-
yeah, Sid, never trust Wiki :)
Too many fanboys and "rumours" get written up and pasted into Wiki sources :(
used to be a "challenge" to see how long you coudl be listed on Wiki for somethgin outrageous :) :)
-
[quote=Sid447;966903]Hello Culver,
not wishing to split hairs here; the "weakest" LS engine was the RPO LR4 4.8 V8.
There is also a 5.3 V8 (RPO LM7) followed by the now out of production LS1 and LS6
5.7 V8's.
The LS1 came in various stages of tune from 290 (Holden Caprice) to 382hp (HSV R8 & HSV GTO).
The LS6 used all the same internal parts as the LS1 but used "243" heads and a different cam; this was validated at 400hp (J1349 standard, not J607 like the majority of other manufacturers).
The LS1 is capable of making 550hp without up-grading the internals.(source:- Richard Holdener, GMPP Group Manager)
link: [url="http://www.cartechbooks.com/vstore/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=2277&CATID=3"]CarTech, Inc.: Browsing How to Build High-Performance Chevy LS1/LS6 V-8s[/url]
Someone asked if there was a racing M3 with a straight-six;
The American Le Mans series used M3 GTR's with the 3.2 six but found it lacking against the Porsche 996 GT3's. It was then fitted with a 4.0 V8 for the 2001 season.[/quote]
You are correct... but so am I. You are correct that the lowest power V8 that was a member of the same basic engine family was less than the 345 of the LS1. I was thinking about that which is why I said LSx thus restricting the claims to basically the motors that did time in the Corvette.
Although I generically call that whole generation of GM V8s LSx that isn't a very good description on my part since they are related to the truck engines which were never called LSx.
I wasn't aware that the "LS1" came in anything other than ~345hp. I think the later ones were a bit more. My get out of jail free card would be "were the Holden motors actually called 'LSx'?"
Anyway, you are right to point out that the family of V8s did have less powerful motors.
-
Holden bumph tended to call them GenIII, but they were LSx engines. They started at about 300bhp.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS1_engine#LS1"]GM LS engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
-
[quote=Matra et Alpine;966907]yeah, Sid, never trust Wiki :)
Too many fanboys and "rumours" get written up and pasted into Wiki sources :(
used to be a "challenge" to see how long you coudl be listed on Wiki for somethgin outrageous :) :)[/quote]
Ha-ha,
Yes, aware of that!
In former days I had spent hours, days even, comparing different production engines and the BMW sixes always seemed to shine.
Looked a little deeper and noticed [I]at the same[/I] hp per litre as other config engines the straight sixes were shining.
Yes, of course I later became aware there are too many variables (which camshaft used, state of tune etc.) but I am biased to the straight six.
The wonderful McLaren engine was based on two M3 straight sixes. The original M3 was nothing more than the 3453cc M1/M5 six with two cylinders chopped off; that's what determined the capacity, 2302cc.
Even Chevrolet in the early days was struck on the straight-six until that Polish guy Alex Duntov went and designed the first production small block V8 for them. :)
-
[quote=LeonOfTheDead;966831]I wasn't talking about the block, just the crank, but I agree on your points about it.
You're also right on the I6's crank, proof I shouldn't post about tech stuff after a day at uni and that I need to ask a few more stuff to my teacher. :)[/quote]
[quote=Matra et Alpine;966863]No probs, why I clarified as it has been the block all along I have been talking of in the main. The crank is a "given" :)
I know the feeling. It gets worse the older you get :)[/quote]
So I've asked some additional explanations to my teacher... but he didn't reply, basically. He just underlined how, with inline engines, it's easier to get harmonics of the same phase acting on the crank and at the same time having them with a pulse close or identical to the natural pulse of the crank.
I'm pretty sure he had a strong reason to say that's more frequent with say an I4 or I6 VS other configurations, he just wasn't willing to say it.
That's mainly because he either tells [I]everything[/I] on something or he doesn't say anything at all. It would have probably taken more than the 5 minutes he was giving me to explain the whole deal I guess.
-
"wasn't willing to say" :) rofl :)
-
[quote=Matra et Alpine;967003]"wasn't willing to say" :) rofl :)[/quote]
Yep. There is no way he didn't know the answer. He wanted to keep for itself.
Selfish bastard... I may act like that during the next exam.
Not willing to give you the answer. That's right.:D
-
i chose the I6, no idea why.
-
or maybe realised that with modern materials the days of [B]resonance [/B]IN a crank are gone at any revs below the point a piston would disintegrate :) Lightened and balanced cranks ftw :)
I reckon he confused static balance, dynamic balance and vibration :)
-
[quote=Matra et Alpine;967016]or maybe realised that with modern materials the days of [B]resonance [/B]IN a crank are gone at any revs below the point a piston would disintegrate :) Lightened and balanced cranks ftw :)
I reckon he confused static balance, dynamic balance and vibration :)[/quote]
No way he confused by that much. The worst he can do is confusing "a" with "A" in a page of equations. The man is like a computer, in every aspect.
In his mind no matter how good modern materials and technologies are, they are still not perfect. He was also contemplating cranks in other applications, so not only ICEs.
He even jocked about the fact he himself thought that stuff was a bit too much on the theoretical side of things in the past, but then faced those equations many times over his various projects.
He knows way too much, really, so many times he just can't simplify things. Too many mistakes would be done!!!:eek:
I still have to do his the exam so everything he says is like the bible to me, and after the exam, well, the real world will be there for me to see :D
-
[quote=Sid447;966971]Ha-ha,
Yes, aware of that!
In former days I had spent hours, days even, comparing different production engines and the BMW sixes always seemed to shine.
Looked a little deeper and noticed [I]at the same[/I] hp per litre as other config engines the straight sixes were shining.
Yes, of course I later became aware there are too many variables (which camshaft used, state of tune etc.) but I am biased to the straight six.
The wonderful McLaren engine was based on two M3 straight sixes. The original M3 was nothing more than the 3453cc M1/M5 six with two cylinders chopped off; that's what determined the capacity, 2302cc.
Even Chevrolet in the early days was struck on the straight-six until that Polish guy Alex Duntov went and designed the first production small block V8 for them. :)[/quote]
Duntov didn't design the V8. He was the Corvette's chief engineer but the V8 was not his project. He also wasn't Polish. And his first name wasn't Alex. And GM used straight sixes long after the small block V8 was introduced.
-
[quote=culver;967023]Duntov didn't design the V8. He was the Corvette's chief engineer but the V8 was not his project. He also wasn't Polish. And his first name wasn't Alex. And GM used straight sixes long after the small block V8 was introduced.[/quote]
Correct. The small-block V8 was an engineering project run by Ed Cole and introduced in 1955 in 265ci form. Zora Arkus Duntov was born in Belgium to Russian Jewish parents... he took his last name from his mother's second husband. At the very beginning of WW2 he emigrated to the USA and set up an engineering shop in New York with his brother Yura. GM hired him on the strength of the design work they had proven in modifying the Ford flathead V8 into a dominant racing engine. That company was Ardun, and their OHV heads on the Ford 60 could be considered GM's impetus to develop the SBC. :cool:
EDIT: FWIW, Chevy's "stovebolt" I6 was introduced in 1929 and remained in production both at GM and under license well into the '90s.
Quite successful in it's own right.
-
[quote=csl177;967025]Correct. The small-block V8 was an engineering project run by Ed Cole and introduced in 1955 in 265ci form. Zora Arkus Duntov was born in Belgium to Russian Jewish parents... he took his last name from his mother's second husband. At the very beginning of WW2 he emigrated to the USA and set up an engineering shop in New York with his brother Yura. GM hired him on the strength of the design work they had proven in modifying the Ford flathead V8 into a dominant racing engine. That company was Ardun, and their OHV heads on the Ford 60 could be considered GM's impetus to develop the SBC. :cool:
EDIT: FWIW, Chevy's "stovebolt" I6 was introduced in 1929 and remained in production both at GM and under license well into the '90s.
Quite successful in it's own right.[/quote]
and reportedly, the Chevy engine was "heavily inspired" by BMW's all alloy 2.6 introduced in 1954.
-
[quote=culver;967023]Duntov didn't design the V8. He was the Corvette's chief engineer but the V8 was not his project. He also wasn't Polish. And his first name wasn't Alex. And GM used straight sixes long after the small block V8 was introduced.[/quote]
I,
Just like you .....and anyone else! can't be guaranteed to get it right all the time. :)
-
[quote=Sid447;967032]I,
Just like you .....and anyone else! can't be guaranteed to get it right all the time. :)[/quote]
If we were all right all the time we wouldn't have to talk to each other. What fun would that be!
:)