Hsv Announces 6.2 L Ls3 317 Kw

[ea90gl]

Originally Posted by tex

Moron?

Where in my reply to XA did I write about dragging on the street?

Where did I write about utilising the vehicles 'potential' on the street?

No where. And I don't wreckon I'm a good enough pilot to get the full potential from any my cars. But you, you're the race lgend aren't you......

If you want to look through ALL my previous posts bright spark, you'll see that unlike MOST on this forum, I take my cars to the circuit for serious adrenaline, I don't get my rocks off by racing on the street in built up areas. Using your cars potential - Yeh right, try using a couple of hundered RWKW's potential on the street while not falling into the danger zone (not just to yourself - but everyone around you) But by your logic that doesn't constitute being a hoon?

Anyway, i stand by what I said ages ago in this thread, but this time directed at you - grow up.

Ok yes whatever mate we believe you Im sure you love to be that internet warrior who has all the knowledge and knows whats right and whats wrong and can never lose an "e-battle" but lets just drop it before mods step in, BTW WOTDAH that EA is a work car and I dont gloat about it. Oh I wish I came from motorland and owned a BA with super bluepower tune lol, better call all the Bugatti owners around and tell em the done up taxi has extra power lol they better watch out Anyway thats enough from me back to topic

[HRT8]

I serioulsy think you blokes have missed 1 big point.

How much better does this make the end product for "us" users. It fantastic that we have the luxury of two different car makers going at it to continually push the boundaries.

WE, the car market get all the benefits.

[xe351]

Originally Posted by HRT8

I serioulsy think you blokes have missed 1 big point.

How much better does this make the end product for "us" users. It fantastic that we have the luxury of two different car makers going at it to continually push the boundaries.

WE, the car market get all the benefits.

agreed, competition gives us better cars in the end and is a good thing, why so many whingers

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Hold on Steffo, the Duratec V6 will not have a 5 Litre capacity twin turbo.....

Seriously, 300kw Callaway engine was a low volume, high cost engine that had a specific inlet manifold, cam and different, hand finished cylinder heads among other things. That's why it went into a 90-100K HSV.

The LS3 is a high volume, run of the mill engine that has been detuned a fair way down to 317kw. I estimate that its final evolution will see it somewhere around 350kw.

I know you hate pushrods, but the LS engines are not half as bad as you constantly make them out to be.

Daniel

Actually quite the opposite! I've always been a proponent of OHV Pushrod engines over their DOHC siblings! I'm the one who if in charge of Ford would throw the modular engine in the bit and burn the plans for it, and revive the Windsor, made of aluminium, with proper heads on it... not the ****y 150cfm crap Ford had on it standard.

I hate GM and their poor engineering. Its typical American. Can't do it? Make it bigger! Doesn't work? Throw more money at it!

The Callaway LS1... well... I don't know why HSV used it. The 302kW/542Nm 5.7 LS6 from the C5 Z06 was cheaper and more readily available and better.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Steffo

......

I hate GM and their poor engineering. .......

..

I seem to recall Ford had to snaffle Bunki Knudson and some of his engineering staff to develop the thinly disguised Chevy engines named Cleveland?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Wally

I seem to recall Ford had to snaffle Bunki Knudson and some of his engineering staff to develop the thinly disguised Chevy engines named Cleveland?

By that argument everyone copied the first guy to go ohv, or even 4 stroke. Undoubtedly Knudson brought ideas with him, but the ideas come from him and his team, Chev didnt teach him, he taught Chev.

[Wally]

I would suggest that canted valves that were so obvious on the Chev motors would be a fairly obvious take from GM. I'm not in a position to say whether Knudson developed the heads for GM or if he refined the method, but either way the statement that GM has/had inferior engineering doesn't hold, if Ford are using the same engineers and ideas....does it?

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Wally

I seem to recall Ford had to snaffle Bunki Knudson and some of his engineering staff to develop the thinly disguised Chevy engines named Cleveland?

And? Attacking Ford doesn't make GM any better. Besides, Ford USA is just as guilty of the same underengineering as GM.

[ea90gl]

Originally Posted by HRT8

I serioulsy think you blokes have missed 1 big point.

How much better does this make the end product for "us" users. It fantastic that we have the luxury of two different car makers going at it to continually push the boundaries.

WE, the car market get all the benefits.

Thats a good point there, its alot better these days compared to the mid/late 80's when ford didnt even have a V8 and Holden only had average offerings. I know that was a while back but just think if it was like the 80's today, best car to buy would be say N/A 6 cyl luxury pack Ford model or an SS with about 230ish KW

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Steffo

And? Attacking Ford doesn't make GM any better. Besides, Ford USA is just as guilty of the same underengineering as GM.

Who was attacking Ford?

What "underengineering" are we talking about and how do you quantify/qualify that?

Seems to me the Windsor was around for a very long time, which must mean it has some redeeming features. The "Aussie" six harks back fifty years from American design roots. Chev, Pontiac and Ford have all produced engines over a long period that have legacy trails, easy maintenance, easy repair, and longivity. It is the ease of modification that has contributed heavily to the DIY market and thus brand loyalty.

[YOOT]

Originally Posted by xw gtho phase 2

not insecruity mate its called hsv leading the way again ....like to see what happens when u pull up at the lights with the 317 kw monster next to you in your 302 cobra u will be to gutless to give him a go in fear u will look like a idiot ...facts a facts mate im pretty sure hsv ls3 will make lunch duties out of the 315 kw 5.4 too we will wait n see im sure modern motor and the like will have there reviews in within the next 6 mths on both cars .

Mate, I wouldn't even race an VE SS if I had a GT LOL! You're gunna lose!

Even my Forester would make a GT look like a waste. Might be faster but by how much... not enough thats how much. :

[mickyyyy]

why dosent ford just get back into the old windsor technology and bring out a single cam engine just like the all the LS series but of course alot better than the old windsor technology.

I dont beileve in quad cam crap, only single or twin cam and thats it becuz it just gets to costly for a cam upgrade and the engine just gets to complicated.

[burnz]

another repost
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11214343

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by ea90gl

Thats a good point there, its alot better these days compared to the mid/late 80's when ford didnt even have a V8 and Holden only had average offerings. I know that was a while back but just think if it was like the 80's today, best car to buy would be say N/A 6 cyl luxury pack Ford model or an SS with about 230ish KW

Thats a bit optimistic a late 80's SS having 230kw!

I seem to recall the 304ci in the VL having 125kw and advertsed as an engine for towing while the top of the line halo Holden was the VL SS Group A with 180kw.

Considering the XF had 120kw and was comparatively good on fuel it is no wonder the XF was the best selling Falcon ever.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by mickyyyy

why dosent ford just get back into the old windsor technology and bring out a single cam engine just like the all the LS series but of course alot better than the old windsor technology.

I dont beileve in quad cam crap, only single or twin cam and thats it becuz it just gets to costly for a cam upgrade and the engine just gets to complicated.

Sure, why not! and while they're at it bring back the 14" 12 slotters, leaf rear ends and ditch aircon... :

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by mickyyyy

why dosent ford just get back into the old windsor technology and bring out a single cam engine just like the all the LS series but of course alot better than the old windsor technology.

I dont beileve in quad cam crap, only single or twin cam and thats it becuz it just gets to costly for a cam upgrade and the engine just gets to complicated.

Not so my friend, quad cams are the future, everyone is using it these days (bar GM and Dodge).

The AMG 6.2L DOHC V8 makes 378kW@6800rpm, the 6.2L pushrod LS3 makes 317kW@6000, do you think if HSV tuned the LS3 to peak at 6800rpm, it would be making 507hp or even more?....I highly doubt it when the 7.0L LS7 only makes 505hp at 6300rpm....and believe it or not the AMG 6.2 mill has a better torque curve than the LS7!

[ea90gl]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Thats a bit optimistic a late 80's SS having 230kw!

I seem to recall the 304ci in the VL having 125kw and advertsed as an engine for towing while the top of the line halo Holden was the VL SS Group A with 180kw.

Considering the XF had 120kw and was comparatively good on fuel it is no wonder the XF was the best selling Falcon ever.

yeah what I was trying to say was imagine it was how it was in the 80's at present, we'd probably only have SS's with 230ish KW, the rest of what your saying is correct. Im trying to distinguish between the fact that in the 80's the V8's/ high performance car were decent compared to base models but where as today they are making special/ high performance models stretch way ahead of base models

[HSE2]

Interesting we can get this topic up to over 2500 views, while over at LS1 dot com it doesn't seem to rate highly at all. One thread I found was locked.

All very relaxed about it in a community that should actually care.

[schnoods]

To them its probably same S***, different bucket.

Especially when the LS1 first came out they were modding and getting great results. Then when the 6 litre came out and everything carried over and worked just as well, even better with the slight extra cubes.

0.2 of a litre in pretty much the same motor is not a big deal, unless your in the market for a new V8.

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by HSE2

Interesting we can get this topic up to over 2500 views, while over at LS1 dot com it doesn't seem to rate highly at all. One thread I found was locked.

All very relaxed about it in a community that should actually care.

Theres been quite a few threads over there about the LS3. A couple got locked because it had already been discussed and they're sick of talking about it.

Strange group of characters over there.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Not so my friend, quad cams are the future, everyone is using it these days (bar GM and Dodge).

The AMG 6.2L DOHC V8 makes 378kW@6800rpm, the 6.2L pushrod LS3 makes 317kW@6000, do you think if HSV tuned the LS3 to peak at 6800rpm, it would be making 507hp or even more?....I highly doubt it when the 7.0L LS7 only makes 505hp at 6300rpm....and believe it or not the AMG 6.2 mill has a better torque curve than the LS7!

Quad cams are not the future! They're actually older then OHV Pushrod technology, dating back to 1912 vs around 1917. There's nothing new about them. There's nothing 'better,' about them. They both use the same, limited capability, flawed, poppet valve design. Both have too many moving parts, consume too much oil, are too big, are too heavy and are easily replaced with camless technology like rotary valves. Century old technology being clung on-to by car manufacturers.

[YOOT]

Originally Posted by mickyyyy

why dosent ford just get back into the old windsor technology and bring out a single cam engine just like the all the LS series but of course alot better than the old windsor technology.

I dont beileve in quad cam crap, only single or twin cam and thats it becuz it just gets to costly for a cam upgrade and the engine just gets to complicated.

Quad cams are twin cams, there is only two cams on each cylcinder, just more than one cyclinder bank.

They way your talking you make it sound like there are four cames above each cylinder LOL!

[weenie]

Looks like gm are working on direct injection & variable cam timing for the gen v range of motors. The torque curve goes just about straight up & stayed there across the rev range, although the peak didnt change much. Improved ecconomy as well. The next few years will be interesting.

[Need_a_V8]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Not so my friend, quad cams are the future, everyone is using it these days (bar GM and Dodge).

The AMG 6.2L DOHC V8 makes 378kW@6800rpm, the 6.2L pushrod LS3 makes 317kW@6000, do you think if HSV tuned the LS3 to peak at 6800rpm, it would be making 507hp or even more?....I highly doubt it when the 7.0L LS7 only makes 505hp at 6300rpm....and believe it or not the AMG 6.2 mill has a better torque curve than the LS7!

And how much does a crate engine from AMG cost? Compare that to $6-$7k for an LS3 out the crate... BIG DIFFERENCE!

Its not all about tech tech tech! Pushrod is cost effective!

The LS3 in correct tune should be good for 330kw with still alot of room to move. Not this detuned 317kw crap. 330kw 6.2L LS3 for $6-7k out the crate compared to 378kw AMG engine for what? 20k+? The LS7 is cheaper than the AMG engine and again with an alright tune as seen in the CSV's its good for 400kw at the fly, if not more.

[Wally]

Isn't AMG what HSV and FPV are to Holden and Ford respectively, except AMG garner bits 'n bobs from Merc's racing engines?

I'd have thought with all that race breeding and o/head cams and twin valves the AMG would be putting out much more than 503 hp at 6,800 rpm and 456 lb-ft of torque at 5,200, compared to most powerful NA production engine being an antiquated 7.0 GM pushrod delivering 505 hp and 470 lb-ft.

To my mind if GM, or Ford for that matter did decide to enter the market segments that Merc play in, they could probably justify making engines that trounce the competition in cubic capacity per pony. There is hardly anything black magic in engines. That they prefer to cater to the mass market is a strategy they are obviously comfortable with. Ford could simply call on Cosworth for the design.

Focusing on displacement as the be all and end all of engine performance is tunnel vision, generally used for arguments that are being lost.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Not so my friend, quad cams are the future, everyone is using it these days (bar GM and Dodge).

The AMG 6.2L DOHC V8 makes 378kW@6800rpm, the 6.2L pushrod LS3 makes 317kW@6000, do you think if HSV tuned the LS3 to peak at 6800rpm, it would be making 507hp or even more?....I highly doubt it when the 7.0L LS7 only makes 505hp at 6300rpm....and believe it or not the AMG 6.2 mill has a better torque curve than the LS7!

And gee those AMGs are cheap aren't they :-) I might buy one to put in a hot rod.... Or maybe instead for the same money get two Chevy powered hot rods built for the price of one with an AMG engine, LOL.

I am sure if Chev was selling LS3s for as much money as a whole Commodore fitted with an LS3 then they would hand build them fitted with top end components and probably be making more than 600hp. As it is as the moment they are a relatively cheap engine that have proved pretty robust and damn good bang for the buck.

[gozza]

Originally Posted by BAGTp001

Ok has anyone seen a VE SS or HSV on the drag strip? What time did it run NO BS? and stock

yes - i saw a stock Maloo do a mid 13 or there abouts -

No wheelspin - Either he was launching it perfect and they were slow - or he wasn't launching hard enough

[gozza]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

VE Maloo at Willowbank on Saturday was running 13.9's. It was stock, the owner just wanted to see what it'd do.

I believe TUF240 lined up against it. Ask him what it did.

haha thats the one i was talking about

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by YOOT

Mate, I wouldn't even race an VE SS if I had a GT LOL! You're gunna lose!

Even my Forester would make a GT look like a waste. Might be faster but by how much... not enough thats how much. :

CHECKOUT THE STATEMENT ABOVE . ^^^^^ WOOOOOOH MALOO UTE STOCK DOES A SCARY 13.9 AT THE DRAGS , THATS XR8 /GT CATAGORY.

SO what's all this crap about the LS3 . OOOOOOOOOHH , VERY SCARY PERFORMANCE INDEED .

[FTE217]

Originally Posted by Wretched

The fact is the HSV's have owned any V8 from Ford for a bloody long time (T3 offered a decent fight though) on the track and off the track. FACT!!
The Ford V8 is essentially a truck motor that takes too many revs to do anything but has a low rev limit, so by the time the fun starts, the limiter comes in.

Decent fight ! it sure did and more, I'm still "waiting" for the same company to deliver again so I can park the T3 and use the next for my daily but it has to be an 8 thats the fair fight against GM not the 6pack with all due respect.