Yellow Bullet Forums banner
121 - 133 of 133 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,867 Posts
Hmm...didn't Chevy have a V8 back in 1917? Wonder what style of crank it used? 🤔


The earliest V-8s all used flat-plane cranks, until in 1923 Cadillac introduced a cross-plane crankshaft with counterweights that quelled the nasty secondary vibrations (those that happen twice per revolution) inherent in a flat-plane crank for a smoother, more luxurious experience.


Well would ya look at that.
That engine failed because of that fact.
 

·
Trump is a LOSER!
Joined
·
1,092 Posts
670 Hp is very impressive , didn’t their blown 6.2 from the year before make only 650? Smaller motor and no blower and it has 20 horse on it ? Strange
What's strange exactly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,297 Posts
In one form or another, gm has been pulling the trigger with the gun still in the holster for far too long. They are constantly shooting themselves in the foot with piss poor product support, let alone the product failure rate. From the failed lifters to the failed Corvette wheels to the failed 8 speed automatic transmission. They've turned their backs on far too many future customers unless they plan to try and get away with their bullshit on the Chinese public and I doubt that will go very well over there.
The Chevy Fan Boy phuckstick1 probably cried after he read this!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Bore spacing & size. There is a reason Ford uses the spray-in bore liners - they have to. Yep, the "modular motor" production line really limited Ford for the last 25 years. I'm certain it has caused them to rethink such self imposed limitations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Bore spacing & size. There is a reason Ford uses the spray-in bore liners - they have to. Yep, the "modular motor" production line really limited Ford for the last 25 years. I'm certain it has caused them to rethink such self imposed limitations.
I agree there. The modular design really held back performance until they came out with the coyote. The 4v stuff was awesome but too far and few in between. I will say though, the modular design pulled Ford out of that huge reliability/durabilty/quality slump they were in for decades on end. Other than a couple of older and fully restored Broncos and some fox bodies, I hardly ever see any 80s-early 90s Fords on the road. Get to the 97+ F trucks and they are all over the place because they still run. Ford definitely changed me into a believer in the 2000s for daily driver vehicles. I have LS powered 84 C4 Corvette for a hot rod but for the last 15 years, all my daily drivers are reliable mod motor powered Fords.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,867 Posts
Did the 5.3 Voodoo not have titanium valves? Surprised the intake was so BAD. This 5.5 GM intake is a work of art.

What is this engine called anyway?
5.2 and had stainless steel valves I think.
Can't have a proper intake with a front engine car.
Same for the exhaust.......
A chassis can really determine hp output.

If GM installed this engine into a Camaro you could
see a possible 100 hp drop just because of the intake and exhaust.
But then again if I ran GM......the Camnaro would get a CPC stroker
version making up for that lost power.
 
121 - 133 of 133 Posts
Top