Ohhh No !! I Bought Another Wheels Mag!!! - Page 4

Bossxr8 · 28-10-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nugget378

WTF?

Since when has power to weight been an indicator of "engine performance"?

Exactly. The cars weight is just a huge variable that throws the whole comparison out of whack.

Force6 · 28-10-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Exactly. The cars weight is just a huge variable that throws the whole comparison out of whack.

Pretty sure he was talking about the weight of the all aluminium LS2 engine itself.

**Falcon Coupe** · 28-10-2007, 05:21 PM

Weight is governed by what materials the manufacturer chooses to use, it has nothing to do with the efficiency of an engines design.

XR8Master · 29-10-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

That the Boss 302 produces similar power from 0.6 litres less capacity and less revs proves which design is superior. Its just not as good across the whole rev range though but thats because Ford have held it back from getting what it needs. If the Boss was allowed to use 6500 rpm it would easily out punch the LS2, I guess we will only need to wait 6 more months to see if thats true if the Boss 320 rumours are correct.

WTF are you talking about ? your lack of knowledge shows you have no idea what your talking about, since when is a Boss 302 used in a BA-BF ?

XR8Master · 29-10-2007, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nugget378

WTF?

Since when has power to weight been an indicator of "engine performance"?

So the fact the the Boss engines weighs over 100kg more then a LS2 has no merit ?

It may not play that big of a role in Engine preformance, but it will be a substantial role car preformance. (think back to the Torana)

Homer · 29-10-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

WTF are you talking about ? your lack of knowledge shows you have no idea what your talking about, since when is a Boss 302 used in a BA-BF ?

Since the Cobra was released...

FORD3V · 29-10-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

since when is a Boss 302 used in a BA-BF ?

I think you will find he is refering to the new BOSS 302 in the new cobra.

Homer · 29-10-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

So the fact the the Boss engines weighs over 100kg more then a LS2 has no merit ?

I think the iron block LSX weighs something like 100Kg more then an LS2 as well.

Anyone know what the Weight of the Alloy block 5.4 is compared to the iron block?

XR8Master · 29-10-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Weight is governed by what materials the manufacturer chooses to use, it has nothing to do with the efficiency of an engines design.

Of corse not. Power/Weight has nothing to do with efficiency even though the dictionary says..

Efficiency. The ratio of the output to the input of any system

Materials also have nothing to do with the efficiency of an engine do they ?

thats one of the reasons ford is dropping the I6 because it won't pass EuroIV emissions tests due to the fact that is uses a Cast Iron Block.

Materials have everything to do with the efficiency of an Engine, and im not even going to bother about going into engine internals.

nugget378 · 29-10-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

So the fact the the Boss engines weighs over 100kg more then a LS2 has no merit ?

It may not play that big of a role in Engine preformance, but it will be a substantial role car preformance. (think back to the Torana)

No.
Not engine weight itself no.
The total package of the vehicle must be taken into account,so a sweeping statement like that is wrong.
the modular in a US mustang could have a better power/weight ration than a commodore (no I dont know,and im not checking,just using it as an example.

If I ever want to know the power to weight ratio of a panzerkampfwagon VI Ill be sure to ask you..

nugget378 · 29-10-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

Materials have everything to do with the efficiency of an Engine, and im not even going to bother about going into engine internals.

Good idea,its always smart not to talk to much about what you know F/A about..

**Falcon Coupe** · 29-10-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

The Boss is technologically advanced in terms of **** factor, 32 valves and DOHC.

So the technology is a ****......ok

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

So the fact the the Boss engines weighs over 100kg more then a LS2 has no merit ?

It may not play that big of a role in Engine preformance, but it will be a substantial role car preformance. (think back to the Torana)

So now it's weight that affects the engines performance, i thought it was the technological **** factor, 32 valves and DOHC that let the Boss down.

Nevermind, just sway the topic again if suits you're argument.

XR8Master · 29-10-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

So the technology is a ****......ok
So now it's weight that affects the engines performance, i thought it was the technological **** factor, 32 valves and DOHC that let the Boss down.

Nevermind, just sway the topic again if suits you're argument.

DOHC engines are heavier then pushrods.

Bent8 · 30-10-2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

DOHC engines are heavier then pushrods.

No doubt the BOSS is a heavy and huge motor (definitely looks bigger than your average 5.4L in the engine bay) but just look at the power specs of the BOSS (Cobra) vs the LS2 (GTS)...

HSV GTS 307kw@6000
FPV Cobra 302kW@6000

The LS2 has a 558cc advantage yet it only makes 5kW more than the BOSS at the same revs!!...and look at the torque of the BOSS 5.4 vs the huge 6.0L LS2...

LS2 550Nm@4400 = 91.6Nm/Litre
BOSS 540Nm@4750 = 100Nm/Litre

I'm sorry but there's nothing great about the LS2...my 2c worth.

While we're talking about the Cobra, saw one at the All Ford Day on Sunday and it looks great, I thought the wheels were average but seeing that BOSS 302 on the plenum is just HORN!!...we got the guy to park an XC Cobra next to it and took some pics of them together...what a sight that was.

McobraR · 30-10-2007, 10:36 AM

hmmm i dont kno, the LS2 will without doubt push more bottom end torque (i read somewhere that it pushes like 87% or max torque from around 1800pm) plus it revs over 6000rpm where as the Boss cuts out at 6000 (from what one of the reviews has stated).
In the end, the LS2 IS the better V8, power/litre has nothing to do with how much power the engine can push out, and how it delivers its power.

Dave_au · 30-10-2007, 11:14 AM

Our LS2 is in effect detuned as well.

HSE2 · 30-10-2007, 11:29 AM

All I know is the LS2 feels like a V8 should especially in VZ guise.

Not completely convinced VE is quicker. To me the Boss engine has similar issues to the LS1 and doesn't perform to traditional Aussie V8 standards. It was an issue with LS1 engines of the day. The owners and fans praised it while certain segments of the media questioned it. Those questions disappeared with the LS2 yet remain with the boss as should be the case with consistent commentary.

There is no bias at play just consistency in that both engines from both camps didn't deliver a traditional V8 driving experience. On the Ford front the V8 cars have lacked performance recognition on an official front. While it’s not important to most (and that questionable) no one like to have the product they own acknowledged as being inferior. Charging more for a product to get less performance isn't the ideal situation. The Boss cars don't handle well either certainly not in comparison to the F6 anyway.

I am a boss owner and a Windsor owner but ownership doesn't blind me to product worth. I am in and around this industry all the time, invited to drive some of the world’s best cars for comment and have had articles published. When you sit on the other side of the fence you can appreciate what magazines have to go through. The cobra preview isn't a surprise and it is balanced. It attempts to explain what went on.

FPV have an issue they need to sort out quickly. Performance recognition on an official front is ego boasting to owners and on some level pride is important to everyone. The FPV V8 product has to have an injection of consistency and ease introduced into its straight line potential. The true worth of a performance car is to perform at a level that is consistent and within reach of the greater population more of the time. This isn’t something that is understood or promoted in this country all that often.

HSE2 · 30-10-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

I'm sorry but there's nothing great about the LS2...my 2c worth.

In some respects you are right if you compare the LS2 against the Gen 4 or L98 I think it is referred to.

I would be very surprised if you had this opinion after driving a HSV product with the LS2 in it. Your opinion asks for a comparison. Nothing great ----- compared to what?

It is certainly great compared to the LS1 and gains pretty much universal praise from everyone that has road driven it. That is a pretty good indication that it has something going for it.

If FPV could have this engine option in the GT I suspect more people than not would be ticking this option box provided they could keep the bonnet bulge and on some level that speaks volumes.

sleekism · 30-10-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McobraR

hmmm i dont kno, the LS2 will without doubt push more bottom end torque (i read somewhere that it pushes like 87% or max torque from around 1800pm) plus it revs over 6000rpm where as the Boss cuts out at 6000 (from what one of the reviews has stated).
In the end, the LS2 IS the better V8, power/litre has nothing to do with how much power the engine can push out, and how it delivers its power.

People please the LS2 and the BOSS are BOTH crap!

The BOSS while technologically advanced is let down by it's undersquare dimensions which makes it very tall which upsets balance and restricts it's potential to make horsepower as it can't rev as hard without running in to durability problems. Note though that heavily worked Modular family engines have found their way into supercars. Also I'm not entirely 100% but doesn't the undersquare dimensions limit valve size so in effect it will breathe no better than a cam in block 2 valve?

The LS2 is a disposable piece of rubbish! It's effectively made out of tinfoil with a block of questionable strength. I have heard from many engine builders that the old Holden 308 is a hell of a lot easier to make huge horsepower out of than the tinfoil LS2. Also what;s the go with the engine note?? I've had mates with LS1's been blown away by the note of my six due to their engines sounding like a spray can having an orgasm.

I think any REAL Ford fans will be happy driving a V8 Falcon regardless of how many tenths slower than a Holden it is. There is more to driving than bragging rights.

I remember I used to be convinced about all the media hype about XR6 Turbo with ZF auto.....until I drove one! Sorry but manhandling an angry V8 is much more satisfying.

**Polyal** · 30-10-2007, 02:29 PM

So sleekism, when was the last time you drove a BOSS?

The last LS2 I drove was in a VZ Clubby, with a T56 it hauled *** and it was under 10,000k's aswell. Just having the ability to rev, and be flexible is a draw card for me.

The BOSS is nice no doubt, but it could be better. I haven't been in or driven the new version though.

Its not the 60's or 70's, some people are stuck in a time warp.

McobraR · 30-10-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleekism

People please the LS2 and the BOSS are BOTH crap!

What i meant by the LS2 being better, was in comparison to the Boss. Plus, i doubt the majority of LS2 owners will be tuning it to get double or so the stock power anyway.

sleekism · 30-10-2007, 04:09 PM

So sleekism, when was the last time you drove a BOSS?

The last LS2 I drove was in a VZ Clubby, with a T56 it hauled *** and it was under 10,000k's aswell. Just having the ability to rev, and be flexible is a draw card for me.

The BOSS is nice no doubt, but it could be better. I haven't been in or driven the new version though.

Its not the 60's or 70's, some people are stuck in a time warp.

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

I have driven a Pursuit Ute and it felt pretty impressive (minus handling).

I have driven a SS Ute with the LS1 and it felt like a dog.

Driven a few 308's and a few Windsor's and they felt pretty good to drive but it's harder to tell with older cars because they feel alive (twitch handling, notchy gearbox and tyre squeeal at every corner.

Have only driven one Cleveland and that was a pollution gear choked 302 so can't really comment on them.

From an engineering perspective the BOSS and GEN4 family both have glaring problems that I would be worried about. What you really need is a modern iron block, pushrod V8 with oversquare dimensions and an efficient combustion chamber.

I would be interested in driving the Chrysler 300C with the new Hemi V8 as I believe Chrysler have the perfect engine under their belt though to be fair it is not a true hemi engine. Also can't wait to see the new Ford Hurricane V8 though it looks at being another big block monstrosity.

For the knockers of the BOSS go have look at the Wards Best Engine list and see how many times the Modular V8 is mentioned compared to the Chevy V8's.

Bossxr8 · 30-10-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

WTF are you talking about ? your lack of knowledge shows you have no idea what your talking about, since when is a Boss 302 used in a BA-BF ?

Lack of knowledge hey, better tell Ford to remove the Boss 302 stickers off the Cobras power bulge then. What planet have you been living on clown.

:

Bossxr8 · 30-10-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8Master

Materials also have nothing to do with the efficiency of an engine do they ?

thats one of the reasons ford is dropping the I6 because it won't pass EuroIV emissions tests due to the fact that is uses a Cast Iron Block.

Again you have just proved you don't have a clue. The straight 6 could have been made to pass Euro 4, it wouldn't have been hard it just required more money than Ford had to spend and wasn't cost effective. It has absolutely nothing to do with what material the block is. It was just going to be way cheaper in the long run to just import a Euro 4 compliant V6 rather than spend millions on making the straight 6 Euro 4 compliant. And if you think thats incorrect better ring Tom Gorman and tell him he's full of crap cause thats straight from his mouth. That decision has cost me and many others our jobs. Its true that alloy heats up quicker which helps get the engine up to operating temp quicker, but there are ways around that, it just would have cost Ford too much money.

HSE2 · 30-10-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

It has absolutely nothing to do with what material the block is.

In this case it does. If the IN6 was made of alloy the cost difference would not have been as easy to justify, and like I have said before it’s not getting the engine to temp that is the issue it’s the different expansion rate they encounter when being asked to heat up quickly that brings in questions regarding durability. What is needed to overcome this issue is very specialised and that means expensive.

Yes anything is possible but it’s not at any cost. You say it wouldn't have been hard well I for one would like to know what they were going to do to overcome the greater expansion issues because more than one company has been caught with these Euro compliant engines and they were using some pretty exotic materials.

At the heart of the issue is the material construction. It requires more R and D that will be specific. I can't think of too many cast engines that are Euro 4 and 5 compliant and that becomes an issue. While it can be done (that I have no doubt) the cost would end up making in unviable. That’s what has happened.

It’s not accurate to say the material type has nothing to do with it because it is part of the cost issue that has lead to its demise.

Bossxr8 · 30-10-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSE2

In this case it does. If the IN6 was made of alloy the cost difference would not have been as easy to justify, and like I have said before it’s not getting the engine to temp that is the issue it’s the different expansion rate they encounter when being asked to heat up quickly that brings in questions regarding durability. What is needed to overcome this issue is very specialised and that means expensive.

Yes anything is possible but it’s not at any cost. You say it wouldn't have been hard well I for one would like to know what they were going to do to overcome the greater expansion issues because more than one company has been caught with these Euro compliant engines and they were using some pretty exotic materials.

At the heart of the issue is the material construction. It requires more R and D that will be specific. I can't think of too many cast engines that are Euro 4 and 5 compliant and that becomes an issue. While it can be done (that I have no doubt) the cost would end up making in unviable. That’s what has happened.

It’s not accurate to say the material type has nothing to do with it because it is part of the cost issue that has lead to its demise.

Its more of a case of making the engine efficient enough on cold start rather than making it heat quicker. It will take a certain time to heat the block and there's not much you can do about it. Its the cats that really need to be warmed up quicker as they do most of the work cutting emissions, hence why manufacturers are moving them closer to the engine as every year goes by to heat them quicker. The quicker you can heat the cats the quicker they will work to start reducing the bad gases. This may not be 100% accurate but its what i've learnt, some of its just assumptions.

Some manufacturers have moved the cats up to the collector.

HSE2 · 30-10-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Its more of a case of making the engine efficient enough on cold start rather than making it heat quicker. It will take a certain time to heat the block and there's not much you can do about it. Its the cats that really need to be warmed up quicker as they do most of the work cutting emissions, hence why manufacturers are moving them closer to the engine as every year goes by to heat them quicker. The quicker you can heat the cats the quicker they will work to start reducing the bad gases. This may not be 100% accurate but its what i've learnt, some of its just assumptions.

Some manufacturers have moved the cats up to the collector.

It sounds ok to me but I think there might be more to it. Will send you a PM.

flukey77 · 31-10-2007, 03:09 AM

Well lads I've just read the same mag, and I came away thinking how rubbish the designs in the young designers award thingy are. The designs to me seem totally impractical and are designed completely from a visual point of view with no consideration paid to the designs actually being able to take an engine, safety features, etc. In fact I also find most of them downright ugly. The award just seems totally useless and all the parcipiants seem to be studying industrial design, not even specifically cars. It makes me wonder whether the young designers, or even some of those on the judging panel actually know anything about cars, or if the competition has nothing to do with actual cars, in which case why is it in a car magazine? Sorry about the rant.

FordFella · 31-10-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flukey77

Well lads I've just read the same mag, and I came away thinking how rubbish the designs in the young designers award thingy are. The designs to me seem totally impractical and are designed completely from a visual point of view with no consideration paid to the designs actually being able to take an engine, safety features, etc. In fact I also find most of them downright ugly. The award just seems totally useless and all the parcipiants seem to be studying industrial design, not even specifically cars. It makes me wonder whether the young designers, or even some of those on the judging panel actually know anything about cars, or if the competition has nothing to do with actual cars, in which case why is it in a car magazine? Sorry about the rant.

I thought the second highly commended one was cool, but the first highly commended one was crap. The winner was ok.
On you talking about the Industrial Design, the course actually involves engineering (not necessarily mechanical though). I think that they did actually pay some detail to some of the things you were talking about (safety, engine) but Wheels didn't write about them.
Actually, when I'm older I may enter that competition. Maybe I'll stick some leafs in the suspension and see if Wheels (or anyone) notices.

Huntsman · 31-10-2007, 04:52 PM

Wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I've read posts on any number of forums about quarter mile times in motoring magazines and "how I've got much better times with my g-force, at drag days, with my Casio stop watch", etc, etc.

Couple of factors to note here people. Wheels test two-up. Always have, and always will. They try to ensure each car has 3/4 of a tank of gas and to run the cars at the same time of the day to replicate similar atmospheric conditions.

Motor tests one up. Add 80-95 kg and you'll see why Motor consistently racks up better times.

Both mags use the same equipment, which runs off GPS.

G-Force instruments will typically be quicker because it doesn't start recording until after motion is detected. Same with drag days, when drivers with good reflexes can enjoy a couple of tenths advantage over the timer. And as for stop watches? Forget it.

Believe me when I tell you it's not easy getting the quickest time out of a new car. Most times, these guys have an hour or so to run up three or four cars - all of them with different launch characteristics. Looks easy - but it ain't.

Then you have to consider how many kays on the car, was one run-in better than the other, does it have blueprinted parts, what was the condition of the tyres, was it filled by the manufacturer with 95 RON or 98 RON, headwinds, humidity, etc, etc.

Unless you were running your car at the same time, at the same track, with the same conditions, same engine mileage, same fuel, etc, etc you cannot compare apples with apples.

The writers you so mercilessly bag are top blokes and damn good punters. In a test like PCOTY, or Handling Olympics, they have to be able to swap between $25K tiddlers and $500K supercars and compare it against a criteria. Sounds easy, but it's hard. Damn hard.

These guys have driven just about everything manufactured in the past decade - something I severely doubt any one on this forum could attest to.

And I know a little about the game, having been deputy editor at Motor in a previous life.

While you read this edition of Wheels and conclude they're Holden biased, I can assure you that any one's opinion of bias is coloured by the brand name on the bonnet of their car.

As a motoring journo I could walk down the halls at Ford and be asked by staff there "why are you biased against us", and the next day collect a car from Holden only to be asked "why are you biased against us".

Moral of this long-winded post (sorry mods)? Take a deep breath when you read a motoring mag. They're car nuts, but fortunate enough to have exposure to more brands and models than you'll have hot dinners. And none of them get paid by the manufacturers. Not a red cent. Not ever.

cheers