The GTO benchmark.

[Global Warming]

I have to say the 6.0L/400HP GTO, at its price, just dominates the car world. This car’s MSRP loaded is just under $33k! Not only does that price get you more power than anyone off a track could ever possible use but the engine is all-aluminum and the interior is nicer than you would expect. I test drove one for a few mins and I have to say the power is just crazy! It’s actually scary to put your foot down!! This car gives you more of what everyone has always dreamed about in a car than anyone would have ever thought possible for the price!

Let me tell you I am not biased towards any brand or country. I respect everything from Kias to Koenigseggs… But this Holden/Vauxhall/Pontiac deserves museum status for what it is!!

[gigdy]

But this Holden/Vauxhall/Pontiac deserves museum status for what it is!!

no it doesnt.

[GTO]

I did bag this car out in a thread but I still think its great compared to whats out there on the Market. Holden definatly did well with the Monaro, its still a cool car.

As for a bench mark?......no

M3 is a benchmark everyday supercar, Louts elise benchmark for handling and the WRX benchmark for performance, drivablity at family car prices.

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

[sads]

Theres just two types of thought when the word Monaro/GTO is mentioned Love it/Hate it.
I love it I think its one of the great bang for your bucks cars around. Just look at the stats anything with that sort of performance usualy costs a hell of a lot more then a Monaro would set you back.

[RC45]

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

How do you figure the Goat over the Vette?

It's heavier, slower and uglier?

:)

You really meant to say "different car for different reason".. :P

[Global Warming]

I did bag this car out in a thread but I still think its great compared to whats out there on the Market. Holden definatly did well with the Monaro, its still a cool car.

As for a bench mark?......no

M3 is a benchmark everyday supercar, Louts elise benchmark for handling and the WRX benchmark for performance, drivablity at family car prices.

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

The over priced under powered M3 gets a different category than the GTO? Why? They both have 2 doors and a back seat and are RWD...

It’s just one cost a lot less and will blow the doors of the other, either in a straight line or around a track....

Yeah better let the M3 keep that seperate category....

[zondaland]

Sorry Global Hemisphere but the M3 is certainly not going to get its doors blown off by a Monaro. Yes the Monaro is good value for money but it is not that good that it can be compared to an M3. Besides in Australia anybody wanting that kind of car has choice, I recommend you head down to your local Ford dealership and ask them why they don't import Australian performance Ford's that compete with and in many ways blow the socks off the likes of the Monaro.

[Global Warming]

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

How do you figure the Goat over the Vette?

It's heavier, slower and uglier?

:)

You really meant to say "different car for different reason".. :P

Well let’s see…

The corvette weighs 3,179lbs. and has a 400-hp LS2 6.0L all-aluminum V8 engine.

The GTO weighs 3,725lbs. and has a 400-hp LS2 6.0L all-aluminum V8 engine.

But the vette is $44, 400 and the GTO is $32,500 that’s a difference of $11,900 for 546Lbs.

[Global Warming]

Sorry Global Hemisphere but the M3 is certainly not going to get its doors blown off by a Monaro. Yes the Monaro is good value for money but it is not that good that it can be compared to an M3. Besides in Australia anybody wanting that kind of car has choice, I recommend you head down to your local Ford dealership and ask them why they don't import Australian performance Ford's that compete with and in many ways blow the socks off the likes of the Monaro.

Well we can add the M3 to my last post...

M3 - 3415 lbs - 333HP - $47,300. It is not much lighter than the GTO, has a lot less power and cost $14k more. Anyone one here can see the difference. Any yes I'm sure the stig would be able to get the GTO around the TG track a lot faster than the M3.

[RC45]

^^ OK - this is officially the dumbest "value" reason I have ever heard...

Price per weight? WTF? :roll: You do realize it is better to be lighter... right?

And the Vette will run circles around the GTO in every category - including fuel consumption.. :P

Besides the fact that a wore out used up 2001 Z06 would cost $33K and still blow the GTO back to Oz.. :)

[zondaland]

The Monaro is not all that sophisticated a car. You will find that through the corners an M3 or a Vette will blow it into the weeds due to chassis and suspension tuning. Also it has extremely long gearing. As such its acceleration figures aren't traditionally all that great. Besides which its gearbox is an absolute pile of agricultural rust.

[Global Warming]

^^ OK - this is officially the dumbest "value" reason I have ever heard...

Price per weight? WTF? :roll: You do realize it is better to be lighter... right?

And the Vette will run circles around the GTO in every category - including fuel consumption.. :P

Besides the fact that a wore out used up 2001 Z06 would cost $33K and still blow the GTO back to Oz.. :)

Didnt I just say that? Yes the Vette will be a lot faster. It will be 546Lbs faster. Of course the vette is fater, I never said it wasnt. I just pointed out that the vette's faster speed and lighter weight come at a cost of $11,900.

On the other hand the M3 will be slower than the GTO at a cost of $14,800!

[Global Warming]

The Monaro is not all that sophisticated a car. You will find that through the corners an M3 or a Vette will blow it into the weeds due to chassis and suspension tuning. Also it has extremely long gearing. As such its acceleration figures aren't traditionally all that great. Besides which its gearbox is an absolute pile of agricultural rust.

If you compare any track time, yes a track with multiple corners, better handling only helps the car out so much. Like on Top Gear and 5th Gear it becomes apparent that raw power to weight ratio still will win out all most all the time.

On Top GearThe 5.7 GTO beat the M3 and they have not even tested the 6.0 version yet.

[zondaland]

The top gear track times can be farily deceptive. For example the Monaro (old version, not sure about new) used its tyres very, very badly (at least in the Australian setup). Reports were that even half an hour of hard driving could kill the tyres. Setting up a car to do something like that can give you a fast lap time, but it doesn't really indicate a cars pace, let alone what it does for the price equation of the car. The other problem with Top gear lap times is the variables in conditions on the day. There could easily be a full seconds difference depending on the day.

[Global Warming]

The top gear track times can be farily deceptive. For example the Monaro (old version, not sure about new) used its tyres very, very badly (at least in the Australian setup). Reports were that even half an hour of hard driving could kill the tyres. Setting up a car to do something like that can give you a fast lap time, but it doesn't really indicate a cars pace, let alone what it does for the price equation of the car. The other problem with Top gear lap times is the variables in conditions on the day. There could easily be a full seconds difference depending on the day.

Dude, give up.

There is more than a 14,000 dollar difference in the two cars and your only argument is the GTO burns more rubber?!?! LOL I sure as hell would hope so!! And it would still beat the M3 in everything bald tires or not! lol For $14k I think anyone could change GTO tires monthly!

[GTO]

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

How do you figure the Goat over the Vette?

It's heavier, slower and uglier?

:)

You really meant to say "different car for different reason".. :P
Yep different reasons, performance wise Vette all the way but what i do like about the GTO it is a car thats easy to live with, it a nice spaceiuos car that has a big engine. The vette is a small two seater convertable, ie less comfortable. I'm not too fussed about lap times here, you'll be drving it normally 99% of the time unless its a Sunday hence me picking the GTO over the Vette.

Still though the Vette is the American performance benchmark.
No I dont think the GTO is the uglier of the two :p

I brought the M3 in this as a example of a benchmark classes. Diffrent horses for diffrent courses, hence me mentioning several examples.

[RC45]

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

How do you figure the Goat over the Vette?

It's heavier, slower and uglier?

:)

You really meant to say "different car for different reason".. :P
Yep different reasons, performance wise Vette all the way but what i do like about the GTO it is a car thats easy to live with, it a nice spaceiuos car that has a big engine. The vette is a small two seater convertable, ie less comfortable. I'm not too fussed about lap times here, you'll be drving it normally 99% of the time unless its a Sunday hence me picking the GTO over the Vette.

Still though the Vette is the American performance benchmark.
No I dont think the GTO is the uglier of the two :p

I brought the M3 in this as a example of a benchmark classes. Diffrent horses for diffrent courses, hence me mentioning several examples.

First off - the convertible is for posing hairdressers.. ;)

Second - you will be surprised that while, for example, the Z06 is a 2 seater - it has more useable trunk space than the GTO - and even more so with the C6 Coupe (another hair dressers version.. ;))

I love daily driving my Vette - and I am sure ColoradoSilver can agree with that - the Vette makes an awesome usable daily driver.

;)

[zondaland]

The top gear track times can be farily deceptive. For example the Monaro (old version, not sure about new) used its tyres very, very badly (at least in the Australian setup). Reports were that even half an hour of hard driving could kill the tyres. Setting up a car to do something like that can give you a fast lap time, but it doesn't really indicate a cars pace, let alone what it does for the price equation of the car. The other problem with Top gear lap times is the variables in conditions on the day. There could easily be a full seconds difference depending on the day.

Dude, give up.

There is more than a 14,000 dollar difference in the two cars and your only argument is the GTO burns more rubber?!?! LOL I sure as hell would hope so!! And it would still beat the M3 in everything bald tires or not! lol For $14k I think anyone could change GTO tires monthly!

Yes there is a big price difference but you get many more things than what we have been talking about with that. Better fuel economy for starters (correct me of I'm wrong). Much more advanced engine, come on who wants a six-litre V8 that still has pushrods. How about they invest in some decent engine technology instead of just upping the displacement. A perfect weight distribution and chassis balance. As for the standard equipment the M3 would surely leave a paltry Monaro standing.

The other thing to remember is that the M3 is getting to the end of its design cycle. It wouldn't be surprising if some discounting of the cars went on in the lead up to the launch of the new model. Besides of you wait for the new model it will no doubt be more powerful, and a lot faster.

[Global Warming]

The top gear track times can be farily deceptive. For example the Monaro (old version, not sure about new) used its tyres very, very badly (at least in the Australian setup). Reports were that even half an hour of hard driving could kill the tyres. Setting up a car to do something like that can give you a fast lap time, but it doesn't really indicate a cars pace, let alone what it does for the price equation of the car. The other problem with Top gear lap times is the variables in conditions on the day. There could easily be a full seconds difference depending on the day.

Dude, give up.

There is more than a 14,000 dollar difference in the two cars and your only argument is the GTO burns more rubber?!?! LOL I sure as hell would hope so!! And it would still beat the M3 in everything bald tires or not! lol For $14k I think anyone could change GTO tires monthly!

Yes there is a big price difference but you get many more things than what we have been talking about with that. Better fuel economy for starters (correct me of I'm wrong). Much more advanced engine, come on who wants a six-litre V8 that still has pushrods. How about they invest in some decent engine technology instead of just upping the displacement. A perfect weight distribution and chassis balance. As for the standard equipment the M3 would surely leave a paltry Monaro standing.

The other thing to remember is that the M3 is getting to the end of its design cycle. It wouldn't be surprising if some discounting of the cars went on in the lead up to the launch of the new model. Besides of you wait for the new model it will no doubt be more powerful, and a lot faster.

fan boy + this my thread and its about GTOs NOT overprice M3s. Bye!

[zondaland]

Touchy, touchy.

It just seems that many of us don't quite share your opinion, now if its your thread we could all just let you sit here and talk to yourself all day, but I'm guessing that you might get more than a little bored. If you cant handle differences of opinions what exactly is the point of posting in a forum?

Incidentally I'm not a Beemer guy at all. Ford is my company this side of the hypercar. Which just means that I want to bag out the Monaro, not that I like the M3. :)

Edit: incidentally, ever heard of German engineering?

[Global Warming]

Touchy, touchy.

It just seems that many of us don't quite share your opinion, now if its your thread we could all just let you sit here and talk to yourself all day, but I'm guessing that you might get more than a little bored. If you cant handle differences of opinions what exactly is the point of posting in a forum?

Incidentally I'm not a Beemer guy at all. Ford is my company this side of the hypercar. Which just means that I want to bag out the Monaro, not that I like the M3. :)

Edit: incidentally, ever heard of German engineering?

Many? Who besides you?

[zondaland]

Gigdy
GTO, and
RC45 from my reading of the posts.

[GTO]

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

How do you figure the Goat over the Vette?

It's heavier, slower and uglier?

:)

You really meant to say "different car for different reason".. :P
Yep different reasons, performance wise Vette all the way but what i do like about the GTO it is a car thats easy to live with, it a nice spaceiuos car that has a big engine. The vette is a small two seater convertable, ie less comfortable. I'm not too fussed about lap times here, you'll be drving it normally 99% of the time unless its a Sunday hence me picking the GTO over the Vette.

Still though the Vette is the American performance benchmark.
No I dont think the GTO is the uglier of the two :p

I brought the M3 in this as a example of a benchmark classes. Diffrent horses for diffrent courses, hence me mentioning several examples.

First off - the convertible is for posing hairdressers.. ;)

Second - you will be surprised that while, for example, the Z06 is a 2 seater - it has more useable trunk space than the GTO - and even more so with the C6 Coupe (another hair dressers version.. ;))

I love daily driving my Vette - and I am sure ColoradoSilver can agree with that - the Vette makes an awesome usable daily driver.

;)
1. Agreed 100% :lol:

2. I havn't seen a Z06 in real life but you'd probally be right, what I hate about the new GTO its that the fuel tank is in the trunk due to american design specs :roll:

3. Yeah come to think of it it would be quite ueable. I guess my bias is due to the fact I'm familiar with the GTO and not with the Vette, same vise versa perhaps?


Edit: incidentally, ever heard of German engineering?
Yeah its shithouse now, one of the worse unrealible cars now are BMW and Benz. Vette and the GTO scored better for realiablity. Vette and GTO made in USA , Benz and BMW, made in variuos countries, mainly South Africa, not the M3 at least.

[dingo]

.....I recommend you head down to your local Ford dealership and ask them why they don't import Australian performance Ford's that compete with and in many ways blow the socks off the likes of the Monaro.

Which Fords 'blow the socks off' the Monaro?
All I can think of are the XR8 and the XR6 Turbo, but they have similar performance in my opinion - not at all that superior. :?

[zondaland]

I was thinking along the lines of the XR6T, XR8, GT, and Typhoon (if they actually build it). I didn't mean to give the impression that they were vastly superior, I was intending to give the opinion that they could be considered as good as, if not better. For me as a Ford fan I am naturally biased to say that if they are even then the Ford's are better. However I do honestly believe that they do edge ahead due to having more sophisticated engines, and rear suspension. Also judging by the rave reviews that the Typhoon got before it was pulled off the streets it could well be more than a match.

GTO, while BMW and Benz both undoubtedly have lost much of their advantage in recent times, I still believe that they have the upper hand. While their reliability may be slightly down on the yank tanks this seems in large part to be due to very sophisticated electronic equipment. The other thing that I particularly had in mind was the technology that the cars have in their engines, to me the German designed cars are just so much better due to the level of engineering in their engines. While the Americans might end up with a slightly higher overall power I really don't see the point when you have that big an engine, if they are going to have a six litre engine I really feel that they should be pulling at least 500hp out of it if they want to call it a sports car and not a truck.

[dingo]

I was thinking along the lines of the XR6T, XR8, GT, and Typhoon (if they actually build it). I didn't mean to give the impression that they were vastly superior, I was intending to give the opinion that they could be considered as good as, if not better. For me as a Ford fan I am naturally biased to say that if they are even then the Ford's are better. However I do honestly believe that they do edge ahead due to having more sophisticated engines, and rear suspension. Also judging by the rave reviews that the Typhoon got before it was pulled off the streets it could well be more than a match.



fair enough - its good to finally see an Aussie who actually presents a decent argument instead of just talking crap like "Ford is the best, and Holdens are POS....blah, blah....." or vice versa. :wink:

While I generally prefer Holdens over Fords, I must admit I really like the XR6 Turbo - MOTOR mag seems to love it too, as they picked it over the WRX WRP10 in the latest issue :D

I believe the Typhoon's clutch problem has been rectified - so lets hope more of them are made/sold in the future. :D I have only seen 2 or 3 on the streets here and they sure look the goods! :D

[godspeed06]

GTO, while BMW and Benz both undoubtedly have lost much of their advantage in recent times, I still believe that they have the upper hand. While their reliability may be slightly down on the yank tanks this seems in large part to be due to very sophisticated electronic equipment. The other thing that I particularly had in mind was the technology that the cars have in their engines, to me the German designed cars are just so much better due to the level of engineering in their engines. While the Americans might end up with a slightly higher overall power I really don't see the point when you have that big an engine, if they are going to have a six litre engine I really feel that they should be pulling at least 500hp out of it if they want to call it a sports car and not a truck.

thats a ridiculous opinion. the purpose of an engine is to make a lot of power and use minimal gas and have the least weight possible. the corvette engines do that all extremely well. just as well if not better than these "better engineered foreign engines" they also have better torque bc of the larger displacement. knocking push rod engines is ridiculous. they have many great attributes that have been discussed many times here - rc45 could probably give you a great reminder.

oh yea, and i just loved the part about how their reliability is waning bc they have such sophisticated electronic equipment. i laughed my ass off at that. so i guess "sophisticated" now means "doesn't work." haha, thanks man, i needed that.

[zondaland]

Godspeed, I am not sure of any particular mileage figures for either engine. If you have figures that show the Chev engine to be more economical than the BMW I would be very interested. However having a large engine does compromise design in many other areas. Particularly in a front engined car a large engine results in more weight ahead of the front wheels. It also leads to a longer wheelbase. While the engine may produce masses of power it compromises the car in many other ways.

As for pushrods my belief with them is that they are unnecessary weight to overcome. I haven't been here for all that long, if somebody would like to point me to some relevant threads I would be very interested to have a read. I certainly cannot see any way that a pushrod design could be considered preferable to a variable cam system.

Yes my point as far as electronics goes probably seems strange. However BMW and Benz seem to be in a constant battle to have the most advanced electronics in their cars. Presumably because that is what their market research tells them that their market wants. As with computers everywhere they have problems. While they are pushing the envelope they will experience difficulties. Meanwhile the likes of Chev are sticking to the most basic design they possibly can. If you engineer something to be simple then not very many things can go wrong, so fairly unsurprisingly they don't have reliability issues. At the same time I personally am very glad that somebody went to the trouble of working out how to make a radio work in a car, or how to get air conditioning working. Maybe in twenty years time we will look upon some of the electronic aids that are troublesome at times today as essential.

Dingo, I hope that we can have some good arguments over Ford and Holden in the future, even if you are on the wrong side of the fence :)

As far as the Typhoon goes I just hope that it gets a proper crack at performance car of the year and Bang for Your Bucks.

[graywolf624]

Particularly in a front engined car a large engine results in more weight ahead of the front wheels.

As for pushrods my belief with them is that they are unnecessary weight to overcome.

That ls1 engine happens to be lighter then the outgoing 3.2 liter bmw, see below. To give you another comparison, fords 4.6 liter dohc engine is over 100 lbs heavier then the ls1 engine(predecessor to the current version), has a much larger profile despite being a 4.6 compared to a 5.7 because of how the valves sit, and doesnt produce as much hsp.

If you have figures that show the Chev engine to be more economical than the BMW I would be very interested.

gas mileage of an m3 2001:
MPG (city) 16
MPG (highway) 24

gas mileage of a vette 2001:
City Gas Mileage 18 mpg/city
Highway Gas Mileage 26 mpg/hwy


gas mileage of a 2005 vette:18/28
400x400

m3 2005
16mpg
24 mpg

333 hp.

Less hp, worse gas mileage

The outgoing ls6 engine(the one in the vette making 405 which Im sure is heavier then the new ls2) weighed 497.2 lbs (226 kg).

According to this website the ls1 is lighter and is actually swapped into some m3s:
http://v3auto.com/philosophy.html

weight. All dressed, these engines weighs 100 lbs less than the BMW I6.

The ls2 is also fairly technologically advanced, so I doubt Id call it overly simple. Electronically maybe, but then Im reminded of the old engineering saying: KISS- keep it simple stupid.

[godspeed06]

thank you graywolf, i knew someone would chime in and let the guy know whats up :D. and as far as electronics go, onstar which will soon be availabe on all gm cars is just as good if not better than any satnav system in a bmw or a merc. they can track your car if stolen, unlock your doors if you locked yourself out, make reservations at restaurants and hotels, obviously give you directions. all this is done by an actual person that you can talk to, not a piece of shit computer that doesnt always do exactly what you want it to. so there ya go, that little blue button might not look as flashy as the lcd screen in the merc but it sure gets the job done. and on a side note the engine in the vette is so low and pushed back from the front wheels (its possible to do this BECAUSE it is a pushrod) that its about as close to mid engine as a front engine car can be.

[zondaland]

You yanks really like your Vettes dont you?

As far as pushrods I wasn't particularly clear. Overall the engine can certainly be lighter. The problem that I have is that they are an extra inertial mass. Also my understanding is that pushrod engines generally can't rev as high as DOHC or similar engines. There is a reason after all why the vast majority of car companies have adopted DOHC or similar in their performance cars.

Ah well, looks like you've got all the answers for me. Although for some reason I still prefer the BMW. Maybe its just a matter of indoctrination along the lines of European cars are always better. Maybe when the new M3 comes out the equation will change. Intersting mileage figures though.

[RC45]

You yanks really like your Vettes dont you?

Correction, we (and that includes ex-pats who live here) really like performance cars.


As far as pushrods I wasn't particularly clear. Overall the engine can certainly be lighter. The problem that I have is that they are an extra inertial mass. Also my understanding is that pushrod engines generally can't rev as high as DOHC or similar engines.

I guess my 2001 pushrod topping out at 6600rpm in stock trim and reliably handling 7000+rpm with aftermarket valve train is a low revving 5.7l V8?


There is a reason after all why the vast majority of car companies have adopted DOHC or similar in their performance cars.

I guess the news 7000+rpm limit on the new 427ci (7l) LS7 in the C6 Z06 didn't get down under yet..? ;)


Ah well, looks like you've got all the answers for me. Although for some reason I still prefer the BMW. Maybe its just a matter of indoctrination along the lines of European cars are always better. Maybe when the new M3 comes out the equation will change. Intersting mileage figures though.
Not at all - it is an anti-American car bias that is unjustified and falsley perpetuated.

:)

I now hand over to gray for the one-two... ;)

[zondaland]

There is a reason after all why the vast majority of car companies have adopted DOHC or similar in their performance cars.

I guess the news 7000+rpm limit on the new 427ci (7l) LS7 in the C6 Z06 didn't get down under yet..? ;)


Ah well, looks like you've got all the answers for me. Although for some reason I still prefer the BMW. Maybe its just a matter of indoctrination along the lines of European cars are always better. Maybe when the new M3 comes out the equation will change. Intersting mileage figures though.
Not at all - it is an anti-American car bias that is unjustified and falsley perpetuated.

Can I ask what exactly one car manufacturer sticking to pushrods in their engines and getting them to rev respectably has to do with the majority of car makers adopting DOHC or similar?

As for an anti-American car bias, no, merely an appreciation of different things from cars to what the American manufacturers are putting in their cars. Also a preference for technology to do the extra work rather than larger displacements or wider rear tyres. I would remind you that BMW felt that even a 5 litre engine would result in a V8 having too large a displacement for each cylinder. Hence the reason for the M5 having a V10 (in part).

As to high revving, well as a comparison the Enzo has a six litre. Also naturally aspirated, massively more powerful and revs to over 7500. Even a supercharged Koenigsegg develops peak power at 6900 rpm.

For something slightly less tuned you can go for a toyota engine in lotus that redlines at 8 350.

Yes you can get a pushrod engine to rev hard, however you have extra unnecessary inertia in the engine, why make life hard for yourself? Clearly the majority of car manufacturers have decided that there isn't a lot of point, that they are better off going for a DOHC system.

[RC45]

Can I ask what exactly one car manufacturer sticking to pushrods in their engines and getting them to rev respectably has to do with the majority of car makers adopting DOHC or similar?

As for an anti-American car bias, no, merely an appreciation of different things from cars to what the American manufacturers are putting in their cars. Also a preference for technology to do the extra work rather than larger displacements or wider rear tyres. I would remind you that BMW felt that even a 5 litre engine would result in a V8 having too large a displacement for each cylinder. Hence the reason for the M5 having a V10 (in part).

As to high revving, well as a comparison the Enzo has a six litre. Also naturally aspirated, massively more powerful and revs to over 7500. Even a supercharged Koenigsegg develops peak power at 6900 rpm.

For something slightly less tuned you can go for a toyota engine in lotus that redlines at 8 350.

Yes you can get a pushrod engine to rev hard, however you have extra unnecessary inertia in the engine, why make life hard for yourself? Clearly the majority of car manufacturers have decided that there isn't a lot of point, that they are better off going for a DOHC system.

Maybe the real answer is the others all chasing high expense hi-tech got it all wrong. :)

What does a crate M5 V10 cost?

The 400hp, 5.7l LS6 crate motor is $5,000, and the latest price for 500hp, 7l LS7 is $15,000.

So we have cheaper, lighter, more fuel efficient and simpler in design.

Those seem to be good traits.

[zondaland]

Yes, for sure the new Chev has good traits. There would be something seriously wrong if the company that sells most cars of anybody in the world built a dud engine. Particularly when they plan to use it in so many different cars.

However it seems to me that it is not opening up any new frontiers, there is nothing that you could point to with that engine and say "that is groundbreaking" or even "that is pushing technology" (that I am aware of). Instead it is a basic and strong engine. For their sakes I hope that others don't leave them behind.

Yes the mob may have got it wrong, but if they had then why is it that they are all using that technology in their F1 cars, or in any other form of racing where they are allowed to?

[blah]

I did bag this car out in a thread but I still think its great compared to whats out there on the Market. Holden definatly did well with the Monaro, its still a cool car.

As for a bench mark?......no

M3 is a benchmark everyday supercar, Louts elise benchmark for handling and the WRX benchmark for performance, drivablity at family car prices.

However benchmark Muscle car....acutally yeah the GTO, over the Vette, even though the Vette is an icon.

The over priced under powered M3 gets a different category than the GTO? Why? They both have 2 doors and a back seat and are RWD...

It’s just one cost a lot less and will blow the doors of the other, either in a straight line or around a track....

Yeah better let the M3 keep that seperate category....

Underpowered? Hmm interesting since the M3 runs the exact same time as a GTO, and would more than likely leave the porky GTO for dead through some twist and turns. I dont know what category to put the GTO under. Is it a valid Mustang Cobra fighter? Well if thats true then why bring back the Camaro with a different chasis.

[godspeed06]

the m3 has less power and costs more than the GTO -- hence "underpowered".

[SilviaEvo]

at first i thought this thread was about the 288 or 250 GTO which are REAL bench marks not the new Pontiac. i mean it is a pretty good car but it just isnt as good as say a Corvette or a M3. those two would leave teh Pontiac through the twists and also one of the most important things to consider is the FUN you have from driving the cars. with the M3 you enjoy the sense of driving and RC will surely back me up on this one that the Corvette is probably more fun to drive than a Pontiac. in the end it is just a beefed up Grand Prix.

[T-Bird]

at first i thought this thread was about the 288 or 250 GTO which are REAL bench marks not the new Pontiac. i mean it is a pretty good car but it just isnt as good as say a Corvette or a M3. those two would leave teh Pontiac through the twists and also one of the most important things to consider is the FUN you have from driving the cars. with the M3 you enjoy the sense of driving and RC will surely back me up on this one that the Corvette is probably more fun to drive than a Pontiac. in the end it is just a beefed up Grand Prix.

I wouldn't call the GTO a beefed up Grand Prix by any means whatsoever. I mean the Grand Prix is FWD to begin with and they don't make a 2 door version anymore, You can buy the Grand Prix with a V8 fwd *gasp*. The GTO is fun to drive because of the fact it's soo damn tail happy. I got to test drive one at school and it can really pull and slide. Shit if I had $60k to blow I would build built a Drift GTO.

[RC45]

LOL - :lol:

"drift" and "gto" don't really go together... ;)

It's almost like "torquey" and "japanese import" --- :P

[T-Bird]

LOL - :lol:

"drift" and "gto" don't really go together... ;)

It's almost like "torquey" and "japanese import" --- :P

He seems to win every time.

[graywolf624]

Yes you can get a pushrod engine to rev hard, however you have extra unnecessary inertia in the engine, why make life hard for yourself? Clearly the majority of car manufacturers have decided that there isn't a lot of point, that they are better off going for a DOHC system.

First some perceptions you need cleared up. A pushrod is actually a newer technology then overhead cam engines. The overhead cam came first, and given the tech in the ls2, youd be hard pressed to arguing the engine is not tech advanced (good examples would be the major innovations on the ls7). Hell even if your right, whats the point of fixing something if it isnt broken. If the pushrod version is lighter, more fuel efficient, smaller in stature.. what again is the point of switching in the real world. Dont give me some theoretical numbers about hp/liter. Give me something real. What at the end of the day for joe racer driving the car does it gain?

Second, The majority of manufacturers in the 80s decided to do mcpherson struts cause it was the in thing to do too.. Yet we all know from a conceptual standpoint that sla is far superior. Hardly a great arguement. It crosses over to racing too, as does the fact that the corvettees seem to consistantly win there classes. You need to realize that the sbc family are fantastic engines and that the use of dohc versus pushrods is more based on what type of setup your looking for and the particular engine itself rather then any sort of superiority(each has +s and -s).


i mean it is a pretty good car but it just isnt as good as say a Corvette or a M3.

30000 dollar car... 45 and over 50 grand cars.. Am i missing why this is even being compared?

As to high revving, well as a comparison the Enzo has a six litre. Also naturally aspirated, massively more powerful and revs to over 7500. Even a supercharged Koenigsegg develops peak power at 6900 rpm.

Be a little realistic here man, your comparing 2 cars that are mostly about there engines and cost more then 5x as much... Pick a more every day car pushing out the same amount. There are chevy small blocks pushing out 900 and 1000 hp for alot less then either of those engines. An unlimited budget we could just point to the f1 engines and say everything else is obsolete.

So what is it now, you keep changing your arguement. First it was fuel consumption and size under the hood. Then it was weight. Then you visited revs. Whats the next excuse?

[zondaland]

Ok so you dont want theoretical numbers about horsepower per litre. Well lets use the S2000 as a real world example. Lets use the older model that revved to 9000 rpm. That was a two litre engine. It developed 120 bhp per litre. Now the Chev/GTO/Monaro engine develops 400 odd horsepower out of a six litre engine. To extrapolate the S2000 engine to a six litre you would get 720 horsepower. Obviously you cannot say all of that quite that simply. Any larger displacement engine will struggle to match a smaller engine in terms of hp/litre. However it is clear that Chev could get the same power out of a smaller engine as they have got out of their current engine if they chose to.

As to advantages of DOHC or similar systems. Lets look at what I think the GTO could do with an engine of this type. Usually the GTO is simply a car to get to work in, or to drive down the highway. In these situations it will generally operate in the range of 1-3 thousand revs. So have a camshaft that is tuned to be perfect for the nature of the engine at about three thousand. Then above four thousand you can have the second cam come in. Suddenly the engine develops that slug in the back of extra power, instead of wheezing its way to the redline on a cam designed for three thousand rpm it suddenly surges towards its 6500, 7000 rpm redline on a new wave of power. The second cam would allow the engine to develop a dual characteristic. When it is cruising it would (in theory) have better fuel consumption. When revving hard it would have extra power.

[graywolf624]

However it is clear that Chev could get the same power out of a smaller engine as they have got out of their current engine if they chose to.

Apparently that went over your head..

Hp/liter is solely theoretical and accademic. It has no bearing on any real world performance under the hood... unless for some odd reason you arbitrarily limit the engines liters just for some scientific test.


So why outside of acedemia, should I give 2 shits about the size of the engine if it has a smaller footpring and weighs less?


Suddenly the engine develops that slug in the back of extra power, instead of wheezing its way to the redline on a cam designed for three thousand rpm it suddenly surges towards its 6500, 7000 rpm redline on a new wave of power. The second cam would allow the engine to develop a dual characteristic. When it is cruising it would (in theory) have better fuel consumption. When revving hard it would have extra power.
One major problem with your theory, pushrods can use variable valve timing to do the same thing.
GM takes the pushrod engine to the next level in the spring by equipping a 3.9-liter V6 with variable valve timing. This will be the first of its type. A solenoid control valve is built into the variable timing housing at the crankshaft's timing gear.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1270821.html?page=3&c=y

Care to try one more go?

[RC45]

Ok so you dont want theoretical numbers about horsepower per litre. Well lets use the S2000 as a real world example. Lets use the older model that revved to 9000 rpm. That was a two litre engine. It developed 120 bhp per litre. Now the Chev/GTO/Monaro engine develops 400 odd horsepower out of a six litre engine. To extrapolate the S2000 engine to a six litre you would get 720 horsepower. Obviously you cannot say all of that quite that simply. Any larger displacement engine will struggle to match a smaller engine in terms of hp/litre. However it is clear that Chev could get the same power out of a smaller engine as they have got out of their current engine if they chose to.

As to advantages of DOHC or similar systems. Lets look at what I think the GTO could do with an engine of this type. Usually the GTO is simply a car to get to work in, or to drive down the highway. In these situations it will generally operate in the range of 1-3 thousand revs. So have a camshaft that is tuned to be perfect for the nature of the engine at about three thousand. Then above four thousand you can have the second cam come in. Suddenly the engine develops that slug in the back of extra power, instead of wheezing its way to the redline on a cam designed for three thousand rpm it suddenly surges towards its 6500, 7000 rpm redline on a new wave of power. The second cam would allow the engine to develop a dual characteristic. When it is cruising it would (in theory) have better fuel consumption. When revving hard it would have extra power.

How about someone come up with a nice alloy, light, small footprint, low profile, simple mechanics, big bore engine that lets you rumble at 1100rpm at 60mph sipping fuel at 28mpg all day - then when you down shift and push the go pedal it screams to 6600rpm almost ripping your head from your shoulders allowing you to dispatch of anything this side of half a million dollars????

Oh - wait - they do, it's called the LS6 - and it's new younger brother the LS2 and it's high-on-cocaine nephew, the LS7.

:P

[zondaland]

RC 45, You have essentially said that what I proposed is being done by the Monaro/GTO already. Fair enough, to some extent it is. However my method has one advantage. Wheelbase. Yes the LS2/6/7 may be small for its capacity. Hoewever it would have been very easy for them to have gained the same power out of say a four litre engine. Surely you would agree that a four litre engine would be smaller in footprint. As it would be smaller they would not need to place so much emphasis on low weight. With a smaller wheelbase the car would have a sharper turn in. Although I guess American cars taditionally don't give a crap about turn in.

And Graywolf similar argument. Regardless of how compact the engine is compared to its competition I am interested in how much smaller it could be. Most people prescribe to the theory of 'it is better than others' I disagree, I look at how good it could be. On this basis I feel that Chev/GM have gone the wrong direction. Of course they would have had reasons, no doubt they wanted to leave plenty of space for the aftermarket tuners to stick their goodies.

On the note of GTO's drifting then you obviously have not seen anything of the Australian drift scene, we've got utes out there for some insane reason. Or the Evo article where they took the Monaro VXR to a drift event.

[RC45]

RC 45, You have essentially said that what I proposed is being done by the Monaro/GTO already. Fair enough, to some extent it is.

As long as you remember this - LS6 powered Vettes routinely put up 28mpg numbers on the open road - I knwo, I do it often. (City cycle is about 12mpg the way I drive though ;))


However my method has one advantage. Wheelbase. Yes the LS2/6/7 may be small for its capacity. Hoewever it would have been very easy for them to have gained the same power out of say a four litre engine. Surely you would agree that a four litre engine would be smaller in footprint.

No it won't be. The LSx block is quite narrow, short in lenght and height.


As it would be smaller they would not need to place so much emphasis on low weight. With a smaller wheelbase the car would have a sharper turn in. Although I guess American cars taditionally don't give a crap about turn in.

Please educate yourself. When it counts, the cars are designed with "turn in".

How would a smaller heavier engine be an advantage?


And Graywolf similar argument. Regardless of how compact the engine is compared to its competition I am interested in how much smaller it could be. Most people prescribe to the theory of 'it is better than others' I disagree, I look at how good it could be. On this basis I feel that Chev/GM have gone the wrong direction. Of course they would have had reasons, no doubt they wanted to leave plenty of space for the aftermarket tuners to stick their goodies.

I will leave gray to answer his quesiton, but I am waiting for your argument to move out of "hypothetic" into reality.

How could the engine be smaller when we have already showed you that similar powered SMALLER capacity engines are actually LARGER in physical size.


On the note of GTO's drifting then you obviously have not seen anything of the Australian drift scene, we've got utes out there for some insane reason.

No = I have seen all I need to know about the "drift" scene.

What a bunch of fucking tripe.

Just because you can't get around the track fast - you go and screw with the suspension till it just slides about "for style points".

I have a special salute to the "drift scene" -- Drift this :fist:


Or the Evo article where they took the Monaro VXR to a drift event.
I have an article in the Good Housekeeping where they test out a Wet.Dry Vacuum cleaner as a sex aid... Makes for good reading but other wise not really worth a fuck.. ;) :P

[T-Bird]

RC 45, You have essentially said that what I proposed is being done by the Monaro/GTO already. Fair enough, to some extent it is. However my method has one advantage. Wheelbase. Yes the LS2/6/7 may be small for its capacity. Hoewever it would have been very easy for them to have gained the same power out of say a four litre engine. Surely you would agree that a four litre engine would be smaller in footprint. As it would be smaller they would not need to place so much emphasis on low weight. With a smaller wheelbase the car would have a sharper turn in. Although I guess American cars taditionally don't give a crap about turn in.

And Graywolf similar argument. Regardless of how compact the engine is compared to its competition I am interested in how much smaller it could be. Most people prescribe to the theory of 'it is better than others' I disagree, I look at how good it could be. On this basis I feel that Chev/GM have gone the wrong direction. Of course they would have had reasons, no doubt they wanted to leave plenty of space for the aftermarket tuners to stick their goodies.

On the note of GTO's drifting then you obviously have not seen anything of the Australian drift scene, we've got utes out there for some insane reason. Or the Evo article where they took the Monaro VXR to a drift event.

Well you do realise that the LSx engines are shorter than an M3 engine right? it took both Ferrari and Porsche atleast 5.7 liters to get to the 600 hp mark N.A. and those engines aren't that small. The lsx engines are as small as they can get seeing as the things have been pushed to 427 ci from 346 I doubt they have much left in them. a reliable 4 liter pushing 400 hp NA would be very hard to do Honda's have done it yes but reliable not really and they sound all gay and leaf blower like. You need the size to get the Torque. there is also the cost thing to consider, it wouldn't be cost effective to make 400 hp 4 liters for a $30k USD vehicle. remember the fact that they will have to develop an all new engine aswell. And if you've ever been to the US you would know that we have alot of very twisty tight roads around here aswell as someflat out long haulers.

[blah]

the m3 has less power and costs more than the GTO -- hence "underpowered".

Ones a BMW and ones a Pontiac though. Funny because if Pontiac according to lutz if the BMW of GM.

[zondaland]

Well yes, I have been to the US, I was 2 at the time, can't say the roads left a big impression on me. :)

I'm sure that you would have many tight roads, I dare say it would be very difficult to create a country based solely on straight roads. I was more referring to the stereotype of American cars that go hard in a straight line then get scared at the sight of a corner, an argument over the merits of that particular stereotype I really couldn't be bothered getting into.

You have all said that the LSx engine is supremely tiny in its dimensions, I'm sure you are all right, and I don't wish to question you but has anybody got the actual dimensions of the engine, and the dimensions of say an M3 engine as a comparison. I cant find them with a quick search.

You have also said that it is lighter than anything else. While I'm sure you have reliable sources I fail to understand how it is that GM has this engine that is lighter, more economical, smaller and more powerful than the engine of an M3 engine, yet when it comes to engine awards it is the M3 engine that is ahead. There was a thread here somewhere with links, anyone want to dig it up feel free.

Yes a short wheelbase is not the only factor in getting a car to turn-in better. It is however a relatively simple way to aid turn-in, and it is an effect that is reversed when the wheelbase is lengthened. My point was that a car with a slightly heavier engine but shorter wheelbase (with all other things being equal) would have an equivalent turn in.

As for drift I'm not a fan of that style of racing. I was merely replying to your point that ' "drift" and "gto" don't really go together...'

As to a reliable 400hp out of a four litre engine the Ferrari f430 pumps out 483 hp from a 4.3L engine. Thats 83hp more than the corvette with an engine almost 30% smaller. Obviously I woul never expect GM to tune an engine to the same extent as Ferrari do. Perhaps 4 litres is a little ambitious. However there is no reason why a 4.5L couldnt produce the same power. While you all say that the LS is a very compact design, I am not aware of any reason why if they had made a 4.5L engine it would be bigger than their current design.

I hadn't actually looked at the fuel mileage that the LS engines produce prior to this thread. I must say it is very impressive for an engine of that size to be able to be that economical. However again I don't see any reason why if they produced a smaller engine it would be any less economical.

Please understand that I have changed my arguments somewhat. I accept your points that the Corvette seems to have an M3 beat on the spec sheet. In terms of driver feel, unless somebody wants to throw me the keys of both cars I am not going to comment.

My argument is that GM could have gone down a different route in the design of their engines, and I feel that this route would have given them a better engine, obviously they didn't. And presumably they had solid reasons for not going down the route that I am proposing they could/should have. I would also hope that their engineers know an enormous amount more about the intricacies of engine design to what I know. Presumably there are advantages to their route over mine, maybe at some point in the future I'll look back at my current opinions and wonder what sort of a crackpot idea it was that I had concocted. But for the moment I really can't understand what benefit they have derived from going down the low tech large displacement route compared to what they would have achieved if they had gone down the high tech (relatively) low displacement route. If you have fundamental reasons why the route that they took is better than the route I am advocating please give them to me. If you are merely going to point to the fact that what they have produced is currently better than something else, then please don't bother, because we will all just grow old throwing examples at each other. :)

[RC45]

^^ Oh - so apart from practical, economical, engineering and physics reasons - apart from proven track record, loyal following and actual performance in the real world - you want another reason why for example the C5 Z06 got a 5.7 push rod V8 insteand of some poofta 4.xl DOHC blah-blah-blah?

Herer is why:

http://media.rc45.net\media\whyz06.zip

You can't do this with an M3 or M5 or even E55 for that matter - let alone a 360 or 430.

:twisted:

Thanks you very much... :)

[T-Bird]

Lowtech there's that word again used by all the haters out there that have probably never seen a fully working engine outside a car before that don't realise the amount of technology that's in the LS engines. Coil-on-plugs, cnc machined and ported heads from the factory (I don't think BMW does that on their cars) Sodium filled valves, titanium valves, lightweight rotating assembly, Titanium Connecting rods (rare in even racing applications) 4140 chrome-moly Steel Crankshaft etc... Granted that's in the LS7 here's the main specs for the LS7: Camshaft Specs

Rocker-ratio intake: 1.80:1

Rocker-ratio exhaust: 1.80:1

Degrees Duration:

At camshaft: Intake: 0.331 in. Exhaust: 0.328 in.

At valve: Intake: 0.593 in. Exhaust: 0.588 in.

LS7 General Specs

Engine type: Cam-in-block 90-degree V-8 Block configuration: Cast-aluminum with pressed-in cylinder sleeves and 6-bolt, forged-steel main bearing caps

Bore x Stroke (mm/in): 104.8x01.6/4.125x4.00

Displacement: 7.0L/427ci

Crankshaft: Forged steel

Connecting Rods: Forged titanium

Pistons: Cast aluminum

Compression Ratio: 11.0:1

Cylinder Heads: CNC-ported aluminum; 70cc chamber volume

Valve size, intake (mm/in): 56/2.20 (titanium)

Valve size, exhaust (mm/in): 41/1.61 (sodium-filled)

Camshaft: Hydraulic roller; 15 mm (.591 in) lift (intake and exhaust)

Rocker arms: 1.8:1; offset (intake only)

Air intake: Composite manifold with 90mm single-bore throttle body

Fuel: Premium required; 91-octane minimum

Horsepower: 500 (373 kW) @ 6,200 rpm

Torque (lb-ft): 475 (644 Nm) @ 4,800 rpm

Engine redline (rpm): 7,000

[graywolf624]

You have all said that the LSx engine is supremely tiny in its dimensions, I'm sure you are all right, and I don't wish to question you but has anybody got the actual dimensions of the engine, and the dimensions of say an M3 engine as a comparison. I cant find them with a quick search.
Ls1 dimensions:
http://www.paceparts.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=586
No clue for m3 engines, but clearly if its a common swap it at very least isnt considerablly larger.

You have also said that it is lighter than anything else. While I'm sure you have reliable sources I fail to understand how it is that GM has this engine that is lighter, more economical, smaller and more powerful than the engine of an M3 engine, yet when it comes to engine awards it is the M3 engine that is ahead. There was a thread here somewhere with links, anyone want to dig it up feel free.

Engine awards like anything else are arbitary and based on the in thing. Need I show you the pt cruiser and american awards for 300c as cars of the year?



So let me get this straight.. Your arguement is.. It could be better?

How do you know that? How do you know that theoretically that combinations is the best real world set with current money for the given cost, weight, size, and hp requirements? You havent shown a competing example so far that would refute that claim.

[GTO]

Bah BMW engines, yeah right.

Everyone ones if you want power and speed on the quarter mile its LSx all the way, when was the last time a BMW or Ferrari run 10's??

Power from Ferrari is from reving the shit of them 10K redline!

Low reving is good, LSx have torque, thus good fuel economy and being N/A you can punch it when you want.

LSx could be better?, easy twin turbo kit, Whipples super charger, 700HP+ "Oh look whats that spec in my mirror, why its teh M3"!

Whats great about LSx engine is the ease and gains from tuning, one thing that BMW engines are are tuner unfriendly.

PLus LSx are teh best sounding engines

[zondaland]

Looks like T-bird has answered the question. They have simply gone down the route of using a different set of technologies to what everybody else looks at. From what you all say and from the figures that it turns in a straight line it seems to work pretty well for them.

Graywolf, if you read the last paragraph of my last post carefully you will find that I said "I feel that this route would have given them a better engine" then I also said "presumably they had solid reasons for not going down the route that I am proposing they could/should have" and "Presumably there are advantages to their route over mine". I will happily admit that I don't know that the engine I was proposing would be better than what they created. What I was wondering is what reason GM had for choosing the route that they did. RC45 and T-bird have given me a couple. That 'classic' muscle car idle and also that they put a whole heap of high tech in other parts of the engine. Maybe getting that 'classic' sound out of the engine was considered a must, if so I can well understand why they would pursue the route that they did. It certainly seems that they have made up any disadvantage that they would theoretically incur by improving other parts of the engine. Full credit to them for them doing this. Looks like they have managed to make a very good engine, without following the mob.

As to the PT cruiser winning awards, pleas tell me thats not true.

[graywolf624]

As to the PT cruiser winning awards, pleas tell me thats not true.
It was motor trends car of the year a few years back.

[RC45]

Looks like they have managed to make a very good engine, without following the mob.

And this wasn't self evident how?

:roll:

[zondaland]

Basically my thought was that they hadn't got a very high hp/litre ratio out of the engine. However as you have shown that having a large displacement engine doesn't seem to have given them the compromises that I presumed it would have I will accept that they have a quality if unorthodox engine.

[RC45]

Basically my thought was that they hadn't got a very high hp/litre ratio out of the engine.

And who cares? WTF does HP/L have to do with a $50,000 car weighing 3100lbs, producing 405hp (385 in 1st year trim) running 0-60 in 4s, stopping 60-0 in 105ft or running to 175mph - or even lapping the Nurburgring in 7m56s?

:?: :?:

Why would this even be a factor in any thought process?

Here is an example of an engine matched to a chassis - which is all you need for a winning forumla - period.

The rest of the academic debate numbers , are just that - academic.

Please explain why you "concern" was valid - at all?


However as you have shown that having a large displacement engine doesn't seem to have given them the compromises that I presumed it would have I will accept that they have a quality if unorthodox engine.
I just want to know why you even had doubts? I mean - FFS - even the HSV cars have a 500hp 427 engine - so again, how is the resulting car "lacking" anything?

This is what happens when people buy into the crap.hype, trash, lies and propoganda of uninformed and amateur moto-jouralists.

"Facts" that are really non-issues become the root source of all sorts of urban legend.

Again - explain why the low HP/L number and simple valve train was a concern if the engine matched the car - even in the case of the GTO...?

[zondaland]

I expected that a larger capacity engine would be associated with a larger footprint and more weight. Thus a larger engine would compromise overall car design, and a heavier weight would reduce acceleration and cornering speeds. However as you have made clear GM have managed to make the engine more compact than smaller displacement rivals, and weigh less.

Exactly how did I say that the car was lacking anything. And to answer your last line, why would I want to reiterate what I have just said, for some sort of edification of yourself?

[RC45]

I expected that a larger capacity engine would be associated with a larger footprint and more weight. Thus a larger engine would compromise overall car design, and a heavier weight would reduce acceleration and cornering speeds. However as you have made clear GM have managed to make the engine more compact than smaller displacement rivals, and weigh less.
So basically you assumed you must know more than the blokes who built it? ;)

But seriously - the misconception that bigger engine capacity is always accompanied by heavier engines is a common one - although no-one jumped on ferrari everytime THEY up the displacement of their V8 and V12 road engines... :P


Exactly how did I say that the car was lacking anything.

Well, you weren't praising GM/Holden for shipping the GTO/Monaro the way the did with it's current engine choices... unless I misread your musings about why they chose an inadiquate power plant. :)


And to answer your last line, why would I want to reiterate what I have just said, for some sort of edification of yourself?
No - simply so you can repeat to yourself as many times as you can that "paper specs and stats out of context are of no use".

I don't critique Ferrari for going the route they did - as the engine they shoehorned ionto the 360 fit their purpose - and helped the package perform at a ceratin level.

But just because performance peers choose a differnet route doesn't make either one wrong.

The say way it would be a pointless waste of time to put the 360 engine in a Z06 and the LS6 into the F-Car - as out of their own context and packaging each is uneffective.

So- again, you repeating yourself would be for YOUR edification - although I would hesititate to equate Chevy/Ford/Ferrari fanaticism with the path to religious enlightentment - but it's a damn close second... :P ;)

[zondaland]

Maybe you've got nothing better to do than continue an argument that has died, but I do. So I recommend that you build a bridge and get over it. And no, at no point did I assume that I knew more than any of the engineers who designed the LSx engines.

[RC45]

Maybe you've got nothing better to do than continue an argument that has died, but I do. So I recommend that you build a bridge and get over it. And no, at no point did I assume that I knew more than any of the engineers who designed the LSx engines.

OK you pompous punk - if you are unable to detect when the theme/spirit and intent of a respones with 6+ smiling emoticons - as well as numurous attempts to lighten the mood with comments such as "seriously though..." has moved to a lighter not ---- then go screw yourself :)

My previous response was not an argument or attack or provocation.

It was some light hearted comment/banter and chat (befitting a CHAT forum) on how in context all things are as intended.

Even as in the example I gave with ferrari not being wrong for the route they chose.

You, on the other hand appear hell bent of never having a moment of light fun online ever.

Bah... your problem not mine :)

:fist:

[zondaland]

Yep, just here to have an all in brawl as much as possible. Gonna do all I can to take you down, in fact I'm gonna get real cut when I have any argument online, I'll even come and :slap: you. I'm gonna hunt you down. :snipersmile: :2gunfire:

Fair enough, the last post was a bit wide of the mark, and not really appropriate, so I'll say I'm sory.

[RC45]

Yep, just here to have an all in brawl as much as possible. Gonna do all I can to take you down, in fact I'm gonna get real cut when I have any argument online, I'll even come and :slap: you. I'm gonna hunt you down. :snipersmile: :2gunfire:

Fair enough, the last post was a bit wide of the mark, and not really appropriate, so I'll say I'm sory.

NO need to say "sorry" - just smile and flick me off.. :) :fist:

[zondaland]

:) :fist:

Happy?

:lol:

[RC45]

:) :fist:

Happy?

:lol:

There - now that feels much better, doesn't it? :) :lol:

[zondaland]

yea, whatever, I'm still gonna hunt you down, I know what bank you're staking out, don't think that you're gonnal get away with it this time, I'm gonnal be there... :snipersmile:

you just wait... :D