Every now and then there comes a dyno graph...
02-06-2009, 10:08 PM
#21
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
There is tons of info on engine swaps and costs on miata.net. It is not cheap if you do it right. After all one is basically replacing the entire powertrain.
But, for all the money I have spent so far on my turbo mods, and an engine build to replace a blown motor...
But, for all the money I have spent so far on my turbo mods, and an engine build to replace a blown motor...
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 12:48 AM
#26
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,983
Total Cats: 2,230
I can attest that a 2.0 liter will make more power (at least more than FM's Elvis). I suspect that, all else being equal, the LSx Miata will destroy me in an autocross or on a tight track. There are a couple of sub-500 hp LS3s being installed at FM currently currently 
Doesn't matter to me though. A high-boost, high-revving 4-banger suits the Miata's personality, which is why I took this route.
Doesn't matter to me though. A high-boost, high-revving 4-banger suits the Miata's personality, which is why I took this route.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 01:24 AM
#28
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
416ci stroker LS3, intake manifold, headers, aggressive cam, intake, tune. 91 octane, through cats.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 04:52 AM
#31
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,468
Total Cats: 365
[QUOTE=robino;364663]the torque is nice
the hp figures are peaky though, you only have 1000 rpms of 350 hp, rest of the time you're way below that.
/QUOTE]
Big fat area under the torque curve for the win. Small tiny area under the 280 HP line in an RSX for the lose.
the hp figures are peaky though, you only have 1000 rpms of 350 hp, rest of the time you're way below that.
/QUOTE]
Big fat area under the torque curve for the win. Small tiny area under the 280 HP line in an RSX for the lose.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 12:58 PM
#34
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Concord, North Carolina
Posts: 4,160
Total Cats: 6
Buddy of mine had a 500rwhp SC SS and got right at 22 on the highway, and around 17-18 just playing around.
LS1 motors are ridiculous. Simple, yes. But that doesn't make them any less badass.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 02:07 PM
#35
they could be making more power than they are, but GM doesn't think like most people. The design of the LS1 isn't horrible, but it doesn't match horsepower/liter with motors such as the BMW M60B40. The one advantage it has is its compact size due to it not having overhead cams.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 02:11 PM
#36
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
The turbo car makes 80% of peak power from 5200-7000 RPM. That's a ratio of 1.35:1.
The V8 makes 80% of peak power from 3900 to 6050 RPM. That's a ratio of 1.55:1.
The ratio of the RPMs is what matters, not the difference.
Not to mention, the V8 makes more power than the turbo's peak from 3750 RPM to redline.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 02:25 PM
#37
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,983
Total Cats: 2,230
they could be making more power than they are, but GM doesn't think like most people. The design of the LS1 isn't horrible, but it doesn't match horsepower/liter with motors such as the BMW M60B40. The one advantage it has is its compact size due to it not having overhead cams.
Yes, if money was no object, I'd prefer the AMG engine. The point is that Chevy did very well that motor and in many ways it is world class.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 03:12 PM
#38
There was an article in one of the car mags (Road & Track?) a while back where they compared engine technology, output and cost. They looked at the 7.0l Z06 motor (505 hp) vs. the 6.3l AMG V8 (514 hp or so, depending upon application). The AMG motor has all the modern bells and whistles (DOHC, VVT, etc, etc), weighs more, takes up significantly more space and barely makes more power per liter than the Corvette mill. The kicker is that you can walk into any Chevy dealer and buy an LS7 engine for about 18 grand, while AMG will charge you north of 60
Yes, if money was no object, I'd prefer the AMG engine. The point is that Chevy did very well that motor and in many ways it is world class.
Yes, if money was no object, I'd prefer the AMG engine. The point is that Chevy did very well that motor and in many ways it is world class.
Z06 LS7: 505HP/7L=72.14HP/L
E39 M5 S62: 395HP/4.9L=79HP/L
If GM modernized their motors they could see substantial gains with that much displacement.
I wouldn't bUy an AMG engine, not much of a Mercedes guy myself. It is surprising to see how much better the LS7 does HP/L than the LS1 though.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 03:58 PM
#39
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,983
Total Cats: 2,230
I can't believe I'm even getting caught up in this discussion. I didn't want to do a V8 in my Miata (doesn't suit the character of the car, IMO), I don't particularly like Chevy (I'm an import guy) and the previous generation of M5 has always been one of my dream cars.
However, I think people are losing some perspective here. A DOHC engine will always breath better than an OHV one. Twice the number of valves = better flow. Overhead Cams = less friction and more precise valve actuation. It would be crying shame if BMW engineers were not able to extract 11% more power per liter than Chevy. Personally, I would have expected better.
Chevrolet engineers purposely stayed with the OHV design, not because of lack of know-how, limited development budget or adherence to tradition. The simple reason is that this engine is much less tall and will package better. Look at the technology they did incorporate into this engine:
* All-aluminum block with forged crank and main bearing caps
* Dry sump oiling
* Titanium rods and intake valves (good for 7,000 rpm)
This is not a retro motor with archaic technology, by any standard.
However, I think people are losing some perspective here. A DOHC engine will always breath better than an OHV one. Twice the number of valves = better flow. Overhead Cams = less friction and more precise valve actuation. It would be crying shame if BMW engineers were not able to extract 11% more power per liter than Chevy. Personally, I would have expected better.
Chevrolet engineers purposely stayed with the OHV design, not because of lack of know-how, limited development budget or adherence to tradition. The simple reason is that this engine is much less tall and will package better. Look at the technology they did incorporate into this engine:
* All-aluminum block with forged crank and main bearing caps
* Dry sump oiling
* Titanium rods and intake valves (good for 7,000 rpm)
This is not a retro motor with archaic technology, by any standard.
Reply
0
0
02-07-2009, 05:00 PM
#40
I can't believe I'm even getting caught up in this discussion. I didn't want to do a V8 in my Miata (doesn't suit the character of the car, IMO), I don't particularly like Chevy (I'm an import guy) and the previous generation of M5 has always been one of my dream cars.
However, I think people are losing some perspective here. A DOHC engine will always breath better than an OHV one. Twice the number of valves = better flow. Overhead Cams = less friction and more precise valve actuation. It would be crying shame if BMW engineers were not able to extract 11% more power per liter than Chevy. Personally, I would have expected better.
Chevrolet engineers purposely stayed with the OHV design, not because of lack of know-how, limited development budget or adherence to tradition. The simple reason is that this engine is much less tall and will package better. Look at the technology they did incorporate into this engine:
* All-aluminum block with forged crank and main bearing caps
* Dry sump oiling
* Titanium rods and intake valves (good for 7,000 rpm)
This is not a retro motor with archaic technology, by any standard.
However, I think people are losing some perspective here. A DOHC engine will always breath better than an OHV one. Twice the number of valves = better flow. Overhead Cams = less friction and more precise valve actuation. It would be crying shame if BMW engineers were not able to extract 11% more power per liter than Chevy. Personally, I would have expected better.
Chevrolet engineers purposely stayed with the OHV design, not because of lack of know-how, limited development budget or adherence to tradition. The simple reason is that this engine is much less tall and will package better. Look at the technology they did incorporate into this engine:
* All-aluminum block with forged crank and main bearing caps
* Dry sump oiling
* Titanium rods and intake valves (good for 7,000 rpm)
This is not a retro motor with archaic technology, by any standard.
Reply
0
0
