not good for our favorite car

[Tom O.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

The Treasury Department said this morning that they have no interest in financially supporting a GM/Chrysler merger that would result in the loss of (at least) 90,000 jobs.

And the loss of maybe 400,000 more jobs at related suppliers. I do not know what is wrong with our Government?!

[Paul H.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Does anyone know anything about Stefanshyn? Is he an enthusiast, a bean counter with a sharp hatchet, or ????

All I know about him is what was released in the Corvette Museum newsletter. In his brief Bio it mentions not a thing about any involvement with the Corvette as an owner or enthusiast

[Clem Z.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

All I know about him is what was released in the Corvette Museum newsletter. In his brief Bio it mentions not a thing about any involvement with the Corvette as an owner or enthusiast

he is also located "down under" in australia

[Joe L.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Thirty years ago Prof. Charles F. Taylor, retired head of the MIT Sloan Automotive Labs and author of the two volume 1300+ page tome, "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice," which is still the "bible", chided Detroit for saddling us with four-cylinder cars.

Taylor stated that small V-8 engines could deliver similar fuel economy to similar sized four-cylinders.

The move to fewer cylinders then and now is as much about cost as it is about fuel economy.

The V-8 configuration "packages" very well in most cars, is very smooth, and it is even more space efficient in pushrod form. Scaling the current LS-series down to a displacement range or 3-4 liters would considerably reduce volume and mass. The lighter weight valvetrain would be good for 7500-8000 revs with OE durability, and net output could be as high as 100 HP per liter.

I think current technology could yield a 2700 pound Corvette with a 4 liter V-8 (bore and stroke of about 3.38" in a "square" configuration) of at least 350 net HP without driving cost through the roof with expensive light weight materials, and such a configuration could achieve EPA fuel economy ratings of 20+/30+ city/highway driving, which is about what a current four-cylinder mid sized sedan can do.

There is a vehicle system engineering rule of thumb that goes something like this: For every unit of engine mass reduction, vehicle mass can be reduced by a proportional amount via lighter structure, suspension, and drivetrain. I don't remember what the exact amount is, but I think it's something between one and two, so a 150 pound reduction in engine mass means you can reduce vehiclestructure/suspension/drivetrain by up to 300 pounds for a total savings of 450 pounds, which gets you from the current 3200 to 2750. As design/analysis technology improves, "factors of safety", which are required to cover unknowns may be lowered, which yields lower mass parts. Also, current lightweight materials may come down in price in the next decade, which can add to mass reduction throughout the vehicle.

It's a matter of management's will!

Duke

Duke-----


I'd like to see it go in the direction of small displacement V-8's, too. However, I really don't think that it will. Things are just not going in that direction, at all. I have heard of absolutely no small V-8 engines in development. With things the way they are in the automotive industry, I can't see that sort of thing getting started in the foreseeable future, either. Manufacturers have other, less costly ways of getting to the smaller engines they need.

As far as a smaller cid version of the current LS-series engines, I don't see that happening. For one thing, the LS engines are quite heavy, even in all aluminum form. I don't see scaling down the cid as something that's going to enable them to make them much lighter. I think for a small displacement V-8 they really need to start with a "clean sheet of paper" and design one from the ground up. But, as I say, I really doubt it's going to happen. The direction right now is clearly to 4 and 6 cylinder engines, some turbocharged.

The scary thing to me is that, for whatever reason, US car manufacturers have never been able to get a 4 cylinder engine right. Try as they may, they come up short every time. Honda and Toyota have had smooth, powerful , and refined 4 cylinder engines for years. So, if we're heading into a "4 cylinder world", the US manufacturers are at a disadvantage from the get-go.

The real strength, as far as engines go, for US manufacturers has been the V-8. There they shine. So, I have every confidence they could each come up with a small V-8 that would be a world-beater. But, I don't think they will.

[Clem Z.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Duke-----


I'd like to see it go in the direction of small displacement V-8's, too. However, I really don't think that it will. Things are just not going in that direction, at all. I have heard of absolutely no small V-8 engines in development. With things the way they are in the automotive industry, I can't see that sort of thing getting started in the foreseeable future, either. Manufacturers have other, less costly ways of getting to the smaller engines they need.

As far as a smaller cid version of the current LS-series engines, I don't see that happening. For one thing, the LS engines are quite heavy, even in all aluminum form. I don't see scaling down the cid as something that's going to enable them to make them much lighter. I think for a small displacement V-8 they really need to start with a "clean sheet of paper" and design one from the ground up. But, as I say, I really doubt it's going to happen. The direction right now is clearly to 4 and 6 cylinder engines, some turbocharged.

The scary thing to me is that, for whatever reason, US car manufacturers have never been able to get a 4 cylinder engine right. Try as they may, they come up short every time. Honda and Toyota have had smooth, powerful , and refined 4 cylinder engines for years. So, if we're heading into a "4 cylinder world", the US manufacturers are at a disadvantage from the get-go.

The real strength, as far as engines go, for US manufacturers has been the V-8. There they shine. So, I have every confidence they could each come up with a small V-8 that would be a world-beater. But, I don't think they will.

the american manufactures design 4 cylinder engines for $15 K total price cars so they cut corners but when they do one for higher price cars the engine should be better. there is nothing wrong with a ecotech 4 as i had a rental one in fla. and in a cavalier it gave 35 MPG the month that i had it and it had plenty of power as i thought it was a V-6 till i opened the hood.

[Joe L.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

the american manufactures design 4 cylinder engines for $15 K total price cars so they cut corners but when they do one for higher price cars the engine should be better. there is nothing wrong with a ecotech 4 as i had a rental one in fla. and in a cavalier it gave 35 MPG the month that i had it and it had plenty of power as i thought it was a V-6 till i opened the hood.

clem-----


I had high hopes and expectations for the Ecotec. Until I first drove one, anyway. I agree that they get good mileage and they do have good power. However, they just don't seem as smooth and refined as a Honda or Toyota. To me, the Honda 4 cylinder engines are the ultimate 4 cylinders. Smooth as glass and built like a Swiss watch.

[Duke W.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Duke-----


I'd like to see it go in the direction of small displacement V-8's, too. However, I really don't think that it will. Things are just not going in that direction, at all. I have heard of absolutely no small V-8 engines in development. With things the way they are in the automotive industry, I can't see that sort of thing getting started in the foreseeable future, either. Manufacturers have other, less costly ways of getting to the smaller engines they need.

As far as a smaller cid version of the current LS-series engines, I don't see that happening. For one thing, the LS engines are quite heavy, even in all aluminum form. I don't see scaling down the cid as something that's going to enable them to make them much lighter. I think for a small displacement V-8 they really need to start with a "clean sheet of paper" and design one from the ground up. But, as I say, I really doubt it's going to happen. The direction right now is clearly to 4 and 6 cylinder engines, some turbocharged.

The scary thing to me is that, for whatever reason, US car manufacturers have never been able to get a 4 cylinder engine right. Try as they may, they come up short every time. Honda and Toyota have had smooth, powerful , and refined 4 cylinder engines for years. So, if we're heading into a "4 cylinder world", the US manufacturers are at a disadvantage from the get-go.

The real strength, as far as engines go, for US manufacturers has been the V-8. There they shine. So, I have every confidence they could each come up with a small V-8 that would be a world-beater. But, I don't think they will.

What I meant by "scaled down LS" is a clean sheet new design. The bore centers could be reduced to as low as 3.5", and everything else scaled down using the latest FEM techniques to reduce structure to the minimum mass. A "dressed" LS is about 500-550 pounds, but a well designed pushrod 4-liter V-8 could be down to 350-400, which is in the ballpark of a modern 3.0-4.0L DOHC V-6.

I've seen the guts of the old Cosworth 2.6L turbocharged V-8 that was used by CART. The components look more like something out of a motorcycle than "car" engine. They put 2.6 liters into the smallest and lightest package possible.

Most four-cylinder engines over two liters have the two counterrotating balance shafts that eliminate the second order vertical shaking force, so all first order shaking forces and rocking couples are balanced as they are on a cruiform crank V-8. That makes these fours "smoother" than typical 60 degree V-6 engines, which still have a small second order rocking couple.

But four-cylinders typically betray themselves with some idle vibration due to only two firing pulses per revolution, and they sound like tractor engines at anything less than 7000 revs!

GM's fours, even with balance shafts as on the Ecotec, have always been called "rough" compared to others, but GM keeps working on it. I think they recently changed the Ecotec so the alternator bolts directly to the head or case, which makes for a stiffer mounting.

The current Ecotec is a sweet little engine, but it just doesn't belong in a Corvette. A new ground up design "small V-8" is certainly possible, but as was the case in the seventies, I don't think GM will step up to the task.

One thing we may see come back is 42 volt electrical systems. This could reduce the mass of air conditioning and power steering systems with electric rather than engine driven pumps. Coolant pumps, too. And by only driving the pump as fast as necessary to meet system demand, there is a considerable reduction in parasitic power loss, which translates to better fuel economy. Ten years ago we were supposed to have 42 volts systems today, but something went awry, and I think it had to do with safety since 42 volts are enough to cause a decent electrical shock. SAE got hung up trying to work out standards.

Duke

[Stuart F.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Duke;

I fully agree with your premise. There's also the old rule of thumb that an 8 cylinder (10 or 12) with the same total displacement as a 4 will yield greater valve area for better breathing (i.e. F-1's preference for 10's over 8's).

Stu Fox

[Kenneth B.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

And the loss of maybe 400,000 more jobs at related suppliers. I do not know what is wrong with our Government?!

Washington has no interest in manufacturing. All they care about is banking, NY stock firms & INS company's. The Midwest had most of the high paying factory jobs so workers could buy the products they produced but not enough to contribute millions to elections. The Wall Streeters did so bail out for them nothing for us in manufacturing. I did read they did take a hell of a cut though. The holiday bonus will only average 650,000 instead of 1,100,000. I feel there pain.
KEN

[Ken A.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

The Treasury Department said this morning that they have no interest in financially supporting a GM/Chrysler merger that would result in the loss of (at least) 90,000 jobs.

Pres Obama was not consulted on this matter. He will quickly reverse the Tresuray Dept's thinking, I'm sure.

[Duke W.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Duke;

I fully agree with your premise. There's also the old rule of thumb that an 8 cylinder (10 or 12) with the same total displacement as a 4 will yield greater valve area for better breathing (i.e. F-1's preference for 10's over 8's).

Stu Fox

It's a fact that for a given displacement and equal mean piston speed, more cylinders will make more power because revs are higher. This boils down to a rule that maximum power potential is a function of total piston area, so many small short stroke cylinders are the answer in a limited displacement racing class.

This is also the reason why, all other things equal (cam, heads, induction and exhaust system, etc.) and contrary to popular myth, a 350 or 383 WILL NOT make more peak power than a 327. All three configurations have the same total piston area, and they will all make about the same peak power at the same mean piston speed. If the 327 makes peak power at 6500, increasing the stroke to 3.48" or 3.75" will result in about the same peak power at 6100 and 5600, respectively.

A good example is F1 in the mid seventies when Ferrari's 12 won a couple of championships against a slew of 8-cylinder Cosworths. Of course, Ferrari had Niki Lauda, but everyone knew that Ferrari's flat-12 turned more revs and made more power than the Cosworths.

Of course, the 12 also had more internal friction, which meant higher fuel consumption, but this only applies at peak power.

In normal driving with intelligently controlled six-speed transmissions, a 3-liter V-8 can achieve nearly the same fuel economy as a 3-liter four, but the V-8 can make near twice the power at twice the revs for those short periods when full power is required.

Duke

[John H.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Honda has confirmed that they will have a V-8 in production next year - possibly for the upscale Acura models. I haven't seen any technical info on it, but you can bet it will be a jewel, with the latest technology.

[Clem Z.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

i have owned a 4 cylinder "iron duke" in a new 1980 citation,circle track raced using a cavalier 4 cylinder engine that had aluminum head with the inclined valves like a BBC and rented a 4 cylinder ecotec and i can't see what all the fuss is about that a 4 cylinder engine has to be a smooth as a V-8 because it ain't going to happen. i bought the iron duke because of the gasoline deal back in 1979/80 and the engine did great as i could get 36 MPG on a trips to Fla. the only problem i saw with 4 cylinder engines was at higher RPMs they buzzed but at highway speeds they seemed fine. JMHO

[Duke W.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

That "buzzing" is the second order unbalanced vertical shaking force acoustically resonating with the body cavity, but it doesn't happen with four-cylinders equipped with balance shafts.

Above idle speed a balance shaft four should feel nearly as smooth as an inline six or cruciform crank V-8 because all primary and secondary forces and couples are balanced in all the these configurations.

Balance shaft fours are an excellent configuration for everyday cars and trucks, but they just don't cut the mustard in a premium, world class sports car.

The first balance shaft four I ever experienced was a Porsche 944. It betrayed its four cylinders at idle, but above idle it was as smooth as silk. Nevertheless, Porschephiles didn't consider the 944 or any other post-356 Porsche will less than six cylinders to be a "real Porsche", and I think the same can be said of Corvettephiles when it comes to less than eight cylinders - with an exception for the '53 to '55 model years.

GM could stick a "Corvette" badge on a Solstace, but long time Corvette fans would not consider it a "real Corvette" just as the Porsche 944 was not considered by to be a "real Porsche", which is why it was dropped from the lineup.

Personally, I feel that if GM decides the C7 will have a four cylinder engine, they should NOT call it a Corvette - just drop the name and leave us with the legacy and all the vintage models.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

That "buzzing" is the second order unbalanced vertical shaking force acoustically resonating with the body cavity, but it doesn't happen with four-cylinders equipped with balance shafts.

Above idle speed a balance shaft four should feel nearly as smooth as an inline six or cruciform crank V-8 because all primary and secondary forces and couples are balanced in all the these configurations.

Balance shaft fours are an excellent configuration for everyday cars and trucks, but they just don't cut the mustard in a premium, world class sports car.

The first balance shaft four I ever experienced was a Porsche 944. It betrayed its four cylinders at idle, but above idle it was as smooth as silk. Nevertheless, Porschephiles didn't consider the 944 or any other post-356 Porsche will less than six cylinders to be a "real Porsche", and I think the same can be said of Corvettephiles when it comes to less than eight cylinders - with an exception for the '53 to '55 model years.

GM could stick a "Corvette" badge on a Solstace, but long time Corvette fans would not consider it a "real Corvette" just as the Porsche 944 was not considered by to be a "real Porsche", which is why it was dropped from the lineup.

Personally, I feel that if GM decides the C7 will have a four cylinder engine, they should NOT call it a Corvette - just drop the name and leave us with the legacy and all the vintage models.

Duke

Duke-----


I don't think that a C7 Corvette, assuming there ever is a C7 Corvette, will have a 4 cylinder engine. However, I think the chances for a V-6, perhaps turbocharged, are VERY good.

The existing 3.6L DOHC V-6 is already up to 300 hp with direct injection. With turbocharging, at least 400 hp is very likely. Coupled with a significantly smaller and lighter car, this would provide for performance levels very comparable to today.

The Corvette, being a very low production car, shouldn't really affect GM's future CAFE standards too much. So, from that perspective, there's no real reason why a future Corvette could not be equipped with a V-8. The BIG problem is that I see V-8 gasoline engines disappearing from trucks in favor of the new V-8 diesel and turbocharged versions of the I-4, 5 and 6 engines. If gasoline V-8 engines are dropped from trucks, it won't be cost-effective to keep V-8 engines in production. It is possible, though, that an existing design, like the LS engines, might be kept in production in Mexico for truck SERVICE needs as well as, perhaps, a few low-volume PRODUCTION applications (like Corvette).

Unless there is a perceived need for a smaller displacement, gasoline V-8 engine for trucks, I really don't see any GM investment in such development going forward.