Well Doc my Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandaddy (or something like that) was the first Governor of the State of Louisiana. Our DNA is stretched pretty thin. It is really stretching it to say a BB motor is the DIRECT decendant of that motor any more than to say the latest and greatest Ford motor is the direct decendant of the Model T motor. I hate to stick pins in peoples party hogs but that is just the way it is. What a BB motor really is, is a 308 motor laid out flat and a few extra cylinders attached. They are the same design save for the angle of the cylinders and they have quite a few interchangeable parts, more so than any other 2 Ferrari engine families.
very cool post. good to know my mere 308's have something in common with the mighty BB 12 cylinders. i can hear the gnashing of teeth in the Boxer section now....
Not to get huffy here (but I guess I am), my question was about the "last" production engine that can truly claim ANY racing DNA. I trust you're not saying that the new Jag-a-fornia is related the current F1 motors. I thought not. I don't know about the 206 Dino so I'll take your word on this. But I believe that the last factory sports car racer bit the dust in the early 70s. If I recall correctly, the cars you mention were all done by Michelotto, who is sorta the ruf and AMG of Ferrari. While these cars qualify for the Ferrari Historics Races, I don't think they were ever official factory race cars. I believe this includes the 333 SPs. The last factory sports racers were never raced, the 288 GTOs. True dat. I'm gonna start another thread on this in the general section. But I always find it amusing when people talk about the "racing heritage" embedded in modern Ferraris, like the Enzo. Dale
Really? http://www.drive.subaru.com/Fall06_happy40.htm http://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/
reliability is more a question of careful mapping and knowing what to do. Fuel consumption has A LOT to do with gear ratio's etc which make a huge difference. I think most old muscle cars had 3/4 speed gearboxes compared to the ZR1's 6 speed ( gear #6 is overdrive IIRC) which saves a lot of fuel. I'm not sure how gas guzzlers tax is measured but if its MPG to go by then the overdrive certainly helps. I myself dont think the ZR1 engine is a great marvel of engineering since anyone can slap a bunch of turbo's or a supercharger on an engine and make it go like stink and keep up with cars costing 6X the price of the ZR1.
Gnash, gnash, no F1 DNA in my Boxer! Blasphemy! Gnash, gnash some more. No racing DNA at all! And,,, it shares engine parts with a 308! Oh my lord say it aint so! I need to sell the piece a crap immediately! But, on the other hand,,,, what parts are shared between the engines? Maybe next time I need a part I can get a cheap 308 part instead of an expensive Boxer part! John
So the engines of the 288, F40, and 959 aren't impressive because they simply had turbos "slapped" on them? Your sentiments aren't uncommon, but could you explain why engines utilizing forced induction are less impressive than naturally aspirated ones?
No disrespect, but the 365 Boxer engine preceeded the 308 engine by some years. The way I understand it, the heritage of the 365 GT4/BB engine lies with that of the Daytona, for reasons of production economy: much of the Daytona engine-tooling (and parts?) could be used to produce the Boxer engine. And yes, of course the Boxer engine is in effect not a boxer at all, but a flat V-12. I would imagine that for the same reasons of economy, the 308 engine was set-up to use parts already available.
There is some truth in that post but lotus ONLY designed the LT5 engine with GM inputs it was a joint effort GM wanted a 350 CI motor and the motor had to fit in between the frame rails of a standard framed C4 from the bottom for assembly line production. The corvette designers went to lotus because of 2 facts GM engine designers were ******* and lotus knew how to build a quad cam exotic motor, It took some time but the LT5 is what they ended up with, 375 hp from 90-92 405 for 93-95 for the 96 model year there was talk about reaching over 500 hp with a LT5 but due to the OBD II requirements for model year 96 the LT5 monster was drooped but we ended up with the LT4 a one year motor built on top of the LT1. The good thing about the LT5 is it drove the GM engine designers to go beyond what was the normal old school 350 all of the following engines are a direct result of the LT5 and you get the LT1, LT4 the Cadillac northstar then the 3rd gen small blocks LS1, LS2, LS3, LS6, 427 small block LS7 and now the LS9. I still have a 90 ZR-1 as a daily driver. I could go on and on about the second generation ZR-1s the first ZR1s were built in the early 70's then the 90-95 ZR-1 and now the 09 ZR1 and yes that hood on the new ZR1 is so stupid looking.
A blower is nothing more than a big dumb airpump. Same with a turbocharger. Blow enough air into a flat head Model T Ford engine and it will make power. But without that blower you have nothing because the engine is such a low tech POS. Design an engine that make power WITHOUT a blower, thats what seperates technology. Thats what made F1 engines SCREAM. You really dont have to rev a motor up to 12,000 to make the kind of power you can with a blower, unless you halve the engine size, and thats also what helped develop F1 engines. Instead of comparing engines by absolute HP, compare them by HP per unit of displacement. The engine that makes the most HP per liter or cubic inch, is the technological winner. If GM has to blow an engine thats twice the size of a Ferrari engine to make more absolute power, the GM motor is not really the winner, Ferrari is. GM just brought more thugs to the party. Just because a group of bikers can kick the crap out of Arnold Governator, doesnt mean they are tougher. And they sure as hell arent as smart or sophisticated. Same goes for engines. As to racing DNA, I would argue all Ferrari's have it, and GM's have very little. Over its history GM has not been continuously involved in motor racing, though they supported outside teams, and when they were involved it was lower tech stuff. Ferrari has been directly involved in the highest technological forms of racing since their inception. Big difference.
QUOTE:I would argue all Ferrari's have it, and GM's have very little. Over its history GM has not been continuously involved in motor racing, though they supported outside teams, and when they were involved it was lower tech stuff. Ferrari has been directly involved in the highest technological forms of racing since their inception. Big difference. Who are we going top bag when GM goes t i t s up? Chrysler maybe, oh hang on they're owned by Fiat. What's next???? I got to admit though that I was keen on the 3.2 AWD Brera untill I found out the motor was made by GM Australia!
Very Very True. < ZR-1 = LT5 > , < ZR1 = supercharger > I am glad they made that small change in the badges to keep our old cars unique.
Only by a couple of years and I am sure they were both on the drawing boards at the same time. That fact does not change my original statement. Except for the rods that all 3 motors share along with 328, 348 and probably the TR and quite a few other Ferrari motors and the crank there is very little common between BB and Daytona motors. Cam drive syetem are interchangeable with 308, as are valves and springs. Head design and combustion chamber is the same as well. They are 8 and 12 cylinder versions of the same motor.
Why compare hp/liter? Wouldn't it be better to compare hp produced vs. volume or weight of the actual engine? An LS7 is very, very similar in size to the 3.5 liter motor in a 355. But it can (with a cam and still normally aspirated) make 650 hp and twice the torque of the 355. Stock it makes near the power and significantly more torque than the V10 in the LP560, but it weighs 100 pounds less. And has been stated, the lowly S2000 made 120 hp/liter eight years ago. EVERYTHING in engineering is a trade off. OHCs have advantages, and disadvantages. Same with pushrod motors. Same with big displacement, same with small displacement. It is just about picking the right tool for the job you want to do. Or just going with what you like. The LS7 is a great motor. Would I trade one for an Enzo V12? Are you smoking crack? What about the LS9? Did you just take another hit on the pipe? The Enzo motor is fantastic. The package is fantastic. The sound is fantastic. The presentation is fantastic. It's simply epic. The F50 is much more a race car that is road legal. The Enzo was built as a road car inspired by the F1 car. And I think it is closer to that goal than any other car made since.
+1, The measure of an engine is what it weighs, and what it produces, not how many cams it has. The European small displacement engines made power with revs, because displacement was taxed. Rather than pay the tax they simply made the engine rev higher. Remember an engine is nothing but an air pump, the more air you pump, the more power you make. You can spin a smaller displacement engine faster and pump the same amount of air as a bigger displacement engine going slower, and the power is the same. The elegant simplicity and light weight of a pushrod engine can and often does have a superior power to weight ratio than a DOHC engine. No, it won't sound a nice, nor will it be as elegant, but you will recall that when there were no rules on engines (the CanAm series) big displacement aluminum pushrod V8's ruled......
At least until the turbo Porsche 917-30 came into town...and spoiled everything. One important thing to remember here is that if you just want ultimate power/weight ratio, fantastic reliability, and fairly reasonable costs - a Helicopter Turbine is a pretty good candidate. If you want something that is suitable for a high end sports car, and which you would enjoy shifting gears with - a medium-to-large piston 12 cylinder NA is pretty damn hard to beat.
So your saying that an LS7 weighs the same per pound of HP as a 355? I dont think they even come close. An LS7 weighs 458 pounds in the crate, probably tipping 600 ready to run. A 355 motor might wiegh 300 all ready to run. An LS7 is rated at 505 HP, not 650, a 355 is making 375 HP. 375 HP/300 pounds = 1.25 HP per pound. 505 HP/600 pounds = .84 HP per pound. Youll either have to get the LS7 down to 400 pounds ready to run, or raise the HP of the LS7 to 750 to match the 355. And if your going to raise the LS7 power beyond stock, lets do the same with the 355 and see where they stand. I am impressed with GM that they made such a remarkable engine, but we really have to give Ferrari credit that a motor they made over 10 years ago still sits near the top of todays technology and performance.
RifleDriver and SoloFast...... AHAH!...the Emperor, is NOT wearing anyclothes! Honestly... I recently consulted on a line boring bar to be "fabbed" for an old F-1 which requires some repair and an align bore...those Block-ugh, what a mess...4 main bearings with a housing bore of 105mm(?-I am getting more senile daily...)...for-get this now kidddies-ROLLER BEARING crankshafts! In WHAT possible universe does this ascribe any relationship to the street selling product which they market as a "Boxer?" A 550 RSK-with a "Hirth" roller bearing crankshaft is a more direct relative, for Pete's sake! Who knows WHY these cars which are discussed herein, had the design changed from chains to belts in the FIRST place??? And, by WHOM? Some of our readers/posters are getting carried away with wistful thinking/fantasy as opossed to the cold hard facts of manufacturing engineering, and profit and loss issues/considerations... these engines were built only as a profit motive in mind-or, as an advetrising motif to enhance less glamorous product for sale-see preceeding coment on profit considerations. Racing mills are about 1 thing ONLY-WINNING...can't win if you can't finish... Production mills are about 1 thing: Brand loyalty and mileage accumulation factors, as they relate TO REPEAT BUYERS... Marketing has succeded-they(enzo and other "super car mills") have ZERO significance with respect to racing or it's "heritage"-whatever that implies-they have fabulously succeded in creating a buzz and mystique 'bout cars which are barely un-useable on EITHER the street use arena-or-the true TRACK use arena... weekend warrior outings by middle aged American millionaires, is NOT "real" racing....despite their protestations...ask any man who is still alive who competed in the MM, or the TdF, or the Targa in the "Golden Age"....
Sorry, but LS7 weighs 458 complete. Mine is 400 complete, and that is exchanging the stock manifold (plastic) for the heavier aluminum stacks. Here it is minus the AC compressor and alternator, which add back 40 pounds. 505 is the rated hp. Ask anyone who works with the motors and they will tell you they dyno at around 530-540. With a cam switch and no other changes, they will make over 600 hp EASY. That is not fluff, that is fact. I do not know the weight of a 355 motor, but I can tell you that the one is my car is the same length, is about 3 inches wider, and is about 2 inches shorter. It think you are underestimating the weight of all those camshafts and associated materials. An OHC motor is a much bigger package than a pushrod motor, no way around it. I believe your estimate of 300 pounds is a bit low. The 355 dynoplots I have seen have shown the motors to make about the claimed hp. If I were picking a motor for pure power in packaging, I would take the LS7 all day long (which is why I did). Now, would I trade a Corvette for my 355? NOT A CHANCE!!!! Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Both the Dino GT4 and the 365 BB debuted in 1973. Since the engine in the GT4 is the same that started the 308, I'd say you were correct in your original assessment, Brian. They were obviously designed at EXACTLY the same time.
and a lower CoG. if you have vvt kind of technology the OHC can end up being better for street applications (not sacrificing power for drivability).
