Warp Factor

Not according to both the Ford and GM engineers I have spoken with.

BEAR-AvHistory

JoesC5 is correct based on the original 2013 agreement between FORD & GM which divided the development responsibility between the 9 & 10 speed transmissions.

"Ford and GM’s most recent partnership was first announced back in 2013, intended to yield both nine and ten-speed automatic transmissions. GM took lead in the engineering of the (Hydramatic 10L90) nine-speed transaxle unit, which was intended for front -or- all-wheel drive models with transversely mounted engines. Ford took point on the (10R80) ten-speed gearbox, setting their sights on rear -or- four-wheel drive vehicles equipped with longitudinally mounted engines. Conceived with economy in mind, the expectation was that both companies would explore certain economies, thanks to the maximization of parts commonality. That said, differences arose during the development stage.

And while both Ford and GM models would benefit from the ten-speed transmission, the nine-speed would be reserved to GM models with Ford reporting that they “didn’t get quite the result (they) anticipated from the arrangement, signed five years ago this month. Ford has elected not to use GM’s nine-speed transmission out of the box, opting instead for a series of new 8-speed transmissions on vehicles such as the Ford Edge, Ford Transit Connect and Lincoln Nautilus.”

But the ten-speed made an immediate splash in late 2017, introduced as part of Ford’s F-150 Raptor (as well as an option for the standard F-150, when equipped with the 375-hp 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6). On the GM side of the proverbial aisle, the ten-speed made its debut in the Chevy Camaro ZL1, with both automakers planning to spread its influence even wider come 2018. So with all of that in mind, let’s get to know the transmission a little bit better, with 11 things you need to know about Ford and GM’s 10-Speed Transmission."

JD_AMG

Flathead is not compact.

You shouldn't need to rev high enough to have pushrod flex

You wouldn't be able to tell a bit of difference if the C8 had a pushord V8 or DOHC V8 other than it being lighter with the pushrod engine. We've had this discussion and you couldn't come up with a good logical reason the C8 should go DOHC.

I sure as hell hope not, I would rather not have a big heavy V6 that cost half of what the car would cost and only makes 505hp.
Hook up that KERS to the lighter/smaller LT1 with 500+hp and you will have an all around better car.

JD_AMG

Funny you posted that, he did a recent video with weighing the engines and the LS6 came up well under 400lbs.... Rotarys are cool on paper but are terribly unreliable, have a terrible powerband, and get terrible gas mileage. Mark my words he will do an expensive build on the rotary, make a good deal of power having to use turbos and very high RPMS to do it, and it will last about 6 months before he blows it up. The car will end up back with the lightweight LSx, make more power than before and be WAY more reliable. There is a reason there is so many RX7's with LSx swaps these days.

Man you like to reach far, comparing million dollar supercar engines to the mass producted American V8s? The LT1 is still LIGHTER AND SMALLER than all listed, while being able to make a good deal of power. None of the above would have come close to fitting in a Corvette...
Pretty silly to have sub 6.2L engines that are bigger and heavier than 6.2L+ engines... You can stop pretending displacement matters.

Kodiak Bear

If we're going into the days of old, there was a time when finding an Austin Healy 3000 with a stock engine was darn near impossible. Swapping a small block, pushrod "Chevy" V-8 into that chassis was a breeze and done as an everyday thing. If you used the A-H rear motor mount position for positioning the V8 installation, the engine cg was moved toward the rear and the "Chevy" V-8 engine was lighter than the straight six which AH used. The AH straight six was literally a truck engine modified for this application but that's a whole nuther story.

JerryU

I think you said you'd rather have an EV. That is where you and I are direct opposites, I would not have one! I'll keep driving my Street Rod with it's 502 cid pushrod NA BB that gets ~10 mpg regardless of gas cost! When AOC and 100+ plus others are finished lets see where that price ends. Bet closer to $10/gallon as Europe! The ICE has a way to go to waste less energy or we will be driving EV's! I'm voting for more efficiency!

Yep, F1 is using a 1.6 Liter turbo engine getting 800+ hp and have decreased their gas use by over 50% and beating track speeds. No refueling allowed or needed for the same length race! Watch the race in Australia in the morning and see it in real time!!

PS: If you think I spend the time to convince you of the reasons and science- I don't! Probably no hope. It's the ~86,000 silent majority who have viewed this thread not some of the ~400 vocal minority who have posted that may appreciate why we'll be getting a more efficient, double overhead cam, 4 valves/cylinder, twin turbo Blackwing engine in the C8! That with a KERS hybrid and Stop/Start will help put put off EVs! Like not having round taillights- most will accept the change!

JD_AMG

Learn to use quote brackets...
The flathead isn't compact width-wise, its still fairly wide for being smaller displacement and doesn't make power worth a damn.
And If you are bending pushrods at just 6K rpms you are doing something wrong.


Yikes...

This has nothing to do with being DOHC. You can make a small displacement pushrod V8 with turbos. It will be smaller/lighter than a TT DOHC V8 while making the same amount of power.

You can have VVT with pushrod engines. Even without, you can see from the gas mileage comparison (that you can't seem to explain) that the pushrod V8 does just fine, beating literally everything.

This has nothing to do with being DOHC. Im all for GM using turbos on their small/lightweight pushrod V8s.

I said if GM decides to drop the V8 all together and goes with something like a turbo 4 then Id MUCH rather them just go straight to an EV Corvette than listen to a farty, laggy 4 cylinder powering what is supposed to be a thundering roaring sports car. Rather it be silent then sound like ****.
You gotta admit something like this is pretty cool:

Im all for more real efficiency, and not playing games to fake out the EPA tests or do like what VW does and totally cheat them.
For example, building a turbo 4 to get better results in the EPA test but worse results in the real world:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/01/...al-world-test/
Another example of displacement not being the end all be all of gas mileage like you claim it is.

Yea F1 is using 1.6L engines due to rule limitations, not because they want to. And how long do those engines have to last? Point being that isn't an apples to apples comparison on what you would see on a street car, as those actually have to be reliable for hundreds of thousands of miles without rebuilds.
As for the gas decrease, you know its not just the engine that changed, so why do you pretend like that's it? They are using an electric assist, not to mention the engines themselves make much less power than the 2.4L V8s they replace, AND they turn significantly less RPMS. So it wasn't just that they simply reduced displacement and all of a sudden their gas mileage skyrocketed, that was a small piece in a large pie of changes they made. Take away the electric assist, raise the RPM limit to where the V8s were and raise the power output to where the V8s were and all of a sudden the gas mileage would be right back to where it was.

What Im saying is if using the blackwing makes any difference in gas mileage it will be minuscule at best, and not enough of a difference to make or break the CAFE situation. What GM should be doing is focusing on making a very lightweight car and using an electric assist. The lighter the car the better all around performance it will have (handling, acceleration, braking, feel), and it will have better gas mileage as well. Look at the Lotus Elise for an extreme example, that car with what would seem to be laughable amount of power is actually quick and can be a track monster because its so lightweight.
Id rather see a small/lightweight NA pushrod V8(can save 100lbs+ over a DOHC V8) making ~450hp(more power = less gas mileage) and electric motors for another 100hp, in a sub 3000lbs car. The car would be a monster of a performer with the low weight, low center of gravity and off the line acceleration. You put a TT DOHC V8 in there and expect to gain like 200lbs+, we have enough overweight performance cars, the Corvette doesn't need to be one of them.

As far as your science goes, explain why the Corvette can get better gas mileage than smaller displaced performance cars?

BEAR-AvHistory

Memory jogger for 800hp is 800hp people.

Street legal EPA approved*
Naturally aspirated:
Base C7 6.2L 455BHP is 455bhp 5 bhp less then the lowest rated 5.0 DOHC
Base Mustang 5.0L 460BHP is 460bhp
Z51 Corvette 6.2L 460BHP is 460 bhp 20 bhp less then the mid range 5.0 DOHC & 66 bhp less then the lowest rated 5.2L DOHC
Mustang Bullett 5.0L 480BHP is 480BHP
350GT 5.2L 526BHP is 526BHP
Aventador SVJ 5.6 770BHP 2200lbs to fast to be street legal as delivered?* just for fun is 770bhp which is 310bhp more then the N/A LT & 15bhp more then the Supercharged LT
Ferrari 6.5L 789BHP just for fun is 789BHP which is 329bhp more then the N/A LT & 34bhp more then the supercharged LT

So for the 800hp is 800hp guy in the real world of street legal epa certified engines the base 6.2 is 455BHP which is less then the base 5.0l 460bhp. 6.2 460bhp is less then the 5.0L B which is 480bhp & the 5.2L which is 526bhp

The N/A LT 6.2 455/450bhp produces less horsepower then comparable N/A 5.0L/5.2L engines. Even with supercharging it still comes up short of some naturally aspirated DOHC engines like 5.6L 770bhp is 770 bhp & 6.5L 789bhp is 780bhp.

Remember horsepower is horsepower.

Tom73

^
Are we still on that Chevy vs Ford nonsense?

BEAR-AvHistory

Not my plan to be. View it diversion from is the C8 going to DOHC or not intended direction of the thread. Think it will be a DOHC & if its an LT to start the LT will just be a place holder till its ready.

JerryU

The only thing worth responding to is your insult to Flatheads!

SIDE BAR
Perhaps of interest for those old enough to have seen one, is this fun comparison!

Replaced the flathead in my '41 Opera Coupe with a 324 cid Olds (after I had the 303 cid bored 1/8 inches.) It's heavy weight was my first realization of the significant size difference. Used a borrowed chain hoist attached to the main beam to our two car detached garage. All was fine, the engine came out easily.

My friends and I brought Olds engine, all in parts into the basement. After the block was bored and new pistons installed I torqued the heads, rods and bottom end and assembled the engine with heads and intake manifold. It was hard to get it out, tied to a HD dolly with some friends pushing and some pulling on ropes!

Got it under the beam location where the car would be pushed under. Started lifting with the geared chain hoist and noticed the ~2X10 garage beam was deflecting before we got it's full weight was off the ground. Used 2X4's nailed together to make a 4X4 post for a vertical brace to support the large beam. Lifted the engine high enough to roll the car under. Had purchased Olds-to-Ford motor mounts that attached to the front timing chain cover. Lowered the engine with one friend on each side guiding it on to the Ford chassis large rubber motor mount pads. I recall the car getting lower and lower. Wondered when it would stop! the heavy engine created a steep rake! Looked cool! That engine was much heavier than the flathead.

The next realization of the size difference was the throttle linkage. It was connected on the firewall and pivoted with an arm that connected to a ball joint going to the flathead carb. But the Olds was so much higher. The arm came to about the bottom of the manifold. Removed it and had a friend braze in a 6 inch extension. Worked great. Then realized I had increased the mechanical advantage and a ~1 1/2 inch throttle pedal movement created the full stroke on the 4 barrel cab on the Olds. Pedal was far from the floor! Driving the car remined me of a #9 setting on the Vitesse Throttle Control I put on the Grand Sport!

Yep that 324 cid OHV engine was much heavier and higher than that flathead. Still love the Flathead look at car shows. But building a flathead engine today costs more than a brand new LT1 crate motor today!

PS: Australian F1 GP about 1/3 over! A bit like last year as Yogi Berra would say, "It's like deja-vu, all over again!" Mecedes qualified 1 & 2 with Ferrari 3 rd and 5th with a Red Bull 4th! As no gas allowed to be added at stops, the 2 second tire changes are amazing. By the way, the F1 teams themselves defined ways to improve gas mileage over the last 5+ years. They feel the responsibility to have the cars more relevant to the public need. The 1.6 Liter, 800 hp, efficient engines and KERS hybrid resulted in using less than half the gasoline with even faster race times! The vast majority of that improvement in mileage is the engine as KERS operates for ~6 seconds to increase passing. Better than watching a NASCAR "restrictor plate" race! A far better alternative to the current "crisis" no fossil fuels in 10 years, only EV panic currently creating all the noise in the US! The ICE can be improved even more!

Warp Factor

So Lamborghini and Ferrari are managing to make somewhere around the same power as GM and Chrysler's much less expensive 750 to 840 horsepower pushrod engines? Wow, isn't that "special"!

Mopar recently announced their 1000 horsepower crate engine: LINK

Nice to hear you finally acknowledge that.

John T

[QUOTE=Kodiak Bear;1599057281]If we're going into the days of old, there was a time when finding an Austin Healy 3000 with a stock engine was darn near impossible. Swapping a small block, pushrod "Chevy" V-8 into that chassis was a breeze and done as an everyday thing. If you used the A-H rear motor mount position for positioning the V8 installation, the engine cg was moved toward the rear and the "Chevy" V-8 engine was lighter than the straight six which AH used. The AH straight six was literally a truck engine modified for this application but that's a whole nuther story.[/QUOTE
Kodiak, my old man sold AH new in the 60’s. I would stare at the 3000 and just could not understand the car. I just did not like it. Then, maybe 10 years ago I saw a 1955 AH 2 seater and fell in love.

JD_AMG

HP/Weight is what makes a car fast, not HP/L. The LT1 is lighter and smaller, you put that into a Mustang and the Mustang will be all around faster.
We can go a step further and put an LS7 into the Mustang, make a ton more power and torque, and be WAY quicker than what the Coyote can do.


Sad when you need all that extra size, weight, cams, valves and extra RPMs but don't make any more power with it...

Then why do you keep putting displacement in there like it matters?

JD_AMG

And just as I thought, you can't come up with anything else. Im calling you out, reply to my post and better yet answer my original question on why a ~550hp TT DOHC V8 would be better for the base car than a ~550hp NA LT1. If you don't reply Ill take it as you admitting that the LT1 would be the better option (and it would be, being lighter smaller and cheaper while making the same power).

The 1.6L V6 Turbo F1 engines make about 600hp, the electric assist gives it another 150-200hp. That is significantly less than the V8s that replaced them, those were making 800+hp without an electric assist.
The F1 teams were forced to go this direction, wasn't by choice. They were also trying to push them to use I4s but the teams fought that off as well.
And NASCAR races are a snorefest, going in circles is boring.

Darion

Current Turbo 90* V6 F1, 1.6L not 1.3L, are making near 800hp with addition 160hp from the KERS. Last years 2018 Merc was about 50 HP short of the 1000hp magic number with Ferrari about 15 HP behind. Keeping in mind that these engine can rev out to 15k rpm, regulated, but don't often for reliability, stay around 12k ish, so as to last multiple races. I have no way of knowing at what RPM the HP numbers are taken, I would guess max, F1 is just to secretive for that info. LOL

PC

BEAR-AvHistory

British were funny that way. Best man at my wedding had an Austin Healy 3000. I raced Triumphs & Morgans back then. Their shared 4 cylinder was from a Ferguson Tractor. Lot of "make do" in post war Britain.

JerryU

You have no idea how F1 works! Mercedes, Ferrari etc are major players in defining the rules. If Ferrari thought large displacement engines, which are cheaper to build, would provide equal mpg or even close they would get that in the rules- BUT they are much smarter and understand automotive science, thermodynamics, heat transfer etc- and their own test results!

JD_AMG

Typo.
The point is the gas mileage is coming from the fact they are making less power and less rpm AND have the addition of the KERS, NOT just because the displacement is lowered.

BEAR-AvHistory

The Olds rocket was a big swap item back in the day. Its what first got me interested in cars. Was about 10 or 11 years old & the fastest car in the neighborhood was a black '50 FORD two door with a Rocket 88 swap, lowering blocks in the back & dual glasspacks. Started helping around the car club & eventually got hands on training. Was maybe a life saver, kept me out of the Infantry, was school trained at Ft. Knox Kentucky as a tracked vehicle recovery mechanic. Ran a two track M88 recovery unit at the time of my discharge in 1969.

Remember Ralph Edwards & the News sponsored by Oldsmobile? Opening was a USAF formally German Wehrmacht V2 rocket launching then came the latest 88 Oldsmobile into view.