|
The only real disadvantages here are the increased reciprocating mass of the valvetrain (a DOHC I4 would actually have more rotating valvetrain mass than this, let alone a V6 or V8) and the inability to independently vary intake and exhaust valve timing since both are operated from the same camshaft. You also can't easily do multi-valve setups with pushrods. GM was heavily rumored to have one developed for the LS7, but apparently they were more than happy with the 505hp they got with just one intake and one exhaust. The reciprocating mass can be dealt with rather well if you're willing to spend a bit of money on higher-end materials to reduce the weight, and if you really want this thing to rev north of 7000RPM you will be able to do so with aftermarket valvetrain components. You will turn valvesprings into a consumable at that point, though. It's not like overhead cams instantly equals high RPMs anyway; I don't think a stock Toyota 1UZ or Ford Mod / Coyote engine will rev significantly higher than a GM or Dodge pushrod V8. Yes, the GM / Dodge V8s are considerably higher displacement than a 4.0L 1UZ or 5.0L Coyote, but they fit in the same or smaller area, and the actual displacement is of little concern unless your area still taxes based on that alone. Dr 14 INCH DICK Md posted:Yeah space. Someone post that pic of the ford 302 next to the dohc one out of the Lincoln. Im on my phone right now and cant seem to find it. 
IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 25, 2012 |
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Everyone on the GM forums are hanging themselves because it only has the cam phasing VVT instead of concentric camshafts like the Viper V10 that apparently they were all hoping for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
I don't have exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure an LS1 weighs around the same or maybe even less than a Mazda BP. I've heard from LS1 miata guys that the only real weight gain from the swap is because the T56 is heavy. That's the kind of ridiculous compactness pushrods get you. EDIT: quick googling says they are both around 400 pounds. That's crazy light for a 5.7L V8. lazer_chicken fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Oct 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Why is it still a pushrod engine? Throatwarbler posted:Everyone on the GM forums are hanging themselves because it only has the cam phasing VVT instead of concentric camshafts like the Viper V10 that apparently they were all hoping for. Maybe something else they can do for the future. That or the hydraulic "delay" setup that Fiat has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Everyone on the GM forums are hanging themselves because it only has the cam phasing VVT instead of concentric camshafts like the Viper V10 that apparently they were all hoping for. You didn't hear this from me; but GM has the new LT1 in development with some serious turbocharging going on. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
I wonder if the price will stay the same as happened with the C5-C6. I bet there won't be a Z06 the first year and then the Z06 shows up in 2015 with 650hp from a twin-turbo LT1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:I wonder if the price will stay the same as happened with the C5-C6. I bet there won't be a Z06 the first year and then the Z06 shows up in 2015 with 650hp from a twin-turbo LT1. I bet they let it slip upwards ever so slightly, since when the C6 came out there was no Camaro to slot in beneath it; now, they've got the Camaro SS and ZL1 to go after people who want a RWD GM V8 performance car but don't necessarily want to spend Corvette money. kimbo305 posted:The best reason is engineering inertia. Those compute hour brag numbers would be orders of magnitude higher if they had to design a clean sheet engine. When you have a good thing, tweaking it to death is a fine way to go. Yeah, it seems like most of the work on the bottom end of the engine was in the form of refining existing bolt-ons to the block; the real new hotness here is the heads and everything attached to them. Devyl posted:You didn't hear this from me; but GM has the new LT1 in development with some serious turbocharging going on. That would also explain the accessory placement if they plan on running something else through that space. Otherwise it seems like putting the alternator down low on the driver's side would be best for center-of-gravity concerns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Devyl posted:You didn't hear this from me; but GM has the new LT1 in development with some serious turbocharging going on. With an 11.5:1 compression ratio? I doubt it. I can't think of a modern turbo engine with a CR higher than about 10:1. If they have a turbo small-block in development, it'll have to be substantially different to the LT1. Maybe another new engine called the LT5?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
The new LT1 has domed pistons that raise the ratio so high. All you need to drop compression is flat-faced or dished pistons. Of course several other things can lower compression ratio too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Devyl posted:The new LT1 has domed pistons that raise the ratio so high. All you need to drop compression is flat-faced or dished pistons. Of course several other things can lower compression ratio too. Domed pistons? Like a hemi? Please don't hit me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Oh man, that beast is going to be awesome in the new alpha platform Camaro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
You know what? gently caress the 60's. These muscle cars are better. There, I said it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Depending on how the model range breaks down, the SRT Barracuda could potentially compete with Camaro, Mustang, and even the Corvette. I hope they still keep a slimmed down Challenger around as well. A coupe that can comfortably seat four adults should always exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:You know what? gently caress the 60's. These muscle cars are better. Forty years of development will do that. Although it's probably more like ten since the American companies have had their heads up their asses for the most part in the 70s 80s 90s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:Forty years of development will do that. Although it's probably more like ten since the American companies have had their heads up their asses for the most part in the 70s 80s 90s. The thing is how basically no other car companies other than maybe Hyundai bother to try and compete in the pony car segment. I'm assuming it's something to do with product planning and world cars or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The thing is how basically no other car companies other than maybe Hyundai bother to try and compete in the pony car segment. I'm assuming it's something to do with product planning and world cars or whatever. I'd say that the G37 Coupe is pretty much a pony car. The Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger set a very high bar to match and nicely cover the range of sportier to softer grand tourer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:I'd say that the G37 Coupe is pretty much a pony car. The Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger set a very high bar to match and nicely cover the range of sportier to softer grand tourer. The G37 costs $40k+. Arguably an entry luxury car, not a pony car. The closest thing from Nissan is probably the 370Z or the (now discontinued) G25. Comparatively, the Z is a little on the expensive side, and the G25 is seriously underpowered (and also lacking in the looks department). To me, pony car means fast looking coupe, less than $30k base, probably RWD. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Oct 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The thing is how basically no other car companies other than maybe Hyundai bother to try and compete in the pony car segment. I'm assuming it's something to do with product planning and world cars or whatever. most of the world would probably be looking at hot hatches instead. inexpensive, cool looking, fast but still daily driveable. The real difference is America has more space, cheaper gas and straighter roads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:most of the world would probably be looking at hot hatches instead. Also an incredibly different tax structure. Hot hatches are still kind of expensive in the US. And the "cool looking" part is questionable, considering that most hot hatches look basically identical to the economy cars they're based on with some additional body kitting stuck on top.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
The Monaro is a pony car, Australia is about the only place outside North America with pony cars. The cheap, RWD daily driver part is most of it, but they need to have a V8 too, which the G and Z aren't. Those are just sports cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also an incredibly different tax structure. I guess its subjective. I assumed that the Europeans buying them think they look good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The G37 costs $40k+. Arguably an entry luxury car, not a pony car. By that definition: Subaru/Toyota/Scion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The Monaro is a pony car, Australia is about the only place outside North America with pony cars. The cheap, RWD daily driver part is most of it, but they need to have a V8 too, which the G and Z aren't. Those are just sports cars. The V8 Commodore/Falcons aren't really cheap though - they start at around $40k
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
dissss posted:The V8 Commodore/Falcons aren't really cheap though - they start at around $40k Cheap is relative, anyway. For a nicely optioned V8 Challenger or Camaro, you're looking at mid to high $30k's here in the States. The Mustang is cheaper, but cheap always meant "more horsepower than most in this price range", not actually cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I guess its subjective. I assumed that the Europeans buying them think they look good. As an example, the Scirocco looks fairly good. The GTi is visually nearly indistinguishable from a Golf with rims. My understanding was that Europeans buy them because anything sportier is usually incredibly expensive due to taxes and the general higher costs of car ownership, and also because hatches are more practical for people who only own one car. Steve French posted:By that definition: Subaru/Toyota/Scion? Possibly. Although their whole bag is being engineered for handling first, whereas your classical pony car is engineered to be cheap and look fast first, then for the biggest engine possible second. It's hard to say. dissss posted:The V8 Commodore/Falcons aren't really cheap though - they start at around $40k Yeah, but doesn't everything cost a lot over there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:As an example, the Scirocco looks fairly good. The Scirocco is a sexy beast and it's only one in a long line of sexy hot hatches from different manufacturers. It seemingly wasn't until the 80s that manufacturers realized they could get away with just beefing up their existing models, instead of having to produce entirely separate cars.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 12:12
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The Monaro is a pony car, Australia is about the only place outside North America with pony cars. The cheap, RWD daily driver part is most of it, but they need to have a V8 too, which the G and Z aren't. Those are just sports cars. Don't sports cars only have one row of seating? Or is that one of those loose definitions people ignore if the car is otherwise sporty enough? Obviously people make an exception for the McLaren F1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
davebo posted:Don't sports cars only have one row of seating? Or is that one of those loose definitions people ignore if the car is otherwise sporty enough? Obviously people make an exception for the McLaren F1. Ask ten people what a "sports car" is and you'll get at least eleven different definitions. It's like pornography, "I'll know it when I see it." I don't consider pony cars to be sports cars but I'm mindful that many non-enthusiasts do, and pedantically correcting somebody to my definition isn't worth the trouble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Ask ten people what a "sports car" is and you'll get at least eleven different definitions. It's like pornography
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
I think you switched French & Japanese there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:British stuff is hilariously badly made, American stuff is completely lacking in subtlety, the Japanese manage occasional flashes of utter brilliance in between being just plain weird, French stuff is sophisticated but unsatisfying, and no-one in their right minds ever wants to see Australia's contribution? The only people who can't keep British cars running aren't British.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
The British who can afford to own a sports car also generally have the money and free time to keep them going. Americans like to buy their sportscars with just $0 down and proof of monthly income. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Let my uncle tell you about his Triumph TR6.  First off, there's adjusting the carburetor: I think the way it goes was the one it had didn't supply a constant amount of gas and changed the amount of air intake with relation to throttle input like normal ones, it had a constant amount of air intake, and adjusted the amount of fuel supplied, so you had to fiddle with this teeeeny little pin that you would probably break in order to get it adjusted right. I think the other story goes something like this. The car came with a generator and its electrics ran on AC current, but someone had swapped in an alternator producing DC current, so anytime someone turned on anything electric the engine would die. So he drove across Virginia at night in the rain, without headlights or windshield wipers. It's great the way he tells it, and it pretty well sums up all that is British about cars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Is the C7 'Vette the one that we in Australia are strongly rumoured to get as well? (finally.) Wonder how much it's going to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Honestly I'd surprised if we ever get Corvettes being being officially imported. GM would have had to engineer them for RHD (and by the sounds of where they've positioned a bunch of the accessories on the LT1 they haven't) but I just can't see a market for it here. It'll be too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:
I reckon $120k+
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
dissss posted:I reckon $120k+ Not a chance. A kitted out GTS tops out a $100k these days, no way would a 'Vette only be $20k more. At least M3/C63 pricing, so $160k, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Let my uncle tell you about his Triumph TR6. Normal carburetors vary the fuel with the air. Show me proof
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Let my uncle tell you about his Triumph TR6. Yeah all your post proves is that the foreigners who buy our cars really, really don't know anything about cars. + earth? - earth? No mate it's AC honest! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
doritos posted:Yeah all your post proves is that the foreigners who buy our cars really, really don't know anything about cars. Un-intentionally 100% correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 11:20
|
|