Why hasn't GM done this yet?
 

I don't understand why GM and other car companies havn't built engines that are similar to Ferrari and Lambo engines. ie a V8 that is only 3.0L or a V12 that is only 5.0L with redlines near 8000RPM. I just don't see why an american version of this engine hasn't been developed yet... (sorry if this is a bit off topic)

The speed limits in America are a tad lower than the Autobahn where those
hi-revvers are built for. I think the man said: "We sell horsepower, but we
drive torque...". Americans like cubic inches.....:thumbsup:

Why? Because they are too busy making 427 cubic inch engines that redline at 7,000 RPM - And make a buttload more torque all through that range. AND, will typically suck one of those weenie-displacement, high-RPM, no-torque sewing machines through an intake valve, clean out some carbon as it gets tossed around the chamber, and spit it out the exhaust. It might even misfire for a couple of cycles.

Ever see a 5 litre V-12 make 6,000HP? Neither have I. About 1,000 to maybe 1,200 is all they're good for, and thats with more boost than anyone could run for more than 50 hours of engine life. That's why they break. I've seen LOTS of 540-inch BBCs make 6,000 HP, and so much so that it's almost becoming routine.

:yawn:

You want RPMs? Buy a Mazda rotary. You want real torque and usable horsepower? Stay avay from small displacement, high revving engines. Chevy, Olds, and Ford have made high RPM small displacement engines for F1 and Indy/CART. They don't make any serious power either, but keep up with the Hondas and Audis pretty well in their displacement classes.

2¢

:yup:

Horsepower per cubic inch only matters if you are limited on how many cubic inches you can have. I'll take big cubes over small cubes any day of the week.

GM does a good job building fairly high revving potential into their V8s and other performance engines- pushrods and 2 valve per cylinder works just great if you have a design as good as the new LS series engines. A pushrod cam-in-block arrangement is VERY space efficient and lightweight, although few people ever pay attention to this. Guess what? If you save space and weight you can ADD CUBIC INCHES! And, of course, all this costs many thousands less than a Ferrari V12 or similar engine.

High dollar high RPM motors are rightly reserved for viciously expensive cars that are built in small numbers. Performance on a budget for the average citizen is what GM performance motors are built for- and I think they nailed the target dead-bang with motors like the LS-1.

GM's Powertrain division may very well be the only part of GM that really knows what it's doing. The rest of the company only seem to know how to lose market share and dig deeper into debt.

Re: Why hasn't GM done this yet?
 

The Japanese cars do. Integra Type R, Honda S2000, Acura NSX, etc.

It can be done, just costs money to retool everything.

FWIW, the high redlines are to get HP from low torque engines and it's easier to do with OHC engines.

Don't get hung up on the redlines.

Don't forget you need to damn near rebuild those V12's V10's every 30,000 miles. The engines require tons of maintenance.

:yup: Damon and Vader know what they're talking about!


Now someone has to lock this thread before it becomes a real arguement fest, no matter how informative and fun it becomes

The reason why american automakers dont build high rpm motor is because it would cost too much in R+D and tooling.Small block chevy been around for a long time.LS1 is just a newer version of the old small block chevy, almost the same size.Sure SBC can be spun into 8000+ rpm.We all would like Nascar 750+hp engines come out of the factory in everyday stock vehicles .do u think the insurance companies would like that??would it be affordable??No.IN general a 750 hp motor cost more than 300 hp motor.Your average car buyer would pass on the car because of cost of the vehicle and insurance.So now if u still wanted a high rpm motor they would have to decrease the displacement of the vehicle to keep the power down.It would all be waste because why would GM build a 300 hp high rpm motor when GM already has 300+hp engines.

The japanese carmakers started out with small cars and small motors that is what they have to work with.Ferrari was a Race carmaker envolved into exotic street carmaker.

American carmaker always made big cars.
big cars=big engine.
japs make small cars.
small car=small engine.

Torque is half the equation.It`s all about the power(hp,watts) to weight ratio.If My motor makes 300lb-ft tq i could gear up the car to make 30,000 lb-ft tq , would it be faster ???hard to answer since i left the HP number out.

I see alot of high reving small motors daily driven cars on the road.
:confused:

besides what Vader & Damon has said, i really hate euro cars, my hope is one day the only 2 american auto makers left will get off the stupid euro look & go back to making cars that say just by their looks,.. i was made in america.

years ago some mercedes guy at a high end import shop i worked at always talked a lot of noise about stupid a@@ americans & their stupid a@@ american cars & how great the euro imports were,.. that mercedes benz was running road races & setting speed records when henry ford was wondering how to get money to start building cars. i asked him 1 question,... who put the USA & the world for that matter into automobiles? he gave the right answer & never dogged american cars again. so, the US car makers must have done something right with motor design.

go & get your ferrari and lambo cars tuned up,.. when you pay the bill, lets see how great they are.

something i have never seen any of import tuner guys talk about is their torque numbers, horse power yes,.. but never torque. is it because they are ashamed of the numbers they get?

Torque, what torque?? :p


Exactly what all the R1cers do in town, they all brag it up "i got 300hp in my 4 banger what you got in that 8?"


"250HP and 350lbs torque about 250lbs more than you!"


Then they curse their fart cannon for not giving them enough power as you blow by them...

While i'd normally agree with you, i'm a big Ferrari fan. If you've never driven one, give it a whirl. Over priced, yes.
Engine better than a 427? Probably not. Do I have a 427? *** no, I'm not that crazy. But fun for sure.

If I could get 40 cents on the dollar for what i've invested in my GM, i'd be putting it as a down payment on a Ferrari today. Might go 2 seconds slower than my firebird does, but then I wouldn't be just another white guy with an f-body. I'd have a Ferrari!

-- Joe

The reason is because GM is the #1 car maker, and makes cars for *everyone*. GM doesn't make overpriced sports cars for rich folks. It's just not GM's bag. Comparing GM to Ferrari is illogical.

-- Joe

Just for reference, Audi is planning to run a 5.5 litre, twin turbo V-12 at LeMans this year. They are HOPING to make 650 HP with it. It has to last a whole whopping 24 hours, after all. NASCAR engines last 3-5 races and make 650HP with a RESTRICTOR PLATE in place of the two turbos. Without the plate, they do 750HP fairly easily. With no limits on the fuel systems, they can push close to 1,000HP with NO BOOST of any kind. Granted, they are closer to 5.8L, and only have two valves to move in each cylinder instead of half a dozen.

Need any further reason?

Yeah but nascar cars are not street legal, and don't have as many cosmetic and interior options as Audi and Ferrari ;)

-- Joe

Hell, look at the 'exotic' new LS7 Vette....505rwhp designed to last 100,000
miles. They outperform much of the Italian trash in almost all areas, all for
less than 1/2 the bucks.....and get better mileage, insurance rates, parts
availability, qualified mechanics, etc. Plus, best of all, it's a Chevy!

Comparing an exotic to a domestic, or even an import, is one of the silliest things ever. You don't buy an exotic for longevity or cheap maintenance. I mean, you're talking about $1000 oil changes at the dealership. It's a status symbol, basically saying that you have enough money to not care about all the little stuff.

If I were in that position, I'd buy one too. Hello, Mr. Gates, care to give me just $1 billion? I'm not asking for much. Thx!

RE: the Audi. You know that's a turbo diesel, right? It's rumored to be extremely economical and quiet. I think that's a good step. I can't wait for the tech to trickle to the US, if only we would get better diesel fuel. A 650 HP twin turbo diesel engine, with over 812 lb-ft of torque, woo!

It's different technologies with different goals. I really can't say one is better than the other because, from my perspective, what they are trying to achieve is different. The European and Asian driving environments are different than that of the American. I respect that and enjoy what others have to offer, be it Japanese, German, or whatever.

As has been mentioned here, it's all about PACKAGING, not hp/liter.

Three years ago, I went to the Indy 500. After the race in the in field, there was a huge display of stuff from Chevy. One of the display's was a racing area, with various racing bits. Here's where it get's interesting....

They had a tent with three Chevy racing cars; an IRL car, the C5R from LeMans, and a bonafide NASCAR. Next to each car, was the respective engine for that car, on an engine stand. Now here's the funny thing, Obviously the IRL is the "highest tech" engine there, right? I mean, it's all aluminum, DOHC, Fuel injected, 4 valves per cylinder, 16 throttle bodies, 3.5 liters and ~750hp NA. That's pretty impressive.

The other two engines were a "5.7" liter pushrod, carbed, "SBC 2" based and the other one, a 7.0 liter, EFI Gen III based. Both af those are ~750hp as well. Which is higher tech? Well the funny thing is that all three of these engines are THE SAME SIZE! I mean, length, over all width, and hight, they were damn near the same size. You couldn't tell by looking which engine was bigger or smaller over all. So as a power package to put in YOUR car, which one is the "highest tech" (i.e. technology yields the best results)? Probably the C5R engine. It makes more torque, more useable (low end) torque, has a broader torque curve, than the IRL motor, and the EFI should make it behave better than the NASCAR engine's carb.

Having said that, I HAVE driven a Ferrari, and it was amazing. It was one of the lamest Ferrari's ever made; an '80 (IIRC) 308. 220hp, 3.0 liter V-8. It wasn't that fast, and it defintely lacked low end torque, but the sound, the RPM range, the increasing power as the tach went up and the sound...it was all magical. I'd still buy a Vette any day of the week over one due to the price/value, but I can say that I clearly know why people buy Ferrari's.

that's mean vader.... and on my birthday also. I'm hurt

:lol:

your birthday when he posted,.. or is it today?

wow thats laughable at best. im a v8 guy at heart and always have been. but ill disagree with 90% of this board when i say that high torque is needed for a street car. its simply not. i get around JUST as good in my 220hp inline 5 cylinder colorado as i do in my trans am. and you know which is funner to drive at this point? the truck, whose powerband (albeit weaker than an L98) is longer. it doesnt snap your head back off idle because it shouldnt. no car needs the 360rwtq off idle that my car has. its simply not needed. unless you are drag racing. that is the ONLY reason you need massive low end power. and even then its arguable.

so they are now bad engines because they cant make unuseable power for a street car? i mean after all a street driven hond engine CAN turn 10k rpms on a regular basis and stay reliable AND be driven everyday. no huge cams or anything like that. people turn 9k i believe on stock cams in fact and still make power. in turboed form, over 700hp at the tires. and its USEABLE because the powerband IS so long. again a 540 big block is cool and so is 6k hp but neither pertains to the topic at hand.

rotaries are nice, but i wish they were a bit more reliable. high rpm engines dont have to be race engines. look at audi. they just released the new RS4. 6 speed AWD 4.2 liter v8 with an 8k rpm redline. it will beat a lot of the cars on this board even in a straight line. and forget it on a road course. the m3? again there is not a japanese OR domestic equivilent. trust me im trying to find another opponent but i cant. dont say the corvette either. not in the same class.

and lastly, the corvette is nice, but its crap compared to a higher end (same price range) BMW or other imported car. quality is horrible in the vette compared to cars in the same price level. so if you are comparing cars like that make sure to compare all the facts about them. oh and for what its worth, theres one japanese engine thats done something NOT ONE single american engine has ever done. they can make over 1300hp on the stock bottom end (at the crank) and over 1500hp on the stock block and crank.

but again no disrespect i just think its a little unfair to judge the cars because they dont live up to Nascrap and NHRA standards.:)

when he posted

few things I want to say
mind telling me what is considered reliable then if a rotary is not? I'm curious how long an avg motor last if a typical common rotary is able to get 200k+ miles without touching the motor.


M3 and the vette might not be in the same class but when the class is run what you brung vette wins. when you compare class in price vs performance vette again wins. so whats your point again?


and crap compared to other cars. you mean to tell me the M3 is reliable or something? I could of sworn they had a few common issues


a turbo honda putting out 700hp isn't going to have a long big powerband. sorry but unless you consider 4000-5000rpms up to maybe 7000rpms. also the honda might be able to turn 9000rpms but I doubt it is going to be making much for power on stock cams. and what the point of turning 9-10k rpms anyway?


I don't think he mentioned low end torque as you brought up either but rather the fact that GM is now making some bigger displacement motors that have a broad powerband.... like the LSx series motors. I'm sure they would be a little more fun to drive then your little truck.


so let me get this right if I'm doing auto-x which is typicly a short narrow course having low end torque isn't needed? it would only be needed for drag racing? thank you didn't know that.


also why is it you go off saying that a 540 or 6k hp doesn't pertain to the thread but go off talking about a motor that can possibly make 1200-1500hp?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rx7speed
few things I want to say
mind telling me what is considered reliable then if a rotary is not? I'm curious how long an avg motor last if a typical common rotary is able to get 200k+ miles without touching the motor.[/QUOTE}

funny my friends rx7 lasted a year AFTER being rebuilt the first time. sure it may have been a shoddy repair but its not the first time ive seen that.


so let me get this straight, a c5 is as good all around car as an m3? maybe if you are ONLY talking performance. but if that were the case a rusted out drag only 2nd gen would be king. i hope you know how the m3 betters the C5, just like you know how the C5 betters the M3 in other categories.


i never siad BMW is the pinnacle of reliability. thats the biggest reason i looked for a japanese competitor. or even a domestic competitor.


a stock GSR integra has an 8k rpm redline? and an S2000 has a stock 9k rpm redline? i dont know where you are getting this power till 7k thing? and to me i wouldnt want a civic with a turbo spooling under 4500 or so that way traction is better. and thats why i would want one to rev to 10k. a HUGE powerband.


i never said my truck was the pinnacle of fun-ness. but rather, used it as an example. and i agree the LSx series of engines is AMAZING to say the least. i cant wait to see what the LS7 can do.


i think that low end torque can be replaced by gearing IN SOME CASES. and the drag racing thing, yes a bad choice of words, was only an example. but i would take a higher revving engine with better gearing than a lower revving one. thats just personal preference i guess.


think about this for a second. how streetable is a 6k hp big block going to be? or did you not notice the general theme i was going with in my post was for street cars? those 12-1500 supras ARE street driven. in fact one was driven quite regularly before it was sold to start his business.:thumbsup:

:blah: :blah:

humm,.. an m3, or a vette,.. hard choice,.. not really, the vette hands down.

a little tuning, a turbo or 2 & the LS7 can do 1000+,.. & best of all, it will live a long life while doing it. Jay Leno has one.

a couple of years ago there was a guy on Rides that had a 1200 HP vette,... that he drove on the street, he was working on one that would have even more power, seems like it was in the 2000
range,... for the street.

i wonder which one would be quicker,.. the 12-1500 HP supra, or the 1200 HP vette, which actually produces some torque,.... but then this is all off topic,....

In autocross if you do try to compensate the lack of torque with gearing, you'll start loosing time because of the need to start shifting up and down. When you win or loose by thousands of a second, any time off the throttle is time wasted.

We're still comparing exotics with a GM? haha

Happy belated birthday (Old Man!).

You've got a Wankel. You know exactly what the nature of that beast really is. You have lots of RPM at your disposal, and gear it accordingly to get it to the wheels.

lol what would you know :p



but yeah short courses like auto-x gearing can be a curse. time shifting is bad time.

yeah I do know whats it's like though. my classic accord seems to have more low end grunt then my rx7.

The Vette will not just beat, but it will massacre the M3 in:
Acceleration (any measure of said)
Braking
Lane change
Skid pad
Track times
Top speed. AND.....
At the fuel pump. The M3 6 cylinder is saddled w/ the gas guzzler tax and at 28 mpg highway, the Vette's 400 hp is not.
Granted, the M# has arguably better interior materials and fit/finish. It's fair to say that GM traded some expense there for the power train. And it paid off. Remember, this thread is about engines, not interiors.




What a joke. The RS4 has:
TWIN turbos
Twin intercoolers
4 cams
40 valves (5/cylinder)
Direct cylinder fuel injection
...and for ALL that "amazing" technology, it still cosumes more space, weighs more, makes less power, and gets FAR worse fuel economy than a corvette ZO6's LS7. You might pick a better "example" to support your junk.

........with
:iagree: ... :yup:

have you guys ever watch an f1 race, those motors make about 1000 hp with only 3.0 liters and spin all the way up to 19000rpms and they sound like nothing else in the world. Just a thought you can`t compare apples and oranges

I'd take the vette over the M3 any day . As far as fit and finish ...how can you say a vette is junk ?:( . Sure domestic tech uses less impressive tech still ( pushrod V-8) but the simple fact is ...it gets it done.


Anyone see that pic of the new Guiardo vs. the Z06 ? Absolutely killed the little Italian car. But I did like the sound of the guiardo ....but thats subjective to the person.

Thats freakin awesome!!!! Pushrod motors rock. They are far superior to anything else; atleast for street driven atuomobiles.

:thumbsup: :burnout: :iagree: :yup: :goodjob:

A bit late, and for what my 2 pennies are worth, i'd take a low tech power house simply because I have only a $22.95 tool set and spending thousands on "tech" crap can be left to the f1 guys.

I build and fix computers all day long, come home and hack out code for complex custom software solutions, but I dont wanna even think about tuning all that tech vs getting my flat blade and turning a screw or two.

but then again, were we talking about real world, or the "if I had $1 million" world?