Slashdot Mirror


The Last GM Big-Block V-8 Rolls Off the Line

DesScorp writes "It's the end of an era in auto technology, as the very last big block V-8 engine from GM has rolled off the production line. The L18 engine was the last variant of an engine that had been in continuous production for over 50 years. The big blocks powered everything from the classic muscle cars of the '60s and '70s to heavy-duty trucks today. From the Buffalo News: 'When GM said last June the L18 would be eliminated by year's end, the announcement triggered another show of devotion to the product. Some customers ordered two years' worth of L18s, to put on the shelf for future use.' More than 5 million big blocks have been produced over the engine's history. The final big block engine to come off the line in Tonawanda, NY is headed for the GM Heritage Center in Sterling Heights, MI."

525 comments

  1. I just pictured an oil sheik... by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...with a single tear running down his face.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by More_Cowbell · · Score: 3, Funny

      You sir, win one internet.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    2. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I pictured a paraplegic mechanic saying, "She's a real beaut! Last of the V8's! Woulda been a shame to blow 'er up..."

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

      You deserve a very positive mod for that comment.

    4. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you. In my heart, I've been modded up by your comment.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    5. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by Huzzah! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or even - try this instead - "The last of the V8 Interceptors... a piece of history!"

    6. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by hidoh · · Score: 1

      Seriously, petrol heads in Saudi Arabia are going to be pissed off.
      These people buy Japanese cars manufactured in the US only because they make them bigger.

    7. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      That's a good one.

      No, wait, that's a bedouin.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      Have to admit, my mind went the same place -- though in that case if memory serves, it was a Ford 351 Cleveland engine. I may be mistaken, as I'm old and it's early.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    9. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      He drove a Cadillac. (And ate at Burger King. And had some nifty F-4s.) They quit making the big Caddies long ago. :-(

      There's still a big demand for the BB Caddy engines. Popular in larger performance vehicles. Not so much in trucks, where the BB Chevy is easier.

      Sadder than the death of the GM big block is that you can't buy a half-ton pickup with a manual transmission anymore.

      Oblig...RIP Joe Strummer.

    10. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The Rat Motor will still live for those who really want them, just like the 427 Hemi's and the 440 wedge. For that matter you can still get Offenauser engine if you have U$28,000.00 burning a hole in your pocket..

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      Nope, the engine was a Pontiac 455 with a really big Weind blower. One of the Australian Ford Falcons that was used in the movies was left abandoned in an industrial park. Some lucky bastard found it.

    12. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      That's a funny image, but your sig makes English profs (and me) do the same.

    13. Re:I just pictured an oil sheik... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If demand drops, too easy, just reduce production and watch the prices jump up again! So I think you pictured wrong ;)

  2. Innovation! by awyeah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It sounds like this is the result of innovation? I imagine that these "big-block" engines will be replaced by smaller-block V8s or perhaps more powerful V6s that have similar performance?

    The only bad part of this is some people are going to lose their jobs (according to the AP).

    --
    Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
    1. Re:Innovation! by Laebshade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Screw V-6's. Inline 6's have more power and better reliability. Inline engines always do.

    2. Re:Innovation! by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Screw V-6's. Inline 6's have more power and better reliability. Inline engines always do.

      Shoehorn anyone? Inline V-8(or God forbid I-10 or 12) tends to be a bit of a reach for real estate under the hood.

      Regardless of "better" designs, we're witnessing an end of an era here, considering this format has survived for 50 out of the last 100 years of the automobile. A sad day indeed.

      You want an IT analogy? Fine. Sometimes it's about the finesse and raw power coming from a 1000W system with dual graphics cards and 15K RPM drives, and not always about "green" designs or overall reliability. Sometimes you want your machine to haul ass and look good no matter the cost.

    3. Re:Innovation! by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "It sounds like this is the result of innovation?"

      More like the rise in fuel costs coupled with the recession.

      The big block Chevrolet is a simple, tough engine that produces excellent torque, is durable, very easy to work on and inexpensive to repair. Aftermarket support is excellent and one can build complete engines without using a single GM part.

      The powerplant of choice that replaced big block gas engines is the diesel, which is vastly more complex, brutally expensive to repair, difficult to work on even for well-equipped shops, and burdened with complex emission systems. Diesel fuel quality is always a concern, especially with low-sulfur diesel. They make great power, but you pay dearly for it.

      I'll be hunting more of them for spares (I just rebuilt a 366 for my C30 wrecker). Like the small block Chevrolet, these adaptable engines will be working for many decades to come.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Innovation! by LaRoach · · Score: 1

      Inline sixes also can weigh more, take up more space under the hood and can require a stronger frame in an offset front end crash. Remember, accountants run the companies, not the engineers. Don't get me wrong, I have four cars with inline sixes outside as I type this but the bean counters don't really like them.

    5. Re:Innovation! by LaRoach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, inline V8? I do not think that means what you think it means...

    6. Re:Innovation! by mirix · · Score: 1

      Not really an end of an era, they still make the small block, and the only way I see that going away is if GM is dissolved.

      Even then, I'm sure someone would buy up the tooling and keep making them.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    7. Re:Innovation! by mirix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While diesels do have their own problems, I've never seen a big block with over a million miles on it.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    8. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Regardless of "better" designs, we're witnessing an end of an era here, considering this format has survived for 50 out of the last 100 years of the automobile. A sad day indeed.

      What's sad is that GM had to almost go out of business before they'd finally acknowledge that such an inefficient engine type was obsolete. The handwriting's been on the wall since 19 ****ing 74, for crisakes. But GM couldn't change its mindset, and instead sat and twiddled their thumbs while the Japanese took away their business.

      I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors. But then, I'm an embittered ex-Sun employee...

    9. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure, but a V8 can't touch a straight six turbo in the "looks good and hauls ass" department.

      we're witnessing an end of an era here

      Not really. Don't get me wrong - I like classic muscle as much as the next guy - but that era ended a long time ago. Nothing to get sentimental about here.

    10. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you're pulling 1000W system with dual graphics cards and 15K RPM drives, You've left finesse WAY behind. Also, you'll get the same performance for a heck of a lot more stability with one graphic card in just a year down the road, but that's neither here or there.

      It's not like GM is killing this line because the engine isn't green enough. It just isn't selling enough. It's sad that there isn't the market for V8s, like there was long ago. But that doesn't make it a travesty. It's just a marker for an end of an era.

    11. Re:Innovation! by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 3, Funny

      An inline V8 would be an innovation.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    12. Re:Innovation! by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      Says the Ford man! That would seem to be one of the great bones of contention between Ford and Holden (GM) supporters. Personally I love the Ford straight 6's. I've always had straight 6's in my work cars. So much easier to work on than a V6! On the other hand, I also love my '78 ZH Fairlane's 302 Cleveland (V8). Even in such a big car with so much space under the hood, I doubt that a straight 8 would quite fit...

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    13. Re:Innovation! by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suspect GM kept at it this long for a good business reason: tinkerers loved that kind of engine: relatively easy to self-repair and powerful. Now the only choices will be wimpy or too complex to self-service. The Duke boys will have to rely much more on Cooter now.

    14. Re:Innovation! by jhylkema · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Duke boys will have to rely much more on Cooter now.

      The General Lee was a Dodge Charger (well, many Dodge Chargers).

      Even the Duke boys knew better than to drive a GM product.

    15. Re:Innovation! by zippyspringboard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While the big block wont EVER make it to a million, I've seen an awful AWFUL lot of diesels fail to make 500k. When it comes time to rebuild the engine the big block can be rebuilt several times over for what the Diesel will Cost. (atleast in parts and machining costs) Diesels commonly give twice the service life of their gas equivalents, anything more than that while not unheard of, is not to be expected either. (some gas engines go 400k too) Don't get me wrong, I would trade my Vortec 454 for a diesel in a heartbeat. But my motivation would be for the improved gas mileage. ESPECIALLY when Towing. The only reason I own Big block is for pulling a 10,000# trailer, and it does this VERY VERY well. But it get's about 10mpg when towing (15.5 when not) A Diesel would probably get 18mpg when towing and i could run homemade bio diesel. My tow vehicle with a big block is inexpensive, dependable, easy to work on, and gets pretty poor gas mileage....

    16. Re:Innovation! by Temkin · · Score: 1

      Nor will you see a big-block putting out 700+ ft/lbs. of torque for 250K miles. 12.5 mpg vs. 7 mpg in heavy towing applications plays a part as well.

      The BB's were great engines, but there's a reason why there's all those diesel pickups out there these days.

    17. Re:Innovation! by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors.

      C'mon man - what this thread really needs is a car analogy.

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    18. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly the chevy rat was no slant6.

    19. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because I'm pretty sure my M3 would eat a 335i alive.

    20. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      No it wouldn't. Old Buicks had inline 8s in the 1940s.

      Regards,
      Jason

    21. Re:Innovation! by Grimbleton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So obsolete that people went on a buying frenzy when they announced they were stopping production, because there was such a demand for them...

    22. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure my M3 would eat a 335i alive.

      Until you come to the first corner.

    23. Re:Innovation! by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      It sounds like this is the result of innovation? I imagine that these "big-block" engines will be replaced by smaller-block V8s or perhaps more powerful V6s that have similar performance?

      I am curious about the GMC commercials talking about a "6.2 liter nutcracker." If a 6.2 liter V8 is not a big block, then what is?

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    24. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one good advantage of a V8, and that is smooth power. Yes, you can get a 4 cylinder up to top speed fast, but with a lot of smaller engines, there is full on pedal stop, and there is no acceleration -- the engine just doesn't accelerate smoothly.

      So, for a daily driving car, what would be ideal would be an efficient hybrid V8 that on highway cruising speed can use six cylinders. The hybrid part is excellent at not wasting energy when the vehicle is idling, and when at a crusing speed, having six cylinders do the work also saves a notable amount of fuel.

      The problem is that with the lackluster power of most 4-6 cylinders, people are used to cars which are relative sluggards, such as Hondas which are extremely reliable, but almost always are anemically underpowered compared to the competition. Driving a decent v8 powered car will easy change perceptions of what is a fun engine to have for long drives, and what is a decent engine for getting from the house to the grocery store with a stop by the soccer field.

    25. Re:Innovation! by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 2

      Sorry, the exhaust note from a six sounds like Felix Unger clearing his sinuses. You may haul ass, but there's no sex appeal in the way it sounds.

    26. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though GP was obviously confused, a sort of inline Vn already exists, it's called VRn, for instance the VR6 engine.

    27. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 0

      Yes, because a M3 and a 335i are in a roughly comparable state of tune aren't they?

      Compare the M3 to a six-turbo that has a similar level of development (and price!) and you'll get a very different picture.

    28. Re:Innovation! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consumers kept buying them.

    29. Re:Innovation! by MikShapi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think what they were saying is that pistons in a V configuration (e.g. V6, V8, V12 etc) are not in a line, hence they are not inline engines. An engine can either be a V or an inline, not both, much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

      --
      -
    30. Re:Innovation! by SerpentMage · · Score: 0

      I grew up in North America in the days of nostalgia. My high school years were 82 to 87. And I had friends with Hurst shifters, and big blocks 440's and the likes....

      BUT let me tell you about a story on the German Autobahn... My father took a Z-28 Camero big block around 86 to Europe. Everybody looked at it, and they were in awe. UNTIL they took it on the Autobahn. It ended up jamming. Why? Because the rear differential at the time was intended for 4 banger usage. The autodealer said so themselves.

      Putting it simple... The nostalgia that everyone craves is all show no go! I will take a Europe sports car anyday... The only car that really showed its stuff on the German autobahn was the Dodge Viper! I know because my car was limited to 250 KPH (as most are due to insurance), but the Viper just passed me with ease. That car is a true sports car!!!

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    31. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      HA! I guess it rather depends on who you are trying to impress.

      My tastes run more along the lines of athletic cosmopolitan babes then trucker-cap wearing hill-billies, so the lack of a V8 exhaust note is probably not an issue.

    32. Re:Innovation! by mirix · · Score: 1

      There's some overlap and such, but it's usually like this.

      BBC - 366, 396, 427, 454, etc
      SBC - 283, 327, 305, 350, 400, etc... 383 stroker is about 6.2L

      So the biggest small blocks are bigger than the smallest big blocks, if that makes sense. At the dawn of time, the biggest big block was bigger than the biggest small block, so the terms stuck around. (well the big block is always *bigger* but the displacement isn't always. got it!?)

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    33. Re:Innovation! by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 0, Redundant

      +1 insightful

    34. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but a V8 can't touch a straight six turbo in the "looks good and hauls ass" department.

      Really? No shit, huh? Cause last I checked, a Chevy Corvette with a V8 stomps anything with a production straight 6 in the ground.

    35. Re:Innovation! by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      GM started working on the Volt before going into bankruptcy.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    36. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think the big-block was so much obsolete, as it was becoming irrelevant. Their "small block" V8 has been sold up to 400 cubic inch displacement for street use (that I'm aware of), compared to 454 for the big block. Nothing "small" about that!

      The few performance cars GM still builds with V8s use high revving small block designs to get their power. The big block has been used mostly in trucks for many years now, but the trend for high power in trucks has shifted to diesels.

      Even NASCAR abandoned the big blocks decades ago, in favor of smaller engines that still make more power than they can cope with on the super-speedways (thus the notorious restrictor plate rules).

      A dumb line in the article, though: the factory never put big block V8s into Corvairs, nor small block V8s for that matter. All Corvairs had air-cooled flat-opposed six engines (vaguely like Porsche 911s, but not nearly as well executed--take that fan belt arrangement, please!). Many hot-rodders did manage to stuff V8s into them, with the Olds Toronado engine-transaxle combination being a frequent choice. But that never came from the GM factory. A 455 CID Corvair--somebody should give one of those to Ralph Nader!

    37. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That happens with anything nowadays that they discontinue, or people THINK will be discontinued. See, there's this idea that's been driven into people's heads over the past 20 years or so that getting your hands on anything that's scarce will be an easy road to riches. The old "money for nothing" ploy.

      If it's even remotely rare, some greedy, bottom feeding, unethical scumbag will buy the last of them, then put them back on sale at an inflated price, demanding huge profits while adding zero value.

      It's all part of today's get-rich-quick society. Nobody wants to work anymore, they want a scheme that extracts money from others and puts it into their pockets with no effort at all. The housing bubble was a result of this and also reinforced this notion.

    38. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't, AC - unless you're talking about burnout competitions.

    39. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know much about the LS line of small blocks do you?

    40. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same happens when any spare parts are discontinued - if this is the last batch of them, the cost of finding replacements will only go up over time.

    41. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you're saying you prefer shallow, phoney, gold diggers who are only with you for you car over down-to-earth, uncouth, possibly buck-toothed women who are only with you for your car?

    42. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 0, Troll

      OK, link swap (the corvette is the the one that looks like it is standing still)

      You can't pwn somebody posting AC asshole.

    43. Re:Innovation! by bennomatic · · Score: 1, Funny

      much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time

      Says you, liberal! Sarah Palin tells me that this is exactly the "intellectual" mindset that has prevented us from fixing government, lowering taxes, eliminating terrorism, and balancing the budget.

      What's the matter? Do you hate America?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    44. Re:Innovation! by smhsmh · · Score: 1

      Chrysler as well. Some time in the late '60s a friend's father gave him a dead 1948 Chrysler -- can't remember to model. It has an inline 8 and would no longer start. We towed it about 50 miles from a D.C. suburb into the city, and the Chevy doing the towing in the summer heat never again ran very well. But when we arrived, the Chrysler magically started! That was a great car. It had those neat external visors on the windshield, and one could stretch out one's legs fully in the rear seat. The 8 cylinders under the hood were in a slanted straight line. That vehicle must have been about 37 feet stem to stern...

    45. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes.

      But lets be honest here. Once there was this total hottie who slept with this guy because of his totally awesome car. But it never happened again.

    46. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bwahahahaha! And the desperation of the fanboys sets in.

      That's the best you can come up with? Who do you think you're kidding? A modded Supra vs a stock Z06? Is that supposed to prove something? Anything can be modded to do anything. A Neon with enough juice and forced induction could beat a Ferrari, FFS. Show me a single straight 6 anything from the factory that can handle a Z06. I thought not, loser.

      And your lame AC comments are pathetic. I'm at work and can't login right now.

    47. Re:Innovation! by srh2o · · Score: 1

      It's a small block

    48. Re:Innovation! by srh2o · · Score: 1

      Correct, not about displacement. Big blocks have a greater distance between the cylinders.

    49. Re:Innovation! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So an extra 25 grand over the GT-R gets you 2.6 seconds on the Nurburgring... and chevy build quality and reliability (well... the lack therof) instead of Nissan's? Sorry, but you can keep those 2.6 seconds. If I'm ever in the market for a super-car, I'll be keeping with the same rule I'll be following for normal cars: "Don't buy it unless the VIN starts with a 'J'".

      I'd still be driving the GT-R years after your chevy was a burnt-out rustheap set up on cinder blocks.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    50. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Porsche... flat 6 rulez!

    51. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      And they're still "working on it".

    52. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Oh, right, and that's why GM still dominates the market.

    53. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because that really shows in their bottom line and the fact they are discontinuing them...

    54. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 1, Informative

      A few enthusiasts buying cars for the collectability value is not a "frenzy". If GM were able to work up a frenzy, they wouldn't have gone bankrupt.

    55. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, right, because almost everybody likes to work on their own car.

    56. Re:Innovation! by mick232 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If IT companies started to phase out their 50 year old designs _now_, we would still be dealing with punched cards and probably not even use magnetic tapes. So you better look for more suitable analogies. No company buys a computer just because it hauls ass and looks good. Instead, they throw 3 years old machines away because they are not (cost) efficient anymore.

    57. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Ok then. A car is like a, well, you know....

    58. Re:Innovation! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      But thats the thing about selling stuff. Your consumers can be 100% behind your old product. But then they all retire at about the same time and suddenly a solid market has evaporated. I said consumers kept buying the product. Past tense.

    59. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "Suddenly"? GM's been losing market share for decades.

    60. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The haters.

      They be mad tonight. The mighty Skyline replete with every gram of techno-wizardry it's makers could throw at it still gets it ass handed to it by a humble Chevrolet. I mean, what happened? They must not have quite squeezed all of the Datsun out of it. Almost brings a tear to my eye. You'd better be glad that Nissan is reliable because if it ever takes a shit on you out of warranty, you'd better believe it won't be cheap to fix that thing. And from what I heard, you can basically forget putting a wrench on it yourself as it's locked up tighter than a steel drum.

      But back on topic.

      Bye bye, miss American Pie.
      Drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry.
      And all the fanbots were drinking hater-ade and rye.
      And singin', this will be the day that I die.

      Oh, and goddammit, CmdrTaco, this fucking "Slowdown Cowboy" shit takes all the fun out of setting 5 people straight in different threads simultaneously. Can't you see I'm on a roll here? Don't make me pull some Twitter sock-puppet shit and register something like 8 different accounts.

    61. Re:Innovation! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      They may have, but Back In The Day they weren't ever, under any circumstance called an "inline 8." The correct term was and is "straight eight." "Inline 6" and "inline 8" just sound so...so...so...wrong.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    62. Re:Innovation! by adamchou · · Score: 2, Informative

      uhhh... what? are you kidding me? M3 skidpad number is 0.98 and the 335i skidpad is 0.87

    63. Re:Innovation! by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      ... the fastest stock Toyota Supra does mid 14s, not 12s. He asked to compare a production straight 6.

      Besides, why not compare another forced induction vehicle to the supra? I can easily get a 500rwhp vehicle by slapping twin turbos on my mustang and beat just about everything on the street (including a 12 second supra, which I can do even without the FI) while still having a decent daily driver. That wouldn't prove anything other than car + money + work = fast.

    64. Re:Innovation! by adamchou · · Score: 1

      That must be why F1 cars use a V8 configuration too right? The only straight six turbo that can haul ass is the porsche. But even then, thats a flat, not inline

    65. Re:Innovation! by w0mprat · · Score: 5, Informative

      No not really, V-engines have a little added complexity, which may drag down reliability, but for all practical purposes there is no dramatic difference that makes a inline superior in peformance and reliability.

      A V allows you package more displacement in to smaller overall volume or to have less car to package around given in engine. Weight savings from a V engine boosts handling performance and economy. Yet an inline engine will be cheaper than a V, due to one, block, single manifolds, two camshafts instead of four.

      Difference in power may come from firing order, and the path intake charge and exhaust gas take and a small reduction in friction in a Inline 4 or 6. Inline 6s can have a good cross flow set up for top end power when mounted longitudnally in a front engined car (short straight intake runners and 6 into 1 headers, make a good turbo platform. BMW, Nissan and Toyota have exploited this to great effect in racing and in road cars. Aftermarket Nissan Skyline motors with 6-1 turbo manifolds make whopping power.

      In the end, V8s rose to greatnews because it was probably the best balance between a number of cylinders, dimensions, displacement etc. A four cylinder block is about as long as you want to go. Big displacement engines need a greater number of pistons to stop the piston speeds getting out of hand along with smoothness reasons. Eight cylinders is just right, for big power or a big engine.

      A inline 6, and a 90 degree V12 and a boxer six are probably the three ideal engines, having perfect balance. The greatest engine of them all on the balance of all considerations, including, cost, complexity and packaging is the inline four. That's why V8s are made out of two of them:

      American V8s most often really are just two inline four engines stuck together. Right down to the split-plane (cross-plane) crankshaft. Yes there are hack mechanics who have lopped off one bank of cylinders to make a inline four, it works. Unfortunatley cross-plane crankshafts have a lot of drawbacks including difficult to control vibration, unbalanced piston movement, poorer exhaust scavanging in certain exhaust configuartions and need for counterweights that add rotational inertia. Yes every American V8 you drove had a dirty kludge under the hood.

      IMHO, a real V8 has a flat plane crankshaft. Truly the correct format for a V8, better firing order, more power, more balance and even better sound :)

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    66. Re:Innovation! by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but a V8 can't touch a straight six turbo in the "looks good and hauls ass" department.

      But a V8 turbo can sure as hell kick a straight six turbo in the ass. If your after HP and torque, the ol adage still holds true. There is no replacement for displacement.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    67. Re:Innovation! by adamchou · · Score: 1

      the gtr is crap dude. that video you saw at the ring was total bullshit. watch the video again. the gtr's time starts with a moving start and the time doesn't stop where he started. nissan totally cheated in their "claim". additionally, there was speculation that the car wasn't stock. in fact, iirc, one of the nissan engineers flat out admitted they were running slicks or race tires where as the zr1 was running stock tires at the ring. think about it man... that car is 150 hp underpowered and something like 500 pounds heavier compared to a zr1. i'm pretty sure the gtr's skidpad numbers are also way worse than the zr1's. but anyways, if you do enough googling, the gtr is full of shit. its an engineering marvel that can't compete with the rest of the supercars on the track.

    68. Re:Innovation! by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't make that statement if I were you. There are V-6 engines that are serious power houses. They also have an advantage of having a much shorter crank shaft which means less crank warp and longer life for the crank.
                        In line engines work well in low power usage. They are nicely in balance. However they create other problems in that the engine bay, and frame must be larger to accommodate in V-6 designs. That means increased weight for the vehicle which in turn effects fuel use.
                        I have driven antique straight 8s and straight 12s. They could actually be pretty smooth but it was like having the anchor from the Titanic in the front of the car. They also lacked power.

    69. Re:Innovation! by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Then why are they killing them off?

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    70. Re:Innovation! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And, Volkswagen also has a W engine (two VR engines mated at the crank,) up to 16 cylinders - meaning they do have the ability to make an inline V8.

      (Oh, and VR is short for Veereihen - or V inline.)

    71. Re:Innovation! by Swampash · · Score: 1

      When I want durable, I'll get a Toyota Hilux with a diesel 1KZ-TE engine in it. A big block Chev is not what comes to mind when I think "durable".

    72. Re:Innovation! by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Just to add to the confusion there are now folded V configurations such that one piston is sandwiched into the valley of two others such that one head can cover both banks. These designs work well enough but I can imagine that handling the heat from such designs must be an engineers nightmare.

    73. Re:Innovation! by Katchu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The handwriting's been on the wall since 19 ****ing 74, for crisakes.

      Yeah, but it was written in Japanese.

      --
      Keep Doing Good.
    74. Re:Innovation! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And the only passenger vehicle this engine came in for the last few years was the TopKick/Kodiak, which is a medium-duty truck (think the biggest UHauls, delivery trucks, school buses, tow-trucks, that sort of thing,) for markets that for whatever reason didn't want to deal with diesels, but needed something with a ton of torque.

      This thing was often sold as an engine, no car, to markets that directly wanted it, and wanted to tinker.

    75. Re:Innovation! by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

      LS7 is 428 cubic inches, and is used in the Corvette.

      The biggest big-block sold in a road vehicle was 502 ci, for fleet vehicles. The engine in this article, the Vortec 8100, was 496 ci.

      Also, GM sold a 572 ci crate motor for off-road applications. Of course, the LS architecture scales to 511 cubic inches in off-road applications, and is lighter weight and I believe higher revving.

    76. Re:Innovation! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Except the LS engine is rather well known for its reliability, the Corvette is known for overall reliability and low-cost maintenance, and that GT-R is known for eating transmissions, and maintenance costs that are as bad as cars with much, much better performance, styling, driver feedback, and badges.

    77. Re:Innovation! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Nuerburgring times are usually run from "bridge to gantry" - not quite a full lap, and at a running start. This is because, if you go to the Nuerburgring, you get onto the track, and have to merge into traffic. Therefore, you're up to speed at the bridge. And, you have to exit after the gantry.

      The rest of your post, however, I'll agree with.

    78. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a mechanic but guys that are have always told me that diesel engines were far simpler than any gas engine. I understand that government regulations are notorious for screwing up anything they touch so I am sure emission standards have increased complexity but what makes you say a gas engine is less complex??

    79. Re:Innovation! by caluml · · Score: 3, Insightful

      much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

      The Equator is both straight and curved.

    80. Re:Innovation! by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      ...much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time, except in non-Euclidian geometry.

    81. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you think that's confusing you should take a look at the Napier Deltic configuration. Unlikely to ever be used in a car though, I admit.

    82. Re:Innovation! by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      An inline straight 6/8/etc is just a V6/8/etc with an angle of zero. :D

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    83. Re:Innovation! by soundguy · · Score: 1

      Missing a few. The original "big block" was the "W block". It came in 348, 409, and 427 (only 50 built). If you grind down the mains .010", you can actually drop a 409 crank right into a 454 block. (don't know why you'd want to, except maybe to win a bet)

      Small blocks also came in 265 ('55), 302 ('67 Z-28), and the slow-as-hell 307

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    84. Re:Innovation! by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors.

      Sun has sold systems with intel CPUs for years. They also kept making SPARC systems. This is good because having their own platform allowed them to have something to innovate with and also gave their existing SPARC customers an upgrade path. Commodity x86 processors may have the best initial purchase price to performance ratio, but Suns T series UltraSPARCs appear to have a better TCO to performance ratio. Since the T1 and T2 have better performance per watt and higher throughput, I run them in my servers instead of hot inefficient x86 CPUs. Sun is years ahead of intel on massively multicore systems.

      Your analogy really isn't fair. Intel is the big monolithic "GM" with the inefficient but powerful and popular engine. Sun is the import. The smaller but more modern company with an engine design that uses less energy. Guess which one is the way of the future?

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    85. Re:Innovation! by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      F1 uses V8 because its insane regulatory body (FIA) mandated 2.4 liter V8s, restricted to 18,000 RPM, for cost saving reasons. Or are you going to tell me that RPM-restriction is good for performance too - after all, F1 uses it.

      If engine designs were open to competition, F1 teams would choose other configurations. F1 has never had completely open engine rules, so it makes little sense to discuss what the teams would run if they could freely choose: certainly something insanely expensive and insanely powerful. Taking real-life regulations into account, teams preferred V10s when required to use normally-aspirated 3.5-liter engines. If forced aspiration was allowed, everyone would probably run 1.5-liter, 4-cylinder turbos or something like that, like in the 80ies when such engines reached 1000 PS in race trim and 1400 in qualifying trim.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    86. Re:Innovation! by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I understand that government regulations are notorious for screwing up anything they touch so I am sure emission standards have increased complexity

      Really bad example for the supposed bad influence of regulations.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    87. Re:Innovation! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      An engine can either be a V or an inline

      At least debatable.

      VR6 engine.

      Quote: "The name VR6 comes from a combination of V engine (German: V-Motor), and the German word "Reihenmotor" (meaning "row engine" or straight engine)."

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    88. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting enough is the fact that you promote an engine for its ease of repair. Why do you need to repair an engine that just works? Or are you promoting a broken engine?

    89. Re:Innovation! by nusuth · · Score: 1

      Although I'm pretty sure everybody would be using turbo V8s instead of turbo flat 6s if "up to 8 cylinders at any configuration with or without F.I." were permitted in F1 but that is not the case. Atmospheric V8 with up to 2.4l displacement is mandatory. Turbo inline 4 cylinders of 1 litres used to kick asses of 3 liter atmospheric V12's in the eighties, so there would be no contest between a similar sized turbo flat 6 and atmospheric V8.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    90. Re:Innovation! by adamchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      my point was that anyone thats serious about performance wouldn't chose an inline configuration for an engine. They'd chose a boxer or v configuration over inline any day. And if there was free reign for engine choice, I'd be willing to be that the wankel motor might be chosen. Mazda would probably still be kicking ass in le mans if their wankel didn't get banned.

    91. Re:Innovation! by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the wankel's. Mazda didn't really perfect it until late in the 80's and even then, they didn't get to keep using them for very long. But my point to the gp was that an inline 6 is not better than a v8 if everything else was equal. Hell, an inline configuration is probably the worst engine configuration choice for performance.

    92. Re:Innovation! by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      It's all part of today's get-rich-quick society. Nobody wants to work anymore, they want a scheme that extracts money from others and puts it into their pockets with no effort at all.

      Can't they just rob banks like honest people do ? It's not *that* hard and it pays well with very little work. Worked fine for Goldman Sachs.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    93. Re:Innovation! by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Your analogy really isn't fair. Intel is the big monolithic "GM" with the inefficient but powerful and popular engine. Sun is the import. The smaller but more modern company with an engine design that uses less energy. Guess which one is the way of the future?

      Um... Big monolithic Intel, inefficient and popular ?

      Small and modern Orac^H^H^H^HSun won't be pushing SPARC for much longer (there are other sources though). They are already a niche CPU. At best it will go the way of MIPS.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    94. Re:Innovation! by The+Outlander · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yeah, I agree, fuck the planet, I need something easy to fix.

    95. Re:Innovation! by Amouth · · Score: 1

      don't know about everybody - but i will say that i have sworn off new cars - you just can't fix them your self. too many specialty tools - too many "design improvements"

      when my 79 MG is more reliable and gets better mileage than newer cars (even if you do it based on weight). thats just sad.

      recently i was looking to buy a truck.. i intentionally looked for an older truck pre 95 so that it would NOT have any of the ODB crap on it, why? because i want to be able to fix it my self instead of paying lots of $$$ for what are slowly turning to dealer only fixable problems that shouldn't be problems in the first place.

      yea not everyone wants to fix their own car BUT there are a lot of people who would IF they could - and the limit on that is coming from the manufactures not the consumers

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    96. Re:Innovation! by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

      LOL. False.

    97. Re:Innovation! by nusuth · · Score: 1

      Inline 8 instead of V8 does not make sense. Both are unbalanced and V8 is much easier to pack. However both straight and flat 6 has perfect balance, unlike V6. I couldn't find a single sexy, current car with a straight 6 on wikipedia, so perhaps you are right.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    98. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

      Old Albert.E would like a word with you.

    99. Re:Innovation! by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      There are only a few cars that I know of that are still being made with the straight 6 layout, but they're all pretty awesome:

    100. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An engine can either be a V or an inline, not both ...

      Except the famous V1 of course!

    101. Re:Innovation! by GNU(slash)Nickname · · Score: 1

      my point was that anyone thats serious about performance wouldn't chose an inline configuration for an engine. They'd chose a boxer or v configuration over inline any day.

      So, BMW used an inline 4 instead of the boxer for their new S1000RR Superbike because why?

    102. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dumb line in the article, though: the factory never put big block V8s into Corvairs, nor small block V8s for that matter.

      Yes and no. The 61-63 Pontiac Lemans, Olds F85/Cutlass, and Buick Le Sabre were essentially Corvairs, but with the engine up front. The Olds and Buick had aluminum V8s, the Pontiac came standard with an iron block slant 4 (essentially half the poncho V8) and the Corvair rear trans-axle, or as an option the Buick aluminum V8.

    103. Re:Innovation! by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Well, strictly speaking, any section of a circle with infinite radius is a line :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    104. Re:Innovation! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I was with you up to where you said "smooth power" bat after that it was just drivel.

      *Most* four cylinder engines are "lackluster" because they were designed that way - to use less gas. I've had a few four cylinder sporty cars and there was no problem at all (eg. my current MR2). Even the lackluster ones are capable of 100mph which is more than you need "long haul". In fact a big thirsty V8 is exactly what you DON'T want for long haul driving - fill it up every 200 miles or so? No thanks.

      A lightweight V6 is as smooth as a big heavy V8. and a V6 seems to be good enough for real engineers. Most Europeans laugh at the lack of power the Americans manage to get out of a monster V8.

      The only reason those V8s were still around is so that non-engineers could put them in their cars at weekends. Maybe this will force the amateurs to find out about other ways to get the job done (instead of just 'burn more gas').

      Best of all would be if the USA could find out about diesel/biodiesel engines. They're perfect for big heavy SUVs.
      .

      --
      No sig today...
    105. Re:Innovation! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      A V-shaped engine is also slightly smoother because the inertial forces of the pistons aren't all going in the same direction.

      --
      No sig today...
    106. Re:Innovation! by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      That happens with anything nowadays that they discontinue, or people THINK will be discontinued. See, there's this idea that's been driven into people's heads over the past 20 years or so that getting your hands on anything that's scarce will be an easy road to riches. The old "money for nothing" ploy.

      Well, there's 'rare' and then there's 'in demand'.

      The big block v-8 filled a niche. It's not a niche that can't be replaced, but it's a niche.

      Ordering a '2 year supply' isn't stockpiling in a hope to get rich, it's having a sufficient supply that you can still manufacture your product, whether it be an emergency water pump system, U-Haul truck*, mobile home, generator, boat engine, or what not until you've re-engineered your product to take a different engine. Or some Chinese company licenses the design and starts production...

      If it's even remotely rare, some greedy, bottom feeding, unethical scumbag will buy the last of them, then put them back on sale at an inflated price, demanding huge profits while adding zero value.

      Uh.... Sure that 'scumbag' is adding value: He's adding the value of it being available. He has to pay for warehousing them in good condition, sales staff to sell them, advertising to let companies know the product is still available(in limited quantities). He has to take the risk that it'll never sell, and in many states, play a percentage tax on their retail value every year. It's expensive to keep stock around.

      Not that some of what you mention doesn't happen, but from what I'm reading, GM fulfilled all orders in before a certain date, so the 'scum-suckers' at least can't rape the customers who planned ahead and stockpiled some of their own...

      *Still surprised these aren't diesel.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    107. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a negative, chief. The inline-6 is one of the best configurations out there, in terms of balance (inline-6 configurations usually don't require balance shafts) but that does not automatically make inline better in every scenario.

    108. Re:Innovation! by wolf.sama · · Score: 1

      Here in diesel-land (Europe) every car that fails to hit 500k, diesel or not, is because of the "cash for clunkers" program, or a car accident. Every 'high-duty' application, comparable to what you are searching when towing 10K lbs make _way_ more than a million before getting rebuilt. for the rebuilding of a Diesel, parts are something like 30% more expensive. The only thing that costs WAY more, is the Turbo, on a Turbodiesel engine. You can get your (car) turbo rebuilt for 400 euros here. Where I live, i see a lot of MB's 308 & 508 which have travelled thru europe without even an oil change. But these 508&308 are often devoured by rust, because of the salt. These engines are non-turbo, get pretty good mileage, and run just ... forever

      --
      When fiction hits reality, dreams have no air-bag.
    109. Re:Innovation! by J4 · · Score: 1

      The format isn't dead. Germany and Japan and probably a few other places are still producing V8's.

    110. Re:Innovation! by karnal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anymore this sounds just like a "GET OFF MY LAWN" comment.

      I enjoy maintaining my own vehicle, and while I get the WTF moment when a part costs more than I'm expecting to pay (for instance, Ford wants 600$ for a light controller. 4 relays, a few transistors and caps... WHY!!!) I still notice that a new car has similar components to any other car out there.

      Yes, it's a little complicated by the electronics now and then, but you still have a motor, a transmission, battery tires oil younameit it's all there, user serviceable. Even the steering components haven't changed much - and things you do more often are still accessable. Ball joints, brake pads and rotors, oil, wheel bearings etc.

      With all the features cars offer today, I've got no complaints.

      --
      Karnal
    111. Re:Innovation! by J4 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Ford and Chrysler...

    112. Re:Innovation! by scire9 · · Score: 0

      An engine can either be a V or an inline, not both...

      Actually, the VR6 engine is somewhat of hybrid, which combines the benefits of a straight-6 and V-6 engine.

    113. Re:Innovation! by downix · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's called product inertia. Customers purchased the same products they were familiar with, even if the product was not meeting their needs. Slowly, along the peripherals of this consumer group, you loose a handful, but as you loose them, your circle of customers erodes. Eventually, this slight peripheral edge-bleed becomes a torrent, unless you spot it early enough.

      The big block V8 is a symtom of GM's unwillingness to address its customer base needs. If it was a specialty item, as the Mopar 426 Hemi is, it would be one thing. But GM kept putting it into products it was ill-suited for. End result, they kept slowly loosing their customer base as they migrated to companies which sold what they sought.

      GM had the opportunity in the 1990's to create a true tiered product lineup, to better address the needs of their customers by hyper-focusing. Instead, it tried to be all things to all customers in all brands. The result is the mess in which GM finds itself today. Let us explore a moment.

      Chevrolet remains the catchall, a bit of everything. Buick is the luxury lineup, midsize, full size, midrange SUV/Crossover. Cadillacs is the premiere lineup, full sized, large sports car, and large SUV. Pontiac is for sports enthusiasts, ranging from subcompact hyperperformance to full-sized sports cars. Saturn evolves into two markets, the hyper-efficient as well as the customizable, a combination of the low-level from Toyota w/ Scion. (low-cost cars which are customizable) Saab remains as it is, keep it a unique entity for those of the precular taste. Hummer should have focused on being the new, improved Jeep, quit the "H2, H3" bs, and instead focus on extreme utility. Chevrolet then becomes a top-to-bottom brand, pulling samples from each of the other lineups.

      Why didn't this happen? Inner-company politicing prevented any one brand from differentializing itself from any other. "Buick has one, we need to have one!"

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    114. Re:Innovation! by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      I've had three Navistar (Ford HD) engines go that far and beyond. It comes down to maintenance. I do agree with most that they can be expensive and the new technology is driving most of that. If you don't believe me try replacing HEUI (Hydraulic/Electronic Unit Injector) components. These are typical in direct injection engines and the pressures involved for efficient combustion make them extremely important to engine efficiency. If the fuel gets dirty or contaminated as is common with Diesel then your injection system can become junk very quickly. I also have towed 15,000lb trailers above 13MPG with Diesel but that's on level road.

      If you also look at current generation Diesel technology sold in US manufactured vehicles you'll see that displacements have gone down but power has gone up. More turbos with variable vane technology, more pressure in the injector rails and other things. This drives up efficiency (better vaporization, timing) but the costs go up. That's why a new HD Pickup from Ford with a Diesel will run in the $50K range. That's for a pickup truck.
       

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    115. Re:Innovation! by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Already been done: http://jalopnik.com/380781/engine-of-the-day-packard-inline-eight

      Produced from 1924 to 1954 in fairly large quantities. I had a friend with one of these. It was huge. Drove cross country in it one summer. Great road trip.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    116. Re:Innovation! by maxume · · Score: 1

      And GM.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    117. Re:Innovation! by sjmacko29 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the "W" allignment, such as the W-12 used in the Volkswagen Phaeton...

    118. Re:Innovation! by pz · · Score: 1

      I think what they were saying is that pistons in a V configuration (e.g. V6, V8, V12 etc) are not in a line, hence they are not inline engines. An engine can either be a V or an inline, not both, much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

      Or flat, a.k.a. boxer, like some Porsche, older VW, and some Subaru engines.

      Or circular, as in very old piston airplane engines (and perhaps some helicopter engines?).

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    119. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll have to go much older than 1995 if you want to eschew the OBD style computers. GM began installing ALDL in cars in 1980 and never looked back. Look here for more information.

    120. Re:Innovation! by gander666 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, my Riemannian geometry must have let me down... It all depends on your reference.

      While I understand your point, there are alternatives to Euclidean geometry, so what you state isn't a tautology...

      p.s. me being a math geek will probably wreck my karma... Sigh

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    121. Re:Innovation! by pz · · Score: 1

      Screw V-6's. Inline 6's have more power and better reliability. Inline engines always do.

      This is marked insightful? A gross over generalization is marked insightful and not a troll?

      There are so many factors that go in to an engine design that the piston configuration alone cannot possibly tell you how much power and reliability a particular engine has. VW air-cooled flat fours (like the Type I engine found in the original Bugs) are extremely reliable. The Porsche equivalent flat 6 engines from the 911 of the same era are also famously reliable and powerful. The narrow angle water-cooled V6 engines that VW produced for the GTI are incredibly powerful for their displacement. The water-cooled inline 6 engines like used in the Dart/Duster/Valiant/etc were famously reliable (for US manufactured engines) but woefully underpowered.

      While in general an inline design is simpler, it most certainly does not mean a V or flat design cannot be made well. The V design is advantageous because it can lead to a more compact engine. Also, the vibrations from a V design are generally smoother than for an inline design (a notable exception being the very smooth Porsche 944 engines with their balance rods).

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    122. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, right, because almost everybody likes to work on their own car.

      fm6 does not like to work on his own car; therefore, powerful, easily-serviceable engines should not exist. You can't argue with logic like that.

    123. Re:Innovation! by catmistake · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors

      That wasn't the problem... it's that they switched to commodity everything else.

    124. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOSE!!!! NOT LOOSE!!!

    125. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whomever modded this insightful apparently needs to go back to school. A line is a 2 dimensional object for one. For two, what you are imagining is a circle, not a line. The Equator is a "line" when its on a flat map. If you want to be a pedantic twit about it, when its on a globe it would be a circle or a ring.

    126. Re:Innovation! by berashith · · Score: 1

      wow, just wow.

      They were building this engine because external sources continued to demand it. Thees outside sources bought up as many as they could upon the announcement of cancellation. These werent engines that GM was packing into cars that no one wanted and therefore sat on lots without a chance of being purchased.

      It sounds more like the beancounters couldnt justify the portion of a plant being used and the employees being paid for only 3% output of the plant. There is an economy of scale issue, and with current business being what it is, GM is obviously shedding all niche items ( up to Saab and Saturn) and focusing on high efficiency and core business output.

    127. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      End of en era ???

      In any other part of the world, 30 years ago, people realized they could build a smallish inline 4 cylinders engine with the same power as your fat v8s, for a fraction of the cost and with 4 times less fuel consumption.
      At the same time "real" v8 engines were something like 2 to 3 times more efficient, and sounded even greater !

      To follow on your (badanalogyguy) analogy, you were building 1000W systems with the power of my current ion chip, for the sole purpose of bragging rights, while real high-end systems provided many times more raw power with the same 1000W.

      To produce an ever badder analogy, it's like a guy crying over the death of Cray-1 supercomputers, when core i7 are available...

    128. Re:Innovation! by DG · · Score: 1

      For the last decade or so, if you wanted to go stupid fast with a minimum cash outlay and with little driver talent required, you bought a C5 Corvette Z06.

      There were cars that were faster in absolute terms (the Viper has consistently been faster than the Vette) but they cost far more and typically were nowhere near as easy to drive. In terms of dollars/performance, the Vette was the clear winner over cars like the 911, the Viper, and various Italian jobbies.

      And speaking as someone who literally disassembled C5s down to bare structure and built them back up again, the C5 was an amazing car. Almost everything was done right, and the places where GM had made compromises for street driving were easily convertible to race-spec parts (like replacing the rubber bushings in the control arms with spherical bearings)

      There's lots of places where one can safely throw rocks at GM. The Corvette isn't one of them.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    129. Re:Innovation! by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      That would be volkswagen's VR engines.

    130. Re:Innovation! by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Informative

      then there's boxer engines, rotary engines, and even rotary piston engines.

    131. Re:Innovation! by superbondbond · · Score: 1

      I think what they were saying is that pistons in a V configuration (e.g. V6, V8, V12 etc) are not in a line, hence they are not inline engines. An engine can either be a V or an inline, not both, much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

      The VR engines developed by Volkswagen are a hybrid of those two configurations. The pistons are staggered at a narrow angle, which makes for a more compact design, a single head, and a shared valve train.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR6

    132. Re:Innovation! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      General Motors hasn't sold this engine in anything lighter than a heavy duty pickup in decades.

    133. Re:Innovation! by DG · · Score: 1

      The engine configuration doesn't have much influence on performance. V vs I vs Flat is really much more about packaging than anything else.

      There are some small advantages to be found in engine balance (the straight 6 has perfect balance) but these turn out to not be major factors in engine power.

      The BMW M3 typically uses a straight 6. This allows the car to be made narrower - M3's are oddly narrow cars and this pays some dividends on slalom speed.

      The Toyota Supra was also a straight 6, which made plumbing the twin sequential turbo system easier. Some of the Skylines have been straight 6s for similar reasons.

      If you are capped at a specific displacement, you have the money, and you are willing to spend it, there is an advantage to large cylinder counts. More cylinders means less reciprocating weight per cylinder so with fixed displacement you can spin the motor faster. V10/V12 can be spun up pretty high. You can do the same thing with less cylinders, but the materials engineering gets tougher.

      If you have access to turbocharging, a straight 4 works plenty well, is small, light, and easily packaged.

      My own car has a narrow-angle, transverse, twin-turbo V6 whose primary advantage over my former race car's single-turbo straight 4 is an extra litre of displacement.

      But at the end of the day, there really is no ideal cylinder configuration.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    134. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had a '64 Biscayne with a straight 6. Completely sweet engine and car, with a nice back seat that, in my era, was safe to use. :)

    135. Re:Innovation! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Still surprised these aren't diesel.

      In Europe where some very large portion of the automobiles in use are diesel, I bet most consumers would think to check the fuel requirements of a rental. But in the US, diesel engines are used in less than 1% of small passenger vehicles, so some significant percentage of renters would probably put gasoline in the tank without thinking to check the fuel requirements first. I wouldn't be surprised if U-Haul tried to use diesel engines in its trucks at some point, and experienced such a high failure rate from renter errors that they gave up on the idea.

      That's all speculation on my part.

    136. Re:Innovation! by DG · · Score: 1

      You're right about the sound of a flat-plane V8.

      My boss insisted we built his C5 with a flat-plane crank. It added a metric assload of cost, and the headers we built to maximize scavenging was a bag of snakes and a serious PITA to get on or off. But boy, that car sure sounded nice.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    137. Re:Innovation! by DG · · Score: 1

      Trivia point - those Porsche counter-balance shafts in the 944 were actually designed by Mitsubishi and licensed to Porsche.

      Every 4G63 motor (Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse / Mitsubishi EVO) has the same setup.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    138. Re:Innovation! by DG · · Score: 1

      My 2002 Dodge 2500 with the HO Cummins Turbo diesel is on ~220,000 km right now. It makes ~16 MPG towing a trailer, and about 21 MPG empty.

      It also cost $70k CAN in 2002.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    139. Re:Innovation! by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Inline V-8

      I am confuse.

    140. Re:Innovation! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only GM product to include the big block V8 from the factory was heavy duty pickup trucks. This engine hasn't been for sale in a Caprice, Impala, Corvette, Firebird, or Camaro for several decades. While you're right in general terms that GM has screwed up its products, product reliability, and understanding customer needs for a very long time, your specific example here is inaccurate.

      This huge old engine was excellent for towing, very nearly as strong as GM's large pickup truck diesel engine and far cheaper for both GM to build and purchasers to buy. High RPM performance was a joke, but this was built for running below 4000 RPMs, which is normal for an engine used to tow. This is a case where GM did something right, and sold something that customers in the target segment wanted to buy.

      The problem with a tiered product lineup is that you divide your resources in research, marketing, advertising, and design too far. Toyota grew from nothing to a juggernaut of the US market with just two brands: Toyota and Lexus. They only added Scion recently. Honda bit off a big chunk of the domestic manufacturer's market share with just Honda and Acura. Nissan has just Nissan and Infiniti. Hyundai has just Hyundai and Kia, and only now that they're highly successful are they considering a separate luxury brand.

      Ford has made an amazing turnaround in product competitiveness and desirability in the past four years, and they did it by selling Aston Martin, Jaguar, and Land Rover, cutting down their stake in Mazda, and reducing their number of Mercury models. Now they just have Ford, Lincoln, a bit of Mercury, and Volvo and Volvo is rumored to be for sale. GM is in the process of shutting down or selling Saturn, Hummer, Saab, and Pontiac and it has sold its pieces of Isuzu, Suzuki, and Subaru. The only reason Buick was kept is that it's GM's most successful brand in China. The only reason GMC trucks was kept is that most Buick dealerships are Buick/GMC dealerships.

      GM management is finally focusing on building 30 decent products spread across four product lines (Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Caddillac) instead of 80 substandard products spread across twelve product lines, which was the mess they had in 2001.

    141. Re:Innovation! by hmar · · Score: 1

      Um, ODB was standard before 95. ODBII came out in 95. Earlier codes (ODB1) could be viewed with a paper clip and the check engine light, no computer needed.

    142. Re:Innovation! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      huh????
      Inline sixes re nice engines but they will be heavier and the cranks will never be as string as a V6 or V8 crank.
      They do tend to be smooth running but just why do you think they will have more power and higher reliability than a V engine?
      If they are DOHC then they should be a little more reliable than a V since it will have fewer parts but if they are both OHV engines then the V could be slightly more reliable since the crank and the cam will suffer less stress since they are shorter.
      V-6 or I-6 are not always going to be more powerful or more reliable it will all depend on the motor.
      The old Ford 4.6 I6 is about as reliable as a stone axe. It was a low power heavy duty motor so of course it will run until the end of time.
      The I6 in the Jag was not reliable mainly because of the electrics but made a lot of power.
      The Buick 3.8 is another motor that was pretty reliable as well and that is a V-6.
      Reliablity and power depend on a lot more than if it is an inline or a V-6.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    143. Re:Innovation! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if U-Haul tried to use diesel engines in its trucks at some point, and experienced such a high failure rate from renter errors that they gave up on the idea.

      I thought the filling hoses were incompatible, but possible, I guess. On the other hand, you also get people like me who sees that big vehicle and tries to stick diesel in it... ;)

      Then again, I actually read the fuel cap, and for such a large rental, you'd think that the rental agent could let them know it's diesel.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    144. Re:Innovation! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      A friend's dad in high school was a professional mechanic, and he specifically referred to the engine in his truck as an "Inline 6".

      There's always that one teenager proclaiming that "It's lame to say it right man!". It actually brings up a great example of another student when I was in school who would jump all over my case because when talking electric guitar I would actually say "amplifier" and not "amp". I actually used the words "tremulo" and "plectrum" too. Ah the ridicule that he attempted to lay down for my use of the "nerd" words. Fast forward 12 years. I'm a college graduate in a management position. He's a cashier down at the hardware store. Life is good :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    145. Re:Innovation! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually they don't use them in cars anymore. Only trucks and boats.
      It really isn't the enthusiasts buying them. If you need a big truck that runs of gas and not diesel then the Big block is the only game in town.
      They are also popular in many racing classes both car and boat. There are also so people that where fitting them to aircraft as well to replace big radials for crop dusters and other large airfcraft motors that are very expensive.
      The Rat really is a good motor and I doubt that we have seen the last of them. Truth is that GM will probably keep the tooling and restart the line in a few years to make replacement blocks and parts when they get low. Same as they do for the old small block chevy which is different from the new LS.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    146. Re:Innovation! by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      Lots and lots of beemers are inline. Inlines are better balanced out which means smoother ride, with a trade-off for a bigger package than V-6, lots of people would want that.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_6#Balance_and_smoothness

      There was always problem with wankel engine fuel economy, there's sort of free reign in that sense, and wankel's going the same way as big block V-8's.

    147. Re:Innovation! by bflong · · Score: 1

      Sure, but a V8 can't touch a straight six turbo in the "looks good and hauls ass" department.

      I'm sorry? Have you driven a modern V8 powered muscle car lately? Dollar for dollar a simple push-rod V8 will outperform an I6 turbo, last longer, and get comparable fuel efficiency to boot. Unlike what people seem to want to believe, these are NOT the same engines we had 50 years ago. They are far, far more efficient and powerful. That covers the 'hauls ass' part. As for the 'looks good', well, there is no accounting for taste. :)

      --
      Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
    148. Re:Innovation! by fireylord · · Score: 1

      this may not be my viewpoint, and its damned cynical. But WHO the hell modded it as flamebait?

    149. Re:Innovation! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No? I4s have a flat plane crank. Real V8s have a 90deg crank and that gives them the proper balance. The only reason to use a flat plane crank in a V8 is if you can not make a 90 deg crank.
      Yes they sound interesting but the only flat plane crank V8 I ever heard of is the old Nova made from two Offy's.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    150. Re:Innovation! by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Screw V-6's. Inline 6's have more power and better reliability. Inline engines always do.

      I wouldn't say that's always the case. Inline 6's are inherently balanced, which tends to make them better. Unfortunately, their configuration makes them awkward to fit into most vehicles.

      Just because a particular engine is an I-6 doesn't necessarily mean it's better. The designers of said engine could be clinically insane, and the build quality could be terrible. In which case, a well thought out V-6 would be better.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    151. Re:Innovation! by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      But GM couldn't change its mindset, and instead sat and twiddled their thumbs while the Japanese took away their business.

      I'm pretty sure there aren't any Japanese 3/4 heavy trucks.

    152. Re:Innovation! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yup, my first car ('68 Nova) had a 250 ci straight six (~150 HP) and now my latest truck ('07 Trailblazer) has a 250 ci/4200 cc straight six (291 HP). Is funny; is same bore and stroke dimensions but new engine is aluminum block, dual cam, fuel injection with headers. They've totally hot rodded it and man, does it show. This mini-beast now makes more than 1 hp/ci. Sweet!

      Now, my '70 Impala Sport Coup out back, that has a big ole' 454 that's been bored (460 ci) and worked over until it keeps eating transmissions. >1 HP/ci in a big block is scary. Can't wait until I can afford to get EFI on it!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    153. Re:Innovation! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Okay. The Z-28s didn't come with a big block and a 4 banger rear end ever from the factory.
      The original z-28s came with a 302 because IROC cars where limited to five liters and the orignal z where built for IROC racing. The later Zs from the 70s tended to have 350s in them. Those cars all had 10 or 12 bolt rear ends and where pretty heavy duty. Some may have come with big blocks in the early 70s but buy the 80s they had small blocks.
      The Z-28s from the 80s with the weak rear ends ONLY came with small blocks. If you had a Z-28 with a big block in 86 odds are it had a small block 5.7 liter v8.
      If you had a big block z28 and you had the rear end lock up then it wasn't matained correctly because a 10 or 12 bolt rear end will take more abuse than you can imagine and could take just about anything a stock big block could dish out except for drag racing with slicks.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    154. Re:Innovation! by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like the guys at the hardware store. Management? Not so much.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    155. Re:Innovation! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I've been scrolling, and scrolling, looking for a comment or reference to small blocks. Thank you, sir. Big block engines never were all they were touted to be. My kid brother and I bid on some 283's years ago - 9 engines. They lasted us for years. Those things were so old, they all had the original paper oil filters on them. Sweet machines. Beautiful in anything - a Jeep, a Nova, Camaro, or a pickup truck. You name it. Far more fuel efficient than any big block, easier to work on, and they run circles around almost any big block.

      327 was another beauty, but with all those 283's, we never messed with the 327's very much.

      Oh yeah - race car drivers who are serious about racing don't use big blocks anyway.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    156. Re:Innovation! by netruner · · Score: 0

      Sarah honey? What are you doing with your helmet off again? Just drink your juice box and let the adults talk.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    157. Re:Innovation! by b0bby · · Score: 1

      when my 79 MG is more reliable and gets better mileage than newer cars (even if you do it based on weight). thats just sad.

      I can't believe that your 79 MG is more reliable than OLD cars, let alone newer ones...

      (Owner of a 1970 British motorcycle, "powered" by Lucas.)

      Seriously though, my 03 minivan has 80k+ miles on it, and other than normal wear and tear parts the only thing that's gone wrong is a little bulb that lights the clock on the dash. I have changed the oil once in the last 4 years on my 03 Suzuki motorcycle, otherwise I have lubed the chain & checked the tire pressures - it starts every time. I used to work on my motorcycles etc, but don't have the time, inclination or most importantly need to anymore. Modern vehicles are amazing.

    158. Re:Innovation! by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Yes they sound interesting but the only flat plane crank V8 I ever heard of is the old Nova made from two Offy's.

      You've never heard of the Ferrari 308? (or 328, 348, 355, 360, or 430?) Or the Lotus Esprit V8? Or the TVR Cerbera?

      Ok, I wouldn't be too surprised if you'd never heard of the Cerbera, but Ferrari has been using flat-crank V8s for a long time.

    159. Re:Innovation! by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Chrysler and Ford were still around.

    160. Re:Innovation! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      A buddy of mine had a '67 Corvair that he bought from NASA. They'd cut the roof off, put a 327 'Vette engine in the back seat and built a plywood platform on top of that. It was used as a camera platform to film planes landing on the run way. Yes, you'd have a guy standing (unsecured?) on top of the platform with a film camera, running around 90 MPH, filming a plane landing. Freaking unreal and I'm sure OSHA would have loved it, if it was around.

      Anyways, I got a chance to drive it, before he sold it to some guy who shipped it off to Ireland. You could have it in 4th (four speed Saginaw manual) and it would spin the tires if you weren't careful. Hell of a lot of power in a light car. Cool thing was, with a mid-engine setup, handles very well.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    161. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest big-block sold in a road vehicle was 502 ci, for fleet vehicles.

      I had a 75 Eldo with the 500 big block - I think those were the largest for a passenger car. That was a crazy car....

    162. Re:Innovation! by netruner · · Score: 1

      BBV8s will likely be replaced by supercharged small block v8s in sports cars and diesel engines in trucks. At least until battery technology is developed to get 300 miles per 5 minute charge time with a $30k price point and a 100k mile lifespan. Electric motors are superior technology to the internal combustion engine - it's powering them that's the problem.

      Look at the electric sports cars that are coming out - the Karma and Roadster have some decent performance characteristics. On the other side, there are a lot of industrial machines that use electric already for large amounts of power such as fork lifts, locomotives - even the Navy's ships. In all cases, the delivery of electricity to the motor is the difficult part.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    163. Re:Innovation! by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      how about this - in NC you can't pass inspection if you have a check engine light code active.

      even i that code is a dealer only code
      even if the car runs fine and would even pass emissions if they used the sniffer

      dealer wants 85$ just to read the code out. and 90% of the time it is a set of things that can cause it and are dealer only parts.

      it has gotten to the point that you can't even get shop manuals for newer cars.

      and with the way ODB ties every thing together - that 600$ ford part is going to be the only one that might work - where as in my older cars i can wire it up the way i want so that it works, using parts of my choice.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    164. Re:Innovation! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of the Cosworth DFV?
      The Esprit V8 was a a good case of not having the money to build a proper crank. That really was two I4s made into a V8 just like the Nova.
      I didn't know that the 308 used a flat crank but the only Ferrari's that really interested me where the 12s and the Dino's which where not really Ferrari's but where still very interesting. So yes I missed that they where a flat crank V8s.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    165. Re:Innovation! by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Whoa there. Parent post is loaded with incorrect information:

      I have never heard of a 90-degree V12. Most are at 60 degrees, with the notable exception of Ferrari's V12s (which have historically been at 65, or 180 in the case of the 365/512 engine series.)

      A flat-plane crank V8 is essentially two inline-four engines. A cross-plane crank V8 uses an uneven firing order and is not the same.

      With their crankshaft counterweights, cross-plane V8s have better dynamic balance than flat-crank V8s. There's a very good reason why flat-crank V8s aren't commonly used in road cars: unless you're able to make the engine internals very light, the noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) will be awful, and most consumers won't be interested in buying your car. The cross-crank V8 is not a "dirty kludge", and most people prefer the exhaust burble to the sharp bark of the flat-crank design.

      Almost every major V8-making manufacturer produces exclusively cross-plane crank V8s. Ferrari, Lotus, and TVR are the only major exceptions. Saying that the only "real" V8 is a flat-crank is silly.

    166. Re:Innovation! by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of the Cosworth DFV?

      Absolutely one of the finest engines ever designed. There are quite a few flat-crank V8s in racing, as the NVH issues become unimportant if you're not talking about a road car.

    167. Re:Innovation! by jpcarter · · Score: 1

      I thought the filling hoses were incompatible...

      Funnel.

      Don't underestimate stupidity.

    168. Re:Innovation! by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 1

      the tinkering days for a daily driver ended in the 1970's for a lot of people, the technology became too complex for the shade tree mechanic.

    169. Re:Innovation! by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 1

      a lot of auto parts stores will read the code out for free...

    170. Re:Innovation! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Or it can be a U, or an H, or a flat, or a Deltic...

      Where can I get my Deltic-powered Mustang?

    171. Re:Innovation! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes they are but cross plane cranks are not a kluge.
      The cross plane reduces vibration and makes it easier to fit a tuned exhaust on any thing but a single seater.
      The flat plane gives you a lighter crank and it is easier to make. It will be rev easier but lets be honest most road going V-8s will be turn under 5000 RPM most of the time "probably under 3000" and most will have a red line under 7000 RPM. So for those motors a 90 degree cranks better balance is a better choice.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    172. Re:Innovation! by metlin · · Score: 1

      much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

      Shows how little you know about math. If your surface is curved, a straight line on the surface is automatically curved.

      Look up toplogical manifolds some day.

    173. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you ever try wrapping your legs around a boxer?

    174. Re:Innovation! by couchslug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "fm6 does not like to work on his own car; therefore, powerful, easily-serviceable engines should not exist. You can't argue with logic like that."

      He will make a fine customer...

      I'm a mechanic, so I'm fine with difficult-to-service engines that I don't own. Customers who fap to techno-complexity they don't understand are the same from computers to cars and trucks.

      Even if you never touch a wrench you pay for complexity when you buy the vehicle, and when you buy insurance you pay for the other fellow.

      Note that many modern engines are not worth rebuilding or even repairing after a few years. What dealers do to rebuild used cars is harvest drivetrains from wrecks and install them in vehicles whose engines have problems. It's not even worth doing head gaskets on most engines when you have access to wrecks, but the poor fellow who needs a top end job on his own vehicle pays out the arse because of the labor complex systems require.

      Big block Chevrolets have always been in such demand that they rarely go to the shredder and don't stay in salvage long. Not everyone needs a large V-8, but the tens of thousands who do will keep the aftermarket and salvage business going. It is possible to make smaller engines that don't suck to service, but that isn't much of a priority because that's the customers problem.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    175. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite observant. You get a brownie.
      Now, it is quite a thing to say "This thing isn't obsolete! Look at all the people who still want one! grumble, grumble, grumble" It is quite another to actually cast your mind back to...

      No. Really, cast your mind back, ass hat. Get with the wavy lines and the harp music.

      That's better. Now think back to when Intel discontinued the Pentium II. People actually stockpiled those useless things 'cause there weren't any more.

      Same thing here.

      Thank you for your patience. Please pay more attention next time.

    176. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool story bro!

    177. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small and modern Orac^H^H^H^HSun won't be pushing SPARC for much longer (there are other sources though).

      Cite? I'm hearing differently from people who would know.

      They are already a niche CPU.

      Yes, a niche that scales well above 8 CPUs gracefully, as opposed to the Intel and AMD abominations.

      At best it will go the way of MIPS.

      Riiiight.. just like the IBM Power Series.

      There will always be a chip market for the "Big Boy" computers.. not the ones your used to working on obviously.

      MIPS went down in flames with respect to server chips simply because SGI was no longer competitive as a whole in the large server markets.

    178. Re:Innovation! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      That's not an inline V-8.

      Hint: A round square would also be an innovation.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    179. Re:Innovation! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      1. U-Haul *did* use Diesels at one point. I had to teach my wife about glow plugs a few years back, she couldn't start it!

      2. You can put a gasoline nozzle in a diesel tank, but not vice-versa

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    180. Re:Innovation! by ubercam · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, as VW have been making the VR6 engine for quite some time. Yes, technically it's still a V configuration, but it's a 15 degree V, not a 90 degree V. And the pistons aren't directly across from one another, they're staggered to make it more compact.

      The kicker is that it's one of the only, if not the only V6 out there with just one cylinder head and it can fit under the hood of pretty much any 1980+ VW vehicle due to it's much smaller form factor (compared to a 90 degree V).

      They also make other crazy configurations like the W8's (available in the VW Passat), W12's (available in the VW Phaeton & Touareg) and W16's (available only in the Bugatti Veyron).

    181. Re:Innovation! by mk2mark · · Score: 1
      Who on earth modded this informative????

      A V allows you package more displacement in to smaller overall volume or to have less car to package around given in engine. Weight savings from a V engine boosts handling performance and economy. Yet an inline engine will be cheaper than a V, due to one, block, single manifolds, two camshafts instead of four.

      Since a v engine has twice as many heads how can it possibly weigh less or have more displacement for it's size?

      V engines don't have the length of an inline engine, and are more cube shaped which tends to suit application to more engine bays.

      Difference in power may come from firing order, and the path intake charge and exhaust gas take and a small reduction in friction in a Inline 4 or 6. Inline 6s can have a good cross flow set up for top end power when mounted longitudnally in a front engined car (short straight intake runners and 6 into 1 headers, make a good turbo platform. BMW, Nissan and Toyota have exploited this to great effect in racing and in road cars. Aftermarket Nissan Skyline motors with 6-1 turbo manifolds make whopping power.

      I don't think I've ever seen a non-cross-flow v-engine. They're at least as suited to a cross-flow head as an inline engine.

      Turbo engines are "suited" to 6-1 manifolds because there's very little advantage in tuning the exhaust of a turbo'd engine. The 6-1 manifold is chosen because of this and because it takes up less space. If pulse tuning was any use on a turbo engine, they'd all be 6-2-1 as in an n/a application you could tune the engine to produce torque as the turbo spools.

      I'd also wager that Skylines make whopping power because of the "whopping" turbo.

      In the end, V8s rose to greatnews because it was probably the best balance between a number of cylinders, dimensions, displacement etc. A four cylinder block is about as long as you want to go. Big displacement engines need a greater number of pistons to stop the piston speeds getting out of hand along with smoothness reasons. Eight cylinders is just right, for big power or a big engine.

      Nonsense, you can counteract piston bore with the stroke of the engine to have whatever speed you wish. Eight cylinders were chosen probably more because this leads to a more suitable ratio between engine dimensions.

      A inline 6, and a 90 degree V12 and a boxer six are probably the three ideal engines, having perfect balance. The greatest engine of them all on the balance of all considerations, including, cost, complexity and packaging is the inline four. That's why V8s are made out of two of them:

      Wrong again. An inline 6 has primary and secondary harmonic balance - about as good as any engine could hope to have, but not perfect. A boxer 6 does not have this, usually a boxer is chosen for a low centre of gravity/space saving to slap a bunch of turbos on top. A v12 has the same balance as an inline 6 no matter what the angle is, 90 or otherwise. It's a little smoother because of the increase in fires per revolition.

      American V8s most often really are just two inline four engines stuck together. Right down to the split-plane (cross-plane) crankshaft. Yes there are hack mechanics who have lopped off one bank of cylinders to make a inline four, it works. Unfortunatley cross-plane crankshafts have a lot of drawbacks including difficult to control vibration, unbalanced piston movement, poorer exhaust scavanging in certain exhaust configuartions and need for counterweights that add rotational inertia. Yes every American V8 you drove had a dirty kludge under the hood.

      Inline 4's invariably have flat-plane cranks, so you've got that backwards too. Crossplane crank v8's have secondary balance, which actually means they're better balanced than flatplanes - Maybe you heard that flatplane's rev higher so thought this may be the reason they're better balanced? Not so, the rea

    182. Re:Innovation! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Can you blame her for being confused? Our President says he's going to impose a $12 trillion health care program that is somehow going to be "deficit neutral". That's a round square right there.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    183. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good to know we can always count on some /. asshat to use a typo as an outside shot at karma points.

    184. Re:Innovation! by operagost · · Score: 1

      You do realize that GM sold smaller engines in their trucks too, right? And they stopped putting big blocks in passenger cars around 1976. If no one had bought big blocks, they would have stopped making them earlier.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    185. Re:Innovation! by operagost · · Score: 1

      The US government just caused all of your old wrecks to be crushed with "cash for clunkers." So much for that strategy. So instead of reusing old parts, we have to recycle the metal (and throw away a lot of the unrecyclable plastics and fabrics), which takes more energy and is less green. And we'll have to junk more cars because an economical source of parts no longer exists. But it'll keep people employed in "busy work" making lousy cars that shouldn't exist-- a very Soviet situation.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    186. Re:Innovation! by operagost · · Score: 1

      I believe you. Even if the dash, the fuel cap, and a banner on the side of the car all said "DIESEL-- DO NOT FILL WITH GASOLINE!" in large orange letters, someone would make a funnel out of their Starbucks cup (because they wouldn't realize they could buy one) and get the gas in there.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    187. Re:Innovation! by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      When it comes time to rebuild the engine the big block can be rebuilt several times over for what the Diesel will Cost.

      I feel the need to stress the fact that there are rebuildable engines and non-rebuildable engines.

      Semi engines are rebuildable. They have replacable cylinder liners and bearings that can be removed and replaced. Yes, this is expensive, but it's cheaper than a new engine. These are the engines that run for a million miles +.

      Most diesel pickup truck engines are non-rebuildable. Their bearings are replaceable, but the cylinder bore is actually part of the cast block. You can hone the bore, replace the bearings, and put in thicker rings, but you can usually only do this once.

      Big block gasoline engines, are also non-rebuildable. That is why you've never seen one run for a million miles. I'm sure it is possible to make one that is rebuildable, but there just isn't a market for them. People who put that many miles on an engine usually prefer the superior fuel economy of a diesel.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    188. Re:Innovation! by kc5deb · · Score: 1

      There's a large difference in trying to tow a load with 415HP at +5,000rpm, and towing a load with 450HP with grunt on the low RPMs. I have a hunch this was more government intervention instead of innovation...

    189. Re:Innovation! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation, President Obama! By the way, I think you forgot you killed Pontiac. It's an easy mistake to make, you're all busy with health care "reform", shirking your responsibilities as commander-in-chief, golfing, et cetera.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    190. Re:Innovation! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Because big blocks don't harmonize with the Obama administrations "green" aspirations.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    191. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes every American V8 you drove had a dirty kludge under the hood."

      Hmmm. . . that's a interesting interpretation of the word kludge. I guess it could be considered a kludge if the suitability of a cross-plane V8 for use in a passenger car (versus a race car) isn't taken into account. Otherwise its a very elegant solution to providing a smooth engine without the length/space issues of an inline-6 or v-12. See: http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth4.htm/

      But don't listen to me, just ask BMW, Mercedes, Porsche or VW. I believe that most if not all of the V8 engines they sell in passenger cars have cross-planes.

    192. Re:Innovation! by Amouth · · Score: 1

      and will give you a number/code - thats it - they don't know what all the codes stand for.

      there is the generic codes and even some of the special codes available to them - but for the rest it's dealer only.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    193. Re:Innovation! by quanticle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not everyone likes to work on their own cars, but, for those who do, having a standard engine design like the GM big block (or the GM small block, for that matter) has been a boon. The fact that the basic mechanics of the engine have changed little since the '70s means that the engine is great for learning the basic principles of engine mechanics. Put another way, the GM big block was the Unix of V-8 engines.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    194. Re:Innovation! by quanticle · · Score: 1

      All the parts are still there, but, increasingly they're being controlled by a central engine computer. Unless you have the hardware to read data from and write data to that computer, the number of adjustments you can make is limited, since things that used to be controlled by screws and bolts (like valve timing, for example) are now controlled by register values.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    195. Re:Innovation! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors.

      C'mon man - what this thread really needs is a car analogy.

      Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors is like a car.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    196. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes every American V8 you drove had a dirty kludge under the hood."

      Hmmm. . . that's a interesting interpretation of the word kludge. I guess it could be considered a kludge if the suitability of a cross-plane V8 for use in a passenger car (versus a race car) isn't taken into account. Otherwise its a very elegant solution to providing a smooth engine without the length/space issues of an inline-6 or v-12. See: http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth4.htm/

      But don't listen to me, just ask BMW, Mercedes, Porsche or VW. I believe that all of the V8 engines they sell in passenger cars have cross-planes.

    197. Re:Innovation! by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. These engines are used in a lot of industrial applications (like priming pumps for large chemical plants, generators, etc.), and so customers who were using engines for those applications went ahead and bought as many as they'd likely need for an indefinite amount of time. The spike in purchases is an artifact everyone buying a supply of engines to tide themselves until they can switch to a new manufacturer. If GM had continued to produce these engines, they'd have waited until their existing engines wore out before ordering replacements.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    198. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VR8?

      Hey, Volkswagen already has a VR5 and VR6...

    199. Re:Innovation! by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      In trucks you're just not going to get a useful amount of torque out of V6's. Small V8's maybe, but in the size trucks these were going in (generally 1 ton pickups and above) you'd be hard pressed to find a useful gasoline V8 other than a big block. If people need trucks diesel is the answer though, so it's not really a horrible thing from all perspectives.

    200. Re:Innovation! by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Consumer demand for an otherwise obsolete product is a strange thing, especially when it comes to cars.

      Here in Mexico, the local VW plant kept producing classic VW beetles until 2003, when the goverment finally banned their use as taxis. Still, there's a huge demand for beetles in good conditions, since they are supremely easy to mantain and modify (there's even magazines dedicated to this car)

      Similarly, consumer demand for the early nineties version of the Nissan Sentra keeps them producing and selling it as the "Nissan Tsuru" (the current version of the Sentra is also sold), and GM produces and sells the old version of the Opel Corsa (sold here as the "Chevy C2") along the current version (sold as the "Chevy Corsa")

      People like what they know and can trust, I guess... But I am still completely baffled by this phenomenon.

      More info:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle_in_Mexico
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Tsuru#Nissan_Tsuru.2FV16_.281992-present.29
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Corsa#Opel_Corsa_B

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    201. Re:Innovation! by winwar · · Score: 1

      Does not really matter. The mechanic at the dealer who has access to all the codes will just randomly replace expensive sensors anyway. :)

      Codes can often be found in the factory manuals. But you have to understand how the sensors and the engine interact to use the codes effectively. Otherwise you replace many good parts in search of the problem.

    202. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      And radial piston engines... Hell, I didn't know there was such a thing as a "rotary piston engine," boy are they weird.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    203. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all seeem to forget, that engines are only are as good as the maintence. Even a strong 'Mercedes' ('imho the best diesel engines, Cummins are good to, GM is shit') diesel engines will have been completely worn out by 200-300k or even sooner if improperly maintained or misused.

      'Diesel is more complex' I call bullshit, You got glowplugs, you got an injection pump or common-rail with an ecu. You got fuel? You got compression? You got POWER BABY!!! Now if GM could build a good diesel engine, that I would want to buy that would be another thing all together.

      Bringing in the reality,
      Kozuka

    204. Re:Innovation! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "...technology became too complex for the shade tree mechanic."

      The technology didn't become too advanced.

      The technology advanced to the point that you didn't HAVE to be a shade tree mechanic to own a car...

    205. Re:Innovation! by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      Spend $60 on a hand held ODB II reader instead. The most common code set by vehicles is a fuel system code that gets set when you don't tighten your gas cap down all the way. You absolutely can get shop manuals for new vehicles (for GM anyways, I imagine Ford and Chrysler are the same), it's just not cheap and you have to know where to look.

    206. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      But are there enough people like that to make old-fashioned fix-it-yourself cars a viable product? Bear in mind that an assembly line has to sell a lot of product to pay for itself.

      Sorry, there isn't a business case here. GM was just doing what it knew how to do, and sticking their head in the sand whenever somebody mentioned market share or the rising cost of oil.

    207. Re:Innovation! by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      There's this thing called the internet. On the internet there's a place called "google." It's amazing what comes up when you enter " P" on said site. No dealer involved.

    208. Re:Innovation! by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      Yay my using >, part of my message got mistaken for html :D.

      It should say "when you enter '(car make here) P####'"

    209. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      "All" ??

      I won't argue that cash for clunkers was a great idea or anything, but there are still plenty of used cars (and parts) to go around.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    210. Re:Innovation! by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      So the one to stick with then would be GM?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_fuel_management

    211. Re:Innovation! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Unlike what people seem to want to believe, these are NOT the same engines we had 50 years ago."

      Precisely. But their reputation is based primarily on what they were 50 years ago (compared to their competitors of the day).

      "Dollar for dollar a simple push-rod V8 will outperform an I6 turbo, last longer, and get comparable fuel efficiency to boot."

      But if the goal is anything other than low production cost then the old pushrod V8 starts to lose. Which is why its glory days are in the past (see above).

    212. Re:Innovation! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected on the role of this kind of engine. But

      If no one had bought big blocks, they would have stopped making them earlier.

      Doesn't follow. GM has a long history of pushing product long after there ceased to be a viable market for it. All big companies do. They fall in love with their own product and stay loyal to it long after it ceases to be viable.

      I speak from personal experience here. I used to work at Sun, documenting x64 servers. Sun got into this business a decade ago, when it became clear that the market for SPARC systems was shrinking rapidly. (There will always be some, of course, but it will never be the mainstream technology Sun used to think it would be.) They bought an x64 company to gain the necessary expertise. Then they had to repeat that expensive exercise three more times because each time they managed to drive away all that talent they'd spent so much acquiring.

      Recently they did it again. And just to show they meant business this time, they promoted the head of the x64 division to be in charge of all hardware. And still the institutional SPARC-uber-alles mindset persists. I once got into an argument with a sales guy who had walked into a meeting with a big customer that already owned thousands of x64 servers — and tried to sell them SPARC systems!

      Big organizations have a logic all their own.

    213. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I'd never underestimate stupidity, but if Europe can have half their cars run on diesel without the world ending, I'm sure Americans could figure it out. Y'know... with time... and a few broken cars...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    214. Re:Innovation! by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      GM makes sense if you think of it as a race between management and labor to see who could kill the company first.

    215. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      This is where we could use a mod "Factually inaccurate." GM has a *long* list of issues. Some are resolved, some aren't. The big block V8 really is not one of those issues.

      It's been stated several times in this discussion-- the big block V8 is not a general use automobile engine (you're thinking the LS series small blocks-- probably specifically the 5.7L variants). It's only off the shelf automotive use is in big commercial trucks (and not the Silverado/Sierra kind folks buy to haul their boat around with). Anybody putting this in an car-- and there are some-- are using it exactly as a specialty item.

      For one reason or another it didn't make business sense to keep the big block V8 around. It really isn't a commentary on GM's business practices.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    216. Re:Innovation! by karnal · · Score: 1

      See, this is where people differ in their fix-it methodology. If it would take me more than a weekend to fix it, I typically pay someone else to do it. If it's simple enough for me to fix - and I've fixed a lot of stuff on cars, including performing an engine swap - then I do it.

      Somehow I doubt I'd get to mucking around with valve timing for any reason; however if I need to change the basics on the car, it is still available.

      Like I said before, common mechanical parts are still able to be swapped. Common wear points still wear out. Your steering joints, ball joints, wheel bearings, brakes, oil, battery are all consumable items that are still able to be replaced.

      If you're tearing into an engine, that is probably where most people who do their own maintenance - computer or not - will not go.

      --
      Karnal
    217. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I won't get into the F1 requirements much -- the rules there are to level the playing field and keep some semblance of a handle on development costs.

      For straight six engines- get your motors right-- there are plenty of great straight six powerplants. They aren't as common these days and I'd wager that's largely due to them being poorly suited to transverse mounting with a transaxle (front wheel drive cars). With most major automakers preferring to standardize engines, you end up with V6 instead of straight six for both front and rear drive applications. I think the only major holdout would be BMW who has, as I recall, a largely rear-drive lineup. The majority of BMWs you see on the road in the US have a straight-six engine (sometimes turbo, though usually not).

      Grand parent is also wrong, however. A V8 can do just as well in the "looks good hauls ass" department as a turbo straight six. It's a pity auto enthusiasts can't just be enthusiastic about all autos.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    218. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      my point was that anyone thats serious about performance wouldn't chose an inline configuration for an engine

      Why would that be? There are plenty of pros and cons to any engine layout. Blanket statements without analysis do not strengthen your position.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    219. Re:Innovation! by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Duesenberg didn't think so.

      It means the same thing. Just like "power brakes" means the same thing as "vacuum-assisted hydraulic brakes," because the marketing execs decide some phrase is a catchy selling point, the public uses it, and it eventually becomes commonplace in the industry to refer to it.

      Girls, you're both pretty.

    220. Re:Innovation! by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a little complicated by the electronics now and then,

      Eh?!? Electonics in many cases simplify things, quite often. Electronic fuel injection may have less discrete parts than an old school carb set up and is much simpler to tune. Infact I've seen some pretty complicated carbuertors and struggled to get motors to run right. Not as delightfully simple (and geeky) as choosing a AFR for a specific RPM on a laptop, and it just works. The ECU handles variability automatically by adapting to inputs from O2 sensors etc. You have to deal with that kind of thing at tune-time when working with carbs. Rebuilding a carb is a nightmare. In my modern fuel injected car the most I've done with the fuel system in 80,000 miles is clean the fuel injectors and replaced that knock sensor. Tuning after modification was as simple as tweaking a few maps, a few dyno runs and it's run that way since.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    221. Re:Innovation! by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      When the VW New Beetle came out with it's diesel TDI model a few years ago, the message boards were flooded with funny anecdotes about how service station personnel were screaming at the drivers not to put diesel in their tank, even to the extent of shutting down the pumps on sight alone. (Interestingly, the diesel nozzle never would have fit if it had not been intended for diesel.)

      Considering diesel-powered passenger cars have been around since the 1970's, I don't think there's any hope left for America.

    222. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Ignorant service station personnel indeed... You would be hard pressed to put diesel in a gas-powered car, the nozzle doesn't fit.

      Considering anecdotes have been around since the 1970s (who knows, maybe even earlier??), I'll keep a little bit of hope. After all, if my dad can figure out which of his cars use diesel and which don't (2 of the 3), I'm sure others can as well.

      Come on, have the faith!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    223. Re:Innovation! by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Find me a shop manual for a 01 Volvo S80

      the part number is there but it never went into print.

      same for later S80's and Porsche and several others simply pay fines instead of producing books.

      and again the 60$ reader doesn't do any good when you have no reference to look up what the code means.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    224. Re:Innovation! by MattGWU · · Score: 1

      Read some of your book. Interesting stuff!

      --
      "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    225. Re:Innovation! by quanticle · · Score: 1

      For maintenance, yes. For tweaking, no. Sure, you can change the oil and replace worn out parts, and do other things that the manufacturer allows you to do. However, if you want to modify your engine in a way that was not explicitly sanctioned by the manufacturer, its becoming ever more difficult to do so. Its as if our engines are becoming like iPods - closed, tightly controlled devices that actively designed to discourage modification and experimentation. I, for one, don't think that's a good future.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    226. Re:Innovation! by quanticle · · Score: 1

      There may not be enough mechanically inclined people to make fix-it-yourself cars viable (though, the kit car industry may disagree). This does not prevent me from mourning the loss of an engine from a major automaker that was compatible with the fix-it-yourself mentality.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    227. Re:Innovation! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      When I was young my first car was a 1973 Holden Torana. It was this crap GM car from England. Then the torana blew up and I bought a 1972 Toyota Celica. I worked on both cars and the engineering in the toyota was vastly better.

      As long as I live I will never buy another car from GM.

      Where I live there are a lot of young guys who identify themselves either as a Ford Guy or a Holden Guy. Holden is GM here remember. But these people only identify with the big V6 and V8 cars from those makers. You can't sit outside your grandmothers house in East Brunswick tuning up your four cylinder Holden. That would be embarrassing. So if GM can't sell the Holden Commodore in this country they are screwed. Their small cars generally come from other car makers via badge engineering anyway.

    228. Re:Innovation! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But Daisy personally told me late one night that they put a Chevy engine in it.

    229. Re:Innovation! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      What I'm pointing out is the "big block" motor is a different beast from the common GM V8s (the 350cc "small block" discontinued a few years ago and the new LS series). It's used in commercial trucks and by enthusiasts-- GM doesn't market it in any of their mainstream vehicles.

      The way everybody is posting in this thread, you'd think GM stopped making V8 engines entirely. The LS V8s aren't going anywhere for a while, and it's available in sizes from 5.7l all the way up to 7.0.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    230. Re:Innovation! by kc5deb · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know how that thing is going to tow a 12,000lb gooseneck trailer full of cattle.... I have my guesses...

    231. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes every American V8 you drove had a dirty kludge under the hood."

      That's an interesting way of defining kludge. To me it seems like a very elegant solution to creating a smooth large displacement engine without the size/length problems of a straight 6 or a v12.

      Also, you might want to let BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche/V8 about that "dirty kluge." Most if not all of their V8 are cross-plane too. In fact, most of the V8 engines sold for passenger cars are cross-plane http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth4.htm

    232. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes every American V8 you drove had a dirty kludge under the hood."

      That's an interesting way of defining kludge. To me it seems like a very elegant solution to creating a smooth large displacement engine without the size/length problems of a straight 6 or a v12.

      Also, you might want to let BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche/V8 about that "dirty kluge." Most if not all of their V8 are cross-plane too. In fact, most of the V8 engines sold for passenger cars are cross-plane http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth4.htm

    233. Re:Innovation! by Jimbob+The+Mighty · · Score: 1

      A straight line is just the circumference of a circle with infinite radius.

    234. Re:Innovation! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The big block Chevrolet is a simple, tough engine that produces excellent torque, is durable, very easy to work on and inexpensive to repair. Aftermarket support is excellent and one can build complete engines without using a single GM part.

      In that case I'm just shocked they didn't kill it sooner!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    235. Re:Innovation! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Look, this is my problem with your anonymous trolling. 1) I specified a turbo 6 to begin with. At a similar budget and in a similar state of tune, they WILL always beat a V8. Bringing up a $100,000 GT car ignores this. My point was that technology is a more then adequate replacement for displacement.
      2) Even a heavily modified Supra is much cheaper then the 'vette.
      3) The video was just a random hit when searching for corvette VS. turbo. Corvettes are GT cars, not sports cars, they don't actually have a very impressive race pedigree, and are beaten all the god damn time around all sorts of different tracks.

    236. Re:Innovation! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I don't think 'strictly speaking' means what you think it does.

    237. Re:Innovation! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      To the point where it looks nothing like the concept car. IMO the concept looked different, while the current prototype looks like a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic.

    238. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engines can also be flat or boxers... currently seen: flat4s (some japcrap) flat8s (ferrari) flat6s (porsche)

    239. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by awyeah (70462) * on Monday December 21, @10:20PM (#30519990) ...
      The only bad part of this is some people are going to lose their jobs (according to the AP [google.com]).

      Uh, you are not that familiar with the UAW are you? The UAW forces manufacturers to pay employees to stay at home and NOT work.

    240. Re:Innovation! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Your post mostly discusses non-engine parts. The level of engine serviceability in many cases has changed dramatically, as have parts prices. Ditto for interior and electronic components.

      It's all "user serviceable" if you have the tools (I do) but let's not pretend it's as easy or as inexpensive. I'm quite comfortable with working on late-model vehicles, but when I do I'm either getting paid or (when they are mine) saving stupid money doing something I'm trained and equipped to handle.

      "(for instance, Ford wants 600$ for a light controller. 4 relays, a few transistors and caps... WHY!!!) "

      Because they can get it. Unless demand makes producing aftermarket parts worth doing, it's either grab your ankles at the dealership or go to salvage.
      Because mechanic-friendliness is ONLY (sometimes) a criteria for buying COMMERCIAL vehicles in fleet service, Ford knows there are no consequences for pricing that part at six hundred bucks and the captive audience will pay it. Salvage prices can go half of retail, so unless you have friends with a salvage yard you still get boned.

      BTW, that $600 the light controller costs would pay for half the rebuild on one of my big blocks, or refill my gas tank many times. :P

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    241. Re:Innovation! by inline_four · · Score: 1

      Inline 4's invariably have flat-plane cranks, so you've got that backwards too.

      In 2009, Yamaha has come out with what I believe is the first production cross-plane I4 engine for their YZF-R1 motorcycle. Previously, they were using it in prototype racing (MotoGP) in YZR-M1. The reasons for using a cross-plane crank in an I4 engine are numerous, mostly specific to motorcycles.

      --
      Alexey
    242. Re:Innovation! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "*Still surprised these aren't diesel."

      U-hauls are in long-term fleet use, rented by people who are diesel-illiterate and beat the shit out of them. A diesel injector pump can cost as much as a big block engine. Idiot customer is much less likely to hurt the big block, especially the common 6.0/366.

      Diesels are good in certain applications, but as they get more complex, more delicate, and more expensive their economic advantage is not universal.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    243. Re:Innovation! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Most gas engines are not designed to last that long, but that is no fault of the fuel type.

      When gas and diesel engines share common design (the 8-valve liquid cooled Rabbit/Golf engines are a classic example) they get similar longevity.

      OTOH, when diesels are designed like consumer car engines. they can have similar problems. The Navistar-built Ford Powerstroke was the subject of lawsuits and cost both companies millions.

      Dodge got diesels right by using Cummins, which are designed along the lines of Cummins commercial offerings. Unfortunately, one has to buy the Dodge to get the engine...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    244. Re:Innovation! by zippyspringboard · · Score: 1

      A 454 is most definitely a rebuildable engine. Standard procedure is to bore the cylinders over and use larger pistons. You can bore a 454 (big block) up to .060" over. Therefore you should be able to get atleast two rebuilds before you need to find a new block. Don't take my word for it, Google 454 rebuild kit, or big block rebuild kit, or how to rebuild a 454... I find it hard to imagine a situation with a passenger vehicle where it would need more than 2 or 3 rebuilds during it's useful lifespan (taxi cab perhaps?), and I suspect that's why engines like this do not have easily removable sleeves. My understanding as to one reason large diesels have sleeves is that it becomes possible to service only one cylinder. As in you can replace one piston, rings and sleeve, while keeping all the cylinders the same size. It also makes it possible to do said repair without removing the engine from the truck (no machining necessary)

    245. Re:Innovation! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Mr Lube up here will read the codes for free while you're in for an oil change.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    246. Re:Innovation! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Umm... I think a line in the ideal sense is a 1 dimensional object. 2 dimensional objects have area.

    247. Re:Innovation! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      U-hauls are in long-term fleet use, rented by people who are diesel-illiterate and beat the shit out of them. A diesel injector pump can cost as much as a big block engine. Idiot customer is much less likely to hurt the big block, especially the common 6.0/366.

      I'd disagree on the fragility, but on the other hand the gasoline engine IS cheaper, and it's not like U-Haul is paying the fuel costs. As a customer, I'd try for a diesel in order to save money on fuel, but for the very occasional use, I guess I'd just have to cope.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    248. Re:Innovation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please try Lucas engine treatment at any auto parts store. I have a 2002 Altima and it knocked out my "service engine soon" (same as check engine) lights at least 4 times! That is even after my being rejected at an emission inspection. Let your tank get below one quarter full, pour solution in tank, fill up with super gas to flush engine and fuel injectors. It costs $5.00 or $6.00 a bottle.

    249. Re:Innovation! by thephenom99 · · Score: 1

      I posted 30546820. Not Anonymous Coward.

    250. Re:Innovation! by HydroPhonic · · Score: 1

      If your after HP and torque, the ol adage still holds true. There is no replacement for displacement.

      A fact which my girlfriend heartily appreciates!

    251. Re:Innovation! by Laebshade · · Score: 1

      I was talking about inline 6's. I made no mention of engines with more cylinders. Nice straw man.

  3. Car stories need computer analogies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like Intel producing the last x86 chip.

    1. Re:Car stories need computer analogies by awyeah · · Score: 1

      No, what we really need is a pizza analogy. I'm sure PizzaAnalogyGuy will have a good one for this.

      --
      Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
    2. Re:Car stories need computer analogies by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 1

      Well duh, all the best pizzas have eight slices!!

    3. Re:Car stories need computer analogies by downix · · Score: 1

      They did that in the 1990's. Now they run a RISC chip w/ interpreter in hardware.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  4. Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now they can finally join the 80's and work on getting rid of leaf springs next.

    1. Re:Good Riddance by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Now they can finally join the 80's and work on getting rid of leaf springs next."

      Leaves are versatile, easily stacked to suit intended use, and tough.

      If you want an F1 car by all means buy one, but leaf springs work very well on trucks and other applications where coil spring towers would be awkward (and coils risk coil bind when overloaded).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Good Riddance by Osty · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the Corvette still uses a leaf spring suspension. Granted it's barely related to what we traditionally think of as leaf spring suspensions (stacked iron or steel leaves per wheel), using a single leaf made of a composite material in a transverse application for the rear suspension.

      Replacing the vette's leaf springs (or its pushrod V8) would be like Porsche trying to make a non-rear engined 911. In both cases, they've spent decades applying technology to an initially flawed design, and owners would not have it any other way.

    3. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      but leaf springs work very well on trucks and other applications where coil spring towers would be awkward (and coils risk coil bind when overloaded).

      Not only that but it's easier to tie into supporting members (eg. the frame) so you can carry more sprung weight. This is why heavy-duty machinery almost always has leaf springs. Plus you need less lateral support and they are stronger in general.

      Leaf springs have their uses even on the most modern equipment.

    4. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the OP and I agree with you 100%. Leaves certainly have their place in medium and heavy duty applications.

    5. Re:Good Riddance by citizenr · · Score: 4, Funny

      leaf springs work very well on trucks

      like Corvette

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    6. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now this is why I read slashdot.

    7. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leaf springs are also a tried and tested technology.

      Are you suggesting that all old technology should be thrown away? I mean, Unix is like 30 years old, so you must think it's a piece of shit, right?

    8. Re:Good Riddance by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      leaf springs work very well on trucks

      like Corvette

      and chariots

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    9. Re:Good Riddance by huge+colin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      leaf springs work very well on trucks

      like Corvette

      Do you understand that the Hotchkiss rear suspension (which is what you're thinking of) involves a solid rear axle and is completely different from the transverse single composite monospring used by the Corvette (which uses IRS)? The Corvette has had fully independent suspension since 1963.

      I'm a fan of Jeremy Clarkson and his wacky antics too, but when he talks about American cars he's often quite wrong.

  5. big blocks by kqc7011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Plenty of other big blocks being made, no real reason to want a 50 year old design of a cast iron lump. Lots of new ones being built and machined, mostly aluminum.

    --
    Passionately Indifferent
    1. Re:big blocks by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Aluminum is nice for racing, but there is no penalty for using iron (which is also more stable) in truck applications. For hauling, the front end weight is a plus (and part of why I just installed a 366 in my wrecker).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:big blocks by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      mostly aluminum.

      ... Aluminum overheats at nothing. Your radiator goes on an aluminum engine and chances are good the engine's got a hole in it now too. Berate cast iron all you want, but at least it could handle a cheap component failing without exploding.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:big blocks by netsavior · · Score: 1

      "If it's not cast it won't last"

    4. Re:big blocks by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Plenty of other big blocks being made, no real reason to want a 50 year old design of a cast iron lump. Lots of new ones being built and machined, mostly aluminum.

      From what I understood of the fine article, it was the last big block V-8 manufactured at that particular plant! This doesn't mean there will be no more big blocks. Just no more made at the Tonawanda engine plant.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:big blocks by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      Right, even wikipedia has it on this one: GM stopped installing big block V-8's in the Silverado HD trucks, when the GMT-800 series was discontinued in 2007. 8100 marine engines range from 300 to 500 hp and come with a stand-alone ecm. The last L18 was manufactured in December 2009.

      If the surge of powerful and fuel efficient diesel engines wasn't enough, these engines went through a phase that can only be described as: What the hell kind of noise is that? Btw, it was piston slap.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    6. Re:big blocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not by GM, Ford or Chrysler.

  6. diesel by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    So... What will GM be using for diesel engines? I'd thought their Duramax engines were V8s.

    1. Re:diesel by terraformer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Big block v. Small block. The will continue to have V8s, just smaller ones. The classic GM big block was the 454 ci. They will continue to have the 350 ci.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    2. Re:diesel by kryptKnight · · Score: 1

      Duramax engines are made by DMAX, which is a joint venture between GM and Isuzu. They aren't related to the Chevy big block, which is a gasoline engine (there are differences between the Diesel cycle and the Otto cycle other than what fuel they use.)

      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:diesel by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      (there are differences between the Diesel cycle [wikipedia.org] and the Otto cycle [wikipedia.org] other than what fuel they use.)

      Unless you worked for Oldsmobile.

    4. Re:diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not that simple actually. The big block chevy(BBC) motors are the old school 427/454 line. The small block chevy(SBC) motors 305/350 were discontinued w/ the introduction of the current LS series used in cars and the truck counter part series which vary in displacement up to the Z06 corvette's 427ci LS7 motor.

      The Duramax diesel motors are a complete different line altogether.

  7. A sad day by mirix · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the same way that the day the last caveman set down his club was sad.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
    1. Re:A sad day by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I bet the cavewomen weren't sad when he put the club down ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:A sad day by kc5deb · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yet today, we still need a club to beat the farts out of the liberal hippy who thinks that because his 35HP hybrid pregnant-rollerskate is good enough for him, it's good enough for everyone else too.

  8. Two years' worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love that quote. Just how much is two years' worth of big blocks? Who is "some customers"? Joe the plumber? Fedex? How many Library of Congress are we talking here?

    1. Re:Two years' worth by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty sure they are talking about things like boat manufacturers and water pump manufacturers. GM stopped using this engine in their trucks over 2 years ago, the production line was kept running to fill those outside customer orders. Since this beast needed 30% more displacement to produce 10% more torque and significantly LESS HP than the 6.2L V8 it's no surprise that GM stopped using it.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Two years' worth by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      If they all idled simultaneously nonstop, how many daily barrels of crude oil would it take to keep them running?

    3. Re:Two years' worth by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      42

    4. Re:Two years' worth by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      "Since this beast needed 30% more displacement to produce 10% more torque and significantly LESS HP than the 6.2L V8 it's no surprise that GM stopped using it."

      I doubt that tells the whole story though - everyone seems to want to compare the PEAK numbers from the engine and not compare the other things about it. I wish people would take a look at some dyno results from these things. If you scale the output of both engines to the same chart and look at the difference in area under the curve, you might have a somewhat different impression. It's also important to note that in truck applications, you want more torque in the lowest possible RPM ranges...they aren't trying to make high horsepower for towing applications.

      I'm going to come right out and say that I haven't looked at it lately myself, but I've driven a few trucks with big blocks before, and based on my few experiences with them - those things were serious workhorses. They tended to survive longer when they're worked that hard too.

  9. I suppose it was inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big block put out a lot of power, but it also sucked a lot of gas. V6's have been around for years that put out a lot of power too. The really big block engines went away years ago (440, 383, 426 Hemi --and I'm not talking about the 5.9 liter hemi either, I'm talking about the old fashioned 7.0 liter hemi!). The old Ford 390 and the 428 Cobra Jet. Those old really big V8 engines are all long gone (like nearly 30 years ago). The small and medium block V8's have been around for a while 350, 360, 351 etc. But now they are going too. The small block V8's are still around 318, 313, 305, 289, 327 etc. Still lots of go in those engines. The V6's have gotten more powerful too. But one of the problems is that people don't want to get hammered at the gas pump anymore, and they don't want to go through gas like its water anymore. If there's really only 30 years left, lets use less and make it last a bit longer. A lot of people (me too) got kind of really grumpy paying stupid high prices 2 years ago, followed by paying wildly less 6 months later. The oil companies would like to shock us and soak us again, but they and the Arabs pissed too many people off. The green shit is happening. Even if you don't believe any of the environmental stuff, being able to force their hand and make them play nice is good monetary and business sense (if you are a consumer, if you're an oil company or an Arab, it will be the first time you've had to compete in your lifetime, so from their perspective, business is sucking hard). Using less means using less. It never made sense to me why one guy would want 500 cubic feet around him, just to get to work, when 150 would do exactly the same thing.

    1. Re:I suppose it was inevitable by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, this was the 8.1L (496 cu) engine that's being retired, it was a true big block. It was also a big hunk of cast iron with iron headers and hence heavy as all get out (734 lbs shipping weight vs 564 for the 6200).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  10. Somehow, some way... by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kill off another icon?

    I'm getting one of these and jamming it into my SAAB.

    Front heavy front wheel drive indeed.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    1. Re:Somehow, some way... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      According to the article, that shouldn't be too hard:

      "They were used in vehicles including the Corvair, the Corvette (for a time) and the Impala."

      I mean, if the factory could get it into a Corvair...

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Somehow, some way... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Before GM got their dirty hands on the brand, SAAB constructed a prototype V8 engine, and put it in a Saab 9000.

      According to the engineers, there was enough room under the hood to drop it in without major modification to the car.

      So, yeah. You might be able to do that.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Somehow, some way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to see how you'd keep the torque steer from pulling your arms out of their sockets and beating you in the face with them.

      You've got to have two hands on the wheel with just the 2.0T 9-3 with the high pressure turbo.

    4. Re:Somehow, some way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crotchety old guy says: Why not, if it's got a 4 stroke it's not a REAL SAAB anyway....

  11. Had a 454 Suburban by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    74 3/4 ton suburban with towing package. Damn that thing would pull anything. It got 11 miles per gallon in town, on the road, pulling a trailer. No matter what it always got 11 miles per gallon. Drive it 35 miles per hour or 85 and it still got 11 miles per gallon. Weird. I miss that big boxy thing. Nothing has that much room anymore.

    1. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      perhaps your fuel gauge was broken as well. (possibly also made in America)

    2. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you never had to guess what it would cost to go somewhere, or worry about making up some hill. it is a sad day.

    3. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

      By 96, the 454 Towing Suburban upgraded. To leather and 11.5 MPG @ 5280 feet above sea level. And it just cracked 200k with no major engine or transmission service - and by that, I mean anything other than oil changes. Too bad the 2nd power steering rack is on it's way out. Big block gas engines are MUCH nicer tow vehicles in cities and suburbia. That, and they rarely belch black smoke from the 5 inch sewer exhaust the idiot driving them added (though, they will roll on 25" wheels more than I would like...)

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    4. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Your rig weighs 74.75 tons? I think I've been bested.

    5. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 1

      1974 year, 3/4 ton load rated frame.

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
    6. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YMMV

    7. Re:Had a 454 Suburban by mrdogi · · Score: 1

      My dad had one of these as well. I can't believe the hell that thing went through.

      In the mid-late 80's, my brother took it for a spin and crashed it. Dad took his welding torch, cut off the bent fender metal, and drove it home. Without coolant. Only a couple of miles, but still.

      Decided to rebuilding the engine while he worked on repairing the Suburban. The thing had an inch or more of oil/crud caked on inside. Cleaned it all up, it ran fine. Some time later, he ended up selling it to an acquaintance, for the engine.

      I miss that thing.

  12. V-8's rock by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's fine if these engines are being killed because something better (as powerful with better efficiency) has come along. If not, it sucks.

    To see which it is, just take a look at Ford Motor Company - you know, the one that ISN'T owned by the government! ;-)

    BTW, regardless diesel engines rock! :-)

    Once again, FUBO! =:-D

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    1. Re:V-8's rock by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "BTW, regardless diesel engines rock! :-)"

      Real diesels, in trucks that go "kssh" and bend in the middle, do rock. :)

      The Navistar abortions that triggered the lawsuitfest with Ford aren't their finest hour, and light truck diesels generally are brutally expensive to repair. For the cost of replacing a set of diesel injectors, I can rebuild a complete big block Chevy, and for what diesels trucks cost to purchase I could stuff 460s and 454s into my Fords and Chevys and feed them premium for years. Inline Cummins engines are nice but one has to buy a Dodge to get them...

      Diesels are getting ever more complex, and with low sulfur diesel fuel combined with tightening emissions regs that ain't gonna change.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:V-8's rock by barfy · · Score: 0

      No, diesel fuel rocks. The reason you get more mileage from them, is that there is more energy released from the fuel.

      Do you know that you get almost half as much diesel as you do from regular fuel. And that you get more mileage from a barrel of oil from gasoline rather than diesel?

      Nah, probably not.

    3. Re:V-8's rock by compass46 · · Score: 1

      The leaks regarding the 2011 Mustang GT's (the V8 model) engine specs have the previous 315hp engine being replaced with a 412hp engine. It'll still get about 24mpg highway though. On the other hand, the V6's 210hp engine is being replaced by a 305hp model 2011. And get this, going from 16/24mpg to 19/30mpg. (Those numbers reflect the automatic transmision model.)

      As for GM, it was the reintroduced 2010 Camaro, especially the V6 model which currently has comparable numbers to the upcoming Mustang V6, that really spurred Ford on.

    4. Re:V-8's rock by afidel · · Score: 1

      The 6200 has 10% less torque and more HP for a couple hundred less pounds of weight and significantly better fuel economy.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2010 camero is a fucking ugly piece of shit. It looks better than the 2003 redesign, but that's like saying cmdrtaco's ass smells better than cowboy neal's ass. If I'm smelling ass, there better be a vagina on the other side.

    6. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Diesel is lower in energy in gasoline per pound mass. Evenso, the difference is one of a few percent and not anywhere close to half as you claimed. The reason you get more thermodynamic efficiency is that diesels run at a higher compression ratio. The compression ratio that an engineer selects is a function of a number of variables the most significant of which is the type of fuel. Engines and fuels go hand in hand in the design process. One does not "rock" compared to the other.

      Vehicle fuel economy is another matter altogether. It very easy to have a vehicle that is diesel power that gets poor mileage.

      Regards,
      Jason

    7. Re:V-8's rock by mirix · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing I don't have to run my own refinery then. At this point in time, diesel is still cheaper per unit of energy at the pump, which is where it matters to consumers. no?

      AFAIK diesel is cheaper to refine as well.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    8. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GM also got rid of Detroit Diesel as well.....

      Of course enviromental "concearns" helped stop production of reilable 2 cycle Detroits. Long live the 71 and 92 series....

    9. Re:V-8's rock by anethema · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is a bit of a strawman argument if I ever saw one.

      When in your life have you seen mileage rated in distance per mass?

      It is distance per volume (since the volume is fixed in your tank, not the mass).

      Diesel is around 7% higher in energy released for the same volume of fuel burned. That is a free gimme there for good mileage. Most of the rest come from thus (wikipedia):

      "They burn less fuel than a petrol engine performing the same work, due to the engine's higher temperature of combustion and greater expansion ratio.Gasoline engines are typically 25% efficient while diesel engines can convert over 30% of the fuel energy into mechanical energy"

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    10. Re:V-8's rock by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The right way to compare diesel and petrol cars is to compare the "cost per mile", i.e. how much it costs for the fuel to drive one mile of average driving conditions.

    11. Re:V-8's rock by mirix · · Score: 1

      That's what I was going for, and failed miserably apparently :-/

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    12. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No diesel engines vibrate, shake, etc... they do NOT rock.

      For a while i owned a Volvo with a diesel engine. Direct injection, turbo and intercooler enough power and lots of torque... I liked it. But now I own a Saab running on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) with liquid fuel injection, turbo and intercooler.... even more power, more torque and lower fuel cost and more environmentailly friendly (they say...) and I like it waaaayyyyy more.

      The thing with most of the diesels is once you make enough revolutions to deliver some "real" power, you need to shift... petrol (or LPG) engines rev in general much higher and offer you a wider range where you can make use of the power. And with LPG knocking will come much later so you can increase the boost pressure to get even more power... :)

      No way I'm going back to a smelly, vibrating, black smoke coughing diesel...

    13. Re:V-8's rock by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Modern diesels do not blow black smoke, nor do they shake while running (except at shutdown) and USLD does not smell like the old LSD. I can't say this is true for smaller vehicles but it is true for combination vehicles. My 2010 Freightshaker runs smooth, quiet and clean, only shaking at shutdown and it delivers a TON of torque. I don't see why newer small vehicles should be any different but then again, I have no experience with anything but my inline 6 detroit diesel. Just an opinion. The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    14. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inline Cummins engines are nice but one has to buy a Dodge to get them...

      The Ford F550 and F650 offer the choice of The Cummins 6BT or the Caterpillar C7. That being said I think Dodge makes a fine truck if you ge the Diesel engine. It is just that Mopar gas engines have had a history of shady reliability with the exception the Hemmi. That being said, for the short time that Mercedes owned them, they did alot to cut out the Mopar rot and re-platform some of the cars onto some Mercedes technology.

    15. Re:V-8's rock by ageoffri · · Score: 1

      What 2003 redesign are you talking about? The production of 4th gen Camaro's ended with the 2002 model. The 5th generation began production in March 2009. Given the response and comments I get on my 2010 2LT/RS Camaro it is safe to say you are in a minority on the looks of the car.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    16. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the strawman? A large amount of complexity is not apparent to you. That doesn't make that complexity a strawman argument.

      I got my numbers from the US department of energy. Volume is not what an engineer uses for thermo calculations. Mass is what an engineer uses for thermo calculations. Mass is conserved throughout thecombustion cycle. Volume is not. That is why we engineers use mass and that is why I posted the comparison on per mass basis. Just because you don't buy your fuel based on energy per unit mass doesn't mean it's not important. You just don't see it.

      Fuel economy IS in fact another matter altogether. Fuel economy wraps up the entire vehicle system including the fuel choice and the engine. I've never seen distance rated in mileage per mass. But don't think that the engineers don't know how mass affects their system. My unstated point is that you should not think that driving a huge F350 diesel will give you good fuel economy just because it's diesel.

      And the "gimme" is not free. A diesel engine is typically heavier and more expensive. I believe a diesel is something like a $5,000 option on a Ford truck. You'd have to do a proper total lifecycle cost analysis to see if that cost was worth it.

      You last statement is correct in its conception. The reason is that diesels use higher compression therefore burning at a higher temperature.

      So diesel engines do not rock. Neither do gasoline engines. Neither does either fuel. They have trade-offs much like anything in the engineered world.

      Regards,
      Jason

    17. Re:V-8's rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy/Mass in MJ/kg
      Gasoline: 46.4
      Diesel: 46.2

      You're right in that Diesel is a tiny bit less energetic than gasoline, per mass. But we're not talking about airplanes here. NOBODY, automotive engineers included, uses the mass of fuel when describing fuel economy of automobiles. If you're describing the thermodynamic process, yes. If you're a baker, yes. Otherwise.. NO!

      Per volume, Diesel does have the advantage:
      37.3 MJ/l vs 34.2MJ/l--a much wider margin. So, when pumps start dishing out pounds or kilograms of fuel (or even Therms/MJs) instead of gallons or liters, you'll have a point. Not so much now, though.

      Diesel engines are also usually about 10-15% more efficient than gasoline. It does far outweigh the small increase in engine mass.

      There's also no escaping the fact that during refining, it's cheaper to stop at the diesel phase, making it less expensive to refine. Because of this, in the US, diesel was much less expensive per volume than gasoline was--and for the longest time almost half the cost.

      When consumer diesel vehicles started to become more abundant, the cost of diesel fuel skyrocketed. In 2002, the average price for diesel in my area was $1.60/gal. This went to $4.00-4.80 gallon during the later parts of the Bush reign. It was extortion, all things considered. Even now, the cost for diesel exceeds the ~7% energy/volume advantage that it has over gasoline.

    18. Re:V-8's rock by modemboy · · Score: 1

      Wow, you sure do seem sure of yourself, but a quick check reveals that Diesel fuel has a higher potential energy than Gasoline: In MJ/kg Diesel is 48, Gas 47.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Energy_content_of_fuel

      You are right that it is a small difference.

  13. Add a supercharger... by Burdell · · Score: 1

    and one day Mad Max will get this engine. Now we know; the clock is ticking on the apocalypse.

    1. Re:Add a supercharger... by mirix · · Score: 1

      Mad Max drove a few different Ford Falcons. I think they had a ford 351 (small block) V8.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    2. Re:Add a supercharger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mad Max drove a few different Ford Falcons. I think they had a ford 351 (small block) V8.

      True, and we all know it's impossible to put a different engine in them because of the dynamite wired to their gas tanks.

    3. Re:Add a supercharger... by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it was an Aussie car, XB GT Falcon Coupe

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:Add a supercharger... by Burdell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I knew it wasn't a GM, but c'mon, wasn't that the first thing that popped into your head when you saw "last big-block V8"?

    5. Re:Add a supercharger... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      No. Max drove "the last of the V8 Interceptors".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:Add a supercharger... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Thank God at least one other person recognized the Mad Max reference in the summary. I'm very disappointed in /. that it took this many posts.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Add a supercharger... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Not if you got brains.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Add a supercharger... by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      AKA Most Awesome Car Ever

  14. Mad max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crazy mechanic to mad max: ...last of the V8s. Piece of history.

  15. the joy's of running a big block by onepoint · · Score: 2, Interesting

    so goes another point of history, maybe for the better, but there was something about when you opened the hood and you saw one, now you look under the hood and it's confusing. I guess age is getting the better of me LOL.

    well I guess you'll all start wondering what it was like to have 550hp+, and punching it, there is just a sound, not like any other sound, it's the sound of power, raw, and tamed by only your nerve as you head down the strip. light to light, pole to pole, neck to neck, blasting the traps at 145mph+ in mid 10's, then, only after the trophy is handed to you, you drive your car home, listening to the sweet rumble.

    I never had the balls to put slicks on, always felt that control at that level of speed was worth my life. lost a few - won a few, made me money while I was in school and never lost on the street ( nor was I caught ) and earn the respect of my peers in the parking lot. Had geek cred - grease in my blood - and I loved my "RAT" ... what more can you ask for when your 17 and it's 1983 ( well maybe DEC-VAX mainframe )

    anyway thanks for reading

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
    1. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Guysdrinkingbeer · · Score: 1

      Amen. That's all I have to say to that.

      --
      Great people don't need people to complete them, great people complete other people. -- Matthew Pawlikowski.
    2. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please, for the love of the lord, go get your transgender operation overwith already. you don't want to miss the next communist party gathering at copenhagen.

    3. Re:the joy's of running a big block by _merlin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, it's all great until you kill someone in an effort to lengthen your pathetically small penis. Oh, and the DEC VAX is a supermini - not a mainframe (the PDP-10 was the mainframe).

    4. Re:the joy's of running a big block by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The engine being retired made 450HP which Ford is making with a midsized V-6 (ok only 415, but still). The Ford V6 is almost half the weight (449 lbs vs 734). Ok it's apples and bananas since one's a big truck V8 optimized for torque and the other's a race car V6 with twin turbochargers, but the point remains that old technology is old and there's very little need for 8.1L gas engine.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. The people who race American cars know better. They know the WMD they pilot.

      99% of deaths due to street racing happen at the hands of kids who watched "The Fast and the Furious" and think that stock Civics or M3's with spoilers and fart-pipes give them over 9000 horsepower with enough cred and experience to race in the middle of traffic.

    6. Re:the joy's of running a big block by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you read the linked article? He was driving a Holden Commodore - it's a General Motors V8 sedan. Most of the hooning deaths in Australia are in Ford and Holden V8s.

    7. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like you're mad bro.

    8. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Darth+Turbogeek · · Score: 1

      There's just a *tiny* difference between racing on a legal drag race strip and illegal street racing. But dont let that stop you now.

      --
      "Old Rallydrivers never die - they just fail to book in on time"
    9. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to tie a drunk driving story in with a guy reminescing about well-placed fun. Did you bother to read the story you linked before assuming it applied?

    10. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to tie a drunk driving story in with a guy reminsicing about well-placed fun

      And just how did I do that? So I missed the word "Commodore" while scanning the story. So fucking what? Pardon me for not knowing everything about Australian street racing. That dosen't make what I said any less true in America.

    11. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, lost context and replied to wrong person. Grandparent please disregard the above comment, I agree that not all people who operate loud, overpowered vehicles at unsafe velocities have a small penis. Just the ones who do it in residential neighborhoods ;)

    12. Re:the joy's of running a big block by fatboy · · Score: 1

      Police back that up, alleging that two other men had lifted the rear of his car while he was in nearby Symons Avenue so he could spin his wheels.

      Yea, sounds like one powerful beast of a car.

      I think this had more to do with it.....

      police say Gary Edward Ryan, 25, had been drinking since 1pm, putting away a dozen stubbies, followed by some home brew.

      --
      --fatboy
    13. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Swampash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Newsflash: people who race cars on public roads are brainless tards and I pray that they die roasting in fiery crashes. Crashes with large inanimate objects, of course.

    14. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Thundarr+Trollgrim · · Score: 1

      "Joy's" ????

      If only you had spent a little less time being a macho idiot and a little more time learning English... ;)

    15. Re:the joy's of running a big block by maxume · · Score: 1

      I pray for a Snickers bar.

      When I sacrifice $0.75, my god usually gives me one.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:the joy's of running a big block by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Back in my day ( I hate saying that ), we had drag strips that were near by ( englishtown ) and we had street racing in the back of old warehousing districts or we would just cut off the highway for 10 minutes and put on 5 races. of course the cops would show up, but by that time we would be long gone.

      Yah I saw some wrecks, all of them but 1 were from drunk drivers. the one wreck that was not from a drunk was when a guy in a 66 GTO tri-power painted candy apple red, his u-joint failed, we were doing 40ish, he was about 3 seconds in front of me, and all of a sudden his rear went up, spun like a top and smashed sideways into a pole, he walked out alive and shaken. we went over the car and figured out what happened, since then all my hot rod's had an angel.

      drunks were the bane of the road for hot rods, if you drank in my day, you did not race, you were a spectator ( well at least in my area ) and if you drove home, someone would follow you to make sure you did not do anything stupid, or get caught, backup car all-ways played interference, it was just the rules and code we lived by. Sometimes someone would drive your car home.

      I can tell you every story of every drunk wreck that I saw/witnessed in my life, and in some of the cases, the death of those kids inside those cars. every one was someone showing off 49%, or someone doing something stupid ( 49% cases) or fell asleep at the wheel.

      the noise we made with our cars are nothing like the sounds I hear all day now, most motorcycles make more noise than most of the hot rod's. ... talking about noise, you could be blind and know the sound of each persons car by the exhaust notes.

      also back in my day ( god I hate that), at midnight, you were the only people out, not too many people would be driving at night. now the same street are full till 4am if not later. even the west side highway ( NYC ) was empty at 2am, not a soul in sight unless it was a cab.

      Now you could not pull half of the stunts we did without getting caught ( like to see you guys closing off i-95 for 10 minutes ) or run a cannon ball rally to the beach at 4 am with 20 cars and 30 motorcycles ( we called them rice rockets back then )

      if you are ever on the NJ parkway, just south of the route 4 entrance, there is a 3 or 4 lane stretch of about 5 miles long, clear visibility for about 2 miles all the way from start to finish, run that out at night, and you'll completely learn what your limit's are. never could run that at flat out but I learned what my limit was.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    17. Re:the joy's of running a big block by kackle · · Score: 1

      So that was you I was stuck behind on my way to work this morning?

    18. Re:the joy's of running a big block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsflash: people who race cars on public roads are brainless tards and I pray that they die roasting in fiery crashes. Crashes with large inanimate objects, of course.

      This is insightful? To wish painful death on another human for behaving in a way that you don't agree with? Granted, street racing is dangerous, to others as well as yourself. But death for (what you think of as) irresponsibility? Really? That would be a frightening world to exist in.

  16. A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly annoying?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it just shows that top-posting sucks.

    2. Re:A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, it doesn't.

    3. Re:A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yoda must really get on your nerves...

    4. Re:A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, that’s your own fault of having picked up on that idiot habit. It’s a habit of the kind of people who send e-mails without subject lines (that go straight to the spam folder in my case), and do the same on Internet forums.

      And those are the people that are actually really annoying. Because with those idiots, one always has to read the whole text, to know what it’s about, because they are too stupid to summarize it for us in the summary. That’t what it’s for. USE IT.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  17. Smokey Yunick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said it best with why he closed up shop "there was no more good mechanics". Indeed, all the best talent was interested in engine when the BBC, 385 Series(BBF), and the 440 where developed. The tech talent moved on to stuff like stereos in the 80's and computers in the 90's.

    That being said, there is still some of that star talent. The aftermarket has some serious power.
    Production engine - 1200hp - 557ci(9.1L) Big Block Chevy - link
    Custom engine - 1400hp - 600ci(9.8L) Big Block Chevy - link

    Those engine are built to run WOT for long periods of time. A serious engineering and technological marvel.

  18. old friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    good bye my old friend, you will be missed.

    as a gear head, not much is more impressive than a big ol rat motor sticking out of the hood of your car. I will really miss this motor, gas hog or not

  19. turn the page by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm old enough to appreciate the value of a piece of tech that has served so well for so long. Likewise, I have a soft spot for the land-line and the command line. But there are pleasurable vices that we simply can't afford to cling to, and the big petrol-burning engine is one of them.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:turn the page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can say its sad to see this engine go because of history, but POTS will take a lot longer to die especially in rural US areas and then the command line... really do you only work on windows machines? I use the command line everyday and quite honestly it is so much easier to determine what is going on with a machine then a GUI ever will.

    2. Re:turn the page by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Likewise, I have a soft spot for the land-line and the command line

      You damn young'uns and your interactive shells. Sheesh.

  20. Beasts! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    We used to have an old 87 Chevy 3500 van and a 85 Chevy cube truck. Both were powered by the big block 366. Those things were nasty, I could chirp the tires on the cube truck with a light load! The van was a rocket ship, you had to be gentle on the pedal. They were hardy engines and you could pile on miles with little problems. The trucks rear finally blew in the 2000 and we junked it and sold the van. Replaced them with two GM 3500 vans which have the small block but are very ballsy. Can handle a 2700lb load with no problems, even in the PA mountains on the 70/76.

    One they are retired we will switch to Sprinters with diesel engines.

    RIP big block, you were a monster and legend for your day. We just don't need you anymore.

  21. Q: Because its been used before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A: Why am I about to log in to mod that redundant?

    Jeopardy. Use Jeopardy style. Then next time this all could have been avoided. Don't just rest on the laurels of other posters. Innovate or Die!

  22. sniffle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good bye old friend

  23. asdfasdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously though, does anyone else read the content first and usually skip the subject of a post?

    1. Re:asdfasdf by EricX2 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has subjects?

    2. Re:asdfasdf by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      I get by pretty well just reading the first 11 characters of every post. Everything else is superfluous.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  24. Big Block is Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    GM produces a 7 liter motor, the same size as the old big block 427. The 427 was a wicked powerful motor. The new engine is better. Who cares if one was called the big block. Power is the real important number. Weight and compactness are important as well. Even displacement is meaningless in the forced induction era. The term big block is meaningless. The performance cars and heavy duty trucks of today are far and away superior to their forebears in every way.

    Regards,
    Jason

    1. Re:Big Block is Meaningless by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

      LOL... "wicked"

  25. Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude. Get back on your medication. Seriously.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  26. I just pictured kdawson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with several tears running down his face.

  27. car analogies by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The big block V8 is like the Itanium. Big and power hungry and a real commercial workhorse.

    It think people are sad because it would be like if Intel stopped making Core 2 Quads and decided all you needed was an Atom chip.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:car analogies by mick232 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, but: Like the big block, the Itanium arch hasn't seen considerable enhancements for years. Now it's obsolete because there are more efficient and more economical designs, which exceed the Itanium also in absolute performance numbers. No one will miss it in the long term.

  28. You must be... by sootman · · Score: 1

    ... a blast at parties.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  29. 8.1L by postmortem · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What a waste of fuel through the years. If normal size engines with decent fuel mileage were used, we'd have much bigger oil reserves today. SUVs and trucks with such engines are not necessary to get to work or drive hundreds of miles on interstate or to drive to Walmart and get groceries. That's where I see them.

    1. Re:8.1L by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, because I don't see many soccer mom's with 8100's, more like farmers, construction crews, and race car drivers with towing loads of 7,000+ pounds. Oh and commercial trucks for intracity delivery and tow trucks.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:8.1L by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      and race car drivers with towing loads of 7,000+ pounds.

      So what kind of racing involves towing 7000+ pounds on the track?

    3. Re:8.1L by Siridar · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but i'd pay money to watch it.

    4. Re:8.1L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time I saw a heavy truck with a gasoline engine was in the armed forces. They still have some old soviet pieces of shit that generate a whooping 200hp from 12 liters of displacement while getting 3mpg.

    5. Re:8.1L by ageoffri · · Score: 1

      Tractor pulling involves up to 65,000 pounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor_pulling

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    6. Re:8.1L by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      So what kind of racing involves towing 7000+ pounds on the track?

      Yo momma in a chariot?

      Apologies. I just couldn't resist.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:8.1L by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Informative

      > So what kind of racing involves towing 7000+ pounds on the track?

      Dunno, but I think the OP was talking about towing 7000+ pounds *to* the track.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    8. Re:8.1L by fireylord · · Score: 1

      cant be tractor pulls, surely they're something rather more? :)

  30. Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    I think the poster might have been trying to make some sort of joke, but, if so... "whoosh". Please, man, give me a Simpsons reference, or something!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  31. Reliable Big Power will live on in the Aftermarket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dart's BigM and World Products' Merlin blocks will live on. Not only can you get something 100% compatible with the GM line, there are variants with taller deck height and siamesed bores that will very readily get you to 632 cubic inches in cast iron OR aluminum and will often still bolt into a stock location. Heads from these companies are available from stock variations to those with huge valves and runners. Pistons, rods, and cranks: an endless choice beautiful forged parts; you can easily get a custom big block to your liking that contains no GM parts and is better in every way. These engines are the darlings of marine applications where it's not uncommon to see a normally-aspirated big block that makes 800 horsepower, and not just for seconds at a time like some high-strung turbo + nitris grenade engine, they go for HOURS non-stop :) Fuel consumption? comparable to any gasoline-powered otto-cycle engine: much off idle, just figure about 1 gallon per hour per 10 hp of actual output in use.

  32. Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That looks to be output from the Complaint Generator, so it involved less effort to create than your post did.

    It's probably a reference to the fact that DNS-and-BIND has used that exact post before.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  33. Excuse me, by coolgeek · · Score: 1

    But when did Chevy ever use a Big Block V8 in a Corvair?

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  34. Deparation... by LaRoach · · Score: 1

    You're trying to prove your "stomping" assertion with a Vette that is a little under three seconds faster over a seven minute course? Next month someone else will tweak something to be faster than the Vette. And month after that someone else will tweak another car, and another...

    1. Re:Deparation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no, stupidass. Obviously, you're too slow to keep up so I'll do a little cutting and pasting to help.

      His original assertion:

      Sure, but a V8 can't touch a straight six turbo in the "looks good and hauls ass" department.

      My reply, sure a V8 can, see Corvette. Then he said:

      No it doesn't, AC - unless you're talking about burnout competitions.

      Obviously, making the astoundingly ignorant assertion that Vettes can't corner. To which I replied with a link of a Vette setting a record at the Nürburgring. Surprise!

      Then for some reason known only to him, he responds with a link to a youtube of a modded Supra spanking a stock Z06 in a drag race which was completely irrelevant had fuck all to do with what I was saying.

      I go through all of this trouble to firstly, show that he is an uninformed idiot and secondly, to show that you have the reading comprehension and the short term memory of a gnat. Furthermore, just face it, a straight 6 isn't the end all be all of engine design, fan-suckas.

    2. Re:Deparation... by LaRoach · · Score: 1

      Ah, you remind me of the good old days when I used to race. The vette fanboys were just as insufferable then as well (always needing to prove something) and were guaranteed to rise to the bait! For some reason the guys in the blue corvettes always spun out. We never did figure that one out. The corner workers knew to look out for them though. By the way, you type like a sixteen year old. You're kinda hard to take seriously (but I am enjoying your posts).

    3. Re:Deparation... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Parent has a point. ZR1 is the fastest production car through the ring and various other tracks.

  35. Only the last *GM* Rat by 71bigblock · · Score: 1

    Dart Machinery and World Products make better BBCs than even GM did. But... still glad i've got my 'early' ('65 396) big block chevy motivation in the garage.

    1. Re:Only the last *GM* Rat by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard use of the term 'Rat' used in reference to the Big Block Chevys in ages. Nice.

      Disclaimer: I'm a Dodge Fan.

      Personally, this rates a solid 'Meh' in my book. Like the other five or six long running V8s from the Big 3, they may not be in current new production, but those things are everywhere, run forever, have a phalanx of 3rd party manufacturers providing them new, and will have aftermarket parts until hell freezes over. Let's not shed a tear just yet.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  36. That's a ridiculous comparison by mbessey · · Score: 1

    I get what you're going for here, but comparing a race engine with a mainstream engine is pointless. The race engine only needs to run for a short period between overhauls, while the V8 truck engine can get minimal maintenance and run problem-free for 200,000 miles. Yes, higher-tech engines can have much better efficiency, but at the cost of complexity. For some applications, the increased reliability of a larger, simpler engine is important.

    As another irrelevant data point - Naturally-aspirated V8 engines in Formula 1 produce upwards of 700 horsepower - but those are tiny, 2.4l engines. In NHRA Pro Stock, big-block V8's like the ones referenced in this article commonly produce 1000-1500 horsepower. If you put twin-turbochargers on a race-car V8, you can get 2000-3000 horsepower.

    1. Re:That's a ridiculous comparison by afidel · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not really a race engine, the next gen Mustang GT will have a 415HP version of the eccoboost V6. I would expect it to go at least 100K miles without problems. Of course if you go out and actually pound on those 415HP for hours at a time that might be slightly reduced =) That is the main difference, you can actually use most of the power of a big block most of the time without stressing it, but man does it come at a cost.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:That's a ridiculous comparison by kiloechonovember · · Score: 1

      Thats not true. The Mustang will not have ecoboost on either motor. And the GT will continue with a V8, 5.0 liters to be precise.

    3. Re:That's a ridiculous comparison by afidel · · Score: 1

      It's the 2011 that's rumored to get the ecoboost.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  37. Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    prick. fuck you. die cocsucker.

  38. At least 10 years too late. by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason GM needed to get bailed out by the government is because they ignored the evidence of every other country on earth and presumed US gas prices would always stay the same. If they'd produced the last of these ten years ago and started making cars which actually have something remotely resembling fuel efficiency, good design, or low carbon emissions, then American cars might not be a global joke, the government might be a couple of billion dollars less in debt, and a whole lot of Americans who used to work in the auto industry would still have their jobs.

    It took near bankruptcy to finally get GM to acknowledge that they had to actually innovate(or at least copy everyone else) rather than continuing with a technology which is 50 years old.

    1. Re:At least 10 years too late. by fons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Europe we also have GM. They're called Opel/SAAB here.

      All Opel/SAAB cars have modern competitive diesel engines. So apparently, GM DID invest in new tech.

      The question is, why did they not sell those engines/cars in the US?

      Maybe because US consumers were not interested? I'm not being arrogant here, that's a real question. I really don't understand.

    2. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Diesel is always a bit of a difficult thing because it requires the infrastructure available to fuel it and the US has never been really big on Diesel. They also only bought SAAB fairly recently I think(and they're closing it now so the brand is gone). They just never seem to have made anything other than big cars. Even their other divisions generally sold exactly the same kinds of cars. Holden has the Barina now, but it was sort of too little too late.

      Certainly this thread can show you that for some reason Americans have a love affair with big V8's, even if they aren't really all that powerful or efficient. GM has never made a super car to the best of my knowledge. I think mostly it was just the fact that V8's being fairly simple to make(basically the same design for 50 years) are cheap and Americans up until fairly recently would buy them.

      It might be that before fuel prices rose, you just couldn't really have sold a small car in the US, but it always seems to me that where most Asian and European manufacturers had a dozen small car lines to pour into the US when the demand changed, GM was just caught off guard. If they have many fuel efficient designs they just weren't capable of transitioning their factories in the US into making them fast enough. I don't know all of GM's subsidiaries, but I do know that the Barina is the only compact GM car I can personally think of. To the best of my knowledge SAAB never made one, GM has never released on under their own brand. I know they sell some of the Holden's under Voxel in parts of Europe, but I don't think they had anything small either.

    3. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Skater · · Score: 1

      Maybe because US consumers were not interested? I'm not being arrogant here, that's a real question. I really don't understand.

      And that's the primary answer. US consumers aren't interested. I can think of a couple reasons:

      Older diesels gave diesels a bad name. We used to have an '85 Jetta diesel that ran like this: "knocka knocka knocka ping thunk". The car rattled horribly (probably from the shaking from the engine over the years). Sure it got over 40 MPG, but people want smooth, quiet cars. I know current diesels can do that, but most people don't.

      Diesels were known for having poor power. We had a V6 Cutlass Ciera (midsize, early 90s car) that had way too little power. If you were behind someone doing 50 MPH on the highway in the right lane, you literally did NOT have the power to pass them. You'd pull out in the other lane, step on it... and you'd just sit there, not gaining on them. For trucks that were used for heavy hauling/towing, sure, they'd get good mileage, but if you stepped on it for some reason, it took quite a while for power to show up. Again, I know current diesels run like gas engines (or better) in these situations, but that's how it was and it's what people remember.

      Also, fewer gas stations carry diesel. Many stations do; it's not rare by any means. But I can think of several off the top of my head that don't carry diesel at all.

    4. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Contra the other response to your post, the big block to these in the US are two-fold, and neither is availability. Diesel is widely available, especially along highways. Not as much as gasoline, but not nearly rare enough to be problematic.

      The first of the big reasons is GM itself. The first diesels they brought out in the US were steaming piles of crap. Expensive, smokey, loud, and didn't last. The perception this left of diesels in the US still hasn't quite gone away, and probably won't completely until everyone who's ever owned or seen one of the old Oldsmobile diesels has died.

      The second is California. More specifically, CARB, the California state agency that sets emission standards for the state. They hate diesel, and set the emission standards for diesel engines much more strictly than for gasoline engines. Since several other stats copy the CARB standards, not meeting those standards means you're locked out of over half the US market. It's only been the last couple of years that the technology has advanced to the point where meeting them was even possible. Between ULSD (which was late coming to the US), and either urea or more advanced diesel engine techniques like direct injection, there are a few now available in the US market. (VW Jetta and Golf, Audi A3, BMW 335d, and a couple Mercedes models. That's it.)
      As a side point to this, it's extremely expensive to certify an engine for US use. Since diesel is seen as a minor niche market (see point one above) most manufacturers aren't bothering to do it.

      Given that VW is having problems keeping up with demand for the Jetta and Golf TDI, maybe this will change in a couple years, after the other manufacturers catch on. I'm not holding my breath.

      Which is a real pity. I'm kind of in the market for a new car, and I really want a eurospec Civic i-CTDi. Unfortunately, Honda isn't bringing their diesel out in the US at all. They were going to do so in the Acura TSX, but then couldn't get the emissions quite down with the automatic transmission (and the US loves its slushboxes) without a urea system. So they aren't. Which ticks me off, because I want the Civic. Smaller and lighter than the TSX, so the engine could meet the emissions standard. And if not, they could still do it up like the Civic SI, which is manual only anyway. Grrr. If only the local VW dealers weren't incompetent assholes...

    5. Re:At least 10 years too late. by maxume · · Score: 1

      There was nothing 'near' about the bankruptcy that GM went through.

      And their problem was financing their employees, not their lineup and technology (sure, they had 6 months of really hairy inventory when oil spiked in 2008, but the problem in 2009 was that people weren't buying vehicles, not that people weren't buying GM vehicles).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:At least 10 years too late. by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      The reason GM needed to get bailed out by the government is because they ignored the evidence of every other country on earth and presumed US gas prices would always stay the same.

      Hehe.. if they had put that much thought into it I'd surprised. As late as the end of 2008, a GM spokesperson was still saying at a car show that the American consumer doesn't care about gas prices and that the SUV and big truck would continue to sell well. I don't know what his full reasoning was -- maybe he assumed that the people who bought very large trucks and SUVs *needed* those vehicles so would buy them regardless of gas prices -- but the short of it is that even when other manufacturers were at the very least hedging their bets about big trucks/SUVs by having one or two vehicles with better fuel efficiency (or at least not a big truck), GM was still barreling (haha) on with a 2002 mindset.

    7. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hogwash - fuel efficiency of GM engines has met or exceeded comparable engines from most other manufacturers. GM high volume engines around the world (North America included) have not been Big Block V-8s...even in their heyday. According to various articles the big-block engine was most recently produced at a single plant and made up less than 3% of production from that plant. Much of that was designated for Marine duty, not pick-up trucks, SUVs and certainly not cars.

      GM has manufactured and sold a variety of 4cyl, 6cyl (inline and V), and small block V8s.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_engines
      http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/10truck_us.htm

      Their engine tech was often cited by the ignnorant as outdated and ineffecient, but an honest assessment and comparison would find that in most cases (certainly from the 90's forward) GM powerplants meet or beat the performance specs of any competitor.

      The reason GM needed bailed out had to do with a host of poor management decisions, including design (aesthetics), short-sighted agreements with unions that lead to unbearable legacy health care and pension costs, very poor marketing and re-badging products across multiple product lines, plus too many dealers selling the same product driving down prices and scavenging sales from one another.

      Engine design, innovation and performance is perhaps one of the few areas where GM has and continues to excel.

    8. Re:At least 10 years too late. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The question is, why did they not sell those engines/cars in the US?

      Because oil interests saw the trend in Europe and lobbied for two things. First they lobbied to decrease allowed diesel emissions such that only the latest of engines can quality. Second, they lobbied to drastically increase sulfur legislation such that only fuel which requires much more processing can be sold. The combination prevented the majority (at the time) of engines from qualifying while at the same time drastically pumping up the cost of diesel fuel.

      As most US consumers are already shy about diesels from poor experiences of two decades ago, limited consumer options and drastic fuel price increases all but shut out diesels from the US market.

      You need to keep in mind diesel is basically a byproduct of making petrol. The new regulations simply require an extra round of filtration. This means diesel is actually pretty cheap compared to petrol. The new laws, however, allow them to artificially restrict diesel production (limited processing plants) which provides justification for hugely increased diesel prices. This in turn allows them to continue raping consumers in both diesel and petrol markets. Its a win-win for oil companies in the US and a huge loss for consumers.

    9. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason GM needed to get bailed out by the government is because they ignored the evidence of every other country on earth and presumed US gas prices would always stay the same. If they'd produced the last of these ten years ago and started making cars which actually have something remotely resembling fuel efficiency, good design, or low carbon emissions, then American cars might not be a global joke, the government might be a couple of billion dollars less in debt, and a whole lot of Americans who used to work in the auto industry would still have their jobs.

      It took near bankruptcy to finally get GM to acknowledge that they had to actually innovate(or at least copy everyone else) rather than continuing with a technology which is 50 years old.

      In one of life's greater ironies, GM assumed gas prices would come down based on their experiences in the late 70's early 80's. Remember when GM re-engineered their entire product line into mid-size cars and as a result nearly died until the SUV craze caught on?

    10. Re:At least 10 years too late. by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      As the proud owner of a big ass truck with a big ass towing package... It's a matter of relative supportability. Dodge had some good big ass gasoline engines but the transmissions were complete crap, and the electronics were dodgy. Ford had some nice performers but again GM won in reliability. So, if I have to pull 12000 pounds on an engine that can be refueled at the top of a ridge in the middle of nowhere... I will go with a giant freaking gas engine.

      But other people have already said the same thing. It was cheaper, and easier to support. Same reason I'm a *nix nerd.

    11. Re:At least 10 years too late. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Even their other divisions generally sold exactly the same kinds of cars. Holden has the Barina now, but it was sort of too little too late.

      Holden has had the Barina since GM licensed a design from Suzuki in the mid 1980's. Meanwhile the European arm of GM (Opel/Vauxhall) already had their own subcompact (Corsa) a few years earlier, which Holden switched to 10 years later. GM in US has had a few subcompacts based on licensed Suzuki designs, and since the purchase of Daewoo in 2002, have the Chevrolet Aveo, based on the same Daewoo design as the current Holden Barina.

    12. Re:At least 10 years too late. by metalligoth · · Score: 1

      People that make comments like this typically have no concept of how automotive engineering works or how long it takes to design cars on existing platforms, let alone new technologies and architectures. GM, Daimler, Chrysler, and BMW have had a joint R & D centre set up for a LONG time now in Troy, Michigan where they have been developing hybrids. While Honda and Toyota may have beat them to market on a couple models, nobody is as pervasive as the Detroit Three when it comes to the variety of hybrid vehicles offered today, and they're just getting started. Looking at the average lead time to get a vehicle on the road, can you imagine the cars we'll have in ten years now that Detroit is even more desperate now than they were in 2000 for a green image makeover?

      Your comment that "it took near bankruptcy" for GM to switch to green technology is patently false, though. This transition has been going on for longer than you'd imagine - since before "Who Killed The Electric Car", since way before the Iraq war and the subsequent spike in gas prices, and since way way before these recent auto industry troubles. Engineering doesn't happen overnight. These are still some of the biggest organizations in the world, and with good reason - with pooled resources they are even more efficient than they would be as hundreds of small outfits. That said, while they are more agile than they have ever been, being agile in automotive means taking a few years to do something new rather than a couple decades. If you can do better, I invite you to become a Henry Ford - start your own auto company and see how difficult it is. Tesla has been experiencing this firsthand - automotive is lightyears more difficult than they anticipated or expected.

    13. Re:At least 10 years too late. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      >>Also, fewer gas stations carry diesel. Many stations do; it's not rare by any means. But I can think of several off the top of my head that don't carry diesel at all.

      very true statement, also to add on to this, is driving distance. I don't know about everyone else, but when I take a drive just to clear my mind, I might do 500 to 800 miles in a day, I believe in Europe that might cross 1 or 2 country's, then again, if I was in Europe, the scenery might be more interesting so my driving distance would be less.

      also in Europe, I think that the people have more say when it comes to the environment so you guys fight for cleaner long term goals.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    14. Re:At least 10 years too late. by winwar · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Diesel is always a bit of a difficult thing because it requires the infrastructure available to fuel it and the US has never been really big on Diesel."

      I am going to assume that you do not live in the United States and have never visited. Because I assure you that diesel is readily available at gas stations (though not quite as available as gasoline). I also assure you that there are plenty of small cars. I can also assure you that there is plenty of demand for diesels.

      Possible/probably reasons for lack of diesels?

      1. It was hard for diesels to meet emission standards with high sulfur fuel. So they couldn't be sold (especially in California). That is changing.

      2. The US manufactures made some of the crappiest diesels possible when they first introduced them. I doubt they could have done a worse job if they tried. Americans tend not to buy US cars because of perceived quality. Now imagine if they introduced diesels.... The popular Asian brands don't use diesels. And the European brands that have diesels available don't sell well (expensive for Mercedes, reliability issues for VW). Sort of a chicken and egg problem.

      3. Fuel cost. Diesel costs about the same as gasoline (often more, rarely less) in the US. Diesels also cost more up front to purchase.

    15. Re:At least 10 years too late. by winwar · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You need to keep in mind diesel is basically a byproduct of making petrol."

      Not really true. In general the two primary outputs from refining a barrel of crude oil are gasoline and diesel. Refiners will however optimize for one or the other (probably based on the type of crude they use, their setup, market, etc.)

      "This means diesel is actually pretty cheap compared to petrol."

      This is a function of demand. Diesel prices did not increase significantly due to the transition from high to low sulfur. They went up well BEFORE the transition in the US.

      Diesel has a pretty constant demand in the US (used in industry and large scale transportation of goods). It doesn't get the wild swings in price like gas but it often gets priced higher than gas (people can choose to drive less, businesses, not so much). The only way it falls to a low price is if the economy tanks.

      Diesel in Europe is cheaper (versus gas) due to the tax structure.

    16. Re:At least 10 years too late. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Getting sick of replying to these posts in this discussion. You are way off topic. The engine they're talking about has been largely a specialty item for quite some time, built for *commercial* (and sometimes marine I spose) applications, not mainstream automobiles. Sure, people put them in their cars and trucks to go fast-- people will always do that-- and gas price really don't have much impact on them. GM has made a whole lot of mistakes to get where they are now-- this engine is barely on the radar.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    17. Re:At least 10 years too late. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Not really true. In general the two primary outputs from refining a barrel of crude oil are gasoline and diesel.

      That's what I said.

      This is a function of demand.

      That's what I said.

      Diesel prices did not increase significantly due to the transition from high to low sulfur. They went up well BEFORE the transition in the US.

      Not true. Prices went up following the general trend of oil but it did significantly jump and maintain with the new diesel legislation. You're attributing the wrong rise to the wrong factor.

    18. Re:At least 10 years too late. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      GM made many attempts to sell small cars in the US, and generally they were expensive disasters.

      • Chevrolet Corvair. Destroyed by the vicious Ralph Nader and a failure to stand up for their brand.
      • Chevrolet Vega. Huge investment in new engine technology: unsuccessful, abandoned.
      • The Pontiac Fiero.

      Imports of a variety of vehicles under their own name (Opel Kadett, several Saab models, Vauxhall).

      Imports of a variety of vehicles (Subaru, etc.) rebranded as Chevys.

      People did not buy, and continue buying, these cars in sufficient numbers to make them successful. Even the Saturn, which came close to success, could not overcome GM's union-bloated cost structure.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      When I lived in Wisconsin you could get it, but you couldn't be guaranteed that any given gas station would actually have any. There might be one pump at a place and it might be operating. You could definitely drive one, but there was an inconvenience factor. I was a bit flippant with the diesel because I'm not entirely convinced that diesel is the solution to the problem. A gigantic car running on diesel is a gigantic car, and as you said, the US implementations(like all US cars lately) were crap.

      As far as small cars, I mean something along the lines of a Hyundai Getz, not something like a Ford Focus which generally speaking was a "small" American car where I used to live. I can honestly say I never saw one on the road in the entire time I lived there or any of the times I've been back since. Hertz would rent you one, but it cost about as much per day as a mid size sedan cost for a week. This might be different in California, I didn't live there, but when I left aside from a few trendy cars like the Mini Cooper, nothing small really existed, and about the most fuel efficient car you could buy was a Toyota Corolla which had a rather abysmal 28 MPG or so.

      Things are certainly starting to change, I left the states way before the fuel prices changed significantly, and the US is a really big place with a lot of areas which are very different than where I used to live.

      None of this changes the fact that the obsession with big block V8's is a large part of why most of the US car manufacturers almost went under last year. Ford was probably the least guilty of this particular offense and they didn't take a handout.

    20. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected on the Barina. I've started seeing a lot more of them recently and so I presumed that they got a big push in the last couple of years. A handful of models mostly licensed from other companies certainly qualifies as too little, even if I was a little off on the too late.

      Holden is actually doing fairly well though, and has separated themselves a bit financially from the parent GM.

    21. Re:At least 10 years too late. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It's true that big block V8's are simple, and therefor easy to fix.

      That's not however the same thing as powerful or reliable. I wasn't even suggesting diesel in my original comment, just the fact that engine technology has come a long way in 50 years, but the big block V8 for the most part hasn't. Yeah you can probably fix it yourself if you have the parts, but simple isn't always a good thing if you can get better performance, reliability and efficiency out of something more complex.

      You're usage pattern is also a bit of a boundary case. People don't generally haul half a tonne up a ridge in a consumer vehicle. It can be done, but it's really sort of an edge case. You're probably just under the weight limit for really needing something designed for that purpose as opposed to just badly designed for it's market and capable of meeting your requirements.

  39. Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are probably no medicines to take. It reeks of being generated by an n-gram.

  40. Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew by Icaarus · · Score: 1

    be nice, you crude ignorant bigot

  41. Other configurations by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    There are two other configurations that make lots of sense and yet for some reason are underused.

    1) Pancake configuration. This is commonly used in aircraft, and is the same as the VW bug. You can't argue that the engine compartment on a bug is huge! And the pancake engine lends itself to "strato" body layouts, EG: the engine sits BELOW the trunk, etc. The direct cross-firing of cylinders makes for a relatively smooth operation without extensive It's well proven, provides many of the space-saving benefits of the V8, yet is basically ignored as an engine format. Why? You can have two pistons firing at the same time, 180 degrees apart! (WTF?)

    2) Radial configuration. Want an engine that runs as smooth as a baby's ass? Try radial! Also, you basically don't have a crankshaft, since all the connecting rods connect to a single, central tie rod. If you timed the pistons right, you could easily have pistons ALWAYS firing 180 degrees from each other, for pure smoothness, efficiency, and and reliability.

    We don't use either of the technologies, yet they each offer significant benefits over the "satatus quo". Other than NIH, why aren't either of these two highly valuable configurations used?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Other configurations by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Porsche, Subaru. Both use opposed boxers.

      Re: radial. I don't think you can do the 180 degree thing. Radials have odd numbers of cylinders, unless you stack two or more together. Cumbersome shape for a car. They don't use them in new airplane designs for a reason (Turboprop).

    2. Re:Other configurations by Siridar · · Score: 1

      the "pancake" configuration, as you call it, is commonly called a "boxer" "horizontally opposed" or "flat" engine - Subaru use them for their cars in both a a 2.0 / 2.5 liter flat-four and a 3.0 liter flat 6. They are very smooth, and they do lend themselves to being at the bottom of the engine bay, helping to lower the centre of gravity. Porsche also make horizontally-opposed six cylinder engines for installation in the 911, boxter, and cayman. I believe radial engines aren't used due to the fact that in both inline, V, and flat engines the crankshaft (the power output) is quite low in the engine bay - keep in mind the ideal configuration of engine/gearbox/drivetrain has the wheels > gearbox > engine in a single line. Using a radial engine will "lift' the crankshaft away from the floor of the car, with the gearbox necessarily following suit.

    3. Re:Other configurations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the boxer configuration, or horizontally opposed (NOT pancake: no one ever calls it that), it is used by Subaru and some other car manufacturers, as well as Lycoming and Continental. They're more expensive than straight fours, so they aren't really used much where only four cylinders are needed, but I don't really know why the six or eight cylinder configurations aren't used more. However, I do know that you don't ever want two cylinders firing at the same time if you can avoid it (and sometimes you can't, eg, in some two stroke configurations). That doubles the torsional stresses on the crankshaft from what they would have been had the cylinders fired evenly, and makes the power output half as smooth. Why the hell would you want that?

      As far as radial engines go, they're way, way, WAY too bulky for cars, the bottom cylinders usually accumulate oil which can cause bent connecting rods if it isn't cleared out, they have to be air cooled (which really sucks for varying loads) unless you want a ridiculously complex cooling system, and they require dry sump oil systems which are more of a pain in the ass. They are really light and smooth running, but their disadvantages make them a ridiculous choice for cars (and yet, like most things, it has been done). And again, what is up with your comments about pistons firing 180 degrees from one another? It's like you don't understand how engines work. If you meant that pistons can be moving in 180 degrees opposed directions, then that isn't even true for four stroke radials unless they're two row, and then they'd have at least 14 cylinders (maybe as few as 10 for a really space-inefficient design), far too many for any realistic automotive application. Single row four stroke radials never have any opposing piston pairs, and two stroke radials have never been produced in any number (although there are some experimental ones now which will hopefully go into production). They aren't simple machines, though, as they require a blower for scavenging. Would you really want a complex beast like that in a car?

  42. the other v8 by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Well luckily, we computernerds still have this V8.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  43. Geometry says otherwise by Myrcutio · · Score: 2, Funny

    Think about that for a second. If it was straight, it would head straight out into space.

    The only object in existence that has curves but is still straight would be your mother.

    1. Re:Geometry says otherwise by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      Well, sort of. It depends on your point of reference. An orbit describes a straight line through space/time which appears curved due to the influence of gravity -- when in fact it's space/time that is itself curved. (I think I've got that mostly right). In that way, the link of an orbit is a straight line drawn on a curved fabric.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    2. Re:Geometry says otherwise by gander666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is general relativity.

      "Straight" lines like the Gandfather post is primarily a Euclidean idea, and the extent of most people's view of geometry. However, Georg Riemann and those who followed describe a geometry where a plane isn't flat, lines aren't straight and many of the "truths" you learned in Highschool Geometry are no longer valid.

      Start with a course in differential geometry, move to topology, then on to General Relativity, and if you have the stomach for it, there is a book that ties it all together, "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    3. Re:Geometry says otherwise by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      An orbit is a GEODESIC, which is NOT the same thing as a straight line. A straight line is a geodesic (in a flat metric), yes, but the reverse is not true.

      It's sort of a 'square is a rectangle, but rectangle is not a square' sort of thing. Straight lines are a subset of geodesics, not equivalent.

  44. 3rd party still available by confused+one · · Score: 2, Informative
  45. Hilbert Space Cadet by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    All straight lines are curved because the universe is curved because it's on the back of a cow and everybody knows that a cow's back is curved.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:Hilbert Space Cadet by fireylord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you confuse me. is the cow standing on the back of the first turtle?

  46. What's different vs the Audi engine? by cheros · · Score: 1

    OK, I assume the Audi V8s are by necessity more efficient, but what makes the GM V8 so special other than being used in the US - maybe because there will be no more spare parts for US cars?

    AFAIK Audi (and others) are still happily making decent V8s so it's not like the "world of V8" is coming to an end.

    Puzzled..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:What's different vs the Audi engine? by wolf.sama · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, first thing, the _Big block_ has gone, not the small-block. Audi makes V8 for car applications, so, you'll always have a better mileage in a Audi S4 than in a GM truck made for pulling 10,000lbs. Audi V8 are also very recent, the first one ... mounted on ... the Audi V8 was a 3.6 V8, by no means a big block Compared to US standards, it might seem a "baby block" with it's 219cid This 1989 V8 already had quad-cam (OHC) and a Bosh Motronic engine management. Audi made V8 from scratch, seeing the others mistakes. GM made the V8 history, OTOH. The Big-block was a dinosaur, it was time to get to something else. Plus, all the spares a still available ! so no fear for all the users.

      --
      When fiction hits reality, dreams have no air-bag.
    2. Re:What's different vs the Audi engine? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Like the guy says, this is one broad variety of v-8. There are still a pantload of v-8's going to be produced in the US and by GM.

  47. F1 Turbo Era by msgmonkey · · Score: 1

    During the 80's Turbo era BMW supplied a 4 cyl 1.4 litre producing 1,300 BHP in qualifying trim. Infact modern modern F1 cars have less (engine) power due to the FIA neutering the cars.

  48. gas at $6.62 / gallon by fantomas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By crickey! mileage explains why we don't get these big engines in Europe. Just did a quick calculation, my local garage charges GBP1.09 / litre for standard (95 octane) petrol/gasoline, that's approx $6.62 a US gallon. Would explain why these engines are very cool and impressive but you don't see them round here .. What kind of capacity fuel tanks do vehicles with these engines have?

    1. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      95 Octane is standard for you guys?

    2. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Binestar · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about those trucks, but 30 gallons on an SUV is not uncommon. My Lancer is a small 4 cylinder and has an 11 gallon tank. I have seen people put $120+ into tanks on some larger trucks, so that puts them up around the 40-50 gallon range. Some large trucks have multiple tanks too, not to mention the customization that goes on.

      I've never driven in Europe, so I'm not sure how the fueling station situation is there, but here in the US (at least the northeast where I live) you're likely within 5 miles of a gas station at any given location (barring the freeway with limited stops)

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    3. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      I believe the '74 Suburban/454 had a fuel capacity of 40 gallons (~151.4 liters).

    4. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong comparison: try again with 85 octane (or your closest sub-90 octane equivalent).
      typical fuel capacity is 16 gallons.

    5. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      120 liters for the most part.

    6. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my 89 suburban has a 44 gallon tank. i only wish i got 11 miles to a gallon! Of course i also have 4.56 gears, 1 ton axles, and 40 inch tires...

    7. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either a 30 US Gallon (120 liter) tank, or some had dual 20 gallon (75 liter) tanks for a total capacity of 150 liters.

      $150+ GBP fillup.

    8. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by gamemank · · Score: 1

      95 octane is standard gasoline in Europe? that might explain the price a little. 87 is standard in the US and 93 is "premium".

    9. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by multipartmixed · · Score: 4, Informative

      European pumps dole out gas based on RON (research octane number), whereas in North American they use "pump octane", or "anti-knock index". AKI is calculated by averaging RON and MON (motor octane number). MON is determined experimentally on a special engine.

      RON-MON is usually 6 to 10 in North America. This is called the sensitivity, S.

      Given S=10, then,

      RON-MON = 10
      95 - MON = 10
      95 - 10 = MON
      MON = 85

      and

      95+85 / 2 = 90

      So 95 octane in europe is around 90 octane in North America, maybe a little higher depending on S.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    10. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      min 25US Gallon up to 2 50Gallon tanks. Unless some one adds a large tank in the back which can hold up to 300 Gallon, and those are usually used on farms to hall fule for other equipment as well as the driven vehicle.

    11. Re:gas at $6.62 / gallon by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Putting a huge petrol engine in anything designed for heavyweight towing is pointless.

      Diesels produce more torque, and get (much) better mileage. This is why all big trucks, locomotives, ships, etc. burn diesel.

      Although they have slightly less desirable driving characteristics (a bit slower to accelerate), they're quite popular in small cars in Europe. That said, I've driven a Jetta Turbodiesel, and found it to be a blast to drive (and it gets ~45mpg). Given the choice between a diesel and a hybrid, there's really no contest.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  49. Cundallini still wants his hand back by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ....last of the V-8 interceptors.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  50. End of an era by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a big sign of the end of the era of user-maintainable cars.

    Almost as sad as when the last VW Beetle rolled off the line in 2003 (after more than 60 years).

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:End of an era by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      This is a big sign of the end of the era of user-maintainable cars.

      Not true. Ever look under the hood of a Honda? Why do you think all of the teenage kids buy them and put exhaust systems on them? They're dead simple to work on.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:End of an era by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sure. Model years 96-03. Anything newer you're screwed. Besides exhaust isn't electrics and engines. You can do a exhaust swap and not need to do any timing changes providing you modify your pipes.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:End of an era by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Why do you think all of the teenage kids buy them and put exhaust systems on them?"

      Because they are morons?

      Because fools and their money are soon parted?

      Because they like their car to sound like a lawnmower?

      Hmm, I never thought there might be an UPSIDE to a vehicle with no user maintainable parts.

    4. Re:End of an era by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Because they are morons?

      Precisely my point. It's so easy, a moron can do it!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:End of an era by toddestan · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you saw a riced up Honda from the current body style? The boy racers are modding cars from the late 80's to the very early 2000's. Today's cars are extremely complex, even my '99 model seems simple in comparison.

  51. Who cares about lifetime? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a diesel makes it to 500k it will have saved you so much in fuel costs compared to gasoline that you can afford to throw it away and still make a massive profit.

    Plus I'm not so sure the difference "complexity" is anything like you claim. Modern diesels are computer controlled so they're a lot cleaner then the old ones and don't need anywhere near as much extra hardware to meet smog standards.

    Diesels are perfect for American SUVs. American drivers are conditioned to expect grunt at low revs, which gasoline engines are terrible at delivering (you need a big thirsty V8 to do it). Diesel engines are much more suited to American expectations so you can have a smaller engine ans get double the savings in economy.

    If you start extracting diesel from Algae then it will be much cleaner and more consistent than petroleum-diesel and you can probably get rid of all the emissions-control junk which is needed for diesel engines today.

    --
    No sig today...
  52. VR6 / V5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    inline v-configurations exist.
    the cylinders are slanted against each other, like they are in a v-configuration (for smoother operation) and in-line to keep the engine slender. Thus the VW VR6 and it's V5 derivative were created. Be more open minded, and don't discard something just because you lack the creativity to imagine it!

  53. No, you are.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...doing it wrong.

    Q: should be in the subject line.

  54. Whats all the fuss about?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So another dinosaur becomes extinct.

  55. Re:Really? by netsavior · · Score: 4, Informative

    Workers who now get 70% of their salary for not working... it is a small consolation, but it is something. Plus 3% of this plant's output is now closed off, NOT the whole plant.

  56. Re:Really? by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Informative

    Correction:

    The Big block V8 line is being closed. The Tonawanda Engine plant still makes smaller engines. But there aren't positions for the V8 guys, so they are all laid off. So not as bad as I originally stated. Doesn't make it any less painful for the area though.

    Apologies for any confusion.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  57. [Citation needed] by netsavior · · Score: 1

    Small engines (including V6) are going into Front Wheel Drive cars now.
    The issue with that is the engine, the transmission, and the axles all have to fit between the front tires.
    Have you ever looked under the hood of a 4-banger honda? Where would you put the extra 2 cylinders if you had to put them all in a row?
    Also, I hate to pull this one.... but CITATION NEEDED. Honda and Toyota tend to use V6s in their sedans, and their reliability rating is the highest in the industry (by far)

  58. It was all about peacocking by smchris · · Score: 1

    Big, loud, shiny and dangerous. Had the chance to at least ride in a well-off classmate's orange Hemi-Cuda back in the day when smoking was in and seat belts weren't.

    Still have a Bonneville in name only as the back-up car. Pathetic. Gas mileage is too good for cash-for-clunkers.

  59. Re:Really? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 0

    Flamebait because he said people lost jobs?

    I really am learning to not respect AT ALL the moderators on /.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  60. Re:Innovation! Pizza Analogy? by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1

    No, I want a pizza analogy!

  61. 5 million? by booch · · Score: 1

    That number doesn't sound right. That's only 100,000 per year. GM sells like 4 million cars per year. I would think that back in its heyday, they would have been selling close to 1 million big blocks a year. The article says that this 1 plant produced 5 million L18s. I suspect that there were other plants once producing big block engines.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  62. Blame Obama Motors by p51d007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wouldn't be surprised if Obama's idiots told GM "we gave you money, you do what we tell you".

  63. But dollars per HP is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My BB 427 makes the same power that a new LS7 does, but is two full compression points lower, and has a much smaller and flat hydraulic cam. And get better gas mileage to boot.

    I also could have built 3 or 4 of these for the cost of an LS7. Or I could have taken the the money an LS7 costs and easily build a motor that makes twice as much power with greater reliability.

  64. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually if 3% of the plant was devoted to the V8 blocks (and assuming they can't reuse ANY of the machinery/labor), it *does* make it less painful for the area...about 97% less painful.

    If they are still being paid 70% of their salary, it sounds like its really closer to 98% less painful. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for the 6 people who get layed off (3% of 200...though it seems like a small estimate for a V8 line) but its not really something you can be mad at GM for...

  65. Re:Really? by jcrousedotcom · · Score: 1

    Moreover the article tries to infer the V8 is going away entirely - which isn't the case. This engine has a 496 cu in displacement - 8.1L. This is not something you would typically have in your pickup - this is a commercial truck engine.

    GM Engine Guide

    --
    Illiterate? Write for free help!
  66. We can't eats the V6! We must starve! by weaponsfree · · Score: 1
  67. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Historically, "big block" engines went from 396 c.i.d. to 500, while "small blocks" were 283 (or 265?) to 400. I suppose I'm dating myself by saying I knew from the headline that they weren't implying all V8 engine production is being discontinued.

  68. Re:Really? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

    The Big block V8 line is being closed. The Tonawanda Engine plant still makes smaller engines. But there aren't positions for the V8 guys, so they are all laid off. So not as bad as I originally stated. Doesn't make it any less painful for the area though.

    The unfortunate reality is that as the cost of goods transportation has become cheaper it has become harder and harder for workers in the developed world to compete with the developing world where people will work for 10c per hour. There are also the issues of health and safety laws but those are a pretty minor expense compared to the actual difference in cost of living and hence wages.

    In this modern world the only hope for the developed world is in jobs that require a high level of education. Any job that can be learned via an apprenticeship has moved abroad as the company paying for production decided they could take a hit on the poorer quality that was produced initially based on the cost savings of not paying a western developed wage.

    Unfortunately that as much as us in the developed world would like to exclude certain countries from our markets there are people in charge of large corporations and on wall street who benefit the most from the current system that will fight this as it is not them being put out of work.

    --
    I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  69. good, bad, and ugly by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    I dislike environmental destruction more than most here, I would wager, yet hate to see the complete demise of what was a truly great design. Which brings me to a major complaint about GM, Ford, the old ChryCo, etc. They don't do niche products. If they can't figure out how to profit from producing several hundred thousand of something a year for a decade, they tend to quit considering it. Why not produce a trickle of those engines, certainly to be bought, at slightly higher prices? Tooling, etc. is already paid for, so only the variable costs remain. It would be different if they were pushing it aside to use the resources on something else, but they're obviously not. Other complaints? Big block in a Corvair? What, for wheelstands? AFAIK there was no such thing, outside of possibly a prototype. Produced for over 50 years? What? No, the Mark IV, originally 396 cubic inches, was introduced in 1965 (later produced in larger displacements: 402, 427, 454, 502... It was NOT in the same family as the previous "big block" Chevy 348/409, introduced in the 1950s, as in "She's real fine, my 409..." Rats (427, etc.) are heavy; 409s were ridiculously massive and were mostly found in Impalas and such.

  70. Now to be made in China by tekrat · · Score: 1

    When the last Beetle rolled off the assembly line, all the tooling was sold to China. Now the Chinese stamp out parts for Beetles. I can pull out the Mid America Motorworks catalog and essentially order enough pieces to build a beetle from the ground up. All I need (which can't be ordered) is the center-tube, which is essentially "the frame", but all other pieces are avialable.

    What's the bet that all the tooling for this engine will be sold to China, and China will make the engine, but only as parts. So, you'll be able to buy all the pieces and assemble the engine yourself.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  71. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered about this myself... what exactly made a "big block" vs a "small block".

    By this definition, wouldn't it imply that the L18 is NOT the last big block, but the 427ci engine in the corvette Z06 is the last big block (even though it's based on the the Gen IV engine, which is a modified Gen III, which is itself a redesign of the famous SBC chevy 350)?

  72. Re:Really? by operagost · · Score: 1

    You must be mistaken. I am sure that the President "saved" those jobs, and the workers are now in "green" jobs building solar panels.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  73. Re:Wow; that's enlightened! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am SO incredibly tired of hearing about how GM sucks because the UNIONS did x or y. GM signed those contracts because they needed the workers. They knew what their pension liabilities would be and they screwed the pooch. The unions didn't "make demands" other than expecting GM to meet their contractual obligations.Would you have been in favor of the government stepping in to allow GM to break their contracts? GM gambled that it was cheaper to close American plants even if they had to pay union workers for doing nothing until their contracts were up. Apparently they were wrong. All the free market, "hands off government" people who are against all the bailouts and love the market suddenly become whiny babies when a few workers pool their resources to raise the value of their product (labor). If two companies merge to increase their presence and bargaining strength in the market, it is good business. If workers decide that you have to deal with them all to increase their bargaining power they are evil communists. Unions should rebrand themselves as "outsourced labor pools" where the workers are employed by the union and the companies just pay the union, suddenly they would be the darlings of the business world. I can't even count the number of times where I have have seen businesses and government decide that employing one person for $50,000 plus benefits is somehow more expensive than paying a company to manage the same work for $200,000+ a year.

  74. Can't believe I'm the First With This Obvious Joke by pky666 · · Score: 1
    I guess everyone who missed out on buying a vehicle with this engine will be slapping themselves in the head after their next purchase and saying...

    I COULD HAVE HAD A V8!!!

    (Sorry, it had to be said eventually ;)

  75. Re:Really? by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

    200 workers were on the L18 line, and they make up 3% of the plant, so the plant is about 6500 total workers. Of the 200, 150 will be laid off, and "about 50 workers related to L18 work are being absorbed into other areas of the plant".

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  76. Mod parent up! by metalligoth · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this comment made my day.

    1. Re:Mod parent up! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I concur.

  77. Re:Really? by Retric · · Score: 1

    The wage differences in the developing world are far less significant that the union rules GM needs to deal with. In a highly automated factory the machines and materials become a far more important cost component relative to the workers. Honda has started several US factories and pays a decent wage without the overhead of a unionized workforce.

  78. cheers for info! by fantomas · · Score: 1

    cheers for the info! I will remember this if I need gas in the US! (Actually I'll probably be looking for the big happy logo which says "standard" rather than "premium" but thanks for the education :-) )

    1. Re:cheers for info! by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Just get whatever is cheapest if you have a rental. If it is a friends car there will usually be a recommended octane in the users manual. I know my car says specifically to use 87.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
  79. Reminds me of the '80s TPI V-8s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That reminds me of the Tuned Port Injection V-8 engines GM produced in the mid 80s. See, the TPI system had a long intake manifold, producing great air velocity which you need for torque. However, that same design caused turbulence that made the horsepower curve drop off sharply above 3000 RPM.

    The engines of that family (the LB9 and L98) were also known as the best truck engines that GM never made. The reason why? They were only used on the Corvette and Camaro.

  80. Re:Really? by Warshadow · · Score: 1

    No, the LS7 is NOT a big block. It's a large displacement motor with dimensions similar to a Chevy small block engine (but not actually a SBC, it's based on the LS1, which was a 346ci V8). High displacement doesn't not make it a big block. People have bored and stroked LS1's to around 427ci, but it certainly isn't a big block and shouldn't be mistaken for one.

  81. End of an era by couch_warrior · · Score: 1

    It appears that we have seen the last of an American icon, namely the "big block" V8 engine. There could not be a more poignant, even stirring example of the slow steady wimpification of US culture than the passing of this pillar of young male manhood. My brother Jim and I had a phrase for the thrum-thrum noise made by the revving of a big-block V8, we called it the "Happy Engine Song". Singing it required a displacement of no less than 350 cubic inches (about 6000cc's in today's parlance). But that song will now pass into obscurity, the victim of oil prices and economic decline. Global warming may give us a lot more beachfront property, but we'll be driving to those beaches in little tin 15HP hybrid-mobiles. No one will ever sing a song titled "She's real fine my 60mpg 2cylinder-electric hybrid".....meh!

    --
    "Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
  82. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called the free-market: you as an anti-enviro-v8-loving-presumably-republican person should know that best.

    You're on the global scale now, and if you think these blue collar Buffalonians are working hard to earn their pay, say that to a Chinese factory worker making a buck a day.
    Sure it's sad that these families are losing their planned source of income, but if you think cranking our more big-blocks is the right solution, you can join them in their delusional world. Meanwhile the Japanese/Korean/Chinese will continue to advance their technology for smaller, fuel efficient engines that everyone will want to buy. You can keep clinging on to your V8

  83. Re:Really? by netsavior · · Score: 1

    70% is better than 0%, but yes speaking as a former blue collar worker, if I made 1 dollar less in December than I did in November, my battleship would have sunk.

  84. Re:Really? by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

    Careful, careful... Someone's gonna ask what actually makes a "big block" a big block. And then I'll let you explain it, and how it uniquely applies to all the other manufacturers of internal-combustion engines, right down to the individual series.

    Because really, there is not one single part or design that indicates an engine is a "big block" instead of a "small block."

  85. Re:Innovation - Qualified! by binaryartist · · Score: 1

    A line can't be straight and curved in 2D!

    --
    When a thief sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets!
  86. You can STILL buy Mopar big-blocks by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Including the 440 and the fearsome 426 Hemi. No, they aren't used in production vehicles anymore, but they sell them as "crate engines" for the hot rodding and musclecar restoration markets.

    http://www.mopartsracing.com/parts/blocks.html
    http://www.bouchillonperformance.com/MPCrateEngines.asp

    I wonder if GM will still maintain some limited production capacity for this type of market?

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  87. Mad Max ref. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last of the V8 interceptors! (Yeah I know Max drove a Ford but I couldn't resist)

  88. Many V8s by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Back in the 1950s and 1960s each badge had its own V8. Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Cadillac each had its own different design. Chevy had three: the small block which included the 327 and others, a middle-size engine which included the 409 (eventually dropped from passenger car use), and the big block family discussed in the article.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  89. :Hilbert Space Cadet by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    Darn it. Don't you be smart with me. Everyone knows it's cows all the way down.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  90. Re:Really? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

    The wage differences in the developing world are far less significant that the union rules GM needs to deal with. In a highly automated factory the machines and materials become a far more important cost component relative to the workers. Honda has started several US factories and pays a decent wage without the overhead of a unionized workforce.

    And the main benefit of not having a unionised workforce seems to be an ability to pay a lot less:

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2007/10/neal-boudette-w.html

    --
    I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  91. Re:Really? by Retric · · Score: 1

    In high tech fields it's less about the pay than the work rules. Unions tend to require people to have vary specific job roles and pay people during down time. That's ok if you are working in a coal mine, but a CPU fab requires a lot of flexibility both in how long you work and what you are doing from day to day. Building cars might be somewhere between those points, but the inability to let people go in the bad times makes the extremely expensive to grow in the good times.