Technological Chauvinist gets smacked down. Hard.

[Jason C]

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3613692#post3613692

Ouch! That was almost painful to read, with him prattling about his engineering degree earlier in the thread. :lol: :lol: :lol:

With that said, Fair's posting does give me a great idea for a project car... :eeps:

[blee]

People STILL can't get over the fact that hp/L doesn't automatically translate to superior performance. Perhaps even worse, people don't understand the fact that it's perfectly alright to like a high hp/L engine, as long as you take it at face value.

Sigh...

[FC]

That was pretty good. :)

[Jason C]

Perhaps even worse, people don't understand the fact that it's perfectly alright to like a high hp/L engine, as long as you take it at face value.

I will say this, though - 9 out of 10 NA High HP/L engines I have heard sound fantastic (ie, 360CS, CGT, ZondaF, 996 GT3, etc).

But any small block Chevy with an aftermarket exhaust sound pretty damn mean, too.

EDIT:

Those heads are MAMMOTH. BIG like a pickle.

As a point of fact the 5.0L M5 motor (from a $70K car that pushed 4000 pounds) weighs roughly 1 fuckton

:lol:

[blee]

Perhaps even worse, people don't understand the fact that it's perfectly alright to like a high hp/L engine, as long as you take it at face value.

I will say this, though - 9 out of 10 NA High HP/L engines I have heard sound fantastic (ie, 360CS, CGT, ZondaF, 996 GT3, etc).

But any small block Chevy with an aftermarket exhaust sound pretty damn mean, too.

That's just it. If your high hp/L engine takes up a lot of room and is heavy, but still makes you happy, then fine. I bought my BMWs because I liked them, and I like the S2000 because it's got a crazy hp/L ratio. And you're right -- they sound pretty good at WOT.

At the same time, I know that good ol' American lump engines are the way to go for "real" power. And I prefer the way they sound over most of the high-revvers. But I wouldn't exclude one type to buy the other. I like 'em both.

[blee]

But any small block Chevy with an aftermarket exhaust sound pretty damn mean, too.

Oh, and you got this one only half-right. SBCs are my personal favorites, but I haven't found anything that beats a 5.0 with Flowmasters or straight pipes.

[Jason C]

But any small block Chevy with an aftermarket exhaust sound pretty damn mean, too.

Oh, and you got this one only half-right. SBCs are my personal favorites, but I haven't found anything that beats a 5.0 with Flowmasters or straight pipes.

You're right, when they have a nice cam in it they do sound like they'd cause a small dog to cower when idling. :) :) :)

And the thread about the F355 reminded me: I forgot to have it in the list of cars above. That car has an absolutely intoxicating exhaust note.

[FC]

And the thread about the F355 reminded me: I forgot to have it in the list of cars above. That car has an absolutely intoxicating exhaust note.


Werd. :bigpimp:

[clyde]

EDIT:

As a point of fact the 5.0L M5 motor (from a $70K car that pushed 4000 pounds) weighs roughly 1 fuckton

That was my favorite line too.

[Optimus Prime]

EDIT:

As a point of fact the 5.0L M5 motor (from a $70K car that pushed 4000 pounds) weighs roughly 1 fuckton

That was my favorite line too.

I started laughing out load here in the office...then I had to try to explain what was so funny about the excel spreadsheet and bearing loads I was working on... :oops:

[clyde]

"My god, this bearing has a load of one FUCKTON! Hey, Bill, can you believe that?! One FUCKTON!!! Damn!...Oh, wait a second, never mind...decimal error."

[Optimus Prime]

"My god, this bearing has a load of one FUCKTON! Hey, Bill, can you believe that?! One FUCKTON!!! Damn!...Oh, wait a second, never mind...decimal error."

damnit clyde :flipoff:

That's twice in one day. My boss just said, "what can possibly be that funny about a sprocket bearing for a motor grader?"

errrr, "I made a decimal error and it reminded me of this thing my friend used to say..."
:)

[The HACK]

I will add this to the flame...

High HP/L engines tend to rev higher, allowing a better gear box ratio/rear end than say, their big V8 counterparts.

For example, say an inline 6 revs to 8,000 RPM is pitted against a well engineered V8 push-rod that revs to 6,500 RPM. Both are shoved into the same chassis. The inline 6 can take advantage of a shorter final drive ratio and achieve the same acceleration numbers and BETTER TOP SPEED while using a lighter transmission that doesn't need to handle as much torque. The entire chassis/powertrain taken as a package, an engine that produces power by using higher RPM is more efficient vs an engine that makes power via displacement.

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

Sometimes you can't discount BMW's achievement in making ultra high revving engines that rivals the best of what Ferrari offers. The LS1/LS7 may be a great engine, perhaps taken by itself a better engine than what BMW makes, but as a package you can not ignore the OHC's high-revving advantage.

[Rob]

I will add this to the flame...

High HP/L engines tend to rev higher, allowing a better gear box ratio/rear end than say, their big V8 counterparts.

For example, say an inline 6 revs to 8,000 RPM is pitted against a well engineered V8 push-rod that revs to 6,500 RPM. Both are shoved into the same chassis. The inline 6 can take advantage of a shorter final drive ratio and achieve the same acceleration numbers and BETTER TOP SPEED while using a lighter transmission that doesn't need to handle as much torque. The entire chassis/powertrain taken as a package, an engine that produces power by using higher RPM is more efficient vs an engine that makes power via displacement.

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

Sometimes you can't discount BMW's achievement in making ultra high revving engines that rivals the best of what Ferrari offers. The LS1/LS7 may be a great engine, perhaps taken by itself a better engine than what BMW makes, but as a package you can not ignore the OHC's high-revving advantage.

Right. That's why the new M5 will outperform the new Z06 so handily. Wait . . . :flipoff:

:lol:

I am going to bookmark that page for future reference. It's really funny.

[Jason C]

I will add this to the flame...

High HP/L engines tend to rev higher, allowing a better gear box ratio/rear end than say, their big V8 counterparts.

For example, say an inline 6 revs to 8,000 RPM is pitted against a well engineered V8 push-rod that revs to 6,500 RPM. Both are shoved into the same chassis. The inline 6 can take advantage of a shorter final drive ratio and achieve the same acceleration numbers and BETTER TOP SPEED while using a lighter transmission that doesn't need to handle as much torque. The entire chassis/powertrain taken as a package, an engine that produces power by using higher RPM is more efficient vs an engine that makes power via displacement.

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

Sometimes you can't discount BMW's achievement in making ultra high revving engines that rivals the best of what Ferrari offers. The LS1/LS7 may be a great engine, perhaps taken by itself a better engine than what BMW makes, but as a package you can not ignore the OHC's high-revving advantage.

Right. That's why the new M5 will outperform the new Z06 so handily. Wait . . . :flipoff:

:lol:

I am going to bookmark that page for future reference. It's really funny.

In all fairness, the Z06 will weigh nearly half a ton less than the M5.

It has been posted here before, but it's obvious when comparing weight dimensions that the new M5/M6 engine really does weigh a fuckton compared to the LS7. And as Fair found out when he stopped magazine-racing and started to actually tear through that E36 engine compartment, even a basic BMW in-line six is far less space and weight efficient compared to the LSX series.

Brand purists might be offended. Performance purists should be pleased. Of course, many who claim to be latter are really the former. :flipoff:

[Jason C]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to add:

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

The maximum of 500 horsepower is developed at 6200 rpm, and peak torque is 475 pound-feet at 4800 rpm. Clearly, this V-8, which is assembled at GM's new Performance Build Center in Wixom, Michigan, is tuned for high rpm. But with about 385 pound-feet - the peak torque of the new BMW M5 V-10 at 6100 rpm - available at about 1600 revs, the LS7 should be plenty tractable.

Are you going to discount that as well?

[blee]

I don't get it. High revving engines have less torque down low, so they use shorter gears for better acceleration times. Leads to lower top speeds in each gear, which is somewhat compensated by higher redline.

Pushrod engines have more torque in general, so they can achieve similar acceleration numbers with taller gears, leading to a higher speed at similar RPM, thus making a high redline less necessary. Where's the advantage? DOHC engines don't have redlines so much higher than pushrod engines that this is a really big deal.

[clyde]

Where's the advantage?

As Hack rightly pointed out, it's the total package that's important. I'm sure that Hack will be more than happy to tell us how much less the total powertrain of the V10 M5 (or E46 M3 for that matters) weighs than the C6 Z06 (or C5 Z06 for that matter) drivetrain as well as how much smaller the total external physical dimensions are.

The part that I'm left wondering about, though, is where fuel efficency fits in to his theory that "an engine that produces power by using higher RPM is more efficient vs an engine that makes power via displacement." Of course, just quoting that portion of his statement is mildly unfair WRT fuel efficency. Let's see the full statement:The entire chassis/powertrain taken as a package, an engine that produces power by using higher RPM is more efficient vs an engine that makes power via displacement.

A drivetrain from engine to drive wheels is going to make the same power with the same efficency no matter what chassis you stick it in (intake routing differences and corporate mandated detuning notwithstanding) which makes the chassis pretty much completely irrelevant. Still, the chassis distinction was made in that statement regarding efficency. The only things that change from chassis to chassis, WRT efficency are related to fuel efficency and how efficent the power developed is converted into velocity and the rate that velocity can be changed. Hack's argument leads me to believe that the V10 power BMW will accelerate faster from any given starting speed from 0-(top speed minus 1 unit) than a C6 Z06, have a higher top speed in production form (the BMW is ungoverned, right?) AND return better fuel mileage as well. Who's with me? :banana:

As my daughter likes to say these days...one more thing

Where does cost efficency factor into the comparison?

[Jason C]

That's just it. If your high hp/L engine takes up a lot of room and is heavy, but still makes you happy, then fine. I bought my BMWs because I liked them, and I like the S2000 because it's got a crazy hp/L ratio. And you're right -- they sound pretty good at WOT.

And this is where I have issues with the "HP/L 0wnz j00!" crowd. Cost-no-object, I do have a preference to getting something powered by a Ferrari flat-planed V8 or a 5.7L racing V10 or a 7.3L AMG V12. But it's just that - personal preferences based purely on esoteric emotional appeal. If someone asks me about the pros and cons vs. your average cam-in-block engine, I'm not going to pretend that my choice is rooted in anything remotely resembling factual evidence. (Before someone jumps all over that statement, yes I'm fully aware of advantages on valvetrain mass/# of valves/rev range/etc. However they are oftentimes more than offset by other factors as the DOHC vs. OHV comparison pic so easily shows.)

What I can't stand is so-called *enthusiasts* who DO shoot their mouths off about supposed test-proven superiorities and what's a POS and what's God's gift to cars, all without any real-world basis to back up their claims.

[The HACK]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to add:

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

The maximum of 500 horsepower is developed at 6200 rpm, and peak torque is 475 pound-feet at 4800 rpm. Clearly, this V-8, which is assembled at GM's new Performance Build Center in Wixom, Michigan, is tuned for high rpm. But with about 385 pound-feet - the peak torque of the new BMW M5 V-10 at 6100 rpm - available at about 1600 revs, the LS7 should be plenty tractable.

Are you going to discount that as well?

I'm not discounting squat. I'm just pointing out that there are benefits to a high revving engine, namely gearing.

If you just take one aspect of the engine (overhead cam vs. push-rod), it's easy to dismiss the old american iron engine outright. If you just take one aspect of a complete chassis, it is easy to dismiss the overhead cam engine. If you take two complete chassis and compare side by side, each engine design have it's pluses and minuses.

You can put the Corvette LS 7 drivetrain in the M5/M6 chassis and I'll bet it's not going to be faster than the V-10 with SMGIII.

[The HACK]

What I can't stand is so-called *enthusiasts* who DO shoot their mouths off about supposed test-proven superiorities and what's a POS and what's God's gift to cars, all without any real-world basis to back up their claims.

Hey STUKA!!!

:)

[Nick M3]

I'm not discounting squat. I'm just pointing out that there are benefits to a high revving engine, namely gearing.

If you just take one aspect of the engine (overhead cam vs. push-rod), it's easy to dismiss the old american iron engine outright. If you just take one aspect of a complete chassis, it is easy to dismiss the overhead cam engine. If you take two complete chassis and compare side by side, each engine design have it's pluses and minuses.

You can put the Corvette LS 7 drivetrain in the M5/M6 chassis and I'll bet it's not going to be faster than the V-10 with SMGIII.

Yeah... But just think of the size of the pushrod engine you could fit in that engine bay. :eeps:

[lemming]

i'd rather see BMW use some more displacement and have some more torque. a 5.0 litre v10 is nice and it's some tangential translation from race machinery to road car, which is more than lamborghini can ever say, but the engine sees its applications in cars that weigh at least 3800-4000 pounds. and let's be fair, at this level of elite performance, sub-400ft#'s is really not going to cut it. gearing can only hide the torque deficit so much. fact is, get caught out of gear and it will still take time, no matter how fast SMG is, to kick down from 6th gear to 2nd or 3rd gear to get the car moving. especially 4000 pounds of rolling metal.

in practical applications, this is where the lower redline engines with more torque excel because in some cases you can carry the same speed through a curve or road course with less shifting --or if you get caught with your engine's pants down, it's less of a burden because of the mountain of torque.

i'm fascinated by BMW's ability to extract power from small block engines, but somehow ferrari engines still sound better and in their applications, make a lot more power. but in the end......unless you're constantly going in nothing but straight lines and drag racing where spending more time in each gear to accelerate, torque would appear to be more important, especially if you're not restricted by engine size.

let's ask ourselves again why PTG racing got creamed left and right by the GT3R and GT3RS cars again. both engines made the same peak power, but the porsche had displacement and more tractable power at less frenetic rpm's (sort of analogous to pushrod engines) --out of slow corners, the Porsche's torque advantage ate the BMW's alive even though the BMWs handle better. and so....BMW moved to the 4.0litre v8.

so, i agree with Hack. it is the total package and how things are executed. but in the newer M vehicles, i would like to see less skyrocket level redlines, more displacement and more torque. clearly both technologies are still viable (for now).

it's not fair to compare the upcoming LS7 powered c6 to the e60m5; better to wait and see how BMW does with the e90m3. that's more fair and a good contrast in small displacement/high revs' versus "low revving 7000rpm redline" big displacement pushrods.

my guess? the e90m3 will be still slower than the c5z06 and the c6z06 will still be faster, both in a straightline and on a road course. but that's execution of the total package once again.

[clyde]

You can put the Corvette LS 7 drivetrain in the M5/M6 chassis and I'll bet it's not going to be faster than the V-10 with SMGIII.

I think this is the funniest thing that I've read all day.

[Jason C]

What I can't stand is so-called *enthusiasts* who DO shoot their mouths off about supposed test-proven superiorities and what's a POS and what's God's gift to cars, all without any real-world basis to back up their claims.

Hey STUKA!!!

:)

You think that minor row here was anything worth talking about, you should see some of the people over at C&D/Temple of VTEC. It's painful to watch them spout off like they were expert engine builders/designers. :rolleyes:

[lemming]

What I can't stand is so-called *enthusiasts* who DO shoot their mouths off about supposed test-proven superiorities and what's a POS and what's God's gift to cars, all without any real-world basis to back up their claims.

Hey STUKA!!!

:)

You think that minor row here was anything worth talking about, you should see some of the people over at C&D/Temple of VTEC. It's painful to watch them spout off like they were expert engine builders/designers. :rolleyes:

the difference is that here most of us agree that whatever is fast works.

there is subjectivity to it, but as intelligent people, it's hard to miss the obvious, i.e. either approach works but neither has a true edge in demonstrable form in street cars right now.

in homologated racing is an entirely different matter. once you place limits on displacement size or add restrictor plates, then the winners emerge. clearly in limited displacement racing series, the dohc engine wins out but when you factor in restrictor plates, cubic inches wins out (which is really why the gt3R's kicked the PTG m3's asses all of the time).

[Jason C]

Oh, and one thing I forgot to add:

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

The maximum of 500 horsepower is developed at 6200 rpm, and peak torque is 475 pound-feet at 4800 rpm. Clearly, this V-8, which is assembled at GM's new Performance Build Center in Wixom, Michigan, is tuned for high rpm. But with about 385 pound-feet - the peak torque of the new BMW M5 V-10 at 6100 rpm - available at about 1600 revs, the LS7 should be plenty tractable.

Are you going to discount that as well?

I'm not discounting squat. I'm just pointing out that there are benefits to a high revving engine, namely gearing.

If you just take one aspect of the engine (overhead cam vs. push-rod), it's easy to dismiss the old american iron engine outright. If you just take one aspect of a complete chassis, it is easy to dismiss the overhead cam engine. If you take two complete chassis and compare side by side, each engine design have it's pluses and minuses.

You can put the Corvette LS 7 drivetrain in the M5/M6 chassis and I'll bet it's not going to be faster than the V-10 with SMGIII.

I dunno about that last line, best example I can think of off the top of my head is an S2000 and a US E36 M3. Both (either displacement #s) produce 240hp. If you use the most beneficial launch technique, they'll both go under 6 seconds to 60, and are nearly dead even through the 1320. However, do something like C&Ds 5-60 test, where the cars are shifted into 1st and then floored at a rolling 5mph, the S2000 loses about 1.5 seconds accelerating to 60. The M3 isn't affected as much. A last-gen Cobra lost only 4/10th of a seconds in the same test. High horsepower/low torque cars and AWD cars are dinged the most in that kind of test. That's just one example off the top of my head I can think of.

So even if you discounted the fact that any LSX is going to be dimensionally smaller and lighter and cheaper than a BMW V-10, I think that that (given equal HP) the massive torque disparity would give you similar results. But oftentimes these type of threads often degenerate into these blue-sky theoretical "What-If" comparisons (if they haven't turned into flamewars). Like what would happen if Honda built a V8 by doubling up their F20C/F22C. It would be massive and expensive, but that's not the point - the point is they don't. I have to deal with conditions in reality, along with Fair and other like minded people. And the reality is, an engine swap using a LSX or similar type is going to be infinitely more attractive a proposition than trying to find a ///M V8 or V10.*



*Ironically enough, many and I would say most of those reasons have nothing to do with cost.

[The HACK]

And the reality is, an engine swap using a LSX or similar type is going to be infinitely more attractive a proposition than trying to find a ///M V8 or V10.*

Why's that?

Again, I must ask: If you put the LSX engine and transmission into the M5/M6 chassis, or if you put the ///M V10 with SMG III into the C6 chassis...Do you think there'll be a big difference in performance one way or another?

In the theoretical LSX --> BMW swap, you'd be staring at a car that's possibly rear heavy and constantly in the wrong gear in the BMW 7 speed, with a rear end WAY TOO SHORT for any practical purposes...The LSX would run out of revs in first gear by the time your car moves 10 ft. You would need to swap the LSX AND the transmission mated to the C6 and its accompanying rear-end to the BMW chassis to make it work...And even at that, do you really think it's going to be significantly FASTER than the M5/M6? I doubt it. Even that same engine/tranny/rear end package on the C6 isn't significantly faster than the M5/M6, why would you expect that package to be any faster on the BMW with 500+ lbs? :dunno:

Now, let's take those two same packages and "theoretically" put it on a chassis, say, like the Factory 5 racer or Saker chassis. On a pure performance level, which one would you pick, the C6 engine/transmission/rear-end combo or the BMW V-10/SMGIII/rear-end combo?

In all honesty, both packages would be very attractive...Since the Factory 5 and the Saker are both mid engined, the BMW combo will probably be a hundred lbs heavier, with a higher center of gravity...But it will likely propel the chassis faster down the straight. The LSX combo on the Saker or Factory 5 (Factory 5 racers require a donor Corvette) would offer lower center of gravity and a lighter package, but give up on straight line acceleration...

In the end, it still comes down to how you want to make your power and where you'd want it. Is the LS engine design really superior to BMW's high revving OHC design? If it is, why can't it out-accelerate a car that's 500+ heavier?

If you ask me, you all fall under the "grass is always greener on the other side" syndrome. If I own a Corvette Z06, I would NEVER bother with swapping out the engine for a BMW V-10. If I own an M5/M6, the last thing I'd wish for is to have the LS7 engine in the chassis. If one technology is truly superior to the other, the entire industry would have switched over a very long time ago.

In reality, for BMW's target audience of European Autobahn drivers, it is better to have a high revving engine with good torque. In most Euro city streets you won't be needing 500 lbs-ft of torque to get a 4,000lbs car around town, but you do need the 500hp at 180 mph to pass the slow moving traffic at 150 mph. For Corvette's target American audience, you don't need to make the majority of your HP up top, but you do need a lot of grunt down low...And the LS engine mated to the C6 chassis is ideal.

And 300 lbs-ft of torque is PLENTY to haul 4,000 lbs of alloy. The whole comparison with S2000 isn't really justified, there's PLENTY of torque in the S2000 to get a 2,800 lbs chassis to move pretty fast, but if you put an engine that produces 400 lbs-ft of torque on that chassis, you'd need to run 400mm wide tires in the rear to lay that torque down on such a light chassis.

The only reason the LSx-->??? engine swap make sense, is the COST of the engine vs. the BMW V-10. Is that infinitely more attractive? I dunno, it would depend heavily on which chassis the engine is going into.

[JST]

And the reality is, an engine swap using a LSX or similar type is going to be infinitely more attractive a proposition than trying to find a ///M V8 or V10.*

Why's that?

Again, I must ask: If you put the LSX engine and transmission into the M5/M6 chassis, or if you put the ///M V10 with SMG III into the C6 chassis...Do you think there'll be a big difference in performance one way or another?


It won't fit. The C6 is designed around a smaller engine, which is one of the points--with a smaller engine, you can have a smaller car.


Even that same engine/tranny/rear end package on the C6 isn't significantly faster than the M5/M6, why would you expect that package to be any faster on the BMW with 500+ lbs? :dunno:

... Is the LS engine design really superior to BMW's high revving OHC design? If it is, why can't it out-accelerate a car that's 500+ heavier?
.

Wait, what?

Which "LS" engine are we talking about here? The LS2? That's down 100 hp on the M5 engine. The LS7? No one has tested one of those, but if you really think it isn't going to be "significantly" faster than the M6 or M5 when the C6 Z06 does finally get road tested, you're nuts.

[Jason C]

Let's go over some of the statements:


Again, I must ask: If you put the LSX engine and transmission into the M5/M6 chassis, or if you put the ///M V10 with SMG III into the C6 chassis...Do you think there'll be a big difference in performance one way or another?

Yup. The crude 'murican POS is over 70 pounds lighter than the derived-from-F1 BMW V10. As for size, it's already 11 inches shorter than a BMW straight six, has a lower COG, and produces way more horsepower and torque. Did I mention area under the curve? Sizewise, the comparison of a 4.6 DOHC vs. a OHV 5.0 already looked so unfair, so I hope for the sake of the BMW purists out there that the ///M V10 never finds itself next to an LS7 on engine stands. All those chuckelheads out there might just get a real shock at how much smaller the boat-anchor pushrod engine is. You mean to tell me that displacement doesn't equal size?


You would need to swap the LSX AND the transmission mated to the C6 and its accompanying rear-end to the BMW chassis to make it work...

Your point is? I'd hope anyone with the resources to do a swap like this will give more than a passing thought to proper gear/final drive ratio selections.


Now, let's take those two same packages and "theoretically" put it on a chassis, say, like the Factory 5 racer or Saker chassis. On a pure performance level, which one would you pick, the C6 engine/transmission/rear-end combo or the BMW V-10/SMGIII/rear-end combo?

I'm got to hand it to you, if you can somehow manage to stuff that V10 into a small kit car, your money pile/resources/patience will undoubtably be far greater than mine. :worship


In all honesty, both packages would be very attractive...Since the Factory 5 and the Saker are both mid engined, the BMW combo will probably be a hundred lbs heavier, with a higher center of gravity...But it will likely propel the chassis faster down the straight. The LSX combo on the Saker or Factory 5 (Factory 5 racers require a donor Corvette) would offer lower center of gravity and a lighter package, but give up on straight line acceleration...

So it's lighter, which means you can accelerate faster, corner harder, and brake better. It's smaller, so you can package it far easier and potentially end up with better aerodynamics/less frontal area. It makes about the same horsepower and much more torque across the entire powerband. And it'll be slower? Some of this fuzzy math isn't adding up...


Is the LS engine design really superior to BMW's high revving OHC design? If it is, why can't it out-accelerate a car that's 500+ heavier?

I would not pass judgement on acceleration times yet, given that the major mags have just started to receive the Z06 for instrumented testing. If you already have hooked up a V-BOX to a M6 and a Z06 on the same day and at the same track, let me know your insider connections. I need to drive something more interesting.


In reality, for BMW's target audience of European Autobahn drivers, it is better to have a high revving engine with good torque. In most Euro city streets you won't be needing 500 lbs-ft of torque to get a 4,000lbs car around town, but you do need the 500hp at 180 mph to pass the slow moving traffic at 150 mph. For Corvette's target American audience, you don't need to make the majority of your HP up top, but you do need a lot of grunt down low...And the LS engine mated to the C6 chassis is ideal.

I don't think them AMG cars are high-revvers, infact they seem to be philosophically closer to the dumb American way of doing things. They seem to work well at high speeds. (On a track, that may be a different issue)


The only reason the LSx-->??? engine swap make sense, is the COST of the engine vs. the BMW V-10. Is that infinitely more attractive? I dunno, it would depend heavily on which chassis the engine is going into.

And once again, this is all but ignored:

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

See that advanced DOHC 4.6 on the left? See the bigass dinosaur cam-in-block 5.0 on the right?

If they cost exactly the same money and produced the same horsepower, might there be reasons to go with the engine on the right? I think someone with absolutely no knowledge of cars can think of a few...

[The HACK]

And the reality is, an engine swap using a LSX or similar type is going to be infinitely more attractive a proposition than trying to find a ///M V8 or V10.*

Why's that?

Again, I must ask: If you put the LSX engine and transmission into the M5/M6 chassis, or if you put the ///M V10 with SMG III into the C6 chassis...Do you think there'll be a big difference in performance one way or another?


It won't fit. The C6 is designed around a smaller engine, which is one of the points--with a smaller engine, you can have a smaller car.


Even that same engine/tranny/rear end package on the C6 isn't significantly faster than the M5/M6, why would you expect that package to be any faster on the BMW with 500+ lbs? :dunno:

... Is the LS engine design really superior to BMW's high revving OHC design? If it is, why can't it out-accelerate a car that's 500+ heavier?
.

Wait, what?

Which "LS" engine are we talking about here? The LS2? That's down 100 hp on the M5 engine. The LS7? No one has tested one of those, but if you really think it isn't going to be "significantly" faster than the M6 or M5 when the C6 Z06 does finally get road tested, you're nuts.

Significantly faster? Call me nuts, but I don't think it'll be that significant. We'll see when it finally gets tested, but if it's more than a few tenth under 4 seconds I'll eat crow.

But the question here is, if you fit the LS 7 in the M5/M6 chassis, will it be significantly FASTER than the M5/M6 with V-10? Again, I doubt it.

Frankly, you guys are no better than the so called "Technological Chauvinist" that prompted this thread. Here you all are dismissing the merits of the BMW V-10 and singing praises of the generations of LS engine design, while I pointed out there are serious advantages to a high-revving OHC design compared to a push-rod, and I never dismissed any of the advantages that the LSX series of V-8 push-rods offers...Yet all my points were dismissed out-right and some even commented that my ideas are laughable and "the funniest thing [they] have read all day."

Looks to me like you all have already decided that the LS7 is the end-all, be-all of all engines. There's no point discussing this any further. :rolleyes:

[Jason C]

There's no point discussing this any further. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, "you all suck why bother talking" exit. Does that work at the 'Fest? ;)

I don't think DOHC sucks. It has its uses and its advantages. However, when compared to a cam-in-block design, especially in a V-type engine configuration, some of its disadvantages are painfully obvious.

[clyde]

Significantly faster? Call me nuts, but I don't think it'll be that significant. We'll see when it finally gets tested, but if it's more than a few tenth under 4 seconds I'll eat crow.

Save the crow for when both cars can actually be launched without traction issues. I suspect it might be a good idea to keep it in the freezer...it will probably be a while.

But the question here is, if you fit the LS 7 in the M5/M6 chassis, will it be significantly FASTER than the M5/M6 with V-10? Again, I doubt it.

I don't know if the differences would be significant, but I would expect the LS7 combo to be faster. I'd like to find out though. ;)

Frankly, you guys are no better than the so called "Technological Chauvinist" that prompted this thread. Here you all are dismissing the merits of the BMW V-10 and singing praises of the generations of LS engine design, while I pointed out there are serious advantages to a high-revving OHC design compared to a push-rod, and I never dismissed any of the advantages that the LSX series of V-8 push-rods offers...Yet all my points were dismissed out-right and some even commented that my ideas are laughable and "the funniest thing [they] have read all day."

Looks to me like you all have already decided that the LS7 is the end-all, be-all of all engines. There's no point discussing this any further. :rolleyes:

What merits? Significantly higher cost? Greater complexity? Greater weight? Larger exterior dimensions? Increased fuel consumption? :dunno: Some of the tricks they use are slick and it's an engineering marvel as an intellectual exercise, but that doesn't make it a "better" design. My criteria for "better" and "more efficient" lies in how it plays in the real world. Your criteria may be different.

[Jason C]

BTW, you can call (some of) us the Anti-Technological Chauvinists. For years now most of Europe and Asia has been saddled by a displacement tax imposed by dumbass politicians who think like ricers (displacement always equals size, and size always equals bad, so high displacement is the work of the devil). In other words, engine "innovation" has been driven by displacement caps in much of the world for a while now. So they put on power adders like OHC, VVT, Valvetronic, etc that increase specific output but often at the cost of additional weight, complexity, cost, and size. Meanwhile magazine articles wax eloquence about these "lightweight, advanced, refined" mills and scoff at dumb americans for sticking with "yesteryear tech", nevermind the fact that pushrods came about 20 years after OHC. And *enthusiasts* just lap this shit up without ever questioning it! Don't you just love it?

Meanwhile, the LS2 powered C6 is the first 400hp car to avert the gas-guzzler tax. The C6 Z06 has a reasonable shot at doing that as well. Meanwhile over in ye olde Europe, 400 and 500hp cars are clubbing baby seals. But keep on poo-poohing the crude dumbestic pushrods! That's what the american hero is suppose to be - the underdog, right? :)

[The HACK]

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

See that advanced DOHC 4.6 on the left? See the bigass dinosaur cam-in-block 5.0 on the right?

If they cost exactly the same money and produced the same horsepower, might there be reasons to go with the engine on the right? I think someone with absolutely no knowledge of cars can think of a few...

So I have absolutely no knowledge of cars? Thanks for the compliment. :flipoff:

My point has always been, and shall ALWAYS be, that you guys are taking this entire discussion SOLELY concentrated on engine vs. engine. If you ask me which engine I would choose based on that picture, I would ask you, what's the redline on each engine? What sort of transmission and rear end will be fitted to each?

And my answer to you will be I'll choose which ever engine, when mated to the proper package, will give me the best performance. If the OHC engine is capable of revving up to 1,000 more RPM than the push-rod, I still wouldn't dismiss the OHC engine outright due to it's size and displacement disadvantages.

A higher revving engine is capable of making power for a longer duration, where power will drop off on the push-rod at 6,300 RPM, the OHC will continue to make power all the way up to 7,500 RPM. Is that enough of an advantage to offset weight and package saving of a push-rod?

[Jason C]

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

So I have absolutely no knowledge of cars? Thanks for the compliment. :flipoff:

The pic wasn't a comment about your knowledge of cars. It was to refute your notion that the only possible advantage of going with an LSX-type engine is for cost savings.

[The HACK]

What merits? Significantly higher cost? Greater complexity? Greater weight? Larger exterior dimensions? Increased fuel consumption? :dunno: Some of the tricks they use are slick and it's an engineering marvel as an intellectual exercise, but that doesn't make it a "better" design. My criteria for "better" and "more efficient" lies in how it plays in the real world. Your criteria may be different.

Show me one single quote from me ANYWHERE online, or even in real life, where I have EVER said the V-10 is BETTER than LSx.

If you or anyone can dig that up, I will shut the fuck up about this whole thing and admit I don't know sh*t about cars.

I still wouldn't be surprised if the V-10 can and will hold it's own compared to the LS7.

[The HACK]

In other words, engine "innovation" has been driven by displacement caps in much of the world for a while now.

That's what the american hero is suppose to be - the underdog, right? :)

Correct me if I am wrong, but that displacement cap/tax max out at a size far south of the 5.0 liter in the BMW. If I'm not mistaken.

So technically BMW, or anyone else for that matter, for anything over X.X liters, can build as big of an engine as they want and be taxed at the same rate. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

And who's the underdawg here, the American iron, or the Euro motor? Seems to me that all of you have already decided that the American Iron is the superior Iron. :dunno

[Jason C]

In other words, engine "innovation" has been driven by displacement caps in much of the world for a while now.

That's what the american hero is suppose to be - the underdog, right? :)

Correct me if I am wrong, but that displacement cap/tax max out at a size far south of the 5.0 liter in the BMW. If I'm not mistaken.

So technically BMW, or anyone else for that matter, for anything over X.X liters, can build as big of an engine as they want and be taxed at the same rate. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

And who's the underdawg here, the American iron, or the Euro motor? Seems to me that all of you have already decided that the American Iron is the superior Iron. :dunno

Over here? Thres not too many "L00k at teh HP/L!!one1! VTEC OWNZ!" and "Euro cars are just more sophisticated, we get more out of our engines than the dumestics" comments, so I assume the American Iron has a better shot than most places. ;)

[The HACK]

There's no point discussing this any further. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, "you all suck why bother talking" exit. Does that work at the 'Fest? ;)

You're right, the BMW V-10 design is the worst engine ever, I rue the day that DOHC was ever designed and invented, only engine design worth a damn in a V config is a push-rod, you have converted me, good job.

I wish BMW would stop making POS OHC engines and move everything to a V config on push-rods. :thumbup:

[The HACK]

Over here?

Over here, as in CARMUDGEONS. The V-10 is definitely the UNDERDAWG.

[Jason C]

The point is not conversion, although many a mag-racer has been forced to re-examine his viewpoints. The point is to counter ignorance, whether well-meaning or willful.

As your sarcastic reply shows, it's probable that neither one of the two had any effect.

[Jason C]

Over here, as in CARMUDGEONS. The V-10 is definitely the UNDERDAWG.

Dude, where have you been? Anything BMW here is automatically relegated to underdog classification. :lol:

Like I said before, I personally like the sounds of some of the high-revvers better myself. I don't have to try and rationalize it by unconsciously putting down what has been proven to be a technically sound, ingeniously simple design.

[Optimus Prime]

I love a good pissing match... :popcorn:

[Jason C]

I love a good pissing match... :popcorn:

You do know that this has NO CHANCE of matching the "are boobs yucky when there's a baby head in front" thread. :lol: :lol: :flame:

[JST]

There's no point discussing this any further. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, "you all suck why bother talking" exit. Does that work at the 'Fest? ;)

You're right, the BMW V-10 design is the worst engine ever, I rue the day that DOHC was ever designed and invented, only engine design worth a damn in a V config is a push-rod, you have converted me, good job.

I wish BMW would stop making POS OHC engines and move everything to a V config on push-rods. :thumbup:

Nothing is absolute.

But I've gotta say that, in the specific case of the LS7 compared to the M5 V10 *on paper,* I can't see much to recommend the M engine. Your redline point is well taken, but the LS7 redline is high enough that I'm not sure that's really going to be a factor here.

We'll see. It will be interesting to see what the final Z06 1/4 mile trap speed is compared to the M6--that'll take some of the traction issues out of the equation.

EDIT:

In this thread, there's video of a Z06 turning a 124 mph trap. That's quick.

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/viewtopic.php?t=4566&highlight=z06

[Optimus Prime]

I love a good pissing match... :popcorn:

You do know that this has NO CHANCE of matching the "are boobs yucky when there's a baby head in front" thread. :lol: :lol: :flame:

You guys should have seen the ABS vs. Non-ABS hornets nest I got into on a BMW motorcycle board. Holy cow. I'll admit a lot of it was my fault because a guy talked about having 30 years racing exp. plus he owned a motorcycle shop and then proceeded to make the most factually incorrect statement ever. He made it sound like he was God's gift to the motorcycle world and he was just wrong. A number of people told him so, but it was just like water off a Duck's back. I got real mad and called him on it, and it spiralled very quickly. I realized I don't argue worth a damn when I'm pissed. :eeps:

:flame:

[lemming]

Hack:

it's not that i don't appreciate the technological statement that BMW is making with their new M powerplant. it's cool.

but the car is going to cost $105,000 because of it, and in the end, do you really have something exclusive or all that special?

i kind of beg to differ. i know that BMW would like very much to think they are an exclusive automaker, but they're not. and they're kidding themselves about a car like the 6 series, let alone the M6.

i would have liked to have them come out with a punched out v8 with the same power numbers or even more torque at a better pricepoint. this engine isn't even dry sump, is it?

how many people really want this car over a 997S? and i mean that honestly. how many people? i just don't feel special driving a BMW, but i might in a porsche. and in one case where the 911 is actually the bargain, how can you lose? it's obviously faster, both in a straightline and on the track. in this case, i know that you are arguing for the complete package, and to that i say: the engine is actually neat. the package sucks.

it's completely underwhelming to me.

[The HACK]

The point is not conversion, although many a mag-racer has been forced to re-examine his viewpoints. The point is to counter ignorance, whether well-meaning or willful.

As your sarcastic reply shows, it's probable that neither one of the two had any effect.

No, you're 100% right. I can't imagine having to EVER defend an OHC engine. Even the 14% higher red-line b.s. I was spouting earlier, I can't imagine any sane, semi-educated moron with an inkling for things automotive can make those kind of statements. I mean, c'mon! It's only 14% higher, it's not like that's significant or anything in real world applications.

Obviously anyone who can believe the ignorant b.s. that OHC can possibly offer any sort of advantage in ANYWAY is delusional, and to think otherwise is clearly an indication of ignorance.

From now on I will preach nothing but push-rod (time to trade in the DOHC piece of sh*t V-6 I drive now), 8 pot calipers on 11" rotors, and manual pwnz SMG no matter what.

You guys are so right. There's no way anything put out by those hairy @ss chain smokin' euros can come close to competing with 'Merkin muscle. I would gladly take ANY LS engine over anything BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, and co can possibly come up with. :thumbup:

Power to PUSHROD V-8s! Down with sissy-@ss OHCs!

[The HACK]

it's not that i don't appreciate the technological statement that BMW is making with their new M powerplant. it's cool.


BLASPHEMY! You take that back. How can any BMW engine even remotely be considered cool? It's not a push-rod, it's heavy as hell, it's big as hell, and it requires a specially designed SMG transmission just to make it work! You're buying into the BMW marketing bull sh*t.

I mean, revving to 8,000RPM just to make 500 hp? Puhleeeeeaaaaaze. The Chevy only needs 7,000RPM to make that, and 100 more lbs-ft of torque to boot. I mean, anything that doesn't take advantage of 7.0+ liter to make 500 hp is simply put, gh3y (no offense to Bruce330Cic). And vario-valve timing? Only means more sh*t to break when the engine gets old. The ONLY way an engine should make power is by DISPLACEMENT!

I mean, the BMW engine has got to be like 500 lbs heavier than the LS7 and 3X the size. How anyone can possibly think that is a cool engine is beyond me. :rolleyes:

[The HACK]

Nothing is absolute.

One thing is. The 2006 Z06 will ABSOLUTELY beat the crap out of anything BMW ever made. That includes the Mac F1. :thumbup:

I mean, how can the M6 even THINK about competing in 1/4mi trap time? I'd be surprised if the Z06 isn't 4-5 seconds faster to 1/4 mile. C'mon, the Z06 will have a far superior engine, and due to the light weight engine, up to 700 lbs lighter than the M6.

And it'll take the M6 in the twisties to boot, and have these great, 6 pot caliper...Braking, handling, acceleration...And rumor has it it can even out-tow the M6!

That is TITE. :thumbup:

[lemming]

it's not that i don't appreciate the technological statement that BMW is making with their new M powerplant. it's cool.


BLASPHEMY! You take that back. How can any BMW engine even remotely be considered cool? It's not a push-rod, it's heavy as hell, it's big as hell, and it requires a specially designed SMG transmission just to make it work! You're buying into the BMW marketing bull sh*t.

I mean, revving to 8,000RPM just to make 500 hp? Puhleeeeeaaaaaze. The Chevy only needs 7,000RPM to make that, and 100 more lbs-ft of torque to boot. I mean, anything that doesn't take advantage of 7.0+ liter to make 500 hp is simply put, gh3y (no offense to Bruce330Cic). And vario-valve timing? Only means more sh*t to break when the engine gets old. The ONLY way an engine should make power is by DISPLACEMENT!

I mean, the BMW engine has got to be like 500 lbs heavier than the LS7 and 3X the size. How anyone can possibly think that is a cool engine is beyond me. :rolleyes:

the engine is okay. it's still underwhelming me, though. how is it, exactly, that ferrari uses an engine with two fewer cylinders and 0.7litres less displacement and still almost has the torque to match the vaunted BMW 5.0litre v10? underwhelming.

just like the 3.24litre E46m3, once again BMW chooses to do boutique and cutesy where punching out to more displacement would be more effective. the porsche v10 is superior to the BMW v10. THAT is an engine that i would want to own someday. the BMW v10? it's all the criticism that JST throws at the S2000 magnified by 5x because the car costs $105,000.

[clyde]

Hmm...I think someone took TD's seat on the Shuttle. :speechle:

[Jason C]

the porsche v10 is superior to the BMW v10. THAT is an engine that i would want to own someday.

I'd agree to that solely on the basis of sound. After hearing the porkchop, I thought the BMW would sound amazing. It didn't, from what few media is avaliable for it now. That's CGT V10 one engine I'd never consider swapping, even for a theoretically *superior* OHV design.

[The HACK]

the engine is okay. it's still underwhelming me, though. how is it, exactly, that ferrari uses an engine with two fewer cylinders and 0.7litres less displacement and still almost has the torque to match the vaunted BMW 5.0litre v10? underwhelming.

The Ferrari engine is a piece of sh*t anyway. It's not like they built a push-rod V-8. And torque/displacement means NOTHING. How dare you insult the great LS7 engine? I mean, it's got 3.7 more liters yet only makes 100 more lbs-ft of torque than the Ferrari engine. What does that say about our great American engineering? You take that comment back, how dare you praise another OHC design?

Anything that needs to rev to ~8,500 RPM to make max HP and 5,250 RPM to make peak torque is CRAP!

(By the way, if you want to look SERIOUSLY into the comparison between the Ferrari 4.3 l V-8 vs. BMW's 5.0 l V-10, I suggest we look deeper into the torque curve...Don't forget, you CAN manipulate nearly any engine configuration and get a huge disparity between max torque numbers. After all, the M52TuB25 piece of sh*t OHC in the 323Ci makes 8% more peak torque than the M54B25...Yet the displacement is the same. We don't know if the Ferrari V-8 torque plateaus very high and very late to create those insane numbers, thus making it nearly undrivable under 3,000 RPM. I would guess the BMW V-10 makes a lot more torque down low. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that the Ferrari engine makes little next to no torque before 2,500 RPM, the speed which most people UPSHIFT.)

[The HACK]

Okay, it's time to get a little serious again, because there are a lot of you tossing about that BMW engine is sh*t compared to Ferraris and Porsches...etc...

First, you tell me that the BMW engine is sh*t because it's expensive. Well, bub, I have news for you. The CGT engine probably cost 3-4X higher than the BMW engine. And the Ferrari engine is no exception. While you may lust over the CGT engine and the Ferrari engines, they're both p.o.s. OHC designs. That means, both engine makes SQUAT for torque down low, max torque don't come on until 6,000rpm and before that you get very little usable torque under 2,500rpm. Ever hear a Ferrari 360 idle on the street? Idle for that car is like 1,200rpm. To get either car moving you gotta rev it up just like you do with a freakin' S2000.

BMW on the other hand, needs to make an engine that makes fair amount of torque down low, because the M5/M6 will likely see usage similar to that of a, say, Porsche 911 Turbo. So they can't afford to sacrifice all torque down low and shove all the car's performance up high. Result? Sure, it doesn't make the same kind of power numbers as the Porsche V-10, nor is it as "efficient" as the Ferrari V-8, but it is barely passable compromise for what these two M cars are intended for: high performance, high speed cruisers (where as the Ferrari and CGT are closer to track cars disguised as street cars).

Everything outside of the great LS7 is a piece of sh*t compromise. Ferrari needed to build an OHC engine because they don't know how to properly make power and torque: With displacement. All they know is how to make power and torque through high revs, which they've been stuck in the stone ages for a very long time. Same as Porsche. I say, if you can't make power naturally aspirated with pushrod, and if you need to resort to turbos or high revving engines to make HP, you don't know how to engineer an engine, period. :flipoff:

[lemming]

Okay, it's time to get a little serious again, because there are a lot of you tossing about that BMW engine is sh*t compared to Ferraris and Porsches...etc...

First, you tell me that the BMW engine is sh*t because it's expensive. Well, bub, I have news for you. The CGT engine probably cost 3-4X higher than the BMW engine. And the Ferrari engine is no exception. While you may lust over the CGT engine and the Ferrari engines, they're both p.o.s. OHC designs. That means, both engine makes SQUAT for torque down low, max torque don't come on until 6,000rpm and before that you get very little usable torque under 2,500rpm. Ever hear a Ferrari 360 idle on the street? Idle for that car is like 1,200rpm. To get either car moving you gotta rev it up just like you do with a freakin' S2000.

BMW on the other hand, needs to make an engine that makes fair amount of torque down low, because the M5/M6 will likely see usage similar to that of a, say, Porsche 911 Turbo. So they can't afford to sacrifice all torque down low and shove all the car's performance up high. Result? Sure, it doesn't make the same kind of power numbers as the Porsche V-10, nor is it as "efficient" as the Ferrari V-8, but it is barely passable compromise for what these two M cars are intended for: high performance, high speed cruisers (where as the Ferrari and CGT are closer to track cars disguised as street cars).

Everything outside of the great LS7 is a piece of sh*t compromise. Ferrari needed to build an OHC engine because they don't know how to properly make power and torque: With displacement. All they know is how to make power and torque through high revs, which they've been stuck in the stone ages for a very long time. Same as Porsche. I say, if you can't make power naturally aspirated with pushrod, and if you need to resort to turbos or high revving engines to make HP, you don't know how to engineer an engine, period. :flipoff:

no. do you know why? because porsche and ferrari know how to make lightweight GT vehicles. BMW's idea of lightweight is the 3450pound e46m3.

so their cammier engines, which have the same flat torque as any BMW engine (this is weak, Hack, c'mon dude) still have gearing plus high redlines and are even more impressive in execution because their platforms are indeed lightweight.

in Ferrari's heavier cars, they're not moronathons and use 12 cylinders instead of the stupidly conceived 10 cylinder layout so they can still get reasonable (to europeans in capri pants) displacement size with decent torque characteristics.

what has happened to the world when i think that the 330i e90 is a more desirable car (relative to its competition in class) than any M vehicle?

[FC]

Hmm...I think someone took TD's seat on the Shuttle. :speechle:

:lol:

I'm trying to stay out of this mess. On paper, it is difficult to justify the BMW V10 over the LSX as far as the engine itself goes.

But I've never driven either, and I am a sucker for "refined" notes. It only would make sense, given BMW's obvious aim at seducing plush customers, to offer them a smooth-as-silk, sweet sounding engine that makes the driver feel like they are in a race car.

I'm not going to lie. If I wanted an uber-commuter like an M5 or an E55, my blind guess is that for my small fortune, I rather get an expensive-sounding BMW V10 on my car than a pushrod V8.

It doesn't mean it will get me the best performance. And it surely wont give it to me for cheap. But I would be rich, and I wouldn't be tracking the thing, so I'd be happy.

If I were to care for absolute performance and meant to track the car (M6 OR M5), then why would I EVER consider either BMW over a GT3 or C6 Z06?

The reality is that we're trying to equate ///M cars with TRUE performance cars meant for the track, when in reality BMW has become a new Mercedes but with a bit of left-over sporty attitude.

Bentleys cost multiples of M-cars, and their engines probably are engineerign masterpieces, but they are not out there purely to provide good numbers. They provide the whole package (granted a package we probably wouldn't care for).

Those are my speculative $0.02.

[dan]

no. do you know why? because porsche and ferrari know how to make lightweight GT vehicles. BMW's idea of lightweight is the 3450pound e46m3.

I would have thought their idea of lightweight was the CSL

[lemming]

Hmm...I think someone took TD's seat on the Shuttle. :speechle:

:lol:

I'm trying to stay out of this mess. On paper, it is difficult to justify the BMW V10 over the LSX as far as the engine itself goes.

But I've never driven either, and I am a sucker for "refined" notes. It only would make sense, given BMW's obvious aim at seducing plush customers, to offer them a smooth-as-silk, sweet sounding engine that makes the driver feel like they are in a race car.

I'm not going to lie. If I wanted an uber-commuter like an M5 or an E55, my blind guess is that for my small fortune, I rather get an expensive-sounding BMW V10 on my car than a pushrod V8.

It doesn't mean it will get me the best performance. And it surely wont give it to me for cheap. But I would be rich, and I wouldn't be tracking the thing, so I'd be happy.

If I were to care for absolute performance and meant to track the car (M6 OR M5), then why would I EVER consider either BMW over a GT3 or C6 Z06?

The reality is that we're trying to equate ///M cars with TRUE performance cars meant for the track, when in reality BMW has become a new Mercedes but with a bit of left-over sporty attitude.

Bentleys cost multiples of M-cars, and their engines probably are engineerign masterpieces, but they are not out there purely to provide good numbers. They provide the whole package (granted a package we probably wouldn't care for).

Those are my speculative $0.02.

your points are well-taken.

they are staying true to their corporate name "motor works". they still make great engines. it's the rest of the cars that are slightly disappointing (okay, except the new e90 325 --that engines sucks out loud).

i agree for simple GT work, the OHC engines are more attractive to sophisticated buyers. but i'd still want RIGHT NOW power and i'd gravitate more toward the audi RS of MB AMG vehicles. look, if you're going to get a fat heavy slug of a luxo-car, you might as well get some torque to go with it.

[clyde]

The reality is that we're trying to equate ///M cars with TRUE performance cars meant for the track, when in reality BMW has become a new Mercedes but with a bit of left-over sporty attitude.

Who are you calling "we", Paleface? :speechle:

[JST]

Nothing is absolute.

One thing is. The 2006 Z06 will ABSOLUTELY beat the crap out of anything BMW ever made. That includes the Mac F1. :thumbup:

I mean, how can the M6 even THINK about competing in 1/4mi trap time? I'd be surprised if the Z06 isn't 4-5 seconds faster to 1/4 mile. C'mon, the Z06 will have a far superior engine, and due to the light weight engine, up to 700 lbs lighter than the M6.

And it'll take the M6 in the twisties to boot, and have these great, 6 pot caliper...Braking, handling, acceleration...And rumor has it it can even out-tow the M6!

That is TITE. :thumbup:

This is tiring.

[Jason C]

no. do you know why? because porsche and ferrari know how to make lightweight GT vehicles. BMW's idea of lightweight is the 3450pound e46m3.

so their cammier engines, which have the same flat torque as any BMW engine (this is weak, Hack, c'mon dude) still have gearing plus high redlines and are even more impressive in execution because their platforms are indeed lightweight.

in Ferrari's heavier cars, they're not moronathons and use 12 cylinders instead of the stupidly conceived 10 cylinder layout so they can still get reasonable (to europeans in capri pants) displacement size with decent torque characteristics.

what has happened to the world when i think that the 330i e90 is a more desirable car (relative to its competition in class) than any M vehicle?

He's right about that. If I'm going to *settle* and get a fat pig, I'm going to want some torque. If I can't have the torque, I want something lightweight. For all that JST says about the S2000, it is at least "reasonably" lightweight despite the weak torque. The same can't be said for the porky M6, cute CF roof notwithstanding.

And I dunno about BMW's newer engines (from a servicing POV), I've heard some razzberrys about their decision to use one-time useage aluminum bolts on the new N52s from techs in the night class. It's either that or the very special procedures that must be followed involving coolant and this magnesium-aluminum hybrid block. Like lemming, I can appreciate (from an intellectual standpoint) all the tricks that BMW is using to lighten the weight of the block, extract a few more horsepower and a few more revs from the engine, Dual VANOS + Valvetronic, etc. And it does sound very good. But looking at it in a cold and impersonal way when you realize that a cheapass LSX could easily fit in the same space and get you 28mpg, it makes you wonder. Especially when you hear mags go on about this lighweight, advanced technology that's supposedly light-years ahead of OHV.

But I guess for me, it's really just another PITA to service! :mad:

[lemming]

more thoughts:

BMW could build a 3.5 litre v8 that is superior to ferrari's F360 engine, but why didn't they? they decided instead to tie their hands behind their back and use an iron block for the e46m3.

do you think that they regret that decision a tad?

we'll see what they do with the e90m3.

my personal issue with the v10 is that BMW made great pains to talk about how expensive it is to re-engineer for the e46m3 a whole new engine so they used an existing block and they couldn't use the e39m5 engine because of emissions --but then they go and develop this v10 for road usage for 2 applications? makes a lot of fiscal sense to me. and to then go back can cry poverty about the equipping more "advanced" braking systems.

they very well could have taken the v12 configuration (already exists, after all) and done a 4.5 to 5.0 litre experiment and i bet it would have been more cost effective than the v10 --as much as we'd like to think that the v10 is F1-sourced, it's really like saying the accord v6 is sourced from the NSX v6. sort of true, but not really.

[JST]

more thoughts:

BMW could build a 3.5 litre v8 that is superior to ferrari's F360 engine, but why didn't they? they decided instead to tie their hands behind their back and use an iron block for the e46m3.

do you think that they regret that decision a tad?

we'll see what they do with the e90m3.

my personal issue with the v10 is that BMW made great pains to talk about how expensive it is to re-engineer for the e46m3 a whole new engine so they used an existing block and they couldn't use the e39m5 engine because of emissions --but then they go and develop this v10 for road usage for 2 applications? makes a lot of fiscal sense to me. and to then go back can cry poverty about the equipping more "advanced" braking systems.

they very well could have taken the v12 configuration (already exists, after all) and done a 4.5 to 5.0 litre experiment and i bet it would have been more cost effective than the v10 --as much as we'd like to think that the v10 is F1-sourced, it's really like saying the accord v6 is sourced from the NSX v6. sort of true, but not really.

It's more than just two applications--it's a modular design that will almost certainly form the basis for the M3 V8, as well.

[lemming]

more thoughts:

BMW could build a 3.5 litre v8 that is superior to ferrari's F360 engine, but why didn't they? they decided instead to tie their hands behind their back and use an iron block for the e46m3.

do you think that they regret that decision a tad?

we'll see what they do with the e90m3.

my personal issue with the v10 is that BMW made great pains to talk about how expensive it is to re-engineer for the e46m3 a whole new engine so they used an existing block and they couldn't use the e39m5 engine because of emissions --but then they go and develop this v10 for road usage for 2 applications? makes a lot of fiscal sense to me. and to then go back can cry poverty about the equipping more "advanced" braking systems.

they very well could have taken the v12 configuration (already exists, after all) and done a 4.5 to 5.0 litre experiment and i bet it would have been more cost effective than the v10 --as much as we'd like to think that the v10 is F1-sourced, it's really like saying the accord v6 is sourced from the NSX v6. sort of true, but not really.

It's more than just two applications--it's a modular design that will almost certainly form the basis for the M3 V8, as well.

the downside to the fact that BMW would once again make a car with some biceps (right now it's more of a soccer player's body) in the e90 m3 is that we wouldn't have any complaining to do and things to rile up Hack about.

it's actually kind of fun.

Hack, at least you see the fun in it --some other people are sensitive. Like people who burn through clutches in 25,000 miles or people who supercharge automatic 325i's, for example --neither of whom can take the heat. too sensitive.

but that's just me.

[Fair!]

Wow... never knew my posts were dissected elsewhere... :eeps:

I need to reply to some posts in this thread, because there are some views that need to be argued, but I just down loaded the BattleField2 demo and I gotta go hot some fools. :flame: Update: BattleField2 Demo TOTALLY KICKS ASS.

More soon... but obviously, this holds true about needlessly revving, great "power to displacement", uber tech engines that underperform for their price/size/complexity/weight:

http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/Vtec_ownz.jpg

:thumbdow: :thumbdow: :thumbdow: :thumbdow: :thumbdow:

[lemming]

Wow... never knew my posts were dissected elsewhere... :eeps:

I need to reply to some posts in this thread, because there are some views that need to be argued, but I just down loaded the BattleField2 demo and I gotta go hot some fools. :flame: Update: BattleField2 Demo TOTALLY KICKS ASS.

More soon... but obviously, this holds true about needlessly revving, great "power to displacement", uber tech engines that underperform for their price/size/complexity/weight:

http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/Vtec_ownz.jpg

:thumbdow: :thumbdow: :thumbdow: :thumbdow: :thumbdow:

no better forum to see either way than racing.

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/roadracing/16551/

this is supposed to be level enough so that things are equalized, so it will be informative to this discussion because this should demonstrate technological parity or disparity as well as how much execution determines results.

[Fair!]

I will add this to the flame...

High HP/L engines tend to rev higher, allowing a better gear box ratio/rear end than say, their big V8 counterparts.

For example, say an inline 6 revs to 8,000 RPM is pitted against a well engineered V8 push-rod that revs to 6,500 RPM. Both are shoved into the same chassis. The inline 6 can take advantage of a shorter final drive ratio and achieve the same acceleration numbers and BETTER TOP SPEED while using a lighter transmission that doesn't need to handle as much torque. The entire chassis/powertrain taken as a package, an engine that produces power by using higher RPM is more efficient vs an engine that makes power via displacement.

And when you get into the argument of the BMW V-10 vs. say, the LS7...the difference is obvious. 13% higher revs means shorter rear end ratio and more effective torque/HP multiplication in the first few gears.

Sometimes you can't discount BMW's achievement in making ultra high revving engines that rivals the best of what Ferrari offers. The LS1/LS7 may be a great engine, perhaps taken by itself a better engine than what BMW makes, but as a package you can not ignore the OHC's high-revving advantage.
If Engine A makes 500 hp at 6000 revs, and Engine B makes the same 500 hp at 9000 revs, which is faster?

Answer: neither. It's all just a matter of gearing.

Reality: Engine B is smaller in displacement and much less durable than engine A. And more costly. And probably heavier, more complex and physically larger. Engine A also has a hell of a low more "low end power", being that it makes it's max power at lower revs automatically means makes more peak (and probably average) torque. "Torque" is meaningless in and of itself, too, but tq x rpm = power. More tq at low revs = more power at low revs. This almost always translates to a wider powerband in practice, too.

Engine revs, in and of themselves, are meaningless. More revs just means more friction. Friction in an engine goes up with the square of engine revs. More revs = lots more friction.

The M5's 500hp V10 is a technological showcase. No throttle body(ies) means less pumping losses. Variable valve timing does widen the powerband, somewhat. DOHC architecture makes more power for the displacement, but we don't live in Japan or Europe, where car taxes are based on engine displacements (thankfully), so displacement and "hp per liter!" is a complete red herring. These motors get fairly crappy mileage, too, so they are not especially efficient. See also: Ferrari, et al. Great power, crappy mileage and huge packages. None of these exotics are especially lightweight, either.

Multivalve heads means you can squeeze more valve area in the same bore. OHC also makes for lighter valvetrain mass, which helps extend upper rev limits, and more revs means more power if you can make tq up there. OHC multivalve set-ups do make more power, in all out racing efforts and street engines alike, and at the same displacement (this is key), it will make more power than 2 valve engines (OHV or OHC). Build a 7.0L 4 valve OHC engine and it'll surely make more power than the LS7. But it'll be frakking HUGE! That's why we see fairly small OHC engines for any given car because there's not enough room for all those valves and big bores, too.

The C6 Z06's LS7 V8 is a great engine, but doesn't get too many high tech magazine readers wet with excitement, it more likely incites a riot among these car queens. The 7.0L engine, based on "truck engine" design (haha, very loosely) with "old tech" cam in block/OHV architecture, makes for one small, light, durable package (OHV and OHC engines were both first designed around the end of the 19th century; neither one is "newer"). Large bores of this 7.0L engine make room for unshrouding big valves, even if only 2 per cylinder. 16 valves on this V8 is a lot less complex than 40 valves and 4 cams on the BMW V10. The 90mm throttle body is big like a pickle, more than enough to support 600hp, and this alone cuts some pumping losses. No variable cam timing makes for a shorter, less complex, less problematic package (the VANOS system can and does break on BMWs, some of which have used VNOS since the 1993 model year) and 7.0L only making 505 hp means there's lots of extra tq to go around. Big 505 hp number and 500 tq makes for big fun.

Couple the Z06's substantially lighter curb weight makes it a much faster car at any speed than an M5/M6.

This picture still speaks volumes:

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

In a real race car engine design you are going to couple the biggest engine you are allowed to use with as many valves as you can afford to package... 5 per cylinder is great, and rev it as high as your materials allow for. More displacement + more revs = more power more power more power. It's always this simple ... tq x rpm = hp. More tq and more rpm = more hp. Imagine if the 900+ hp F1 cars were not limited to 3 (or is it 3.5L still?) liter V10s? They'd have 10 liter V12's with 60 valves and 2000 more reliable hp! But they have rules to limit power, and this is always tied to DISPLACEMENT. When they want to lower power, they lower max displacement, not architecture or valve layout.

But we don't own F1 cars. We don't have $200M budgets. We are but mere mortals with real budgets, driving real cars with physical constraints, on real tracks and streets. F1 technology doesn't always work well for 100K mile motors...

note: all that bunk about higher top speeds and better gearing for DOHC motors is just... umm... how to put this nicely? It's all crap. Sorry, that is just old wives's tales that get propagated on the interweb and just don't pan out in theory or in practice.

Case in point: 6.0L, 16 valve LS2 in C6 Corvette (I overuse this car as an example, but it's hard not to). This motor revs to just 6500 rpm. Makes 400 hp, 400 tq. Gets 29+ mph highway (noted this on several 300+ mile trips, and I am anal about fill ups). Car does 186 mph and 0-60 in 4.2 sec. How many current DOHC BMWs can do 186 mph and can get 29 mph stock? All of none. :( Better gearing? More top speed? DOHC = Nope.

[clyde]

Engine revs, in and of themselves, are meaningless.

One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us.

:devcool:

[lemming]

Hack just gets angry because we're not the BMW sycophants that he's used to dealing with on other discussion forums.

:)

[Jason C]

I'm disappointed Fair! :rolleyes:




You never used the term "Fuckton" in your mega-post above. :)

[lemming]

why are the C6-R cars walking away from the Prodrive 6.0 litre v12 powered aston marting?

it must be hard to make pushrods keep up with DOHC engines on the mulsanne straight.

[Fair!]

why are the C6-R cars walking away from the Prodrive 6.0 litre v12 powered aston marting?

it must be hard to make pushrods keep up with DOHC engines on the mulsanne straight.
Heheh... the 7.0L motors used in the 24 hour C6.R is actually down on power (or at least straight line speed) to the Astins... but the C6.R team is going to finish 1-2 to the "faster" Astins because of... (wait for it)... reliability. The more complex Astin Martin V12's had a fuckton of problems (there you go, Captain!) all day and the Corvettes had none.

So, that makes 3 years in the past 5 that the Corvette's with their inferior pushrod engines finished 1-2 in GT class at Le Mans. Always nice to have some current examples to back up arguments.

Now, since today's 24 hours or Le Mans inspired me, I am going to fire up the ultimate (http://pc.ign.com/articles/625/625509p1.html) racing sim GTR (http://www.10tacle.com/gtr-game/en/index.php?Homepage) and run the C5R (no one has added the C6.R model yet) at some poncy European track like Donnington or the like. Cheers!

[Jason C]

http://www.corvetteracing.com/pictures/lemans/images/lemans013.jpg

http://www.corvetteracing.com/pictures/lemans/images/lemans047.jpg

:thumbup: to Corvette Racing.

[lemming]

why are the C6-R cars walking away from the Prodrive 6.0 litre v12 powered aston marting?

it must be hard to make pushrods keep up with DOHC engines on the mulsanne straight.
Heheh... the 7.0L motors used in the 24 hour C6.R is actually down on power (or at least straight line speed) to the Astins... but the C6.R team is going to finish 1-2 to the "faster" Astins because of... (wait for it)... reliability. The more complex Astin Martin V12's had a fuckton of problems (there you go, Captain!) all day and the Corvettes had none.

So, that makes 3 years in the past 5 that the Corvette's with their inferior pushrod engines finished 1-2 in GT class at Le Mans. Always nice to have some current examples to back up arguments.

Now, since today's 24 hours or Le Mans inspired me, I am going to fire up the ultimate (http://pc.ign.com/articles/625/625509p1.html) racing sim GTR (http://www.10tacle.com/gtr-game/en/index.php?Homepage) and run the C5R (no one has added the C6.R model yet) at some poncy European track like Donnington or the like. Cheers!

i think it's down on straightline speed because the aero package is optimized for more than the mulsanne straight (more versatile for ALMS racing) and the astons have a much better high speed aero package so they are faster per lap.

the c6r's targeted 3:55 laps for the entire 24 hours and i think they left a lot on the table.

[blee]

It's official. The C6-R teams finished 1-2 at Le Mans today. This is the third time in recent history that the Corvette team has finished 1-2 in GT1, and I believe this is one of the very first C6R outings. Not bad at all. :)

IIRC, not only is Aston Martin in GT1, but so is Ferrari. Those 550s were left in the dust well before the sun set.

[lemming]

It's official. The C6-R teams finished 1-2 at Le Mans today. This is the third time in recent history that the Corvette team has finished 1-2 in GT1, and I believe this is one of the very first C6R outings. Not bad at all. :)

IIRC, not only is Aston Martin in GT1, but so is Ferrari. Those 550s were left in the dust well before the sun set.

i think Prodrive got so frustrated with the lack of speed in the 550s that they were more than happy to adopt the aston martin DB9 racecar with the cosworth engine.

that aston is mighty fast. guess it had some teething issues, though. it's amazing that more engines do not fail at LeMans.

[Fair!]

Problems stop production on BMW M5? 6/16/2005 : http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=4799&categoryId=1

Ruh Roh! The technological super motor is foiled again. Hope the cranks can stay in the blocks when they are finally on the road, unlike the earliest M3/S54 motors (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-70630.html).

[lemming]

all i know is that all of those high tech parts are heavy, even for a "lightweight" engine. 530 pounds for the new v10 motor; the LS7 will likely be under 500 pounds. same horsepower, but guess which engine has a lot more torque --as in 100ft#'s more torque?

could anyone have predicted the higher weight/less torque of the smaller displacement (5.5litres versus 7.0litres) hi-tech content engine?

technology for technology's sake is contrary to the racing adage of keeping it simple.

[Fair!]

all i know is that all of those high tech parts are heavy, even for a "lightweight" engine. 530 pounds for the new v10 motor; the LS7 will likely be under 500 pounds. same horsepower, but guess which engine has a lot more torque --as in 100ft#'s more torque?

could anyone have predicted the higher weight/less torque of the smaller displacement (5.5litres versus 7.0litres) hi-tech content engine?

technology for technology's sake is contrary to the racing adage of keeping it simple.
Ye olde LS1 weighs in at 457 to 497 pounds (http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/LS1_weight.jpg) (the manual trans version, with a 50 ound 2-piece flywheel, is the heavier). Don't have weights on the LS2 or LS7. Suspect LS7 to add some pounds, from the dry sump's external 8 qt tank.

[The HACK]

all i know is that all of those high tech parts are heavy, even for a "lightweight" engine. 530 pounds for the new v10 motor; the LS7 will likely be under 500 pounds. same horsepower, but guess which engine has a lot more torque --as in 100ft#'s more torque?

could anyone have predicted the higher weight/less torque of the smaller displacement (5.5litres versus 7.0litres) hi-tech content engine?

technology for technology's sake is contrary to the racing adage of keeping it simple.

Ye olde LS1 weighs in at 457 to 497 pounds (http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/LS1_weight.jpg) (the manual trans version, with a 50 ound 2-piece flywheel, is the heavier). Don't have weights on the LS2 or LS7. Suspect LS7 to add some pounds, from the dry sump's external 8 qt tank.

Dayzam. That 33# difference in a 3,000 lbs vehicle is going to be a GIANT hit to the performance.

Back to the discussion of the BMW V-10 vs. LS7: Let me start with a disclaimer. If I had, say, an E30 318is that blew a piston through the walls and needed a complete engine transplant, I would look VERY HARD at possibly implanting a pushrod V-8, if the conversion is as easy as some of you states, instead of going with a BMW replacement.

That being said, let me pose this question. Let's say, given two engines, both outputing fairly similar HP specs (231 for engine A, 218 for engine B). Engine A makes a measely 221 lbs/ft of torque, while engine B makes a whopping 300 lbs/ft of torque. Engine A has a redline of 6,500 and engine B has a redline of 4,500.

I know this comparison is not even remotely close to the whole package/displacement vs. rev to make HP discussion, but let me ask...Which engine would you choose? (personally I would chose engine B, but not for performance applications).

This obvious example has been staring us in the FACE. Let's take a look at performance figures for the 330Ci vs 330Cd. 231hp vs. 218hp in Euro trim. 221 lbs/ft of torque vs. 302 lbs/ft. ON PAPER the diesel should be a near equal match, if not superior to the gasoline engine because of the similar HP figures (off by about 4%?) but more than compensates for it with massive torque. But performance wise, the diesel is nearly a whole SECOND off on acceleration time. Why? The gasoline engine has 2,000 more RPMs to go before it runs out of revs.

I'm not disputing that the Corvette is a beast of a car. I'm not disputing that the LS7 is a great engine. I'm disputing the argument that it's better to make HP through displacement rather than engine revs. There's a clear advantage as to why OHC design is preferred by the majority of high performance sports car/sedan makers, and it is NOT solely due to displacement limitation laws in EU.

Let's compare Ferrari's F430 with the Corvette, chassis vs. chassis. The Ferrari F430 has smaller displacement, less horsepower, much less torque (in fact, 150 lbs/ft less), weighs about the same. It should be significantly slower to 60 than the Corvette, no? NO. 0-60 times are nearly identical between the Z06 and the F430. How is that possible? Less HP, less, torque, same weight, similar top speed, similar times?

Because the red line on the F430 is ~2,000 RPM higher.

Repeat after me, for performance applications, it is better to make HP with RPM than with displacement.

[The HACK]

To add to the flame, the new 3.0 liter twin turbo diesel is suppose to make an insane 275 HP and 500Nm of torque (that's what, like 350 lbs/ft?). Yet the preliminary specs show that the 535d is no faster than the 530i with the new valvo 530i.

Again, how is that possible? More HP, more torque, marginally heavier...And slower?

Go figure.

[John V]

Let's compare Ferrari's F430 with the Corvette, chassis vs. chassis. The Ferrari F430 has smaller displacement, less horsepower, much less torque (in fact, 150 lbs/ft less), weighs about the same. It should be significantly slower to 60 than the Corvette, no? NO. 0-60 times are nearly identical between the Z06 and the F430. How is that possible? Less HP, less, torque, same weight, similar top speed, similar times?

Because the red line on the F430 is ~2,000 RPM higher.

Repeat after me, for performance applications, it is better to make HP with RPM than with displacement.

You're ignoring the fact that the Ferrari's mid-engine layout translates into a much better launch. The Corvette is traction-limited, big time.

The 'vette also has run-flats - not known for producing good drag racing times.

Repeat after me:

REVS DON'T MATTER. YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING WITH GEARING.

[blee]

Repeat after me:

REVS DON'T MATTER. YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING WITH GEARING.

Hack - you noted in your own analysis that you were ignoring things like gearing. We've mentioned, either in this thread or in others here, that the Vette has rather tall gearing but still manages to produce impressive performance stats. The Ferrari has a less powerful engine and must rely on gearing to obtain its numbers, which are also impressive but lead to dismal fuel efficiency and other issues related to short gearing.

[Jason C]

Dayzam. That 33# difference in a 3,000 lbs vehicle is going to be a GIANT hit to the performance.

Once you enlarge the C6 frame so that you can fit the S65, it's going to gain a hell of a lot more than 33 lbs.

As has been pointed out multiple times, those engines are great - provided that you can find space for them, among other things.


There's a clear advantage as to why OHC design is preferred by the majority of high performance sports car/sedan makers, and it is NOT solely due to displacement limitation laws in EU.

Hmm, let's see, if I were a car company who know OHC, only knew OHC, and had been that way ever since the start, why should I switch all my R&D and tooling over to OHV and spend countless billions? Particularly when the press at large and plenty of supposed *enthusiasts* (read: technological chauvinists) wouldn't have it any other way to start with. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Because the red line on the F430 is ~2,000 RPM higher.

You may want to do some reading on Ferrari and their sophisticated launch control system, which in magazine tests have made it virtually equal to a Ford GT in 0-60 (but of course, by the 1/4th it's obvious who has the advantageous power to weight ratio, irregardless of RPMs).


Horsepower can't be measured, only calculated. It's just torque and RPMs. Max horsepower is made when you make lots of torque at high RPMs. If you plan on driving somewhere other than high-speed ovals, something known as "area under the curve" might come in handy. I'm sure clyde can step in and regale us with stories on how the 9000rpm S2000, the car with the most speed on the straight, is forced to drop to 1st on a 2nd/3rd gear autocross course.

[FC]

OT: Mercedes introduced a concept SLK 320CDI Tri-Turbo diesel.

With 3.2L, it puts out 286hp and 464lb-ft. :shock:

[clyde]

This obvious example has been staring us in the FACE. Let's take a look at performance figures for the 330Ci vs 330Cd. 231hp vs. 218hp in Euro trim. 221 lbs/ft of torque vs. 302 lbs/ft. ON PAPER the diesel should be a near equal match, if not superior to the gasoline engine because of the similar HP figures (off by about 4%?) but more than compensates for it with massive torque. But performance wise, the diesel is nearly a whole SECOND off on acceleration time. Why? The gasoline engine has 2,000 more RPMs to go before it runs out of revs.

The 330Cd:

1- 5.08
2- 2.80
3- 1.78
4- 1.26
5- 1.00
6- 0.83
F- 2.47

The 330Ci:
1- 4.35
2- 2.50
3- 1.66
4- 1.23
5- 1.00
6- 0.85
F- 2.93 (to say nothing of the available shorter rears available in some configurations)

But those don't mean anything. According to bmw (http://www.bmw.com/generic/de/de/products/automobiles/download/pdf/3_CP_datasheet.pdf) the 330Ci in that config goes 0-100km/h in 6.5 seconds while the 330Cd takes 7.2 seconds (looks more like three quarters of a second than a full second, but that's just me).

OTOH, it also says that while the 330Ci takes 6.9 seconds to go from 80-120 km/h it only takes the 330Cd 6.1 seconds. Why is that? If I were to follow your logic, I would have to conclude that it's becuase it doesn't waste time climbing an additional 2,000 RPM. :loco:

[Jason C]

BTW, GM is cooking up something for the rest of the naysayers (who are rapidly falling back as it is to brilliant prose on the Z06 such as "But look at the interior!" and "So what, it's just a crap American car that falls apart after 5000 miles"). This is way better of a potential smackdown than anything Fair could say:


http://forums.carmudgeons.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=748
We hear 2005 Le Mans class winner Jan Magnussen is turning faster-than-Z06 laps in the Blue Devil at Nurburgring. (Photos by Bernd Rauh)

Blue Devil Lives!! When GM's vice chairman speaks of an ultra-performance Corvette, we listen

General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz won’t confirm this car exists, but he is not saying it doesn’t. We first wrote about Chevrolet’s ultra-performance Corvette—dubbed Blue Devil, most likely to catch the attention of GM CEO and Duke Blue Devil grad Rick Wagoner—shortly before the sixth-generation Corvette debuted at the Detroit auto show in January (AW, Dec. 22 and 29, 2004). We asked Lutz about the car during a recent exclusive interview with AutoWeek.

“Let’s just say [Corvette chief engineer] Dave Hill is not a guy who likes playing second fiddle to any high-performance car on the road,” said Lutz. “My guess is we’re going to find a way to do something beyond the Z06, that would be at a much higher price point, and which would compete with some of the leading high-performance cars of the world.”

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=749

Lutz said the car may be delayed while the company focuses most of its engineering might on pulling ahead profit-making vehicles like its next-generation large sport/utilities and pickups.

“But there is certainly no lack of desire on anyone’s part to establish the supremacy of the Corvette,” says Lutz.

Spied on the Nurbürgring, Blue Devil appears to be living up to the earlier hype. Eyewitnesses said the car sounds supercharged, confirming reports the engine is likely a blown version of the Z06’s 7.0-liter V8, producing upward of 600 hp. Look for lightweight carbon fiber body parts to reduce weight to about 2900 pounds.

Pricing will likely start somewhere around $100,000 if and when the car makes production in 2006.

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=750

(cribbed from autoweek)

[Nick M3]

That just makes me want to cry.

[blee]

:shock: Awesome. But will anyone pay $100,000 for a Corvette?

[Jason C]

:shock: Awesome. But will anyone pay $100,000 for a Corvette?

People paid almost 5 times that for an ugly F60 Enzo-FatPig, so who knows? :)

If they limit it to say, 1000 examples, they'll sell every one they make. Beyond that, I don't know if they can make a business case for it.

ADDED: But I concur with this guy:

Its fair to say the Z06 exceeded everybody's expectations. A 600hp super-super vette would only be icing on the cake at this point. I'm actually not even sure its worth the trouble.

[blee]

:shock: Awesome. But will anyone pay $100,000 for a Corvette?

People paid almost 5 times that for an ugly F60 Enzo-FatPig, so who knows? :)

If they limit it to say, 1000 examples, they'll sell every one they make. Beyond that, who knows?

But it's a Corvette. That's like selling a $100,000 E90.

Suppose the Mustang-based Cobra and the Ford GT had the exact same performance stats (I know they don't) and the exact same price tag. Which one would you buy, assuming you were interested in both? I would want the car on the exclusive platform, the one that looks different from everything else on the road. I think that GM could get away with selling a few hundred of these at $100,000, maybe.

[Jason C]

But it's a Corvette. That's like selling a $100,000 E90.

Suppose the Mustang-based Cobra and the Ford GT had the exact same performance stats (I know they don't) and the exact same price tag. Which one would you buy, assuming you were interested in both? I would want the car on the exclusive platform, the one that looks different from everything else on the road. I think that GM could get away with selling a few hundred of these at $100,000, maybe.

I'd say a little more than a few hundred. Carrera GT production will end up at what, about 1500 to 2000? And they're apparently having some trouble moving them at this point. So I don't think it's that much of a stretch to find 1000 buyers for this Corvette at 1/4th the price.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't understand what any of this has to do with performance. Don't you guys know that moonroof delete and dry-sumps is all you need to make a sports car?

Fools. :)

[Rob]

Are you guys kidding? Do you think gearheads that live with domestic brands all their lives never start making money? Assuming a very limited production car, they will sell every one of them and it won't just be to collectors.

How much did that GT cost? How much better performance (perhaps with racing heritage included) will the "Blue Devil" have?

Besides, it's a halo car. It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to sell monte carlos. Or whatever they are selling to the mass market these days.

[blee]

Are you guys kidding? Do you think gearheads that live with domestic brands all their lives never start making money? Assuming a very limited production car, they will sell every one of them and it won't just be to collectors.

There's no question that there are people who would be willing to spend that kind of money. I question whether this car is different enough from a regular Corvette to justify its cost. The GT looks and acts like nothing else in Ford's line-up. On the other hand, this car looks like a Vette inside and out. The only difference will be when the light turns green, and I don't know that wealthy buyers will be satisfied with that.

[JST]

I don't understand what any of this has to do with performance. Don't you guys know that moonroof delete and dry-sumps is all you need to make a sports car?

Fools. :)

Flat 6 needs dry sump. :flipoff:

Do a search on "dry sump" and "oil starvation" on rennlist and pelican parts, then get back to us. :rolleyes:

Not allowing a purported sports car to be spec'ed without sunroof, well, what do you call C4s tippy magic tronic cab drivers?

Right. :twisted:

Call them poseurs, except...

uh...

...there's this guy that drives a Tiptronic Boxster in ASP, and he's usually, you know, faster than me.

So.

[clyde]

And there's this guy that has been winning A Stock in some National Tours this year in a 4 speed slushie C4 against some top level talent...

Which leads me to another question about who the poseurs are...

If one has all the right toys but can't beat those with the fashion accessories, who is the poseur? :dunno:

[rumatt]

If one has all the right toys but can't beat those with the fashion accessories, who is the poseur? :dunno:

The one with the sunroof.

Try to keep up.

[Fair!]

BMW V-10 vs. LS7:... let me pose this question. Let's say, given two engines, both outputing fairly similar HP specs (231 for engine A, 218 for engine B). Engine A makes a measely 221 lbs/ft of torque, while engine B makes a whopping 300 lbs/ft of torque. Engine A has a redline of 6,500 and engine B has a redline of 4,500.

This obvious example has been staring us in the FACE. Let's take a look at performance figures for the 330Ci vs 330Cd. 231hp vs. 218hp in Euro trim. 221 lbs/ft of torque vs. 302 lbs/ft. ON PAPER the diesel should be a near equal match, if not superior to the gasoline engine because of the similar HP figures (off by about 4%?) but more than compensates for it with massive torque. But performance wise, the diesel is nearly a whole SECOND off on acceleration time. Why? The gasoline engine has 2,000 more RPMs to go before it runs out of revs.

Comparing diesels to gasoline engines isn't exactly a good comparison. Diesels by their design always have much lower rev potential than a gasoline engine, and usually a vastly shorter "sweet spot" or powerband to utilize. And the 330d has terrible final gearing : It's made simply to get great fuel mileage, which it does, while still having good "grunt" for plebeian around town acceleration. No one buys diesels for performance.

Diesel OTR tractors... wonder why these have 15+ foward gears? (24 speeds not uncommon) The turbo diesel engine has a fairly narrow effective rev range. That's what you have to do to haul 80,000-200,000 pounds and get "good" mileage... :? (again, very relative - 6 mpg is "good" for rigs)

I'm disputing the argument that it's better to make HP through displacement rather than engine revs. There's a clear advantage as to why OHC design is preferred by the majority of high performance sports car/sedan makers, and it is NOT solely due to displacement limitation laws in EU.
tq x rpm / 5252 = hp

maximize hp by either increasing tq (displacement) or rpms (OHV or OHC) or BOTH!

Let's compare Ferrari's F430 with the Corvette, chassis vs. chassis. The Ferrari F430 has smaller displacement, less horsepower, much less torque (in fact, 150 lbs/ft less), weighs about the same. It should be significantly slower to 60 than the Corvette, no? NO. 0-60 times are nearly identical between the Z06 and the F430. How is that possible? Less HP, less, torque, same weight, similar top speed, similar times? Because the red line on the F430 is ~2,000 RPM higher.
F430: 490 hp @ $205,000
C6: 400 hp @ $43,000
Curb weight is within 40 pounds on each (F430 3200, C6 3150)
400hp C6 has similar performance numbers across the range, with a slight nod to the 490 hp Ferrari. One is a full steel frame with fiberglass body, built in 30K+ units a year. The other is a hand built carbon fiber tub built in hundreds per year.

Ever heard of apples to oranges?

The 4.3L motor in the $200K F430 makes great power... but not when compared to $65K C6 Z06, with 505hp. THAT is a better comparison (CF body panels, huge trick brakes, 190+ mph top speeds, both have near 500 hp, etc)

BTW, guess what Ferrari changed most significantly on the F430 from the 360, to get power up from 400 to 490 hp.... displacement bumped from 3.6 to 4.3 liters. (F360 = 400 @ 8500 RPM, F430 = 490 hp @ 8500 rpm)

Repeat after me, for performance applications, it is better to make HP with RPM than with displacement.
You picked your screen name well... your two examples above stink. :)

One is comparing a fuel sipping diesel to a performance DOHC engine, the other is comparing a $200K hand built sports car to a $43K domestic, that still pretty much matches it in most performance tests, and the $65K version of said domestic matches or beats it.

Revs alone mean squat. Revs x tq = hp. HORSEPOWER MOVES THE WORLD. tq is meaningless... except that lots of torque at low to mid to high revs makes for hp at low to mid to high revs which make a BIG powerband. Making horsepower over a longer engine rev range (and it's relative) makes for a more tractable engine and that "helps" gearing "work" for better overall acceleration, top speed, corner exit acceleration, etc.

Give me any engine with max tq (= great power) in 40% of its total rev range, with an effective range and good peak numbers, and I'll will win more races over the peaky buzz bombs. Notice I didn't stipulate great power over "2000 rpms", because a 2000 rev powerband on a 13,000 rpm motor is still PEAKY (1L sport bikes, RX8, S2000, etc). C6 makes "big power" over 3500 total engine revs, and with a 6400 rpm rev range, that's a W-I-D-E powerband. 8000, 9000 rpm buzz bombs usually make peak power over the same range or less; 3000 rpms on 9000 rpm motor = less effective range when geared properly to move the car. If we could have low weight, low cost, high durability 10 speed "instant shift" or CVT transmissions, then these peaky revvy little squirts would be great. But real world transmissions are 5 or 6 forward gears, manually shifted (with the fairy tale trannies being semi-auto, and generally sucking for smooth, daily driving use), and have cost and weight penalties when they add more gears or "trickery".

The 2.0L Honda S2000 is a classic example... have competed in solo2 in one of these personally. They make good power from 6500-8800 rpm. 2300 rpm usable rev range, but on a nearly 9000 rpm motor, that's still fairly tight and it IS very peaky. Biggest challenge racing in one? Keeping it "on the cam" or "in the revs". Also, launches must be made at 6000+ rpm or you kill low speed acceleration; this in turn kills the clutch. 1st gear downshifts are needed in slow corners... which are never fun. Still, it makes sweet noises and is fairly quick for it's class. What did Honda do last year to make it a better race/street car? Increased displacement (by 20%!), kept the peak power the same but dropped 1000 rpm for max revs (gasp!) and increased torque. All the S2000 racers rushed out to buy them.

Power remains the same at 240 horsepower but peaks at a slightly more peaceful 7800 rpm versus 8300 rpm. Torque rises slightly, from 153 to 161 pound-feet, and peaks at 6500 versus 7500 rpm. The S2000 now launches with considerably more verve, and its power band is more flexible between 1000 and 5000 rpm.

[lemming]

BMW V-10 vs. LS7:... let me pose this question. Let's say, given two engines, both outputing fairly similar HP specs (231 for engine A, 218 for engine B). Engine A makes a measely 221 lbs/ft of torque, while engine B makes a whopping 300 lbs/ft of torque. Engine A has a redline of 6,500 and engine B has a redline of 4,500.

This obvious example has been staring us in the FACE. Let's take a look at performance figures for the 330Ci vs 330Cd. 231hp vs. 218hp in Euro trim. 221 lbs/ft of torque vs. 302 lbs/ft. ON PAPER the diesel should be a near equal match, if not superior to the gasoline engine because of the similar HP figures (off by about 4%?) but more than compensates for it with massive torque. But performance wise, the diesel is nearly a whole SECOND off on acceleration time. Why? The gasoline engine has 2,000 more RPMs to go before it runs out of revs.

Comparing diesels to gasoline engines isn't exactly a good comparison. Diesels by their design always have much lower rev potential than a gasoline engine, and usually a vastly shorter "sweet spot" or powerband to utilize. And the 330d has terrible final gearing : It's made simply to get great fuel mileage, which it does, while still having good "grunt" for plebeian around town acceleration. No one buys diesels for performance.

Diesel OTR tractors... wonder why these have 15+ foward gears? (24 speeds not uncommon) The turbo diesel engine has a fairly narrow effective rev range. That's what you have to do to haul 80,000-200,000 pounds and get "good" mileage... :? (again, very relative - 6 mpg is "good" for rigs)

I'm disputing the argument that it's better to make HP through displacement rather than engine revs. There's a clear advantage as to why OHC design is preferred by the majority of high performance sports car/sedan makers, and it is NOT solely due to displacement limitation laws in EU.
tq x rpm / 5252 = hp

maximize hp by either increasing tq (displacement) or rpms (OHV or OHC) or BOTH!

Let's compare Ferrari's F430 with the Corvette, chassis vs. chassis. The Ferrari F430 has smaller displacement, less horsepower, much less torque (in fact, 150 lbs/ft less), weighs about the same. It should be significantly slower to 60 than the Corvette, no? NO. 0-60 times are nearly identical between the Z06 and the F430. How is that possible? Less HP, less, torque, same weight, similar top speed, similar times? Because the red line on the F430 is ~2,000 RPM higher.
F430: 490 hp @ $205,000
C6: 400 hp @ $43,000
Curb weight is within 40 pounds on each (F430 3200, C6 3150)
400hp C6 has similar performance numbers across the range, with a slight nod to the 490 hp Ferrari. One is a full steel frame with fiberglass body, built in 30K+ units a year. The other is a hand built carbon fiber tub built in hundreds per year.

Ever heard of apples to oranges?

The 4.3L motor in the $200K F430 makes great power... but not when compared to $65K C6 Z06, with 505hp. THAT is a better comparison (CF body panels, huge trick brakes, 190+ mph top speeds, both have near 500 hp, etc)

BTW, guess what Ferrari changed most significantly on the F430 from the 360, to get power up from 400 to 490 hp.... displacement bumped from 3.6 to 4.3 liters. (F360 = 400 @ 8500 RPM, F430 = 490 hp @ 8500 rpm)

Repeat after me, for performance applications, it is better to make HP with RPM than with displacement.
You picked your screen name well... your two examples above stink. :)

One is comparing a fuel sipping diesel to a performance DOHC engine, the other is comparing a $200K hand built sports car to a $43K domestic, that still pretty much matches it in most performance tests, and the $65K version of said domestic matches or beats it.

Revs alone mean squat. Revs x tq = hp. HORSEPOWER MOVES THE WORLD. tq is meaningless... except that lots of torque at low to mid to high revs makes for hp at low to mid to high revs which make a BIG powerband. Making horsepower over a longer engine rev range (and it's relative) makes for a more tractable engine and that "helps" gearing "work" for better overall acceleration, top speed, corner exit acceleration, etc.

Give me any engine with max tq (= great power) in 40% of its total rev range, with an effective range and good peak numbers, and I'll will win more races over the peaky buzz bombs. Notice I didn't stipulate great power over "2000 rpms", because a 2000 rev powerband on a 13,000 rpm motor is still PEAKY (1L sport bikes, RX8, S2000, etc). C6 makes "big power" over 3500 total engine revs, and with a 6400 rpm rev range, that's a W-I-D-E powerband. 8000, 9000 rpm buzz bombs usually make peak power over the same range or less; 3000 rpms on 9000 rpm motor = less effective range when geared properly to move the car. If we could have low weight, low cost, high durability 10 speed "instant shift" or CVT transmissions, then these peaky revvy little squirts would be great. But real world transmissions are 5 or 6 forward gears, manually shifted (with the fairy tale trannies being semi-auto, and generally sucking for smooth, daily driving use), and have cost and weight penalties when they add more gears or "trickery".

The 2.0L Honda S2000 is a classic example... have competed in solo2 in one of these personally. They make good power from 6500-8800 rpm. 2300 rpm usable rev range, but on a nearly 9000 rpm motor, that's still fairly tight and it IS very peaky. Biggest challenge racing in one? Keeping it "on the cam" or "in the revs". Also, launches must be made at 6000+ rpm or you kill low speed acceleration; this in turn kills the clutch. 1st gear downshifts are needed in slow corners... which are never fun. Still, it makes sweet noises and is fairly quick for it's class. What did Honda do last year to make it a better race/street car? Increased displacement (by 20%!), kept the peak power the same but dropped 1000 rpm for max revs (gasp!) and increased torque. All the S2000 racers rushed out to buy them.

Power remains the same at 240 horsepower but peaks at a slightly more peaceful 7800 rpm versus 8300 rpm. Torque rises slightly, from 153 to 161 pound-feet, and peaks at 6500 versus 7500 rpm. The S2000 now launches with considerably more verve, and its power band is more flexible between 1000 and 5000 rpm.

a very nice deconstruction of Hack's points. he actually provided the data to undermine his point.

at the end of the day, when racing teams can opt for displacement, they always do. ALWAYS. so, the hypothesis that power at higher rpm's is the best way is quite the syllogism. it's true that it's nice to take advantage of torque at higher rpm's is a nice way to accelerate, the problem is that engines in this category are pretty peaky and unless you have 8-10 gears, then you're caught with your pants down coming out of slow corners.

i'm less focused on technological bravura as i am the results. it's why ohv engines and multipiston brakes make sense to me --in fact, i'd take this approach any day over the complex OHC with single piston brakes approach. i already can tell you which car i'd be faster in at the track --mostly because it's almost easier to predict a priori which car will be lighter --> accelerate faster and in combination with the brakes -->stop better consistently.

[Pinecone]

But let's get to the bottom line, who gets:

a) More chicks?

b) Hotter chicks?

Corvette or Ferrari?

[rumatt]

But let's get to the bottom line, who gets:

a) More chicks?

b) Hotter chicks?

Corvette or Ferrari?


I get tons of chicks with my E46.

[lemming]

in reality: it's just the class of 'chick' that's in question. both attract.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[zach]

But let's get to the bottom line, who gets:

a) More chicks?

b) Hotter chicks?

Corvette or Ferrari?


I get tons of chicks with my E46.

Yeah, tons of fat pigs attracted to one of their own kind.

[Plaz]

Ferrari chicks are commensurately more expensive to go along with the car.

:lol:

[lemming]

i'd pay 100k for a corvette and i'd certainly buy 2 100k corvettes before i'd even consider paying 100k for the new m6.

just so i could annoy the Ferrari owner in the stall next to me at track days because i'm eating him alive.

the better question is: who buys a 645ci at the money that those cars cost? steel frame. plastic fenders (not even carbon fibre, man). single pot brakes. generic v8. whoop de doo.

[FC]

i'd pay 100k for a corvette and i'd certainly buy 2 100k corvettes before i'd even consider paying 100k for the new m6.

just so i could annoy the Ferrari owner in the stall next to me at track days because i'm eating him alive.

the better question is: who buys a 645ci at the money that those cars cost? steel frame. plastic fenders (not even carbon fibre, man). single pot brakes. generic v8. whoop de doo.

You forgot the ugly beached-whale look and the weight problem. :)

[Jason C]

But let's get to the bottom line, who gets:

a) More chicks?

b) Hotter chicks?

Corvette or Ferrari?


I get tons of chicks with my E46.

Yeah, tons of fat pigs attracted to one of their own kind.

:lol: :lol: :lol: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/images/smilies/doh.gif :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Fair!]

A good friend of mine, who I have argued and raced with for 15+ years, has a good explanation of torque & horsepower, and various other "automotive myths" explained on his personal website. He words his explanations to work with a wide variety of audiences, and thought it might clear up some of the issues hack and others might be hung up on...

http://web.wt.net/~mmiller/Motorsports/Myths2.htm

some suspension and driving physics explanations here:

http://web.wt.net/~mmiller/Motorsports/Myths1.htm

Matt and I and 15 or so friends that all started racing during the same time, in the same autocross group/club at school, have literally tens thousands of miles and thousands of hours of solo2 and open course and drag strip track time, each. Not bragging, just trying to point out the background of his knowledge base. Matt also worked on a scientific 50,000 mile 4-car test that several of us were part of, too. Lots of good experience, knowledge, understanding and know-how. Part of the original corner-carvers.com wrecking crew that took down some extraordinary techno chauvinists and motorsports scammers.

edit: there's also has some good, general solo2 set-up information, with a huge helping of "big picture" philosophy ("this matters, this is nonsensical b.s."). One of the few, oddly informative corners of the interweb.

http://web.wt.net/~mmiller/Motorsports/Phast_Philosophies1.htm

[lemming]

it'd be tough to not buy the Blue Devil when it comes out.

their weight target is 2900 pounds (compare that to the Ford GT's 3500 pounds) and while it will likely have a blower, it will have a lot more displacement.

THAT would be a great comparison of OHC v. OHV engines at work in their respective applications. i would even argue that the plain old c6 z06 would be a good comparison to the Ford GT.

[The HACK]

A good friend of mine, who I have argued and raced with for 15+ years, has a good explanation of torque & horsepower, and various other "automotive myths" explained on his personal website. He words his explanations to work with a wide variety of audiences, and thought it might clear up some of the issues hack and others might be hung up on...

http://web.wt.net/~mmiller/Motorsports/Myths2.htm

I don't get it. He just confirmed EVERYTHING that I've been saying.

1) Torque doesn't mean squat.

Similarly, if an engine has 400 ft/lbs of torque but only delivers 2000 of these units per minute, it won't have much power compared to an engine with only 200 ft/lbs of torque but 7000 deliveries of torque per minute.

2) Area under HP means everything.

You may have a motor with 500hp at 8000rpm, but if it drops to 200hp at 7500rpm and 8500rpm (in other words, if it's very "peaky") it won't get a car accelerating very quickly. But a motor that peaks at 400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car

Therefore, an engine that is capable of revving up to higher RPMs, have more area under the HP curve, simply because the graph must be made WIDER. And the advantage of DOHC engines over pushrods are clearly explained in his writing as well. DOHC engines can vary valve lift durations, thus allowing a broader power band than pushrods (i.e. his example re: "400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car").

So in theory, the 8,200 RPM BMW V-10 should accelerate a chassis faster than the pushrod V-8 of the LS7 which redlines at 6,800 RPM, simply because the DOHC can be manipulated to provide a much wider max power band AND has a wider HP curve overall due to the higher revs.

But as long as my points are going to be continue to be ignored, I will say this only one more time. For a fixed HP output, it is BETTER to make that HP with more revs than more displacement. If we compare the LS7 directly to the BMW V-10 or the F430 V-8, the advantages of the DOHC engine being able to rev for much longer can not be ignored, because the area under the HP curve is LARGER thus the overall work performed by the engine over the entire rev band is greater in this configuration.

That is not to take anything away from the LS7's ability to make 500 HP with such a small, tight, cheap, and lightweight package (although, I still contend, 30 lbs in a 3,000+ lbs car is insiginificant).

And the whole "Z06 can make 60 mph in first gear" thing? Have you CONSIDERED that they HAVE to make the final drive short enough in order to achieve a top speed of more than 160 mph, thus necessitate the car hitting 60 mph in first? And that it's ability to hit 60 in 3.7 has a lot to do with the fact that it CAN hit 60 in first (no need to shift to 2nd, which is at least good for a .2 second advantage), not necessarily the high horsepower or efficiency? You put a 3.62 rear end in the Z06, and I'll bet it'll still hit 60 in about 3.6-3.7s range AND top out at 150mph. Look at the gear box ratios:

2.97:1, 2.07:1, 1.43:1, 1.00:1, 0.71:1, 0.57:1 f:3.42:1

M5 final drive: 3.62 (can't seem to find the rest of the gear ratios)

In the end, I provided the 330Ci vs. 330Cd example as a debunk to the whole "higher rev limit have no place in real world application" crowd. Given similar max HP, an engine that revs up higher should have the better performance edge.

To wrap this up, it all goes back to my original argument. You can mate the proper transmission to either of these packages, and with the right gear ratio and rear end, you can get them to perform nearly as well as each other. On sheer performance numbers along, is the LS7 truly superior to BMW's V-10? I still don't think so. Is the BMW V-10 that much better the LS-7? Not really. Each have their own pluses and minuses. While the LS-7 has the package, weight, cost benefit, it lacks the ability to rev up high past 7,000 RPMs. While the BMW V-10 may be heavier (again, just so slightly), cost more to make (may still be up to debate? Anyone have the actual prices for either of these engines?), take up more room, it's ability to rev up to 8,200 RPM has clear advantages in real world applications.

It's still damn impressive to me, that the M5 weighs ~700lbs more than the Z06 and can still hit 60 within .5 second. That says a lot about how good the V-10 is.

[Jason C]

And the advantage of DOHC engines over pushrods are clearly explained in his writing as well. DOHC engines can vary valve lift durations, thus allowing a broader power band than pushrods

FYI, GM has been working on a 3 valve VVT OHV engine for some time now. It's unfortunate that their decision to bring the GM900 truck series out sooner has delayed the introduction of this engine.

As for the other stuff about gearing and area under the curve, I think there are others here that can debate those points with much more detail. I will say that I don't think upping the rev limit necessarily equates to more area under the curve.

And about your stuff on getting the engines to perform similarly - yeah, on an engine stand... maybe. I don't drive an engine on a stand. I drive a car. In a car, little things like packaging efficiency come up. And comparing the curb weight for both cars is much more telling. Just IMO.


ADDED: You seem to have missed this relevant exerpt on that site:

The wider the gear spacing, the wider the range of engine speed that must be considered, and the broader you need the powerband to be. You may have a motor with 500hp at 8000rpm, but if it drops to 200hp at 7500rpm and 8500rpm (in other words, if it's very "peaky") it won't get a car accelerating very quickly. But a motor that peaks at 400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car unless you have insanely close gears in the transmission (and a whole lot of those gears!).

"The maximum of 500 horsepower is developed at 6200 rpm, and peak torque is 475 pound-feet at 4800 rpm. Clearly, this V-8, which is assembled at GM's new Performance Build Center in Wixom, Michigan, is tuned for high rpm. But with about 385 pound-feet - the peak torque of the new BMW M5 V-10 at 6100 rpm - available at about 1600 revs, the LS7 should be plenty tractable."

Basically the same horsepower. The LS7 revs *only* to 7000 but as the C&D passage shows, it's unlikely to have a smaller powerband than the S65. That, in addition to the inherent advantages that has been gone over ad nauseam - like I said before, I'd like to see someone attempt an engine swap using an S65 into... oh I don't know, a porkchop? In order to go faster down the straights, of course (and to amuse me).

:)

[John V]

But as long as my points are going to be continue to be ignored, I will say this only one more time.

Not ignored. Disproven.

[lemming]

But as long as my points are going to be continue to be ignored, I will say this only one more time.

Not ignored. Disproven.

i'll be fascinated again by a BMW engine once they make the 4.0 litre v8 standard in the e90 m3 --that engine is race proven (will it be the same one, i wonder?).

[Fair!]

2) Area under HP means everything.
True true... I'll take lots of area under the power curve than peak power over a narrow range any day. Area under the curve for the entire RPM range that is used is the most important factor.

But the typical peaky, higher revving, lower displacement engines don't have a lot of area under the curve. They use variable valve timing and 4 valves per cylinder all in an effort to increase torque and widen the powerband - because they otherwise would be more peaky and gutless.

Added torque makes for a wide powerband - That's what the larger displacement engines DO have, and what the point of this whole discussion is really about.

You may have a motor with 500hp at 8000rpm, but if it drops to 200hp at 7500rpm and 8500rpm (in other words, if it's very "peaky") it won't get a car accelerating very quickly. But a motor that peaks at 400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car
Therefore, an engine that is capable of revving up to higher RPMs, have more area under the HP curve, simply because the graph must be made WIDER. And the advantage of DOHC engines over pushrods are clearly explained in his writing as well. DOHC engines can vary valve lift durations, thus allowing a broader power band than pushrods (i.e. his example re: "400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car").
Just because a peaky engine revs to a higher ultimate rpm, doesn't mean it has more usable area under the power curve. In practice, they usually don't.

As far as DOHC engines varying valve lift - this isn't always the case. Only the very latest set-ups from BMW and a few others have variable valve lift. Many of the multi-overhead cammed engines have variable valve timing, though.

There are performance advantages of DOHC over OHV, yes, but their packaging and weight and cost and complexity dis-advantages sometimes outweigh any performance nod. Race and street car engines are more than just a peak number - these other issues can and do "weigh heavily" in the big picture. The writer of that website has since sold his DOHC V8 engined car and has been racing (more successfully) an OHV V8 engine for the past few years.

So in theory, the 8,200 RPM BMW V-10 should accelerate a chassis faster than the pushrod V-8 of the LS7 which redlines at 6,800 RPM, simply because the DOHC can be manipulated to provide a much wider max power band AND has a wider HP curve overall due to the higher revs.
Well, that's just not the case. Your theory has too many assumptions that don't hold water. When/if you can dredge up a dyno power curve for the mighty V10, then we can compare them graphically. I think you will be surprised.

Also, the LS7 revs to at least 7100 rpm; I just read about a 24 hour test done at VIR on the new Z06, and they mentioned shifting at 7100 at each gear change. For 24 straight hours.

I can find hundreds of chassis dyno charts for LSX series engines:
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/c6dynorun_HPandTQ.jpg - my stock 6.0L LS2 (LS7 is 1.0L bigger +100hp)
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/c6dynorun_vs_408LS1.jpg - modded 6.7L LS1
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/c6dynorun_vs_moddedLS1s.jpg - 4 levels of mods on LSX

Note: these charts above are all rear wheel dyno numbers, so adjust the numbers up (by about "12%", but any static correction factor is debatable; they don't really work out that evenly as you increase in power) to compare with flywheel numbers - what car manufacturers use. 500 hp at the flywheel is about 440-450 whp.

[The HACK]

2) Area under HP means everything.
True true... I'll take lots of area under the power curve than peak power over a narrow range any day. Area under the curve for the entire RPM range that is used is the most important factor.

But the typical peaky, higher revving, lower displacement engines don't have a lot of area under the curve. They use variable valve timing and 4 valves per cylinder all in an effort to increase torque and widen the powerband - because they otherwise would be more peaky and gutless.

Added torque makes for a wide powerband - That's what the larger displacement engines DO have, and what the point of this whole discussion is really about.

You may have a motor with 500hp at 8000rpm, but if it drops to 200hp at 7500rpm and 8500rpm (in other words, if it's very "peaky") it won't get a car accelerating very quickly. But a motor that peaks at 400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car
Therefore, an engine that is capable of revving up to higher RPMs, have more area under the HP curve, simply because the graph must be made WIDER. And the advantage of DOHC engines over pushrods are clearly explained in his writing as well. DOHC engines can vary valve lift durations, thus allowing a broader power band than pushrods (i.e. his example re: "400hp at 8000rpm that also has 350hp or more from 4000rpm to 9000rpm will make for a much faster car").
Just because a peaky engine revs to a higher ultimate rpm, doesn't mean it has more usable area under the power curve. In practice, they usually don't.

As far as DOHC engines varying valve lift - this isn't always the case. Only the very latest set-ups from BMW and a few others have variable valve lift. Many of the multi-overhead cammed engines have variable valve timing, though.

There are performance advantages of DOHC over OHV, yes, but their packaging and weight and cost and complexity dis-advantages sometimes outweigh any performance nod. Race and street car engines are more than just a peak number - these other issues can and do "weigh heavily" in the big picture. The writer of that website has since sold his DOHC V8 engined car and has been racing (more successfully) an OHV V8 engine for the past few years.

So in theory, the 8,200 RPM BMW V-10 should accelerate a chassis faster than the pushrod V-8 of the LS7 which redlines at 6,800 RPM, simply because the DOHC can be manipulated to provide a much wider max power band AND has a wider HP curve overall due to the higher revs.
Well, that's just not the case. Your theory has too many assumptions that don't hold water. When/if you can dredge up a dyno power curve for the mighty V10, then we can compare them graphically. I think you will be surprised.

Also, the LS7 revs to at least 7100 rpm; I just read about a 24 hour test done at VIR on the new Z06, and they mentioned shifting at 7100 at each gear change. For 24 straight hours.

I can find hundreds of chassis dyno charts for LSX series engines:
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/c6dynorun_HPandTQ.jpg - my stock 6.0L LS2 (LS7 is 1.0L bigger +100hp)
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/c6dynorun_vs_408LS1.jpg - modded 6.7L LS1
http://www.vorshlag.com/fair/c6dynorun_vs_moddedLS1s.jpg - 4 levels of mods on LSX

Note: these charts above are all rear wheel dyno numbers, so adjust the numbers up (by about "12%", but any static correction factor is debatable; they don't really work out that evenly as you increase in power) to compare with flywheel numbers - what car manufacturers use. 500 hp at the flywheel is about 440-450 whp.

Again, this all goes to prove what I've been saying. Are we comparing S2000 engines to the LS7, or are we comparing the BMW V-10 to the LS-7? The BMW V-10 isn't exactly peaky, there's almost 2,500RPM between peak torque and peak hp, PLENTY of room to keep making HP. I am, and have been, attempting to point out that while the LS7 is a great engine, the BMW V-10 should not be dismissed as you all have.

In fact, from performance numbers, it's clear that the BMW V-10 is more than capable of hanging with the LS7, and when BMW decides to race the M6 in Le Mans or ALMS head to head against the Corvette, we will have PROOF that the V-10 is a technical wonder to be recond with.

About my theory not holding water, until BMW releases actual dyno numbers and pits the mighty M6 against the Z06 in professional competition, all your assumptions about the LS7 being a far superior engine to the V-10 don't hold much water either.

Take a look at the latest numbers of the Blue Devil on the 'ring. Now tell me if the M5 looses 500 lbs to make this a fair fight, that the BMW won't pull similar numbers or even beat it. 15% weight penalty for a 2.5% time difference. 12 seconds. For 500 lbs.

Think about that.

[Jason C]

Take a look at the latest numbers of the Blue Devil on the 'ring. Now tell me if the M5 looses 500 lbs to make this a fair fight, that the BMW won't pull similar numbers or even beat it. 15% weight penalty for a 2.5% time difference. 12 seconds. For 500 lbs.

Think about that.

If the Z06 had a military ramjet strapped on the roof, it could lap in under a minute.

Think about that.

God damn, you sound exactly like the Honda fanboys "debating" (I use that term generously) the merits of Hp/L, claiming blue-sky theoretical bullshit like "But... but... if Honda had a shot at making a V8 it would be a F40C 4.0L 480hp UNGODLY HORSEPOWER PER LITERRRRZZZZZZ!!ONE1"

Spare us. Please.

[clyde]

Take a look at the latest numbers of the Blue Devil on the 'ring. Now tell me if the M5 looses 500 lbs to make this a fair fight, that the BMW won't pull similar numbers or even beat it. 15% weight penalty for a 2.5% time difference. 12 seconds. For 500 lbs.

Think about that.

Where's the weight going to come from? Obviously, it's not going to be your superposeur, high-tech, morbidly-obese-heavy-ass engine. Not sure where you're going to find all the extra weight if you have to use the same engine. :?

In keeping with the "fair fight" theme, should the vette also be forced to have an extra large front end so it can accomodate the fat pig, pre-lipo/stomach-stapled Carly Wilson like girth and external dimensions of the ///Marketing ///Machine ///M-badged ///Motor?

[clyde]

you sound exactly like the Honda fanboys

Bah...he's just overcompensating for how cheated he feels by BMW's going hog wild on the pork diet.

[The HACK]

Take a look at the latest numbers of the Blue Devil on the 'ring. Now tell me if the M5 looses 500 lbs to make this a fair fight, that the BMW won't pull similar numbers or even beat it. 15% weight penalty for a 2.5% time difference. 12 seconds. For 500 lbs.

Think about that.

Where's the weight going to come from? Obviously, it's not going to be your superposeur, high-tech, morbidly-obese-heavy-ass engine. Not sure where you're going to find all the extra weight if you have to use the same engine. :?

In keeping with the "fair fight" theme, should the vette also be forced to have an extra large front end so it can accomodate the fat pig, pre-lipo/stomach-stapled Carly Wilson like girth and external dimensions of the ///Marketing ///Machine ///M-badged ///Motor?

You tell me...The M5 engine is only 30 lbs heavier than the LS7.

Again, answer me THIS. Even if the vette is to retain current form without the ugly-@ss front end of the M5. You tack on 500 lbs on the Z06. That's do-able...I'll sit in the passenger seat and carry a 250 lbs lead weight for 7 minutes. Do you think the Z06 will be faster than the M5?

Do you?

[JST]

Take a look at the latest numbers of the Blue Devil on the 'ring. Now tell me if the M5 looses 500 lbs to make this a fair fight, that the BMW won't pull similar numbers or even beat it. 15% weight penalty for a 2.5% time difference. 12 seconds. For 500 lbs.

Think about that.

Where's the weight going to come from? Obviously, it's not going to be your superposeur, high-tech, morbidly-obese-heavy-ass engine. Not sure where you're going to find all the extra weight if you have to use the same engine. :?

In keeping with the "fair fight" theme, should the vette also be forced to have an extra large front end so it can accomodate the fat pig, pre-lipo/stomach-stapled Carly Wilson like girth and external dimensions of the ///Marketing ///Machine ///M-badged ///Motor?

You tell me...The M5 engine is only 30 lbs heavier than the LS7.

Again, answer me THIS. Even if the vette is to retain current form without the ugly-@ss front end of the M5. You tack on 500 lbs on the Z06. That's do-able...I'll sit in the passenger seat and carry a 250 lbs lead weight for 7 minutes. Do you think the Z06 will be faster than the M5?

Do you?

Sure about that weight comparo? The last time I looked for definitive numbers on the LSX and the S62, the only thing I could find was for the LS6, including headers, and the S62, not including headers. That's a big difference. Until someone actually puts both engines on a scale, and we can be sure we are comparing apples to apples, I'm not putting a whole lot of faith in numbers from the net.

For that matter, how sure are we that the M5 and the Z06 weigh 500 lbs different? Are the stated weights measuring the same thing, i.e., same condition (with driver or no) and same fuel weight (full tank, quarter tank, half tank)? Did the cars circulate the 'ring in the same condition (i.e., no passengers, 1 passenger, full tank, empty tank)? How fresh were the tires? How fresh was the car? How much impact did the driver have? Who the fuck knows?

Put 500 extra lbs in a Corvette, and suddenly the spring tuning is all wrong and the shock valving is all wrong. Even if you could do it, it proves nothing. But, yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that with a 12 second advantage even putting some lead slugs in the 'Vette has only a 50/50 chance of making the M5 faster.

[clyde]

Do you think the Z06 will be faster than the M5?

Do you?

This whole thing started as a debate a fwe weeks agao about the realtive merits of OHV and OHC engines, displacement versus RPM, etc. At every opportunity you've done what you can to change the argument to suit what you think will be most supportive of your views. When that fails, you move to the next thing and the next, and the next. It''s cool, though, it's what boards like this are for and it's more fun than sitting in front of the TV and idly twiddling my thumbs.

Whether I think the Z06 with a 500 pound weight penalty will be faster or slower than the M5 doesn't matter, and quite honestly, I don't pretend to know. What does matter, though, is that I do know that it depends on a lot more than simple objective numbers like horsepower, torque, mass, tire size and compound (well, size, anyway), etc. Pretty much everything about the cars is dissimilar after you get past the point that they both use "V" style engines. Trying to objectively compare them is like trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.

[Jason C]

At every opportunity you've done what you can to change the argument to suit what you think will be most supportive of your views. When that fails, you move to the next thing and the next, and the next.

While we're on that subject, would you care to address this point from said cited website?

The wider the gear spacing, the wider the range of engine speed that must be considered, and the broader you need the powerband to be.

So it says the wider the gearspacing, the wider the powerband needs to be. The converse in this case is also true - the wider the powerband, the more widely spaced your gearing can afford to be. Do we at least agree on this?

We all know that the Z06 makes roughly the same power as the M6 but has much wider gear spacing, enabling it to hit 60 in first while the M6 requires at least 2 shifts. So with that fact in mind, I'm still wondering why you've claimed that the M6 engine is the one having the wider powerband. Does an engine with a wider powerband require MORE shifts to reach the same speed? :scratch:

Or have you moved on from that and "High RPMs increase straightaway speed" and on to something else?

[Optimus Prime]

If the Corvette were steam powered and weighed more than a million pounds...