High Powered Pushrod technology is better than High Powered Quadcam Technology

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Not here to create a thread just to start arguements but I have been doing a little bit of research on a few car forums and have come to this conclusion.

An LS7 motor is 32kg lighter than a M5 V10, and produces more peak power, alot more torque, with a usable torque band.
Not to mention its production costs would easily be under half the price.
Ofcourse that doesn't make the engine in the M5 any less impressive though.

BMW chooses the route of more complicated and heavier engines to make power. While their engines are impressive, they are too complex for their own good and they lack torque compared to a smaller and lighter pushrod engine.

A Simple large engine that makes gobs of usable power anywhere in the powerband is always better than a more complicated engine that is heavier, has a more peakier powerband, and a lot less torque.

Not to mention, the more complicated an engine is, the more expensive it is to fix and more likely things will break. The LS7 will also get better gas mileage and sound better.

As proven even with the LS1/2 vs Boss290 here, the LS engines although much less technology driven, with just a increase in cubes is capable of revving higher, putting more power down and in general being alot easier to expand its performance on.

Thats not to say the BOSS engine is not as good, it could easily be argued that if it were 5.7 or 6 litres it would be more powerful and it would be.
However it would also be alot heavier, drink more fuel and still has more working parts for things to go wrong.

The LS1 makes plenty of torque down low. It just has a smoother powerband than say the old 5 litre. That is why the 351 will feel faster down low, but it really isn't.

Well thats all the ramblings from me anyway.
Feel free to contribute and disprove anything I've said.

[Lukeyson]

can't beat cubic inches.

[Polyal]

Not starting an argument? The title doesn't suggest that.

[Yellow_Festiva]

What's the capacity of the V10?

The LS7 is the 7 litre right??

If the V10 is smaller (and I think it is) what sre the outputs of each engine per litre?

Some figures would be nice.

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

What's the capacity of the V10?

The LS7 is the 7 litre right??

If the V10 is smaller (and I think it is) what sre the outputs of each engine per litre?

Some figures would be nice.

LS7 = 7 Litre V8
M5 = 5 Litre V10

There is a fairly big cubes gap but as I was pointing out the M5 has alot of fancy stuff like individual throttlebodies and such as well as an extra 2 cylinders.

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

What's the capacity of the V10?

The LS7 is the 7 litre right??

If the V10 is smaller (and I think it is) what sre the outputs of each engine per litre?

Some figures would be nice.

Dodge Viper V10 = 8 litres

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by RAPID XR8

Dodge Viper V10 = 8 litres

isn't the srt10 8.3 litres now?

[McobraR]

Originally Posted by ken2903

isn't the srt10 8.3 litres now?

This year it'll be 8.4 and 600hp (tuned by AMG if i remember correctly), since the corvette has been whooping its *** around a track and a straight line.

But yeh, GM has definitely shown that pushrods are far from dead.

[Big Mike]

What a stupid statement. Seriously, if technology wasn't better than rubbish, modern European engineers would use rubbish. Alas, they use technology because of its reliability and finite controllability. Japs, use technology for similar reasons. Yanks, and therefore Holden, use age-old rubbish. Want proof? Sure.

My 1988 5L V12 BMW has travelled 270,000 km or so. It has a total of ONE rattle. Adelaide Motors have done the heads on ONE of these M70 engines, on a very rough car, which would indicate hard driving and little maintenance, and had travelled 650,000 km when this work was carried out.

A 1988 5L VN Commodore, is an absolute piece of sh.. if ever there was. Rattling and smoking, the clunking rubbish engine has ONE kW more than Ford's standard 6 at the time, uses a damnsite more fuel - and oil - than my BMW, is unquestionably falling apart internally and cosmetically, and no amount of regular maintenance would keep the engine going past 270,000 km without some expensive reconditioning work.

New vehicles are the same - the BMW M5 you mention is far more economical and responsive than the clunker you are comparing it with. The Chev motor may have more actual "grunt", but its not better by any stretch of the imagination. The BMW is smoother, quicker at responding to changes in requirements, will last many times the life of the clunker, and is finitely adjustable at every degree - as opposed to a fixed solid rod/lifter arrangement which can ONLY wear and lose accuracy by its very design. Its inadequate, outdated, inferior design.

Oh by the way, isn't this a forum for enthusiasts of Ford products?

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Big Mike

What a stupid statement. Seriously, if technology wasn't better than rubbish, modern European engineers would use rubbish. Alas, they use technology because of its reliability and finite controllability. Japs, use technology for similar reasons. Yanks, and therefore Holden, use age-old rubbish. Want proof? Sure.

My 1988 5L V12 BMW has travelled 270,000 km or so. It has a total of ONE rattle. Adelaide Motors have done the heads on ONE of these M70 engines, on a very rough car, which would indicate hard driving and little maintenance, and had travelled 650,000 km when this work was carried out.

A 1988 5L VN Commodore, is an absolute piece of sh.. if ever there was. Rattling and smoking, the clunking rubbish engine has ONE kW more than Ford's standard 6 at the time, uses a damnsite more fuel - and oil - than my BMW, is unquestionably falling apart internally and cosmetically, and no amount of regular maintenance would keep the engine going past 270,000 km without some expensive reconditioning work.

New vehicles are the same - the BMW M5 you mention is far more economical and responsive than the clunker you are comparing it with. The Chev motor may have more actual "grunt", but its not better by any stretch of the imagination. The BMW is smoother, quicker at responding to changes in requirements, will last many times the life of the clunker, and is finitely adjustable at every degree - as opposed to a fixed solid rod/lifter arrangement which can ONLY wear and lose accuracy by its very design. Its inadequate, outdated, inferior design.

Oh by the way, isn't this a forum for enthusiasts of Ford products?

Awesome.
Yeah I just wanted the other side of this story since I dont know the full story on motors like that.

I didnt make this to start arguements as I previously said, I just want to know what everybody elses opinions are.

Also that M5 motor while I agree on alot of your points, its still more expensive by a long shot whether it be to build or to maintain.

I still stand by my more working parts, more problems theory.

[mr_xr8]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Awesome.
I still stand by my more working parts, more problems theory.

so by this statement all piston engines are no good compared to a rotary

[mik]

it be interesting to see a comparison of these engines at 300,000 k`s, does`nt the m5 v10 make 385 kw?

[bonspeed]

Ok, but wouldn't the LS7 almost be at the end of its development? surely there is scope for more power from the others, I mean the pushrod V8 has been around for what 40 years now? yes they make good power but to make anymore they are going to have to add more cubes, what can we see in 2020' pushrod motors with 15 liters in capacity?

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by bonspeed

Ok, but wouldn't the LS7 almost be at the end of its development? surely there is scope for more power from the others, I mean the pushrod V8 has been around for what 40 years now? yes they make good power but to make anymore they are going to have to add more cubes, what can we see in 2020' pushrod motors with 15 liters in capacity?

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

I suppose GM switched to 6 litres as the standard to make the engine lazier and have more usable torque with minimal effort.
Excellent though when you throw a couple of mods on.

[bonspeed]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

I suppose GM switched to 6 litres as the standard to make the engine lazier and have more usable torque with minimal effort.
Excellent though when you throw a couple of mods on.

makes sense I suppose and there is no denying it that they are an excellent motor, I have a question , Is there any limit to these things? holden have been doing, computor and cam, intake and exhaust changes for what seems like 10 years. When I think chevs, cos lets be honest thats what they are I think lingenfelter. What sort of power are these boys getting out of LS7's these days?

[PepeLePew]

Dude I find it hard to agree on the LS1 having low down torque, even when edited/modified.

My manual VX was gutless below about 3000rpm standard AND edited but ate the road above it 3000. After heads and a heavily overlapped cam with tuning by 'those who know what they are doing' it still didnt have that real low down shove, but motored from 2500rpm+ (well ate rubber as well as road) up to her 300rwkw max.

Excellent engine other than that....loved the sporting character to it, unusual for a big cuber.

Of course having been in the passenger seat of a turbo equipped LS1 once upon a time THAT had savage torque almost everywhere

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

Of course. However there are things like emission standards and warranties to consider.

[Green X]

Originally Posted by GTS_300_Coupe

Not really.
Holden could've stuck with the 5.7 litre and increased the power output to 350kW if they wanted to with a few minor changes such as computer, exhaust, intake, cam, lifter, etc.

The 5.7 litre GTS motor made 300kW, a computer and cam edit could easily improve that to 340kW with hardly any engine strain.

I suppose GM switched to 6 litres as the standard to make the engine lazier and have more usable torque with minimal effort.
Excellent though when you throw a couple of mods on.

No, it's the only way they could get it to pass emissions standards with morer power was to increase capacity,

The Boss V8 made a emissions legal 320Kw in the form of the DJR cars, yes?.

In a few months the Boss engine will be doing 302Kw Vs 307kw for the LS2 that is over .5 of a litre bigger.

You can't compare a Boss V8 to a LS1/LS2 the later have had big development $$ spent on them for Chev sports cars, Ford Australia took a V8 out of a U.S SUV and tweaked it, with cobra heads and custom intake manifold.

I am not denying the Chev engines are a good motor cause they are, But you take a OHV and a DOHC V8 of the same capacity and my money will be on the DOHC every time, the fine tuning capability's on them is so much better .

Oh and the Boss eats both the Gen1 and 2 V8's for V8 growl IMO

[Tiapan]

Originally Posted by Green X

No, it's the only way they could get it to pass emissions standards with morer power was to increase capacity,

The Boss V8 made a emissions legal 320Kw in the form of the DJR cars, yes?.

In a few months the Boss engine will be doing 302Kw Vs 307kw for the LS2 that is over .5 of a litre bigger.

You can't compare a Boss V8 to a LS1/LS2 the later have had big development $$ spent on them for Chev sports cars, Ford Australia took a V8 out of a U.S SUV and tweaked it, with cobra heads and custom intake manifold.

hats off to Green X, exellent stuff

[fivepointseven]

Originally Posted by Green X

No, it's the only way they could get it to pass emissions standards with morer power was to increase capacity,

The Boss V8 made a emissions legal 320Kw in the form of the DJR cars, yes?.

In a few months the Boss engine will be doing 302Kw Vs 307kw for the LS2 that is over .5 of a litre bigger.

You can't compare a Boss V8 to a LS1/LS2 the later have had big development $$ spent on them for Chev sports cars, Ford Australia took a V8 out of a U.S SUV and tweaked it, with cobra heads and custom intake manifold.

I am not denying the Chev engines are a good motor cause they are, But you take a OHV and a DOHC V8 of the same capacity and my money will be on the DOHC every time, the fine tuning capability's on them is so much better .

Oh and the Boss eats both the Gen1 and 2 V8's for V8 growl IMO

Boss V8 growl??

Never had the opportunity to hear that as the Boss V8 is always out of ear-shot because it is so far behind me. Might let one keep up with me next time, put the window down and have a listen.

[Rock ape]

Originally Posted by fivepointseven

Boss V8 growl??

Never had the opportunity to hear that as the Boss V8 is always out of ear-shot because it is so far behind me. Might let one keep up with me next time, put the window down and have a listen.

People like you are the reason i don't like Holdens. :

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by fivepointseven

Boss V8 growl??

Never had the opportunity to hear that as the Boss V8 is always out of ear-shot because it is so far behind me. Might let one keep up with me next time, put the window down and have a listen.

Even though I own a Holden, you sir are a jack ***.

No one cares, because I do agree the BOSS sounds way better than the LS* motors, but they can sound pretty cool, with the right exhaust I guess.

The Aussie 5L is better for sound though.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by fivepointseven

Boss V8 growl??

Never had the opportunity to hear that as the Boss V8 is always out of ear-shot because it is so far behind me. Might let one keep up with me next time, put the window down and have a listen.

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

It was a warning, not a come back, when you come back in a week try to tone the trolling down.

Looking for a longer holiday ?
I thought you may have learned from the first.

[sexr6tasy]

I think i remember reading half you argument in the latest wheels magazine bmw wins holden loses the end

[4Vman]

This thread will go no where FAST.. stupid topic with even stupider comments..

[bonspeed]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This thread will go no where FAST.. stupid topic with even stupider comments..

Your stupid.

[GTS_300_Coupe]

Originally Posted by bonspeed

Your stupid.

Uhhh was that sarcasm I detected?

[J.C.]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This thread will go no where FAST.. stupid topic with even stupider comments..

Disappointing comment coming from someone who is apparently a valued and respected member of this forum.
The gent is entitled to start any thread topic that he wishes. Whether you or I think that it is stupid or not is irrelevent (however, there are boundaries) and the thread has progressed since and I wish to add a comment of my own.

1. Pushrod engines are still used in the aviation industry to this day, happily making over 220kws at 2200rpm (eg).
2. Pushrods have been around for many, many years ....... hence, they have been labelled as old technology, but it wasn't when all were enjoying the performance potential and its sweet sound .... that still seems to work OK for some.
3. OHC with variable valve timing has (in my opinion) the potential to out perform in the horsepower stakes on a engine dyno (but at what cost?). One of the contributing factors is the tuning ability and parameters that are available on the engine management system. (Ford has proven this during developement of the Boss engine. I have been lead to believe they achieved big numbers during tuning and durability testing. Bigger cooling towers were required).
4. The 5L Windsor was the first pushrod 5L engine in its class to produce over 1000hp (source: Windsor performance).
5. Ferrari have been using OHC engines for many years (LeManns, where they had trouble keeping up with the LARGER capacity Windsors and , due to the excessive rpm required to stay in touch, were failing).
6. Drag cars (and boats) still use old pushrod technology to propel themselves down the track, achieving 5-6 sec 1/4 miles.

We can all debate the pros and cons for days on this topic, but if approached from the right angle, can be beneficial to future car buyers and project builders alike. At the end of the day, its what the individual wants that truely matters.

Just for the record, if Ford could somehow increase the capacity of the Boss (say with the 6L block), I would more then happily inspect the bank balance and line up for one of its performance products. However, I'd most likely hold onto my dirty old pushrod Windsor.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by J.C.

1. Pushrod engines are still used in the aviation industry to this day, happily making over 220kws at 2200rpm (eg).

Yes but the aviation industry doesn't really have to worry about the same things as the automotive industry such as emissions. Hell GA planes can still use fuel containing tetra-ethylene lead yet car makers stopped designing cars to use it over 20 years ago. (Not having a go and yes I do know why they still use it in aircraft).

2. Pushrods have been around for many, many years ....... hence, they have been labelled as old technology, but it wasn't when all were enjoying the performance potential and its sweet sound .... that still seems to work OK for some.

Both technologies are as old as each other and I don't agree with people who automatically assume because something is newer it is better (and it isn't newer so that doesn't count here anyway).

3. OHC with variable valve timing has (in my opinion) the potential to out perform in the horsepower stakes on a engine dyno (but at what cost?). One of the contributing factors is the tuning ability and parameters that are available on the engine management system. (Ford has proven this during developement of the Boss engine. I have been lead to believe they achieved big numbers during tuning and durability testing. Bigger cooling towers were required).

Yeah OHC with Variable valve timing is definitely the way of the future though I once saw a company who made heads with a rotary valve system, I think it was called a 'Coates engine'. Can find it at http://www.coatesengine.com/index.html

We can all debate the pros and cons for days on this topic, but if approached from the right angle, can be beneficial to future car buyers and project builders alike. At the end of the day, its what the individual wants that truely matters.

True enough but I disagree with people who suggest that all cars nowadays are 'overengineered' and that computerisation was the worst thing that happened to cars. If they want to see an example of engineering gone wrong I suggest they look at some of the more recent Japanese cars that used carburettors - hideously complicated just to avoid putting in EFI (and to meet emissions standards). I think virtually all car makers have switched to EFI of some sort now but I still have nightmares looking at some of those abominations that they came up...

[bonspeed]

I sometimes get a little bemused by the attitude of some people, yes this is a ford forum but I don't understand why people are so "diehard". What is the harm in talking about other brands? Not every thread HAS to be about ho's.