Twin Turbo Straight Six Cylinder Engine

[Rabid]

From a technological, efficiency, power delivery, power output, sound and NVH standpoint....what does it bring to the table?

I hope your kidding.

Heres what the current LS motor is doing in the new vette. Horsepower @ RPM 505@6300 and Torque @ RPM 470@4800 (foot-lbs) from a 7.0-liter V-8. 0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds. EPA city/hwy mpg 16/26. All that in a 3200lb American sh*t box of a car. You have no argument saying that its not a good engine. It's also very reliable.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Rabid

[Rabid]

The next Mazda2's Miller Cycle engine looks interesting. From a technology standpoint alone (4.35L/100km, Miller Cycle) it might win a place on those awards (which are not based purely on specific power). That kind of mileage puts it in Prius territory, but without the complexity of a hybrid drivetrain. Its certainly a lot better than a Golf turbodiesel.

I agree completely with this one. But I heard that with some new battery technology that Toyota has, the Prius is capable of 125mpg.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Rabid

[scathing]

Heres what the current LS motor is doing in the new vette. Horsepower @ RPM 505@6300 and Torque @ RPM 470@4800 (foot-lbs) from a 7.0-liter V-8. 0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds. EPA city/hwy mpg 16/26. All that in a 3200lb American sh*t box of a car. You have no argument saying that its not a good engine. It's also very reliable.

So Chevrolet's top-of-the-line factory tuned LS1 nowhere near the 100hp/L that the other NA cars are hitting as their target, and these days exceeding. Its also making less than 100Nm/L. So, output-wise, its got very little to bring to the table aside from big displacement. Which is hardly something worthy of winning an award.

The 7.0L variant is not exactly a mass production motor either, and so comparing it to BMW's roadgoing V10 in terms of philosophy is reasonable. And, as the winner, that shows that it makes about as much power as an engine 2.0L smaller. Torque's down, but for its displacement (which is the ultimate determining factor on torque generation in a NA car) the engine makes more than 100Nm/L.

The standard Gen III also had a peaky power delivery, especially for such a big engine. It does make a great sound though, especially through a half-decent exhaust, which improves the driving experience.

What about technology wise? I know that some LS1 variants can turn off specific cylinders for fuel economy, which is a pretty good thing, but anything else? Anything funky in its construction?

The speeds aren't surprising, since you've already admitted that the car's only 1200Kg. Which makes the performance figures somewhat moot, since its the car its going into that's helping with the acceleration and fuel economy. If I stick a Hyundai Excel engine into a go-kart it would make a bloody quick and economical car - it doesn't make it any less of a boat anchor. And considering most Gen III powered cars use similar drivetrains, which have 2 overdriven gears, it also makes economy an easy thing to achieve without having to improve the engine itself.

So yeah, I'm not kidding. Aside from being big, what does the LS1 do to make it special?

Edited June 3, 2007 by scathing

[BaysideBlue]

Ohh, I'm sorry. The 4-500hp ZO6 Vette is really a piece of junk then. All that power and 20mpg. Very inefficient indeed.

I said its hardly efficient, not "Very inefficient". Nor did I say its a "piece of junk". like what Scathing said the Z06 engine is not a mass production motor, there might be are more technologies in it than a normal ls1 or ls2. so its more efficient than a lot of other american V8s but its still a push rod engine.

I hope your kidding.

Heres what the current LS motor is doing in the new vette. Horsepower @ RPM 505@6300 and Torque @ RPM 470@4800 (foot-lbs) from a 7.0-liter V-8. 0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds. EPA city/hwy mpg 16/26. All that in a 3200lb American sh*t box of a car. You have no argument saying that its not a good engine. It's also very reliable.

lets see, the BMW M5 V10 5.0l:

0-100km/h: 4,2 s

Top speed: 250 km/h (155 mph) with limiter; 330 km/h (205 mph) without

Power: 507 bhp at 7900 rpm

Torque: 520 nm (383 ft. lbs.) at 6100 rpm

City (mpg) 12 Highway (mpg) 18

All that in a 4034lb german shit box of a car. You do the math.

Scathing has summarised it all very well. all the reasons for anyone to see why it would not win a world engine of the year award.

Edited June 3, 2007 by BaysideBlue

[Rabid]

First of all, I never listed it as a candidate for motor of the year. I simply said that as long as people are pointing out older motors that are good, they shouldn't forget about how good the LS1 is. It would be ignorant on my part to say a 6 year old motor (2001 being the last major upgrade to the LS1) can or should be considered for a best motor of the year competition in 2007. This is also why I specifically said that I think the Mazda Motor Corp. 2.3L DISI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Mazdaspeed3) is the best engine to come out this year.

Second.. The LS1 is definitely not a limited production motor, as it is available in the Silverado, the Trailblazer, the GTO, the CTS-V, and SSR, just to name a few. Also the vette weights 3200lbs, which is closer to 1500kg, not the 1200 you listed.

Technology isn't necessarily the thing that makes a good motor anyways. Audi and VW and BMW all have craploads of cool technogizmo's in their engines, but reliability is relatively poor in comparison to some simpler motors that produce similar power. You could also consider the fact that if they are getting 500+hp from a basically stone age motor, that number will only go up as newer technology is added.

it also makes economy an easy thing to achieve without having to improve the engine itself.

And thats why the LS1 is getting 50% better fuel economy than the engine your comparing it to. And they have very close to the same power output.

All that in a 4034lb

german shit box

of a car.

Anyone who thinks the M5 is a shit box is an idiot. It is possibly one of the best cars ever built. It does everything right. Performs well, handles well, seats 5, is comfortable on long hauls and looks great to boot. The Z06 on the other hand really is a piece of junk. So much money is spent on the chasis and engine and drivetrain that they skimp on things like the interior and whatnot so that they can keep the price down. Even that isn't working so well anymore as the car costs upwards of $65000usd now. Still, compared to the cars it can compete with on the track, its very inexpensive.

So Chevrolet's top-of-the-line factory tuned LS1 nowhere near the 100hp/L that the other NA cars are hitting as their target, and these days exceeding.

It's not about horsepower per liter, its about horsepower to weight ratio. If HP/L was the most important thing, everyone would drive a rotary powered vehicle. Since the Mazda 13b-twin turbo gets nearly 200 ponies/L. Or an Integra/Civic/RSX Type R. The weight of the actual motor should be taken into consideration as well. The LS1 in full trim with transmission is actually around 200lbs lighter than the skylines turbo motor and tranny. The Mazda 13b-TT is 70lbs lighter than the LS1 without transmissions attached. Not sure how they compare with the tranny's bolted on, but the 13b is also 250hp less than the LS1. Personally I would be more than happy with a 70lb gain to pick up 250hp, which is most likely why its a fairly common swap here in the US. The LS1 also takes very kindly to modifications, superchargers and turbo's are common among after market performance companies. Also, for NA drag cars (and yes, I know drag racing sucks), the LS1 is one of the top choices for engines and I'm sure the build teams put LS1's in their cars because they suck. I can't believe I'm defending a GM product. It has to be one of my least favorite car manufactures this side of Chrysler.

[scathing]

It's not about horsepower per liter, its about horsepower to weight ratio. If HP/L was the most important thing, everyone would drive a rotary powered vehicle. Since the Mazda 13b-twin turbo gets nearly 200 ponies/L.

Hate to break this to you, but the thread is about the "Engine of the Year" award, not the "Car of the Year". When you're trying to find the best performance of the former on purely numeric terms, the figures people care about are kW/L and Nm/L. Its only in the latter is where you care about kW/kg.

So, actually, when you decide to post on-topic you will find out that it is about horsepower per litre.

The Mazda 13B has the equivalent of a two stroke design when being compared to a piston engine, since it has 2 power strokes per crank revolution. So its 1.3L displacement is not an actual comparison against a 4 stroke piston engine. If you look at it as a 2.6L engine then its power is above average, but its torque is woeful. The thing also sucks fuel down far more than a 2.6L piston engine would so its not exactly extracting a bucketload of power for the fuel it uses.

[scathing]

Second.. The LS1 is definitely not a limited production motor, as it is available in the Silverado, the Trailblazer, the GTO, the CTS-V, and SSR, just to name a few. Also the vette weights 3200lbs, which is closer to 1500kg, not the 1200 you listed.

Firstly.....I'll agree that the LS1 in itself is not a limited production engine. However, the figures you quoted as proof of how good the engine is are for the 7.0L variant, which is only available in the Corvette Z06. And that specific engine is limited production. You didn't compare it to the cooking model, which when released in the VT Series II Commodore make 225kW (or around 306hp) from 5.7L.

EDIT: Got my cm -> in conversion mixed up with my kg -> lb conversion

Edited June 3, 2007 by scathing

[sh@un]

actually

1 pound = 454 grams

therefore- 3200lbs = 1452kg

[scathing]

Shit! Foiled! Where the hell did I get 2.5 from? Its 2.2

[Rabid]

therefore- 3200lbs = 1452kg

I rounded up =). I did say "closer to" though.

I like the Aero-X gauge cluster for your avatar btw.

[Rabid]

So, actually, when you decide to post on-topic you will find out that it is about horsepower per litre.

It wasn't until you started mentioning putting Hyundai motors into golf carts that I made my comment about HP/weight ratio. So since it was you who brought it up in the first place, perhaps we both need to stay on topic. Also I am pretty sure the 7.0L engine is available in the Silverado SS, The CTS-V, and the Trailblazer SS. Although I'm not 100% sure. I'll look later. The engine being used in the trucks might have different horsepower and torque numbers though because.. well.. they're trucks.

[SS8_Gohan]

Technology isn't necessarily the thing that makes a good motor anyways. Audi and VW and BMW all have craploads of cool technogizmo's in their engines, but reliability is relatively poor in comparison to some simpler motors that produce similar power. You could also consider the fact that if they are getting 500+hp from a basically stone age motor,

reliability?? you're kidding right? This 335i engine, the bimmer, just won an 12 enduro production car race at Bathurst. Spanking new car, not even an LCI update yet, so still teething, and yet, in production form, it beat "simple" V8's and "high-tech" japanese engines a like. If 12 hours of RACING around Bathurst isn't a testament to reliability, i don't know what is. These cars AREN'T highly modified, i don't know the exact rules but the modifications allowed is extremely limited as it's meant to be a good comparo for "production" cars.

On the other hand, the "simple" V8's here have had some quite MAJOR reliability issues. The 5.7l V8's.

that number will only go up as newer technology is added

Not the strongest point to make there. The technology isn't only available to Japan and Germany, and restricted to the yanks and aussies. ANYONE can use whatever is available. If BMW can get 310kw's out of a 4litre V8, and Holden here can't even manage that out of 6litres, what does that tell you? It was the aussie big litre V8's that were having the reliability issues here, not the BMW or Merc V8's.

I think it's laughable given the HUGE displacement of some of the GM V8's, and their respective power outputs... and then try and say, oh, we'll get there when the technology is added. Do they just plan to be 5 years behind on every single engine release?? No one is stopping them from using ANY of the technology available. All they seem intent on doing is increasing the displacement?? seems pretty backwards to me...

[scathing]

I think it's laughable given the HUGE displacement of some of the GM V8's, and their respective power outputs... and then try and say, oh, we'll get there when the technology is added. Do they just plan to be 5 years behind on every single engine release?? No one is stopping them from using ANY of the technology available. All they seem intent on doing is increasing the displacement?? seems pretty backwards to me...

You just proved Rabid's point.

GM, through the LS1, is very reliable at something.....chucking more cubes at the engine to make more power, and spacing out the gearing to keep the fuel economy reasonable, rather than improving the overall design of the engine itself.

[mad082]

Ohh, I'm sorry. The 4-500hp ZO6 Vette is really a piece of junk then. All that power and 20mpg. Very inefficient indeed.

these awards aren't just based off how fast the car can go. the LS1 is a rubbish motor compared to the bmw motor. there is very little techonology used in it. it is just a 350ci motor. it is no smoother than the old 350 chevs.

I think all the other cars you mentioned are V-6TT's

the rb26 is a straight 6

as for reliability, there a few common problems with the ls1. powersteering pumps blowing up, gearboxes stuffing up, a oil consuption tolerance of 1 litre per 10000kms (they will often use 1 litre of oil per oil change, and that is tolerated as standard from factory. it isn't until it is using more than that that it is actually classed using oil).

[342Four]

hmmmm shit fight i see....

the LS1 is an old technology engine - thats why there is the LS2, LS76 and LS3

mind you they are all alloy 4 bolt mains v8's with massive tuneability potential....

[Rabid]

Apparently people only read what they want to see. I never once said the LS1 should be considered for motor of the year. So for the people that want to post that it isn't better than the 2008 BMW motor, read my post before adding your comment. All I did was notice that people were adding comments like

Breath-taking but I am fan of the RB engine. Let us not forget the fierce power of the RB series.

so I put in my 2cents about an older motor that I thought was pretty good. No one comments about the RB being inferior to the new BMW motor (even though it is). They instantly jump on the LS1. So if we want to be fair, I expect someone to come up with a post about how shitty the RB series is compared to the new BMW motor.

with massive tuneability potential....

This guy is intelligent. You should listen to him.

the rb26 is a straight 6

I did say I "think" they are all V6 engines. I was wrong, it is apparently a straight six. Thank you for pointing that out. This still does not help out the people who were arguing that BMW wasn't the first to make an Inline 6 twin turbo, since NO ONE has mentioned another I6-TT engine.

gearboxes stuffing up

The gearbox is not part of the engine. It is attached to the engine.

powersteering pumps blowing up

Ditto.

it is just a 350ci motor

Actually the Z06 motor is 427ci. Nice try though.

chucking more cubes at the engine to make more power, and spacing out the gearing to keep the fuel economy reasonable, rather than improving the overall design of the engine itself.

To use your own argument.

The technology isn't only available to Japan and Germany, and restricted to the yanks and aussies. ANYONE can use whatever is available.

ANYONE can add more displacement. I personally don't think thats the best route to take, but I'm pretty sure someone will argue that I said it was. Especially since no one seems to read my entire post, they just see something they don't like and instantly comment.

reliability?? you're kidding right?

I seem to remember the C5 vette running in GT (Including 24 hour endurance races) for what? 6 years now. Seems like thats a bit longer than 12 hours to me.

[Rabid]

In comparrision all of the RB series engines are shit house in both design and function.

OK, so someone did mention that the RB's suck in comparison. You guys missed your opportunity to jump on him. Good thing I gave you the LS1 to talk about.

[Patto-]

Actually the Z06 motor is 427ci. Nice try though.

He was referring to the LS1 motor that you keep talking about. AFAIK the Z06 motor is an LS7.

However the LS1 was listed in Ward's 10 best engines of 1998.

[Patto-]

OK, so someone did mention that the RB's suck in comparison. You guys missed your opportunity to jump on him. Good thing I gave you the LS1 to talk about.

I don't think you'll find many people will argue that the RB isn't inferior to the 335i's engine. If they do they don't know what their talking about.

[Rabid]

The LS7 is just a newer version of the LS1. Its essentially the same motor. Similar to how the 4G63 was improved upon for the last 15+ years in the EVO's and Eclipse/Talon/whatever (Bastards got rid of it for the EVO X). They just add another number each time they improve it, instead of keeping its original name.

As long as were on the subject. The 4G63 is another amazing older motor.