When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Try looking at GM vs everybody. The product line is stale not just the Stingray. The words said:
Brand identity is a very very big deal in selling cars & both GM & FORD need to step up or they will continue to lose market share to those companies rightfully or not that have the correct Image. It did not say in selling Corvettes.
Right they may lose market share but not to Ferrart or Lamborghini.
Here's why a smaller engine won't necessarily get better fuel economy or emissions than a larger displacement engine, and why this may not be reflected in EPA tests, versus what happens in real-world driving:
….
Was thinking of a way to show that a smaller cid engine, with the same power, in the same car, in real world driving would show better fuel economy. Found it!
The LT1 operating as a 3.1 Liter in V4 mode gets better mpg! Technically that is with about the same amount of friction as the non-firing pistions still are moving and have the friction losses on the cylinder walls as do the rod bearings so it could be even more efficient if they were not present.
About ~30% of the energy in gasoline combusted in an engine goes into the coolant then the surrounding air through the rad. That occurs because the very high, up to several thousand degree gases in contact with the cylinder walls and cylinder heads transfer energy to the surface. The smaller that exposed area the less heat transfer into the coolant.
I seldom use ECO mode but in tests on a 15 mile stretch of I95 at the same speed set at cruise control I got 1 1/2 to 2 mpg better fuel mileage.
Not to belabor the point, but all else being equal a smaller cid will be more efficient.
Right they may lose market share but not to Ferrart or Lamborghini.
I don't really think anyone in their right mind thinks GM or Corvette are any competition to Ferrari or Lamborghini. Some might wish for it but its not happening.
The point of the F&L statement was ended at the period.
Historically going back decades cars that traditionally ran DOHC engines were names like Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lamborghini (not as old as the other brand names but just as expensive when they started to do cars instead of just tractors) Maserati, Jaguar. Very expensive, very prestigious, somewhat rare here, upscale cars. The term DOHC became closely associated with those name plates. Most all US cars at the time were just coming out of Flat Heads or converting from only I6 to SB V8's.
Now the next sentence a separate thought is suggesting that now the DOHC is very common & the cam in block is dying out it would do GM to at least look like they are building modern engines with their two flagship cars. The Beach Boys had a Little Duce Coupe with a Flat Head Merc that would do 140 in the top end floored. That was a nice image for the time but the Flat Head was dead in 1953 replaced by the Y block FORD OHV V8 soon followed by the SBC V8 in 1955.
So time moves forward. Instead of a Flat Head I built a nice little 3 window coupe with a cam in block OHV LT1 V8. Time has continued to march on & there is a new mainstream technology in town. Now people are building the little coupes with DOHC COYOTES.
33 Ford 350CI Chev 1970 LT1 short block, custom heads & 2X4 carburetoration Manual only reverse shift TH400. NJ manufacturer plates. Englishtown Old Time Drags Class Winner
Hot Rod Magazine Special Edition '33 unveiled at Huntington Beach Show. 650BHP 5.0L (305CI) V8
Even the classic Hot Rod magazine is moving with the times
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 02-10-2019 at 09:54 PM.
Was thinking of a way to show that a smaller cid engine, with the same power, in the same car, in real world driving would show better fuel economy. Found it!
The LT1 operating as a 3.1 Liter in V4 mode gets better mpg! Technically that is with about the same amount of friction as the non-firing pistions still are moving and have the friction losses on the cylinder walls as do the rod bearings so it could be even more efficient if they were not present.
About ~30% of the energy in gasoline combusted in an engine goes into the coolant then the surrounding air through the rad. That occurs because the very high, up to several thousand degree gases in contact with the cylinder walls and cylinder heads transfer energy to the surface. The smaller that exposed area the less heat transfer into the coolant.
I seldom use ECO mode but in tests on a 15 mile stretch of I95 at the same speed set at cruise control I got 1 1/2 to 2 mpg better fuel mileage.
Not to belabor the point, but all else being equal a smaller cid will be more efficient.
One I the things I hate on my 3.0T & don't use, is ECO mode. It shuts off my turbos & its like driving a wet sponge. Also coded out the start/stop nonsense. I do shift into Comfort mode on the highway because it unlocks 8th gear. Ran Charleston SC to Raleigh NC about 310 miles on an early Sunday Morning with about an hour and 15 minutes at 90MPH under WAZE with 5 other cars & an F150.
Door to door average speed 70MPH with city traffic at both ends gas averaged 31.9 MPG. Car weights about 3900lbs. Factory curb weight is 3,635 to 4,110 lbs. EPA has me at 25 Combined 21 city - 32 highway so by pure chance I hit their numbers sort of. The EPA# the base 3.0 & I have the factory tune & expected less from it.
Not really sure how quick the car is but I think its close to 4.0 to 60mph. Did a quick run on a cold day & with slipping summer tires clocked 4.4 on the cars built in GPS lap timer. Will make a few runs when it warms up to see what its got.
My normal DD drive mode in town is Sport+, typically maxes at 5th gear. Good for about 22MPG
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 02-11-2019 at 12:03 PM.
Was thinking of a way to show that a smaller cid engine, with the same power, in the same car, in real world driving would show better fuel economy. Found it!
The LT1 operating as a 3.1 Liter in V4 mode gets better mpg! Technically that is with about the same amount of friction as the non-firing pistions still are moving and have the friction losses on the cylinder walls as do the rod bearings so it could be even more efficient if they were not present.
The LT1 operating as a 4 cylinder is not making as much power as it would be operating as an 8 cylinder. You need to find two cars making the same power, one with smaller displacement but gets significantly better gas mileage, not like 1 or 2mpg better- that can be chalked up to many different things.
Ill give you examples of why Im saying a larger displacement engine may get better gas mileage:
Here are some cars with similar output (Corvette having the most by far in some cases here) yet the Corvette gets the best gas mileage while having the largest displacement. All cars from the same time period and all performance cars that would compete against each other.
2004 Corvette Z06 5.7L(V8 400hp) - 19/28mpg
2004 Mustang Cobra 4.6L(V8 390hp) - 17/24mpg
2004 Honda S2000 2L (I4 240hp) 20/25mpg
2004 350Z 3L (V6 287hp) 20/26mpg
2004 EVO 2L (I4 300hp) 18/26mpg
2004 STi 2L (I4 300hp) 18/24mpg
2004 BMW M3 3L (I6 333hp) 16/24mpg
2004 Porsche 911 3.6L (F6 320hp) 18/26mpg
And just for fun:
2004 Ferrari F360 3.6L (v8 400hp) 11/16mpg
2004 Ferrari 575 5.7L (V12 515hp )10/17mpg
2004 Lambo Gallardo 5L (V10 500hp) 10/17mpg
2004 Viper 8.3L (V10 500hp) 12/21mpg
The Viper with an 8.3L V10 making 500hp gets better gas mileage than a 5L V10 a 5.7L V12 and a 3.6L V8!
You will notice a trend here, the cars with more hp/l get WORSE gas mileage.
I used these in 2004 for an example because these cars all had similar power/weight and 6 speed manual gearboxes with no fancy fuel saving features(like AFM) to make things as fair as possible.
I seldom use ECO mode but in tests on a 15 mile stretch of I95 at the same speed set at cruise control I got 1 1/2 to 2 mpg better fuel mileage.
Not to belabor the point, but all else being equal a smaller cid will be more efficient.
1 to 2 MPG is a very very small margin for cutting the displacement in half (and cutting the power in half).
Agree the base technology is not new but in the world of cars is always been associated with names like Ferrari or Lamborghini not Chevy or FORD. Brand identity is a very very big deal in selling cars & both GM & FORD need to step up or they will continue to lose market share to those companies rightfully or not that have the correct Image.
Originally Posted by Tom73
Right they may lose market share but not to Ferrart or Lamborghini.
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
I don't really think anyone in their right mind thinks GM or Corvette are any competition to Ferrari or Lamborghini. Some might wish for it but its not happening.
You were the one that brought up GM & FORD losing market share to those companies (Ferrari & Lamborghini).
The LT1 operating as a 4 cylinder is not making as much power as it would be operating as an 8 cylinder. You need to find two cars making the same power, one with smaller displacement but gets significantly better gas mileage, not like 1 or 2mpg better- that can be chalked up to many different things.
…..
Not true for the example I gave where I got 1 1/2 to 2 mpg better mpg!
That was on cruise control on the same stretch of I 95 in V4 versus V8 mode in 7th gear in my M7. The hp used was only affected by internal friction losses, air drag lose, tire loses. All losses were identical. Has noting to do with the LT1 in V8 mode being able to produce more power. The hp generated was identical and balanced with the need or the car would accelerate!
The European car companies have been offering small cid engines for many years since they pay for their social programs with gas tax! Yep like some advocate, let those "rich folks that buy Ferrari's pay more for our "social programs." That ~$10/gallon they pay has nothing to do with the cost of gasoline! In addition many countries charge an annual car tax based on cid (although some have switched to amount of CO2 emissions like France and Germany!)
Yep different engines are designed for different purposes as are gear ratios like the M7 C7 in my GS where 7th gear is a 0.48:1 ratio so can't just compare different cars or even the same cars with different engines.
I know we are "bench racing" BUT I think the LT1 on V4 and V8 mode proves my point. As I also noted, the mpg produced by the LT1 in V4 mode would be even better if it didn't have the 'drag' from pistons and bearings that are not contributing to power production!
Was thinking of a way to show that a smaller cid engine, with the same power, in the same car, in real world driving would show better fuel economy. Found it!
The LT1 operating as a 3.1 Liter in V4 mode gets better mpg! Technically that is with about the same amount of friction as the non-firing pistions still are moving and have the friction losses on the cylinder walls as do the rod bearings so it could be even more efficient if they were not present.
The LT1 is probably capable of making 175 horsepower in V-4 mode. However, you'll notice that the computer takes it out of V-4 mode when more than about 20 horsepower is required. Why? For the same reasons I mentioned in post #519. Above a certain power level, it's more efficient and economical to operate it as a larger displacement engine with low cylinder pressures, than to operate it as a smaller displacement engine with high cylinder pressures, where fuel enrichment and timing retard will be required.
I did an experiment once when I was on a long trip in my wife's car with an automatic. It seemed like the car was using unnecessarily high rpms on some mountain grades, so I went into manual mode, forcing the transmission into a higher gear. I went back and forth between the two modes, watching the instant mpg display. Sure enough, the computer knew what it was doing, getting better fuel economy with the engine turning faster, with each firing event creating less cylinder pressure, than when I forced the cylinders to fire less often, at a higher cylinder pressure. The car had to make compromises in fueling, timing and economy at those higher cylinder pressures.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 02-11-2019 at 07:22 AM.
Agree there is a lot more competition but disagree its not about image especially as the price goes up. To sell a product you need a good one. But Big But the buying public needs to perceive its a good one or they will not buy it. Looks, performance, comfort , status etc drive perception & perception is reality.
I did not say it's not about image. Obviously, that's important. I said, "it's not ALL about image," when making the point that loss of market share for everyone also has a lot to do with increased competition.
There's a thread in the ZR1 section where a number of buyers are showing some pretty horrific examples of paint problems and panel mis-matches. You're just not going to compete effectively on the higher end without fixing those types of issues.
Went to a kids party this weekend with my daughter. The host's wife had just added a 2019 base coupe to the family fleet (new paing shop etc). The panel fit and door gaps were garbage, as bad as my 2014 before I adjusted everything. I asked her if it was a 2017 hoping it was old production, but she proudly told me it was a new 2019. I didn't point out any of the issues as this is just a toy for her.
I think GM has a serious employee/assembly issue. There have been articles going around in various GM FB groups that their #1 struggle is getting workers who aren't on meth.
At this point it's not the paint quality or the panel quality. It's the skill and work ethic of the people putting them together. Granted the production engineers are supposed to figure out ways for the car to fit together without the line worker having to fine tune it... jigs and such that make it line up perfectly so the line worker can just pull their air ratchet trigger a few times each cycle.
If they don't fix this for the C8 I will be severely disappointed. Didn't have these issues with the C5/6, but I think that was due to softer less complex shapes/designs.
There's no question that the new paint plant and panel curing processes have made it possible for much better finishes. I have one of the new cars that is much better than my 14 with very good panel gaps and paint. It was one of the first Sebring Orange cars produced so it probably received close scrutiny.
However, there's also no doubt that lax employee performance in terms of assembly, equipment maintenance and operation, along with poor quality control can produce mediocre results with the best technology in the world. With all the plant closing and layoff news, I've got to think GM employee morale has sunk of late. That does have an effect on quality.
"to lose market share to those companies rightfully or not that have the correct Image". Don't see Ferrari or Lamborghini mentioned in the sentence.
BTW Aperiod (in America) is a full stop (.) It is a punctuation mark (.) at the end of a sentence. It shows that the sentence has finished.
In the prior sentence you reference Ferrari and Lamborghini as companies that have the high tech that GM and Ford need. You then reference “those companies”. The only companies mentioned were Ferrari and Lamborghini, so the logical assumption would be that “those companies” were referring to them. English can be fun can’t it.
Lebanon Ford FORDS version on Yenko & Motion/Baldwin Cheverlot 725HP FORD F-150 on sale for just under $40,000
F-150 with a Whipple supercharger kit that cranks up the Coyote 5.0-liter V8 to 725 hp @ $39,995. $33,825 with its stock 395 hp motor
The work comes with a 3 year/36,000-mile warranty and is 50-state legal, but if you don’t live in California, and are picky about your superchargers, Lebanon also offers Roush and Procharger kits for the same price, but with just 650 hp each.
Lebanon Ford FORDS version on Yenko & Motion/Baldwin Cheverlot
725HP FORD F-150 on sale for just under $40,000
F-150 with a Whipple supercharger kit that cranks up the Coyote 5.0-liter V8 to 725 hp @ $39,995. $33,825 with its stock 395 hp motor
The work comes with a 3 year/36,000-mile warranty and is 50-state legal, but if you don’t live in California, and are picky about your superchargers, Lebanon also offers Roush and Procharger kits for the same price, but with just 650 hp each.
02-10-2019, 06:51 PM
