Jump to content
SAU Community

Hsv More Fun....?

Godcla

By Godcla,
in R35 GTR

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

2FA54U
2FA54U

Well I am Asian and I been working at my parents shop since I was 12 (I know what yor thinking the slave life) and working 2 jobs when I was 16 staring an apprenticeship doing horticulture then when

LSX-438
LSX-438

A manual V8 is indeed more fun vs an R35 on public streets IMO. You can use much more of what the car is about, row through the gears, the noise, smell and sound, it's just more fun- without going wa

XGTRX
XGTRX

You have the best parents in the world. Obviously the teach you rather than give you everything so they look good. Well done mate.

Posted Images

bozodos Grand Master

bozodos

Posted
Posted (edited)

3X the price of the new VF I don't think so and fine put it against your beloved corvette zr1 or whatever it would smash it round a track and on the straight I don't think there would be much difference and remember these so called cars 1/3 the price have more power!!! Also look at M3s and stuff they are dearer then the gtr are as well and gtr is best value for money when you put it against super cars that are dearer but are they faster NO so your price there's goes your price tag theory Discopumpkin

The ZR1 is faster around the Nurburgring, just throwing it out there, proper manual and RWD. It's generally compared favourably to McLarens, Ferraris etc (at least in the video reviews I've seen).

It's a more expensive car though, so I mention the more accurate comparison for price tag and what you're likely to be looking at as an alternative in Australia. I suggest you check out that Road and Track review I linked. 2 seconds on a lap for a 40 odd grand $ saving over the GT-R, and again, RWD, with a 6 speed automatic (a beefed up version of what's in every VE V8 actually).

I do have to say though, I've watched a few of these reviews, and they all mention a common theme of GT-R and understeer / video game like drive to the ZR1/ZL1 requiring more driver input but being more rewarding etc. I know this sounds a bit tangential, but the ZL1 is the same platform as the VE/VF, with different body styling and less doors.

I really hope they do a VF GTS vs R35 comparison when they are released :D

EDIT: I'm enjoying the debate actually, generally on the V8 forums when someone starts talking about Euros etc, the conversation is a lot more level headed though! Yes there are lots of LS powered drift cars now, I did not even bother venturing FURTHER into that particular argument with XGTRX.

Edited by bozodos
XGTRX Veteran

XGTRX

Posted
Posted (edited)

BOZODOS: Read your citation about the camaro. two points were interesting, firstly it was a fastest lap scenario so it it doesnt take into account the launch advantage of a GTR, secondly if its 0.4 sec slower, then after 10 laps it would be 4 sec behind, after 20 laps its 8 secs slower.....as i said this is worlds apart. Also prepared this for you:

Please have a read if you really want to gain knowledge and show this to your mechanic...and if you have an LS engine put a catch can on it for God's sake.

DISCO: Go away. I was putting SB chevy engines into Toranas while you were still a seed you you father's scrotum.

With these concerns in mind, we reluctantly decided to ditch the factory PCV system and gut everything under the factory covers in hopes of getting them to fit. Environmental pollution concerns aside, losing this probably isn't a bad thing since the LS1's sub-par PCV system is known to contribute to oil consumption, and excess oil vapor entering the engine can also cause detonation problems.

Read more: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0611_ghtp_ls1_engine_build/viewall.html#ixzz2Y4TAFBwT

Many LS1 owners are faced with a few issues. There's the oil pumps that randomly die, the rod bolts that randomly break, roller rockers that randomly lose their bearings, and the oil consumption issue that seems to haunt some and not others. The oil consumption issue seems to be one of the most common issues on all LS1's out there, and this is due to the way the stock PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system is setup.
A PCV system is designed to force any positive crankcase pressure into the intake manifold, rather than continue allowing the engine to build up pressure inside. The LS1 system just happens to force oil along with the air as well, so GM seemed to take a stab at fixing the issue with the LS6 system. The LS6 setup pulls the pressure not from the valve cover, but from the VALLEY cover. This is the cover that resides under the intake manifold, and sits between the 2 cylinder heads.

It’s a fact: GM LS engines consume excessive amounts of oil. Supercharged or turbocharged engines, as well as engines regularly run to the rpm limit, use even more.

One reason for this high oil consumption is oil volatility. The harder you run your engine, the hotter the oil gets, causing some of it to evaporate. The rate of evaporation is measured as volatility. The higher the volatility rate, the more oil disappears from the engine.

Besides reducing consumption, another reason for reducing volatility is to keep oil vapors out of the PCV system. When too much oil migrates from the crankcase to the intake manifold through the PCV, the hot oil condenses in the cool intake air stream, leading to carbon buildup on the intake valves. If left unchecked, the carbon buildup can also lead to detonation.

Unburned oil expelled from the cylinders can coat the inside of the catalytic converter and prevent it from reaching its proper operating temperature. This creates deposits that impede exhaust flow and reduce power output. The oil will also poison the catalyst, increasing emissions and eventually destroying the catalytic converter.

With the right parts, you can substantially reduce, or possibly even eliminate, excessive oil consumption altogether—and it’s easier than you may think.

http://www.onallcylinders.com/2013/04/10/quick-tech-how-to-reduce-oil-consumption-in-gm-ls-engines/

It’s no secret that I’m into the LS-series engines. I ran across some information from a friend the other day about converting the earlier engines to the LS-6 style of PCV valve. This may not sound like a big deal, but the early 4.8L, 5.3L, and 5.7L engines that placed the PCV valve in the rocker cover have experienced problems with pulling oil into the intake manifold. GM solved this problem by changing the location of the PCV valve from the valve cover to the lifter valley plate. The LS6 lifter valley plate incorporates a large baffled separator chamber that is much more efficientlb_icon1.png than the older valve cover version. Some early engines

Read more: http://blogs.carcraft.com/6458559/editorials/simple-ls6-pcv-conversion-for-ls-series-engines/#ixzz2Y4wuKHBk

Having said all that I am curious why the Gen III's and Gen IV's are pulling oil into the intake so much that a catch can is recommended. I agree that they do use oil because my wife's Tahoe has always lost about a quart between oil changes and my co-worker's new 2010 truck uses anywhere from a quart to 3 quarts between oil changes. He suspects the PCV system so this thread, IMHO, confirms that suspicion. Apparently GM is aware there's a problem because a friend of his had a similar truck with a similar problem. GM replaced a "circulation valve" that stopped the excessive oil consumption completely.
However, I'm surprised there hasn't been more stink about this publicly because it's obviously a design problem that needs to be fixed (without a catch can).

http://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?88086-Is-a-PCV-Oil-Catch-can-necessary-on-LS-engines

LS2 PCV Sucking Oil into Intake - Good Blog
Here is link:

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...5/sequel6.html

Here is section on Rings & PCV System:

New Rings and Revised Oil Control
The ring package has, once again, been changed. The top ring is still steel with a moly face and the second ring is still cast iron with a Napier face and they both are now 1.2-mm. wide, down from 1.5. The oil ring is still three-piece, two oil rails and an expander. The tension of all three rings is less than that used with the LS1/LS6 and the rings are more flexible.

The discussion with Jordan Lee and Mark Damico got interesting when I asked a question about the lower-tension rings. C5ers will recall the LS1/LS6 oil consumption fiasco that ended in a technical service bulletin fix. If you're unfamiliar with that, readhttp://www.idavette.net/hib/02ls6/page5.htm, then continue to read here.

CAC: Now, you guys went through the low-tension thing once before and then had to have a service bulletin fix for the ring flutter issue. How are you going to avoid that same scenario?

MD: Bore distortion is improved and the oil rails are thinner, so they're more compliant, so it takes less tension to get the same sealing.

CAC: How does bore distortion affect ring flutter?

MD: I don't know that it affects the flutter, but it's harder for the rings to seal when the shape's not round. Because we made the rings thinner, they're lighter, so they won't flutter until a higher engine speed.

CAC: My understanding is that with the later LS1 and LS6, the Napier-face, second improved oil control and eliminated that ring flutter problem.

MD: I don't know if I'd call it a "ring flutter problem.

CAC: This is an important point because John Juriga (Asst. Chief Engineer for passenger car Gen 3 engines from 1995-2003) was on record with media in May of 2001 stating that the reason the LS6 had an control problem was due to ring flutter.

MD: The issue was high engine speed at low MAP (manifold absolute pressure)...

CAC: And that was causing ring flutter. That was the explanation given. That's what I've published both in print and on the Internet. Was that not the problem?

MD: I don't remember it being "ring flutter" per se. We measure a characteristic called "blow-by", which is how much of the what you're putting into the cylinder to burn goes by the rings.

If blow-by goes up dramatically at a slight change in engine speed or load-everything's fine, then all of a sudden, it (ring seal) goes out of control-that's usually attributed to what's called "flutter." I don't remember us having that problem, but we definitely had increased oil consumption at high engine speeds and low MAP.

The other thing we ought to point out on the LS2 is the PCV system. There are two sides to it. There's the "fresh side", where air goes into the crankcase and then the "foul side" where air comes out.

You have oil separators on both sides. The separator on the foul side is the one that's the most important because that's where you have oil in the air. Blow-by goes in the crankcase then through the foul-side separator. The LS2 has a different design for that separator. It shares the same location (as Gen 3 parts) but internally, it's significantly different. Back to our CFD analysis and, actually, there's a spin on that that I think is proprietary to GM: analysis with droplets.

JL: "Rain drop analysis". During that separator design, there was a lot of sophisticated analysis done with a proprietary code. We were able to model the air and the oil through that chamber and develop baffles that would separate the oil from the air. It was quite a new technique and there aren't many companies that utilize it, today.

MD: It really helped us design the separator which, I think, was submitted for a patent.

JL: Yeah. The oil/air separator design is patented. When we talk about oil control, it's not only oil control in the pan to keep from sucking air-keep the pickup covered-we need oil control through the ventilation system.

You always want to separate the oil and drop it back into the crankcase and only burn the air. If you can't do that adequately, you're going to have high oil consumption. In the Gen 3s, when we had a lot of air moving through the PVC system at high speed, light load; the ventilation system didn't do a great job in separating the oil from the air so we ended-up burning some of the oil. That would manifest itself in higher oil consumption.

With Gen 4, we made significant improvements to that oil/air separator. We've also made significant improvements in lowering the amount of blow-by air under those conditions that caused the problems which Juriga referred to.

So we have two benefits here: 1) less blow-by through the crankcase under those conditions and 2) our separator is much more effective in separating the oil from the air, so we don't burn the oil. Our oil consumption is less as a result.

CAC: Why do you need an oil separator on the clean side of the system?


JL: On the clean side, in many instances, you have high blow-by at wide open throttle.

CAC: That air flow reverses?

JL: Yeah. You reach the capacity of the dirty air side to consume the air. You don't want to make the dirty air side so large you don't have to worry about the pressure side, but you don't want to consume a lot of crankcase air through the intake side of the engine all the time, either. You consume just enough that you're constantly purging the crankcase vapors adequately.

At light load, you have a little bit of help from manifold vacuum. You create that vacuum in the crankcase and it constantly purges the air and reduces sludge formation and it burns those hydrocarbons, which is a good thing.

When you go wide-open-throttle, high engine speed; you no longer have that vacuum to help pull the air from the crankcase and you, also, have more blow-by, so you may exceed the capacity of the dirty air side, which is sized for most normal light load engine operation.

You have to make sure your fresh air side, which starts to reverse-flow, does not blow oil and air out (into the intake). That's why we end-up having oil/air separation on both inlet and foul air sides.

CAC: In summary, it sounds like a lot of work was done on PCV, crankcase ventilation and oil control.

JL: That's right.

MD: Yeah.
and this
12-01-2007, 05:36 PM
Nitrous Tunerls2tuner-29858.gif?dateline=1210119204 Join Date Aug 2006 Location WestCoast AZ-CALI Posts 4,780
Silver 05 Goat SMASHED

Your best beet is to just run a seperator. Jegs is the cheapest I know of at this point.

We have discussed this in GREAT detail before. There are MANY other benefits you get besides oil consumption.

Oil in the combustion mix equals detonation. I have tuned cars and been able to run more timing after inatall due to cleaner intake charge.

Don't be afraid of the bottle!!! Be afraid of your tune!!!

Edited by XGTRX
Birds Grand Master

Birds

Posted
Posted

yah I agree, although I do concede the Japs were deffinately light years ahead at the start, hence why the GTR was banned from racing in Australia after it demolished everything in its path.

Oh how I hate this misconception!

R32 GTR = race car built for the road.

VN Group A = family car built for the track.

It was apples and oranges that should never have been, because homologation rules for Group A were too loose. Stick a Formula 1 car in improved production and see how exciting that race is! Group A was interesting because of the makes and models, but when the same cars win it over and over, it makes for a boring podium and a capitalism won race - nothing kills viewer interest faster. Now if memory serves me correctly, road going versions of the R32 GTR were a 100k+ affair; to run one in competition was up around 750k. VN Commodore was a 20k taxi that cost around 200k to make it turn corners.

So it wasn't really light years ahead in technology, it was purely cost and markets. Nothing stops Holden kidnapping a team of Japanese engineers and using them to do their bidding...they do. Any manufacturer can build a world stage supercar too, it's just not always in their interests. Australian citizens have done it in their backyards. But producing 200 cars to meet homologation requirements? Now that's a different thing; requires a large budget, a brand image that can benefit from having an expensive flagship sports car, and a sizable consumer market that can swallow at least the homologation production. Family car manufacturers Holden/Ford didn't have any of these to justify a 100k+ sports car in the early 90s, hence their family sedans were adapted for the track in domestic race events. Nissan, with a name for manufacturing sports cars and 10 times the market size over in Japan (plus worldwide), had all three. Hence "banned" from Australian Motorsport. Mind you, there was nothing stopping GTR passionates from running their own series...except that few privateers had 3/4 of a mil to throw at a race car every year.

As technology has become cheaper and we get closer to the limits of what you can actually put into a car (look at the equipment level being offered in a Hyundai these days), it becomes more viable and necessary for tiny manufacturers like Holden to produce something within their tiny market that can compete on a world stage. So for 100k, yes, the GTS does bloody well. It's still not an R35 around the track...but that was never the point, was it. And which one is more fun to drive/own is such a subjective thing that this thread is more useful as an index of penis size.

Okay, I shut up now.

bozodos Grand Master

bozodos

Posted
Posted (edited)

ok to start with your links xgtrx:

the first couple are specifically about EARLY LS1s which had known issues. Re read my earlier posts where I mention that most of those engines in Aussie made cars were replaced under warranty, or had these modifications performed. One of the articles actually mentions how the LS2 has an improved design for extended high rpm and high g force operation.

The On All Cylinders link is trying to sell Moroso and Joe Gibbs products lol (actually reads like an advertorial).

The Pro Touring forum link is talking about drag engines with bigger ring gaps than standard, and what a PCV system actually does, and the methods of bypassing it for drag cars.

You would have been better off trying to find actual service bulletins from GM, or citing one of the major LS based forums rather than some of these backwaters Google has found for you.

I should mention another important point - most people with a brain in their head who have modified or race orientated LS engines are running 10w40 or 10w60 grade oil, not factory fill 5w30. I run 10w60 in my modified engine, 0 oil usage and no oil on the throttle body etc etc. If these engines were really so hard on oil at high RPM, how come so many drifters are running them these days? and I'm talking LS3 / L98 etc, not el cheapo wrecker spec LS1s.

I'm going to take the word of the guy who modifies and tunes my engine over the word of 'some guy' on the internet. He would ask me if I was having a f**king laugh if I were to show him that wall of gibberish. If I start seeing oil accumulation, I'll fit a catch can. If not, factory PCV system will stay intact.

Gonna have to try a bit harder there - wall of text posts won't deter the likes of me!

You can extrapolate whatever 'results' or inferences you like from the Road and Track review, fact is there is bugger all in it between the 40k cheaper ZL1, and the dearer ZR1 would pump it. Unfortunately GM do not sell a car that is right on the money with an R35. I do have high hopes for the VF though.

Birds: you are completely right - the VN Group A homogolation model was around $60k or so in 1990 dollars. The GT-R was around 110k or so off the top of my head. Also back then Holden did not have GM's engine range to choose from, and their cars had to be capable of running crappy 91 octane unleaded, putting them at a further disadvantage. Nissan also built the R32 around Group A regs and the GT-R with that sole purpose in mind in a much bigger car market than Australia. Even in Japan they dominated so much that they ironically contributed to their own demise.

Edited by bozodos
discoPumpkin Community Regular

discoPumpkin

Posted
Posted (edited)

No need to be a racist pig

i'm not rasicst, how can I be when i'm Caucasian, making me half asian 2

This is a thread about penis size hey?

no but if u put it like that, the V8's have a longer stroke and bigger conrod/penis so they would win hands down, or should I say penis down

Edited by discoPumpkin
ras1983 Experienced

ras1983

Posted
Posted

Just to get back on topic, OP have you thought of a cheap and fun family car like a Legnum (servicing and parts may be a bti tricky), XT Forester, Liberty RS, etc?

For example, have a read of the following Forster XT article: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=2501

For something less practical but that you could drive to within an inch of their lives while still staying under the speed limit, there are things like MX5s, S2000s, hot hatches, etc.

Honestly I reckon keep the R35 and buy something cheap (for you) to drive around and have fun in. An MX5 with a turbo conversion would be a nice little project :thumbsup:

XGTRX Veteran

XGTRX

Posted
Posted

Bozodos

You asked for the evidence and I supplied it. If you want to ignore it's up to you. No skin off my nose. Again I repeat it was advice given to a poster that said his mates hit the limiter regularly. Fact is there is a body of evidence out there that there are known issues with the design. No need for personal attacks or denigration, but again if that's what floats your boat then go ahead. I suppose you are loyal to your engine builder and so you should be, but then again I am not going to dispute my builders wisdom either especially when his advice is consistent with the body of evidence that exists which is in line with his observations in his 20 years of experience.

Again if people define fun as being in a family sedan with a body kit and big engine and doing burnouts on demand then get a HSV but if you are more inclined to enjoy the purity of driving in a purpose built race inspired vehicle that will inspire you on all emotional and physical levels then a gtr is for you. Not just the 35 but any gtr because they are all phenomenal vehicles that will out-perform any falcommodore super car on every level.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...