![]() |
|
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 429
|
I keep hearing figures for Holdens LS2 and the upcoming LS3 and how much of a joke our BOSS engines are in comparism. Last time i looked Ford have 290 kws from a 5.4 litre and Holden 270kws from a 6 litre!(think 302 and 307 for HSV AND FPV)
Have they got a gun engine or is it just about the cubes theyre throwing at it, id say a bit of both, but why do they need to get bigger and bigger especially in times of high fuel prices and enviromental issues, why do they bag our smaller capcity engine when its producing around the same power?..Is it just me or do other people share my thoughts?
__________________
GTP-290 |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Mount Martha
Posts: 769
|
I laugh in Holden mans face at the fact our tiny 5.4 litre Boss pumps out more torque and has only 2kw less power than their 6.2litre monster. They just have big capacity going for them, they are by no means a technological marvel.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Professional Mouse Jockey
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SE Vic
Posts: 3,185
|
Yeah, it's capacity over technology for the GM V8. Have to give them kudos for keeping it simple and light though. But I guess you could call that good engineering, designing it light and compact so that you can have the large capacity.
__________________
Isuzu MUX for towing horses - currently no Fords in the stable Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Groucho Marx
Last edited by Powdered Toast Man; 03-05-2008 at 01:57 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Now Fordless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 3,611
|
I reckon in a few years its going to bite Holden/HSV on the . With current fuel prices going through the roof and no signs of stopping, the perception of having a 6.2+ litre fuel guzzling engine isnt going to be a good thing.
Ford on the other hand is rumoured to be going back to 5.0l capacity. In terms of power, I doubt a Chev pushrod engine at 5.4l would be able to match the BOSS under current emmision regs. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||
Watts a panhard.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 929
|
The LSX series certainly have better naturally aspirated potential than the Ford motors.
Lazy litres is a good engine philosophy IMO. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||
BOSS 5.4L Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,906
|
The LSX's are good engine, but it's capacity over engineering excellence thats for sure.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
V8 Powaah
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast, QLD
Posts: 1,994
|
Nothing wrong with capacity.
If they can make a alloy pushrod 6.2l engine thats relatively light, fuel economical and revvy, power to them I say. The history of the automobile has been littered with examples of high technology, highly innovative, automotive disasters. The best cars and engines in history have been often the simplest and most durable. I think Ford did a misstep with the Modular (GM did it to with Northstar) engines to be honest in the early 90s. Instead of making a complex small block V8. They should have made a good quality Alloy I6 for truck and large car (Crown Vic and the like) duties and made a modern pushrod 5.0l alloy v8- a simple durable succesor to the Windsor for larger pickups and as an option for large cars.
__________________
FG G6E Turbo- Seduce & Cashmere - Sold XF S pack Sedan- AU 302 Windsor, T5, 2.77 LSD, Many Mods
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,699
|
Possibly off topic but can someone explain to me why the figures are always so close?
I mean there's like a 4 kw difference. Why don't ford just boost it a measly 5kw so they can say their engine is more powerful? If ford have the technology and holden have to compensate with size, then can't Ford use their technology to build a similar capacity engine and get much more out of it power wise? (I'm assuming money is the issue?) I'm sure there are obvious answers and this may seem like a stupid question to most, however it's something that's always bugged me.
__________________
EB II 1992 Fairmont - koni reds, wade 977b, 2.5inch/4480's and much more to come! |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |||
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,292
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |||
I still have both eyes
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 387
|
Quote:
So I'd say using a big lazy 6.2l where you don't stress it and can just keep addding 10-15KW for each model revision is a pretty good business plan. Last edited by BadMac; 03-05-2008 at 04:38 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||
Professional Mouse Jockey
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SE Vic
Posts: 3,185
|
The 5.7 LS1 started life as a truck engine too. The LT1 was the stroked 5.0L that saw duty in the Camaro specials and the Vette.
Illavitar; I'd hate to see the size of the car they would need to fit that engine into lol. The 5.4 is big enough, can you imagine a 6.2L version ![]()
__________________
Isuzu MUX for towing horses - currently no Fords in the stable Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. Groucho Marx
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
AU II XR8
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 978
|
i laugh at the fact that holdens 6.2ltr v8 is is being destroyed by fords 4ltr I6 turbo.
__________________
AU XR8 II ute XD FAIRMONT GHIA 302 XA FAIRMONT 302 TOPLOADER |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |||
Cast Iron fan
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Townsville
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
__________________
I have a Corolla |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 177
|
nothing spectacular engineering wise on the LS motors... but as said, the excellence lies in its simplicity. People knock it for still using pushrods etc but the fact is its a very light motor and the latest 6.2L gets the same or better economy than the original 5.7L whilst making a stink load more power and torque.
Dont forget GM also had a very good quad cam v8 going with the ZR1 corvette, in the early 1990s this motor was making an easy 280kw and a lot of purists said it was the best engine they did and should of been kept but it was expensive to make and amongst other reasons it was dropped.
__________________
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 429
|
I wonder which engine would last longer though, our BOSS motors are hand built, and im pretty sure are blue printed and balanced, whats the expected life from respective holden and ford engines?
__________________
GTP-290 |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 | ||
me may my mo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hornsby, Sydney
Posts: 627
|
does it really matter what excellence it is? its got more power than ours without even trying, more torque without trying, is lighter, and drinks less. Ok, maybe the SS has less power than the boss290, but it sill kills it in a straight line, and has a better torque curve even though it only has a few more NM.
gtp 2003: im asuming u have a boss 290, did u start this thread to help make u feel better in owning a boss290? yes the boss290 is a good V8, but comparing it to holdens is useless.... whether some of you guys wanna live a lie by bagging the holden V8, in the end, they sell more... and i hate that ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||
Custom User Title Title
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
|
Food for thought Boss 315 5.4Ltr 58.3Kw per litre LS3 6.2 at 325 is only 52Kw per litre
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 | ||
Ex EL Falcon
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bris-bane
Posts: 683
|
While fuel economy is a consideration, I doubt people who buy large v8s care that much about it and can probably afford the cost of running one.
But what I find more amusing is that Holden goes the capacity route all the time... something about sizes and compensation??
__________________
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now! |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 153
|
I don't know why so many people argue about stock vs stock? 90% of the people on this forum would buy a car to modify it..
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 177
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 | |||
Now Fordless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 3,611
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,000
|
Quote:
Do not get me wrong I am a Ford Supporter however I have also owned Holdens & I Laugh at one eyed Supporters from any Camp when they go on with Dribble saying one Engine is Crap etc only because it is the other Camps. Credit where credit is due, until FG the Holden Camp with its VE V8 was in front both in the Engine & Design in many ways over the Ford effort. Yeah I have a Ford Ute & not a Holden & that is because the BFII was a better Ute than the VZ though had the VE Ute been out I may have gone for it ![]() Though I would prefer an I6 over the Holden 6 anyday so maybe not lol Then again I may have gone for the 6 Litre ![]() Anyway no Matter I am very Happy with my Ford Ute. But yes the Old Holden Engine did or does better the Newer Design Multi valve Ford Engine (V8's only). So get over it Guys & remember all Fords are not better than all Holdens. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 177
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |||
Former BTIKD
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunny Downtown Wagga Wagga. NSW.
Posts: 53,197
|
Quote:
"Thar aint no subsitute for cubic feet!" The second most popular used to be... "If she dont go, Chrome it!"
__________________
Dying at your job is natures way of saying that you're in the wrong line of work.
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 429
|
No I dont have to start a thread about something to make me feel better, the fact is Holden have got it right now with the LS engines, but it seems there 6 cylinder engines have taken a step backwards(suprisingly since it went the ohc route, maybe they should of kept it as a pushrod engine). I can see Holden or HSV making a limited edition supercharged 7.0 litre engined concept type vehicle. I heard on the Top Gear show that there are turbo kits for them aswell.
No ones really answered my question about the BOSS being blueprinted and balanced and whether it was a more durable longer lasting engine than the LS engines, can anyone enlighten me on that?
__________________
GTP-290 |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 | ||
Mercury Silver T3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
|
Apart from the possible cost factor are there any other reasons why the 5.4 can't be increased to 6.0ci and also would this help with the lack of torque below 3000rpm?
__________________
House of Tickford T3 TS50 No.156 AUIII XR8 220 2017 Magnetic Mustang What to hear a tuff T3? Click herehttp://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y30...ent=Movie2.mp4 |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 | ||||
Watts a panhard.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 929
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 429
|
Quote:
__________________
GTP-290 |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 429
|
Not only is it not totally true, but there is nothing funny about it at all. Forced induction is a substitute for cubic inches. Using CAMS (too small, IMO) correction factor, the Ford I6 is a 6.8 litre engine. I fail to see the humour.[/QUOTE]
LOL, i got a laugh at the failure to see any humour there! not bad fuel economy from the old girl seeing shes a 6.8 litre
__________________
GTP-290 |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,654
|
Quote:
![]() HP or KW per kg of car weight will give an indication of overall performance potential of the vehicle, but isnt an accurate way to measure efficiency or engine technology. The Boss motor has allways consistantly made more power per litre of displacement than the chev.., so the BOSS "wins".. If you do the math you'll see the chev puts out roughly the same power per litre of displacement in its various HSV incarnations, the way they get more power is increase its capacity.
__________________
335 S/C GT: The new KING of Australian made performance cars.. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |