Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 81 of 81

Thread: GM's new V8 gets downsized

  1. #76
    Ride
    2010 Isuzu FXZ 1500 on 20's

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bogan enclave
    Posts
    992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Full Spectrum View Post
    Remember the LS1. Holden used that from 220kw. built it up to 250kw. HSV also played with it a touch more. but had that motor doing 285kw in their time. in the long run it's cheap. like soop has said, holden/hsv choose to go the larger motor. maybe for them that way is cheaper then the LS1 way before it ?.
    LS1 was 250kw out of the box. Holden detuned it to 220kw to start with. And I don't understand why everybody is bagging GM for bringing out bigger capacity engines? Nobody slamming Mercedes Benz/AMG for slotting a 6.3 Litre V8 into everything from the C Class to M Class.


  2. #77
    soop is offline Banned
    Ride
    2003 SS Commodore Series II

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Smithton, Tasmania.
    Posts
    3,851

    Default

    Exactly my point, its great when Mercedes do it, but bogan when GM do it.

    GM don't go to OHC and all the other wiz bang acronyms because what they have works perfectly well. AND Will you pay the extra money for a smaller more technical motor that costs more to service?
    Thats what they have to contend with. People aren't going to pay top dollar for a staple. And thats what GM vehicles are, they're the banga's and mash of the automotive world.

  3. #78
    Ride
    FG XR6T Ute manual

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Brissy
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravotwozero View Post
    LS1 was 250kw out of the box. Holden detuned it to 220kw to start with. And I don't understand why everybody is bagging GM for bringing out bigger capacity engines? Nobody slamming Mercedes Benz/AMG for slotting a 6.3 Litre V8 into everything from the C Class to M Class.
    Actually its 6.2litres and it produces a much higher kw/litre than the ls3
    Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise

  4. #79
    Ride
    FG XR6T Ute manual

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Brissy
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soop View Post
    They don't, they have different displacement to suit different applications. It just so happens that the bigger the motor the easier it is to pull bigger numbers out of it. It's holden and HSV that decide to use bigger motors. They could have easily put a supercharger on the LS1 and never had to worry about the 6ltr or 6.2. But that hurts insurance which hurts sales. And thats something you have to consider with the coyote motor.
    Sure its a new wiz bang supercharged 5ltr. Who's going to buy it? Not mum and dad, Insurance will be killer. Not nan and pa. Not unless one of them is a die hard Ford V8 fan. That leaves Enthusiasts.

    Not having ago at the motor it self, I'm sure its a great performer. But in the real world anything that has the air forced into is more expensive on every front. The only way to combat that is to make the NA engine bigger. Just look at Mercedes. 6.2ltr TT V12. Look at lamborghini, 5ltr V10's. Koenigsegg, 4.8ltr and a 6.2ltr supercharged motors.
    I'm not comparing LS motors to any of them with regards to performance, but the proof is there for all to see.

    There is no replacement for displacement.
    Are you trying to say that supercars have big motors and really good performance
    Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise

  5. #80
    Reaper's Avatar
    Reaper is offline Tells it like it is.
    Ride
    E3 Senator Manual, VP SS

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    SE Suburbs, Melbourne
    Posts
    4,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soop View Post
    Exactly my point, its great when Mercedes do it, but bogan when GM do it.

    GM don't go to OHC and all the other wiz bang acronyms because what they have works perfectly well. AND Will you pay the extra money for a smaller more technical motor that costs more to service?
    Thats what they have to contend with. People aren't going to pay top dollar for a staple. And thats what GM vehicles are, they're the banga's and mash of the automotive world.
    I'm with soop on this one. You can argue the multi camshaft/valves per cyl as an engineering masterpiece. I also very much appreciate the notion of keeping things simple in achieving an engineering goal. If 1 camshaft achieves your desired output/economy goals then why bother with added complexity??? So what, GM have gone the single cam DOD/sidi route as an answer over the alternative. What is more important? The end or the badge you get to put on your fender to make you feel good?

    Badges are just un-necessary slow imo

    Reaper

    Reapers Black VP SS
    0-60 mph = 5.39 Sec, 2.30 60'

    Quote Originally Posted by skruba View Post
    practice makes perfect dude i was (still am) my bros guinea pig,he has been tattooing for near 2 years.

  6. #81
    ari666's Avatar
    ari666 is offline captain halfajob
    Ride
    1966 impala

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    6,496

    Default

    says the man that doesnt own a chevy

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

LinkBacks (?)


Similar Threads

  1. GM's New LS3
    By knowledge_is_power in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-05-2007, 03:50 PM
  2. Vortec 4200- GM's answer to Fords 6
    By Sphinx in forum General
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-06-2006, 01:04 PM
  3. GM's Mistake
    By bangers in forum The Pub
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 21-01-2006, 06:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71