Chev's new V8.

[FPV8U]

Will be interisting to see how this new 5.5L V8 Compares, stepping down in Size, i can sence the LS1.com boys not liking that.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by FPV8U

Will be interisting to see how this new 5.5L V8 Compares, stepping down in Size, i can sence the LS1.com boys not liking that.

HEHE, we love DI though :P.

If you visit GMinsidenews forums, you'll have read that the 5.5l is a race only displacement.

The 5.5l will not be seen in a production car.

So the displacement is still unknown.

Personally I hope they keep the same displacement and boost the top end HP 15%, as well as allowing the HP and torque to be available lower with DI and VVT.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Deco28

HEHE, we love DI though :P.

If you visit GMinsidenews forums, you'll have read that the 5.5l is a race only displacement.

The 5.5l will not be seen in a production car.

So the displacement is still unknown.

Personally I hope they keep the same displacement and boost the top end HP 15%, as well as allowing the HP and torque to be available lower with DI and VVT.

Correct. Same bore as LS3 means there's a lot of scope, and a lot of power.

[redauxr8]

Originally Posted by burnz

VTII-1999 got the LS1 as well the callaway unit.
VY-2002 got the L98 hsv 285
vz-2004 297
yzii-ls2

VT series 2 to early VZ SS's got the LS1's
Late VZ SS's got the L76, 6 Litre
VZ clubsports got the LS2
VE SS's got the L98, 6 Litre
VE Clubsports got the LS2 and LS3

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by smoo

It makes me laugh that a lot of Ford boys jumped on the ohc band wagon in 2002 when the BA came out. If they were so convinced they would have been making a scene ten years earlier when pretty much every jappa and euro had ohc.

It makes me laugh when u have no idea what you are talking about. As the falcon six has been ohc since 1988 whilst 'every jappa and euro had ohc'

[smoo]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

It makes me laugh when u have no idea what you are talking about. As the falcon six has been ohc since 1988 whilst 'every jappa and euro had ohc'

Point out the obvious. The old sohc is hardly a world class engine (maybe the AU VCT), especially compared to a BMW, Nissan ohc I6, so your point is not relevant. I noticed it was the launch of the BA when Ford fans jumped on their high horse over dohc. Too bad the SBC walked over the BOSS.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by smoo

Point out the obvious. The old sohc is hardly a world class engine (maybe the AU VCT), especially compared to a BMW, Nissan ohc I6, so your point is not relevant. I noticed it was the launch of the BA when Ford fans jumped on their high horse over dohc. Too bad the SBC walked over the BOSS.

I'd take issue with that statement. Sure maybe late in its life (i.e. AU) it was a bit outdated (though it still delivered the goods) spec wise but if you look at the EA and then EF spec of the engine it was quite up to date with world best practice. The only thing it was slow to introduce was 4valves...people forget VCT was not a common occurance on mainstream production car engines till the late 90s. There are still models on sale right now that have only VCT on the intake bank.....

Not sure how this debate is relevant to the topic anyway.

To this end, i'd put in my two bobs RE the chev v8. Everything i have read puts the date for the all new GM V8 as late 2011 if not 2012. No way will GM have it in production within 18months.....

I think the issue for the current LS engines is not so much meating Euro4 (which they can do), but meating the power, torque, efficiency standards as well. When you don't have VCT that hurts you a fair bit, much more than the notional 'unadvanced' pushrod 2v head does. You need the engine to be on target emission wise on start up.....and then that same engine with the non adjustable cams etc. has to make the power/torque you want. Any wonder why the AFM V8 'lost' 10kw.....same reason. Getting the thing to run smoothly on 4pots meant they had to compromise the set up for when it was on 8....

[big_landau]

hopefully its a good move as far as ford is concerend as the 5,4 has had a flogging by the chev in the last 7 years.

[Saraco]

Originally Posted by big_landau

hopefully its a good move as far as ford is concerend as the 5,4 has had a flogging by the chev in the last 7 years.

Not just the GM LS SERIES, the 3 GENERATION CHRYSLER HEMI kicked the 5.4's butt too!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by svov88

Not just the GM LS SERIES, the 3 GENERATION CHRYSLER HEMI kicked the 5.4's butt too!

Yeah.. and that's been such a huge sales success hasn't it.....

[Saraco]

IT is a huge success in the US, whereas the 5.4 is a curiosity over there, the only way to get MOD motors to run hard, to compete against LS and HEMI is to supercharge them.P.S. I'm sure if 300C'S , NEW CHALLENGER'S etc. were built here i.e. cheaper,they'll be selling a lot more of them.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by svov88

IT is a huge success in the US, whereas the 5.4 is a curiosity over there, the only way to get MOD motors to run hard, to compete against LS and HEMI is to supercharge them.P.S. I'm sure if 300C'S , NEW CHALLENGER'S etc. were built here i.e. cheaper,they'll be selling a lot more of them.

Um no, our BOSS is not in the US, over here the hemi is a "curiosity"....

[chevypower]

Not everyone wants a Hemi. The 5.4 and 6.8 MOD motors are known not to be drag racing motors, but do have the low end punch to move a truck, and great for towing.
Want your truck to win a drag race? Get a Hemi
Want good fuel economy with decent unloaded performance and tow occasionally? get a Chevy 5.3 V8
Want a good work horse that can move a decent load? Get a Ford MOD motor. It will be interesting to see where Ford's new V8s will shine. I think the 6.2 will all over everything else.

[Saraco]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Not everyone wants a Hemi. The 5.4 and 6.8 MOD motors are known not to be drag racing motors, but do have the low end punch to move a truck, and great for towing.
Want your truck to win a drag race? Get a Hemi
Want good fuel economy with decent unloaded performance and tow occasionally? get a Chevy 5.3 V8
Want a good work horse that can move a decent load? Get a Ford MOD motor. It will be interesting to see where Ford's new V8s will shine. I think the 6.2 will all over everything else.

The 5.4 QUAD CAM was wrong from the start. The MOD was originally designed in the 80's, as a 4.6 litre for cars and a 5.4 litre SOHC for trucks.In the 90's when GM released the LS 5.7 and fitted it to passenger cars, Ford panicked, fuel prices were cheap at the time, relatively speaking. They knew the 4.6 mod would be seriously outgunned. They also knew DODGE was developing a knew HEMI starting at 5.7 litres, slated for passenger car use. They HAD to do something to try and compete.THE 6.8 litre V10, was too long to fit into production cars on the line.The solution? Fit the QUAD CAM heads from the COBRA mustang, onto the 5.4 truck short block.They couldn't bore the 4.6 short stroke engine any larger, the blocks bore centres are too small. The 5.4 is a stroked 4.6 with a WHOPPING 105mm stroke, as stated, great for making torque, for load pulling trucks. That stroke is longer than production 460's by the way. So here we have an engine, with quad cams begging to be revved to the moon, like a BMW M3 or AUDI RS, but it can't, because it has a VERY long stroke!Not only that, it has 4 valves shrouded up against a tiny bore so they can't breathe,even then they would work 1000 RPM after the stock conrods would let go!P.S. And yes 4V MAN, a variation of the QUAD CAM 5.4 is avalaible in the US in the LINCOLN NAVIGATOR a SUV type vehicle. Also was in the FORD GT and still is available in the MUSTANG GT500/GT540KR and you guessed it! They're SUPERCHARGED!

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by svov88

The 5.4 QUAD CAM was wrong from the start. The MOD was originally designed in the 80's, as a 4.6 litre for cars and a 5.4 litre SOHC for trucks.In the 90's when GM released the LS 5.7 and fitted it to passenger cars, Ford panicked, fuel prices were cheap at the time, relatively speaking. They knew the 4.6 mod would be seriously outgunned. They also knew DODGE was developing a knew HEMI starting at 5.7 litres, slated for passenger car use. They HAD to do something to try and compete.THE 6.8 litre V10, was too long to fit into production cars on the line.The solution? Fit the QUAD CAM heads from the COBRA mustang, onto the 5.4 truck short block.They couldn't bore the 4.6 short stroke engine any larger, the blocks bore centres are too small. The 5.4 is a stroked 4.6 with a WHOPPING 105mm stroke, as stated, great for making torque, for load pulling trucks. That stroke is longer than production 460's by the way. So here we have an engine, with quad cams begging to be revved to the moon, like a BMW M3 or AUDI RS, but it can't, because it has a VERY long stroke!Not only that, it has 4 valves shrouded up against a tiny bore so they can't breathe,even then they would work 1000 RPM after the stock conrods would let go!P.S. And yes 4V MAN, a variation of the QUAD CAM 5.4 is avalaible in the US in the LINCOLN NAVIGATOR a SUV type vehicle. Also was in the FORD GT and still is available in the MUSTANG GT500/GT540KR and you guessed it! They're SUPERCHARGED!

Actually, the Lincoln Navigator already had the 4V heads "Intech V8" long before the FPV range got that engine. Ford has dropped the 4V heads on the Navigator a long time ago (which might prove your theory that the Quad-Cam version is "wrong"), and the Navigator shares the same spec 3V 5.4 as the F150 and Expedition. I actually like my 5.4 3 valve in my F150, it has balls, no question about that. It is a great towing motor as I have said. But I am interested to drive the new 6.2 - I think that is an engine that will be good in any application. The 460 is a big bore motor, not a long stroke motor, so a small block V8 that is a long stroke engine could easily have a longer stroke than the 460.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Kamshaaft

I really hope they don't put any of that DOHC bullsh!t on them, which is what I suspect they will do if they're decreasing displacement.

It might be contrary to what they consider their advantages with the small block:- compactness, cost of production, weight, centre of gravity and component simplicity. So long as they can keep the valvetrain moving at a good rate, there isn't a lot of incentive for them to go DOHC.

Although the detractors of pushrods have been quick to trounce on GM, the LS engines have been enormously successful, probably because customers are more interested in power and performance rather than where the bumpstick is located. Arguments over the advantages are one thing, but when it comes down to writing a cheque and avoiding install hassles, practicallity reigns.

The use of 32 bit ECUs, vectoring for individual piston knock and mixture, low friction moving parts, stronger castings, etc have relegated a lot of the disadvantages of pushrods to secondary importance.