Holdens V8- Capacity or engineering excellence?

[AU-MUSTD]

What a useless pointless argument. If ford had a big cube engine this thread would be totally opposite. The alloy tech 3.2 in my captiva makes more kw per ltr than the ford 4ltr so does that make it better????(52.8v's49.5)

[Elks]

Originally Posted by AU-MUSTD

What a useless pointless argument. If ford had a big cube engine this thread would be totally opposite. The alloy tech 3.2 in my captiva makes more kw per ltr than the ford 4ltr so does that make it better????(52.8v's49.5)

You have a Captiva?

[Elks]

Performance is the issue. No-one bags a WRX STi for having 'only' 206KW.

The Gen3 & 4 engines have a following as they go hard. Not the worlds best enginges, but a long way from being bad. Light,simple, effective. In the case of the 6.0 a good spread of torque to boot.

Very few people care why you come second. Results count.

I think a 351 Cleveland with EFI & modern updates would give them both a scare. :

[Scams]

At the end of the day it about the way you drive the car not about the power.
yes the hsv has a bigger motor and yes the boss is big then my AU II XR8 but when we turn the corner I would what my light AU V8 for that under the bonnet not a truck motor.

[Bad Bird]

Huh??? KW/L IS HP per volume...

Volume, that is the space the motor takes up... Not the cubic centimetre displacement...

[mickyyyy]

I personally think out of the new V8's around that the GM stuff is awsome hands down. Look at how much aftermarket gear is available to them??? a cam, exhaust, intake and tune and there weapons of cars. Cam's for the Ford boss engine are way to expensive practically triple in price for the obvious reasons. Im a person that wants things simple like the GM stuff 5.7, 6.0, 6.2 but hang on windsor and clevelands. Bring back the single cam monsters like the old trusty windsor and clevelands and watch out Holden.

We will also have just as much aftermarket gear avalable to us.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Noddy

Apart from the possible cost factor are there any other reasons why the 5.4 can't be increased to 6.0ci and also would this help with the lack of torque below 3000rpm?

There are aftermarket blocks with bigger bores that takes capacity to 6 litres. Bigger bores will even up the bore/stroke ratio allowing higher revs. This is what Ford are now doing with the new Boss/Hurricane engines, increasing the bore size to both even the bore/stroke ratio and increase capacity. A wider bore also allows bigger valves to be fitted and it also unshrouds them.

[Rodp]

All that matters is power, weight and efficiency. Who cares about capacity? The LS's produce more power, weigh less and are at the very least as fuel efficient as the Boss. My Bossed BA replaced an LS1 and the comparison between the two is night and day. The BA a lazy V8 and the LS1 was an excitement machine.

When I traded my SS on the BA, the salesman came on the test drive with me and was doing his best on giving me the performance spiel. I then took him for a lap in the SS and he wet himself.

The inline 6 is probably the largest among 6 cylinder offerings and certainly doesn't put out anywhere near the greatest kw/L. Doesn't make it less of a motor.

[vztrt]

The LS motors are simple that work, and Holden have done a great job and alot of people are impressed.

I'd like to see what the BOSS could have been had more electronics been incorperated into the engine and it ran an alloy block. Cause it seems the FG XR8 is pretty close to the VESS in the latest times published.

[GTP290]

gm have done a great job, holdens just using the mexican engine, as theres no aussie v8 alternative, but i agree it makes good sense, but at the same time Ford are doing an exceptional job with the 5.4 and 4 litre engines, considering there budget and the fact the aussie six is going to be reduntant soon.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Erusur

Food for thought Boss 315 5.4Ltr 58.3Kw per litre LS3 6.2 at 325 is only 52Kw per litre

**** ****. My bike does 180hp/litre. Does that mean my c.ock is bigger than yours?
At the end of the day we can compare on paper figures til the cows come home, but in reality we all know how the story has been since 2002, or since the LSX were introduced to the market.

[Wally]

Used to be area under the curve that mattered, not a fleeting peak measurement.

Holdens V8- Capacity or engineering excellence?

Well depends on how you rate excellence, auto engineering is hardly rocket science. If getting the sought of performance with reliability they do with the handicap of pushrods is a measure then they seem to have done pretty well.

I doubt GM have second rate engineers. GM shelved the development of DOHC V8 to replace the 4.6L Northstar in favour of the 230kW 3.6L direct-inject V6. The thinking was that if someone wants a V8 they can have a Corvette pushrodasauris variant, but the future innovative development will be with the sixes as fuel ecomony becomes important again.

[sleekism]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Huh??? KW/L IS HP per volume... :
HP or KW per kg of car weight will give an indication of overall performance potential of the vehicle, but isnt an accurate way to measure efficiency or engine technology.
The Boss motor has allways consistantly made more power per litre of displacement than the chev.., so the BOSS "wins"..
If you do the math you'll see the chev puts out roughly the same power per litre of displacement in its various HSV incarnations, the way they get more power is increase its capacity.

Let Wards engine list decide:

Ford Modular V8: 10 times since 1995 or 10/13

GM LS family: 1 time since 1998 or 1/10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines

In my opinion LS family pros:

Light, efficient, powerful

cons:

UNRELIABLE: I don't know how the LS3 is but the LS1 was a shocker. A guy at my work had three engine rebuilds on his SS before 100,000 kays and the thing guzzled motor oil. I don't care about the marketing gloss it's physically impossible to make a high revving tin foil pushrod engine rev hard.

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Let Wards engine list decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines

Alloytech is in that list :

[GTP290]

our modular v8 has made 4th top engine in the world and weve been selling it short, its base variant was used in the koesnigsegg, (which was one of the fastest cars in the world) but then again ho;dens v6 made 5th best engine in the world...thats a bit of a worry

[vztrt]

Remember that its the best engine available to the American market.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by sleekism

Light, efficient, powerful

cons:

UNRELIABLE: I don't know how the LS3 is but the LS1 was a shocker. A guy at my work had three engine rebuilds on his SS before 100,000 kays and the thing guzzled motor oil. I don't care about the marketing gloss it's physically impossible to make a high revving tin foil pushrod engine rev hard.

Those were early pre VY examples. Its seems as tho this issue and the fact it has pusrods are the only basis for die hard Ford fans to knock the Chev Small Block, have seen many VT Statesman V8 taxis with over 400k on em.

What do you consider high revving? The original 265cui in 1955 spun to 6500rpm, thats higher than a 2008 Boss And about on par with DOHC Jag and Mercedes of the day??

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by Torxteer

Alloytech is in that list :

and so is the 3800 Buick V6 wtf!

[gtfpv]

look i'll throw my 2 bobs worth in here . i think the ford boss 290 and 302 engines are very rigid strong engines . the fact they are blue printed shows . they idle very well. make no noises , and can really handle a floggin . my windsor xr8 incomparison was a real mule . FPV claims that the boss bottom end block is 3 times stronger than an alloy block .
the fact these engines take a very long time to loosen up , points to rigidity , and tight tolerances .

as far as revs go. i really dont know why holden has more revs over a 290 or 302 with the technoligy of the boss. it must just be diameter over stroke charactoristics , which really points to the massive differant directions that ford and holden have taken .
the fact these engines have nothing in comparison and produce similar power , torque and performance in very differant ways is a marvel of engineering in itself .

i maintain that a 290 is as good or better than holdens 270, but can easily admit defeat by the HSV CLUBSPORT 307 VARIENT. even though on a dyno . the 290 probably outguns the 307 .

and here is the proof . both cars are stock . one is mine , BA GT 290 . THE OTHER IS A CLUBBIE 307.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIkqnHWCg_Q#GU5U2spHI_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W332tKrEC-k


a lot of ls1 and 2's suffer tappet and pushrod noise though .

note both engines get to 150kms hr before backing off . you can see for yourself . and time . you can also see the rpm . sorry the gt backs off at 140kph

[04redxr8]

Ford Australia did a great job in sourcing the 5.4 bottom end, then hand assembling it with the heads from the 4.6l Mustang, combing the best of 2 motors. I think they may have made the intake and plenum to suit, as I read here on the forums that they dont have that intake in the US.

Holden did a mediocre job of importing CHEVROLET crate motors from the US, (even knowing the LS1 was a dud) but importing it because it was cheap.

The only problem i have with Chev motors is all the crap thats bolted (starts and finishes with a Holden badge. Me personally, and a lot of other people I have spoken to, have had nothing but problems with Holdens alleged warranty. Its has also featured very strongly on a current affairs programs since this allegdedly awesome piece of engineering found its way into VT II.
Its not the dealers responsible, they only as much as Holden will allow them to.

I have had no problems what so ever with Ford standing behind their product.

[Bad Bird]

Anecdotal evidence does not equal cold hard fact.

[OzJavelin]

Re: Holdens V8- Capacity or engineering excellence?

Capacity ........ because they can. Because they designed the engines to allow these larger capacities without major headaches and because there is no significant fuel consumption increase. Jealous? ;)

I've got nothing against the Mod motor, but I love the elegant simplicity of the LSx engine. Like all Chev engines, it's simple but effective: like a sledgehammer

[ BTW: When is the technologically superior Mod motor getting DoD in Australia? The inferior pushrod-activated Hemi has it, and the LSx is getting it soon isn't it? ]

[Bad Bird]

There is so much rubbishing of pushrod engines out there. It's not like overhead cams are a technological innovation or even new.

You would have to be silly to insult the beloved 351 Cleveland, and at least on paper, the LSx motors are better.