tone3721

Like I said, compared to todays standards no.

Yes Im aware again, that they put out big power.

And no they cant, like I said comparing possibly the very top, to well....pretty close to the bottom tech speaking.

Really its just my opinion. I dont mean to knock anybody else, just not my cup of tea.

Fishey

Low tech vs High tech?

See here is the major problem I have with any such statements because if you compare the new M5 V10 vs say the LS7 in the Z06 people like you look at it only like this..

2006 BMW M5
:V10
Displacement:5000 cc
Horsepower:507 bhp @ 7750 rpm
Torque:384 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm
Max RPM:8250 rpm
hp/liter: 101.4

vs

2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
Engine:V8
Displacement:7011 cc
Horsepower:505 bhp @ 6300 rpm
Torque:470 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Max RPM:7000 rpm
hp/liter: 71.32

So WOW! the M5 must be so advanced look at what it can do with so much less displacement! etc.. etc.. (total ignorant people jump up and down at Germans superior engineering)

The truth though for any educated person is that the Z06 LS7 is both smaller physically and its also over 100lbs lighter then the V10 M5 motor. So its Smaller, Lighter, Lower center of gravity, Has a better TQ curve, Way less expensive, and to top it all off has way way way more room for performance improvement over the stock engine with just add on parts (intake, exhaust, cam,tune)

So if the LS7 is better in all the aspects that really matter why does it matter that it doesn't have all these "High Tech features" its better and to argue otherwise makes you a totally ignorant person. High tech might sound cool but the pushrod V8 gets the job done better so its the better technology in this case. It might not seem "High tech" but its the better tech as has been proven over the many many years of its reliable power.

porshhhh951

How in the world does a car that costs more than a million dollers help make your point that LSX's are low-tech. Everything is low-tech compared with that car.

How in the world is our SOC 2v motor High tech? Our motors are a joke compared with the japanese stuff. Its why evo's,subis, heck even hondas can make more power with the same modification. Heck you stroke out a evo and it has nearly the same displacement, makes a hellva lot more tq and power.

In dallas I had several friends with 400-500hp evo's. Its damn hard to find a 944 making that kind of power out of our 2.5ltr. They were doing it with 2.0ltrs. Your arguement is pretty flawed. Because we aren't living in the 80's anymore. All of our cars are low-tech.

I think you are pretty biased and honestly thats just fine. This is after all a porsche board. However don't try and compare a ls1 to a bugatti and expect for people to see eye to eye with you. Thats a horrible comparision.

Kool

I think you are taking what I said out of context. And if you want a put gas in it and forget it car buy a Honda. I think that being a snapshot in technology that Porsche represents that you have to expect these cars are going to have maintenance requirements.

Maybe the 924/944/951/968 was the last of the O-ring happy engine designer. When I rebuilt my Acura K20 motor I think I bought 5 seals or gaskets to assemble the long block. Everything else was done with Honda Bond. I think that is more of an example of technology moving along rather then a oversight on Porsche's part.

You gotta think that the 944 2.5 was derived from the 928 motor which was developed in the early 70's. So from that stand point it is old now. But there is older tech engines that reside in some american cars to this day.

I totally agree that Porsche builds the best solution at the time. Another example of the is the bearingless case on the 997.5.

Kool

As far as the GM small block.

Yeah yeah we have heard all the arguments and yeah it is great and reliable. But it is another example of why GM is failing. Rather then try and do something new or innovative they choose to just endlessly develop a platform with known short comings.

clearing my throat 911.

I digress.

I look at the endless reliance of the small block push rod engine as yet another reason as to why we the people are bailing out these fat cats who have sat on their laurels all these years as the competition passes them by.

V2Rocket

ORLY?

how often do you hear of SBC's in normal trim failing?
GM's engines is not the reason it is failing...the redundant lineups and ridiculous labor agreements, along with poor management overall is....however this is a discussion for another thread, in another forum...


do tell about the bearingless case plz

Kool

Yup. No main bearings. Much like a cam guide on a typical Honda DOHC head.

Looking for the article now. It was in a write up in Excellence.

Jeremy Himsel

Simple questions.....Can I put my LS6 motor in my 951......and my 3.0L in my ZO6? How much would it cost me to swap motors and transmissions?

Also, I'm looking for a 928 to do a motor swap with the 5.4L in my Navigator since they weigh about the same. I may have to supercharge the 5.4L once it's in the 928 though. Either way, they'll remain my wife's toys.

tone3721

Guys, guys that is a bad comparison, like I said already. I was just trying to exemplify the top of the line, and the bottom. Again, compared to today ours aint exactly the top either, by any stretch. For the era tho..... man these are some big 4's. Some of the biggest ever. Thats already the pushing the envelope further than GM. GM=stagnant, its obvious to me. Reliable, but not the cutting edge by any means.

odb812

GM made a bigger 4 than Porsche though.

Kool

Only if you install holder for your cute pink cell phone.

Kool

Agreed. And that is why they are failing.

Lorax

GM may be stagnant but the LS motors and corvette are not.
Corvette is constantly pushing the limits with the LS motor, just look at the Z06 and ZR-1. No matter what happens to GM corvette will live on.

Kool

The limits of what you can do with leaf springs and a pushrod engine.

NASCAR pushes limits.

Don't get me wrong great car the Corvette for what it is. But it isn't in the same league as a GT2 or GT3 as far as innovation, build quality, and over all quality. A corvette is a great case study of what exactly you can do with old tech.

The Clarkson DVD Heaven and Hell where he compares European and American cars is a great piece if you watch it in the context of what the American car industry is missing.

Jeremy Himsel

Yeah after reading through of some of this it alowya makes me chuckle when I read that GM, and the LS motors are poor engineering....GM doesn't improve technology...blah....blah...blah......

Remember, the LT-5 motor? Co-engineered with Lotus and built by Merc? Aluminum block, 32V DOHC? What did GM learn? That the motors became maintenance nightmares, an engine that was expensive to produce, even worse to rebuild ....Sounds just like just like Porsche, Ferrari, Lambo, Aston doesn't it?

So they decided to go back to the drawing board and came back with the LS motors and If that doesn’t seem like much, consider that improvement comes from an engine with: slightly less displacement, smaller physical size, only one cam, only two valves-per-cylinder, pushrod valve gear, less weight and better fuel mileage. Low tech to the opinions on Rennlist? Maybe. Effective from a race and street car perspective? Absolutely. Parts at midnight on a Friday? No problem. Special tools or $120 /hr labor rates to repair them? Not necessary.
Sounds to me thay took a lo-tech concept and got a high-tech result.

Now they have a 100K car walking on 250K cars from a performance perspective. Next we'll hear about cheap interiors.....a dime a dozen....I see them every day......

Oh yeah, did I mention that the ls motors, at least on the Corvette is also designated as a LEV engine?