[Davy_Baby9]

The Coyote is an excellent engine, and so are the LS and new LT engines. Different ways to achieve the same result.

[hotlap]

I had been thinking about the efficiency argument a while back and put this together to compare the LT1 SS and Coyote GT. Larger displacement spinning slower verses smaller displacement spinning fast. How much power/torque based on the volume of A/F being moved in their rated peak power RPM's.
1) LT1 makes 4.6% more power and 13.8 % more torque moving only 14.9% more A/F even though displacement is 24.5% greater.
2) GT is geared much higher. Wear and fuel economy loss
3) True measure of efficiency will be when we see the Federal MPG ratings. Large displacement allows low RPM around town and dropping to 3.1L with Active Fuel Management.

I made this a weeks but don't believe anything has changed

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Noob

sure i know that its cheaper to build a simple big engine instead of much(perhaps to much) techical gimmicks. I dont like our VW/AUDI TFSI shit ! But with flexible i mean the driving with such an engine. I like both in some way. The 6.2pushrod had better torque out of the cellar but above 5000 it become "lame" compared to the coyote.
ok, i´ll give that pushrod a last chance next year in the Camaro but before i try another coyote in the actual Stang.
If camaro will be significant more in price i perhaps went with a Stang and for the rest of money put a 2.9 whipple on it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the LT1 becomes 'lame' after 5k rpm. Thats 1000 rpm before it even hits its peak power. The LT1's redline is about the same rpm as the Coyote's peak power and I'd bet that the two make almost identical power at that engine speed (though I probably wouldn't take the LT1 to 6500 rpm very often). Since it has much more peak torque, it can afford to lose some at high rpm & still make the same or more power than a smaller engine. Superior down low. Superior in the mid range. Equal (and I'm being generous to the 5.0L here) up top. To me, that is a flexible engine.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the LT1 becomes 'lame' after 5k rpm. Thats 1000 rpm before it even hits its peak power. The LT1's redline is about the same rpm as the Coyote's peak power and I'd bet that the two make almost identical power at that engine speed (though I probably wouldn't take the LT1 to 6500 rpm very often). Since it has much more peak torque, it can afford to lose some at high rpm & still make the same or more power than a smaller engine. Superior down low. Superior in the mid range. Equal (and I'm being generous to the 5.0L here) up top. To me, that is a flexible engine.

100%

I don't even know why there are complaints here. The LT1 rocks in the power department. Yes...TQ drops off a bit at a certain range, but the power curve is still much better than the LS3, and also much better than the 5.0 for my preference, not that I think the 5.0 is a bad engine at all.

But its two much different ways to achieve an outcome. the HP per liter argument is completely irrelevant when it comes to comparing these two types of engines. Its apples and oranges. Stupid argument for sure.

Also, its not like GM can't build a great DOHC engine...look at the V6 engines. Spectacular DOHC engines with as much or more tech in them than the 5.0. The LGX makes over 93hp/l. That's more power dense than the Coyote engine.

We've all seen how great the LT1 performs in the Corvette, and if one does decide to modify it, it will push 500HP easily with some bolt ons and a tune.

No complaints here.

[Autonaut]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

I had been thinking about the efficiency argument a while back and put this together to compare the LT1 SS and Coyote GT. Larger displacement spinning slower verses smaller displacement spinning fast. How much power/torque based on the volume of A/F being moved in their rated peak power RPM's.
1) LT1 makes 4.6% more power and 13.8 % more torque moving only 14.9% more A/F even though displacement is 24.5% greater.
2) GT is geared much higher. Wear and fuel economy loss
3) True measure of efficiency will be when we see the Federal MPG ratings. Large displacement allows low RPM around town and dropping to 3.1L with Active Fuel Management.

I made this a weeks but don't believe anything has changed

Impressive work. I must say.

As every gearhead knows, both engines are great. And different. And thats what so good about them. It's a matter of preference.

I like simplicity. And low end grunt. Thats why i prefer GM's OHV to ford DOHC.

If only blinded fanboys could understand this.

[NASTY99Z28]

Originally Posted by Z_Rocks

only if it's "THICK", like our women....

Yes sir!!!!

Originally Posted by Noob

sry but it´s techically outdated like Fords truck rear axle in the old Stang´s
it is restricted with those pushrods and 2valves in rpm, in breathing and in power too. The coyote pulls out 87hp/ltr. and the chevy only 74; in other words a chevy 5.0 with the pushrod design would have only 370hp.
ALL our european and Asia sporty cars have now Turbo or kompressor engines ! Even the last of all, the C63 change to a smaller 4.0 but with Biturbo....max.510hp and 0-60 in 4.0.

That solid 8.8 is one of the best rearends ever put in a vehicle. Strong,light and can be stuffed into many setups.

Originally Posted by Davy_Baby9

Arguing HP/Liter, has this person must be 14.

That's the math used by anyone with a small engine. They claim to not care about size yet alwasy try to brag about its ability for such a small engine. When truly they cant because Honda has owned that game for decades.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the LT1 becomes 'lame' after 5k rpm. Thats 1000 rpm before it even hits its peak power. The LT1's redline is about the same rpm as the Coyote's peak power and I'd bet that the two make almost identical power at that engine speed (though I probably wouldn't take the LT1 to 6500 rpm very often). Since it has much more peak torque, it can afford to lose some at high rpm & still make the same or more power than a smaller engine. Superior down low. Superior in the mid range. Equal (and I'm being generous to the 5.0L here) up top. To me, that is a flexible engine.

Really?

I took my ls3 to redline damn near every time I drove it for 4 years. No problems.

The last two years it had a g6x3 cam and a 7200 rpm rev limiter. Bounced it off that probably 2 or 3 times on accident. Took it to 7k constantly. Granted that's with aftermarket valve springs.

Beat the piss out of an ls1 to redline constantly also. And it had a 6800 rpm redline when I put a cam in it. No issues.

Does the lt1 have high rpm problems nowadays? If so that's a huge let down...I would think it should be even more stable...its an improved overall design (aside from simplicity) over the LS series.

Im guessing the stock cam is to blame for the slight high rpm deficiency/sharper drop off. Some have said it is on the small side. But Im not sure haven't checked for myself...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Really?

I took my ls3 to redline damn near every time I drove it for 4 years. No problems.

The last two years it had a g6x3 cam and a 7200 rpm rev limiter. Bounced it off that probably 2 or 3 times on accident. Took it to 7k constantly. Granted that's with aftermarket valve springs.

Beat the piss out of an ls1 to redline constantly also. And it had a 6800 rpm redline when I put a cam in it. No issues.

Does the lt1 have high rpm problems nowadays? If so that's a huge let down...I would think it should be even more stable...its an improved overall design (aside from simplicity) over the LS series.

Im guessing the stock cam is to blame for the slight high rpm deficiency/sharper drop off. Some have said it is on the small side. But Im not sure haven't checked for myself...

Wasn't speaking of any specific problems. I'm a naturally cautious person, and was referencing my personal belief that redlines are things to be avoided ... not sought (it is a redline, afterall -not a greenline)

[Bhobbs]

The LT1
200/207 .551/.524 116.5

LS3
204/211 .551/.525 117

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Wasn't speaking of any specific problems. I'm a naturally cautious person, and was referencing my personal belief that redlines are things to be avoided ... not sought (it is a redline, afterall -not a greenline)

Ok gotcha....that's understandable.

Ive just had such good luck with these newer GM powerplants I guess im not scared to push them.

My ls1 had 80k when I did the cam swap. And I was really not nice to that car. I was only 20 when I first bought it.

Now don't get me wrong...I do all proper maintenance etc. Put in the right parts when I mod. (correct pushrod length you name it)
Don't cut corners.

But anyway...it is a greenline for me

[LesserO2Evils]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Ok gotcha....that's understandable.

Ive just had such good luck with these newer GM powerplants I guess im not scared to push them.

My ls1 had 80k when I did the cam swap. And I was really not nice to that car. I was only 20 when I first bought it.

Now don't get me wrong...I do all proper maintenance etc. Put in the right parts when I mod. (correct pushrod length you name it)
Don't cut corners.

But anyway...it is a greenline for me

Yup. PRC Gold dual valvesprings, Comp pushrods, and a TSP MS3 cam. Shiftin@7200.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The LT1
200/207 .551/.524 116.5

LS3
204/211 .551/.525 117

Lift and LSA almost identical.

Decent difference in duration though. No wonder cam only lt1s are getting over 500 rwhp so easily.

Impressive that the lt1 makes as much power as it does with the same displacement with a smaller cam than the ls3.

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

Yup. PRC Gold dual valvesprings, Comp pushrods, and a TSP MS3 cam. Shiftin@7200.

I used the duals with my g6x3 2010 car.

My ls1 had a 228/230 .588/.592 112 custom grind. Used the comp 918 singles. Worked great. That cam with ported ls6 heads was falling quick past 65-6600 tuner set the limiter at 6800. But man it had torque everywhere. My rwtq was actually 428 IIRC... Higher than the hp lol.

[LesserO2Evils]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Lift and LSA almost identical.

Decent difference in duration though. No wonder cam only lt1s are getting over 500 rwhp so easily.

Impressive that the lt1 makes as much power as it does with the same displacement with a smaller cam than the ls3.



I used the duals with my g6x3 2010 car.

My ls1 had a 228/230 .588/.592 112 custom grind. Used the comp 918 singles. Worked great. That cam with ported ls6 heads was falling quick past 65-6600 tuner set the limiter at 6800. But man it had torque everywhere. My rwtq was actually 428 IIRC... Higher than the hp lol.

I bet that thing was a beast on the bottom!

Are you saying that the LT1 is typically hitting 500+rwho w/cam? THIS is why I tried to get a performance section. Lol

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

I bet that thing was a beast on the bottom!

Are you saying that the LT1 is typically hitting 500+rwho w/cam? THIS is why I tried to get a performance section. Lol

It was a beast everywhere lol. Sadly I wasn't ready for what it had at such a young age. Lack of experience and too much testosterone.

I'm lucky I didn't get hurt. Put the car into a tree by the end of the same summer that I did the H/C swap.

No option stripper with some minor weight reduction. Just under 3300 lbs with 1/3 tank of gas. I really think it was faster than my 2010.

Yeah from the little searching I've done 500 rwhp is pretty easy to come by.

Typed in cam only stingray on google this was the first hit.

http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/...ck-airbox.html

511 rwhp stock air intake and no crank pulley. Stock heads.

I know dynos vary but that's more than my h/c ls3 with intake and pulley ( less torque though I had 464)