I tell my dad every time we go to vintage race that I'm jealous he got to see these cars in their hay day when he worked at Road Atlanta. They're still fun to watch now, but seeing them then would have been even better. Cars were innovative and unique as different manufacturers tried to find a winning combination. A lot of trial and error without the use of computers or high tech equipment.
@MPZRACEVIDEO Your English is very good. I was lucky enough to witness the early 1970's Can-Am cars at Laguna Seca .At the time it was still 1.9miles and not FIA sanctioned. But the UOP Shadow team was there,and they put on a lunch time exhibition of two of their f1 cars against their Can-Am cars.Can-Am led the first two laps and then it was over..It was an incredible sight to see and especially hear! You are a true race fan
HOLY!!!! I can't believe how hard they are pushing these priceless classics! Very cool to see, but I'm almost too worried about them destroying the cars to enjoy it.
Their is no replacement for cubic displacement. In the early 1970's when that Can-Am cars cam to run at Watkins Glenn the shattered the track records that had previously been held by F1 cars. I think a lot of the F1 tracks in 1960's and 1970's would have great tracks to have had Can-Am races but that my opinion. I can speak from experience their is nothing like the brute torque of a Big Block engine.
@RyckardPT A 7.0 liter LS7 engine weighs 450 lbs. A 3.0 BMW engine weighs 475 lbs. Designed smartly, a big displacement engine doesn't have to weigh a lot because it's mostly air inside.
@RyckardPT I do agree with you my friend.Can you imagine a series today with the same 'no rules' as the Can-Am?1000 hp 4 bangers,1500 hp small block v8s,and who knows what Porsche would do with their flat 12.Cheers to you too!
the 917/30 only made 1500bhp in qualifying, which it would only do 1 lap. it ran with around 1000bhp in the race, although i hardly believe the period tyres and primative aerodynamics would allow it to put the extra 200bhp it had over the m8f to any definative advantage. you also have to remember that mclaren won 5 seasons and porsche only 2, both with penske racing. unrelated, i love the sound of the brm v16, the 1.5 litre supercharged
The Glen in the 60's & 70's was the best track. For two dollars more you could get a pit access.Plus, as tradition went someone would always pick a car to burn in the "bog". That all went well until they picked a tour bus in '74. That killed the fun cause they closed the track for a while. Those times were the closest we came to Euro racing in America. Miss them.
@RyckardPT Biggest Ferrari engine is 6.3 liter V12 used in FXX and FXX Evoluzione. Enzo using 6.0 liter 660bhp. They are made for only one purpose, to be best ultimate racing cars, what they are, specially fully built FXX.
@RyckardPT Cant bring myself to totally agree with you, but heh, what does it matter the noise, sound,memories of the best Detroit pig iron are just so strong...
ive got the sports car somewhere, havent read much of it, the one im reading atm is about lotus, i cant remember the name of it but it has a close up of a yellow elan on the front if that rings any bells, its more about the history of the models than the design though
Note the velocity stacks on the number 10 car,they are of different lengths in order to...in order to...hello,broaden the TORQUE band...So,tell me everything that you know about resonant pressure wave induction(ram tuning/ram induction)
The Ramchargers team from Chrysler did a lot of research in this area for drag racing in the late 50's / early 60's. Their test car called the "high and mighty" was a good example. It had some really bizarre induction setups!
@RyckardPT You're right. 29 mpg in a ZR1 is only achievable on the highway. Unfortunately, the Audi R8 or a Ferrari won't get 29 mpg on the highway... or anywhere else. And they make less power than a ZR1.
Today, when gas prices are highest ever, when CO2 is so high, YES, you need to think to make engine that have enough power and use less fuel. That's called ENGINEERING.
Chevrolet Power,originally produced as a high performance parts catalog has a shitload of information about aerodynamics and suspension design.They are long out of print,but the engineers who wrote it put every thing in a book and now it's $80.lol
Horsepower is torque applied over a period of time.At 5252rpm the torque and horsepower numbers are the same. Horsepower is a mathematical product based upon torque and time(rpm).Geez,I forgot the formula!
@TheArfdog Comparable diesel engine is more expensive to construct than gasoline engine. Well, that's reason why you won't see many V12, or V10 diesels on the road.
The original comparison was about torque versus horsepower.Physics. But,I agree,if you put a ZZ572 in a F1 car,it would be slower than a Chevy Silverado Texas Edition pickup. The MONSTER torque would snap the F1 chassis in half,well,that's if it got traction,and the halfshafts or transmission or diff didn't fail. They're not designed to handle the shock of a shitload of American Torque!
That is correct. But without putting things into context, one could say a family car is far far greater as an F1 car because it can seat 5. F1 doesnt need torque because its designed to go fast all the time...
@TheArfdog Hydrodynamic losses are last thing you should worry about. High compression makes engines more efficient and using less fuel. Pure example is Formula 2.4 V8 engine at full throttle about 17,500rpm-18,000rpm, have 5MPG worst. And i saw low compression 454 blocks having 8MPG daily driven back in 70's with power 2,5 times less than F1. In therms of thermodynamic F1 engines are most efficient engines comparing to any road engine. Diesels are even more efficient.
@TheArfdog R8 V8 and V10 are totally 2 different cars, in performance, in quality, in price, in purpose. Version with V8 tested by Auto Option, can get 21mpg average what is not very impressive but it's heavier than ZO6. V10 R8 in GT version has 19mpg average what is very bad for 520hp car, it's more heavier than any Vette. Like I said before SLS getting almost 23mpg average with 560 hp engine, and SL65 with V12 is almost at 21mpg. LS7 are pretty good engine, but 24mpg would be max. LS9 21-22.
No replacement for displacement! I've seen that purple McClaren (the one with the NASCAR carburetor) run away from a factory prepped McClaren F-1 GTR. The 2013 Renault RS27 F-1 engine produces at 18,000 RPM,750HP or 219ft.lb. of torque (vovlo territory). If you hooked a 5000lb(2200kg close enough) Chevy pickup to the back of an F-1 car,the F-1 car would have severe difficulty in even getting the pickup to start moving. If you took an F-1 car apart and put it in the back of a Chevy 2500 pickup...
Yes, I've seen the video you're talking about with the McLaren F-1 GTR. It's amazing how Can-Am cars can keep up with other cars that are from more recent periods. If you think about all the advancements made since the early 70s with aerodynamics, tire and suspension technology these cars must have been crazy fast for their era.
@RyckardPT small engines aren't more efficient than big blocks. hp/L does not equal better mpg. Bigger engines that rev lower are more efficient because they have less hydrodynamic losses.
@RyckardPT I'm sorry you don't know engineering. Therefore, you shouldn't comment on the engineering of engines. The faster the engine spins, the more friction it experiences because of hydrodynamic friction. And the Corvette ZR1 does the Ring, which has more than 140 corners, in 7:19. What do you say to that?
@TheArfdog You can be happy with 29mpg with ZR1, average mpg in ZR1 is like GM claimed 24 best. My friend own Zo6 and he told me that 29 with at 55 mph is art for that car. 14-16 in city normally. Also don't believe to on-board computer, it shows 10% higher mpg than it is.
the canam will obviously run much longer gears than a formula 1 car, so yes, the torque will need to be larger at the low rpm end, hence why a canam will use about 4000rpm min-max and a f1 will rarely go less than 16000 in race pace, also hence the need for antistall devices. im studying automotive and mechanical engineering at uni next year hopefully, so i know little of that, but i can see it would be stupid to put a huge v8 in an f1, or a 2.4l in a truck, but i know which is the fastest combo
those big blocks have a huge useable power range! and they rocket off the corner becuase of thier tourqe. Search mclaren f1 vs can am on here and watcht he video, high reving vs high tourqe!
they are designed to pull a 648kg f1 car. not a pickup. these kind of comparisons are rediculous, just the same as if you put a big block canam engine in the back of an f1, the added weight would make it much slower than a 2.4l formula 1 car
@TheArfdog Totally wrong buddy, every engine can be efficient in lighter car, some engines are not made to be efficient, and some engine are made to haul. ZO6 is 1450 kg and ZR1is 1550 kg weights. My friend own Zo6 and 29mpg is capable in 6th gear at 50-55MPH. On board computer shows even 33mpg, but like I said it's real 10% down. He gets average 22-24 mpg with his driving, and almost no more than 15 in the town. LS7 won't be efficient in car like ZO6, Lotus Elise or heavy SUV.
@2jzgtejza80 What prevents a high-displacement engine from having high compression? High compression and hydrodynamic losses due to RPM are independent of each other. You can have the best of both. The Z06 engine has 11:1 compression. Therefore it gets 30 mpg, or 25 in the city while making 500 hp. F1 engines are average in thermodynamic efficiency. Turbo engines are much more efficient because they utilize waste heat. And yes Diesel is more efficient, while turbo-diesel is even more efficient.
Bring back Can-Am racing,and let the drivers set the rules....they might go for 1500 hp road racers...or what could they come up with now days for unlimited engine displacement that could last for 200 miles?
An unlimited race series these days would end up with hybrid electric cars that have forced-induction engines of moderate displacements. Nothing like the original Can Am cars in this video. Something like the Porsche 919 with an open cockpit and larger engine. The advanced technology of today would make a modern 'Can Am' race car unrecognizable from its vintage equivalent.
5:13 - Oh Noes! With all that smoke that filled the cockpit, he must have known something major let go--why the HELL would he CROSS THE TRACK--to the apex of the first corner, no less?! Bad form! I guess one has no time to consider such things in the heat of the moment (literally).
@2jzgtejza80 The Audi R8 engine won't be as efficient as the LS7, in any type of car. I just gave you an example, in two sports cars (R8 and Corvette, which weigh similar), the LS7 gets better mileage in city, highway, and combined than the R8's V10 and V8. You lose.
Um,4000RPM? Please! Please read "The Sports Car" by Colin Chapman and "Chevrolet=Racing,14 Years of Racous Slince" By Paul Van Valkenburg and get back to me.
@2jzgtejza80 If getting 29 mpg in a Z06 is an art.... getting 29 mpg in an Audi R8 is impossible. hahaha. The big V8 engines are more fuel efficient, pollute less, and make more power and torque.
carbon fibre is 10x as strong as steel and half the weight, which is why they make f1's out of it, it could take the torque, really. your talking about a formula 5000 car
@TheArfdog LS7 will be more efficient in light car, but that efficiency is not infinite. One guy put LS7 in 1100kg Miata and gets 32mpg, but in heavy SUV your LS7 will get maximum 20mpg or less. Weight of the car is more important thing. Audi have 4.2 TDI engine getting 44mpg highway and 32 average with 350 hp engine in car heavier than Corvette. Even Audi Q7 SUV (5000 Ibs) 6.0 TDI getting 25mpg average with 500 hp and more than 1300 Nm torque. U are really uneducated in terms of efficiency.
@2jzgtejza80 TDI? When did we start talking about diesels? Sounds like as soon as you lose the argument, you change the subject. We are comparing Euro *gasoline* engines and the LS7 7.0L gasoline V8. The LS7 is more efficient in every way. You can't compare diesel vs gasoline. You know what's more efficient than diesel? Antimatter. Hahaha you're a fool.
i saw them yesterday. that was the most impressive Sound i've ever heard!
I tell my dad every time we go to vintage race that I'm jealous he got to see these cars in their hay day when he worked at Road Atlanta. They're still fun to watch now, but seeing them then would have been even better. Cars were innovative and unique as different manufacturers tried to find a winning combination. A lot of trial and error without the use of computers or high tech equipment.
man those big blocks with injector stacks higher than the driver sitting in the car.........oh yeah!
Man do I miss the real can am days!
To all - check out both racestarts in the Video - the first at 4:10 an the second at 9:29
Great line up, or not?
Great to see these beautiful cars stretch their legs. If I could like this video a thousand times I would!
Beautiful monsters....
Just about everything in these two books is still valid today! To wit! These cars are still kicking ass!
Wow!!! What an invent!!! Thanks for the post!!
@RyckardPT
I love both kind of engines - together in one race they are great...
Gorgeous Scalextric
This is pure power of the Mc Laren,
displacements between 7 and
8.8 litres,output between 600 snd 800 hp.
@MPZRACEVIDEO Your English is very good.
I was lucky enough to witness the early 1970's Can-Am cars at Laguna Seca .At the time it was still 1.9miles and not FIA sanctioned.
But the UOP Shadow team was there,and they put on a lunch time exhibition of two of their f1 cars against their Can-Am cars.Can-Am led the first two laps and then it was over..It was an incredible sight to see and especially hear!
You are a true race fan
Yes early 70s F1 engines were 3 liters and
About 400hp
As Alice Cooper once described the angry rumble of American V-8's: "It's the sound of rock and roll." 100%.
HOLY!!!! I can't believe how hard they are pushing these priceless classics! Very cool to see, but I'm almost too worried about them destroying the cars to enjoy it.
They're not pushing them as hard as back in the day, trust me. If you look at some vintage footage you'll see.
Their is no replacement for cubic displacement. In the early 1970's when that Can-Am cars cam to run at Watkins Glenn the shattered the track records that had previously been held by F1 cars. I think a lot of the F1 tracks in 1960's and 1970's would have great tracks to have had Can-Am races but that my opinion. I can speak from experience their is nothing like the brute torque of a Big Block engine.
oh that Lola just EXPLODED... what a mess.
Yes, that wasn't just a backfire.
Oh GOD,do I love the sound of a big block Chevy Can-Am......Bring back 'UNLIMITED RACING",Can-Am was the best!!!!
@RyckardPT A 7.0 liter LS7 engine weighs 450 lbs. A 3.0 BMW engine weighs 475 lbs. Designed smartly, a big displacement engine doesn't have to weigh a lot because it's mostly air inside.
@RyckardPT I do agree with you my friend.Can you imagine a series today with the same 'no rules' as the Can-Am?1000 hp 4 bangers,1500 hp small block v8s,and who knows what Porsche would do with their flat 12.Cheers to you too!
the 917/30 only made 1500bhp in qualifying, which it would only do 1 lap. it ran with around 1000bhp in the race, although i hardly believe the period tyres and primative aerodynamics would allow it to put the extra 200bhp it had over the m8f to any definative advantage. you also have to remember that mclaren won 5 seasons and porsche only 2, both with penske racing. unrelated, i love the sound of the brm v16, the 1.5 litre supercharged
@RyckardPT It's about power/weight. Doesn't matter about high-revving or big block.
Now,let me watch this again,in peace..."I love you,you love me..."
Damn that McLaren hauls serious ass down the straight.
The Glen in the 60's & 70's was the best track. For two dollars more you could get a pit access.Plus, as tradition went someone would always pick a car to burn in the "bog". That all went well until they picked a tour bus in '74. That killed the fun cause they closed the track for a while. Those times were the closest we came to Euro racing in America. Miss them.
@RyckardPT
Biggest Ferrari engine is 6.3 liter V12 used in FXX and FXX Evoluzione. Enzo using 6.0 liter 660bhp.
They are made for only one purpose, to be best ultimate racing cars, what they are, specially fully built FXX.
@RyckardPT
Cant bring myself to totally agree with you, but heh, what does it matter the noise, sound,memories of the best Detroit pig iron are just so strong...
@RyckardPT You never sat at the Cork Screw at Laguna Seca .
Loved watching this - but hate what they have done to Hockenheim when they chopped it up into a mini circuit they use now...
@MPZRACEVIDEO Laut Starterliste waren es 18.
pastva pro oko i uši x) nice! I love it.. vrrreeeeeeemm vreeeem, yeah!
About 30 minutes ago I was watching videos of Flowmaster exhaust on a 2002 Lincoln Navigator.. and now I'm here? Huh..
Great footage, although I didn't see any Porsche 917-10/30 turbo flat 12, the King of Can-Am during early 70's.
ive got the sports car somewhere, havent read much of it, the one im reading atm is about lotus, i cant remember the name of it but it has a close up of a yellow elan on the front if that rings any bells, its more about the history of the models than the design though
God I must drive one of these.
Back in the 80s I asked my then boss why he walked with a strange gait . Turned out he'd shattered both legs in a Can Am accident in 1972 .
@TheArfdog
Depends what BMW engine. Last time I checked LS7 fully dressed (turn on key) weights 470Ibs, what is less than many comparable engine.
Is it the editing or does it seem like the cars with the American V-8's are leading the pack?
Note the velocity stacks on the number 10 car,they are of different lengths in order to...in order to...hello,broaden the TORQUE band...So,tell me everything that you know about resonant pressure wave induction(ram tuning/ram induction)
The Ramchargers team from Chrysler did a lot of research in this area for drag racing in the late 50's / early 60's. Their test car called the "high and mighty" was a good example. It had some really bizarre induction setups!
@RyckardPT You're right. 29 mpg in a ZR1 is only achievable on the highway. Unfortunately, the Audi R8 or a Ferrari won't get 29 mpg on the highway... or anywhere else. And they make less power than a ZR1.
Long live the big block "real Power"
yeah, i reackon a big block could do 4000rpm up to 8000rpm difference, you hear them drop really low after heavy breaking if you wach some onboards
Turbos are the replacement for displacement
Today, when gas prices are highest ever, when CO2 is so high, YES, you need to think to make engine that have enough power and use less fuel. That's called ENGINEERING.
@RyckardPT And the ZR1 gets 29 mpg along with 600 hp.
@RyckardPT Look at the Lemans C6R car. 7 liters and it dominates.
this race would not only v8 ? thanks
Chevrolet Power,originally produced as a high performance parts catalog has a shitload of information about aerodynamics and suspension design.They are long out of print,but the engineers who wrote it put every thing in a book and now it's $80.lol
@Sammyzuko Don't worry.....be happy.
Is that an M8B @ 4:00?
Horsepower is torque applied over a period of time.At 5252rpm the torque and horsepower numbers are the same. Horsepower is a mathematical product based upon torque and time(rpm).Geez,I forgot the formula!
What kind of speeds were they reaching down the straight sections? I'm guessing about 260 - 280km/h? Anyone know/?
Wow
5:43
Wings and things...Some guy from Texas.....
@TheArfdog
Comparable diesel engine is more expensive to construct than gasoline engine. Well, that's reason why you won't see many V12, or V10 diesels on the road.
The original comparison was about torque versus horsepower.Physics.
But,I agree,if you put a ZZ572 in a F1 car,it would be slower than a Chevy Silverado Texas Edition pickup.
The MONSTER torque would snap the F1 chassis in half,well,that's if it got traction,and the halfshafts or transmission or diff didn't fail.
They're not designed to handle the shock of a shitload of American Torque!
That is correct. But without putting things into context, one could say a family car is far far greater as an F1 car because it can seat 5. F1 doesnt need torque because its designed to go fast all the time...
@TheArfdog
Hydrodynamic losses are last thing you should worry about. High compression makes engines more efficient and using less fuel. Pure example is Formula 2.4 V8 engine at full throttle about 17,500rpm-18,000rpm, have 5MPG worst. And i saw low compression 454 blocks having 8MPG daily driven back in 70's with power 2,5 times less than F1. In therms of thermodynamic F1 engines are most efficient engines comparing to any road engine. Diesels are even more efficient.
@TheArfdog
R8 V8 and V10 are totally 2 different cars, in performance, in quality, in price, in purpose. Version with V8 tested by Auto Option, can get 21mpg average what is not very impressive but it's heavier than ZO6. V10 R8 in GT version has 19mpg average what is very bad for 520hp car, it's more heavier than any Vette. Like I said before SLS getting almost 23mpg average with 560 hp engine, and SL65 with V12 is almost at 21mpg.
LS7 are pretty good engine, but 24mpg would be max. LS9 21-22.
No replacement for displacement! I've seen that purple McClaren (the one with the NASCAR carburetor) run away from a factory prepped McClaren F-1 GTR.
The 2013 Renault RS27 F-1 engine produces at 18,000 RPM,750HP or 219ft.lb. of torque (vovlo territory).
If you hooked a 5000lb(2200kg close enough) Chevy pickup to the back of an F-1 car,the F-1 car would have severe difficulty in even getting the pickup to start moving.
If you took an F-1 car apart and put it in the back of a Chevy 2500 pickup...
Yes, I've seen the video you're talking about with the McLaren F-1 GTR. It's amazing how Can-Am cars can keep up with other cars that are from more recent periods. If you think about all the advancements made since the early 70s with aerodynamics, tire and suspension technology these cars must have been crazy fast for their era.
@RyckardPT small engines aren't more efficient than big blocks. hp/L does not equal better mpg. Bigger engines that rev lower are more efficient because they have less hydrodynamic losses.
just listen to them coming off of the line at 4:10!
@RyckardPT I'm sorry you don't know engineering. Therefore, you shouldn't comment on the engineering of engines. The faster the engine spins, the more friction it experiences because of hydrodynamic friction. And the Corvette ZR1 does the Ring, which has more than 140 corners, in 7:19. What do you say to that?
@TheArfdog
You can be happy with 29mpg with ZR1, average mpg in ZR1 is like GM claimed 24 best. My friend own Zo6 and he told me that 29 with at 55 mph is art for that car. 14-16 in city normally. Also don't believe to on-board computer, it shows 10% higher mpg than it is.
the canam will obviously run much longer gears than a formula 1 car, so yes, the torque will need to be larger at the low rpm end, hence why a canam will use about 4000rpm min-max and a f1 will rarely go less than 16000 in race pace, also hence the need for antistall devices. im studying automotive and mechanical engineering at uni next year hopefully, so i know little of that, but i can see it would be stupid to put a huge v8 in an f1, or a 2.4l in a truck, but i know which is the fastest combo
Chevys demonstrate their mastery of the 4 cycle,5 event Otto cycle...bigger is better!
those big blocks have a huge useable power range! and they rocket off the corner becuase of thier tourqe. Search mclaren f1 vs can am on here and watcht he video, high reving vs high tourqe!
#1 engine sound
Porsche flat 12
#2engine sound
big block Chevy Can-Am(accelerating out of the Corkscrew).
Im getting a serious stiffie watching this!
.... n gv
@RyckardPT lol , only good for the noise....... and a 1000+ hp
they are designed to pull a 648kg f1 car. not a pickup. these kind of comparisons are rediculous, just the same as if you put a big block canam engine in the back of an f1, the added weight would make it much slower than a 2.4l formula 1 car
@RyckardPT
Well no one can archine even 20 mpg if driving little harder ZR1, that car have same fuel economy as 70's cars at harder driving...
@TheArfdog
Totally wrong buddy, every engine can be efficient in lighter car, some engines are not made to be efficient, and some engine are made to haul. ZO6 is 1450 kg and ZR1is 1550 kg weights. My friend own Zo6 and 29mpg is capable in 6th gear at 50-55MPH. On board computer shows even 33mpg, but like I said it's real 10% down. He gets average 22-24 mpg with his driving, and almost no more than 15 in the town. LS7 won't be efficient in car like ZO6, Lotus Elise or heavy SUV.
@2jzgtejza80 What prevents a high-displacement engine from having high compression? High compression and hydrodynamic losses due to RPM are independent of each other. You can have the best of both. The Z06 engine has 11:1 compression. Therefore it gets 30 mpg, or 25 in the city while making 500 hp. F1 engines are average in thermodynamic efficiency. Turbo engines are much more efficient because they utilize waste heat. And yes Diesel is more efficient, while turbo-diesel is even more efficient.
BIG BLOCK is the shit...
probably wouldn't last till the end :P
Bring back Can-Am racing,and let the drivers set the rules....they might go for 1500 hp road racers...or what could they come up with now days for unlimited engine displacement that could last for 200 miles?
An unlimited race series these days would end up with hybrid electric cars that have forced-induction engines of moderate displacements. Nothing like the original Can Am cars in this video. Something like the Porsche 919 with an open cockpit and larger engine. The advanced technology of today would make a modern 'Can Am' race car unrecognizable from its vintage equivalent.
5:13 - Oh Noes! With all that smoke that filled the cockpit, he must have known something major let go--why the HELL would he CROSS THE TRACK--to the apex of the first corner, no less?! Bad form!
I guess one has no time to consider such things in the heat of the moment (literally).
@2jzgtejza80 The Audi R8 engine won't be as efficient as the LS7, in any type of car. I just gave you an example, in two sports cars (R8 and Corvette, which weigh similar), the LS7 gets better mileage in city, highway, and combined than the R8's V10 and V8. You lose.
Um,4000RPM? Please!
Please read "The Sports Car" by Colin Chapman and "Chevrolet=Racing,14 Years of Racous Slince" By Paul Van Valkenburg and get back to me.
@2jzgtejza80 If getting 29 mpg in a Z06 is an art.... getting 29 mpg in an Audi R8 is impossible. hahaha. The big V8 engines are more fuel efficient, pollute less, and make more power and torque.
Seriously,if that's what you want to do, school...READ THESE BOOKS!. The laws of physics have not changed since these were written.
carbon fibre is 10x as strong as steel and half the weight, which is why they make f1's out of it, it could take the torque, really. your talking about a formula 5000 car
I didnt know porn was allowed on RUclips
if you to are seriously talking about gas mileage of those cars i think you need to readdress your priorities!
@TheArfdog
LS7 will be more efficient in light car, but that efficiency is not infinite. One guy put LS7 in 1100kg Miata and gets 32mpg, but in heavy SUV your LS7 will get maximum 20mpg or less. Weight of the car is more important thing.
Audi have 4.2 TDI engine getting 44mpg highway and 32 average with 350 hp engine in car heavier than Corvette. Even Audi Q7 SUV (5000 Ibs) 6.0 TDI getting 25mpg average with 500 hp and more than 1300 Nm torque. U are really uneducated in terms of efficiency.
nationality does not win races,APPLIED PHYSICS wins races!
Cubic $$$$ wins races.
@2jzgtejza80 TDI? When did we start talking about diesels? Sounds like as soon as you lose the argument, you change the subject. We are comparing Euro *gasoline* engines and the LS7 7.0L gasoline V8. The LS7 is more efficient in every way. You can't compare diesel vs gasoline. You know what's more efficient than diesel? Antimatter. Hahaha you're a fool.