New L88?

[Kevin Crain]

By coincidence, this month's issue of GM High Tech Performance has a big
write-up on this whole issue of Ford's use of new DOHC technology versus GM
tweaking older OHV.  Somebody been reading ahead??  ;)


>> > You bet...and the benefits are impressive. The LS1 rods are
>> > not bad at 6.1"
>> > up from the Gen II SB 5.7", but we would like to see them
>> > closer to 6.3",
>> > along with a shorter stroke and larger bore.
>>
>> Larger bores slow the combustion speed and increase emissions, though.  I
>> think that's the reason for not going larger on the LS1.  Obviously for us
>> go-fast types, bigger bore means more room for valves.  I don't think the
>> EPA sees things that way, though.  Too bad.
>>
>
>As it stands now, well over 1.1HP/IN^3, 28+MPG, and LEV designation is quite
>an accomplishment for GM. Dave Hill's development philosophy is clearly
>stated often that each model year will introduce significant
>performance/design improvements. So far so true. They are following our lead
>[the aftermarket] in the area of power, and we make around 460HP before we
>stroke.
>
>Chevy's Corvette race program developed the current 7.0L LS1 as they were
>needing a way to catch the Viper effort on the straights. It seems it will
>trickle to production eventually, and they will find a way to meet
>emissions. We suggest they can do much more with 5.67L, perhaps in Gen IV or
>V.
>
>Interestingly, the original C5-R made over 600HP/495Ft-Lb with a 5.98L LS1
>bore up from 3.90" to 4.125" and stroke down from 3.62" to 3.42". Would be
>nice to see some of that trickle down to an LEV compliant engine...
>
>Ethan Hall
>Performance Research and Development, Inc.
>www.performanceresearchonline.com
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org