Supercharged LS9 - 620hp

[ms700]

Originally Posted by CDAA

Generally speaking low-tech performance engines usually equate to easier, cheaper power potenial gains, less refinement, durability and poor fuel effeciency. High-tech performance engines usually equate to much higher cost in achieving performance gains, excellent levels of refinement, durability and surprisingly reasonable fuel efficency. And Yes, there are examples that break this formula.

Well said.

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

More like a sledgehammer. But at the end of the day who cares, I'd rather a hammer over a scalpel anyday.

I agree! So a GT40 is a sledgehammer as well? And a stang.. dont know what the fuss is about

[drone]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

Why did you compare the the normal C6 to the M5 instead of the Z06? Is it because the M5 get's it's *** handed to it? and it doesn't look like the M5 "catches and stays ahead of the Z06".

video references here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOdEy...eature=related

how about against the M6?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovZWa...eature=related


and a stock Z06 verse a kellener modified M5?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEcfe...eature=related

what about the F430?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMqP...eature=related

Oh dear, looks like those 100hp/L cars are struggling to keep up with the pushrod...

Really, who cares if "The Corvette is on par with sophistication with a hammer", it does what it's meant to do.

Your claim about stroking the M5 to 5.7L, how expensive would that be? It will be just a pulley change and more boost on the 6.2L supercharged ZR1 and your be laughing all the way on the drag strip and track.

I would love an M5 though.

Exactly!

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by weenie

Is a zr1 anywhere near the price of an m5?? I think you will find that GM are just keeping it simple & cost effective, & producing a weapon of a car a a very affordable price. Just my 2c.

The BMW M5 US MSRP is $82,700.

The ZR-1's MSRP is pegged at $100,000. Yep, nice and simple and cost effective.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

Why did you compare the the normal C6 to the M5 instead of the Z06? Is it because the M5 get's it's *** handed to it? and it doesn't look like the M5 "catches and stays ahead of the Z06".

video references here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOdEy...eature=related

how about against the M6?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovZWa...eature=related


and a stock Z06 verse a kellener modified M5?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEcfe...eature=related

what about the F430?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMqP...eature=related

Oh dear, looks like those 100hp/L cars are struggling to keep up with the pushrod...

Really, who cares if "The Corvette is on par with sophistication with a hammer", it does what it's meant to do.

Your claim about stroking the M5 to 5.7L, how expensive would that be? It will be just a pulley change and more boost on the 6.2L supercharged ZR1 and your be laughing all the way on the drag strip and track.

I would love an M5 though.

All the M5board.com videos are 50-250km/h mate. If you read what I was talking about, its 256km/h (160mph)+ where the M5 catches and overtakes the Z06, when the Z06 puts it in 5th. I guess paying attention is difficult?

You do realise we're talking about a 1755kg sedan, against a 1475kg sports car (C6) and a 1418kg one (Z06). The highlight of the C6 v M5 idea was cars with similar power/weight (271hp/tonne vs 284hp/tonne) with one that has a massive torque advantage, and weight advantage, and aero advantage, not being faster.

Its a given that a Z06 will out accelerate an M5 (until you go over 160mph...), its 337kg lighter, with a sleeker, more aerodynamic shape, and more power (only 5 hp, but still).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMqP...eature=related

Doesn't look like the 482hp 1450kg 4.3 litre (112.09hp/litre, 332.41hp/tonne) F430 is struggling to keep up there mate, it looks like they're pretty even. (505hp, 1418kg, 7.0L, 356.13hp/tonne).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyQYoxEv-0Y

This is what I really like to see though. 505hp and 1418kg vs 473hp and 1589kg.

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by Steffo

All the M5board.com videos are 50-250km/h mate. If you read what I was talking about, its 256km/h (160mph)+ where the M5 catches and overtakes the Z06, when the Z06 puts it in 5th. I guess paying attention is difficult?

austyphoon still has a point though, just as drone also acknowledged

[austyphoon]

Originally Posted by Steffo

All the M5board.com videos are 50-250km/h mate. If you read what I was talking about, its 256km/h (160mph)+ where the M5 catches and overtakes the Z06, when the Z06 puts it in 5th. I guess paying attention is difficult?

Not against the F430 that was to 270km/h.

Please!!! are you telling me that between 250km/h-256km/h the M5 starts catching? you can clearly see in the videos that it's still pulling away at 250km/h before it pulls up. Do you have any evidence that the M5 will catch it or are you just assuming it would? And how many races are going to go to those speeds?

Put it this way, A Z06 is better then an M5 at being a sports car and an M5 is better then the Z06 at being a luxo barge.

[CAT600]

It's better to stop arguing with Steffo, you just keep him surfing the 'net for answers, which prevents him from having a life on Friday nights.

Daniel

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by CAT600

It's better to stop arguing with Steffo, you just keep him surfing the 'net for answers, which prevents him from having a life on Friday nights.

Daniel

Just friday nights? he has shares in google i think....

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Also, torque doesn't make cars fast...

but gets them faster quicker...torque gets it up and boogieing!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Nikked

but gets them faster quicker...

care to explain...?

[Nikked]

well my understanding is that touque helps shift the wieght, and is the true mearsurement for compareing motors.

[ea90gl]

the supercharged 6.2 obviously does have guts but i mean how hard is it to get that power with that many cubes and forced induction. Im sure most could all build engines to produce that power and reliability with the same cash or even less GM pumped into it. Give me motors like the classic BMW 6 cyl N/A 3.2 with 252KW or the new E92 V8 4.0ltr with a tad over 300Kw, they're the jaw droppers and there are plenty of examples around where forced induction has been added to these motors to give extreme results. Ok they lack the torque down low but how often do you have a motor that effortlessly glides to redline producing peak power and at the same time giving out a sound like a mechanical symphony. Any hows speaking of torque, you need a good balance of it and how much your motor revs to make more HP, take the formula HP = torque x RPM / 5252. The beauty of huge low end torque is it makes driving/towing so easy, but if thats all you got in the motor high RPM will be pointless aswell as lower than usual peak HP

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

the supercharged 6.2 obviously does have guts but i mean how hard is it to get that power with that many cubes and forced induction. Im sure most could all build engines to produce that power and reliability with the same cash or even less GM pumped into it. Give me motors like the classic BMW 6 cyl N/A 3.2 with 252KW or the new E92 V8 4.0ltr with a tad over 300Kw, they're the jaw droppers and there are plenty of examples around where forced induction has been added to these motors to give extreme results. Ok they lack the torque down low but how often do you have a motor that effortlessly glides to redline producing peak power and at the same time giving out a sound like a mechanical symphony. Any hows speaking of torque, you need a good balance of it and how much your motor revs to make more HP, take the formula HP = torque x RPM / 5252. The beauty of huge low end torque is it makes driving/towing so easy, but if thats all you got in the motor high RPM will be pointless aswell as lower than usual peak HP

I personally rate kw/kg more than kw/L. The ZR-1 engine weighs under 220kg and the M3 engine just on 190kg.

ZR1 = 2.10 kw/kg

M3 = 1.63 kw/kg.

And the ZR-1 engine takes up the same amount of underbonnet space, as it is not burdened with the inheirant width of DOHC.

I dont see why people would knock such a great package, be it a GM product, low tech, or just because it reverted to forced induction, it gets the job done nicely.

Daniel

[ea90gl]

Originally Posted by CAT600

I personally rate kw/kg more than kw/L. The ZR-1 engine weighs under 220kg and the M3 engine just on 190kg.

ZR1 = 2.10 kw/kg

M3 = 1.63 kw/kg.

And the ZR-1 engine takes up the same amount of underbonnet space, as it is not burdened with the inheirant width of DOHC.

I dont see why people would knock such a great package, be it a GM product, low tech, or just because it reverted to forced induction, it gets the job done nicely.

Daniel

yes but remember its not the weight of metal that makes power its the overall displacement of air and fuel that does, and to extract lots of power from a relatively smaller displacement is a feat worth mentioning. Im not bagging the vette engine, I would love to have one under my bonnet since Im a big V8 fan but to get excited over a blown 6.2 ltrs high output is not necessary, ofcourse its gonna make big numbers. I guess what I'm saying is if those power outputs were achieved from smaller displacement then It would be alot more worth celebrating

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

Not against the F430 that was to 270km/h.

Please!!! are you telling me that between 250km/h-256km/h the M5 starts catching? you can clearly see in the videos that it's still pulling away at 250km/h before it pulls up. Do you have any evidence that the M5 will catch it or are you just assuming it would? And how many races are going to go to those speeds?

Put it this way, A Z06 is better then an M5 at being a sports car and an M5 is better then the Z06 at being a luxo barge.

I don't know if its against TOC of the site to post links to another forum on here... but if you read some M5board.com and M6board.com which are the sites that made those videos we were comparing, you can read comparisons by people who own M5's and Z06's that assert my statement. To 160mph (256km/h) the Z06 will stay firmly ahead. That is the top of 4th gear at 7000rpm. The shift to 5th drops it to 5100rpm and it loses momentum because of it. After 160mph the M5 will reel the Z06 in and overtake it, and proceed to a higher top speed, 206mph vs 198mph.

Originally Posted by CAT600

It's better to stop arguing with Steffo, you just keep him surfing the 'net for answers, which prevents him from having a life on Friday nights.

Daniel

That crap is getting a tad old.

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Just friday nights? he has shares in google i think....

I wish I owned shares in Google! You know how awesome that would be? I wouldn't be killing bordeom on the forums... rather deciding which of my cars to take for a spin... the GT2, the F430 Scuderia, the Ford GT... so many choices... :

Originally Posted by Nikked

well my understanding is that touque helps shift the wieght, and is the true mearsurement for compareing motors.

Torque curve is more important then outright figures. One of the reasons the "low torque," small displacement Euro engines make certainly heavy cars accelerate so well is because they have long, linear torque curves. A high figure is useless if it all comes on in one big hit high up, for example. Take the B7 RS4. 4.2 V8, 309kW (414hp) @ 7800rpm, 430Nm (317ftlbs) @ 5500rpm. However, from 2500rpm its got 80% of that figure (344Nm) and from that point on never drops below that, all the way to its 8250rpm. Which is why its 1650kg with 309kW/430Nm and accelerates as fast as the 1475kg 299kW/542Nm C6 Corvette (6.0 LS2).

[Falc'man]

As much as it is nice to wring the neck of a high revving NA motor, its even
nicer having the power come on early when acceleration to 330km/h is not
high on the priority list. Having massive power at lower rpm always FEELS
better.

I have to agree with this post...

Originally Posted by CAT600

I personally rate kw/kg more than kw/L. The ZR-1 engine weighs under 220kg and the M3 engine just on 190kg.

ZR1 = 2.10 kw/kg

M3 = 1.63 kw/kg.

And the ZR-1 engine takes up the same amount of underbonnet space, as it is not burdened with the inheirant width of DOHC.

I dont see why people would knock such a great package, be it a GM product, low tech, or just because it reverted to forced induction, it gets the job done nicely.

Daniel

Whatever we think about specific power/weight/acceleration, the ZR-1 does
the job its intended to do. In fact, they (GM) should be thanked by us Ford
fans for this. Due to these motors Fomoco have given their performance V8
programmes the go ahead and have similar hard hitting motors in the pipeline
eg 5 and 7 litre twin turbocharged V8's.... I can't see many here willing to
bag Ford when such motors are released with similar specific power numbers
to ZR-1.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by CAT600

I personally rate kw/kg more than kw/L. The ZR-1 engine weighs under 220kg and the M3 engine just on 190kg.

ZR1 = 2.10 kw/kg

M3 = 1.63 kw/kg.

And the ZR-1 engine takes up the same amount of underbonnet space, as it is not burdened with the inheirant width of DOHC.

I dont see why people would knock such a great package, be it a GM product, low tech, or just because it reverted to forced induction, it gets the job done nicely.

Daniel

KW/L is a true measure of performance engineering, the weight of the engine is largely irrelevent as its just a small part of the total weight of the vehicle.... no point having a light engine if the car's an anchor...
KW/KG of car weight is a good measure of performance potential...

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

KW/L is a true measure of performance engineering, the weight of the engine is largely irrelevent as its just a small part of the total weight of the vehicle.... no point having a light engine if the car's an anchor...
KW/KG of car weight is a good measure of performance potential...

Bang on the money.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by CAT600

It's better to stop arguing with Steffo, you just keep him surfing the 'net for answers, which prevents him from having a life on Friday nights.

Daniel

:





Seriously though... 620hp in a road car? Respect.

Supercharger or not, thats huge power.

It's probably quite driveable too, thanks to the charger.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Steffo

To 160mph (256km/h) the Z06 will stay firmly ahead. That is the top of 4th gear at 7000rpm. The shift to 5th drops it to 5100rpm and it loses momentum because of it. After 160mph the M5 will reel the Z06 in and overtake it, and proceed to a higher top speed, 206mph vs 198mph.

im not a fan of claimed speed or book's/broucher's
but the math's on this is wrong
from 4th to 5th the vett drops 2000 rpm that = 70 mph
70 mph+ 160 mph =230 mph...so how does the vett top out at 198

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

KW/L is a true measure of performance engineering, the weight of the engine is largely irrelevent as its just a small part of the total weight of the vehicle.... no point having a light engine if the car's an anchor...
KW/KG of car weight is a good measure of performance potential...

Granted, for the performance of the car, you are correct.

However in discussing the efficiency of the engine, kw/L is not anywhere near as important as kw/kg in my opinion. Honda's S2000 is the most impressive engine I can think of, but I would not touch it with a bargepole.

pffft, 184kw LOL.

Lets do the CAR kg/kw thing then:

M5: 1830kg & 373kw = 4.9kg/kw
M3: 1650kg & 309kw = 5.3kg/kw
ZR-1: 1520kg & 463kw = 3.28kg/kw

Forget about Aero, drag, handling etc, the LS9 is the best:

Bang for your buck
Bang for your kilo
and
Bang per cm3 (of underbonnet real estate) production engine anywhere on the planet.

Now we have just proven the car is more efficient for it's weight as well, compared to Steffo's love-Mseries-child cars

Daniel

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by burnz

im not a fan of claimed speed or book's/broucher's
but the math's on this is wrong
from 4th to 5th the vett drops 2000 rpm that = 70 mph
70 mph+ 160 mph =230 mph...so how does the vett top out at 198

Maths doesn't equate to top speed. The Corvette tops out in 5th. 6th gear is to all to maintain top speed, so it drops off.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Granted, for the performance of the car, you are correct.

However in discussing the efficiency of the engine, kw/L is not anywhere near as important as kw/kg in my opinion. Honda's S2000 is the most impressive engine I can think of, but I would not touch it with a bargepole.

pffft, 184kw LOL.

Lets do the CAR kg/kw thing then:

M5: 1830kg & 373kw = 4.9kg/kw
M3: 1650kg & 309kw = 5.3kg/kw
ZR-1: 1520kg & 463kw = 3.28kg/kw

Forget about Aero, drag, handling etc, the LS9 is the best:

Bang for your buck
Bang for your kilo
and
Bang per cm3 (of underbonnet real estate) production engine anywhere on the planet.

Now we have just proven the car is more efficient for it's weight as well, compared to Steffo's love-Mseries-child cars

Daniel

S2000 hasn't got 184kW? Its got 176kW. Which is 236hp. Which is 118hp/litre. The engine that currently holds the record for highest HP/litre from a production road car engine is the SR16VE N1 from the N15 Nissan Pulsar VZ-R N1. 1.6litres, 147kW (197hp). That's 123.12hp/litre.

You've got the weight of the M5 wrong, its 1755kg.

Power/weight does not necessarily mean that a car will be faster then another.

BMW M3 E46, 252kW 365Nm, 1573kg. - 160.2kW/tonne, 232.04Nm/tonne
Chevrolet Corvette C5, 261kW 508Nm, 1418kg. - 184.06kW/tonne, 358.25Nm/tonne.

M3 = 0-60 in 4.7, 1/4 in 13.2.
C5 = 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 13.6.

Oh but wait? :

309kW/430Nm 1650kg RS4 vs 299kW/542Nm 1475kg C6 is nother example.
353kW/680Nm 1589kg 911 Turbo vs 377kW/637Nm 1418kg Z06 is yet another example.

PS - I hate the BMW M-Cars. I just hate the 'vette more.

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by Steffo

S2000 hasn't got 184kW? Its got 176kW. Which is 236hp. Which is 118hp/litre. The engine that currently holds the record for highest HP/litre from a production road car engine is the SR16VE N1 from the N15 Nissan Pulsar VZ-R N1. 1.6litres, 147kW (197hp). That's 123.12hp/litre.

You've got the weight of the M5 wrong, its 1755kg.

Power/weight does not necessarily mean that a car will be faster then another.

BMW M3 E46, 252kW 365Nm, 1573kg. - 160.2kW/tonne, 232.04Nm/tonne
Chevrolet Corvette C5, 261kW 508Nm, 1418kg. - 184.06kW/tonne, 358.25Nm/tonne.

M3 = 0-60 in 4.7, 1/4 in 13.2.
C5 = 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 13.6.

Oh but wait? :

309kW/430Nm 1650kg RS4 vs 299kW/542Nm 1475kg C6 is nother example.
353kW/680Nm 1589kg 911 Turbo vs 377kW/637Nm 1418kg Z06 is yet another example.

PS - I hate the BMW M-Cars. I just hate the 'vette more.

And in turn, I too. But I have enormous respect for the LS9.

1) S2000 is 184kw in its homeland, just as I have quoted all other cars from theirs.

2) Steffo, dont counter-quote C5/C6/Z06, were talking about the ZR-1 and in specific, it's engine. I dont rate C5/C6. (and the LS7 from Z06 does not impress me as much as LS9)

3) M5 weighs 1755kg. Ok, I'll correct the kg/kw to 4.7

4) E46 M3's engine was as heavy as the new V8, but only 252kw, thats worse again.

What is your point to all this? Just admit that the LS9 is awesome in its specific hp/torque production, and move on.

But please don't jibber-jabber about your uncles, sisters, cousins, former roommate's 1902 Porsche "Superleggeria" Twin Turbo that has nothing to do with this thread.

Thanks

Daniel

[pitpal]

Originally Posted by CAT600

And in turn, I too. But I have enormous respect for the LS9.

1) S2000 is 184kw in its homeland, just as I have quoted all other cars from theirs.

2) Steffo, dont counter-quote C5/C6/Z06, were talking about the ZR-1 and in specific, it's engine. I dont rate C5/C6. (and the LS7 from Z06 does not impress me as much as LS9)

3) M5 weighs 1755kg. Ok, I'll correct the kg/kw to 4.7

4) E46 M3's engine was as heavy as the new V8, but only 252kw, thats worse again.

What is your point to all this? Just admit that the LS9 is awesome in its specific hp/torque production, and move on.

But please don't jibber-jabber about your uncles, sisters, cousins, former roommate's 1902 Porsche "Superleggeria" Twin Turbo that has nothing to do with this thread.

Thanks

Daniel

Agreed with you on this one. Who cares about the euro cars to the degree your all talking about. Lets now drop it but its ok to talk about the HSV product as its FPV's direct competitor. Just my 2 bobs worth

[dadem0n]

If Holden can put that engine in the new mid sized architecture... Id buy one

In the current platform... no thanks.

[Nikked]

lol, when ford bang a supercharger i a mustang, its awsome "put it in the falcon!" When GM releases a supercharged motor, "its crap"

Idiots FTL

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Steffo

PS - I hate the BMW M-Cars. I just hate the 'vette more.

Car to explain?

Is not 'M' GBMh good at tuning? now what engine was in the maclaren F1...

As for vette's, you just silly : Vette's are sexy, sports cars!

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Maths doesn't equate to top speed. The Corvette tops out in 5th. 6th gear is to all to maintain top speed, so it drops off.

well yes it does, oviusly the vett is speed limited.
7000 rpm redline.
but only does 198@5800 rpm, hardly flat out.