Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Sign in to follow this  
The Hulk

575 6.2L Ford ROUSHcharged Raptor vs 556hp Supercharged LSA ?

Recommended Posts

The Hulk

so it appears the LSA has been beat!

Raptor has 575hp and 580 ft lbs torque: and i read somewhere in the lower 2500-3500rpm range is that true? that is etremly high for such low rpms. Cant seem to find a chart for the marine version.

trying to find the specs but supra is boasting that the raptors lower rpm torque is much higher or tuned for the 2500-3500rpm range "surf speeds" where the LSA is max torque at like 5400rpms. if thats true on the raptor it would save some serious gas or allow throwing a bigger prop for sure at much lower RPMs. and if its true then i guess they can say its a game changer compared to the LSA.

raptor looks pretty cool from the supra website with some added features with oil etc...

i know i was told they are not needed on an LSA...in a bu..or in a boat.....so i guess its odd raptor added these features for their marine engine. I guess the LSA and bus are in need of some updates....WISH MY LSA had these features! would have saved half my summer.. of course i'm assuming supra tied those features into their dash for notifying the driver.

water flow monitor to warn against any water intake restriction, head temperature sensor that puts engine into limp mode in the event of a coolant issue and a fuel pressure monitor that checks fuel flow.

Granted the raptor could be easily beat by the LSA with a $600 pulley upgrade on the LSA to bring her up to 630hp and 630ft toque, but the question is at surf RPMs they might actually be similar if in fact the raptor is really putting out 580 ft lbs at only 2500-3500rpms, that might be where the LSA with pulley upgrade would be in that rpm range.

any thoughts on reliability for the raptors? are they similar priced engines, some have said the raptor is less than the LSA, but then again depends on the boat companies actual mark up vs "street price" so we will probably never know..

any engine guys out there have any comparison info or experience on these two beasts?

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne

Those are a couple of good added features.

As for power ratings......... Indmar's CARB certifications show the LSA as slightly more powerfull (510hp for the SC Raptor, and 520hp for the LSA). Based on browsing a few different postings on Dyno charts (raptor forums, and CTS-V, Camaro forums), The torque curves are very similar. Maybe a very slight advantage in lower RPM's for the RSC 6.2l. It's hard to tell.....

I think both engines are so close in performance, it would be pointless to think one is inferior to the other. The safety features on the RSC 6.2 are certainly a nice added feature.

One thing that makes me like the LSA better, is the fact that the engine is engineered, from the ground up, for a supercharger. The Ford 6.2 is not. It was designed and built to be a 400hp naturally aspirated engine. I am not sure this will effect longevity in boats, but it does in the trucks. There have certainly been quite a few grenaded RSC 6.2s over the past few years. Mine included (60k miles, top bearing wear on connecting rod bearings. One got bad enough that it spun that bearing. Main bearings looked like new.)

At the same time, there are plenty of RSC 6.2s with 100k+ on them, and never had an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
IXFE

One thing that makes me like the LSA better, is the fact that the engine is engineered, from the ground up, for a supercharger. The Ford 6.2 is not. It was designed and built to be a 400hp naturally aspirated engine. I am not sure this will effect longevity in boats, but it does in the trucks. There have certainly been quite a few grenaded RSC 6.2s over the past few years. Mine included (60k miles, top bearing wear on connecting rod bearings. One got bad enough that it spun that bearing. Main bearings looked like new.)

Is this really true? I mean, isn't the LSA just an LS3 with a supercharger? I'm sure I'm over simplifying it. But I drive a car with an LS3 and I'm on the corresponding car forum. A very popular upgrade on that forum is guys pairing the LSA supercharger to their LS3's. Isn't that exactly what GM did? If so, then really the LS3 was developed first and then the supercharger part was added by GM later. I'm not sure that qualifies as "engineered from the ground up for a supercharger."

I could be totally wrong. I just don't think the LSA was built from scratch like you seem to suggest. GM started with an LS3 which was already on the shelf. I suppose it's possible that when they developed the LS3 they knew they'd bolt a supercharger to it later. I could see that being the case. Maybe that's what you're saying.

Edited by IXFE

Share this post


Link to post
tjklein

Is this really true? I mean, isn't the LSA just an LS3 with a supercharger? I'm sure I'm over simplifying it. But I drive a car with an LS3 and I'm on the corresponding car forum. A very popular upgrade on that forum is guys pairing the LSA supercharger to their LS3's. Isn't that exactly what GM did? If so, then really the LS3 was developed first and then the supercharger part was added by GM later. I'm not sure that qualifies as "engineered from the ground up for a supercharger."

I could be totally wrong. I just don't think the LSA was built from scratch like you seem to suggest. GM started with an LS3 which was already on the shelf.

Nope. The LSA was designed with forced induction in mind. The LS3 was not. They share some parts, but there are some significant differences.

Here's a breakdown from a Camaro forum, but it points out most of the differences.... (sorry for all the inf

High-Flow Roto-Cast Cylinder Heads

The 6.2L Supercharged LSA cylinder heads are similar to those used on the naturally-aspirated 6.2L LS3 Corvette V-8, with enhancements for supercharged induction and maximum durability.

The LSA heads feature a unique "wing'' cast into each intake port to promote a swirling motion that blends the pressurized air-fuel charge. The heads are also cast from a premium A356-T6 alloy, which better manages the heat generated in a supercharged engine. A356-T6 pays particular dividends in the thin bridge area between the intake and exhaust valves, where effective heat dissipation is crucial to both performance and long-term durability. Finally, the LSA heads are rotacast. This process rotates the head mold as the molten alloy cools and essentially eliminates porosity, or microscopic pockets of air trapped in the casting. Rotacasting delivers a stronger part that helps maintain performance and structural integrity over the life of the engine.(The heads are nearly identical between the LS9 and LSA)

Low-friction hydraulic roller lifters actuate the LSA's valves, with unique offset rocker arms for the intake valves. On the inlet rocker, the valve tip is offset six millimeters from the pushrod. This configuration allowed GM engineers to locate the intake port for a more direct air-fuel flow into the combustion chamber. (This feature is also shared between the LSA and LS9)

Valves are among the most heat-stressed parts in an engine, and their wear resistance is crucial to long-term durability. Those in the LSA are manufactured from a high-chromium steel alloy called SilChrome 1 (The only difference between the LSA's exhaust valves, and the LS9s is that the LS9's are filled with sodium for the extra heat protection -- the LS9s intake valves are made of titanium.), with thicker heads than most other Gen IV V-8s. They promote heat transfer away from the valve face and valve guide to the cooler end of the stem, where it more readily dissipates. This maintains a lower, more uniform valve temperature, reducing wear on the valve guide for better alignment and a consistent seal between the valve seat and valve face over the life of the engine. The intake valves measure 55 mm in diameter and the exhaust valves, 44 mm.

Given the LSA's pressurized induction, GM engineers focused special attention on sealing. Head gaskets are extra-robust, four-layer stainless steel, ensuring gasket sealing under the high combustions pressures generated by the LSA.(These gaskets are also used on the LS9, the LS9, though uses mildly stronger head bolts, as well to deal with the extra 70-some hp)

Center-Feed Fuel System

The 6.2L LSA's fuel system was developed to deliver adequate fuel volume precisely, consistently and quietly.

To ensure appropriate fueling in all conditions, from casual cruising to race track-type wide-open throttle, GM has equipped the LSA with a dual- pressure fuel system. The system delivers 250 kPa (about 36 psi) at idle or low speeds. Yet the electronic throttle management system can almost instantaneously increase fuel pressure to 450 kPa (65 psi) for sustained high-speed operation or wide-open throttle. The dual-pressure system reacts according to throttle application, and presents several advantages. It limits the energy used by the fuel pump at low speeds, for maximum efficiency, and it reduces operational noise. It also ensures adequate fuel delivery when the LSA demands its maximum flow rate of 50 grams per second.

The LSA also employs a new center-feed fuel rail that delivers gasoline to the center of the injector rail on each bank. The delivery point is roughly equidistant to each of the injectors, which have a maximum flow rate of 6.52 grams per second at 400 kPa. Fuel pressure variation among the injectors is reduced, and so is noise. The rapid ticking sound often generated by fuel injectors is alleviated.

An 87-mm, single-bore throttle body draws air into the engine. The electronic throttle maps have been optimized for excellent response and modulation in a multitude of driving scenarios.

Direct-Mount Ignition Coils

The 6.2L LSA's coil-on-plug ignition features advanced coils developed for the 7.0L LS7 V-8 in the Corvette Z06. These coils are smaller and lighter than those used on previous small-block V-8s. An individual coil for each spark plug delivers maximum voltage and consistent spark density, with no variation between cylinders.

The LSA ignition system is unique nonetheless, as the coils mount directly on LSA-specific rocker covers. Those on the naturally aspirated 6.2L LS3 and LS7 are joined by a bracket. The individual LSA coils provide a cleaner look and a shorter lead between the coil and the iridium-tip, center-electrode spark plug.

E67 Control Module

An advanced controller manages the multitude of operations that occur within the 6.2L Supercharged LSA V-8 every split second. The E67 is the high-line controller in GM's family of three engine control modules (ECM), which was developed to direct nearly all the engines in GM's line-up. It features 32-bit processing, compared to conventional 16-bit processing, with 32 megabytes of flash memory, 128 kilobytes of RAM and a high-speed CAN bus. The E67 synchronizes more than 100 functions, from spark timing to cruise control operation to traction control calculations, and it has more computing power than the typical desktop PC 20 years ago. It works more than 50 times faster than the first computers used on internal combustion engines in the late 1970s, which managed five or six functions.

The family strategy behind GM's ECMs allows engineers to apply standard manufacturing and service procedures to all powertrains, and quickly upgrade certain engine technologies while leaving others alone. It creates a solid, flexible, efficient engine-control foundation, freeing engineers to focus on innovations like the LSA’s advanced supercharging technology, and to get them to market more quickly. GM creates all the software for the three ECMs, which share a common language and hardware interface that's tailored to each vehicle.

The E67 also applies a rate-based monitoring protocol sometimes known as run-at-rate diagnostics. Rate-based diagnostics improve the robustness of the Onboard Diagnostics System (OBD II) and ensure optimal performance of emissions control systems. The software increases the frequency at which the ECM checks various systems, and particularly emissions-control systems such as the catalytic converter and oxygen sensors. Rate-based diagnostics more reliably monitor real-word operation of these systems, and allow regulatory agencies to more easily measure and certify emissions compliance. With the E67, the CTS-V's environmental performance matches its race-track potential.

Upgraded Oiling System

To ensure peak, low-friction efficiency, and to promote durability during extended high-rpm operation, the 6.2L Supercharged LSA has a more powerful oil pump than the naturally aspirated 6.2L LS3. Pump capacity increases to 33.8 gallons per minute. The LSA's six-quart oil pan is fitted with a liquid-to-air oil cooler. This is, ironically, a lower oil-capacity than the LS3 and L99s found in the Camaro.

Revised Accessory Drive

The 6.2L LSA's accessory drive system accommodates the supercharger with a third track on the crankshaft pulley. The supercharger is operated by its own belt, which is wider than a conventional belt (eight ribs) to turn the rotors without slip. The other drive belts are conventional five-rib widths, with one operating the air conditioning compressor and another operating the water pump, power steering pump and alternator.

Cast-Iron Exhaust Manifolds with Close-Coupled Catalysts

The 6.2L LSA exhaust manifolds are fabricated from a premium high-silicon, high-moly iron alloy. The material delivers excellent heat management properties, and the design ensures the high flow volume required of an engine with the LSA's capability. Moreover, cast iron radiates less noise than other materials such as stainless steel, making it the preferred choice in a luxury sedan.

Immediately downstream, the exhaust manifolds are fitted with a pair of close-coupled catalytic converters that heat quickly, achieving light-off temperature and closed-loop operations in seconds. The primary catalysts are further downstream under the vehicle floor.

Acoustic Engine Cover

The LSA is trimmed with special engine cover surrounding the intercooler and supercharger case, which is visible under the CTS-V's hood. The cover has "SUPERCHARGED LSA" script on each side, with the V-spec logo and classic Cadillac laurel emblem front-and-center.

The engine cover helps isolate high-frequency sounds emanating from the engine, and it's attached with ball-stud mountings that more effectively limit vibration transfer than conventional twist-in fasteners. It's also lined with dense acoustic foam.

Overview

The 6.2L Supercharged Gen IV LSA V-8's credentials speak for themselves. It's the most powerful production engine in Cadillac's storied history, with 556 horsepower, high-rev capability and higher specific torque than any of its competitors. It makes the Cadillac CTS-V one of the world's fastest, most capable sedans.

A Cadillac, of course, demands smooth, refined operation, and the LSA delivers here, too. Measured by interior noise levels at cruising speed and wide-open throttle, the 2009 CTS-V is substantially quieter than its highly successful predecessor, with cabin noise measurements that meet or beat Europe' best ultra-performance luxury sedans.

Measured by cost-to-performance ratio, the LSA might also be considered a relative bargain. The elegant simplicity in the small-block V-8's DNA means cost-effective development and production, and that translates to value, for customers and the corporation. Yet an emphasis on value overlooks one significant point. The LSA is one of the best high-performance sedan V-8s in the world, regardless of price.

GM's 90-degree small-block car engines remain unique in the automotive world: high-tech, aluminum-intensive, ultra-high-performance cam-in-block V-8s. The LSA adds a supercharger to the mix, and pushes the combination of impressive low end torque and free-breathing, high-rpm horsepower to a new level.

The starting point for the LSA was the first engine built for the sixth-generation Corvette-the Gen IV 6.0L LS2 V-8. The LS2, in turn, had built on two milestone engines: the LS1 and LS6 V-8s developed for the C5 Corvette. Those Gen III engines had introduced a host of leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of GM's small block, starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle. With them the engineers and analysts who claimed cam-in-block engines could not meet the performance demands of a new millennium--or increasingly stringent emissions standards-were proven patently wrong.

Within this evolution, and a data base only tradition can provide, rests the cornerstone of small-block value. The performance in the LSA comes with 76 percent carryover parts from other small-block V-8s, while 25 percent of the new parts are common to the supercharged LS9 V-8 for the 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1. The value is enhanced by GM's advanced application of math-based computer tools. GM engineers created 370 different power simulations to optimize the LS9 and LSA. One simulation takes 24 hours, while one engine build takes nine weeks. Both the LS9 and LSA V-8s met power requirements out of the box. It's value without compromise, in performance, emissions or customer satisfaction.

Regarding quality and durability. The 6.2L Supercharged LSA has been validated beyond 100,000 miles and accumulated more the 6,400 hours of dynamometer testing. It has run over 270 consecutive hours at wide-open throttle without a failure. (The LS9 has only accomplished 100 hours of this sort of testing!!!)It's been road tested in the world's extreme climates and track-tested under racing g loads on some the world's most demanding circuits. It has completed actual and simulated 24-hour track tests.

And if its output and high-speed potential seem to suggest otherwise, the LSA nonetheless requires minimal maintenance. Its advanced iridium-core spark plugs and Dexcool coolant are validated to 100,000 miles of operation, with the same level of performance at 90,000 miles as they deliver at 10,000. The LSA also features GM's advanced Oil Life System. This technology measures stress on the engine and calculates oil life based on real-world use--whether it's profiling or extended, no-limit autobahn blasting--rather than a predetermined mileage interval. The Oil Life System eliminates unnecessary oil changes in vehicles that are driven in light-duty conditions.Each engine/vehicle combo gets it's own tailored Oil Life Monitor algorithm, so the LSA's monitor will provide the same level of accuracy as a 149hp Cobalt.

For all the improvements and advanced technologies built into the 6.2L Supercharged LSA V-8, the bottom line still counts most. This is an ultra-high performance engine, with capabilities suited to one of the best performing sedans in the world.

Edited by tjklein

Share this post


Link to post
IXFE

Nope. The LSA was designed with forced induction in mind. The LS3 was not. They share some parts, but there are some significant differences.

What differences? Please be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
67King

Nope. The LSA was designed with forced induction in mind. The LS3 was not. They share some parts, but there are some significant differences.

Here's a breakdown from a Camaro forum, but it points out most of the differences.... (sorry for all the inf......

Really? Wow. No mention of rotating assembly changes? Those are usually the first components that need to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy

all of the differences listed above are fuel and ignition, save for the heads and engine oil pump. Not engine internals.

That said, the LSA has a 9.1:1 compression ratio while the LS3 is 10.7:1. That could all be in the heads, but I sorta suspect at least different pistons in the LSA.

(and too bad hulk doesn't have an LS3 because he'd have already bolted on that caddy supercharger to see what it'll do in a boat).

Share this post


Link to post
edgeski1

IMG_4970.JPGIMG_4979.JPGthis poor LSA met it's untimely maker too soon

Definitely not saying these are poor engines. Every once in awhile there's a bad one. This thread reminded me of it, we warrantied this a few years ago

Edit: Sorry for the gigantic pics

Edited by edgeski1

Share this post


Link to post
tjklein

all of the differences listed above are fuel and ignition, save for the heads and engine oil pump. Not engine internals.

That said, the LSA has a 9.1:1 compression ratio while the LS3 is 10.7:1. That could all be in the heads, but I sorta suspect at least different pistons in the LSA.

(and too bad hulk doesn't have an LS3 because he'd have already bolted on that caddy supercharger to see what it'll do in a boat).

I would consider a completely different piston and method to cool those pistons different internals. The block and rods...yes, they appear to be the same. The crank I'm not sure of.

Share this post


Link to post
tjklein

Really? Wow. No mention of rotating assembly changes? Those are usually the first components that need to be addressed.

I would agree, but I can't speak to the specifications on the stock LS3. The LSA isn't seeing significant 'boost' so it may not have been a priority. Hard to say.

I will say the reliability of either the RSC or the LSA is almost always less than a NA counterpart, but then again I don't drive a Honda day to day either. It's a trade off for all that power.

Edited by tjklein

Share this post


Link to post
Technicallyabu

I'd consider the ford engine better suited to a boating application and is the one id pick if I had a choice. I like the idea that its a proven truck engine, not a repurposed car engine. Cast iron block, overhead cams, variable valve timing are benefits in my mind. I'd guess it makes more hp at low rpm than the lsa too.

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne

Rotating assy's are different. The LS3 has a nodular iron crankshaft AFAIK, and the LSA has a drop forged steel crankshaft. Both engines have powdered metal forged rods, but the LSA rods are a stronger version. Pistons are obviously different, and the LSA runs a lower compression ratio, which keeps combustion temps in line for safer operation, and less wear (especially on piston rings). Not sure on durability differences on the Pistons, but the crank and rods are both upgraded.

I also thought I remembered that the block was a slightly heavier casting for the LSA and LS9. Also something was different with the adjacent cylinder windows to prevent pumping on the downstroke. It's been a while since I went through that stuff though. Might not be remembering the block differentiations perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
DarkSide

The RSC a truck engine...not REALLY, these were made for the raptor, which was never marketed as a HD truck, but more of a racing, off road coarse kind of thing. So i would say the RSC and LSA both come from high performance racing type heritage. In this category i give refined edge to LSA.

On the NA 6.2, i completely agree. The 6.2 was a super duty truck engine and very suited to the task.

Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne

The RSC a truck engine...not REALLY, these were made for the raptor, which was never marketed as a HD truck, but more of a racing, off road coarse kind of thing. So i would say the RSC and LSA both come from high performance racing type heritage. In this category i give refined edge to LSA.

On the NA 6.2, i completely agree. The 6.2 was a super duty truck engine and very suited to the task.

Time will tell.

The RSC is the same exact engine as the Indmar "raptor 440". It simply has an aftermarket supercharger kit bolted on to it.

Share this post


Link to post
DocPhil

Can I ask a dumb, newbie question?

Does a supercharger inherently shorten the life of a motor?

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne

Doc- yes it does. Especially one that wasn't engineered to have one in the first place.

That said, the RSC runs fairly conservative boost levels, so it's not like it takes 50% of its life away.

Share this post


Link to post
ibelonginprison

Can I ask a dumb, newbie question?

Does a supercharger inherently shorten the life of a motor?

Yes and no.

Motors designed with boost in mind are build with thicker ring landings, beefier rods etc. and from the factory are detuned to the point of long term reliability. 03-04 Terminator Cobras, 2Jzgte supra's, BMW 335i's etc. being a couple of examples. Look at turbo diesel trucks as another example. Low rpm, high torque motors with moderate boost levels will run for hundreds of thousands of miles. That said... if you modify them and start cranking the boost, then you're pushing it to the realm of unreliability. The Ford 6.0 diesel, for example, didn't like large boost increases and was notorious for blowing head gaskets. Whereas the Cummins... well, that thing might as well be a tank motor.

Cars that are built for making power naturally aspirated (or NA) aren't designed for additional stress of added boost. Can you boost them? Yes. Will they hold up? Usually. Will you eventually have more problems out of them over a 100k mile period? Absolutely.

Will you have the one person that said they boosted an NA car 100k miles ago and haven't had an issue? Yeah, you'll find a rare one. But most people find that sooner or later they're going to have something that didn't like the boost, whether it's a burned valve, broken ring landing, or straight up shot a rod through the block.

That's my two cents worth, having owned 2 factory boosted cars, and 3 aftermarket boosted cars.

Share this post


Link to post
DarkSide

Tentwentyone,

That is kinda the point, They took a truck engine and modified into race engine. Making it something it was not originally. The LSA was race designed from the beginning.

Again NA 6.2, Ford probably has the advantage. Only in the supercharged version would i give the edge to GM

Share this post


Link to post
mainekneeboarder
trying to find the specs but supra is boasting that the raptors lower rpm torque is much higher or tuned for the 2500-3500rpm range "surf speeds" where the LSA is max torque at like 5400rpms. if thats true on the raptor it would save some serious gas or allow throwing a bigger prop for sure at much lower RPMs. and if its true then i guess they can say its a game changer compared to the LSA.

Not sure where you heard that but Im pretty sure the LSA max torque of 550ish is at around 3800? pretty rare to have a max torque at 5400 RPM.

Share this post


Link to post
catalac

What I like about the sc raptor... Pure red neck it's NASCAR Roush powered, has a steel block and 90 pound tvs charger. Package is 250 heavier than the lsa... Free ballast weight.

Share this post


Link to post
67King

Yes and no.

Motors designed with boost in mind are build with thicker ring landings, beefier rods etc. and from the factory are detuned to the point of long term reliability. 03-04 Terminator Cobras, 2Jzgte supra's, BMW 335i's etc. being a couple of examples. Look at turbo diesel trucks as another example. Low rpm, high torque motors with moderate boost levels will run for hundreds of thousands of miles. That said... if you modify them and start cranking the boost, then you're pushing it to the realm of unreliability. The Ford 6.0 diesel, for example, didn't like large boost increases and was notorious for blowing head gaskets. Whereas the Cummins... well, that thing might as well be a tank motor.

Cars that are built for making power naturally aspirated (or NA) aren't designed for additional stress of added boost. Can you boost them? Yes. Will they hold up? Usually. Will you eventually have more problems out of them over a 100k mile period? Absolutely.

Will you have the one person that said they boosted an NA car 100k miles ago and haven't had an issue? Yeah, you'll find a rare one. But most people find that sooner or later they're going to have something that didn't like the boost, whether it's a burned valve, broken ring landing, or straight up shot a rod through the block.

That's my two cents worth, having owned 2 factory boosted cars, and 3 aftermarket boosted cars.

Pretty spot on, and I've owned probably 2-3 dozen boosted cars (currently own 6).......only the diesels were ever left stock (well, and the one blown one, the Millenia S).

In this application, I don't know. I honestly have a hard time believing that that much torque would be used almost ever, but I may be wrong. And if I am, then I would definitely not want an aftermarket boost system put on the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
ibelonginprison

Pretty spot on, and I've owned probably 2-3 dozen boosted cars (currently own 6).......

Sweet Jesus. LOL And I thought *I* had an addiction. haha

I get attached to my stuff. I typically will keep a car for a looooong time. Had my G for I think 9 years now. I've had a couple ones that have come and gone, but the ones I build I keep for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
The Hulk

Not sure where you heard that but Im pretty sure the LSA max torque of 550ish is at around 3800? pretty rare to have a max torque at 5400 RPM.

it was on a supra advertised site or something, but i'm wondering if they are just comparing it to the NA engine 440hp, Obviously the SC's are so great for dramatically increasing lower rpm torque, thats obvious with the LS3 vs LSA chart huge increase much sooner/lower rpms, so i'm guessing they are just comparing the RSC vs the 440 one when they are claiming lower rpm torque boost, but heck if i know.

Share this post


Link to post
catalac

I doubt reliability an issue, lots of 3.5L all alum Eco boost motors in trucks with 150,000 miles 3000 hours are aok. running a Roush charged motor that was making 411hp and 434 torque boosted to 575 with unlimited cooling water from the lake and putting on maybe 40-50 hours a year, np. Heck my Kawasaki jet ski runs a 1.5L motor 300hp run it wo for half hour at a time no issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...