ls1 vs 3800

[cam98aro]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

Actually John Ligenfelter Industries did a dyno and efficiency test, and found that a properly jetted four barrel was as efficient as fuel injection, but as far as tuning for a proper fuel curve through the rpm range, fuel injection was better...ill see if i can find where i saw that at.

if you have the correct size carb with the right jetting, and everything tuned correctly, the engine is only going to use as much fuel as it needs to run from its vacuum. most people put huge carbs on their engines and then cant figure out why it is running so rich and turning the plugs black, and on the other hand, people will use too small of a carb fr their application and totally bypass the idle circuit which will then again dump fuel into the engine.

the only thing FI has on a carb is better fuel atomization which will let the fuel burn more efficiently, and completely, thus in reality, you should see better HP numbers due to the engine using all of the fuel for power instead of shooting the raw fuel out the exhaust.

there are people out there with a 4spd 330hp carbed 350 averaging 20mpg, which is pretty comparable to an ls1 (manual vs manual)

edit* although it is hard to compare a 4spd vs a 6spd, as the t56 will give an engine much better mpg

[bigbrian442]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

i said its not impressive at all, and compared it to 50 year old technology, and also the 3.8l

and somehow i get bashed and called a moron and im getting "smoked" or whatever.

engines were based on the fact that they could make 1hp per ci.. the SBC was the first engine to do that, and it was a HUGE deal.. that happened back in.. oh 1955? that was 54 years ago, and while technology has improved so much since then, they cant even make a normal engine that can back those numbers up?

edit* maybe you are mistaking me for trying to say that the ls1 engine has LOW horsepower.. i was under the impression a lot of people here would agree with me, so im thinking you guys arent understanding what im saying..

im not saying it has low horsepower or is a slow/crappy engine.. im saying that the performance numbers the engine puts out isnt impressive compared to how many ci it is

Since your an expert on Gen I SBC's you should know your HP/CI argument holds no water because before 1972 car makers used gross HP ratings. Since 1972 they have used NET HP ratings. The Gross numbers are about 30% higher then the net numbers. That would put the gross numbers for the 325 HP LS1 WS6 car up to about 420 HP.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

Quote from the above link at Wikipedia


SAE gross horsepower

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand with no belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, mufflers, or emission control devices and sometimes fitted with long tube "test headers" in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds.[citation needed] The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature were relatively idealistic. The resulting gross power and torque figures therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value and not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by the manufacturer's advertising and marketing staff under the direction of product managers.[citation needed] The power ratings of mass-market engines were often exaggerated beyond their actual gross output, while those of the highest-performance muscle car engines often tended to be closer in actual output to their advertised, gross ratings.[citation needed]

No pre-1972 engine in its unaltered, production line stock form, as installed in the vehicle, has ever yielded documented, qualified third party validated power figures that equal or exceed its original gross rating.[citation needed] Claims that such engines were "under-rated" are therefore dubious; for example, the 1969 427 ZL1 Chevrolet, rated at 430 bhp (320.7 kW), is frequently cited[who?] as an "under-rated" high performance engine, yet it produced only 376 horsepower (280 kW).[9]

[edit] SAE net horsepower

In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.

Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating and a net rating of 350 hp, while the same company's 225 Slant 6 carried a rating of 145 bhp but 110 net hp.[citations needed]

[stevethepirate]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

pwn3d?

yes... pwn3d.




I think the whole point is, I don't give a flying hoot what the hp/ci ratio is, because that doesn't mean anything. Its not like I compare my hp/ci with other people for pink slips, lol.

[ViperRider]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

Since your an expert on Gen I SBC's you should know your HP/CI argument holds no water because before 1972 car makers used gross HP ratings. Since 1972 they have used NET HP ratings. The Gross numbers are about 30% higher then the net numbers. That would put the gross numbers for the 325 HP LS1 WS6 car up to about 420 HP.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

Quote from the above link at Wikipedia


SAE gross horsepower

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand with no belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, mufflers, or emission control devices and sometimes fitted with long tube "test headers" in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds.[citation needed] The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature were relatively idealistic. The resulting gross power and torque figures therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value and not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by the manufacturer's advertising and marketing staff under the direction of product managers.[citation needed] The power ratings of mass-market engines were often exaggerated beyond their actual gross output, while those of the highest-performance muscle car engines often tended to be closer in actual output to their advertised, gross ratings.[citation needed]

No pre-1972 engine in its unaltered, production line stock form, as installed in the vehicle, has ever yielded documented, qualified third party validated power figures that equal or exceed its original gross rating.[citation needed] Claims that such engines were "under-rated" are therefore dubious; for example, the 1969 427 ZL1 Chevrolet, rated at 430 bhp (320.7 kW), is frequently cited[who?] as an "under-rated" high performance engine, yet it produced only 376 horsepower (280 kW).[9]

[edit] SAE net horsepower

In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.

Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating and a net rating of 350 hp, while the same company's 225 Slant 6 carried a rating of 145 bhp but 110 net hp.[citations needed]

Ouch ouch ouch

BTW...i never knew that..thanks

[DAS BOOT]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

Actually John Ligenfelter Industries did a dyno and efficiency test, and found that a properly jetted four barrel was as efficient as fuel injection, but as far as tuning for a proper fuel curve through the rpm range, fuel injection was better...ill see if i can find where i saw that at.

your wrong...


Carbs don't make changes for weather/temp changes, fuel injection does.


So... maybe in IDEAL conditions you will see similar effects. Now vary the atmosphere conditions and fuel injection will do alot better.


Not saying i am against carbs or anything but FI is better.

[DAS BOOT]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

if you have the correct size carb with the right jetting, and everything tuned correctly, the engine is only going to use as much fuel as it needs to run from its vacuum. most people put huge carbs on their engines and then cant figure out why it is running so rich and turning the plugs black, and on the other hand, people will use too small of a carb fr their application and totally bypass the idle circuit which will then again dump fuel into the engine.

the only thing FI has on a carb is better fuel atomization which will let the fuel burn more efficiently, and completely, thus in reality, you should see better HP numbers due to the engine using all of the fuel for power instead of shooting the raw fuel out the exhaust.

there are people out there with a 4spd 330hp carbed 350 averaging 20mpg, which is pretty comparable to an ls1 (manual vs manual)

edit* although it is hard to compare a 4spd vs a 6spd, as the t56 will give an engine much better mpg

Have both cars operate at similar emissions standards, might see that change.

[bigbrian442]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

Have both cars operate at similar emissions standards, might see that change.

No might about it. The SBC was canned because it couldn't meet emissions and fuel economy standards even with EFI.

[cam98aro]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

your wrong...


Carbs don't make changes for weather/temp changes, fuel injection does.

not really, street carbs have chokes on them, some even have electric chokes.. close the choke, makes the fuel mixture richer in order to run the engine until it gets to operating temperature.

FI does the same exact thing.. run in open loop by making the air/fuel mixture richer until it comes to operating temp, it will switch to closed loop, leaning the mixture out a bit

[cam98aro]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

pwn3d?

yes... pwn3d.




I think the whole point is, I don't give a flying hoot what the hp/ci ratio is, because that doesn't mean anything. Its not like I compare my hp/ci with other people for pink slips, lol.

hp/ci ratio means nothing compared to how fast a car is.

and sure, i may have been "owned" in some peoples point of views, but still.. z28 302 rated at 290hp, and yet the thing was pushing out almost 320hp at the wheels

[bigbrian442]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

not really, street carbs have chokes on them, some even have electric chokes.. close the choke, makes the fuel mixture richer in order to run the engine until it gets to operating temperature.

FI does the same exact thing.. run in open loop by making the air/fuel mixture richer until it comes to operating temp, it will switch to closed loop, leaning the mixture out a bit

You realize he was talking about air density and temperature changes relative to tuning? IE racers having to change jets to between rounds to compensate for atmospheric changes. EFI compensates automatically.

EFI cars are in closed loop long before they warm up. Like with in 60 seconds of starting.

hp/ci ratio means nothing compared to how fast a car is.

and sure, i may have been "owned" in some peoples point of views, but still.. z28 302 rated at 290hp, and yet the thing was pushing out almost 320hp at the wheels

WTF is the relevance of an under rated motor and you previous statements about HP per CI in this thread? The same is said about the LS6.

If I were you I would stop typing as your only helping Bibbler prove his point about you.

[loser]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

why is this thread still here?

bigbrian is right. if you take a FI car and a carb'd car cross country lets say, temps ranging from 20* to 100* the FI is going to run better,make more power, and get better gas milage on average than the carb'd car. plain and simple.

and yes, cars are only in open loop for a short period of time, back in the day it took a tad bit longer, but the time period is continuing to shorten and now its right around a minute give or take, as said before.

[DAS BOOT]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

why is this thread still here?

bigbrian is right. if you take a FI car and a carb'd car cross country lets say, temps ranging from 20* to 100* the FI is going to run better,make more power, and get better gas milage on average than the carb'd car. plain and simple.

and yes, cars are only in open loop for a short period of time, back in the day it took a tad bit longer, but the time period is continuing to shorten and now its right around a minute give or take, as said before.

HEY!

I was the one that pointed it out....

I don't even know why its an argument? Then again the thread was pointless to begin with comparing Ls1 and 3.8L

3.8L is a great motor, would get an assload more respect if there never was a z28 option on the Camaro for 4th gens, just v6s.

But there isn't, and its not like we are comparing it to any old v8, like a Ford PI 4.6L where its respectable but not a "incredibly noteworthy" motor.

We are talking the LS1, it has been thought of as one of the most power making, most used for swaps, great gas, WHATEVER people say about it. Hell where do you think all the "touched by GOD" stuff comes from.


Its a better motor plain and simple....





Hell lets throw in real world scenario...

My dad has a 2k1 corvette 6-speed
I had a 2k 3.8L v6 5-speed


Dad's corvette, ran 13.2@109 mph with 2.2 60" 100% bone stock, I just put in a replacement air filter.

My 3.8L, I ran a 15.2 bone stock, and 14.4@95 mph with nothing but free mods on my car.


You will say blah blah vette is better, had an extra gear. So lets give it a 1 second handicap(which is rediculous in the car world). His car was still faster then my unusually setup 3.8, that ran a 14.4. He is bone stock, even had bald run-flats.


Next... guess which car got better consistant gas mileage? Yep you guessed it. The Vette.





Now for my favorite one....


My dad's 2k1 ls1, been on the road for 8 years, at least, I think has like 75k miles on it. Runs fine...



My 2k 3.8L, in 2007, ~8 years old. Had an intake manifold leak which put coolant in the oil, displaced oil from main bearings and killed the motor.

[cam98aro]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

You realize he was talking about air density and temperature changes relative to tuning? IE racers having to change jets to between rounds to compensate for atmospheric changes. EFI compensates automatically.

EFI cars are in closed loop long before they warm up. Like with in 60 seconds of starting.

the engine has to get to a certain temperature until it gets out of closed loop, if its -20F outside, its going to take longer than 60 seconds compared to if it was 80F

[bigbrian442]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

the engine has to get to a certain temperature until it gets out of closed loop, if its -20F outside, its going to take longer than 60 seconds compared to if it was 80F

Incorrect. The engine is in closed loop as soon as the heated O2 sensor is up to temp. That takes less than 60 seconds. It's a requirement of OBD II.

[Firebirdkid96]

Re: ls1 vs 3800

the engine has to get to a certain temperature until it gets out of closed loop, if its -20F outside, its going to take longer than 60 seconds compared to if it was 80F

You really need to just shut up at this point. For your own integrity.