: 09 CTS-V LSA Engine -> 09 ZR-1 LS9 Engine



chrisminshall
08-30-08, 03:27 PM
So does anyone with more knowledge of engines than I think that you'll be able to upgrade (aftermarket) the LSA engine to more closely match its more powerful sibling the LS9?

Chris

Jpjr
08-30-08, 06:33 PM
So does anyone with more knowledge of engines than I think that you'll be able to upgrade (aftermarket) the LSA engine to more closely match its more powerful sibling the LS9?

Chris


i am sure many here know more than i... but here is my answer.

yes and no. some of the components used on the LS9 were done in part to allow it to fit within a Vette and reduce weight (ex: dry sump). this doesn't carry over to the V2 but doesn't really make much difference for a sedan.

the blower on the LS9 is rated for higher boost, so that is an easy upgrade and i would bet anyone lunch that it appears on the V2 by the 2011 model year.

other than that, the LS9 is hand built to spec. i'm not sure what this really means as opposed to the LSA, it is not like either are run of the mill production motors. forced induction motor require very stout internals unless GM wants to provision for huge warranty costs. so the LSA should respond extremely well to upgrades, moreso than the LS2 or LS6 in the V1.

dumb question: i assume they are similar or very close in displacement. so there is no substantial upside to changing motors like there was with the LS7 upgrade that i saw someone do on this board.

b4z
08-30-08, 09:00 PM
V has 6200 rpm redline and fuel cutoff.

ZR1 has 6600 rpm and fuel cutoff.
Plus it has a lighter weight valvetrain.

I find a 6200 rpm fuel cutoff in this day kind of strange.
My GTO and SRX will go past that.

Kidhummer
08-30-08, 09:25 PM
The ZR1 has forged pistons which can handle the extra power. The V pistons are not forged and therefore if you add too much hp the engine might not be able to handle it and can result in damage to the engine. Thats one of the reasons why the ZR1 has a different supercharger that prdocues more power. OR FOR A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION READ THIS:




We've now had a couple of weeks to digest the new 620+hp LS9 V8 in the Corvette ZR1, it's time to see what else the GM Powertrain team has up its sleeves. The other half of the GM power duo to be displayed at the 2008 North American International Auto Show is the 2009 Cadillac CTS-V. The CTS-V is propelled by an engine closely related to the LS9 and carrying the designation LSA.

Like the LS9, the LSA is an aluminum block 6.2L V-8 with an Eaton 6th generation two-rotor supercharger. The basic configuration matches the LS9 with the blower sitting in the valley of the block. An air to liquid intercooler sits on top of the supercharger. Differences between the two engines are primarily intended to give the Cadillac an extra air of refinement compared to the sports car and result in the LSA "only" producing 550 hp and 550 lb-ft of torque. Read on after the jump to learn about the differences between the LS9 and LSA



The single biggest difference leading to lower output for the Cadillac is the supercharger displacement. While the LS9 has a 2.3L blower, the unit in the CTS-V only displaces 1.9L. Aside from the size, the blower is based on the same four lobe rotor design with 160 degrees of twist to the lobes. The design provides greater efficiency and thirty-five percent less power draw than the previous three lobe design in addition to much quieter operation. The maximum boost pressure is reduced from 10.5 psi to 9.0 psi.

Since the CTS-V had a little more vertical and longitudinal space under the hood than the Corvette, the engineers were able to use a different intercooler. The LS9 intercooler has two separate heat exchanger units that are split on either side of the supercharger outlet. The LSA has a single heat exchanger that is slightly taller but has more efficient airflow. The other packaging difference is the use of a third drive belt dedicated to the supercharger rather than the two belt system used on the ZR1 engine.



The lower pressures mean that some of the material changes that were implemented on the LS9 were not necessary on the LSA. The titanium connecting rods and intake valves are replaced by forged powdered metal and SilChromel, respectively. The exhaust valves on the LSA are not sodium filled either. The exhaust manifolds are cast iron rather than stainless steel as on the LS9 and the main bearing caps are nodular iron rather than steel.

The pistons in the LSA are hyper-eutectic cast aluminum rather than being forged. The piston skirts are polymer coated for improved scuff resistance and reduced NVH. The sumped top design of the pistons is retained, which allows for clearing the valves without machined valve pockets. The continuous surface free of edges helps to avoid hot spots that can contribute to pre-ignition.

The LSA also gets the dual pressure fuel system used in the the LS9, but the top pressure is reduced from 600kPa to 450kPa. The LSA gets the same beefed up block casting, seven-layer head gasket and 12mm head bolts as its big brother. The improved lubrication system including the squirters that spray oil on the bottom of the pistons is also retained. In total, the LSA and LS9 have about 100 new part compared to the LS7 in the current Corvette Z06. Of those, about twenty-five percent are common to both engines.

The end result is an engine that compared with the BMW M5 has 50 hp more at its peak and, more importantly, a much fatter torque curve. At 1,200 rpm the LSA is already producing more torque than the 383lb-ft that the M5 engine makes at its 6,100 rpm peak, and it never really lets up. It's the kind twisting force that gives you a shove in the back and just keeps pushing and pushing as long as the driver has the nerve to keep his or her right foot planted.

EricVonHa
08-30-08, 11:55 PM
the 6-bolt main caps on these motors are a nice 250k mile benefit. Well, that is, if the internals are properly balanced and the crank doesn't walk back and forth tooo much ;)

Nodular iron mains in the V vs. steel for the Vette ? I guess it depends if either metal is sourced from Mexico or China!

Varsity
09-22-08, 01:45 PM
V has 6200 rpm redline and fuel cutoff.

ZR1 has 6600 rpm and fuel cutoff.
Plus it has a lighter weight valvetrain.

I find a 6200 rpm fuel cutoff in this day kind of strange.
My GTO and SRX will go past that.


My RS4 runs to 8650!

Albertan
09-22-08, 03:35 PM
Varsity
There are two ways to get horsepower. Displacement or RPM. GM goes more with displacement. It would tend to make engines last longer.
What RPM does the RS4 run at 60mph in 6th?

terminal Velocity
09-22-08, 04:21 PM
My RS4 runs to 8650!Is 8650 the mileage before it blows up?

HPCC
09-22-08, 04:22 PM
...The exhaust manifolds are cast iron rather than stainless steel as on the LS9...I was just comparing the two between their respective exploded pictures yesterday. The LSA's don't look half bad for cast items (no sharp turns), but the LS9's collector looks cavernous by way of comparison...wonder how much this, along with appropriately sized downpipes on back might be worth on their own (assuming everything would even fit--the LSA's oil pump or something is protruding from the sump)...

Florian
09-22-08, 04:27 PM
My RS4 runs to 8650!

<yawn> it has to....best part is, youll still be a spec in the rearview mirror. :yup:


F

Jpjr
09-22-08, 04:49 PM
Since group think continues to rear its ugly head...

A motor that can rev to 8650 is a sign of superior technology and design.
It has nothing to do with american vs foreign, lol. Read: It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

In real life, this motor can drive the Audi around corners without changing gears as often since it makes power along a wider band. This reduces the need for extra displacement and makes the vehicle lighter, a double benefit.

Albertan
09-22-08, 05:54 PM
Jpjr
Reving an engine to 8650 rpm will wear it out quicker. Why do you think domestic autos run 200,000 miles with no problem these days. In the 60's 100,000 miles was a real milestone. Then an engine was running 3000rpm at 60 (My 1968 Olds 442 ran 3400 at 60) today, my V runs 1800. Better gas mileage and less wear. (Computer controlled fuel injection helped as well.)
I also remember a friend with a 1968 Z28 would rev it to 8000 and drop the clutch when racing. It is just a matter of valve train and supporting bottom end. The problem then becomes you have to drive around at 3000+ to make any power.
Race cars are running around 19,000 rpm to make their power because they have tiny displacement. Goes back to what I said, displacement or RPM.
The gas expanding in a cylinder can't read Chev, Audi or BMW.

atdeneve
09-22-08, 06:11 PM
Since group think continues to rear its ugly head...

A motor that can rev to 8650 is a sign of superior technology and design.
It has nothing to do with american vs foreign, lol. Read: It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

In real life, this motor can drive the Audi around corners without changing gears as often since it makes power along a wider band. This reduces the need for extra displacement and makes the vehicle lighter, a double benefit.

Not necessarily true.

A higher rev limit does not necessarily equate to a wider power band. More often than not, a high revving engine will be a peaky motor. Its power production will be limited to the upper ranges, thereby, requiring you to work the gears in order to keep the engine in its power range (which is not itself a bad thing, as that is part of the fun).

Also, any lighter weight imparted by a lower displacement is often lost to the addition of the "superior" overhead cams and associated components - right on top of the engine, no less.

I would like to be able to rev the engine to at least 6500, though. If not higher.

Jayrcr3
09-22-08, 08:10 PM
At 1,200 rpm the LSA is already producing more torque than the 383lb-ft that the M5 engine makes at its 6,100 rpm peak, and it never really lets up.



This trumps that 8500 rpm redline.

Jpjr
09-22-08, 11:46 PM
An LSA with 8600 rpm redline will perform better than an LSA with 6200 rpm redline if it is built correctly, that is all I'm trying to say.

But you can't compare power, because high rev motors don't require the same displacement. They generate power and performance from high engine speeds, avoiding increasing the size of the engine or using a turbo/super charger, which require increases in weight and fuel consumption.

For people citing reliability, once again I don't think that BMW is having a problem losing money on warranty costs. Adding a blower to the LSA strains engine internals in a similar manner to revving, it all comes down to reliability. It's sort of a funny argument given nameplate reputations for quality.

Jpjr
09-22-08, 11:52 PM
At 1,200 rpm the LSA is already producing more torque than the 383lb-ft that the M5 engine makes at its 6,100 rpm peak, and it never really lets up.



This trumps that 8500 rpm redline.

That statement is true for almost any large displacement pushrod V8, including the Silverado's. ;)

Albertan
09-23-08, 09:33 AM
JPJR
I pretty much agree with you but for the fuel consumption idea. It takes X amount of fuel to produce Y horsepower. Large displacement/slower running=small displacement/high reving. If you got better fuel economy with the high rev/small displacement combo everyone would be doing it. You do get better fuel economy running a small displacement engine slower tuned for less horsepower.
Also, I would think that a high reving, long living engine would be more expensive to build. If you want an LS engine to rev to 8000+, it can easily be built but the cam will produce power from 3500 to 8500 rather than 1000 to 6000. That would be a good thing for racing, but driving it in town would be a bit of a pain. Gas mileage wouldn't be great either. I can see myself: old guy driving 30 mph in low gear and maybe second. Lots of noise and everyone would be wondering if I was senile and forgetting to shift!

Jpjr
09-23-08, 10:07 AM
JPJR
I pretty much agree with you but for the fuel consumption idea. It takes X amount of fuel to produce Y horsepower. Large displacement/slower running=small displacement/high reving. If you got better fuel economy with the high rev/small displacement combo everyone would be doing it. You do get better fuel economy running a small displacement engine slower tuned for less horsepower.
Also, I would think that a high reving, long living engine would be more expensive to build. If you want an LS engine to rev to 8000+, it can easily be built but the cam will produce power from 3500 to 8500 rather than 1000 to 6000. That would be a good thing for racing, but driving it in town would be a bit of a pain. Gas mileage wouldn't be great either. I can see myself: old guy driving 30 mph in low gear and maybe second. Lots of noise and everyone would be wondering if I was senile and forgetting to shift!


I pretty much agree with you as well.

You are right on fuel consumption, my only point is that to make X horsepower, a high revving motor is built to run more efficiently than a low revving motor with forced induction and backpressure. But the real issue is weight. Compare the displacement of the new M3 V8 motor (414hp/4.0L) to the V1 LS2 (400hp/6.2L).

You are also right on expenses, technology costs more, but this is precisely why people are willing to pay up for it. GM could not offer the same performance value if they did not rely on large pushrod motors. Costs would skyrocket. They are cheaper to build, cheaper to fix, and should last longer (assuming equal quality componentry) than high revving motors. But this is also somewhat trivial. Today's high revving motors will last as long as 99% of buyers care to use them.. well into six figure mileage. The warranties are there if they didn't.

I always question whether to reply, because some will inevitably think this is an american vs foreign debate. It is not.

Albertan
09-23-08, 10:48 AM
JPJR
It does seem that the German cars are in the enviable position of being able to charge more or a lot more than the Americans. BMW is the car that everyone wants to compare there make against. (I actually went on a tour of the BMW factory in Munich last year -in English! I was hoping they wouldn't ask what cars we drove - they didn't)
What this all comes down to is different companies go about building their cars differently. Today, every auto manufacturer is building very good cars and we are lucky to be in a position to be able to buy what we consider is the best.
However, since you mentioned the new M3, is it worth the extra money for that versus the 335? Or should this be on the BMW forums?

Jpjr
09-23-08, 11:46 AM
JPJR

However, since you mentioned the new M3, is it worth the extra money for that versus the 335? Or should this be on the BMW forums?

That is a BMW forum question.

But I will say that I am buying a V2 and my reasoning is that 1) it is more muscle/$$ regardless of how they get there, 2) the car design and interior is far superior, 3) all else equal i support domestic products if they are as good.

Albertan
09-23-08, 02:32 PM
I'd thought about the new V as well. My problem is it would cost the price of the V PLUS the price of a new CTS 3.6 for my wife! Gotta do a lot more molding(my company) before I can afford that.

jasaero
09-23-08, 02:53 PM
An LSA with 8600 rpm redline will perform better than an LSA with 6200 rpm redline if it is built correctly, that is all I'm trying to say.

But you can't compare power, because high rev motors don't require the same displacement. They generate power and performance from high engine speeds, avoiding increasing the size of the engine or using a turbo/super charger, which require increases in weight and fuel consumption.

For people citing reliability, once again I don't think that BMW is having a problem losing money on warranty costs. Adding a blower to the LSA strains engine internals in a similar manner to revving, it all comes down to reliability. It's sort of a funny argument given nameplate reputations for quality.

First of all an LSA with components good for an 8600rpm redline would probably be making near 700hp rather than 550hp. Of course it would be better.

If you decrease displacement you are bound to decrease torque. This is where your arguement falls appart. It's all a different strokes for different folks thing rather than a one is better thing when it comes right down too it. BUT, once you start talking OHV vs DOHC instead of displacement and torque vs Revs.............................................. .................................................. ...................

Displacement doesn't exactly add weight either if you go from DOHC to OHV in the process of increasing displacement. OHV has superior packaging attributes that allow a higher displacement design to take up less space and weight less over all. The 7.0L LS7 engine performs very similar to the M5 V10 or AMG 6.2L V8, while weighing about the same as the AMG V8 and less than the M5 V10 and taking up less space in probably every dimension than either. BMW and MB have slowly built their smaller cars out around their big heavy V8 and larger engines.

An LS7 would probably fit in an old M3 that came with a straight six a lot easier than the BMW V10 would, IF you could even make the V10 work in the old M3. The LS7 doesn't weight much more than the current M3's V8 anyhow and probably takes up about the same amount of space, while displacing 3 more litre's, revving close to the same point, and making GOBs more torque and 90 more HP. Basically the M3 would cost BMW less to build, have 90 more HP, and STILL have the 50/50 weight distribution if BMW would have just called GM up for a REAL engine. Still, it's still a different strokes for different folks thing in the end. Although an LS7 powered M3 would be superior performance wise, many would probably miss the extreme race scream that comes from the current M3 V8. The LS7 gives a pretty extreme scream, but it's more of a controlled scream rather the psychopath race scream that comes from revves above 8000rpm.

On the reliability front, I have never heard of extreme reliability claims for M cars, Italian sports cars, or really any other car that is known to rev beyond 7K in general. Even the much simpler high tune Type R Honda 4's that get into this region are not known to be nearly as reliable as their more pedestrian Honda siblings.

Jpjr
09-23-08, 04:51 PM
All very good points. I certainly don't think the LS' are incapable engines. Right now I own an LS6 and LS2.

But you are saying drop a 7L LS7 to an M3 with a 4L E92. What happens when BMW decides to build a 7L E92. I would rather see GM spend the money on engine technology rather than trying to get 1000lbs of low end torque to the ground lol. :thumbsup:

buf05CTSV
09-23-08, 06:57 PM
Since group think continues to rear its ugly head...

A motor that can rev to 8650 is a sign of superior technology and design.
It has nothing to do with american vs foreign, lol. Read: It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

In real life, this motor can drive the Audi around corners without changing gears as often since it makes power along a wider band. This reduces the need for extra displacement and makes the vehicle lighter, a double benefit.

Ford won Lemans in the 60s because the GT40 had a big low-rev engine, whereas the Ferraris simply tired out because they had higher redlines and less displacement.

jasaero
09-23-08, 07:36 PM
All very good points. I certainly don't think the LS' are incapable engines. Right now I own an LS6 and LS2.

But you are saying drop a 7L LS7 to an M3 with a 4L E92. What happens when BMW decides to build a 7L E92. I would rather see GM spend the money on engine technology rather than trying to get 1000lbs of low end torque to the ground lol. :thumbsup:

I have only an LS6. Love it. Some day it would be cool to have a high revving take on the 400hp+ world, but really like the low revving approach better from a technical/engineering standpoint.

BMW would never touch an OHV engine and they would almost have to for a 7L E92 to become a reality. If not OHV it would need the 8000+rpm and 700-800hp to compensate for the increased weight and bad balance of the car also.

GM already has the tech to build a high revving engine. The LS7 and DI 3.6L V6 are good enough proof of that. The LS7 uses advanced light weight components to make 7000k rpm and the 3.6L DI is a plain jane DOHC that can make 7000k. If you used some of the advanced lightweight production techniques of the LS7 for components of a V8 derived from the 3.6L DI you would probably have well over 8000rpm capable engine. The engine would be very expensive, even compared to LS7, though and not give you any real advantage OVER LS7 other than revability. Such a design minus all the lightweight components and extreme revving is on the shelf at GM, but they canned it because of lack of funding and high fuel costs diverting funds from any thing more than 4 or 6 cylinders. If they ever revive their Ultra V8 program it could very well be the sorta engine you are suggesting. Something more like GM's take on the non-M BMW and non-AMG MB V8's that could surely eventually get a derivative like the M and AMG engines.

I don't think they should bother with such an engine though. It's a lot of cost with not much return. Even if Caddy ever brings a REAL S-class competitor to the game eventually, I think they should put an LS? derived OHV V12 or even V16 engine in it as the top engine rather than copying the Euro cars. Maybe make even the V8 for engine for such a car special to Cadillac, with greater refinement tuning and such, but based on the LS? Doubt it will ever happen anytime soon with todays fuel crunch and tomorrow CAFE though. Eventually maybe they will get enough presence worldwide to attack BMW and MB more car for car, but those cars need to be very different from MB and BMW for Cadillac to really make a statement.

Jpjr
09-23-08, 11:01 PM
I have only an LS6. Love it. Some day it would be cool to have a high revving take on the 400hp+ world, but really like the low revving approach better from a technical/engineering standpoint.

BMW would never touch an OHV engine and they would almost have to for a 7L E92 to become a reality. If not OHV it would need the 8000+rpm and 700-800hp to compensate for the increased weight and bad balance of the car also.

GM already has the tech to build a high revving engine. The LS7 and DI 3.6L V6 are good enough proof of that. The LS7 uses advanced light weight components to make 7000k rpm and the 3.6L DI is a plain jane DOHC that can make 7000k. If you used some of the advanced lightweight production techniques of the LS7 for components of a V8 derived from the 3.6L DI you would probably have well over 8000rpm capable engine. The engine would be very expensive, even compared to LS7, though and not give you any real advantage OVER LS7 other than revability. Such a design minus all the lightweight components and extreme revving is on the shelf at GM, but they canned it because of lack of funding and high fuel costs diverting funds from any thing more than 4 or 6 cylinders. If they ever revive their Ultra V8 program it could very well be the sorta engine you are suggesting. Something more like GM's take on the non-M BMW and non-AMG MB V8's that could surely eventually get a derivative like the M and AMG engines.

I don't think they should bother with such an engine though. It's a lot of cost with not much return. Even if Caddy ever brings a REAL S-class competitor to the game eventually, I think they should put an LS? derived OHV V12 or even V16 engine in it as the top engine rather than copying the Euro cars. Maybe make even the V8 for engine for such a car special to Cadillac, with greater refinement tuning and such, but based on the LS? Doubt it will ever happen anytime soon with todays fuel crunch and tomorrow CAFE though. Eventually maybe they will get enough presence worldwide to attack BMW and MB more car for car, but those cars need to be very different from MB and BMW for Cadillac to really make a statement.

Well first keep in mind that the E92 V8 is one of if not the lightest OHC V8 on the road today. It actually weighs less than the V6 it replaced.

We will agree to disagree. LS motors make a lot of power, but they are fundamentally no different than truck motors (and they have been used in many trucks as we know). Throwing a large displacement motor in a small Corvette is a great formula for power, but it is simply nowhere near state of the art.

The high speed motor has more advantages all things considered. The combo of DOHC and high rev *does* give the motor a broader powerband, which *does* give the driver more options when it comes to non-oval racing. I am citing tecnological advances and not preference, and I wish GM would build one so that this can stop sounding like an us vs. them argument.

I can't argue ultimate performance, since the Viper (8L motor) just set a record at Nurburgring. But if you have ever driven an M3, you know the difference in every day driving. The M3 is nimble and effortless through traffic and corners, whereas a Z06 or Viper are torque steer monsters that get violent fast. It's a great thrill (remember, i own them), but reaction times are simply not the same for anyone but 100% trained professional pushrod road-racers.

All my opinion.

coolcaddy1
09-24-08, 12:09 AM
so back to the original topic on this thread. Inorder to get a V2 to ZR1 powerlevels you would need to

1 drop in forged internals ....crank, pistons, valves, main caps

2 switch intake manifods

3 switch to larger zr1 blower and intercooler although it seemes the caddi cooler flows better..i though i read that??:hmm:

4 fuel presure would need to be upgraded. is that a computer limited boundry or is that the caddies mechanical limit? possible fuel pump upgrade

looks like we cn leave out the dry sump as more room in the engine bay and the caddi has the same oil squirters on the botom of the pistons to keep em cool and not burned through like the zr1

The ECU would need to be reflasher or would the vettes work?

while your in there may as well do a cam and headers. Asuming most of the caddi and zr1 parts are interchangable what is the cost of upgrading to vette power?

then after we have all this power on tap will the new diff hold up? :thepan: Can we get the magnetic ride to handle the hop and ge it to hook up? Man I can't wait to see what we will be able to do with the new V2:highfive:

Jpjr
09-24-08, 10:01 AM
so back to the original topic on this thread. Inorder to get a V2 to ZR1 powerlevels you would need to

1 drop in forged internals ....crank, pistons, valves, main caps

2 switch intake manifods

3 switch to larger zr1 blower and intercooler although it seemes the caddi cooler flows better..i though i read that??:hmm:

4 fuel presure would need to be upgraded. is that a computer limited boundry or is that the caddies mechanical limit? possible fuel pump upgrade

looks like we cn leave out the dry sump as more room in the engine bay and the caddi has the same oil squirters on the botom of the pistons to keep em cool and not burned through like the zr1

The ECU would need to be reflasher or would the vettes work?

while your in there may as well do a cam and headers. Asuming most of the caddi and zr1 parts are interchangable what is the cost of upgrading to vette power?

then after we have all this power on tap will the new diff hold up? :thepan: Can we get the magnetic ride to handle the hop and ge it to hook up? Man I can't wait to see what we will be able to do with the new V2:highfive:


no one knows what supporting mods will be required necessarily because no one has modded an LSA yet. but i am guessing that you can easily get the LSA to 636 hp with a more efficient blower (or possibly even a port), a smaller upper pulley, and a tune. in the grand scheme of things it would be very easy to make 650hp with the LSA, and I would expect the 2011 CTS-V to debut with at least 600hp just from extra boost.

jasaero
09-24-08, 10:51 AM
Well first keep in mind that the E92 V8 is one of if not the lightest OHC V8 on the road today. It actually weighs less than the V6 it replaced.

Yes it is, but it still weighs 445lbs compared to an LS7's 458lbs I think. So basically a 13lb advantage with about 80-90hp disadvantage. And MASSIVE torque disadvantage. Also I am pretty sure many of the dimensions of the LS7 are similar or smaller. It's a high displacement engine, but is VERY compact and lightweight at the same time. An inherent and undeniable advantage of OHV arrangement.


We will agree to disagree. LS motors make a lot of power, but they are fundamentally no different than truck motors (and they have been used in many trucks as we know). Throwing a large displacement motor in a small Corvette is a great formula for power, but it is simply nowhere near state of the art.

The high speed motor has more advantages all things considered. The combo of DOHC and high rev *does* give the motor a broader powerband, which *does* give the driver more options when it comes to non-oval racing. I am citing tecnological advances and not preference, and I wish GM would build one so that this can stop sounding like an us vs. them argument.

I can't argue ultimate performance, since the Viper (8L motor) just set a record at Nurburgring. But if you have ever driven an M3, you know the difference in every day driving. The M3 is nimble and effortless through traffic and corners, whereas a Z06 or Viper are torque steer monsters that get violent fast. It's a great thrill (remember, i own them), but reaction times are simply not the same for anyone but 100% trained professional pushrod road-racers.

All my opinion.

First of all, the M3 V8 isn't so much state of the art, as it is just plain expensive and complicated. They have been making race engines configured very similar to the M3 engine with the per cylinder throttle bodies and such for a LONG time now. Ferrari has been making similar engines for road cars for a long time now. Pure and simple. It's just more expensive to do because of the high number of parts and fancy lightweight materials needed to accomplish it, not exactly state of the art though. Probably some of the most state of the art processes used on the M3 V8 have more to do with manufacturing lightweight components in greater than race engine volume than anything to do with the overall design. Those same manufacturing processes are also used on engines like the LS7 that also need similar lightweight components though. The only real point you might be able to make against the LS7 in an arguement like this is that it probably isn't quite at the same refinement and NVH levels for everyday putting around as something like the E92 V8. But, from everything I have read, it is a lot closer than it's predecessor the LS6 and probably within spitting distance even on this measure. It's more along the lines of the LS3 that has used extra displacement to allow the tune of the cams to be less aggressive and more civil. Really the LS3 is probably a better overall match to the E92 V8 than the LS7. It probably is still within 15lbs of the E92 engine while making 10 more hp and probably having matched NVH and refinement characteristics.

Now your last paragraph is just silly. Has nothing to do with the engine at all hardly. The differences in such cars approach to making good times around race tracks is much more in the chassis and suspension designs and such than anything to do with the engine. Sure, when you have 400-600lbft of torque to exit a corner with, it's going to take more skill to do it right compared to a car with less than 300lbft and not end up off the road. But at the same time you could also just hold higher gears and focus on getting through the corner with such a car and let the higher gear compensate for your floor happy right foot and not loose much time while if you did that with a 300lbft car you will just fail to regain momentum. I will admit that a car like the Z06 uses a much more crude approach to suspension tuning than a car like the M3, but can't say the engine is any less state of the art!! And you seem to be ignoring the CTS-V2 this thread is being discussed about. Everything I have read about it makes it sound like just as civil and refined an overall package as the M5 or M3 while beating both around the 'Ring using a very similar more refined and civil, but adjustable, chassis and suspension tuning approach, JUST like the BMW's. ALL using another derivative of this LS? engine that is so low tech and truck derived.

As a side note, your wide power band point on the M3 engine is also silly. A wide power band is just another way of saying a flat torque curve usually. Technically it is the rev range between peak torque and peak HP. But in the end power band is really determined more by just how much torque you have at any given RPM. So really a very high torque engine with a somewhat flat torque curve and ability to rev pretty high is going to probably have a wider REAL power band than a rev happy engine that has a flat torque curve, but torque deficiency. The M3 has 295lbft at peak and can rev 4400rpms from there. The LS7 AND LS3 have 300+lbft from just off idle at 1000rpm. The LS3 can rev 5300rpms from there and the LS7 can rev 6000rpms from there. This higher torque curve essentially gives you a FLATTER power curve in the end. So in the E92 M3 at 4000rpms you have maybe 220hp while an LS3 has 300hp already. And it's the same through out the graph. So basically if put the M3 HP graph on top the LS3 graph the LS3 graph would have more area under it's curve. Particularly in the lower and middle of the rev ranges. So basically the LS3 will have around 20-50hp advantage just off idle all the way to the middle of it's power band and get a 100hp or more advantage near the peak of the LS3's revs. So basically where the LS3 loses area under the curve after it's redline it more than makes up for it with the extra area it has from start to redline.

jasaero
09-24-08, 11:33 AM
so back to the original topic on this thread. Inorder to get a V2 to ZR1 powerlevels you would need to

1 drop in forged internals ....crank, pistons, valves, main caps

2 switch intake manifods

3 switch to larger zr1 blower and intercooler although it seemes the caddi cooler flows better..i though i read that??:hmm:

4 fuel presure would need to be upgraded. is that a computer limited boundry or is that the caddies mechanical limit? possible fuel pump upgrade

looks like we cn leave out the dry sump as more room in the engine bay and the caddi has the same oil squirters on the botom of the pistons to keep em cool and not burned through like the zr1

The ECU would need to be reflasher or would the vettes work?

while your in there may as well do a cam and headers. Asuming most of the caddi and zr1 parts are interchangable what is the cost of upgrading to vette power?

then after we have all this power on tap will the new diff hold up? :thepan: Can we get the magnetic ride to handle the hop and ge it to hook up? Man I can't wait to see what we will be able to do with the new V2:highfive:

Sorry for taking over this thread with OHV vs DOHC talks.

Pretty sure the LSA could hit ZR1 power with a lot less than you are touting. Not sure of the reliability of just doing a pully and tune and such, but that would probably get you there and still give you a pretty reliable setup if you don't push the car all the time. I'm pretty sure the CTS-V2 and even more so the ZR1 engines are designed so one could actually race them many weekends in SCCA and whatnot without worrying too much about reliability issues during the 100,000 mile warranty term. If you only really push your car really hard once in a blue moon, you could probably get away with the shortcut routes and not have to worry too much about how the engine holds up. The ZR1 is actually probably ready for 700+hp without much work and still hold up well as you know people who might have spent $200k plus for a Ferrari or something but decided to try the somewhat more pedestrian looking, but just as fast in the ZR1 might be very inclined to spend the savings tweaking things.

The LSA won't have as extreme the head room as the LS9, but it will probably be able to goto LS9 power levels without much work and still be pretty reliable. Never can know for sure though until people start going beyond OEM tune and really pushing the car.

GNSCOTT
09-24-08, 02:22 PM
What world class motor does BMW have? GM's ancient pushrod V motors have proven to be higher hp, higher torque, longer lasting, MUCh cheaper to build and maintain, and get much better feul economy. Show me a better performance engine from any other manufacturer. Also funny how my old Buick GN with a 7000rpm shift point only made about 1200/1200. Damn GM pushrod motors suck. ;)

Jpjr
09-24-08, 02:45 PM
http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/winners_08/3_4.html

http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/categories.html

USA had the most judges, twice as many as any other country or region.

jasaero
09-24-08, 04:07 PM
http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/winners_08/3_4.html

http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/categories.html

USA had the most judges, twice as many as any other country or region.

So just because the USA has the most judges, they can't be biased?? Come on. The fact BMW wins so many awards from this organization is proof of atleast some bias. They make great engines, don't get me wrong. There actually may not be a bias among these people or other engine awards, but I think there is a bias in general against OHV among the sorts of people involved in stuff like this. They tend to be journalist/media and enthusiast sorts involved. I am sure they are all quite in the know about engine tech and design compared to most, but the packaging and weight advantages of OHV's in V arrangements is still a pretty lesser known fact. And it's not really something that can be understood if you are basing judgement of an engine on the final overall vehicle it is put in.

Now if you goto design a performance oriented car and then get to a stage where you want to pick an engine for your car, that is a different story. Look at the number of LS derived engines used in extreme low volume hand crafted performance cars and other similar efforts and you will start to understand just how amazing these engines really are. Really it's almost more surprising to hear of an engine outside the LS used in such vehicles.

Jpjr
09-24-08, 11:07 PM
Yes, it's a conspiracy that a large displacement pushrod motor with a roots style blower did not make the top ten. The American judges are clearly biased.