Why is the LS1 so much better than a 351W?

[Modular2v]

BTW...The Corvette was not the only production car fitted with the LS6. My son had a company car which was a Caddy CTS-V. Came with the LS6, 3.73's, a 6spd, weighed 4200lbs and would do mid 11's. Without the traction control, it would've kept spinning the street tires through the first 4 shifts. The intake looked like it was from a Formula 1 car and he said it had variable valve timing on the canted valve high compression
head. The design as well as the technology make the difference. My 351C-4v came stock with 11.3:1 compression, canted valves and ports you could put your fist into. The 2.20" intake valves didn't hurt, either. Too bad Ford chose to discontinue it.

i have two sets of those heads laying in my garage haha

 

[300bhp/ton]

BTW...The Corvette was not the only production car fitted with the LS6. My son had a company car which was a Caddy CTS-V. Came with the LS6, 3.73's, a 6spd, weighed 4200lbs and would do mid 11's. Without the traction control, it would've kept spinning the street tires through the first 4 shifts. The intake looked like it was from a Formula 1 car and he said it had variable valve timing on the canted valve high compression
head.

ummm I smell something fishey, and I' don't mean the contents of one of Baldrick's apple crumbles.

Sorry but I think I'm gonna have to flash the ol' BS meter.

View attachment 495956

lol,


The LS6 has 405bhp and in the C5 Z06 11.9 is possible, but low mid 12's are more common. The Z06 weighs a FULL 1000lb less. So there ain't know way a Caddi is doing mid 11's anywhere remotly near STOCK.

But yes I had over looked the LS6 fitted in the CTS-V. :SNSign:

 

[JB66]

OK, So, 0-100 in 11.1 according to this test. Still, almost 110 mph on the 1/4 is some horsepower. Moving almost 2 tons that fast is impressive to me.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_trio/index7.html

 

[300bhp/ton]

OK, So, 0-100 in 11.1 according to this test. Still, almost 110 mph on the 1/4 is some horsepower. Moving almost 2 tons that fast is impressive to me.

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_trio/index7.html

yep it certainly is impressive.

 

[ThreeWhiteGT]

The LS1, LS2 and LS6 motors are the only thing GM ever did right

 

[304billet]

There r little 306's NA on pump gas that hit 385rwhp so it is not unreasonable for a 347 stroker or 351W to hit 450-475rwhp, NA on pump gas w/ less than 11:1 comp. It takes the right H/C/I, gears among other things to get the engine dialed in and produce big #'s.

347 stroker or 351W - AFR 205 heads or TFS Hi-Port Stage 3 heads or TFS R Stage 2 heads, solid roller w/.600 lift, 230/240 dur, Victor EFI or TFS R port matched intake, 36lbers, 80mm TB, 85mm MAF, 3.73 gears, etc.

 

[300bhp/ton]

There r little 306's NA on pump gas that hit 385rwhp so it is not unreasonable for a 347 stroker or 351W to hit 450-475rwhp, NA on pump gas w/ less than 11:1 comp. It takes the right H/C/I, gears among other things to get the engine dialed in and produce big #'s.

I have no doubt that it CAN make power, but no way on this planet is it going to be all that streetable (in real terms), or economical or emissions friendly. There's also good cause to put a '?' over the reliability too.

I've had this debate with someone else before. Most push rod engines WILL NOT produce 100bhp per litre and remain friendly to drive. The LSx engines get pretty close but still fall short of the mark.

347 stroker or 351W - AFR 205 heads or TFS Hi-Port Stage 3 heads or TFS R Stage 2 heads, solid roller w/.600 lift, 230/240 dur, Victor EFI or TFS R port matched intake, 36lbers, 80mm TB, 85mm MAF, 3.73 gears, etc.

BTW - gears will NOT affect an engines output.

 

[Dbeck002]

300bhp/ton makes very good points. and although i've grown in the car world loving mustangs and fuel injected 302's, i'm loving the Ls1 motor more and more. if i have any complaint about the Ls1(and this is weird), is that it makes too much power too easily. lol. i see guys swapping the exhuast and cam, and making over 400wrhp. its like, wtf. i can only imagine what the 4 cylinder racers think about that lol.

about the low end grunt, i can personally verify it has plenty of low end grunt. i drove a friends Ls1 Rx-7 FD(the only thing changed was the exhuast, which is the same size as the stock Rx-7 exhuast) and when i was cruising at about 25mph or so in second i believe(also this car turns around 1800rpms at 80mph in 6th), i had gunned it, but with a long step. meaning i didnt hammer it down, but pressed down fairly quickly, and it just jerked both mine and my buddies head into the seat like crazy, i was actually too nervous to shift into the next gear and keep gunning it, so at around 4000-5000rpms i had just let off. truely awesome. and i'm considering using an Ls1 on my next project car. even though i'm ahuge ford guy. i want to see what kind of numbers i can pull out of my current set-up.

also one other thing, that really inspired me when i first got into the 302s. was when i saw fox mustangs running 12 second time slips with 300rwhp. hell, if i could dip into the high to mid 12's, i'd be extreamly happy. i forgot the point i was trying to make in this last paragraph, i think...oh yeah, who cares about max hp ratings, its all about power delivery. i'm more concentrated on time slips then hp numbers. i dont care if you have 400hp more than me, as long as i get to the finish line before you. a toyota supra can make over a thousand hp, but runs like a 400hp mustang or worse. now thats a top end car.


~Steve

Steve, go back and read the first post. We were talking about how an LS6 camaro lacked low end grunt. It does indeed, an LS1 makes better low end than an LS6 especially in a light RX7. you are comparing apples and oranges, shushie...

 

[300bhp/ton]

Steve, go back and read the first post. We were talking about how an LS6 camaro lacked low end grunt. It does indeed, an LS1 makes better low end than an LS6 especially in a light RX7. you are comparing apples and oranges, shushie...

Except it wasn't a LS6 Camaro, it was a modified LS1 Camaro.

So an apple to an apple I'm afraid.

Come on, just face it you where wrong to say LSx cars have no bottom end, even the graphs you posted contridict what you are saying.

No body can be right all the time, hell I get things wrong lots. But if I am wrong and someone proves it as such I'll hold my hands up and "yep, my bad".

Remember there's nothing bad about being wrong, this is how we learn.

 

[Dbeck002]

Except it wasn't a LS6 Camaro, it was a modified LS1 Camaro.

So an apple to an apple I'm afraid.

Come on, just face it you where wrong to say LSx cars have no bottom end, even the graphs you posted contridict what you are saying.

No body can be right all the time, hell I get things wrong lots. But if I am wrong and someone proves it as such I'll hold my hands up and "yep, my bad".

Remember there's nothing bad about being wrong, this is how we learn.

Modified = LS6 package















Why dont you understand what im saying..

The man is a good friend and he wouldnt lie.. He told me flat out he swapped the whole LS6 package on there. it is not longer an LS1.

do you want his phone number so you can call him and ask him yourself?



the graphs i posted prove me correct 100%.

the data i gathered empirically proves me 100% (by the way empirically means experimentally gathered if you didnt understand the first time)

i have 7 witnesses that saw the race and all agreed his bottom end pull was lacking a lot.

one witness was in my car and the other was in his car for crying out loud.


and for the last time, it was complete LS6 swap.



i think you are getting agitated at my physically gathered data. its time for your tea and cucumbers.







END OF STORY

 

[300bhp/ton]

Modified = LS6 package















Why dont you understand what im saying..

The man is a good friend and he wouldnt lie.. He told me flat out he swapped the whole LS6 package on there. it is not longer an LS1.

do you want his phone number so you can call him and ask him yourself?



the graphs i posted prove me correct 100%.

the data i gathered empirically proves me 100% (by the way empirically means experimentally gathered if you didnt understand the first time)

i have 7 witnesses that saw the race and all agreed his bottom end pull was lacking a lot.

one witness was in my car and the other was in his car for crying out loud.


and for the last time, it was complete LS6 swap.



i think you are getting agitated at my physically gathered data. its time for your tea and cucumbers.







END OF STORY

lol.

no worries man.

I just wouldn't post that on LS1tech.com I think they would have a rather different view about it.

But hay each to his own.

On a side note, got any pics of your car. Sounds like a sweet setup you've got.


EDIT: Ok I'm wrong. should have looked at the link in your sig. Nice car BTW

 

[304billet]

I have no doubt that it CAN make power, but no way on this planet is it going to be all that streetable (in real terms), or economical or emissions friendly. There's also good cause to put a '?' over the reliability too.

I've had this debate with someone else before. Most push rod engines WILL NOT produce 100bhp per litre and remain friendly to drive. The LSx engines get pretty close but still fall short of the mark.


BTW - gears will NOT affect an engines output.

who cares about emissions. Go on corral.net and do a search on 306's w/ 385 rwhp, they r streetable, and it has been done on this planet. But the question is can a 351W or a 347 stroker do the 450-475rwhp be NA streetable and the answer is YES.

 

[Dbeck002]

lol.

no worries man.

I just wouldn't post that on LS1tech.com I think they would have a rather different view about it.

But hay each to his own.

On a side note, got any pics of your car. Sounds like a sweet setup you've got.


EDIT: Ok I'm wrong. should have looked at the link in your sig. Nice car BTW

no problem i just got a little carried away...