I don't know if any of you have seen it, but there is actually a Chevy V-16 out there (at least one that I know of in a museum) that was built buy a machine shop. It's a actually two 350 blocks welded together or something like that. So I was thinking-if something like that could be done (albeit for a buttload of money) why couldn't you take say two 400 small blocks, cut the front two cylinders off of one, and weld them onto the other one? Of course all of the other stuff-cam, crank, and distributor would have to be worked out as well as an injection system. With the right fabrication tools I would assume that you could TIG weld a sheet aluminum manifold together for it, and use off the shelf parts from GM and Nitrous Oxide Systems to build an MPFI system. Then maybe mount a nice big 454 TBI ontop. Of course then if you really wanted to get fancy you could set it up with a GN Garret turbo on each bank of cylinders (It feeds 6 small ones, so 5 big ones might work right?). Of course this would probably provide you with more work compared to the amount of power you would get out of it, but it would be so damn cool! Also it would be even cooler to maybe do this with a northstar engine and put together a DOHC head for it!

Let me know what you think...

MatthewH

P.S. As my father always said "If you have the time, the tools, and enough money, you can do damn near anything with a car."

 

Alot of work, but i'm imagining lots of torque!

 

my question is this though...


why would you want a V10? There is a reason GM never used a V10 ... because they SUCK ... they can get more power out of a V8 than Ford or Dodge can with their piddly V10's ...

Even the diesels...

 

well i'm no expert but i pretend to be one on here. there is more to it than just adding cylinders or cubic inches. vibration and harmonics come into play and well as effeciency, air flow, and cost to name a few. it's a sure bet if a v10 was the way to go there would of been an engineer at gm who would of mentioned it when the 265 v8 was being designed.

------------------
ICON Motorsports
1st & 3rd
MM Black Diamond 538 F&AM

 

I think a v8's got the most cylinders you want for a normal engine. Sure the v10's sound nice to have, but think about it.. Dodge has the Viper, a v10 putting out 500 horsepower. They dropped twin turbos on that baby and that got them putting out 300 more horsepower, bringing it up to about 800 total.

Chevy made a v8 putting out 770 horsepower on a naturally aspirated engine. Imagine dropping twin turbos on THAT.

The more cylinders you have, generally the smaller they start to get. The v12's and w18's have relatively tiny bores, but they put out massive amounts of horsepower because they can tach up so high. But a v8 with a big bore isn't suited for high rpm's. And certainly, while being an interesting idea, neither would a welded-together v10.

------------------
89 iroc-z 305 tbi
k&n filtercharger, open element air filter. nuffin' else

 

MAN! I must be getting old. Am I the only one who has ever seen the V-16s? Or the inline eights? Or the V-12s? The larger V engines had a lot of internal friction, weight, reciprocating mass, inherent balance and harmonic problems, making it less attractive than a V-8. The typical displacement of a V-12, for example, was 326CID.

I think I've got a photo of a GM V-16 here somewhere..... Yup!



Old stuff, I know, but just letting you know it's already been done and wasn't the "final answer" in piston engine technology.

The V-10s in all those Jethro Bodine trucks are really a sale gimmick. The GM Vortec is kicking the crap out of both of those in raw power, fuel efficiency, and reliability, but it only has eight cylinders.

------------------
Later,
Vader
------------------
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"
Adobe Acrobat Reader

[This message has been edited by Vader (edited June 09, 2001).]

 

Uh, Vader, unless there are 4 cylinders in another bank, that's a V-12. The original Merlin, or Allison, perhaps? WWII was won in large part by V-12's powering three-wheeled vehicles.

While stationed in Germany in the early '80's, a certain Italian car with German tags drove up to our make-shift pits at our make-shift drag strip at Hanau one Sunday. He had left Milan, 700 miles away, 7 hours earlier. That little Italian car had a V12 in it. You can be certain its total displacement was much less than 326 CID! I don't remember for certain, but I think he said he had to stop for gas a couple of times.

Theoritically, you can do most any cylinder combo you want. In-line 5-cylinders actually balance nicely. Midget cars used to cut off one bank of a SBC. I haven't heard of 7 or 9 cylinder engines in-line, but radial, perhaps? If you are welding two SBC's end-to-end, why bother cutting off two cylinders? The balancing alone would require a whole new crank.

------------------
82 Berlinetta, orig V-6 car, now w/86 LG4/TH700R4. 2.93 limited slip. Cat-back from '91 GTA, Accel HEI SuperCoil. AMSOIL syn lubes bumper-to-bumper. Daily driver, work-in-progress (LG4 w/'87 LB9 block, ZZ3 cam and intake, World 305 heads, Hooker headers & y-pipe, 3" Catco cat & 3" cat-back).
57 Bel Air, my 1st car. 0.030 over 396, 9.7 CR forged TRWs, Weiand Action+, Edelbrock 1901 Q-Jet, GK 270 cam, Magnum rockers, Jacobs Omnipack, 1-3/4" Hedders & 3" Warlock header mufflers, TH400 w/TCI Sat Night Special conv & Trans-Scat shift kit, LT MegaShifter, 3.08 8.2" 10-bolt w/Powertrax, AMSOIL syn lubes bumper-to-bumper. Best 15.1/95.5 @ 5800' Bandimere.

 

you can make all the power you want with a V8. Plus a v10 would be tough to fit into our cars. A v12 seems out of the question. The NHRA dragsters all use v8's and you see how fast they go.

 

Nope, Ive worked on them. Amazing what stuff some old farts bring into machine shops sometimes

 

How about the twin-engine dragsters of the 60's and 70's? Heck if you can make room for two SBC's or BBC's, what's the big deal about adding on a little further

 

DOH! That was SUPPOSED to be a Caddy V-16 photo - my bad!

Yes, that's a Packard/Merlin V-12. Them's is only good for about 1,500 HP, but only to 2,400 RPM. Not really suitable for an auto engine.

And yes, the Volvo inline 5s do balance well, but the necessarily narrow (72°) angle of a V-10 makes placment of components a challenge that just doesn't need to be met. A V-12 or V-16 balances pretty well at 90°, allowing much more room for an adequate induction system that doesn't stick up three feet above the hood line.

And for the "horizontal" crowd, yes, your engines are the easiest to balance and are a strong and efficient design, but require a lot of engine bay space. Somehow the "performace Subaru" label just doesn't have the right sound to it.

The radials work pretty well regardless of cylinder count, and adding banks for more cylinders (up to 28) isn't too difficult. Changing a cam profile on a radial is pure lunacy, however, and fitting a twin Wasp between the fenders of an 'F' car would be a real trick.

I'm far too lazy to go that deep, so I guess I'm stuck with the 3,000 HP limit of the "little" V-8 design...

------------------
Later,
Vader
------------------
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"
Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

Am I the only person around here that remembers the Falconer V-12? Built by Ryan Falconer, it has the same bore and stroke as the 400SB. It's got a chevy front and a chevy back. GM even considered putting it in the trucks IIRC.

http://www.falconerengines.com/prod04.htm

Running 92 Octane Unleaded Gas:
-650 HP AT 5200 RPM
-560 FT.LB. TORQUE AT 1500 RPM
-750 FT.LB. TORQUE AT 4500 RPM

 

I was always wondering why GM didn't release their V10. They did develope one.

I've heard that if the number of pistons does not equal an even number when divided in two, then the harmonics are horrible. Look at V6s for ex. They run somewhat smooth due to the fact that most are 60 deg engines. I just wanna know how GM made the 4.3L 262 V6 work so well. I mean the way they came up with the idea was great. Cut off 2 cylinders of the 350. They had all the vertical parts. All they had to do was design the horizontal. And they knew it would hold up well. But how in the heck did they balance that sucker. Is it externally balanced like the single rear main seal SBC, by the damper?

I've read that the Dodge V10 is not a very well balanced engine. 10 divided by 2 is 5. It has an uneven # of rod journals. It just seams like a lot of development work to control the harmonics. That's probably why GM scratched the idea. How 'bout that straight 6 they came back out with? Talk about a good design!! That has 6 journals, right? I just wish they would hurry up and put it in a real truck, and not ANOTHER SUV!!!

 

The 4.3 V6 is a goddamn bulletproof engine, LOL... I don't know if it was internally balanced or externally (I would assume internally) ... they did an awesome job with that one though...

 

I think the only reason that Dodge went with the V-10 in the Viper is because they could not get a big bore V-8 to pass emissions, the V-10 can have a smaller bore and big displacement and still pass emissions. And talking about strange engines has anyone ever seen the engines in WW-2 Sherman tanks, they were a 30 cylinder radial made by Chrysler, they took 5 flat-head six's and placed them around a common crankcase with a single crankshaft.

------------------
92 Camaro RS 5.0 5-Speed
14" Open Air Cleaner
3.08 Posi-trac
Edelbrock TBI Intake
Crane cam
Ported & polished stock heads 3 angle valve job
HyperTech Chip
SLP Headers (Ceramic Coated)
UltraFlo cat-back exhaust

74 Dodge Dart Sport 360 (11.2 1/4 mile)

2000 Dodge 1500 Ram Sport

 

Hmmm....all valid points. Basically I would just want to do something like that just to see if I could. Strange engines are sort of my hobby. Like in this old engine masters magazine there was this mechanical engineer who built a blown 2 cylinder hemi! He built it out of "useless" broken top fueler parts. Very strange, but very cool.

Later,

MatthewH

 

Did it have a name on that article? I know a guy who was running a blown 2 cylinder hemi in a ... damn cant think of the name, but they raced the car at bonneville salt flats alot trying to set speed records... I think they did have one. Last I saw of it, they added a second set of rear axles, and something happened and the car got wrecked. They were in the process of fixing it when I saw it, those heads were really strange looking LOL.

 

vader my man, there are just few things that i would like to add to our friends oppinions, wich by the way are all ok.
1- the engine is (the pic) a rolls-royce merlin V-12 liquid cooled engine rated at 1500hp, the allisons and packards were a copy built under license, but those copys "sucked" big time, so far went that the mechanics in ww2 will create any excuse to get them replaced by the real r-r merlin engines, i'm talking P-51 and spitfires.
2- the reason they operate at around 2000 rpm is because at that speed the propeller starts to loose efficiency, because the propeller tips become supersonic and the turbulence created works its way inwards making it (if we keep accelerating) worst.
so as you can see the challenge was to create that much hp, with that speed limit, you can make a merlin go faster if you want, just dont put a prop on it, it wont work.
by the way in my humble oppinion, the daimler-benz 601 (german) was better engine.
inverted V-12 liquid cooled and fuel inyected.
beautyfull pic of that merlin.
fernando.

------------------
third gen muscle power is the only thing that can match the power of flight...

 

Vader,

That sounds like the guy...I don't have the mag anymore (well, maybe I do-but I'd have a snowball's chance in hell of finding it) The car I saw in the pics did in fact have two rear axles and was run at Bonneville. The guy's name was John something-it was kind of a long last name.

Later,

MatthewH

 

Actually mig-29 makes a good point about the german engines. I believe that all of the engines that they used had full roller bearings, like everywhere, on the all of the journals and whatnot. but they were so expensive to produce, and if one of the bearing factories were bombed they couldn't make anymore untill a new factory was built.

honestly the germans have some very nice cars, and designs, and very good engines. But they don't compete with Third-Gens, cause they are afraid of continual defeat.

 

WOW that falconer engine is gorgeous!!!!! i want one!!!! put that beotch into a chevette and crank her open, and pray to God it doesn't flip over.

 

Mig/Ace,

Roger on the prop tip speed - but because of that the engine is designed at a 2,400 limit and makes torque way down low.

The inverted Benz 12 was a nice setup, and the Deutschlanders' use of the antifriction roller bearing is commendable. Too bad they couldn't come close to the P-51 V inlines and P-47 radials chugging along at 450 knots. Even though the Allied planes wer a lot larger and heavier, they would chew up the tails of the 109s and make a real Mess-er-schmitt out of anything else they encountered.

Engine-for-engine, however, the British cannot be surpassed in the design and building of reciprocating engines, IMO. Too bad they don't use their best practices for all their engines. I could use one of those Lotus/Chevy Indy V-8's in a Fiero. Somehow, the idea of 3 pounds per HP sounds interesting. Bet I could scare the hell out of most rice rocket two wheelers.

On an even more disjointed note, have you ever seen the BBC 454 inverted V-8 adapted to aircraft use?

I still think the Wright Cyclone 28 cylinder radial is the king of gasoline engines. You can't sneeze at an engine that will crank out almost 3,000 horsepower for hours on end without so much as a whimper.

And has anyone ever seen the Chrysler 450 CID V-12 from the mid-60's? It was an industrial engine based on two of the venerable 225 "***** sixes" married at the crank, and was relegated to sawmill, rock crusher, and otherwise unglorified duties. Like almost all of the old "crooked sixes", if treated well it would run endlessly. One of those in a car would probably blow because of the weight, but if you look through history you'll find a lot of unusual designs.

Man, am I off-topic or what?

------------------
Later,
Vader
------------------
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"
Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

you guys ever here about the twin star.A caddy with 2 northstar engines in there i heard it wqas freaking wcked,smoking vipers everywhere

------------------
1987 Trans AM GTA
305 5SPD
Hypertech airfoil
gutted maf
kn filter
High Flow Cat,
3"Walker pipe
Dynomax Super turbo Muffler
TB Coolant bypass

"Three of the scariest letters you will ever see GTA"
Take a good look you won't see em for long

[This message has been edited by Stormshadow GTA (edited June 11, 2001).]

 

just a little info here. Someone was wondering how 4.3 V6s are balanced, I believe that they have a internal counter balance shaft which smooths them out considerably. This was in a four wheeler mag when the new CPI vortecs first came out so I don't know if they still use them or not. also the main reason dodge and ford went with modular V10 designs was economics. Dodge quit making big blocks in 80-81? but they wanted a torqey truck engine so add two more hole to the magnum truck engine and boom powerful engine which already has tooling and parts setup for it. Ford did the same thing when they phased out the 460 in favor of the 4.6-5.3 mod motors.

 

Slayer,

The first 262 V-6 engines did not have the internal counter-rotating balance shaft. That first appeared about 1989 or so. The case is a conventional 90° V but the crank throws are offset to provide an even-fire, 60° sequence. The first time you pull the pan on one of these you'll do a doubletake thinking the crank is trashed.

I did a little R&D on the first Romeo (Ford modular) engines. If you know what's good for you. you'll stay away from them - they scare me. The same theory as a Stuttgart engine without benefit of the horizontal case for strength. YUK!

------------------
Later,
Vader
------------------
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"
Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

While we're on the point of engines, I have something to share. Ferrari's 3.6 liter V8 in the 360 Modena shouldn't be overlooked. This engine is really an engineering marvel. 5 valves per cylinder, variable length runners, 2 path exhaust system, and a special firing order necessitated by a flat crankshaft not only give it its awesome sound but also an awesome 395hp at 8500rpm. Can you imagine rowing through the gears with that thing shrieking away behind you like a banshee? I've heard an F355 do its thing in person, and believe me you gotta do all you can not to cream your pants. Ferrari's got the sounds, the power, the feeling, the image, basically everything, but for a pretty tidy sum

------------------
'88 IROC 305 TPI
Crappy 700R4 slushbox
Gutted airboxes
180 degree T-stat
Advanced base TPS voltage
Relocated IAT sensor
Momo steering wheel (gotta luv it)
Ram-air setup coming soon
Flowmaster muffler (puke)
Taylor SpiroPro wires
Accel cap and rotor
Ported plenum
Kills: '94 Z28, Olds Aurora V8, bunch of Mustangs, T-birds, ricers, and others who assumed a 12 year-old car would be too slow.

 

There are 2 4.3's. The CPI engine has the counter balance shaft. The TBI and carbed ones do not. If you ever buy parts for one they will ask if it's a Z or a W engine. IIRC the Z engine is the one without the balance shaft. I don't think they are internally interchangable either.

EDIT: If I were to have read the next post I would have noticed Vader had covered most of the subject.

[This message has been edited by 87RS402 (edited June 11, 2001).]

 

The twin star was built by Mosler, the same guy who built the raptor.
bsa

 

I knew about the vortecs having the balance shaft but I thought they all had them. I didn't know it was just the vortecs. Don't worry Vader. I can't stand fords so I'll have know problem staying away from them but what kinds of bad things have you heard about them? I heard they were down on power but I haven't heard much else about them.