[ZDan]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

specific torque on the LS2 isn't any better than said Japanese motors

No reason it should be, of course. Smaller combustion chambers should have a specific torque advantage due to higher CR. But hey, this big-cylindered LS made 79 rwlb-ft/liter to the wheels!
(To be honest, I think the 517hp/473 lb-ft numbers are really closer to flywheel than actual rear-wheel)

so the Japanese motors are making better specific torque most of the time, despite having the big rev range disadvantage.

First I've heard having a big rev range being a *disadvantage*! FWIW, the FR-S/BRZ's rev range advantage over my LS is only 200-400rpm, I'm limited to 7200 in 1st-3rd, 7000 in 4th-6th (as if it could get to 7000 in 6th!).

That's what "torque delivery" is right? It's not about "enough power" or not, it's how much of the engine's potential is being extracted across the rev range.

If you only have 2.0 liters, n/a, there's a much greater NEED to make near peak torque everywhere. It's no secret that multivalve cylinder heads have an advantage filling cylinders over a broader rpm range. You can get relatively more flow per engine size with less valve lift and overlap.

The LS2 is obviously much more powerful than a F20C, but if the car's size is matched so the peak acceleration is the same,

Well, now, *that's* no fun, now is it! That would be about a 6000 lb car, btw...

the F20C will feel more consistent than the LS2.

Don't get your point here, really. Don't really care what my LS2 feels like in a 6000 lb. monster. It feels pretty sweet in a car that weighs barely any more than the S2000

Not to diss the LS motors, it's very admirable that GM understands that cost effective >>> bragging rights

*ALL* cars are compromises, *ALL* engines are compromises. The LS happens to be a *brilliant* compromise. With DOHC and 4v/cyl, they could get closer to peak torque over a broader range. But that doesn't only add to cost, it would add significantly to size and weight and c.g. height. ALL BAD THINGS! Another way of looking at it: for the same V8 engine size and weight, you could have 4 liters with DOHC/32 valves, or 6+ liters cam-in-block/16 valves. The 4 liter might make closer to its peak torque over a broader range, and rev higher, but enough to make up for the displacement disadvantage? No...

(I think Japanese companies sometimes need to get their priorities straight, Honda S2000 would be a good example, they want to use a 2L engine to get huge amounts of power, and then they toss the only advantage a small displacement engine has out the window by giving it gearing unsuitable for the street),

I like it the way it is: uncompromised. Plus you get decent passing acceleration without downshifting

Anyway, I'm a HUGE fan of GM's approach with the LS engines, vs. Ford's monstrously huge, heavy, and high-c.g. V8s. When I get around to doing a Factory5 Daytona Coupe, it's definitely going to be with an OHV 347 stroker, noy a DOHC/32-valve mod motor.