Twin Turbo Straight Six Cylinder Engine

[BaysideBlue]

The LS7 is just a newer version of the LS1. Its essentially the same motor. Similar to how the 4G63 was improved upon for the last 15+ years in the EVO's and Eclipse/Talon/whatever (Bastards got rid of it for the EVO X). They just add another number each time they improve it, instead of keeping its original name.

As long as were on the subject. The 4G63 is another amazing older motor.

You are all over the place mate. No, actually, LS2 is the replacement for LS1. LS7 is a variant of the original LS1, not a replacement for the LS1. Otherwise all the shitty GM coupes would have the 7 litre Covertte V8 which would've been great but not going to happen.

Patto- Posted Today, 05:33 PM

QUOTE(Rabid @ 4 Jun 2007, 05:16 PM)

Actually the Z06 motor is 427ci. Nice try though.

He was referring to the LS1 motor that you keep talking about. AFAIK the Z06 motor is an LS7.

LS1 = 350ci and LS7 = 427ci. Clearly the guy was referring to LS1 so keep your smartass comments to yourself.

Edited June 4, 2007 by BaysideBlue

[BaysideBlue]

I seem to remember the C5 vette running in GT (Including 24 hour endurance races) for what? 6 years now. Seems like thats a bit longer than 12 hours to me.

Flamming Bathurst now are we? you are looking a good time in this forum.

I seem to remember it was AUDI, the german marque who has WON 24hr of Le Mans 6 TIMES. Now, where was the C5 vette again? Running in the midfield "reliably" but constantly getting beaten by Aston Martins, Ferraris and Maseratis of the same class.

Edited June 4, 2007 by BaysideBlue

[SS8_Gohan]

mate, i was NEVER under the impression you thought the LSI should be engine of the year, or that it's better than the twin turb BM motor, maybe you should read my post more clearly. Never implied that either. What i was making a point of was that you were claiming certain things about reliability being better than Euro equivalents... well, as proven here in Australia by the Holden V8's, this is FAR from the case. Euro V8 engines, and Euro engines have been more reliable. So no, it was incorrect for you to say that Audi, BM, etc... had reliability issues, despite have all the "technogizmo's". Especially with this brand new, not race proven (until now) BM engine winning the production enduro race around Bathurst.

And yes, it is the Euro manufacturers who dominate Le Mans. But making that point is ridiculous because those cars are so far from factory, it's not even worthing comparing. Where as the Bathurst one is a very unbiased indicator as they are basically cars rolled off the factory floor. Giving everyone a MUCH better idea of reliability.

no one is under the illusion the RB's can compare to the new BM engine. In fact, again, if you look at my previous post, i said

"the new BM engine DESTORYS my NEO RB25" - i kinda know this, as i drive the new 335i a fair bit, it's my dad's car

ANYONE can add more displacement

well yes... and your point???? My point was that anyone can add technology, and most manufacturers make the most of what's available, but why are US/Oz 6litre V8's struggling to make 300kw's, where BM can get same or MORE from 4 litres??. And you counter that with, anyone can add more displacement?? No sh*t anyone can, but most the world decide to get more from less, and build their engines SMARTER, rather than bigger.

My big post was a combo of replies from DIFFERENT people too, if you cared to read it carefully

[Rabid]

You are all over the place mate. No, actually, LS2 is the replacement for LS1. LS7 is a variant of the original LS1, not a replacement for the LS1.

We just said the same exact thing, but used different words.

Flamming Bathurst now are we? you are looking a good time in this forum.

Who is flaming Bathurst? I simply said that 6 years is greater than 12 hours. Someplace around 52,500 hours better actually.

I seem to remember it was AUDI, the german marque who has WON 24hr of Le Mans 6 TIMES.

In the prototype class, not the GT class. Thats like running your skyline against a golf cart.

C5-R Racing Team 2001 Race Results

Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish

Jun 15-16 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #63 29 1

24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #64 32 2

C5-R Racing Team 2002 Race Results

Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish

Jun 15-16 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #63 29 1

24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #64 32 2

C5-R Racing Team 2004 Race Results

Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish

Jun 15-16 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #63 3 2

24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #64 2 1

2005

Corvette Racing Wins 24 Hours of Le Mans

New Corvette C6.R Scores Historic Fourth 1-2 Finish in French Classic

C6.R Racing Team 2006 Race Results

Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish

Jun 17-18 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GT1 C6.R #64 3 1

That look like the middle of the pack to you? Get your facts straight.

Bleh, those numbers came out hard to read. It just shows that the vettes finished 1st and 2nd in their class in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 1st in 2006.

Running in the midfield "reliably" but constantly getting beaten by Aston Martins, Ferraris and Maseratis of the same class.

So it looks like they were running "reliably" and in the front. Not sure where Aston's Ferrari's ad Maserati's placed, but its pretty easy to tell it wasn't in front of the vettes. They won it 5 out of the last 6 times. Sorry they can't be as good as Audi.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Rabid

[BaysideBlue]

Rabid Posted Today, 02:37 AM

We just said the same exact thing, but used different words.

No we did not say the exact thing. From your previous posts its obvious that you did not undertand the difference between LS1 and LS7. For example, when mad082 said:

these awards aren't just based off how fast the car can go. the LS1 is a rubbish motor compared to the bmw motor. there is very little techonology used in it. it is just a 350ci motor. it is no smoother than the old 350 chevs.

you argued:

Actually the Z06 motor is 427ci. Nice try though.

Therefore I was trying to explain to you the LS7 is not "just a newer version of the LS1", if you would care to read my previous post again.

Who is flaming Bathurst? I simply said that 6 years is greater than 12 hours. Someplace around 52,500 hours better actually.

Again you are missing the point. Comparing Le Mans cars with Bathurst is plain stupid. like what SS8_Gohan said "making that point is ridiculous because those cars are so far from factory, it's not even worthing comparing. Where as the Bathurst one is a very unbiased indicator as they are basically cars rolled off the factory floor. Giving everyone a MUCH better idea of reliability.

In the prototype class, not the GT class. Thats like running your skyline against a golf cart.

I never said its a fair comparison. you initiated comparing Le Mans with Bathurst talking about reliablility. so if you insist doing so why not taking AUDI into consideration. After all it is the 6 time winner of the toughest endurance race of all. Therefore they are the most reliable. Im not saying it'll always reflect on their road cars but apparent AUDIs are the one of the most reliable and well built cars on the planet. Second only maybe to Toyota but far more reliable than any Chevrolets.

Edited June 4, 2007 by BaysideBlue

[Rabid]

After all it is the 6 time winner of the toughest endurance race of all. Therefore they are the most reliable.

Did you not see the fact that the corvette race team has won 5/6 Le Mans races since 2001? 1 less win than Audi. I guess that would make them second most reliable.

these awards aren't just based off how fast the car can go. the LS1 is a rubbish motor compared to the bmw motor. there is very little techonology used in it. it is just a 350ci motor. it is no smoother than the old 350 chevs.

OK. This is the last time I'm saying this. I never compared the LS1 motor to the BMW motor. I never said it could win at bathurst. Hell, I don't actually remember saying it could beat anything. All I said, was that as long as people were mentioning some older motors that were pretty good. I thought that the LS1 should be included. I then added the 4G63 as another motor that I thought was pretty damn good. No one has argued with me about that one yet though.

[Sexual_32]

Great read, would love 2 get a test drive of one of those tt beemers

[Rolls]

This thread is pretty much hilarious, I love ridiculously long arguments, you do realise it won't ever end?

Also the bmw motor is the f**king shit, check out this dyno graph

http://www.stratmosphere.com/Milltekcbfw.jpg

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news...w_335i_dyno.jpg

Peak torque at 2k rpm, have you ever seen a turbo motor which such a flat torque spread? if you had to guess you would think it was an NA v8. Seriously guys this thread wasn't to compare the motors it was to admire such a beautiful engine.

[Rabid]

Check out the torque spread for the Saab Viggen. I'll post it if I find it before you do. But yes, the BMW is amazing and they are an amazing car manufacturer.

[SS8_Gohan]

Rabid i see you step around my posts...

anyway... as i've said before, you would NOT know these cars are turbo. There is just NO lag, technically speaking there is always lag, but there is no "apparent" lag to the driver, it's just instant fun. The gearbox is killer too. No way i could ever shift as fast in my R34.

Despite my R34 being more powerful, dad's 335i owns my car. Maybe not in a dead straight line, but over a track with turns i'd have no hope.

[Silvia GTR]

Its like 20yrs or so since BMW have made a turbo car right?

[mad082]

that torque curve is pretty good. i will post up the one from my r33. it is about as flat (well it is dead flat down low, but then tapers off). not bad for stock ecu (and no it wasn't remapped). the torque curve of my last magna (i know it's only NA) only varied by 3 lines on the printer (not lines of the dyno graph, but dot width of the printer line, so about 1mm overall)

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...st&id=38571 (won't post as a pic, so here's the link)

[scathing]

Peak torque at 2k rpm, have you ever seen a turbo motor which such a flat torque spread?

Yes. From pretty much any modern European turbo car. They all make torque from low in the rev range, and hold it constant until almost redline. My mate's Polo GTi felt like that stock, and when he reflashed the ECU with the old TT's tune it doesn't feel that much more peaky even though its gone from 110kW to around 150kW. It does swell onto boost a bit harder but since its an OEM Audi tune the power delivery still feels OEM flat.

This is why simple ECU tunes can pull 25% more power without touching hardware - the engines are tuned conservatively to offer linear torque, which means they're only at a fraction of the potential the engines could offer if you're willing to sacrifice some linearity for more top-end shove.