GT350 vs. Z/28

[BaylorCorvette]

The z28 has a HUGE cubic inch advantage. They should be forced to put a 5.3 in there. Ridiculous having that huge engine and thinking it should be even.

Exactly like I said a few posts ago. The Z/28R has a large displacement engine with only a single cam and half as many valves as the Boss or GT350R-C. By your logic the Boss and Shelby should be forced to reduce their cams to a single one and only two valves per cylinder. Two different ways to make power.

The CI has no advantage at all, it just a different way to make hp and tq.:cheers:

Sponsored

 

[1320']

The CI has no advantage at all, it just a different way to make hp and tq.:cheers:

More CI=More power, lower.

Depending on the track and where the majority of the time is spent in the RPM range if you are making more power and torque at say...4,500 RPM when you exit a corner then you'll have the advantages in a shorter, tighter track without as many long straights.

A 289 would rev super fast and make plenty of power up high, both TQ and HP, yet the GT40's that won at LeMans in 66 and 67 were MK II's and IV's powered by the 427. Why? because the power curve on a larger CI motor is much different than a smaller one.

Doesn't matter if you're carb'd, EFI, SFI, more cubes means more power lower. Classes have displacement limits in place to maintain some sense of commonality in the cars. The old TransAm cars (Boss's, Z/28's, Firebirds, Challenger T/A's) had a 5.0L displacement cap, otherwise you'd have seen 427 Mustangs, 396 Camaro's and 426 Hemi Cars slugging it out.

Yes the LS7 has been clamped down on, quite severely. However I'm willing to bet if you compared a dyno graph with a 350R-C (5.2), a Z/28.R (7.0) and a Vantage (4.7) you'd see a huge power advantage for the LS7 in the graph.

 

[Nasty99z28]

The z28 has a HUGE cubic inch advantage. They should be forced to put a 5.3 in there. Ridiculous having that huge engine and thinking it should be even.

You clearly have no clue.

 

[Nasty99z28]

More CI=More power, lower.

Depending on the track and where the majority of the time is spent in the RPM range if you are making more power and torque at say...4,500 RPM when you exit a corner then you'll have the advantages in a shorter, tighter track without as many long straights.

A 289 would rev super fast and make plenty of power up high, both TQ and HP, yet the GT40's that won at LeMans in 66 and 67 were MK II's and IV's powered by the 427. Why? because the power curve on a larger CI motor is much different than a smaller one.

Doesn't matter if you're carb'd, EFI, SFI, more cubes means more power lower. Classes have displacement limits in place to maintain some sense of commonality in the cars. The old TransAm cars (Boss's, Z/28's, Firebirds, Challenger T/A's) had a 5.0L displacement cap, otherwise you'd have seen 427 Mustangs, 396 Camaro's and 426 Hemi Cars slugging it out.

Yes the LS7 has been clamped down on, quite severely. However I'm willing to bet if you compared a dyno graph with a 350R-C (5.2), a Z/28.R (7.0) and a Vantage (4.7) you'd see a huge power advantage for the LS7 in the graph.

To say one has an advantage is just silly. The fpc was never meant to be a lowend engine for a reason. The new era of hipo engines are far superior to yesteryear. Less weight,high revs, and aggressive gearing keep that engine where its happiest. Or we could drop in a high revving 5.3 and lower the weight of the camaro,take away 3 cams from the mustang,remove half the valves and let them go. See how dumb that sounds?

 

[1320']

To say one has an advantage is just silly. The fpc was never meant to be a lowend engine for a reason. The new era of hipo engines are far superior to yesteryear. Less weight,high revs, and aggressive gearing keep that engine where its happiest. Or we could drop in a high revving 5.3 and lower the weight of the camaro,take away 3 cams from the mustang,remove half the valves and let them go. See how dumb that sounds?

You're off on some walkabout tangent that didn't address what I was saying.

I was talking about the advantages in terms of power delivery of a larger displacement engine. I said nothing about cams and wanting to drop in some pie in the sky, doesn't actually exist variant of the 5.3.

 

[Nasty99z28]

You're off on some walkabout tangent that didn't address what I was saying.

I was talking about the advantages in terms of power delivery of a larger displacement engine. I said nothing about cams and wanting to drop in some pie in the sky, doesn't actually exist variant of the 5.3.

You can't complain about an engine having 1 feature better when the other has an advantage in every other aspect. And like I said that engine "fpc" isn't meant to be a low end grunt engine so to complain about not having any or less is pointless. That's never what Ford built it to do.

 

[Erik427]

You clearly have no clue.

Sure he does....Chevy needs a much larger motor to make power.....and now you have the same clue. You can thank me later.:ford:

 

[Nasty99z28]

Sure he does....Chevy needs a much larger motor to make power.....and now you have the same clue. You can thank me later.:ford:

Lol nice try. Ohc engines by design need more cubes and that's no secret but make sure you add dodge to that list. And lets not forget since the 4.6 Ford has slowly been creeping back up on the cubes 4.6->5.0->5.2 and they've already had a 5.4 and 6.2 so I guess the modular family needs some displacement help at times to. Your smart enough to know that this "cube vs cube","valve vs valve", "1cam vs 4cams" pissing match can go on forever.

Oh and the coyote is technically the "bigger" engine and has to rev higher than a Honda to make power. End of the day it's arguments that went on for years and prove nothing other than there's more than one way to make power. Why hate on one when both rock?

 

[thePill]

OHV engines are the most inefficient combustion engines made.

A 5 liter LT1 would be pathetic even with DI.

Ford has increased displacement but in attempts to compete with a large Chevy engine. In that quest, Ford has nearly achieved 100hp per Liter. Something OHV engines just cannot do without major compromise elsewhere.

 

[BaylorCorvette]

OHV engines are the most inefficient combustion engines made.

A 5 liter LT1 would be pathetic even with DI.

Ford has increased displacement but in attempts to compete with a large Chevy engine. In that quest, Ford has nearly achieved 100hp per Liter. Something OHV engines just cannot do without major compromise elsewhere.

Which is why the statement "the LS7 has more CI's and thus not fair" is hilarious.

 

[Erik427]

Lol nice try. Ohc engines by design need more cubes and that's no secret but make sure you add dodge to that list. And lets not forget since the 4.6 Ford has slowly been creeping back up on the cubes 4.6->5.0->5.2 and they've already had a 5.4 and 6.2 so I guess the modular family needs some displacement help at times to. Your smart enough to know that this "cube vs cube","valve vs valve", "1cam vs 4cams" pissing match can go on forever.

Oh and the coyote is technically the "bigger" engine and has to rev higher than a Honda to make power. End of the day it's arguments that went on for years and prove nothing other than there's more than one way to make power. Why hate on one when both rock?

Knock it off....gm needs a larger motor to compete. Don't try to twist this around. A 2 liter advantage in only heard of when it comes to chevy. I remember the massive weight breaks chevy used to get in the '70's from the nhra. Never mind the massive cubic inch advantage and engine set backs. This kind of crap is nothing new when it comes to gm.........go jump on a chevy forum.

 

[Erik427]

Which is why the statement "the LS7 has more CI's and thus not fair" is hilarious.

No it's not fair that gm is allowed to use a larger motor. The ls7 head flows as much if not more than the Coyote or Voodo. Chevy has been given a huge advantage.......

 

[BaylorCorvette]

No it's not fair that gm is allowed to use a larger motor. The ls7 head flows as much if not more than the Coyote or Voodo. Chevy has been given a huge advantage.......

You realize the 5.2 makes more power than the old LS7, right? Down low torque isn't as good but lets not forget this isn't a drag race and the gearing will keep these cars in the power band.

 

[200MPHCOBRA]

Knock it off....gm needs a larger motor to compete. Don't try to twist this around. A 2 liter advantage in only heard of when it comes to chevy. I remember the massive weight breaks chevy used to get in the '70's from the nhra. Never mind the massive cubic inch advantage and engine set backs. This kind of crap is nothing new when it comes to gm.........go jump on a chevy forum.

Yeah, just before the switch to 500 ci, Cleveland headed Fords carried .2+ lbs/ci more than Chevy big blocks (more even then the hemi head dodge), and Glidden still cleaned their clocks. A factory class like that is sorely missed. Factory heads and block, N/A, lbs/ci weight matrix and let em battle.

 

[thePill]

You realize the 5.2 makes more power than the old LS7, right? Down low torque isn't as good but lets not forget this isn't a drag race and the gearing will keep these cars in the power band.

You do realize restrictions on smaller displacement engines have a great effect overall right?

Not to mention the LS7 had a 100hp advantage through 1/2 its maiden season along with a 3400lbs race weight. There's no call for that here... It's up to the manufacturers to build engines, fuel economy is one of the factors in CTSC.


In order to be competitive in this class, additional displacement was needed. I'm not sure why, the 6.2 was already THE most powerful engine in the class AND had ZERO restrictions.

What was the vey first thing thePill said about Grand Am (now IMSA) and an LS7 z28?

They absolutely NEED a power advantage to offset the horrible platform. Super expensive equipment was needed in the OEM side to make it beat a Boss... an LS7 was required at a minimum to ensure the Boss would go down. In Motorsport though, the Boss is still a handful, especially unrestricted.

Sponsored