Bobzilla wrote: is that graph showing 390ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpms and carrying that through 6000rpms after peaking out at 450ftlbs? That's one hell of a power band.
Yeah, that's also showing that it has a better torque band than the outgoing Z06 
Bobzilla wrote: is that graph showing 390ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpms and carrying that through 6000rpms after peaking out at 450ftlbs? That's one hell of a power band.
Yeah, that's also showing that it has a better torque band than the outgoing Z06
Knurled wrote: I can't think of anything that is throttle by cable. Even the super cheap Korean cars are drive by wire. They have a throttle cable that goes to a remote mounted APS unit and not the throttle body. (Yes, weird) Given that GM was one of the first companies to use throttle by wire, and incorporate it across the board, not using it would make little sense. (next up: points ignition)
Honda has been doing that since .... 2003?
In reply to Knurled:
Almost. For an engine to make the power to reach the high RPM's, it must be able to pump enough air. That means higher efficiency is needed. It also has to be built to withstand the stress of revving that high, although that's another issue.
Javelin, Please go and edit your post which referenced "specific output" and everyone else go edit out theirs and we can discuss something like, I don't know, the new GM V8.
Knurled wrote: I can't think of anything that is throttle by cable. Even the super cheap Korean cars are drive by wire. They have a throttle cable that goes to a remote mounted APS unit and not the throttle body. (Yes, weird)
OFF TOPIC POST BELOW 
ORLY.... I wonder what kind of output they produce, IE- 0-5v with redunancy of 5-0v reference. Those could come in really handy for challenge pruposes....
tuna55 wrote: Javelin, Please go and edit your post which referenced "specific output" and everyone else go edit out theirs and we can discuss something like, I don't know, the new GM V8.
I want to talk about what ORLY means.
tuna55 wrote: Javelin, Please go and edit your post which referenced "specific output" and everyone else go edit out theirs and we can discuss something like, I don't know, the new GM V8.
Sheesh you reference some obscure piece of GM marketing (which I'm sure had some ridiculous qualifier like TQ/Lb engine weight in 08MY sold in the US only or some such jazz) and everybody wants to suddenly be an internet engine efficiency expert. It's in the links/news stories, I don't actually care.
What I do care about is the engineering behind this new LT1, which is being reported as sharing only a ziploc baggy of parts with the LS-series (and imagine that's probably rod bearings?).
Ranger50 wrote: Complete artist cutaway:
David Kimble is superhuman.
DI on that engine is certainly interesting.
(but I hope it was actually work done by GM and not someone else... I don't like the work of the company they've used before for all but the components)
((also kind of sad that so few appreciate better fuel economy and emissions performance vs. a minor improvement in power- for street cars, how much is enough? So very few use the power they have already))
In reply to tuna55:
I think we should rather talk about flapjacks, glorious flapjacks......
Man, all of this hp/L stuff made me start having flashbacks to Clubsi.com circa 2001.
I hear all this and think how badly a F1 engine would work in a Chevy 2500.
Only thing I don't get is why they're so quickly resuing the LT1 moniker. I mean, they still had LSB-W, Y, and Z, and the 24 other letters they could use before T.
ReverendDexter wrote: Only thing I don't get is why they're so quickly resuing the LT1 moniker. I mean, they still had LSB-W, Y, and Z, and the 24 other letters they could use before T.
I hear you. Their nomenclature makes little sense. The recent LT1 was too recent. The LS1 is one letter BEFORE the LT1, so the next logical jump would be LR1, if you assume the number is some sort of revision or variant and the L can't be changed. I would have also understood MS1 or some such change as well. Oh well, gobs of HP, torque, inexpensively, reliably, and with little pollution. If the team keeps winning games, we can't be too picky about what color their jerseys are.
alfadriver wrote: ((also kind of sad that so few appreciate better fuel economy and emissions performance vs. a minor improvement in power- for street cars, how much is enough? So very few use the power they have already))
While I don't condone hooning on the streets...
If I were to buy a new car, I want it to lay a patch in 3rd gear. That requires a fair chunk of torque.
Of course, topping any modern car out in 2nd gear is usually 0-"mandatory court date" in about 5.0s, so I do see your point.
novaderrik wrote:WilberM3 wrote: the specific output i am really interested in is HP/lb. i wouldnt be surprised to find GM's gen3+ aluminum variants to be some of the highest of current production engines. and i dont think you can include the LS9 or the shelby as once it's force fed it's a different ballgame.power is power- the tires know not or care not what is providing the power, they only know and care that there is power.
oh i know, and for a production vehicle absolutely, but what i was really talking about was how much HP and torque does this engine make compared to its physical weight and size... as in what else can i stuff it in and how easily will it fit.
and that's really why the answer is so often pushrod V8, so i love that theyre sticking with that layout for their next gen of engines.
my comment about the LS9/shelby was only in talking about output/displacement
I should put up a newly "built" LT1 from a 90's caprice on ebay for $10k without pictures when these come out......the auction is still for a LT1 that was recently built, amirite?
[/trolling the lt-1 name]
yamaha wrote: I should put up a newly "built" LT1 from a 90's caprice on ebay for $10k without pictures when these come out......the auction is still for a LT1 that was recently built, amirite? [/trolling the lt-1 name]
If you're going to be fraudulent, at least be hilarious:
http://xkcd.com/325/
tuna55 wrote:ReverendDexter wrote: Only thing I don't get is why they're so quickly resuing the LT1 moniker. I mean, they still had LSB-W, Y, and Z, and the 24 other letters they could use before T.I hear you. Their nomenclature makes little sense. The recent LT1 was too recent. The LS1 is one letter BEFORE the LT1, so the next logical jump would be LR1, if you assume the number is some sort of revision or variant and the L can't be changed. I would have also understood MS1 or some such change as well. Oh well, gobs of HP, torque, inexpensively, reliably, and with little pollution. If the team keeps winning games, we can't be too picky about what color their jerseys are.
GM is just reusing existing engine codes like they have done for quite a while (kinda a weak nostagla thing). LS3, LS5, LS6, LS7 were all Big Block Chevys before they were LS engines (okay maybe not the LS5). They have also reused ZL1, ZR1 and others as well. L codes have traditionally been for engines, so that may be why they keep it going.
The LT1 thing is just what happens when the fundamental preference to make information coherent and sensible goes up against a marketing department's observation of perceived cachet.
It's aggravating, and it's going to cost actual people actual time and energy sorting out what the berkeley is on eBay or CL down the road.
ransom wrote: The LT1 thing is just what happens when the fundamental preference to make information coherent and sensible goes up against a marketing department's observation of perceived cachet. It's aggravating, and it's going to cost actual people actual time and energy sorting out what the berkeley is on eBay or CL down the road.
Thats what I was hinting at......when these come out, I would not advise anyone to buy one off an ebay auction......also, bobcat in a box was epic tuna
ransom wrote: The LT1 thing is just what happens when the fundamental preference to make information coherent and sensible goes up against a marketing department's observation of perceived cachet. It's aggravating, and it's going to cost actual people actual time and energy sorting out what the berkeley is on eBay or CL down the road.
It is kinda like Star Wars you have to say the old or good Star Wars trilogy versus those other three films we don't speak of.
Ranger50 wrote: OFF TOPIC POST BELOW
I dunno. I'll find a part number for you and hook you up with the knoweldge. I've done a couple on Hyundai something-or-others and hung on to one of them for... expermentation purposes.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to Knurled: Almost. For an engine to make the power to reach the high RPM's, it must be able to pump enough air. That means higher efficiency is needed.
That's airflow efficiency, not thermatl or mechanical efficiency.
One fo the stock-car engineers was at a seminar and pointed out that thermal and mechanical efficiency is key. He said, we're burning 2500hp worth of fuel but only getting 900hp out of it. The rest gets lost to the exhaust system and cooling systems. There's a lot more HP in chasing those inefficiencies than there is in spinning higher/moving more air.
Coincidentally enough, better thermal and mechanical efficiency increases torque/displacement, as well as generally results in higher fuel economy.
In reply to Knurled:
I hate to continue this, as it's a little off topic, but to respond to your first sentence, I don't see how that is in conflict to what I said. I know all about the different efficiency's, but I don't see anywhere here were anyone made any distinction as to what type of efficiency we were talking about. An engine that is more efficient at moving air through it is more efficient. I work with airflow every day, so my mind went there. You were thinking of a different kind of efficiency, and that's fine too. But don't make a statement implying I'm incorrect when I'm not. Thanks.
You'll need to log in to post.
