[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by FATTEMUNK

How the hell do you get 30mpg in the glorious sounding camaro ss. I drove my parents backup camry hybrid for a week while my car was getting fixed and I got 21 mpg lmao.

If you like that, you'll love this: To be fair the right number is my normal one

[formare]

1,800 posts and the first time i've been called "troll". Guess I can check that off my bucket list.

+30MPG dang!!! Mostly highway I assume?

[KyBoy]

I was on the highway for both photos.

Heath

[Walt88]

It's my understanding that horsepower all comes from how much air and fuel you can burn, as an engine is essentially an air pump. You can increase power in several different ways, namely increasing RPM, larger displacement, higher flowing heads, camshaft etc. Whatever can get more air into the motor.

The main difference between the LT1 and the 3.7 aside from displacement is the valve train. The 3.7 is a DOHC, the 4 valve design has a lot more airflow available to it, which also allows you to not have to run as much lift, which gives you a more stable valve train. The LGX for example, only has a max lift in the .420" range. So, the increase in airflow coupled with the ability to spin the motor even higher leads to the higher horsepower per liter.

However as others have mentioned, horsepower is not the only metric when designing an engine. Engines begin their lives on the drawing board. I'm sure GM had a laundry list of requirements for their new engine line, and the LT1 design met their new targeted horsepower, weight, fuel economy and cost requirements.

[Ryephile]

If you want to compare engines across configurations, use BMEP, BSFC, external size, and weight.

The HP/L thing is nice bench-racing but it's certainly not the whole picture.

[cmitchell17]

I wonder how much parasitic loss there is in the LT1 say compared to the coyote for friction losses from the valvetrain?

Would also be interesting to see how much cost difference is.

[FATTEMUNK]

Originally Posted by KyBoy

That particular SS has a Borla ATAK with secondary cat delete.

Heath

Even more crazy.

[ShaBoom]

"LT1 - so little HP for the liters?"

Not at all, the LT1 is producing radical power for a normally aspirated production small block.
The LT1's power and torque levels exceed the best performance big blocks from Detroit's muscle car era.
All this with outstanding efficiency and driveablitity.
I am in awe what Chevrolet has produced with the LT1.
As I look at the head design what I see is a modernized Boss 351 Cleveland Ford.
The intake ports and canted valves scream Cleveland.
All the vintage American V8's blocks are very similar, what really sets them apart are the heads.
The Ford 351 4V Cleveland was the king of small blocks of yesteryear and what we see in the LT1 is the Cleveland brought into the modern era.
I discussed this with a few of Chevrolet's engineers at the Chevrolet display at the Barrett Jackson show here in Vegas six weeks ago and they could not disagree with the head design similarities.
Interesting the Ford is producing now a 5 liter v8 with monster breathing 4 valve heads and then they constrain it with small displacement. The Coyote still need to be revved into the stratosphere to make the hp the LT1 does at lower rpm's.
All Ford needed to do was to modernize the Cleveland- like Chevrolet did. : )

[R.C. Collins]

What engine building companies can do to one of these LT1's is what i would call "radical power" from a naturally aspirated engine. Totally reworked inside, with a similar overall weight and size, like Katech's Street Attack 427ci LT1, for example, which puts out 700hp and 620lbs of torque. And it comes with a warranty. So i understand where the OP is not all that impressed with the stock output of the LT1; It can be made stronger, but at much greater expense, and the fuel efficiency goes right out the window. The stock LT1 is the best compromise in cost, efficiency, power, weight, and size for a mass production vehicle with today's technology.

[aka Reckless]

Weird, we have LT1 and LT4 engines making more than 175hp per liter

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by formare

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.

Efficiency??
455HP and 455lbs TQ and still get over 26mpg on the highway. Sounds pretty efficient for the power we get.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by formare

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.

Look at the performance 6 bangers out there making nowhere near the TQ of our cars and and the bodies are 3 or 400lbs lighter yet there MPG is not much better than our V8s.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by formare

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.)

Yeh...and you have to spend 3 or 4x more to get that power than what we spend in our cars. Let me know when AMG can do that for under $60k, or under $100k.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by formare

Two questions:

1. Do you consider the ATS-V's LF4 twin turbo V6 to be "more efficient" due to it making the same power with smaller INTERNAL displacement? (I'm not sure it's any lighter when considering the intercoolers(+dedicated cooling system and pump for that)/turbos/plumbing)
   
   No sir - its forced induction.
2. IF the LT1 had an internal displacement of 4.0 liters, would you consider it to be more efficient than it is today even if the fuel economy, power, weight, external size were all identical?
   
   Same HP and Torque? If yes, then absolutely.

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.

Why would it be more efficient just because its a 4.0 yet weight and power is identical? All it would do is strain more to produce the same power the 6.2 produces with less strain. Less strain means less wear.