don't care.

The fact that any 2V pushrod engine can spawn an argument like this means that its not THAT ancient...and that OHC is not THAT modern.  As an engineer...I'm all about advancements...but with most of the advancements involved in anything...you'll never even know they existed...never even know how much of a break through they are...cuz most of the time it doesn't involve a fancy name...thats marketing's job...and they've got you...

I could continue on forever arguing this...I could write a thesis on this (think they'll let me in grad school...doubt it...oh well)...but its not going to get anywhere...you are never going to change my mind about the LS series motors being extremely advanced powerplants...and I'm never going to convince you that this is true...the debate rages...it'll never end.  Some of your points are valid...some of my points are valid...if I had the time I'd research this whole thing and refute every argument you could possibly make...it still won't change your mind.  I like pushrods...I like carbs...I also like OHC and Turbos and EFI...but I don't think they are the next awakening of the internal combustion engine...each has advantages...each has disadvantages.

Edited 10/4/2006 8:38 pm by CSIROC

The camaro and gto didnt go under due to the motors, its was due to cost.  

Not that Dr511scj needs any help, but  . . . .

First, you've producted no data on engine weights.  The reported data on the various modulars is all over the map depending on configuration and whether or not they are measured with all accessories (AC/PS) or not.  The all-aluminum 3V SOHC is a reasonably lightweight engine (the Mustang GT is only a little over 100lbs heavier than the V6, despite the 8.8 axle, a second full exhaust AND the 3V Modular).  Admittedly, the iron versions (e.g. '03 Cobra, etc.) are heavier than the LSx.  In a 3600 lb street car +/- 100 lbs engine weight isn't going to be too significant if the engine makes sufficient extra power to overcome the 1/10 sec. weight penalty. Most rodders would gladly add 100 lbs to obtain a cheap and reliable 700+ hp.  The significant point is that garden-variety Modular blocks are tough enough for serious power adder duty with little more than a forged Cobra crank, some decent forged rods and replacement pistons.  And the cheap, ordinary ones are good for over 500 with the factory reciprocating assembly still intact.

Second The 2002 Camaro SS had a curb weight of 3411 lbs.  The Z06 is less than 3200 lbs. In contrast,the 2003 SVT Cobra had a curb weight of 3665 lbs.  As you point out, 200 lbs is significant  . . . in fuel economy as well.  BTW, the curb weight of the current Mustang GT is right at 3,500 lbs. Most modular-equipped Ford trucks weigh at least 4,600 lbs., and Crown Victoria/Police Interceptor weighs over 4,100 lbs.  Even the DCX Hemi cars weigh over 4,000 lbs.  Note that the LS2 in the 4,600 lb. Trailblazer SS obtains a dismal 14 mpg city and 17 mpg highway.  Obviously it isn't a miracle engine in that vehicle.

Third, you simply ignored the points on gearing.  The overdrive gearing in the GM LSx cars is stratospheric compared to the more conservative Ford gearing. (1.71:1  final drive (in overdrive) for the six-speed Camaro vs. 2.06:1 to 2.20:1 for the average Modular-equipped Ford)  Obviously Ford left a lot of highway MPG on the table.  That was a mistake.  However, highway MPG ratings are suspect because they are based on load data from an over twenty-year old rural loop driving cycle which does not exceed 55 mph at any point.  Not very real world.   On the other hand, the city mpg comparisons are quite favorable (although GM still cheats here with the infamous first-to-fourth skip shift gimmick that has no real value outside an EPA test lab and which is disabled by most F-body owners.  The way most folks drive LSx equipped performance cars, they are NOT economy cars.

Fourth, on ALMS-- undoubtedly the factory-backed C6Rs are more sorted after half a decade of competition than the privateer Prodrive-fielded Astons.  But a  press release on "proportionally more restricted" is PR spin and not valid data.  Obviously in a full competition situation, using a huge cam to crutch limited valve curtain area and exotic materials to allow for high revs is just fine. But when 100,000+ mile durability, idle quality and production cost budgets enter the picture,  multivalve engines allow for milder cams and less NHV--which is why virtually everyone but GM has abandoned two-valve engines.  Moreover, the 61 cubic inch advantage of the C6R over the less developed Astons cannot be overlooked.  In fact, the LSx folks seem to want it both ways. They trumpet the LSx's cubic inch advantage but then claim it makes no real difference.  Which is it?

Fifth, without question if OHC multivalve engines were legalized in NASCAR at the same CID as OHV 2 valvers, RPM levels would skyrocket overnight and the 2Vs would disappear.  As much as exotic valvetrain parts permit unforeseen rpm levels in NASCAR, they pale in comparison to unrestricted rpm levels in other forms of racing.   Obviously if OHV pushrod engines were such low friction beasts without any compromises on RPM, you'd see plenty of them at the top levels of international motorsports. But in each of these "clean sheet" venues, multivalve OHC engines are the standard.  Why do you suppose that is?  Is the rest of the World just not as smart as GM (which incidentally has never won even ONE Formula One race and does not contest WRC)

 Sixth, Grand Am IS significant for comparison to street cars.  The Multimatic Mustang "Boy Racer" uses a DOHC which is very similar to a street/strip engine and which is even sold the FRPP catalog. The whole FRPP crate engine sells for about half the cost of a C6R shortblock and a fraction of what a 9,500 rpm NASCAR engine sells for.

Seventh, the vaporware "Blue Devil" Corvette (MSRP $100,000+ if its ever built) isn't really any more relevant to Car Crafting than a Ford GT or a Dodge Viper. But it does illustrate the inadequacies of 2V engines very well.   If the rumored 650 h.p. is true, the VaporVette makes about 1.52 hp per cube with its blown engine.  A respectable number to be sure.  But the 4V DOHC Ford GT made 1.66 hp per cube (and stock block tuned versions of the 5.4 are making as much as 3 hp per cube in streetable trim).  

Eighth, granted that Ford hasn't done enough to promote the modular or bring serious versions to the street at a reasonable price.  If I ran Ford, we'd be dumping out turbo-ready 4.6 and 5.4 3V and DOHC longblock crate engines at prices which undercut GMPP (and DOHC conversion kits for the legions of 2V Mustangs out there).  But that doesn't mean that the Modular cannot be cheaply built to make as much power as any street tire could possibly control.  

Ninth, if OHV pushrod engines were so much more efficient, wouldn't we see huge numbers of them in hybrids and other "economy" classes?  Instead, even GM has given up on OHV four cylinders.  Why is that?

Tenth, it's correct that multivalve advantages are multiplied with reduced bore center sizes.  But smaller bores are more detonation resistant on pump gasoline and yield superior emission efficiency.  However, multivalves on large bores still allow for more airflow at lower lifts and less duration.  So its just plain inaccurate to suggest that 2v pushrod engines have any advantages other than cost and packaging.

Eleventh, doesn't the LSx have to pump oil up to the top to lube the rockers?  I don't really see how your oiling argument amounts to anything significant.  But again, if it did, wouldn't we see OHVs dominate in unlimited competition engines (please note that the NHRA has banned OHC and multivalve engines in all of its professional classes, so they are hardly "unlimited")

BONUS-if the LSx were so inherently advantageous, why has Cadillac spent millions developing the RPO LC3 Northstar into a supercharged performance engine?  http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/cadillac/0504em_cady/ (which incidentally makes 1.66 hp per cube, indicating a substantial efficiency advantage over the rumored "blue devil") Wouldn't it just make more sense to plug in LSxs and tell everyone how wrong Mercedes, Lexus, BMW, Audi, Infiniti, and Jaguar are about OHC multivalve engines?

Didn't the LSx-equipped Camaro sell for LESS than the current Mustang GT?  It must not have been "cost" that was the problem.

Granted the deterioration in the Australian-US exchange rate did damage Bob Lutz's business case for the GTO.  But I think the Dr's point was that the 400-hp LS2 wasn't good enough to make folks shell out the bucks for it (even with substantial rebates)

The 122 Volvo is indeed rear wheel drive. And yes, there is enough room to put a  small-block something under the hood. First one I saw was in Car Craft in the late 60's.

And yes, the Ford Modular is a very wide engine. It would be a tight squeeze in a lot of applications.

Good points…some of them anyway…

 Although I have not provided any data on engine weights…neither has anyone else.  You’ve only provided data on the curb weight of the car…which gives almost no indication as to the weight of the engine.  I really don’t care to take the time to look it up…so if you’d like to figure that one out, let us know what it ends up being…

I did address the gearing…the fact is that GM has given its drivers a choice as to good gas mileage, or responsiveness in the motor…just put the gear selector in a lower gear…GM definitely wins that battle…Ford just assumes that you don’t care about mileage and would rather have marginal responsiveness on the highway (seriously…if you punch it in 5^th or 6^th gear…its still going to be a dog…you gotta downshift).

Aston Martin has been in the game long enough it shouldn’t need any help running with the Corvettes…I mean Audi has managed to develop a DIESEL powered race car and WIN the 24 Hours of Le Mans…you mean to tell me Aston Martin cant develop a competitive race car in the two years its been racing??  And you are still treating the LS7 as if its not a street engine…its available on the street…for people who drive their cars every day…is anyone going to drive a Z06 every day…prolly not…but its designed to be driven every day.  I never said anything about the size advantage of the LS1…I did say that it can be neglected in ALMS because Aston Martin could build the motor that big IF THEY WANTED TOO.  They don’t…their fault.

Yes an OHC motor has a much higher potential for high RPM…but the Ford doesn’t use that…the OHV LS7 does…that was my only point there…if you want really high RPM you need to reduce as much mass between the cam and valve as possible...but on street motors that’s hardly a factor.  “top levels of international motorsports” includes the 24 Hours of Le Mans…and the American Le Mans Series for that matter…the OHV Corvette has simply dominated its class…you cannot refute that.  Ford doesn’t compete in any type of world class racing…at least GM does it in one series.  F1 is locked up…Ferrari is so very dominant in that…well…the second half of the season they were…I didn’t pay attention to the first half. 

Who cares what kind of power you make per liter…or cubic inch…that is an import excuse…I really don’t care if a 2 liter makes 100HP/Liter and a 6 Liter only makes 50…the 6 Liter still makes MORE POWER.  This “blue devil” vette will be making 100 HP more than the Ford GT…and the current 505 HP Vette will run right next to the  GT in pretty much every measured category…gee which is gonna be faster?

The advantage of cost and packaging allows more development in cylinder heads, intake, exhaust, block design, rotating assemblies, thermal designs, etc…it’s nothing to scoff at…it is an advantage…which probably explains why the mustang couldn’t ever beat the Camaro…at least once the LT1 showed up.  The point I was making about the cams being higher is that you have to oil a PAIR of CAMSHAFTS that are the farthest distance possible from the mains.  On an OHV motor you only have to send a small amount of oil up to lube the rockers…significant difference in the amount of oil being transported…but as I said, its just a MINOR advantage.

Lets get something straight…I NEVER said that OHV is a better design than OHC…I said it has advantages…I also said it has disadvantages…I said that a motor does NOT have to have OHC’s to be modern…that a 2V pushrod engine can be just as “modern” as anything else.  I believe the LS series is a better engine than the Modular series…personal taste…personal opinion. 

 Here is an article I managed to find…

 http://autoblog.com/2005/12/08/autoblog-feature-ohc-vs-ohv-the-definitive-rant/

Although I am on the opposing side of your arguments...they are actually logical points, making this more of a discussion rather than a "I'm right and you wrong" type of thing...in a quick search on the internet...there is very little substantial information (without reading between lines as you and I have) available.  Most of the results for OHC vs OHV came back with a forum...and not really a lot of real world answers.  CC forum is definitely the place to go for information...even if we cant reach a concensus.

My problem is with the claiming that Ford's OHC engines are modern high tech pieces of engineering.  OHC has been around for a very long time, remember Ford's 427 Cammer engine?  All they did then and are doing now is relocating the cam (and adding another one since it is a V engine).  Nothing is innovative about their design or build.  Iron blocks are about as ancient as engines themselves, they are not pushing the limits of super/turbo charger designs. Since the 80's that has been left up to the aftermarket.  The real poster child for OHC engines and perfomance is Honda, they have developed and maximized the all the technological benifits of of an OHC engine.  For hp/ci from the factory Honda does it best.  They are innovators.  All Ford's engineers are doing with the superchargers is patching up shoddy engineering work in the intake, heads and cam. They are not even attempting to try the things Honda has done or even trying to push the envelope.  Ford's OHC V-8's had a three or four year lead in production on the LS series of engines and in just plain engineering terms falls behind.  Ford hasn't done anything innovative in anyway with their V-8's, infact it sounds like their engines and vehicles were designed by Russians (heavy, over built and under engineered), always using the quick fix to solve their short comings. (have you seen the number of dampeners on Ford products? A lot of their vehicles have vibration dampeners on them where a properly designed vehicle shouldn't need them such as the exhaust system and drive shaft. Heavy, simple fix vibration dampeners, rather than engineer the vibrations out they use weight to absorb it, but that is vehicle design issues.   
-
The Silver Buick- '77 Skylark coupe w/ a Fuel Injected Buick 455&TKO-600, '72 Centurion Conv't - 455w/TH400, '67 T-bird 4Dr (suicide) w/428&C6. Needing to replace a '69 Firebird 400.

http://www.bangshift.com/forum/index.php?topic=6189.0

$26120. thats what you would spend for an SS camaro in 2002

$22965. thats what you would spend for a mustang gt in 2002.

you would spend about the same for a mustang gt today as you would for an SS camaro in 2002. why the hell are you comparing a mustang today to a camaro in 2002 anyways?

so people that drive modular equiped preformance car drive like economist? and WTF is with bring up the gas milage in a trailblazer?

a ford exploder 2wd. biggest engine offered 4.6. only makes 292 hp and 300 ftlbs

a chevy trailblazer ss. biggest engine offered 6.0 making 395 h.p. 400 ftlbs.

gas milage. 15/21 for the exploder.

                    15/19 for the trailblazer.

even with 1.4 more litres, the trailblazers ecomony is basically the same.

You should be comparing SVT Cobras to Camaro SS.  The SS was a niche-built, limited-production model engineered and developed by SLP for GM. http://www.camarossoa.org/about/index.php?action=about_slp

The ordinary LS1 Z28s sold for signficantly less. ($22,830 MSRP--transaction prices were substantially less due to limited demand.  See http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2002&make=Chevrolet&model=Camaro&trimid=-1 

The simple truth is that despite having the venerated (at least on this board) LS1 and a LOWER sticker price than a Mustang GT, the Mustang still was more popular when new than both F-bodies (Firebird and Camaro) combined.

Obviously most Car Crafters, had they been running Ford, would have chosen to match or beat the LT1/LS1 F-bodies on power off the showroom floor.  But with appropriate modifications,  the Modular-powered Mustangs can be more than a match for any F-body.

Gas mileage?  Perhaps you should pay attention to the discussion.   The claim was that the LSx had some sort of inherent efficiency advantage over OHC V8s.  (remember all the claims that the LSx is a "30 mpg" engine while the Fords were dragged down by all that oil in the top end, the long timing chain and the extra cam(s) and the DCX's  Hemis are similarly inefficient--even with PUSHRODS!)

While obviously  Ford offers no vehicle similar to a Trailblazer SS*, the fuel mileage of the LS2 in the SS is relevant to show the critical signifcance of weight to fuel economy.  

Still, the Ford Explorer does provide over ten-and-a-half percent better highway fuel economy according to the figures you cited (which is surprising considering the average Explorer weighs well over 4500 lbs), so I'm not sure how you can say "trailblazer's economy is basically the same."  

In fact to obtain the same highway fuel economy as Explorer with similar power, GM must use a 5.3 liter LS with Active Fuel Management. 

*And GM won't much longer, based on reports that it's cancelling the Trailblazer at the end of the current design cycle.