BEAR-AvHistory

Am already there.

Darion

Good for, God bless and keep it light, have fun.

PC

pdiddy972

BEAR-AvHistory

Think you are missing the point. Lots of whining about the possibility of GM doing a DOHC engine for the mid engine Corvette. The Mustang engine was used as an example because I have the engine, not the Mustang & am somewhat familiar with it day to day on the road. Its also the only mass production American DOHC engine being produced with tens of thousands on the road in trucks & cars.

GM has the Cadillac the 4.2L Twin Turbo V-8 GM estimated at 550 horsepower and 627 lb-ft of torque. Since its a newer design & 4.2L it should be lighter & smaller then mt 5.0L.

GM based on printed patent applications looks to be putting a Chevy derived DOHC in the new Corvette. Just trying to demonstrate that really a good thing. Its not a size & weight killer that the OHV guys are claiming based on my personal experience. Will most likely extend the usable rev range by 1,000rpm at the minimum.

I would also very much disagree that average Corvette owner does not car or is not interested in the topic. Think an Impala buyer would not car but just look at the posts to this site on the subject.

jefnvk

Oh that would be my personal order, but HP is much more easily marketed and bandied about as a baseline.

I was amused to find out there is a Chevy Cruze forum too, where people sit around and talk about their Cruzes. Only a small percentage of any ownership base is going to be an active member of a forum, though, they are not representative of the ownership base as a whole.

Warp Factor

Not whining, just an awareness that a very old technology (overhead cam) isn't necessarily superior to another very old technology (in-block cam using pushrods). Yes, overhead cams are clearly superior in small displacement engines operating at 9000 rpm and above. Larger displacement engines are more limited by piston speed than valve actuation, and won't have any kind of decent longevity with either method of valve actuation at such high rpm's

Darion

Interesting how things work today, we are told it's all about tolerance, accepting all types of view.......right up to the point where ya have a different point of view! Then its whining and not really understanding how you are wrong. I see a smaller displacement TT coming in the ME, fine by me, I just would prefer not to have it, even when it is faster.

PC

JD_AMG

Blah blah blah you have a kit car, not a production car, don't bother bringing up external dimensions of your kit car to compare to external dimensions of a production car to compare engine bay space, apples to oranges.

Someone is currently trying to swap a Coyote in an old 4th gen Fbody chassis, which is 74" wide ,wider than your kit car, yet IT DOES NOT FIT. The Coyote is literally too wide and they are going to have to cut into the shock tower to get it to fit, yet a 7+L LSX fits with room to spare, and even old big blocks fit with room to spare, yet the "little" 302 doesnt...




They must be doing it different with the LT1 then as the old LSx's usually always come with flyhweel and clutch at least.


According to GM a fully dressed LT1 is around 465lbs, this was when they did a power point on the C7 when it was new, comparing how the LT1 was lighter than BMWs 4.4L which was over 500lbs. I think its safe to bet the LT1 is under 400lbs undressed just like the LSx's were.

I don't see why it would be any heavier than an LS7.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...ls7-crate.html

Do you disagree with the power assumption for the base car?

Cost? Reliability? Emissions? NVH?

Well have to wait for someone to do a gen V LT1 swap to see what everything weighs since the numbers are not direct yet. Again I think its safe to assume the weight is around the same as the LSx engines though, I don't see why not.

Wrong, and lets not pretend that if it was the other way around you wouldn't be arguing for it.

I rather have the $7900 LT1 thats smaller and probably lighter too...

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/n...9997/overview/

Ill give kudos to Ford for FINALLY catching up to GM in building an actual good NA V8, it took them long enough...

JD_AMG

Looks like they didn't measure head to head for the width of the LS3 like they did the Coyote, to be fair head to head width the LSx should be around 22", you can see here when including the coilpacks and plug wires into width its 23"

Tom73

BEAR-AvHistory

I will have to remember not to try to put a Coyote into an old F body thanks for the tip. They do fit Current Mustangs however & 72" wide Kit Cars. They even fit old Mustangs, wonder it the engine is to big or the F-body is just crappy on space utilization.


Nice try but the outer edge of the Coyote Cylinder head is as wide as it gets. The coil pack & plugs are under the valve covers just like an Elephant Hemi. The plugs are dead center in the 4 valve head. AFAIK the Chevy will not run without coil packs & the wires to connect them to the plugs so you need room in the engine compartment for them. So I will stay with HR's 24.75"

You still have 2" advantage to each side a big deal for retro-moding an F-Body. Think the rear of the Z06 is 77"+ in width, if the new car is similar they should be able to squeeze in a 29" wide engine.

The engines were both weighed by Hot Rod ready to run the Chevy was 12 lbs lighter. In my first post I used the 465lb # for the Chevy. Based on Hot Rod I cut you slack & went with their 418LB number. I also used there 430lb# for the FORD which I found on a number of sites. Point in there is not a big spread in the numbers.

Yes the BMW V8 is over 500lbs. That why I like the I6T

Yes Cadillac is doing 500 in its base vs 550 in its factory tune version of the 4.2 DOHC V8. Would hate to see the new Corvette come out with less power then a Cadillac 4 door sedan.

You have the cost for a 460HP vs 460HP the Ford is about $1200 less. The 580HP is not out as a crate engine yet its in the 350GT so what ever the Ford car warranty it is. Yes they pass emissions. My crate engine was 24 month 24000 miles full replacement or repair by FORD Performance.

Car has over 10,000 miles on it since March 2015. Went down with a dead fuel pump. Pump was a electric aftermarket unit. Replaced with a T-Rex & has been good to go for the past 18 months. Transmission is a Tremec TKO 600 5 speed, 3:55LSD. Car passed each year the THSSC track tech inspection & is eligible for their events.

It was EPA emissions legal out of the box but in NCDMV use requirements do not require me to maintain the emissions system & car is not subject to an annual emissions test. The car has no emissions controls. It does maintain its O2 sensor for the engine management system

The car under NCDMV is registered as a 1965. NVH car has headers into side pipes no mufflers.


Weights tend to be pretty flat across a series. Don't see any big change in any of them. Right now the only weight shift for the Chevy & Ford is adding a supercharger. Be interesting to see what the 4.2 Caddy checks in at.

Actually I would ignore it. Put an original LT1 350/370HP mechanical lifter crate engine into this & had to modify the frame.





The 435HP Coyote is $6798.99 From Summit Racing

I am sure that will please them to no end. Seriously I think on the engines the key dimension is not the width. Its a mid rear engine & I would be worrying about length for packaging it & the transaxle behind the driver. Right now you have one at each end of the car so its not an issue with it up front.

Jorge_C6_C4

I believe there is only one active suspension Corvette in private hands, this one:

https://www.barrett-jackson.com/Even...OTOTYPE-201599

Not a bad deal considering its rarity and history. Do we really think the next car is going to have active suspension?

BEAR-AvHistory

The magnetic ride control system of today makes this is an obsolete setup, but interesting nonetheless. Should do well at auction.

Wish I still had my '67 BB 3X2 mechanical lifter 4MT Hooker Side Pipe Coupe. Manual steering & brakes, no A/C to sell there.

JoesC5

In the early 1960's I was driving an American made 2 door sedan that was built in 1946 and had an overhead cam engine with a 2.25" stroke that had a 6,000 RPM redline. My 2009 Corvette overhead valve engine with it's 4.00" stroke has a 7,000 RPM redline.

While my 2009 3175 pound car gets excellent gas mileage, my 1946 1155 pound car got even better.

BEAR-AvHistory

Maybe not. The 4.2 Caddy Blackwing is rated at 550 horsepower at 5700 rpm and 627 lb-ft of torque from 3200 to 4000 rpm. Red Line IIRC is 6500. Power drops off around 6,000rpm. Not to shabby for 256CI. The engine is definitely designed (tuned?) for torque rather then power. The 4.4 BMW V8 is 600HP but only 553ft lbs, MB 577HP - 516ft lbs, Audi 605HP - 553ft lbs.

Cadillac says the new 4.2 is actually a little lighter and a little more compact than the LT4. One thing they did do is reduce the bore centers from 4" to 3.7" Can't find if they changed the V angle but it is a Hot-V which removes any exhaust equipment from the outer side of the head.

BEAR-AvHistory

You owned a Crosley? Was one on my block when I was in Grammar School in the early 1950's. Saw the Jeep knockoff once at the beach in Seaside Heights NJ. Was a 2 seater with some surfboards on the rear deck. We used to surf Lavallette & Pt. Pleasant.

Zaro Tundov

Blackwing shows incredible promise but I worry it will be plagued by the same reliability problems as BMW's hot V V8s. The concentration of so much heat in the V results in failure of valve stem seals, gaskets, and all nearby hoses. Guys are having them fail at 20K miles and requiring a $10,000 service to replace the valve stem seals. That's if they're lucky - the unlucky one's have them fail after the powertrain warranty expires.

I hope Cadillac thought this through beyond "let's build a hot V like BMW!" That's what they did with the twin turbo V6 and the result was a coarse and unreliable engine that was inferior to the LT1. Stupid management at GM is always ruining their products!

Warp Factor

How is that better than an LT4 or LT5 engine?

What's the advantage of overhead cams if they're only spinning the engine to 6500 rpm? Just to be trendy? The the real advantage of overhead cams comes into play on engines which spin much faster, where harmonics and instability start to be a problem on pushrod valvetrains, like some of the motorcycle engines that spin 8000-13000 rpm.

jvp

More air in and out means more power per cubic inch. A four-valve DOHC engine will generally provide that air in/air out better than a two-valve OHV will.

A smaller displacement is far more advantageous when it comes to annoying things like: emissions. Again, I'm generalizing here, but the bigger the engine cylinders get, the more crud they put out all through the rev range. So: if you can produce plenty of power to get the car moving at "emissions testing" speeds (likely off-boost or pretty close to it), and then have the boost come in to produce gobs of torque when it's needed, you've got yourself a winner.

I'm not terribly keen on it, but that's where we're headed.

My question is: how is the development cost for this engine going to be amortized? The single most expensive part of a new generation's development is and has always been the engine. And, thankfully, we've had the truck group pay for that for us. That allows us to buy a Corvette for relatively little money, all things considered. Sure the LT1/4/5 engines are a bit different than the SBCs in the trucks, but the base of the engine and most of its development is all there in the truck. Cool. I like that. Affordable Corvettes are a good thing.

What other car besides the Cadillac is thie V8 going into? Caddies certainly don't sell in enough volume to even remotely come close to the needed amortization. And neither do Corvettes, of course. Are they going to plop the base of this new DOHC into a truck at some point? Because if they don't, then the cost of our up-level car with that ****-ant little DOHC is going to sky-rocket.

JoesC5

My grandmother's sister bought it new after the war ended. She drove it back and forth between Little Rock, Arkansas and New York City all the time until she moved to little Rock in the middle 50's. That was a hard trip in that little car. In 1961 she had to quit diving and I bought the car for $50 from her as I needed something with great gas mileage as I was a college student.

Around 1956, my Dad's youngest brother had one of the little 2 seater Crosley Hot Shots. It had water/alcohol injection as it had high compression pistons installed. That was a sight as he is 6'4" and was a real cowboy at that time.

Those Crosley's were the ugliest things around, but I sure had a lot of fun with mine.