Actually, GM did that with the Oldsmobile Toronado http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...-history.shtml

Edit: Jay Leno's Toronado http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-196...o-Jay-Leno.htm

 

Bwahahahahahaha

 

Any mid to late 70's cadilac had this setup, also, Subaru does it on their mid-80's FWD Cars.

The funny thing about Subaru is that they also thought it would be a good idea to mount the spare tire right above the engine, kindof like a carb's air cleaner.lol

 

Well I stand corrected then. I have known for many years now that there is a version of the north star that would bolt up to our 60* belhousings and knew there were two versions of the Northstar V8, but now I know from your post and my further fact finding mission that they are in fact both 90* motors.

The RWD Northstar V8 mounts to the standard 90* V8 bellhousings just like a SBC.
The 60* version for the FWD cars is an all aluminum version that is in fact a 90* V8 but has the bellhopusing mounting pattern to a 60* trans. They did this a an upgraded option to the smaller V6 transaxle cars that already had the 60* belhousing pattern.

I never had reason to ever research this further than hearing that there was a 60* version of the Northstar, now I understand what they mean and yes you are correct, My bad.

 

ferrari and lambo do it all the time. the testarossa had a 5.0 v12 boxer style engine.

 

hmm... its so ugly, i must have subconsously filed it under ford. lol..



but yea... thats the car i was thinking of.

 

i understand that with small pistons, you get higher rpm, but with big pistons, you get POWER, and LOTS of Power. High RPM is nothing without power.
The McLaren F1 has a6.0 V-12 that produces if i remember correctly something like 5-600 horses factory right from BMW. that is the size of a 283 with 4 more cylinders! Not small pistons, but MID sized.

 

I have a 4.0 northstar engine in my aurora, it does sound throaty down low, but over 4-4500 rpms it starts to whine.

Shelby liked the northstar so much they used the 4.0 as the base platform for the American Series car.


As far as that 2.7 L engine from Dodge goes... its a P.O.S..

There is a pending class action lawsuit against dodge concerning those engines as thousands of owners of intrepids with that engine have had the engines break timing chains and sludge up between 50 and 75k on the avg. of failures. That's really unacceptable. My mothers car is sitting dead at 70k. First the adjuster went, then the second time something went wrong the timing chain snapped and it looks like the valves dropped into the pistons, love the interference engines.


Still love my ol 350 though

 

my friends did it at like 55k. he had to repair the fiberglass valve covers and go through the engine to get all the pieces of the chain out. then traded for a Mustang GT.

 

RTFC:

i believe the 60 drg v6 bellhousing is the BOP style that every gm but chevy used, the bolt patterns are independent of the V angle.

 

You need to go to "engine school". The size of the pistons is one of MANY factors that determine torque and power. You don't automatically get "high RPM" by installing "small" (what ever small is) pistons. And you don't automatically get "LOTS of power" (what ever that is) by installing "big pistons" (what ever "big" is). Talk about an abiguous and subjective post! lol.
"high" RPM is one of two factors in determining an engines POWER So "high" RPM certainly IS "something"....it's 1/2 of the function....that DETERMINES power!

 

first off, you are about half right, i can take a v-8 and spin it 8,000 and get power yes, but it will wear out quickly due to the large area of the pistons, now take a engine like ours where the pistons are only 2.5" our engines will not wear out nearly as fast as the big v-8 pistons over 3 1/2" pistons. airflow is important.
now in determining power, not true, the viper makes it's power really low in the rpm band, whereas the bmw V-12 makes it's quite high. both are atleast 10's but the viper's pistons are the size of a small coffee can, and the bimmer's are the size of a baseball. most of dodge's newer engines are a takeoff of their legendary bulletproof (yes i tested this with a 357 magnum from 10 feet) 318cubic inch 5.2L.

now you are correct there is alot more to get the engine to spin anything above 7,000, let alone make power up there. piston size helps but isn't the determiining factor.

there is that better, tom 400?

 

Really!? I'm All the way to HALF right? Whew, Well I'm glad I'm at least THAT MUCH right! Coming from you that means....nothing.

Your post has so much wrong w/it that I don't even know how to address it. You're using the Dodge and BMW as examples of high revving/small piston, big piston/lo revving "rule" is about as useful and accurate as your claim that "posi" and "limited slip" are different things. lol.

The reason the BMW revs "high" and the Dodge reves "low" -as you put it- has little to nothing to do w/the piston size and everything to do w/heads, exhaust and valve events (cam[s]).

I'd like to know where you got your scientific data on piston wear/life on "your little v-6's" vs. our "big v-8's" That should be an entertaining read.

 

holy ****....

Toms right... that doesnt even make enough since that i can correct it... lol


i mean, damn, i dont even know where to start....

 

Now, I shouldn't even waste my time going here, but what are you comparing? A 5.0 L, 300 hp V-12 to an 8.3 L, 505 hp V-10?? Or are you talking about the new M5's V-10 that is both 500 hp and ten cylinders (at least those aspects are like a Viper) but has 10 "small" pistons for a total displacement of 5.0 L?

The comparison of the V-12 is so irrelevant I'm not going to try to address it.

If you're actually trying to talk about the M5's V-10 then reffer to my above post about valve timing, head flow, and exhaust.

 

whatever, i am not gonna argue with you on it, it is not worth it. it is all how the engine is designed.

 

did someone change the forum rules? I thought what we write was supposed to make sense? From now on i'm not going to bother with thought or knowlege, i'm just going to write a whole bunch of automotive related terms in a row and call it a day.

V10 4rpm big piston small displacement torque revver with quintuple OHV camshafts low rpm displacement bulletproof posi limited slip head large bore small diameter valve angle.

can anyone say "ricochet"

 

my boss just had a new engine built for his pull truck..its a 472(460 ford), it make 875 hp, 675 trq and at his first pull blew the tranny and hit over 10 grand, not sure what tach ends at 10 (engines buit for 5,000-9,000)

ohhh and it will rev faster then my 2.2 honda

im only 18 and i no piston size has very lil to do with what an engie will do power or rpm wise

 

I beg to differ...

1988 Fiero GT 5-speed $9,800
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...RK%3AMEWA%3AIT

1988 Camaro IROC-Z LS1 $8,400
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...RK%3AMEWA%3AIT

Or course, as with anything, prices vary with all cars.

 

Well that's pretty wild, considering my friend owns I believe an 80-something... One of the ones before the ugly last year taillights....4spd, 2.8 liter. He put it in as immaculate condition, carpet perfect, body, paint, everything the best he could. And the KBB value was $1500. My 91 V6 RS Camaro, in FAIR condition, gave a better KBB value.

 

oooh ebay links to overpriced cars.
that holds soo much weight.

 

no offense guys, but i think that we all (me included) have let this one get way way HIJACKED and out of hand

 

Agreed. Many cars have a more realistic price http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...spagename=WDVW

 

thats rather pricey considering it cant pass inspection, paint looks like crap, the mileage and all the other little things wrong with it.

 

lol
i just bothered clicking the 3rdgen link


dude, that car has a full LS1 swap. it has a full 4thgen camaro interior swap. new paint. rims. hardly a good representation of a 3rdgens worth.

 

the 88 is definitely worth that and then some...of course he is looking for more since the reserve hasnt been met yet...the red one isnt worth 3k at all

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by 87blueracr
first off, you are about half right, i can take a v-8 and spin it 8,000 and get power yes, but it will wear out quickly due to the large area of the pistons, now take a engine like ours where the pistons are only 2.5" our engines will not wear out nearly as fast as the big v-8 pistons over 3 1/2" pistons. airflow is important.
now in determining power, not true, the viper makes it's power really low in the rpm band, whereas the bmw V-12 makes it's quite high. both are atleast 10's but the viper's pistons are the size of a small coffee can, and the bimmer's are the size of a baseball. most of dodge's newer engines are a takeoff of their legendary bulletproof (yes i tested this with a 357 magnum from 10 feet) 318cubic inch 5.2L.

now you are correct there is alot more to get the engine to spin anything above 7,000, let alone make power up there. piston size helps but isn't the determiining factor.

there is that better, tom 400? [/QUOTE]

isn't the dodge viper actually a fairly high strung motor?

piston size isn't the main factor in high reving or not heads,cam, valvetrain and such play a much bigger part in that.

as far as piston size creating more wear I wouldn't think so. if you take two motors with the same stroke just larger pistons the wear should be the same and if anything my assumption would be that the larger piston motor would be better able to handle the wear being .001 of an inch wear on the larger piston would be a smaller percentage of gap vs the smaller piston. if wear was an issue stroke would have a much larger part to do with it then piston size.
a short stroke motor of lets say 3 inches like in a 302 vs lets say a 4.0 inch stroke like the 383 or 400 both reving at 5000rpms
if I did my math right and don't hold me to it though
but the 3 inch stroke piston at 5000rpms moves at 340miles per hour
the 4 inch stroke one moves at 455mph
or another words 5.7 miles a minute for the 3 inch stroke and 7.6miles a minute for the 4 inch stroke
so over all for every second at the same rpm the shorter stroke is going to be moving slower which is lower stress as far as g force and also recieve less friction cause the rings and the piston walls are rubbing less distance per moment of travel




also I think your sizes are off on pistons
you say the v6 pistons are only 2.5 inches if memory serves me right they are 3.5 inches
and then say that the big v8's have 3.5 inch pistons and the smallest v8 piston I remmber is just a tad over 3.5" at around 3.6" in diam or so


the mclaren has a piston diam of 3.386" if I remember right which is quite a bit smaller then even your v6 motors and you compare it to a 283 with 4 more cylinders which isn't even close to correct
a 283 with 4 added cylinders would be 425ci or about 6.96L while this mclaren that you compare it to saying they are about the same size would be only 6.1L or around 370ci... that's smaller then the common 383 conversion that many ppl do using much smaller pistons then the 383 would so why would it make so much more power?

no offence dude but how can you spout so much drivel and not understand that your wrong quite a few times

 

As far as I'm concerned....87blue is completely full of

This thread has gotten to be completely ridiculous....

 

Indeed.

-Tom