cheezsnake said:
I suppose, by this argument, we should be looking at something like (HP*Kg)/L. An interesting formula, but output efficiency has traditionally been measured in HP/displacement, like you mentioned. If someone had the mass numbers of the 4.6 and the LSx, it would be interesting to see these results.
Ok. Quick question for you. You have two engines choices to put in your car. Here are the quick and dirty specs - make a choice.
Engine A displaces 4L, makes 300 HP @ 5000 rpm (75 HP/L), is 30" wide, 30" tall, and 30" long. It weighs 600 lbs, fully dressed.
Engine B displaces 5L, makes 300 HP @ 5000 rpm (60 HP/L), is 26" wide, 28" tall, and 32" long. It weighs 500lbs, full dressed.
Which engine would you rather have in your car - the one with the better HP/L, or the one that you will go faster with?
the LS1 motor has about 65 cubic inches on the Ford 4.6! That's a lot more fuel and air potential! Just think what a Ford 5.7L 3V overhead cam engine could do to the LS1 cars.
I guess we won't know, and we certainly don't know. We can only speculate. And besides, a 5.7L Modular would have a stroke from here to Texas.
At 65.2 HP/L that would be over 370HP vs. 345HP for the LS1. For years we've been trying to compare apples to oranges ... it just doesn't work.
Now compare that hypothetical 370 HP 5.7 to the real world 405 HP 5.7 LS6.
No oranges needed.
And please, I'm not dogging Ford - far from it, as I have had quite a bit of success racing modulars, and even traded my 99 LS1 for a 99 DOHC Cobra. But I'm not blind - the LSx series is simply a better performance motor. The numbers don't lie.