New 4.2L V8 from GM and Cadillac

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher


This line of thinking brings back bad memories

This same line of thinking birthed the Northstar


The Northstar and the Aurora V6 are great engines, very underrated. Any achilles heel they had was that it was a premium engine built by a cheap-@$$ company- such engines are not their forte.

Oldsmobile engineering was always a bit too esoteric for GM


It should be noted that the people who had trouble with their Northstar powerplants were usually the folks nursing them around town. Those engines responded well to the Italian Tune Up and we used that procedure at an Oldsmobile dealer where I did some moonlighting. Not really a bad engine, just a bad choice for relaxed driving IMO.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
SteveSRT, I never said there was "no" parasitic power loss from turbos. But it has been tested that the large, belt driven superchargers sometimes take upwards of 200HP to turn them fast enough to make the power they do at redline. Centrifugals do mimic a good N/A power curve, but to my knowledge its been a loooong time since centrifugals have been used in road cars because they are soft on the bottom compared to either screw-style superchargers or turbos. As far as time slips, I don't think you'd have to look far to find incredible ones- especially if you are talking aftermarket. By your description, I'd be willing to bet that any of today's production twin-turbo V8s would hit all of your requirements. As far as the high-strung 4 cyls, maybe not so much.

Like someone referenced in the Navigator TT EcoBoost thread, it's not like manufacturers are just taking 4 or 6 cyl engines and slapping 30lbs of boost on them- they are engineered from the ground up to support the rated power levels. I completely agree though that if you took an N/A 4 cyl making say 200HP and put a honkin turbo on it to make 450HP with no internal changes, it's insides would not remain so for very long...

No worries here, but that last line of your post did specifically reference parasitic power losses. Speaking of which, ever watch Street Outlaws? Some of their fastest cars run superchargers directly connected to the crankshaft of the V8. Seem to work pretty good, getting 2500-3000 hp out of under 500 cubic inches.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
SteveSRT, I never said there was "no" parasitic power loss from turbos. But it has been tested that the large, belt driven superchargers sometimes take upwards of 200HP to turn them fast enough to make the power they do at redline. Centrifugals do mimic a good N/A power curve, but to my knowledge its been a loooong time since centrifugals have been used in road cars because they are soft on the bottom compared to either screw-style superchargers or turbos. As far as time slips, I don't think you'd have to look far to find incredible ones- especially if you are talking aftermarket. By your description, I'd be willing to bet that any of today's production twin-turbo V8s would hit all of your requirements. As far as the high-strung 4 cyls, maybe not so much.

Like someone referenced in the Navigator TT EcoBoost thread, it's not like manufacturers are just taking 4 or 6 cyl engines and slapping 30lbs of boost on them- they are engineered from the ground up to support the rated power levels. I completely agree though that if you took an N/A 4 cyl making say 200HP and put a honkin turbo on it to make 450HP with no internal changes, it's insides would not remain so for very long...

No worries here, but that last line of your post did specifically reference parasitic power losses. Speaking of which, ever watch Street Outlaws? Some of their fastest cars run superchargers directly connected to the crankshaft of the V8. Seem to work pretty good, getting 2500-3000 hp out of under 500 cubic inches.


If the NHRA would allow them, turbos would dominate Top Fuel. The technology exists to eliminate lag on the starting line, and turbos make higher boost pressure more efficiently than Roots blowers. But it would add another layer of cost and it would ruin the show because the engines wouldn't thunder like they do with blowers.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Speaking of which, ever watch Street Outlaws? Some of their fastest cars run superchargers directly connected to the crankshaft of the V8. Seem to work pretty good, getting 2500-3000 hp out of under 500 cubic inches.


Steve, which ones are those? I must have missed them. All I know of are the twin turbo cars, making well over 3500 HP, and the nitrous cars, which are making 1500-2000 HP (roughly). The nitrous cars are competitive because they generally are able to get more weight out of them.

Other than TF/FC (or other classes that outlaw turbos) there are very few, if any, power-adder-unrestricted racing classes where supercharged cars are among the fastest.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol

Now they're teaching the Germans how to make low power density V8s? hahahaa wow.

The differences you speak of to 'quality' between the German and the Japanese brands are exactly that- cultural differences between engineering and manufacturing between Germans and Japanese, not MB/BMW etc vs "Lexus", a purely marketing brand borne out of North American customer research and brand positioning with the intent of maximizing profits on luxury vehicles.


If Ford didn't cut Mazda's Amati brand (for fear of poaching sales from/shaming 1990s Lincoln), we could have had a magnesium-alloy W12 from them as well as yet another Japanese V8. Too bad.



Supposedly BMW was so impressed with the 1UZ-FE, they partly used that as a target for their own V8 and some of the design was attributed to it as well. Compared to the Mercedes V8s of the time, it was modern but not a convoluted mess like the Audi.

Mazda was always seen as quirky but not geeky like Saab - but when Ford was writing their checks, they had to be "normal" but also Mazda never really saw "critical mass" in US besides the RX-7/Miata/MPV, I would say the Mazda3 helped them get market share but that was a modern car. Mazda without a corporate leash is a creative company, Toyota now is taking the same approach to them as with Subaru - hands off.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: nthach

Supposedly BMW was so impressed with the 1UZ-FE, they partly used that as a target for their own V8 and some of the design was attributed to it as well.


That sounds like a load. BMW's M60 began development in 1984 (but did not reach commercial production until 1992), the 1UZ-FE debuted in 1989.