11-26-2017, 09:36 AM | #1 |
The Milano
Drives: 2017 Firefly ShipWorks Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland (Crown Point, IN)
Posts: 1,877
|
LT1 - so little HP for the liters?
So hear me our before you judge the title.
The 3.7 liter engine makes 90.5hp per liter. Its efficient and reliable. So why is the LT1 so far behind in development. By my math, a 6.2 liter engine should make 561hp. That's a metric crap tone of HP. Suppose you could make the argument that with the GM performance cam and heads IE "hot cam" kit it could get close to the 561hp. But why not include it from the factory. Why so much evolution difference between the platforms?
__________________
My first Love. She was called "Miss Carriage" (still cry when I think about her)
383, Muncie 4 speed, custom linkage mated to hurst short throw shifter. |
11-26-2017, 09:51 AM | #2 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
HP doesn't work that way.
It's fairly common to assume HP is directly proportional to displacement...but it's not. HP is directly related to torque x rpms. That's why a Porsche 4.0L six (for example) can produce 500 hp: It revs to 9000 rpms. Then factor in the "other" stuff...like frictional & thermal losses. |
11-26-2017, 09:58 AM | #3 |
The Milano
Drives: 2017 Firefly ShipWorks Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland (Crown Point, IN)
Posts: 1,877
|
HP per liter is a measure of engineering prowess. Agree with all your points. The best builders aim for maximum torque with the broadest area under the curve. We still have the issue of the LT1 being far behind in efficiency.
__________________
My first Love. She was called "Miss Carriage" (still cry when I think about her)
383, Muncie 4 speed, custom linkage mated to hurst short throw shifter. |
11-26-2017, 10:13 AM | #4 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1SS M6 Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Indy
Posts: 2,460
|
Quote:
These are useful: Power / fuel economy Power / physical external size Power / engine weight Who cares if you make a ton of power our of a relatively small internal displacement if the fuel economy sucks, engine is heavy, engine is physically huge, etc? Let's look at the MY18 Mustang's 5.0 with 460hp. It gets worse fuel economy, not lighter, and external size is larger than the LT1. Tell me: What's that smaller internal displacement buying me, from an engineering standpoint? Regarding being "far behind in efficiency": Please list off other 455hp/455lb-ft engines with better fuel economy ratings than the Corvette and Camaro.
__________________
2017 Camaro 1SS, M6, Hurst shifter, Hyper Blue, NPP, Gray Split Spoke Wheels
Best 1/4 Mile: 12.24 @ 115.9 mph |
|
11-26-2017, 10:15 AM | #5 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
I don't know that I agree with that. IMO, it's a single metric that was made up to apologize for a lack of displacement in modern engines, and appease those who expected a "big" engine.
I believe engineering prowess is demonstrated by reliable HP produced for the least amount of $$. I'd even go so far as to bring in the actual weight of the engine vs. HP to the conversation, because that'll have more bearing on overall performance of the vehicle than HP/L. EDIT: what vtirocz said. |
11-26-2017, 11:37 AM | #6 |
Drives: 2016 1SS NFG A8 Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: 46804
Posts: 6,796
|
Exactly...while the 5.0 technically is smaller on paper via cubic inches...it's physically a much larger engine then you would think due to the DOHC and 4 valve heads. The heads are the size of BBC. So it's not apples to apples to compare a OHV push rod motor to a DOHC motor. The LT1 is actually very efficient for a 2v pushrod engine. The Coyote is 444lbs undressed, the LT1 is 465lbs dressed.
__________________
2016 NFG 1SS A8
Options-2SS Leather/NPP Perf. mods-Whipple 2.9/Fuel System/Flex Fuel/103mm TB/Rotofab Big Gulp/Cat Deletes/Corsa NPP Per. times- 10.5 @ 137 w/ 1.8 60ft Full weight on 20's 1200DA |
11-26-2017, 11:46 AM | #7 |
The Milano
Drives: 2017 Firefly ShipWorks Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland (Crown Point, IN)
Posts: 1,877
|
Fuel economy has a lot to do with the body style and overall weight. Kind of a strange request in this conversation, but here is two off the top of my head:
2006 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG Mercedes-Benz s600 By "efficiency" I was referring to the ability to efficiently utilize displacement to produce torque and subsequently HP. "I believe engineering prowess is demonstrated by reliable HP produced for the least amount of $$. I'd even go so far as to bring in the actual weight of the engine vs. HP to the conversation, because that'll have more bearing on overall performance of the vehicle than HP/L. " ---- Interesting viewpoint, so the V6 is better engineered? (it does produce more HP per pound.)
__________________
My first Love. She was called "Miss Carriage" (still cry when I think about her)
383, Muncie 4 speed, custom linkage mated to hurst short throw shifter. |
11-26-2017, 11:54 AM | #8 |
Drives: 14 Silverado LTZ Z71, 16 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Posts: 4,407
|
For its engine design it’s doing just fine.
You are comparing a 4 valve head high revving dohc design to a 2 valve head pushrod motor. An engine is an air pump and can’t be compared by displacement alone in producing power. It’s actually amazing what they are able to do with it. It’s physical size, power and efficiency is great. Hp/l is ricer talk and means nothing. Just a pointless figure for people to brag about that don’t understand engines |
11-26-2017, 12:13 PM | #9 | |
Drives: 2017 Camaro 1SS M6 Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Indy
Posts: 2,460
|
Quote:
The LT1 in the Camaro gets better fuel economy than both the 5.0 in the Mustang (rated at 460hp) and the 3.6TT in the ATS-V (rated at 464hp). Two questions:
Also, the 2006 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG has a supercharged 5.4L V8, that while it does make 469hp also is EPA rated at 13city/19highway. That kind of fuel economy does not sound very "efficient" to me compared to the Camaro's fuel economy. Again, what's that smaller internal displacement buying me? Show me an example of an engine with a similar power curve that has better trade-offs on weight, cost, external size, and fuel economy. Those are all things that actually matter. Internal displacement does not, unless it affects those things I've listed.
__________________
2017 Camaro 1SS, M6, Hurst shifter, Hyper Blue, NPP, Gray Split Spoke Wheels
Best 1/4 Mile: 12.24 @ 115.9 mph Last edited by vtirocz; 11-26-2017 at 12:25 PM. |
|
11-26-2017, 01:10 PM | #10 |
Drives: 2SS 1LE Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: AK
Posts: 2,301
|
"MOAR" will mean you need better materials, higher flow injectors, all sorts of things that will add up to more cost for the car. Lots of stuff is possible, but that doesn't make it practical. I can blow 40 grand on a Subaru WRX for the same as a SS, the WRX makes far more hp/liter, but it costs the same and is less HP/tq overall. If we wanted the same hp/tq per liter in the 6.2, which would ultimately give you a lot more, it's going to have to cost more.
|
11-26-2017, 01:28 PM | #11 | |
Drives: 2012 Porsche 911 Turbo S Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,776
|
Quote:
__________________
IG: 2fast2nick
-- Current -- 2012 Porsche Turbo S - PDK - Basalt Black Metallic -- Past -- 2017 Camaro ZL1 Coupe - Red Hot - A10, PDR - HRE P101 2015 Mustang GT PP - Whipple Supercharger |
|
11-26-2017, 01:38 PM | #12 |
Drives: 2017 1SS 1LE, GC8 STI, SG5 Forester Join Date: May 2017
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41
|
Hp/l is an indication of engineering competence but at the same time an engineering limitation. Horsepower is simply a function of torque and rpm smaller displacement means for the most part shorter stroke which means lower piston velocity which is one of the major limitations as displacement goes up
Hell literbikes get 200hp/liter, by that logic the 3.6 should be getting 720hp.....so yes, (hp/l)/l is not linear(well it is linear in theory if you want to rev that lt1 to 12000rpm but we all know that’s never going to happen) |
11-26-2017, 02:01 PM | #13 |
The Milano
Drives: 2017 Firefly ShipWorks Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland (Crown Point, IN)
Posts: 1,877
|
Two questions:
Also, the 2006 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG has a supercharged 5.4L V8, that while it does make 469hp also is EPA rated at 13city/19highway. That kind of fuel economy does not sound very "efficient" to me compared to the Camaro's fuel economy. I did not realize the E55 was using forced induction.
__________________
My first Love. She was called "Miss Carriage" (still cry when I think about her)
383, Muncie 4 speed, custom linkage mated to hurst short throw shifter. |
11-26-2017, 02:30 PM | #14 |
Drives: '16 Garnet Red 1SS Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 3,450
|
There's that ricer math again.
__________________
'16 Camaro 1SS
'18 Miata GT Gone: '01 Camaro, '14 Camaro, '90 Miata |
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|