The last V8
07-16-2008, 07:31 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 929
The better question would be what advantages does a V6 have over a V8. Lately, V6 MPG is little different from more powerful V8s in the same car (the G8 for example). Add in the factors of trucks, torque, and cylinder deactivation, and I don't see the demise of the V8 anytime soon.
07-16-2008, 07:56 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7
Does the cylinder configuration really matter that much? Displacement is really what's important. I would imagine you don't see smaller displacement V8's because at some point the pistons become too small and there's no good reason to make a 2 liter motor 8 cylinders.
As far as trucks and 6 cylinders go, Class 8 trucks actually have 11 to 15 liter straight 6 Diesels.
All that being said, I hope that the V8 continues for a long time because I love their sound and power characteristics, and I will pay a premium as well as suffer a mileage penalty for them if I have to.
As far as trucks and 6 cylinders go, Class 8 trucks actually have 11 to 15 liter straight 6 Diesels.
All that being said, I hope that the V8 continues for a long time because I love their sound and power characteristics, and I will pay a premium as well as suffer a mileage penalty for them if I have to.
07-16-2008, 10:14 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Formula One uses 2.4L V8 engines that make over 700hp. Granted that is for racing purposes, however it goes to show that small displacement V8s can make big horsepower, however it comes at a price. I for one am still an advocate for manufacturers looking to lighter cars running NA sub 4.0L V8s for performance. However its a catch 22. Getting lighter also means getting smaller (in vehicle size) and there would come a point where you'd simply get the old big engine in a small package syndrome, which doesn't really work for a production passenger vehicle. To substitute that, they need to start thinking outside the box, and although many here don't like the notion, forced induction is often a cheaper and easier path to achieve one's goal.
07-16-2008, 11:24 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,122
Tell that to all the big block owners back in the 1960's that got smoked by a 302 cid (5.0L) Z/28.
Formula One uses 2.4L V8 engines that make over 700hp. Granted that is for racing purposes, however it goes to show that small displacement V8s can make big horsepower, however it comes at a price. I for one am still an advocate for manufacturers looking to lighter cars running NA sub 4.0L V8s for performance. However its a catch 22. Getting lighter also means getting smaller (in vehicle size) and there would come a point where you'd simply get the old big engine in a small package syndrome, which doesn't really work for a production passenger vehicle. To substitute that, they need to start thinking outside the box, and although many here don't like the notion, forced induction is often a cheaper and easier path to achieve one's goal.
Formula One uses 2.4L V8 engines that make over 700hp. Granted that is for racing purposes, however it goes to show that small displacement V8s can make big horsepower, however it comes at a price. I for one am still an advocate for manufacturers looking to lighter cars running NA sub 4.0L V8s for performance. However its a catch 22. Getting lighter also means getting smaller (in vehicle size) and there would come a point where you'd simply get the old big engine in a small package syndrome, which doesn't really work for a production passenger vehicle. To substitute that, they need to start thinking outside the box, and although many here don't like the notion, forced induction is often a cheaper and easier path to achieve one's goal.
07-16-2008, 11:43 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
The point is, everyone is saying the V8 is dead because of fuel prices. If the gas crisis of the 1970's (when fuel simply wasn't available) didn't kill the V8, will this little price hiccup kill it? I think its going to take a lot more to do that. Additionally, the V8 package offers us other conveniences, like the ability of shut of half the cylinders to conserve fuel when not needed. (I can never figure out which three a V6 deactivates.) I guess what I'm advocating for is smaller more efficient V8s, thus keeping everyone happy. Possible? Yes. Practical? The jury is still out. However until we can get over the stigma and recognize that that the 2.0L turbo Ecotec puts out more power than some of the top V8s GM placed in the Camaro in the late 1980s, we're not go to evolve as enthusiasts... at least not like our Camaro is evolving.
07-16-2008, 12:15 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
Yes you can get big performance in smaller displacement V8's but the cost is much higher to get the reliability to where it needs to be.
Personally I don't see the V8 going anywhere. We are very lucky the Corvette can't live without it and the current V8's are so much better for trucks and deliver the power they really need that while the numbers will certainly drop I don't see them going to way of the dodo until the IC engine goes.
Last edited by 99SilverSS; 07-16-2008 at 12:18 PM.
07-16-2008, 01:12 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,122
Agreed Stefan. That's why in another thread I (half jokingly) said that I wanted GM to consider a twin-turbo diesel V6 for the top dog powerplant for the 6th gen Camaro.
The point is, everyone is saying the V8 is dead because of fuel prices. If the gas crisis of the 1970's (when fuel simply wasn't available) didn't kill the V8, will this little price hiccup kill it? I think its going to take a lot more to do that. Additionally, the V8 package offers us other conveniences, like the ability of shut of half the cylinders to conserve fuel when not needed. (I can never figure out which three a V6 deactivates.) I guess what I'm advocating for is smaller more efficient V8s, thus keeping everyone happy. Possible? Yes. Practical? The jury is still out. However until we can get over the stigma and recognize that that the 2.0L turbo Ecotec puts out more power than some of the top V8s GM placed in the Camaro in the late 1980s, we're not go to evolve as enthusiasts... at least not like our Camaro is evolving.
The point is, everyone is saying the V8 is dead because of fuel prices. If the gas crisis of the 1970's (when fuel simply wasn't available) didn't kill the V8, will this little price hiccup kill it? I think its going to take a lot more to do that. Additionally, the V8 package offers us other conveniences, like the ability of shut of half the cylinders to conserve fuel when not needed. (I can never figure out which three a V6 deactivates.) I guess what I'm advocating for is smaller more efficient V8s, thus keeping everyone happy. Possible? Yes. Practical? The jury is still out. However until we can get over the stigma and recognize that that the 2.0L turbo Ecotec puts out more power than some of the top V8s GM placed in the Camaro in the late 1980s, we're not go to evolve as enthusiasts... at least not like our Camaro is evolving.
I’ve had an open mind about different power plants in the Camaro pretty much since I had drinks with Scott back in 2006. (Just to let some of you know how long the 300hp V6 has been in consideration)
That said from and engineering standpoint, I think it’s stupid not to consider every option of power plant when developing a new vehicle. Everything should come into consideration. What is the car I’m designing demographic going to be? What sort of fuel economy goals does our project have? What will this vehicles main purpose be? What sort of engines and parts are in development in my company that can meet the goals of my project?
I am very confident that the leaders and project managers on the Camaro team did a very good job asking and answering these questions during the development of the 5th gen.
When the specifications are released next week, I think many people here won’t be quite as worried as they are now. ….then again…..there are also the less open minded people who are stuck in a mind-set form 20 years ago and cant comprehend the new Camaro will not live and die on the merits of its V8.
Everyone be open-minded
Last edited by stars1010; 07-16-2008 at 01:17 PM.
07-16-2008, 01:38 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Naw, just hold on to the V8 you've got then you don't need to record it. There are plenty of V8 S-197 Mustangs to use as spares for years to come.
This has me thinking though, there might be a good market for an economical aftermarket aluminum 5.4 short block some years down the road...
07-16-2008, 01:49 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE, Ohio
Posts: 1,503
Also inline 6 cylinders used to be used in certain applications...they just used gearing to make up for the torque.
Tell that to all the big block owners back in the 1960's that got smoked by a 302 cid (5.0L) Z/28.
Formula One uses 2.4L V8 engines that make over 700hp. Granted that is for racing purposes, however it goes to show that small displacement V8s can make big horsepower, however it comes at a price. I for one am still an advocate for manufacturers looking to lighter cars running NA sub 4.0L V8s for performance. However its a catch 22. Getting lighter also means getting smaller (in vehicle size) and there would come a point where you'd simply get the old big engine in a small package syndrome, which doesn't really work for a production passenger vehicle. To substitute that, they need to start thinking outside the box, and although many here don't like the notion, forced induction is often a cheaper and easier path to achieve one's goal.
Formula One uses 2.4L V8 engines that make over 700hp. Granted that is for racing purposes, however it goes to show that small displacement V8s can make big horsepower, however it comes at a price. I for one am still an advocate for manufacturers looking to lighter cars running NA sub 4.0L V8s for performance. However its a catch 22. Getting lighter also means getting smaller (in vehicle size) and there would come a point where you'd simply get the old big engine in a small package syndrome, which doesn't really work for a production passenger vehicle. To substitute that, they need to start thinking outside the box, and although many here don't like the notion, forced induction is often a cheaper and easier path to achieve one's goal.
They also have electronically actuated valves if I remember correctly, which could be a possibility in passenger cars if they ever switch over to the 42-volt battery system.
07-16-2008, 01:50 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: BFE, Ohio
Posts: 1,503
Biodiesel will clean all the junk out of your fuel tank, thats why you have to change your fuel filter out so often, but after awhile I would think this would go away.
07-17-2008, 09:40 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Are they into e-valvetrains now. I thought it was all still pneumatic?
07-17-2008, 06:46 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Agreed Stefan. That's why in another thread I (half jokingly) said that I wanted GM to consider a twin-turbo diesel V6 for the top dog powerplant for the 6th gen Camaro.
The point is, everyone is saying the V8 is dead because of fuel prices. If the gas crisis of the 1970's (when fuel simply wasn't available) didn't kill the V8, will this little price hiccup kill it? I think its going to take a lot more to do that. Additionally, the V8 package offers us other conveniences, like the ability of shut of half the cylinders to conserve fuel when not needed. (I can never figure out which three a V6 deactivates.) I guess what I'm advocating for is smaller more efficient V8s, thus keeping everyone happy. Possible? Yes. Practical? The jury is still out. However until we can get over the stigma and recognize that that the 2.0L turbo Ecotec puts out more power than some of the top V8s GM placed in the Camaro in the late 1980s, we're not go to evolve as enthusiasts... at least not like our Camaro is evolving.
The point is, everyone is saying the V8 is dead because of fuel prices. If the gas crisis of the 1970's (when fuel simply wasn't available) didn't kill the V8, will this little price hiccup kill it? I think its going to take a lot more to do that. Additionally, the V8 package offers us other conveniences, like the ability of shut of half the cylinders to conserve fuel when not needed. (I can never figure out which three a V6 deactivates.) I guess what I'm advocating for is smaller more efficient V8s, thus keeping everyone happy. Possible? Yes. Practical? The jury is still out. However until we can get over the stigma and recognize that that the 2.0L turbo Ecotec puts out more power than some of the top V8s GM placed in the Camaro in the late 1980s, we're not go to evolve as enthusiasts... at least not like our Camaro is evolving.