LS-7 Price announced

[Guest the_dj]

They used cast pistons for a few reasons:

 

1) They are strong enough to fully withstand the power of the motor as they built it. People needing gobs more power than it already has will be rebuilding the motor anyway. If they are sure the pistons are fine to 7xx hp, then there is no reason to build over that if the motor is only mid to upper 500's.

 

2) They are cheaper. Businesses like that.

 

3) They are quieter. Forged pistons are quite a bit louder before they heat up and fully expand. Not the best idea for a factory car; they would always be coming back to the dealer because "the engine is making funny noises."

[Guest the_dj]

OOohh, and if I was to start adding the price of my LS1 plus heads, plus cam, plus supercharger, plus intake.......... the price is not exactly and pocket change.

 

12.5K really isn't too bad of a price considering what you are getting with that motor.

 

-------------------------

 

Someone was asking about the differences between the LSx motors and the SBC. The first 2 things I notice is the LSx is all aluminum and comes from the factory with 15 degree heads.

 

I was wrong here, removed...

 

They use 6.125" rods.

 

The intake is composite -- very light and doesn't heatsoak.

 

The LSx motors use a new firing order (1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3) to reduce main bearing wear and stress on the crank. This and the switch to an aluminum block are the reasons the LSx motors sound so much different from earlier small blocks.

 

 

 

I drive a 515 rear wheel HP LS1 car as my daily driver. It has a monster torque plateau from 3000-6600rpm, and the off-idle response feels like a stock car. Rain isn't even an issue... it drives about the same around town as if I was driving a V6 Accord or something. My Z (Gen I SBC) doesn't have near the power, AND it's not near as driveable. From what I've seen on a regular basis, the LSx is easily the top dog for maintaining effortless streetability and good fuel economy (20+ even) in a high power motor.

[DaleMX]

LS1's dont have reverse cooling, at least mine doesn't.

[Mikelly]

Sorry, but for all the money and gucci parts, they should have run Forged Pistons. This is a performance engine of major proportions. Noise isn't going to (Or shouldn't) be a factor... Just one "CHEAP" mans opinion!

 

It is a BAD AZZ motor, and I want one, no doubt... Just don't want to pay that kinda scratch to get one!

 

Mike

[Guest the_dj]

LS1's dont have reverse cooling, at least mine doesn't.

 

 

 

Fixed

[Mike C]

GM is in the business of making money and not cars. They have done lots of R&D on the LS7 and install it as a production motor. It has to meet fuel economy, emissions, and noise standards. They will just make more motors than cars and sell over the counter. This is not a race motor but a low volume production part designed to go 100k+ miles and be track capable. Personally, seems like a really good deal. I know stacks of guys with $20k in a drag race motor. Makes more power than the LS7, but no warranty! Besides, you just don't hear about NA motors chewing pistons up. If this motor was going to be forced induction maybe the piston issue could be revisited.

[nazar]

if i had the money i'd get it, its a badass engine that you wont be able to recreate

 

Come on....dry sump oiling, some titanium rods and ****....plus, they make 500whp with headers!!!!!!!! Go check out some dynoes of guys with the new z06's with just long tubes they get 500whp

 

A stock z06 runs 11's....in a datsun, that engine is a drop in 10 second kit, ad headers, cam, intake, DEEP into 10s with drivability..not bad

 

There's guys making 600whp on those with bolt ons and cam.

[pparaska]

Check out the latest Hotrod Mag. They took an LS7, tested and corrected to typical environmental conditions like most dyno runs are done at (STP) instead of the new SAE J-1349, and got the following numbers:

 

By using the stock manifolds and going without catalytic converters or exhaust/mufflers:

 

546 STP hp @ 6100rpm, 514 STP lb-ft @ 4900rpm

 

With the SAE correction factors, that's:

 

522 SAE hp and 492 SAE lb-ft.

 

The STP hp is 4.6% higher than SAE, torque is 4.5% higher than SAE.

 

Then they put 1-3/4 to 1-7/8 x 17 inch primary tube headers with a 2.5" merge collector and got:

 

519 SAE hp@6373rpm / 495 SAE lb-ft@4824

 

Being so bold as to use the same 4.6% and 4.5% higher numbers:

 

543 STP hp / 517 STP lb-ft

 

Next was the first step up new HOT cam and same headers:

 

554 SAE hp @ 6186 and 6374rpm / 508 SAE lb-ft @ 4812rpm

 

or, using the 4.6 and 4.5% factors:

 

579 STP hp / 531 STP lb-ft

 

By the time they had the hottest HOT cam in it with 1-3/4 x 26" primary headers w/ 2.5" merge collectors, it was at 600hp.

 

600 SAE hp @ 6803rpm / 526 SAE lb-ft @ 4873 and 5245rpm

 

or, using the 4.6 and 4.5% factors:

 

628 STP hp / 550 STP lb-ft !!!!!

 

One thing you don't want to forget is that the LS7 is 7.0 liters, not the wimpy 5.7 of the LS1/2/6!!! That's another 81 cubes, and at the 1.40 SAE hp/cubic inch that the last cam/header combot has, an extra 113 SAE hp!!!

 

So don't think that duplicating this power with an typical 5.7L LS1/2/6 is going to be so easy.

 

Also, the LS7 heads are very different internally than the LS6 heads. The ports of more "conventionally" shaped, and they flow like mad. How about intake flow of 360cfm @ 28"H2O @ 0.600" on a Superflow 600 flowbench? That's big-block territory for a little, light 7.0L package! Oh, they're 12 degree heads, unlike the LS1/2/6 heads that are 15 degrees.

 

I wonder if the wife would miss $15K from the 60 month CD?

 

Sorry, cast pistons or no, this is an engine that will last and has the potential for more power than most people are willing or able to use. All that with a 2 yr warranty? For $15K, I think it's a steal. I just don't want $15K in my engine. But if that wasn't an issue, I'd be in line.

[Mikelly]

Screw that. If I do anything, I'll buy the whole car... AND I'm seriously considering just that very thing!

 

No doubt that LS7 is one of the baddest production motors ever built... Very impressive info Pete!

 

Mike

[jt1]

I got to ride in a new Z06 a couple of months ago. I was pretty impressed with it. For a production car, it's amazing. The motor was very torquey with a very flat curve. It only had 1100 miles on it and he wasn't winding it all that high, about 5K, but it would get there quickly. It reminded me a lot of riding in a big block muscle car, which considering the cubes and numbers, isn't surprising.

 

John

[Brad-ManQ45]

Mike:

 

The only aspect of the new car I am not enamored of is the use of aluminum for the chassis - I think the ~40 lbs saved at the increase in chassis flex was a bad tradeoff....

[Mikelly]

Brad, the reports I read stated that the aluminum chassis was stronger than that of the steel C6 Chassis. I haven't heard anything to the contrary. I do know they are going to have to jump through some huge hoops to get a roll cage approved for it with SCCA and most of the other racing leagues. They are having to sandwhich the frame with steel channels as footers, and so far everything presented to SCCA has been turned down.

 

Mike

[Brad-ManQ45]

I had one magazine that stated that the schassis flexed a bit more than the production - maybe because of the bigger tires....

[nazar]

I had one magazine that stated that the schassis flexed a bit more than the production - maybe because of the bigger tires....

 

im sure you wont notice it as you pull 1.2g's and 11.5 1/4 times

[Brad-ManQ45]

I went and found the write-up in Car & Driver - their quote (note quite verbatim perhaps but absolutely correct as far as syntax and message) - "The big weight savings is the 136 lb chassis - 1/3 less than the heavier but stonger steel chassis."

 

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure that 70 lbs saved (I know I said 40 earlier) is worth it if it means a more flexible chassis - not only from a control standpoint, but longevity reasons.

 

I would suspect that for those of us who would actually buy one of these cars and put it to the use intended, that we wouldn't deal much with water, so eliminate the obvious advantage of no rust that an aluminum chassis has.

 

You are left with a chassis that is more flexible, and aluminum fatigues quicker than steel does - If both frames flexed the same amount, the aluminum would fatigue quicker. But in this case, according to C&D, the steel chassis is stiffer also, so I stand by my statement.

 

We've heard for years that the vettes were always a little too heavy, and I think Chevrolet had a goal to get the weight to the parameter people have been bandying about for all this time. I'd rather have the additional 70 lbs in a steel frame, or apply another strategic 30 to the aluminum one with proper supports/mounts for SCCA rollbar mounting (thanks Mike for the heads up on that - hadn't heard about the issue) to make it as stiff as the production chassis (without roolbar installed).

 

In this case I will use the analogy of cars and women (male chauvinist pig that I am) and state that in both, losing TOO much weight can be a turn off...I like to be comfortable with the way they both feel.

[briann510]

Someone up up above commented it aint a wimpy 5.7 liter as the older Z06's had...

 

My wimpy stock 5.7 Z06 runs 11.90's....LOL

[pparaska]

Someone up up above commented it aint a wimpy 5.7 liter as the older Z06's had...

 

My wimpy stock 5.7 Z06 runs 11.90's....LOL

 

Hope you saw the smilie after I wrote "wimpy". Seriously though, there's nothing wrong with the 5.7 - 11.90s is fast for any street driven daily driver, in my book. I just didn't want people to loose site of the major increase in displacement the new Z06 has. It's a big part of the reason for the 505 SAE J1349 hp number!