Ford Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 168 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Future XR Owner
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
nice specs for sure.

But out of the box the LS1 was around the 257kw? mark before Holden applied their restrictions etc, so i expect this will happen again... the LS2 in base form will not bee 300Kw and 542Nm, believe me. It's just that these numbers will be very easy to achieve once a couple of things are tweaked.
 

·
RIP Sox.....
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
So basically it's a just an oil using, pushrod operated OHV gen3, only 300cc bigger?

Something tells me Ford have nothing to worry about at all......

Rick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
i think their worried they have nothing to keep up with us with,so their fetching at straws to compete,good luck to em*laughs* if they wanna do that why not go the full hog and just whack the 427's they use in nations cup into their cars,that might help *winks*LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Soxx said:
So basically it's a just an oil using, pushrod operated OHV gen3, only 300cc bigger?


Name an engine that does NOT use oil. :p
Plus reading the very basic spec we all don't know what has really been done to the Gen 4.

Something tells me Ford have nothing to worry about at all......

You hope.;)
 

·
Faster than Zyrtec
Joined
·
2,105 Posts
Aww comon fellas, the development of the gen4 and its 300kw has absolutely nothing to do with the Australian ford range. The Gen4 isn't a response to the 290, its just an evolution of the gen3.
 

·
RIP Sox.....
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
Danv8 said:
Name an engine that does NOT use oil. :p
Ok, as much oil as fuel.
All efficient engines must burn a small amount of oil, but not as much as a gen3.
Plus reading the very basic spec we all don't know what has really been done to the Gen 4.
True, but it does still use 2 valves per cyl and pushrods, so that really says enough for me.

Rick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Soxx said:
True, but it does still use 2 valves per cyl and pushrods, so that really says enough for me.
It is making 300kw and 542nm from one of the smallest and lightest v8's in the world that says enough for me. Could you explain why this engine would be better if it had OHC when all that would do is make the engine heavier, bigger, have a higher centre of gravity and be more expensive to produce, the power gains would probally be cancelled out by the added weight.
 

·
Just give me an excuse...
Joined
·
3,949 Posts
Ford better pull something out, Holden/GM going for bigger displacement what are Ford doing?? S/c??
 

·
Mr Photoshop
Joined
·
1,155 Posts
300kw would be not even close to the full potential of the LS2 and would imagine that it would make 20-30 rwkw (260-270rwkw) more than the LS1 when tuned properly and plenty more torque. The concept engine had 3 valve heads but not sure if thats in the production engine. Not bad for a dinosaur.
 

·
now with EF power!
Joined
·
891 Posts
Isn't the whole point of over head cams to minimise weight?
 

·
RIP Sox.....
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
corbz said:
It is making 300kw and 542nm from one of the smallest and lightest v8's in the world that says enough for me. Could you explain why this engine would be better if it had OHC when all that would do is make the engine heavier, bigger, have a higher centre of gravity and be more expensive to produce, the power gains would probally be cancelled out by the added weight.
So you mean all other engine manufactures have it wrong?? Well bugger me.....
Where did you pluck this figure of smallest and lightest?
BMW produce a 5L V8 with 294kw and 500nm of torque.
It also runs 13.5 over 400m in a 1790kg car.
Sorta makes the gen4 look silly doesn't it, and it's a full 1000cc smaller.....

But, they must have it wrong because pushrods and OHV is the way to go, apparently.

Rick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,457 Posts
Why have all manufacturers that i know of except GM dropped pushrod OHV engines from their range then if they are better than an DOHC engine. there have been plenty of good OHV engines but in this day nothing can compete with DOHC for power, smoothness or efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
LOL
Another god damned OHV vs OHC debate whats the point of it?
What next people will be bitching about how fast their cars ECU goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Soxx said:
So you mean all other engine manufactures have it wrong?? Well bugger me.....
Where did you pluck this figure of smallest and lightest?
BMW produce a 5L V8 with 294kw and 500nm of torque.
It also runs 13.5 over 400m in a 1790kg car.
Sorta makes the gen4 look silly doesn't it, and it's a full 1000cc smaller.....

But, they must have it wrong because pushrods and OHV is the way to go, apparently.

Rick.
manufacturers like BMW use DOHC because they like to use lots of revs to make power, naturally a DOHC head will have a better flow rate than that of a OHV, meaning it will be easier for the engine to breath at high revs. It is also easier to implement variable valve timeing and lift controll, but these arnt really needed if you have a large displacement engine. I will compare a corvette Z06 with a pushrod V8 engine(ls7) according to car and driver manages to run down the quarter mile in 12.5 seconds, while the ferrari 360 modena with its DOHC V8 engine does it in 12.8 secs, and remember the ferrari costs $100,000 US more. large capacity engines with pushrods are just a different way of making power...
 

·
RIP Sox.....
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
Danv8 said:
LOL
Another god damned OHV vs OHC debate whats the point of it?
What next people will be bitching about how fast their cars ECU goes.
I guess the point is to establish what all the hoohaa is about GM releasing a OHV engine in the year 2004-2005.
It may have been impressive back in 1970, but today it's a little silly and shows which manufactures are actually on there toes and are prepared to do the R&D to produce an engine which can hold it's head up high.

The gen4 may be powerful and have 'some' things going for it, however by current standards it is still very inefficient.
Anyone who claims otherwise is simply GM biased.

Rick.
 

·
Wildlife Photographer
Joined
·
1,413 Posts
Why doesn't Holden built there own engine, why do they always
rely on the damn Yanks and Europeans ?
Over the years Holden has gone from 4.2L to 6.0L, what's next ?
A 7L? They say there's no replacement for displacement, but
there is....it's called technology.

Just my 2c
 
1 - 20 of 168 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top