GM to use small turbo V8, ditches pushrods for next Vette!
Seriously? Thats wrong on both counts. The Ford Modular V8 has a HUGE after market because the engine his HUGELY popular. Check out this list of Modular powered vehicles. If you want to see there after market go to your local drag strip or autox course and see whats under the hood of any 96+ V8 Mustang. You'll see a crap load of 2, 3 or 4 valve SOHC or DOHC V8's probably with some after market goodies bolted on.
Besides the trickflow 2V head, does anyone make an aftermarket modular cylinder head?
My definition of popular differs from yours.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
While I love progress, I worry that all this new tech will sour the enthusiast's experience. I like Japanese and American cars because generally, Euro cars, with 56 different computers just to decide how quickly to roll down the windows, are a ******* headache.
I always liked the vette, as it was a hell of a car and to get comparable performance out of a Euro, you were looking at some Audi job with 7 radiators (that's not a joke, check out any recent RS). The corvette was cool because it was a top-tier car, and any idiot to afford to live with it. They always say about Ferraris, "the expensive part isn't buying it, it's owning it." The nice thing about vettes is if you could buy it, you could probably afford it.
So while I love progress, and the thought of a small v8 spinning to 10k does make my nipples hard, I worry, is this next corvette going to have 7 radiators and 56 computers? THAT would kill the vette for me. I could care less about what kind of engine, or mid-engine, etc blah blah blah. Will I be petrified in fear every-time I attempt an oil change? Honestly, I'm sort of hoping GM can bring high-end exotica to the masses. THAT would make this new vette a winner. Small displacement, high rpm power that isn't a total bitch to deal with.
I always liked the vette, as it was a hell of a car and to get comparable performance out of a Euro, you were looking at some Audi job with 7 radiators (that's not a joke, check out any recent RS). The corvette was cool because it was a top-tier car, and any idiot to afford to live with it. They always say about Ferraris, "the expensive part isn't buying it, it's owning it." The nice thing about vettes is if you could buy it, you could probably afford it.
So while I love progress, and the thought of a small v8 spinning to 10k does make my nipples hard, I worry, is this next corvette going to have 7 radiators and 56 computers? THAT would kill the vette for me. I could care less about what kind of engine, or mid-engine, etc blah blah blah. Will I be petrified in fear every-time I attempt an oil change? Honestly, I'm sort of hoping GM can bring high-end exotica to the masses. THAT would make this new vette a winner. Small displacement, high rpm power that isn't a total bitch to deal with.
Reply
0
0
I'd rather see a better electric motor design more than anything, but I think a smaller displacement engine is the way to go. Everyone is strapping turbos to their engines now and it's fine since you're usually in the power band when you're "supposed" to use it (ie passing) and if you're racing, you should know how to keep it there, especially if you have 10,000RPM to play with.
I will certainly say, although I don't really care for most Ferarris, they make sweet music. It's like a symphony vs. Metallica; to each their own.
I will certainly say, although I don't really care for most Ferarris, they make sweet music. It's like a symphony vs. Metallica; to each their own.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Sure, swapping in xyz underperforming engine into your car would be a cool, novel swap but at what cost?
Reply
0
0
The LS V8 Made 280 hp and 286 lb·ft, the more commonly swapped in 5.0 made 240 hp @ 5000 RPM & 285 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM in the 95' Mustang. But yes, I'd be a pain to swap in the 3.9 compared to the 5.0.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Fuel cells are just too dangerous, I guess. They also can't seem to make hydrogen efficiently enough for it to be a viable option. I don't know how viable having hundreds of battery packs at a station would be, either, though.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
you can charge your toothbrush and iphone on an inductive pad. some day I suspect there will be pads in your parking spaces and garages so you do nothing but park to charge.
then some smart guy will embed them in the road (stop lights?) and it will be infrastructure.
oh and also, mt public enemy #1 (aka the prez) shot down funding for the fuel cell in 2009.
then some smart guy will embed them in the road (stop lights?) and it will be infrastructure.
oh and also, mt public enemy #1 (aka the prez) shot down funding for the fuel cell in 2009.
Reply
0
0
Wireless charging mats are insanely inefficient. They're fantastic for little devices because you don't mind the dollar/month of extra electricity costs. Consider multiplying the electricity cost of an electric vehicle by a factor of 5 - would you still do it?
The arguments for the pushrod/against the DOHC Turbo have been relatively invalid as far as I'm concerned. You will always find that an engine design that has been perfected over decades is going to have substantially more aftermarket support and a better track record than something that is brand new out of the box. The turbo DOHC 3.0L engine may be less powerful right now than a N/A Pushrod 5.7L Engine - but if both of them were designed at exactly the same time, you would find that the 3L Turbo is most likely a "superior starting platform". Consider this: in 30 years when the 3L turbo is still in production for the corvette C12, how will the 30 year old 3.0T compare to today's 30 Year old 5.7?
The arguments for the pushrod/against the DOHC Turbo have been relatively invalid as far as I'm concerned. You will always find that an engine design that has been perfected over decades is going to have substantially more aftermarket support and a better track record than something that is brand new out of the box. The turbo DOHC 3.0L engine may be less powerful right now than a N/A Pushrod 5.7L Engine - but if both of them were designed at exactly the same time, you would find that the 3L Turbo is most likely a "superior starting platform". Consider this: in 30 years when the 3L turbo is still in production for the corvette C12, how will the 30 year old 3.0T compare to today's 30 Year old 5.7?
Reply
0
0
