Comments on: GM considers LS9 for Camaro? New LS engines? http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html Car news, reviews, and specs for the auto-industry Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:03:12 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: travelinsurance http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-224106 travelinsurance Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:21:58 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-224106 travelinsurance <a href="http://travelinsurance.deep-ice.com" rel="nofollow">travelinsurance</a> travelinsurance travelinsurance

]]> By: Sigma Projects http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-209545 Sigma Projects Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:20:49 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-209545 Seriously, anyone who will agure hp per liter doesn't know a whole lot. All that stat is good for is getting a rough idea of how the power band will look. Like the 2ZZGE is a great motor and it produces 100hp/liter, but the power is practically unusable and most people never get to use it properly with its funky lift mechanism that eventually fails cuz the lifter bolts go bad after a while. And it's annoying when people compare the M5 motor to the LS7. LS7 is a track car motor, the M5 is the power with "refinement" I mean honestly when it comes to performance what are you looking for? The M5 motor weighs more, is more complicated, probably more likely to have something go wrong, is physically larger so weight ratios and CG take more effort to correct, has less torque, and will likely eat more gas since it will need to rev higher. For what? It's all for an image, sound and feel. That's what the M5 motor is, it's to be powerful but "refined." So people please stop comparing apples to oranges. If you want to bash motor to motor a better line up is the LS7 to the Viper's motor. Dodge should really open that motor up already, let it have at least +10hp over the torque figure since we all know that motor with some modding can easily hit 600hp. And if you don't believe me about CG and weight distribution ask yourself why do the GT500 supra use 4.5L V8s instead of turbo 1JZs or 2JZs? Or why have the RB motors been ditched for larger VQs? Especially since the HP cap was removed from Japan they all are bumping up the displacement. And if anyone brings up ferrari motors, yes they are friggin awsome, but they are probably the most unreliable motor and a tune up on them is a fortune. Ever hear a 15 year old ferrari? They sound so out of tune. It's like the ducaties a lot of people don't like them since they are very high maintance motors. Seriously, anyone who will agure hp per liter doesn’t know a whole lot. All that stat is good for is getting a rough idea of how the power band will look. Like the 2ZZGE is a great motor and it produces 100hp/liter, but the power is practically unusable and most people never get to use it properly with its funky lift mechanism that eventually fails cuz the lifter bolts go bad after a while. And it’s annoying when people compare the M5 motor to the LS7. LS7 is a track car motor, the M5 is the power with “refinement” I mean honestly when it comes to performance what are you looking for? The M5 motor weighs more, is more complicated, probably more likely to have something go wrong, is physically larger so weight ratios and CG take more effort to correct, has less torque, and will likely eat more gas since it will need to rev higher. For what? It’s all for an image, sound and feel. That’s what the M5 motor is, it’s to be powerful but “refined.” So people please stop comparing apples to oranges. If you want to bash motor to motor a better line up is the LS7 to the Viper’s motor. Dodge should really open that motor up already, let it have at least +10hp over the torque figure since we all know that motor with some modding can easily hit 600hp. And if you don’t believe me about CG and weight distribution ask yourself why do the GT500 supra use 4.5L V8s instead of turbo 1JZs or 2JZs? Or why have the RB motors been ditched for larger VQs? Especially since the HP cap was removed from Japan they all are bumping up the displacement. And if anyone brings up ferrari motors, yes they are friggin awsome, but they are probably the most unreliable motor and a tune up on them is a fortune. Ever hear a 15 year old ferrari? They sound so out of tune. It’s like the ducaties a lot of people don’t like them since they are very high maintance motors.

]]> By: Dustin http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-207753 Dustin Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:33:54 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-207753 actually the halltech corvette produces 1300hp out of a pushrod v8 actually the halltech corvette produces 1300hp out of a pushrod v8

]]> By: Tom http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-207349 Tom Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:27:59 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-207349 most of you seem to think displacment=size. theres a picture floting around of a 4.6 ford mod moter next to a 5.0. The ohc mod moter is much biger than the 5.0 ohv engian. the head on any ohc engions is as tall as the block! a 5.0 m5 engion wouldn't even fit in a vet, phisicly its much biger than an ls2/ls7. the only real way to compare an ohv and ohc engion is to throgh a fully dressed example of each in a tank of water and see which engion has the best waterdisplacment/hp ratio. i bet that 900hp 8.3 liters engion will be the smallest Naturaly asperated engion to produce that much power. most of you seem to think displacment=size. theres a picture floting around of a 4.6 ford mod moter next to a 5.0. The ohc mod moter is much biger than the 5.0 ohv engian. the head on any ohc engions is as tall as the block! a 5.0 m5 engion wouldn’t even fit in a vet, phisicly its much biger than an ls2/ls7. the only real way to compare an ohv and ohc engion is to throgh a fully dressed example of each in a tank of water and see which engion has the best waterdisplacment/hp ratio. i bet that 900hp 8.3 liters engion will be the smallest Naturaly asperated engion to produce that much power.

]]> By: Dustin http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-206513 Dustin Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:22:12 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-206513 well i no this is supposed to be about the camaro, but did any of the gm haters consider that the chevy trucks can out tow dodge and ford with 650 ft. lbs. of torque, or that the corvette Z06 is uncatchable on the track with the fordgt and viper in its rear view mirror. I suggest that the gmbashers do some research. and quick, before gm delivers another dodge and ford ass kicker, and then they r still unnoticed. well i no this is supposed to be about the camaro, but did any of the gm haters consider that the chevy trucks can out tow dodge and ford with 650 ft. lbs. of torque, or that the corvette Z06 is uncatchable on the track with the fordgt and viper in its rear view mirror. I suggest that the gmbashers do some research. and quick, before gm delivers another dodge and ford ass kicker, and then they r still unnoticed.

]]> By: firesq157 http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-205512 firesq157 Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:47:39 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-205512 Fn 10 year olds. Fn 10 year olds.

]]> By: Uncle Sam http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-205082 Uncle Sam Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:59:02 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-205082 Jimbo, if you're relying on Consumer Reports as your source, you're in sorry shape my Friend. Jimbo, if you’re relying on Consumer Reports as your source, you’re in sorry shape my Friend.

]]> By: Jimbo -- Gulph Mill$ http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-205021 Jimbo -- Gulph Mill$ Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:09:43 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-205021 Their are still fun ways to find you nub. First of all --- Honestly GMRules, i'm not a car or mechanical genius. I have however, read enough Consumer Reports to know that your posts on LLN reveal that you're talking out of your ass. Secondly --- I could social engineer the shit out of you. So leave the boards before something bad happens to your computer. Real bad. Their are still fun ways to find you nub.

First of all — Honestly GMRules, i’m not a car or mechanical genius. I have however, read enough Consumer Reports to know that your posts on LLN reveal that you’re talking out of your ass.

Secondly — I could social engineer the **** out of you. So leave the boards before something bad happens to your computer. Real bad.

]]> By: GMRules http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-204961 GMRules Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:01:11 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204961 Track ME down? Proxy, Proxy, Proxy Track ME down?

Proxy, Proxy, Proxy

]]> By: steven http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-204859 steven Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:11:14 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204859 Great post #45. I love how all the GM-lovers have no response to that. Great post #45. I love how all the GM-lovers have no response to that.

]]> By: KL http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-204746 KL Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:22:55 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204746 You have it backwards Piablo. Long stroke (not travel), more torque and higher piston speeds. Short stroke, less torque and slower piston speeds. That is partly how you can wind a shorter stroke motor higher. The Camaro rocks! We should all be happy that the industry (not just your favorite brand) is willing and able to produce these types of cars. Remember 1980 anyone? I don't really care to. They ALL sucked. So, lets stop the childish BS and get back to civilized conversation. You have it backwards Piablo. Long stroke (not travel), more torque and higher piston speeds. Short stroke, less torque and slower piston speeds. That is partly how you can wind a shorter stroke motor higher. The Camaro rocks! We should all be happy that the industry (not just your favorite brand) is willing and able to produce these types of cars. Remember 1980 anyone? I don’t really care to. They ALL sucked. So, lets stop the childish BS and get back to civilized conversation.

]]> By: GET SAVED http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-204696 GET SAVED Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:16:45 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204696 with the SS having 500hp,..not 900hp with the SS having 500hp,..not 900hp

]]> By: GET SAVED http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-2#comment-204695 GET SAVED Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:15:20 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204695 oh and my lineup is as follows,..$24k v-6,..$33k v-8...$42k SS oh and my lineup is as follows,..$24k v-6,..$33k v-8…$42k SS

]]> By: GET SAVED http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204691 GET SAVED Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:12:35 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204691 #44...VERY WELL PUT...There will be NO 900hp camaro,..c'mon guys that just sounds redundant..650hp MAYBE..noway 900,..think of reliability issues, insurance purposes..if it had 900horses it would be a straight drag car, not an everyday mustang beater! #44…VERY WELL PUT…There will be NO 900hp camaro,..c’mon guys that just sounds redundant..650hp MAYBE..noway 900,..think of reliability issues, insurance purposes..if it had 900horses it would be a straight drag car, not an everyday mustang beater!

]]> By: zerome http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204661 zerome Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:28:43 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204661 And you know what, that could be tru, if they knew that people don't want engines that are conservative of fuel they wouldn't give them high displacement. I do believe that the US companies CAN make an engine get more power from little fuel but choose not to do so cuz they are just intrested in the overall result... getting the hp goal that they want and it is SOO MUCH EASIER by just making an engine with a high displacement so they can get it out of the door and make more money ASAP instead of trying to refine the engine so it can be magnificant and do so while getting as much from a liter of fuel as possible. This is one of the reasons i give so much credit to companies who can pull it off without resorting to anytype of forced induction tecqniques because it just feels like cheating. AGAIN, i'm only talking about engines here, no mention of any type or kind of car. I know anyone has the right to buy what they want and I'm not saying forced induction cars are a piece but like # 45 mentioned, don't u guys look in awe at a company that can get that amount of performace from small displacement and not have to resort to forced induction? And this has nothing to do with the amount of cylinders being imployed or the structure (V, FLAT OR INLINE) of the engine. I believe its all about how you engineer it. Case in point BMW M3 Inline6 produces 333HP out of a 3.2L but if #45 is right, look at what porsche is doing, getting more HP and using less displacement (regardless of it being a flat 6) now that is a MASTERPIECE. And you know what, that could be tru, if they knew that people don’t want engines that are conservative of fuel they wouldn’t give them high displacement. I do believe that the US companies CAN make an engine get more power from little fuel but choose not to do so cuz they are just intrested in the overall result… getting the hp goal that they want and it is SOO MUCH EASIER by just making an engine with a high displacement so they can get it out of the door and make more money ASAP instead of trying to refine the engine so it can be magnificant and do so while getting as much from a liter of fuel as possible. This is one of the reasons i give so much credit to companies who can pull it off without resorting to anytype of forced induction tecqniques because it just feels like cheating. AGAIN, i’m only talking about engines here, no mention of any type or kind of car.

I know anyone has the right to buy what they want and I’m not saying forced induction cars are a piece but like # 45 mentioned, don’t u guys look in awe at a company that can get that amount of performace from small displacement and not have to resort to forced induction? And this has nothing to do with the amount of cylinders being imployed or the structure (V, FLAT OR INLINE) of the engine. I believe its all about how you engineer it.

Case in point BMW M3 Inline6 produces 333HP out of a 3.2L but if #45 is right, look at what porsche is doing, getting more HP and using less displacement (regardless of it being a flat 6) now that is a MASTERPIECE.

]]> By: Carnut4ever http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204636 Carnut4ever Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:02:57 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204636 Maybe because gas in the US(besides the oil-producing countries) is cheaper than everywhere else and is sold in gallons not liters. So when they are designing engines with high power, the bigger displacement is the simplest route to it. Maybe because gas in the US(besides the oil-producing countries) is cheaper than everywhere else and is sold in gallons not liters. So when they are designing engines with high power, the bigger displacement is the simplest route to it.

]]> By: zerome http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204616 zerome Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:38:55 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204616 Whats all this curb weight bullshit you keep talking about #38 I didn't mention any particular car, I'm just talking engines and what they give off at the crank. You comparing V8 and V10 is not the question here. I know that there are many factors that can reduce horse power at the wheels like curb weight, tranny loss etc. Question is why American Engines need more fuel to reach a target HP as compared to their foregin equivalent. Throw away factors of millage, price, pure enginerreing point of view. Whats all this curb weight bull**** you keep talking about #38
I didn’t mention any particular car, I’m just talking engines and what they give off at the crank.
You comparing V8 and V10 is not the question here.
I know that there are many factors that can reduce horse power at the wheels like curb weight, tranny loss etc.
Question is why American Engines need more fuel to reach a target HP as compared to their foregin equivalent. Throw away factors of millage, price, pure enginerreing point of view.

]]> By: Piablo http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204546 Piablo Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:59:41 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204546 Uh oh. James is pissed. Enlighten us James, share with us your vast techincal knowledge on TORQUE. Uh oh. James is pissed. Enlighten us James, share with us your vast techincal knowledge on TORQUE.

]]> By: Hemidakota http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204537 Hemidakota Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:49:09 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204537 Seeing the numbers, I highly doubt it will make production since emissions are hard to press for this size motor. Why? Dodge is currently trying to massage the latest 8.4-liter 700-HP for federal emissions. Kudos to the muscle car treo - GM, Ford, & Chrysler for bringing back the muscle heritage vice the weak pathetic gas savers. Seeing the numbers, I highly doubt it will make production since emissions are hard to press for this size motor.

Why? Dodge is currently trying to massage the latest 8.4-liter 700-HP for federal emissions.

Kudos to the muscle car treo – GM, Ford, & Chrysler for bringing back the muscle heritage vice the weak pathetic gas savers.

]]> By: ss http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204509 ss Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:25:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204509 as for the technology VS displacment debate...Porsche is making 425hp from a 3.6l flat six with NO turbos. where does that fit into your puzzle? as for the technology VS displacment debate…Porsche is making 425hp from a 3.6l flat six with NO turbos. where does that fit into your puzzle?

]]> By: ss http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204502 ss Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:19:15 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204502 i doubt GM will put a 900hp engine in a Camaro let alone the Corvette. Maybe that engine is for the C6R race car or some other prototype kinda car? a 650hp corvette is totaly possible and seems likly. but i dont think they will put that into the Camaro as to take sales away from the Corvette. I dont think the Chalenger is as competor, the 6.1l Hemi only has 425hp and i havnt heard any plans to put the Viper v10 in there. the Mustang will be dated by the time the Camaro makes it to the road, and there is no way they can redesign it and have the same impact asn the current one. Hopefully for the sake of GM they have a big hit on there hands. My line up for the camaro is as follows ~$20k V6 240hp, $27k V8 325hp , $35k V8 400hp; $43k V8 500hp. Droptop versions for each. Lots of classic color/sticker combos. i doubt GM will put a 900hp engine in a Camaro let alone the Corvette. Maybe that engine is for the C6R race car or some other prototype kinda car? a 650hp corvette is totaly possible and seems likly. but i dont think they will put that into the Camaro as to take sales away from the Corvette. I dont think the Chalenger is as competor, the 6.1l Hemi only has 425hp and i havnt heard any plans to put the Viper v10 in there. the Mustang will be dated by the time the Camaro makes it to the road, and there is no way they can redesign it and have the same impact asn the current one. Hopefully for the sake of GM they have a big hit on there hands. My line up for the camaro is as follows ~$20k V6 240hp, $27k V8 325hp , $35k V8 400hp; $43k V8 500hp. Droptop versions for each. Lots of classic color/sticker combos.

]]> By: James http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204498 James Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:16:01 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204498 You guys should be ashamed; none of you know how torque/power is made in an internal combustion engine?I guess it makes sense, because most of you guys are into imports This is an enthusiast site, but at least you admit you don't know, where most of the uniformed on this site just simply make up stuff and post it. That really pisses me off You guys should be ashamed; none of you know how torque/power is made in an internal combustion engine?I guess it makes sense, because most of you guys are into imports

This is an enthusiast site, but at least you admit you don’t know, where most of the uniformed on this site just simply make up stuff and post it. That really pisses me off

]]> By: firesq157 http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204401 firesq157 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:59:18 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204401 It's a free country to think what you want and buy what you want, now that being said what was the last time you went to classic auto show and an import brought out any nostalgia for you, even from model years you weren't around for. There’s no reason we should not be able make constructive arguments not sand lot brawls from either side. I've owned both import and domestic and I can tell you I’d care less in seeing my old Honda accord model years from now in a show, that’s not to say they don‘t make good cars. As for the Camaro engine anything could be possible in limited runs, I do wish GM would only stick to V8's in it but that’s not my decision, just my hopes. It’s a free country to think what you want and buy what you want, now that being said what was the last time you went to classic auto show and an import brought out any nostalgia for you, even from model years you weren’t around for. There’s no reason we should not be able make constructive arguments not sand lot brawls from either side. I’ve owned both import and domestic and I can tell you I’d care less in seeing my old Honda accord model years from now in a show, that’s not to say they don‘t make good cars. As for the Camaro engine anything could be possible in limited runs, I do wish GM would only stick to V8’s in it but that’s not my decision, just my hopes.

]]> By: Piablo http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204390 Piablo Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:36:52 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204390 Torque has a lot to do with how far the pistons have to travel. Short travel, high torque. Long travel, high horsepower. A modern camaro with 900hp?! GM must have been burning the midnight oil because they are coming up with some real plans now. This new Camaro is in the muscle car class once again, unlike the previous model. The previous model left off where the corvette began, so Chevy was never able to juice it up. Now that the Camaro is once again a straight line drag car, cram the biggest baddest engine in their and it will never compete with the vette. Torque has a lot to do with how far the pistons have to travel. Short travel, high torque. Long travel, high horsepower.

A modern camaro with 900hp?! GM must have been burning the midnight oil because they are coming up with some real plans now. This new Camaro is in the muscle car class once again, unlike the previous model. The previous model left off where the corvette began, so Chevy was never able to juice it up. Now that the Camaro is once again a straight line drag car, cram the biggest baddest engine in their and it will never compete with the vette.

]]> By: zan http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204332 zan Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:07:53 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204332 I think that GM will put a GM engine in the Camaro, but don't quote me on that. =) I think that GM will put a GM engine in the Camaro, but don’t quote me on that.
=)

]]> By: Carnut4ever http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204311 Carnut4ever Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:39:45 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204311 How about comparing two v-8 engines with the same displacement? One OHV and another DOHC and see which engine trumps the other in power and then we will talk. How about comparing two v-8 engines with the same displacement? One OHV and another DOHC and see which engine trumps the other in power and then we will talk.

]]> By: x23 http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204248 x23 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:06:12 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204248 "Why do american engines need such a high displacement value? Nearly every high performance engine that Ford or GM come up with is always with a high displacement. How come BMW can make an engine that is NA and gets 500HP and with only 5L but it takes an engine over 6L to match that if it was engineered in the USA." the 5.0L that BMW uses that gets 500hp is a V10 with a 8000+ redline. the V8 that they previously used (S62) got 400hp with a 7000 redline. i assume the 6.0L US engine you refer to is the LS2. a V8. comparing a V10 to a V8 seems sort of random... V8 vs. V8 first... the BMW S62 (previous M5 / Z8) gets 400hp from 5.0L with peak HP at 6600 rpm and 369ft/lb at 3800 rpm. the engine weighs 527lbs. now with that engine in a Z8 (no sense comparing the bloaty M5 sedan to a Corvette) ... you have a 3,495lb curb weight and 13/21 MPG. moving on : the LS2 gets 400hp from 6.0L with peak HP at 6000 rpm and 400ft/lb at 4400 rpm. the engine weighs 450lbs. now with an LS2 in a Corvette... you have a 3,116lb curb weight and 19/28 MPG. so a better question might be why the high-tech / superior BMW engine weighs more... is physically larger... and gets absolutely atrocious gas mileage in a roughly similarly weighted vehicle ... all while making less power compared to the horribly engineered GM engine. both have similar performance. just for fun... let's compare the newer ones... BMW V10 500hp at 7750rpm 383lbft at 6100rpm 4999cc 528lb dry weight LS7 V8 505hp at 6300rpm 470lb/ft at 4800rpm 7000cc 458lb dry weight sure it's 7.0L... compared to 5.0L ... and a V8 vs. a V10 but it's considerably smaller. and gets better mileage all while offering similar performance at a cheaper price. i guess i'm missing this supposed "lack of engineering excellence" ... as if displacement/hp ratio is the be-all and end-all of engineering comparisions. HP/L is the most bench-racerist method of comparison there ever was. and tells you exactly nothing. right up there with 0-60. oh yeah. and pushrods? they're actually a *newer* technology than overhead cam. just FYI. ...and i actually don't even like GM that much honestly. i just hate myopic ill-informed viewpoints and "facts" even less. “Why do american engines need such a high displacement value? Nearly every high performance engine that Ford or GM come up with is always with a high displacement. How come BMW can make an engine that is NA and gets 500HP and with only 5L but it takes an engine over 6L to match that if it was engineered in the USA.”

the 5.0L that BMW uses that gets 500hp is a V10 with a 8000+ redline. the V8 that they previously used (S62) got 400hp with a 7000 redline.

i assume the 6.0L US engine you refer to is the LS2. a V8.

comparing a V10 to a V8 seems sort of random… V8 vs. V8 first…

the BMW S62 (previous M5 / Z8) gets 400hp from 5.0L with peak HP at 6600 rpm and 369ft/lb at 3800 rpm. the engine weighs 527lbs.

now with that engine in a Z8 (no sense comparing the bloaty M5 sedan to a Corvette) … you have a 3,495lb curb weight and 13/21 MPG.

moving on :

the LS2 gets 400hp from 6.0L with peak HP at 6000 rpm and 400ft/lb at 4400 rpm. the engine weighs 450lbs.

now with an LS2 in a Corvette… you have a 3,116lb curb weight and 19/28 MPG.

so a better question might be why the high-tech / superior BMW engine weighs more… is physically larger… and gets absolutely atrocious gas mileage in a roughly similarly weighted vehicle … all while making less power compared to the horribly engineered GM engine. both have similar performance.

just for fun… let’s compare the newer ones…

BMW V10
500hp at 7750rpm
383lbft at 6100rpm
4999cc
528lb dry weight

LS7 V8
505hp at 6300rpm
470lb/ft at 4800rpm
7000cc
458lb dry weight

sure it’s 7.0L… compared to 5.0L … and a V8 vs. a V10 but it’s considerably smaller. and gets better mileage all while offering similar performance at a cheaper price.

i guess i’m missing this supposed “lack of engineering excellence” … as if displacement/hp ratio is the be-all and end-all of engineering comparisions. HP/L is the most bench-racerist method of comparison there ever was. and tells you exactly nothing. right up there with 0-60.

oh yeah. and pushrods? they’re actually a *newer* technology than overhead cam. just FYI.

…and i actually don’t even like GM that much honestly. i just hate myopic ill-informed viewpoints and “facts” even less.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204201 anonymous Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:44:30 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204201 From my understanding, more displacement gives more low end torque. Also, a bit of that topic, does anybody but me think 900hp is a bit overkill for a corvette? Who's gonna buy that? I, personally, think 900hp is a bit extreme. I also think that 600hp for a GT Mustang is out of the question (for whoever mentioned that earlier). I highly doubt we'll see much, if anything, with over 700hp from any US automakers. Don't get me wrong though, I love American muscle, I just think there's a lot of wishful thinking. From my understanding, more displacement gives more low end torque. Also, a bit of that topic, does anybody but me think 900hp is a bit overkill for a corvette? Who’s gonna buy that? I, personally, think 900hp is a bit extreme. I also think that 600hp for a GT Mustang is out of the question (for whoever mentioned that earlier). I highly doubt we’ll see much, if anything, with over 700hp from any US automakers. Don’t get me wrong though, I love American muscle, I just think there’s a lot of wishful thinking.

]]> By: zerome http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204182 zerome Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:29:24 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204182 so are you saying that an engine that gives out more torque is due to it having a high fuel displacement? Is this true? What exactly gives the torque output in the engine, I thought it was something to do with the way the cams are ... ie SOHC vs. DOHC since MB was using SOHC in their engines (in the past) it was generating a lot of torque but it was not doing it at a high displacement. so are you saying that an engine that gives out more torque is due to it having a high fuel displacement?
Is this true?
What exactly gives the torque output in the engine, I thought it was something to do with the way the cams are … ie SOHC vs. DOHC since MB was using SOHC in their engines (in the past) it was generating a lot of torque but it was not doing it at a high displacement.

]]> By: pj http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204176 pj Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:53:07 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204176 american engines have HIGH top end power and loads of torque thats why a 400 hp stock vette can burn some rice burner at the track that has 600 hp on a smaller engine its all about the powe rcurve sure on the street the jap car will win but on an actual track or drag the american will take it and thats where it really matters american engines have HIGH top end power and loads of torque thats why a 400 hp stock vette can burn some rice burner at the track that has 600 hp on a smaller engine its all about the powe rcurve sure on the street the jap car will win but on an actual track or drag the american will take it and thats where it really matters

]]> By: BAMF http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204159 BAMF Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:59:17 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204159 "Doesn't it show more engineering excellence if you can make a car go much faster using as little displacement and I'm only talking of Naturally Aspirated engines. What gives?" What gives is a lack of american engineering excellence, as you so eloquently put it. “Doesn’t it show more engineering excellence if you can make a car go much faster using as little displacement and I’m only talking of Naturally Aspirated engines.
What gives?”

What gives is a lack of american engineering excellence, as you so eloquently put it.

]]> By: zerome http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204133 zerome Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:48:24 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204133 Can anybody answer me this question: Why do american engines need such a high displacement value? Nearly every high performance engine that Ford or GM come up with is always with a high displacement. How come BMW can make an engine that is NA and gets 500HP and with only 5L but it takes an engine over 6L to match that if it was engineered in the USA. Doesn't it show more engineering excellence if you can make a car go much faster using as little displacement and I'm only talking of Naturally Aspirated engines. What gives? Can anybody answer me this question:

Why do american engines need such a high displacement value? Nearly every high performance engine that Ford or GM come up with is always with a high displacement. How come BMW can make an engine that is NA and gets 500HP and with only 5L but it takes an engine over 6L to match that if it was engineered in the USA.
Doesn’t it show more engineering excellence if you can make a car go much faster using as little displacement and I’m only talking of Naturally Aspirated engines.
What gives?

]]> By: Pruce http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204127 Pruce Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:31:53 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204127 V V, you are the master! :D V V, you are the master! :D

]]> By: GM go home http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204118 GM go home Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:19:19 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204118 Yeah! Way to go V V!! Yeah! Way to go V V!!

]]> By: cmoy http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines.html/comment-page-1#comment-204115 cmoy Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:17:07 +0000 http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/19/gm-considers-ls9-for-camaro-new-ls-engines/#comment-204115 gas guzzlers are for morons and rich wasteful people. those are the people who will buy this car once gas reaches $5/gallon gas guzzlers are for morons and rich wasteful people. those are the people who will buy this car once gas reaches $5/gallon

]]>