Camaro pricing and a possibly a hybrid?
2/12/08, 08:06 PM
#41
Shelby GT500 Member
Oh, and based on the issues discussed in this thread and the news today that GM posted a record breaking LOSS for 2007 for ANY auto manufacturer in history, I would submit that there now exists the possibility that the Camaro could be completely cancelled entirely.
Remember, I said POSSIBILITY. We just can't rule it out at this point.
American Auto companies are in deep
Remember, I said POSSIBILITY. We just can't rule it out at this point.
American Auto companies are in deep
2/12/08, 08:48 PM
#42
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and based on the issues discussed in this thread and the news today that GM posted a record breaking LOSS for 2007 for ANY auto manufacturer in history, I would submit that there now exists the possibility that the Camaro could be completely cancelled entirely.
Remember, I said POSSIBILITY. We just can't rule it out at this point.
American Auto companies are in deep
Remember, I said POSSIBILITY. We just can't rule it out at this point.
American Auto companies are in deep
2/13/08, 01:38 PM
#43
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh, and based on the issues discussed in this thread and the news today that GM posted a record breaking LOSS for 2007 for ANY auto manufacturer in history, I would submit that there now exists the possibility that the Camaro could be completely cancelled entirely.
Remember, I said POSSIBILITY. We just can't rule it out at this point.
American Auto companies are in deep
Remember, I said POSSIBILITY. We just can't rule it out at this point.
American Auto companies are in deep
Here's the actual reality of the situation.
2/13/08, 03:06 PM
#44
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 27, 2007
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That report is being spun as being much worse than it is by the media, who get more traffic from negative headlines.
Here's the actual reality of the situation.
Here's the actual reality of the situation.
2/14/08, 10:00 AM
#47
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, they didn't. For reference Ford has been working on what we now know as the Ecoboost GTDI V6 for over two years already, and this on an engine which likely wont debut before early next year. We can say this because the MKR with a working prototype of a Twinforce/Ecoboost V6 was shown at the NAIAS in 2006. The reality of the situation is that the engine has been in development a good bit longer, again as indicated by a working prototype at NAIAS in January 2006. Do note that this is hardly the only example and that I had no idea how long Ecoboost/TF had been in development when I made the '3 years' statement.
You scoffed at the notion that it would take three years to develop such a piece using an inference to what a 'hot rodder' could do in his garage. This begs for a reality check because this isn't anything like when your uncle dropped that supercharged small block into his Laguna. Engineering an engine that works and works well takes a long time and a whole lot of money.
You scoffed at the notion that it would take three years to develop such a piece using an inference to what a 'hot rodder' could do in his garage. This begs for a reality check because this isn't anything like when your uncle dropped that supercharged small block into his Laguna. Engineering an engine that works and works well takes a long time and a whole lot of money.
Further you claim this isn't voodoo, but in this case it is exactly that. Despite what you want people to believe what Ford has accomplished with the Ecoboost V6 has thus far been managed by one other company....BMW. You did point out that Ford is utilizing technology already employed by others to accomplish this. Like many other things in this argument I was already well aware of this assuming it to be a given and therefore didn't warrant specific mention but I was apparently wrong.
The reality is that this applies to everything in the auto world.....in some measure everything has been done before, but the end result and what it takes to get there is what we are after here. Ford's GTDI V6 produces at least 340hp and 340lb-ft torque from 2000-4500rpm while offering a roughly 20% improvement in fuel economy compared to what a 4.6L currently offers in the same application. Do note that insiders have universally indicated that these numbers are conservative, which is par for the course with Ford's pre-production estimates lately.
What does this mean? Using the existing Mustang GT for the sake of reference that means you could expect the above mentioned hp and tq numbers or better along with a 27.6mpg hwy rating for the manual and a 26.4mpg hwy rating for the auto. And this doesn't take into consideration the potential gearing benefits reaped through the use of a 6-speed auto or manual, etc. That would put such a Mustang on par with the 3.6L Malibu in terms of fuel consumption, which is pretty impressive for a 340hp car with a torque curve straight from the muscle car era. Other people may be building twin turbo six cylinder engines but as yet nobody outside of Ford and BMW has accomplished the above. The lesson here should be that a turbo application is not just a turbo application.
Thus far, there aren't even the vaguest rumours to suggest GM is seriously working on a volume production, high mileage alternative to their V8 which indicates no program at the worst and a program in the very early stages of development at best indicating that GM would be lucky to have something similar to the Ecoboost V6 by the 2012MY, or three years after Ford will have it.
Let's limit this to the portions which are interesting, meaning the multi-cam/multi-valve and turbo engines get to stay. Heard anything about a potential release date for any of these? Possible rumours of a show car debuting with a prototype of one of these engines? You will hear and then see these things before any of these engines get anywhere near production trim because, to be realistic, we always do.
Not only we have not yet seen any of them in any form yet the rumour mill still barely even acknowledges their presence in most cases. So where are they? They are on a drawing board somewhere a few years away from production. And that is the part you keep missing. It isn't that GM cannot or will not design and build these engines, it is that they are late to the game and right now being late is a very bad thing. And while you may be dieing to argue that they aren't as late to the game as I'm indicating, the reality is that they are well behind Ford.
No, it wont completely replace the V8 engine. But I have no idea what part of 340lb-ft of torque from 2000-4500rpm, and likely more than that, wont tow a 10,000lb boat. The reality is that production Ecoboost 3.5L hp and tq ratings appear likely to rival the overall power delivery of the 5.4L V8 more closely than the 4.6L V8 it is replacing. And this is another important factor, Ecoboost over-delivers in every respect wether discussing power production or fuel consumption.
Once again, a turbo V6 isn't just a turbo V6 and the reality is that the Ecoboost V6 puts Ford in a far better position than GM is in.
You continually underestimate the difficulty in accomplishing what Ford and BMW have done. As for your development estimates, they are far too short. I addressed this above and wont revisit it here.
I actually think we almost manage to agree here. Yes and no. The reality is that if both Ford and Chevy accomplished what Lexus has with their latest V8 it would help the case of the V8 considerably but it wont be enough on it's own to allow them to install engines with V8 like power at their discretion....it would be an important part of the answer, but not all of the answer. Throw in something like Ford's Ecoboost V6 which is a genuine, high mileage V8 alternative and combined you have something which looks much more like an answer to the question of how to keep V8 power in cars at the manufacturers discretion, or something close to it, despite rising CAFE requirements. Since GM has nothing like the Ecoboost V6 set to debut anytime soon we have a situation where throwing DI on a LS series V8, even assuming it works better than I suspect that it will, isn't going to be enough on its own.
As yet hybrids are not an across the board answer for several reasons. And since Ford and Lexus both already have hybrid designs that work as well and better than those fielded by GM this isn't a solution that only GM has immediate access to even if it were feasible for high volume production. To be fair GM did take a route here which has some advantages, they traded the increased fuel efficiency of the Ford and Toyota designs for something which is cheaper and easier to produce and implement giving them the opportunity to beat the competition to the punch for at least a little while. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that Toyota will, much to my chagrin, likely be the first to implement hybrid technology into volume production despite higher costs due no doubt to their very deep pockets. And while Toyota's plans for high volume implementation are optimistic IMO they are virtually certain to beat everybody else to the punch either way, which largely negates the advantage of the GM design.
All of the above. What makes the Lexus V8 special is the ways in which it differs from everybody elses design, and that it works so well right out of the box. Prior to the 4.6L Lexus DIV8 nobody had really realised anything like the full potential of the DI design in a naturally aspirated format. Generally past NA DI applications were a choice between a fair improvement in hp or fuel economy, but not both. The 4.6L Lexus V8 improves both and arguably to a greater measure than older designs managed to improve only one or the other. The hybrid fuel injection system is the primary factor that made all of this a reality. Just as it was with turbos direct injection is not simply direct injection....the Lexus V8 is a breakthrough and is the almost certainly template for how every other company is going to implement DI into their NA DOHC engines for the forseeable future.
To be blunt your using propaganda numbers from a one off R&D piece for which we have no indication of production plausibility or driveability. That is a good bit different than utilizing factory numbers for engines which are in production now or soon to be released. I've gone out of my way to exclusively use the latter here, even using similar existing design where necessary to given an indication of where Ford could go, for reasons which should be obvious. Even more, you keep using the Corvette to give an indication of what these designs can be expected to accomplish. The Vette is a 3200lb coupe with the CD of a teardrop and in no way shape or form is indicative of what GM can or more importantly has extracted from their volume production pieces. The same driveline in other designs always yields far worse results.
Please. The DTS was chosen because it comes as close to parity with the Lexus in terms of size as any sedan GM fields right now with the options be limited more or less to the DTS, STS, Lucerne, Lacrosse, and Impala. Not only was DTS the closest in size and intent but it is also the one which makes GM look the best which is frankly why I chose it. You see, my argument doesn't need any extra help which is why I don't continually cite outliers which artificially bolster my argument.......tell us about that oh so relevant Corvette again.
If you prefer I could use the STS which makes GM look even worse even if it does give a better indication of the Lexus advantages. The STS manages 24mpg hwy from a 4.6L V8 producing 320hp backed by a six speed auto with a lower final drive ratio than that found in the Lexus and does so in a car which weighs 400lb less than the Lexus. What does this mean? This means that for the purposes of hwy mileage ratings the Lexus is at a disadvantage in terms of weight (400lb heavier) and gearing (despite two fewer gears the Caddy's final drive ratio is lower than that in the Lexus which is what matters here) yet still manages to knock down the same hwy fuel economy despite making 60 more hp and 57more lb-ft of torque. A heavier car which makes far more hp and torque yet still manages to knock down identical fuel economy even with a deep final drive ratio? In baseball terms this is called a shutout.
As for your insinuation that dropping an LS V8 under the hood would give GM the edge over the Lexus lets throw the Pontiac G8 in the mix. And with the cancellation of the Ultra V8 engine program this is going to be the near future of GM so it is certainly applicable. Pertinent numbers? A bit lighter even than the STS thus further increasing the weight advantage over the Lexus (real world difference...about 600lb or more) the Pontiac also still uses an ever so slightly lower final drive ratio than does the Lexus so we still have no 8-speed advantage for the hwy. The Pontiac comes up 18hp shy compared to the Lexus but does field a 24lb-ft improvement in terms of torque. Hwy rating, again identical to that of the Lexus despite similar power and gearing and much less weight, which means the GM is still coming up more than a little short. That is every change you cited would make the GM outperform the Lexus with the exception of DI, the plausibility of which on GM's V8 remains to be seen, and the GM still loses despite being 600lb lighter. Throw this same combo into a GM sedan weighing more like 4500lb and fuel mileage is going to drop more than a little.
Of course the problems I initially stated remain, and without anything like a real rebuttal I might add. That is, assuming that GM somehow manages to quickly whip out near future pushrod smallblock that uses DI and overcomes the obstacles to match what Lexus has accomplished it wont be enough on it's own. (I've already pointed this out twice IIRC) They will still need something like the Ecoboost GTDI V6 as an even higher mileage alternative if they want to keep installing V8 power levels when and where the want. What do they have to accomplish this in the near term? The answer is still nothing.
This isn't a secret. Thus far reaping the full potential of DI has proved a bit ellusive to say the least, particularly for naturally aspirated applications. As I stated earlier most DI applications represented a decent improvement on hp or mileage if only because the advantage was small enough that trying to improve both netted too little advantage in either respect. Take GM's 3.6L V6 for example. The switch to DI nets 40hp but no gain in hwy fuel economy and a small loss in city fuel economy. That's a whole lot of change to the fuel induction setup to get 40hp and lose some city mpg.
The problem? For whatever reason DI doesn't currently deliver as efficient a charge under certain engine conditions as do existing multi-point designs. The truly sad part here is that both of the issues you cite are components of this problem, what exactly do you think the more efficient mixing of fuel and air addresses? Want a source...how about we just use the one your using above since it agrees with everything I have stated thus far. While it can be a good thing this proves the problem with Google. You've conducted a search to try and bolster your argument, found something which agrees completely with what I have been saying, and yet you know so little about the subject you don't even realize that it is addressing exactly what I am talking about.
You think those fuel mixture problems might be occurring primarily at certain rpms and under certain conditions? (they typically do) Think those problems might cause driveability and power production issues? Think Lexus might have solved those by using a hybrid fuel injection system in conjunction with VVT and DOHC's? Think you've heard all of this before but missed the connection? I didn't go into greater detail because it shouldn't be necessary if you know as much about engines as you claim. You just answered your own question and didn't even realize it.
At this point some people in this conversation would go well out of their way to belittle your argument for the sake of some online chest beating. I wont because that isn't why I'm here and you frankly haven't done anything to deserve it at this point. You could learn a lot on these forums, and from people who know a good bit more than I do, but neither you or Hollywood is on that list of people and your going to need to give up on the 'defend GM or die' philosophy if that is your intention.
GM could go a lot of different routes to manage the same thing Lexus has, but given what we know right now maintaining the typical pushrod route isn't likely one of them. There may prove to be a fix that allows the continuation of push-rods with no drawbacks but, if there is, we don't yet know what it is and that is a problem. Lexus has found a solution to this problem that any automaker who currently produces DOHC V8's can employ without having to completely revise their designs. Since the other routes GM could take more or less involve a different engine design altogether they aren't exactly a quick fix.
Separate intake and exhaust camshafts help with solving the problems with DI since the same allow for a higher degree of control as it relates to the combustion cycle. This is very basic and is the same reason why VVT can be used to greater effect here. The more finite the control over a valvetrain the better I can control the combustion process and therefore the better I can deal with any issue involving that process. Mercedes is the perfect example since, as I mentioned before, they decided to return to DOHC's from their SOHC/3-valve design when the decided to begin the development of direct injection for the very reasons I mention.
GM has conducted development on such designs but that is a far cry from simply being able to churn one out at will. And the Lexus DI system, and how they managed it, would be exactly what I have been talking about in the first place.
They may at that. And then again they may just copy it, they certainly can since their engine design is very similar to what Lexus employs already sans the DI. No question more than a few R&D departments are tearing down Lexus V8's top figure out how to implement what Lexus has accomplished. The point is that they can just copy it if they have to and without the need to seriously retool their existing/upcoming V8. We know that what Lexus has done is a serious solution to a serious issue and that it works on engines like Ford's V8. We cannot say the same about GM's smallblock since DOHC's have thus far always been a part of the DI solution.
As I stated initially. GM has no V8 alternative anywhere near ready to go and the ability of the small block to up the ante as significantly as designs like the new Lexus V8 is questionable at best. GM has some TDi V8's coming for pickups, but so does Ford with the reality being that, right now, Ford is ahead in the race for greater mpg in nearly all respects.
Ford has the Ecoboost V6 set to debut in the 2009 MKS with applications slated to run from F-Series, to Edge, to Flex and beyond. GM currently has no counterpart. Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost set to debut within the same time frame. GM's existing turbo four is more akin to the existing Mazda MZR designs and wont be competitive with Ecoboost in terms of economy despite delivering less hp than does the Ford unit. GM has no apparent plans for a comparable low pressure turbo four anytime in the near future.
Currently Ford has an advantage here, no plainer way to state it.[/quote]
I think I covered the last few already way up or in earlier posts. No plainer way to state it will not make it so. The reality here is No one has a definitive edge in reguards to CAFE right now and until then comes you can pray all you want but it wont make much of a difference in whay the are planning or doing at this point.
2/14/08, 06:36 PM
#48
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not hardly. The super 4.6L mill you brag about took about a year to design from and work up. The DI Turbo 4 from GM took less. The reality check will hit when you actually learn automotive theory and what processes go into these engines or the design of the engine. If it took 3 years for the ecoboost to become a working prototype then roughly a third of that time was tooling to produce the parts and probably another third going through the portfolio of possible prospects and how to incorporate the engine and transmission combination into different vehicles. There is no way 3 years was invested in designing the engine alone. You have obviously never been inside a design studio.
This is hilarious. Hopefully you are being sarcastic. It is not quantum physics. Far from it. Nothing the automotive world can produce in say the next 10 to 15 years will be voodoo or even a major breakthrough. Unless one gets into a financial situation where they can allocate alot of money to completely design something innovative what you will get is a spin off of their exhisting tech or something designed for dual purpose. Alot of why a manufacture brings to the table technology they have is that they already have aspects of it in use (i.e. the ecoboost being a duratec 35 in nonboosted applications). If the ecoboost was only able to be a turbocharged application it would not be considered at all in any application. Ever wonder why even the exotic Ford GT did not have an engine that was 100% designed for it and all parts exclusive to it? Ford designed the ecoboost with the duratec NA in mind and both are to share many components. That is the reality of the ecoboost whether you want to admit it or not. However long it took to design was not invested in just the ecoboost protion of the engine developement. If you truly believe that then you know less than I gave you credit for.
Yawn, what gas mileage does it get in the vehicle it is installed in? Is this the example of propaganda numbers you mention below?
It means nothing at this point. The reality is you are guessing and inferring hoping that what you have read in a forum or blog somewhere will add credit to the guesswork you lay down through this entire thread. That is the reality of it.
Again with assumptions. Do you base all your facts off of rumors? I highly doubt GM is trying to work on a volume production "replacement" for the V8. What they ARE doing and more than likely will do is further their current V8 technology through DI and enhanced combustion processes. There are more than enough official anouncements or working concepts to prove this. Guess what you want at this venture. The ecoboost might see its way into vehicles in say 2012 however it will not replace the V8 in most trucks. You can hypothesize untill you are blue in the face but this is not debatable- The ecoboost is not in any vehicle and you do not know exactly what it will be in or to what capacity.
Potential relese date on a possible turbo V6 from GM? Yes Lutz did in a press conference referring to Australians not getting a V8 CTS, he didn't explicitly imply when but said they are working on it which at this point is no less than where the "ecoboost" was about 6 months ago. Multivalve multi cam engines in the works? Yes of several different capacities. Try hanging out a little more at different forums and seeing all the announcements made from a variety of different sources. Just about everything I put out so far was released by some automotive media outlet and I have my own sources for verification.
The reality of the situation is you insist on thinking that your reality on a situation makes it more true than it is. This reality you speak of is no more than your insistance on a blind hatred of anything GM. It causes your reality to become jaded hence you miss alot of what I or someone else speak about or dance around something entirely. GM is well behind Ford on one thing at this venture, the Mustang is out the Camaro is not. That is all that I will conceed on and all that is a fact at this venture. GM still has cam in block OHV V8's that match what you are proposing this ecoboost will do to the Mustang. Even I can boost the mustangs MPG ratings a couple of MPG with the current V8 that is in it. It is nothing that spectacular that it will make the industry stand on its head and do an about face.
Obviously you have never towed anything that big then. 340 is not going to cut it. That's one of those instances where 400lb ft or more is needed, which at the current time is best achieved through diesels (another route GM is throwing massive redevelopement into) or big cube V8's. Unless something radical in technology is developed there is nothing out there that can be put to a V6, aside from a massive cubic inch infusion, to enable those feats. The 4.6L could tow what 6K maybe 7?
This is probably the funniest thing I think I have ever heard. A cookie is just a cookie but newtons are fruited cake. The ecoboost is this. An all new design (not new to the ecoboost solely though) Direct injected twin turbo V6. The engine has 6 cylinders in a V configuration. The pistons are likely shaped to help enhance the swirl effect of the DI and set up to an 8.5 to 9.0 Compression ratio. Moly coatings are more than likely used to reduce friction on the surfaces of the pistons. The combustion chamber is probably designed to aid in the swirling effect with maybe a little flame front science thrown in. DI is incorporated using high pressure to inject the gasoline directly into the cylinder which is needed as DI poses a problem with this at ALL RPM's and conditions if uncorrected. The port flow is based on the tried and true methods that have been employed for eons but maximized in as high a capacity as the limited current head design can deliver (hint), probably using flow data incorporated into the CAD models to try to maximize this huge downfall to most modern engines. The turbos are mounted in the exhaust path allowing the inlet side to spin and increase positive pressure. I have no clue on who the inside of the block looks but more than likely given the heat of a turbo application the coolant flow around the heads is sufficient and routed in a manner that there are no hot spot cylinders. The turbos are likely small diameter with boost ranging from around 7 to 15psi. The block was probably designed to be able to withstand around 450 hp moving internal webbign around to achieve this. The crankshaft is likely steel and rods forged with the pistons probably being hypereutectic given Forged pistons obvious lack of start up emissions (due to heat expansion properties etc)fesaibility on a supposedly emissions friendly powerplant. Now don't quote much as this is all on memory using no outside source but given what I just said it is safe to assume 90+% of this describes this ecoboost to a T right? Please explain how a turbo charged DI v6 (Ford's Ecoboost) is different from a DI TT V6. I want technical details here.
Because I know engine theory and advanved mechanics and there is nothing there that impresses me. I have seen what their engineers get to play with, and know that there is more than just one guy locked in a closet sitting around trying to figure out how things work. Three years to basically come up with your own design on and exhisting idea would be embarassing. Obviously you know more than me so please educate me on how technologically superior this ecoboost technology is to anything on the market? I dont want magic tricks, propaganda or "the reality is" I want a technical breakdown on how this engine is something groundbreaking and should cause the industry to spin on it's head?
Are you on Ford's ecoboost propaganda payroll? So a "Genuine high mileage V8 alternative" you guessed would give the mustang 27 MPG. Is that what you call high mileage? Wow my heavier GTO with a 400/400 V8 cam in block can best that with less than 500$ My Camaro did that stock with a 4 speed auto. That is not a "genuine high mileage V8 alternative" it is something a little better than what you have in stock now. 27 mpg is not drastic by any means especially when the cost of this plant will be more than more than the V8. So wouldn't that meant that the Mustang's price would be in the same position if not worse than the Camaro in that respect? Don't answer that I already know it is. Duck and dodge all you want the purpose of this thread and some of this debate is right there. I wish I could share your enthusiasm but the reality is this, the ecoboost is a TTDI-V6 that shares minimal differences than any other TT V6 save for the DI. If it is economical for Ford to implement then it is a help to Ford. Nothing more nothing less. I reiterrate it is not groundbreaking.
True and neither is the TTDIV6. Ford and Lexus has better hybrid V8 designs? Which? You have to be talking about V8 hybrid tech surely you are not going to bring up 4 cylinder and possibly 6 cylinder hybrid talk when other than a few outside references this entire thread is about V8's to begin with and the problem with CAFE whic most currently affects V8's. No it isn't a solution that only GM has access or has even tried however, GM at the current time is leading the industry in full size hybrid tech which by the way as I have stated many times over is more of a factor to CAFE than a 30 mpg car by far. I find it funny you laud BMW and Mercedes elsewhere yet here make mention that Toyota will be the likely front runner in this area. I find it funny in that both BMW and Mercedes chose GM hybrid technology OVER Toyota's. Both competed Toyota lost. Will GM continue to lead this who knows but unless someone comes up with something truly innovative GM is in as good a shape as anyone.
Where do you get this from? DI from the start improved HP and economy what it didn't do was help the emissions part or the complexity and cost benefit. Mitsubisi was the first to have a mainstream vehicle to be direct injected which improved both HP and fuel efficiency. It did the same in WWII fighters as well. The reality of this situation is you have no clue into this subject. You might think of it as a breakthrough because of your lack of insight or maybe actual automotive knowledge I don't know but you use alot of conjecture and alot of stuff that is obviously just though up out of your head. I'd be willing to bet you can't find one fact to support this last paragraph alone.
To be even more blunt you use alot more propaganda than I do. The only thing you have even mentioned that is actually on the ground is the Lexus. One off R&D piece? GM has DI in a V6 and 2 current 4 cylinders and now releases its test design along with a press release hinting to the switch to DI on all V8's and it has no production plausibility or driveability yet bank on something that as of right now is not even in a single vehicle or even the technology shared with it. Here as well is proof that you either don't pay attention to detail or don't care. When have I used a vette for any comparison? I have yet to mention much at all if anything about the vette as it has little to nothing to due with CAFE. It will be immune to it as far as GM is concerned and will make up for it with other cars so the vette is the farthest thing from my train of thought.
Please yourself. Ok so other than size 4.6L and v8 powered my bad. Until GM redoes that line it is in no way comparable to anything higher tech whatsoever.
OK Lasorda, so the same OLD 4.6 in the DTS is in the STS and it makes your lopsided arguement anymore valid? My escalade comparison is a much better case than this.
Yawn, you bore me. Identical numbers MPG numbers from the two. One a high tech wonder (so you say) one a brutish beast. How does that help CAFE any? An 8 speed, DI car vs a 6 speed non DI with identical numbers and a better flatter hp and tq curve that is much lower in the RPM band. Are we impressed yet? I'm not.
The real rebuttals you have and will still refuse to answer.
This isn't a secret. Thus far reaping the full potential of DI has proved a bit ellusive to say the least, particularly for naturally aspirated applications. As I stated earlier most DI applications represented a decent improvement on hp or mileage if only because the advantage was small enough that trying to improve both netted too little advantage in either respect. Take GM's 3.6L V6 for example. The switch to DI nets 40hp but no gain in hwy fuel economy and a small loss in city fuel economy. That's a whole lot of change to the fuel induction setup to get 40hp and lose some city mpg.
Google? lol funny I have yet to use a search to bolster anything. I don't need to. Everything I cite is from learned knowledge I could try to include snippets but given the conjecture you post up I have no need to. Like I said earlier let me use your sources I love reading and learning everything I can about engine technology. Nice dodge here but I caught it. The problems I cited are general DI knowledge. Not this certain situation you spoke of which would lend better to the ohc argument not here. That was the basis of my question now answer it. It had nothing to do whith some of the problems associated with DI generally but specifically in ohc vs ohv.
Nope they occur during the entire spectrum that is the problem. I want to know about this certain situation. Is it high load low rpm, high rpm low load etc what? Now you go to a hybrid injection system instead of a OHV. I haven't answered my question any more than you have because flatly you can't.
Wow I think I might cry. If this would amount to chest beating then you quite frankly don't have much of a chest to beat. I could learn alot on these forums but I learn more elsewhere and from many more than just this one. You just think that because you can put a structured sentence together dodge a few questions and slip in a bit of interjection you have somehow eeked a better argument based on facts? Not hardly.
GM could go a lot of different routes to manage the same thing Lexus has, but given what we know right now maintaining the typical pushrod route isn't likely one of them. There may prove to be a fix that allows the continuation of push-rods with no drawbacks but, if there is, we don't yet know what it is and that is a problem. Lexus has found a solution to this problem that any automaker who currently produces DOHC V8's can employ without having to completely revise their designs. Since the other routes GM could take more or less involve a different engine design altogether they aren't exactly a quick fix.
No it does not. Try again. Higher degree of control? Ok try again. 3 overhead valves is busy with one cam alone. Might that be a reason Mercedes switched to DOHC? Or might it be they are already into the OHC developement and it is cheaper to add the other cam than the complexity to add a further degree of valve timing in their application.
The antique Northstar and aurora are out and have been.
They may at that. And then again they may just copy it, they certainly can since their engine design is very similar to what Lexus employs already sans the DI. No question more than a few R&D departments are tearing down Lexus V8's top figure out how to implement what Lexus has accomplished. The point is that they can just copy it if they have to and without the need to seriously retool their existing/upcoming V8. We know that what Lexus has done is a serious solution to a serious issue and that it works on engines like Ford's V8. We cannot say the same about GM's smallblock since DOHC's have thus far always been a part of the DI solution.
As I stated initially. GM has no V8 alternative anywhere near ready to go and the ability of the small block to up the ante as significantly as designs like the new Lexus V8 is questionable at best. GM has some TDi V8's coming for pickups, but so does Ford with the reality being that, right now, Ford is ahead in the race for greater mpg in nearly all respects.
Ford has the Ecoboost V6 set to debut in the 2009 MKS with applications slated to run from F-Series, to Edge, to Flex and beyond. GM currently has no counterpart. Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost set to debut within the same time frame. GM's existing turbo four is more akin to the existing Mazda MZR designs and wont be competitive with Ecoboost in terms of economy despite delivering less hp than does the Ford unit. GM has no apparent plans for a comparable low pressure turbo four anytime in the near future.
Currently Ford has an advantage here, no plainer way to state it.
I think I covered the last few already way up or in earlier posts. No plainer way to state it will not make it so. The reality here is No one has a definitive edge in reguards to CAFE right now and until then comes you can pray all you want but it wont make much of a difference in whay the are planning or doing at this point.
This is hilarious. Hopefully you are being sarcastic. It is not quantum physics. Far from it. Nothing the automotive world can produce in say the next 10 to 15 years will be voodoo or even a major breakthrough. Unless one gets into a financial situation where they can allocate alot of money to completely design something innovative what you will get is a spin off of their exhisting tech or something designed for dual purpose. Alot of why a manufacture brings to the table technology they have is that they already have aspects of it in use (i.e. the ecoboost being a duratec 35 in nonboosted applications). If the ecoboost was only able to be a turbocharged application it would not be considered at all in any application. Ever wonder why even the exotic Ford GT did not have an engine that was 100% designed for it and all parts exclusive to it? Ford designed the ecoboost with the duratec NA in mind and both are to share many components. That is the reality of the ecoboost whether you want to admit it or not. However long it took to design was not invested in just the ecoboost protion of the engine developement. If you truly believe that then you know less than I gave you credit for.
Yawn, what gas mileage does it get in the vehicle it is installed in? Is this the example of propaganda numbers you mention below?
It means nothing at this point. The reality is you are guessing and inferring hoping that what you have read in a forum or blog somewhere will add credit to the guesswork you lay down through this entire thread. That is the reality of it.
Again with assumptions. Do you base all your facts off of rumors? I highly doubt GM is trying to work on a volume production "replacement" for the V8. What they ARE doing and more than likely will do is further their current V8 technology through DI and enhanced combustion processes. There are more than enough official anouncements or working concepts to prove this. Guess what you want at this venture. The ecoboost might see its way into vehicles in say 2012 however it will not replace the V8 in most trucks. You can hypothesize untill you are blue in the face but this is not debatable- The ecoboost is not in any vehicle and you do not know exactly what it will be in or to what capacity.
Potential relese date on a possible turbo V6 from GM? Yes Lutz did in a press conference referring to Australians not getting a V8 CTS, he didn't explicitly imply when but said they are working on it which at this point is no less than where the "ecoboost" was about 6 months ago. Multivalve multi cam engines in the works? Yes of several different capacities. Try hanging out a little more at different forums and seeing all the announcements made from a variety of different sources. Just about everything I put out so far was released by some automotive media outlet and I have my own sources for verification.
The reality of the situation is you insist on thinking that your reality on a situation makes it more true than it is. This reality you speak of is no more than your insistance on a blind hatred of anything GM. It causes your reality to become jaded hence you miss alot of what I or someone else speak about or dance around something entirely. GM is well behind Ford on one thing at this venture, the Mustang is out the Camaro is not. That is all that I will conceed on and all that is a fact at this venture. GM still has cam in block OHV V8's that match what you are proposing this ecoboost will do to the Mustang. Even I can boost the mustangs MPG ratings a couple of MPG with the current V8 that is in it. It is nothing that spectacular that it will make the industry stand on its head and do an about face.
Obviously you have never towed anything that big then. 340 is not going to cut it. That's one of those instances where 400lb ft or more is needed, which at the current time is best achieved through diesels (another route GM is throwing massive redevelopement into) or big cube V8's. Unless something radical in technology is developed there is nothing out there that can be put to a V6, aside from a massive cubic inch infusion, to enable those feats. The 4.6L could tow what 6K maybe 7?
This is probably the funniest thing I think I have ever heard. A cookie is just a cookie but newtons are fruited cake. The ecoboost is this. An all new design (not new to the ecoboost solely though) Direct injected twin turbo V6. The engine has 6 cylinders in a V configuration. The pistons are likely shaped to help enhance the swirl effect of the DI and set up to an 8.5 to 9.0 Compression ratio. Moly coatings are more than likely used to reduce friction on the surfaces of the pistons. The combustion chamber is probably designed to aid in the swirling effect with maybe a little flame front science thrown in. DI is incorporated using high pressure to inject the gasoline directly into the cylinder which is needed as DI poses a problem with this at ALL RPM's and conditions if uncorrected. The port flow is based on the tried and true methods that have been employed for eons but maximized in as high a capacity as the limited current head design can deliver (hint), probably using flow data incorporated into the CAD models to try to maximize this huge downfall to most modern engines. The turbos are mounted in the exhaust path allowing the inlet side to spin and increase positive pressure. I have no clue on who the inside of the block looks but more than likely given the heat of a turbo application the coolant flow around the heads is sufficient and routed in a manner that there are no hot spot cylinders. The turbos are likely small diameter with boost ranging from around 7 to 15psi. The block was probably designed to be able to withstand around 450 hp moving internal webbign around to achieve this. The crankshaft is likely steel and rods forged with the pistons probably being hypereutectic given Forged pistons obvious lack of start up emissions (due to heat expansion properties etc)fesaibility on a supposedly emissions friendly powerplant. Now don't quote much as this is all on memory using no outside source but given what I just said it is safe to assume 90+% of this describes this ecoboost to a T right? Please explain how a turbo charged DI v6 (Ford's Ecoboost) is different from a DI TT V6. I want technical details here.
Because I know engine theory and advanved mechanics and there is nothing there that impresses me. I have seen what their engineers get to play with, and know that there is more than just one guy locked in a closet sitting around trying to figure out how things work. Three years to basically come up with your own design on and exhisting idea would be embarassing. Obviously you know more than me so please educate me on how technologically superior this ecoboost technology is to anything on the market? I dont want magic tricks, propaganda or "the reality is" I want a technical breakdown on how this engine is something groundbreaking and should cause the industry to spin on it's head?
Are you on Ford's ecoboost propaganda payroll? So a "Genuine high mileage V8 alternative" you guessed would give the mustang 27 MPG. Is that what you call high mileage? Wow my heavier GTO with a 400/400 V8 cam in block can best that with less than 500$ My Camaro did that stock with a 4 speed auto. That is not a "genuine high mileage V8 alternative" it is something a little better than what you have in stock now. 27 mpg is not drastic by any means especially when the cost of this plant will be more than more than the V8. So wouldn't that meant that the Mustang's price would be in the same position if not worse than the Camaro in that respect? Don't answer that I already know it is. Duck and dodge all you want the purpose of this thread and some of this debate is right there. I wish I could share your enthusiasm but the reality is this, the ecoboost is a TTDI-V6 that shares minimal differences than any other TT V6 save for the DI. If it is economical for Ford to implement then it is a help to Ford. Nothing more nothing less. I reiterrate it is not groundbreaking.
True and neither is the TTDIV6. Ford and Lexus has better hybrid V8 designs? Which? You have to be talking about V8 hybrid tech surely you are not going to bring up 4 cylinder and possibly 6 cylinder hybrid talk when other than a few outside references this entire thread is about V8's to begin with and the problem with CAFE whic most currently affects V8's. No it isn't a solution that only GM has access or has even tried however, GM at the current time is leading the industry in full size hybrid tech which by the way as I have stated many times over is more of a factor to CAFE than a 30 mpg car by far. I find it funny you laud BMW and Mercedes elsewhere yet here make mention that Toyota will be the likely front runner in this area. I find it funny in that both BMW and Mercedes chose GM hybrid technology OVER Toyota's. Both competed Toyota lost. Will GM continue to lead this who knows but unless someone comes up with something truly innovative GM is in as good a shape as anyone.
Where do you get this from? DI from the start improved HP and economy what it didn't do was help the emissions part or the complexity and cost benefit. Mitsubisi was the first to have a mainstream vehicle to be direct injected which improved both HP and fuel efficiency. It did the same in WWII fighters as well. The reality of this situation is you have no clue into this subject. You might think of it as a breakthrough because of your lack of insight or maybe actual automotive knowledge I don't know but you use alot of conjecture and alot of stuff that is obviously just though up out of your head. I'd be willing to bet you can't find one fact to support this last paragraph alone.
To be even more blunt you use alot more propaganda than I do. The only thing you have even mentioned that is actually on the ground is the Lexus. One off R&D piece? GM has DI in a V6 and 2 current 4 cylinders and now releases its test design along with a press release hinting to the switch to DI on all V8's and it has no production plausibility or driveability yet bank on something that as of right now is not even in a single vehicle or even the technology shared with it. Here as well is proof that you either don't pay attention to detail or don't care. When have I used a vette for any comparison? I have yet to mention much at all if anything about the vette as it has little to nothing to due with CAFE. It will be immune to it as far as GM is concerned and will make up for it with other cars so the vette is the farthest thing from my train of thought.
Please yourself. Ok so other than size 4.6L and v8 powered my bad. Until GM redoes that line it is in no way comparable to anything higher tech whatsoever.
OK Lasorda, so the same OLD 4.6 in the DTS is in the STS and it makes your lopsided arguement anymore valid? My escalade comparison is a much better case than this.
Yawn, you bore me. Identical numbers MPG numbers from the two. One a high tech wonder (so you say) one a brutish beast. How does that help CAFE any? An 8 speed, DI car vs a 6 speed non DI with identical numbers and a better flatter hp and tq curve that is much lower in the RPM band. Are we impressed yet? I'm not.
The real rebuttals you have and will still refuse to answer.
This isn't a secret. Thus far reaping the full potential of DI has proved a bit ellusive to say the least, particularly for naturally aspirated applications. As I stated earlier most DI applications represented a decent improvement on hp or mileage if only because the advantage was small enough that trying to improve both netted too little advantage in either respect. Take GM's 3.6L V6 for example. The switch to DI nets 40hp but no gain in hwy fuel economy and a small loss in city fuel economy. That's a whole lot of change to the fuel induction setup to get 40hp and lose some city mpg.
Google? lol funny I have yet to use a search to bolster anything. I don't need to. Everything I cite is from learned knowledge I could try to include snippets but given the conjecture you post up I have no need to. Like I said earlier let me use your sources I love reading and learning everything I can about engine technology. Nice dodge here but I caught it. The problems I cited are general DI knowledge. Not this certain situation you spoke of which would lend better to the ohc argument not here. That was the basis of my question now answer it. It had nothing to do whith some of the problems associated with DI generally but specifically in ohc vs ohv.
Nope they occur during the entire spectrum that is the problem. I want to know about this certain situation. Is it high load low rpm, high rpm low load etc what? Now you go to a hybrid injection system instead of a OHV. I haven't answered my question any more than you have because flatly you can't.
Wow I think I might cry. If this would amount to chest beating then you quite frankly don't have much of a chest to beat. I could learn alot on these forums but I learn more elsewhere and from many more than just this one. You just think that because you can put a structured sentence together dodge a few questions and slip in a bit of interjection you have somehow eeked a better argument based on facts? Not hardly.
GM could go a lot of different routes to manage the same thing Lexus has, but given what we know right now maintaining the typical pushrod route isn't likely one of them. There may prove to be a fix that allows the continuation of push-rods with no drawbacks but, if there is, we don't yet know what it is and that is a problem. Lexus has found a solution to this problem that any automaker who currently produces DOHC V8's can employ without having to completely revise their designs. Since the other routes GM could take more or less involve a different engine design altogether they aren't exactly a quick fix.
No it does not. Try again. Higher degree of control? Ok try again. 3 overhead valves is busy with one cam alone. Might that be a reason Mercedes switched to DOHC? Or might it be they are already into the OHC developement and it is cheaper to add the other cam than the complexity to add a further degree of valve timing in their application.
The antique Northstar and aurora are out and have been.
They may at that. And then again they may just copy it, they certainly can since their engine design is very similar to what Lexus employs already sans the DI. No question more than a few R&D departments are tearing down Lexus V8's top figure out how to implement what Lexus has accomplished. The point is that they can just copy it if they have to and without the need to seriously retool their existing/upcoming V8. We know that what Lexus has done is a serious solution to a serious issue and that it works on engines like Ford's V8. We cannot say the same about GM's smallblock since DOHC's have thus far always been a part of the DI solution.
As I stated initially. GM has no V8 alternative anywhere near ready to go and the ability of the small block to up the ante as significantly as designs like the new Lexus V8 is questionable at best. GM has some TDi V8's coming for pickups, but so does Ford with the reality being that, right now, Ford is ahead in the race for greater mpg in nearly all respects.
Ford has the Ecoboost V6 set to debut in the 2009 MKS with applications slated to run from F-Series, to Edge, to Flex and beyond. GM currently has no counterpart. Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost set to debut within the same time frame. GM's existing turbo four is more akin to the existing Mazda MZR designs and wont be competitive with Ecoboost in terms of economy despite delivering less hp than does the Ford unit. GM has no apparent plans for a comparable low pressure turbo four anytime in the near future.
Currently Ford has an advantage here, no plainer way to state it.
I think I covered the last few already way up or in earlier posts. No plainer way to state it will not make it so. The reality here is No one has a definitive edge in reguards to CAFE right now and until then comes you can pray all you want but it wont make much of a difference in whay the are planning or doing at this point.
2/15/08, 11:54 AM
#49
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not hardly. The super 4.6L mill you brag about took about a year to design from and work up. The DI Turbo 4 from GM took less. The reality check will hit when you actually learn automotive theory and what processes go into these engines or the design of the engine. If it took 3 years for the ecoboost to become a working prototype then roughly a third of that time was tooling to produce the parts and probably another third going through the portfolio of possible prospects and how to incorporate the engine and transmission combination into different vehicles. There is no way 3 years was invested in designing the engine alone. You have obviously never been inside a design studio.
This is hilarious. Hopefully you are being sarcastic. It is not quantum physics. Far from it. Nothing the automotive world can produce in say the next 10 to 15 years will be voodoo or even a major breakthrough. Unless one gets into a financial situation where they can allocate alot of money to completely design something innovative what you will get is a spin off of their exhisting tech or something designed for dual purpose. Alot of why a manufacture brings to the table technology they have is that they already have aspects of it in use (i.e. the ecoboost being a duratec 35 in nonboosted applications). If the ecoboost was only able to be a turbocharged application it would not be considered at all in any application. Ever wonder why even the exotic Ford GT did not have an engine that was 100% designed for it and all parts exclusive to it? Ford designed the ecoboost with the duratec NA in mind and both are to share many components. That is the reality of the ecoboost whether you want to admit it or not. However long it took to design was not invested in just the ecoboost protion of the engine developement. If you truly believe that then you know less than I gave you credit for.
Yawn, what gas mileage does it get in the vehicle it is installed in? Is this the example of propaganda numbers you mention below?
It means nothing at this point. The reality is you are guessing and inferring hoping that what you have read in a forum or blog somewhere will add credit to the guesswork you lay down through this entire thread. That is the reality of it.
Again with assumptions. Do you base all your facts off of rumors? I highly doubt GM is trying to work on a volume production "replacement" for the V8. What they ARE doing and more than likely will do is further their current V8 technology through DI and enhanced combustion processes. There are more than enough official anouncements or working concepts to prove this. Guess what you want at this venture. The ecoboost might see its way into vehicles in say 2012 however it will not replace the V8 in most trucks. You can hypothesize untill you are blue in the face but this is not debatable- The ecoboost is not in any vehicle and you do not know exactly what it will be in or to what capacity.
Potential relese date on a possible turbo V6 from GM? Yes Lutz did in a press conference referring to Australians not getting a V8 CTS, he didn't explicitly imply when but said they are working on it which at this point is no less than where the "ecoboost" was about 6 months ago. Multivalve multi cam engines in the works? Yes of several different capacities. Try hanging out a little more at different forums and seeing all the announcements made from a variety of different sources. Just about everything I put out so far was released by some automotive media outlet and I have my own sources for verification.
The reality of the situation is you insist on thinking that your reality on a situation makes it more true than it is. This reality you speak of is no more than your insistance on a blind hatred of anything GM. It causes your reality to become jaded hence you miss alot of what I or someone else speak about or dance around something entirely. GM is well behind Ford on one thing at this venture, the Mustang is out the Camaro is not. That is all that I will conceed on and all that is a fact at this venture. GM still has cam in block OHV V8's that match what you are proposing this ecoboost will do to the Mustang. Even I can boost the mustangs MPG ratings a couple of MPG with the current V8 that is in it. It is nothing that spectacular that it will make the industry stand on its head and do an about face.
Obviously you have never towed anything that big then. 340 is not going to cut it. That's one of those instances where 400lb ft or more is needed, which at the current time is best achieved through diesels (another route GM is throwing massive redevelopement into) or big cube V8's. Unless something radical in technology is developed there is nothing out there that can be put to a V6, aside from a massive cubic inch infusion, to enable those feats. The 4.6L could tow what 6K maybe 7?
This is probably the funniest thing I think I have ever heard. A cookie is just a cookie but newtons are fruited cake. The ecoboost is this. An all new design (not new to the ecoboost solely though) Direct injected twin turbo V6. The engine has 6 cylinders in a V configuration. The pistons are likely shaped to help enhance the swirl effect of the DI and set up to an 8.5 to 9.0 Compression ratio. Moly coatings are more than likely used to reduce friction on the surfaces of the pistons. The combustion chamber is probably designed to aid in the swirling effect with maybe a little flame front science thrown in. DI is incorporated using high pressure to inject the gasoline directly into the cylinder which is needed as DI poses a problem with this at ALL RPM's and conditions if uncorrected. The port flow is based on the tried and true methods that have been employed for eons but maximized in as high a capacity as the limited current head design can deliver (hint), probably using flow data incorporated into the CAD models to try to maximize this huge downfall to most modern engines. The turbos are mounted in the exhaust path allowing the inlet side to spin and increase positive pressure. I have no clue on who the inside of the block looks but more than likely given the heat of a turbo application the coolant flow around the heads is sufficient and routed in a manner that there are no hot spot cylinders. The turbos are likely small diameter with boost ranging from around 7 to 15psi. The block was probably designed to be able to withstand around 450 hp moving internal webbign around to achieve this. The crankshaft is likely steel and rods forged with the pistons probably being hypereutectic given Forged pistons obvious lack of start up emissions (due to heat expansion properties etc)fesaibility on a supposedly emissions friendly powerplant. Now don't quote much as this is all on memory using no outside source but given what I just said it is safe to assume 90+% of this describes this ecoboost to a T right? Please explain how a turbo charged DI v6 (Ford's Ecoboost) is different from a DI TT V6. I want technical details here.
Because I know engine theory and advanved mechanics and there is nothing there that impresses me. I have seen what their engineers get to play with, and know that there is more than just one guy locked in a closet sitting around trying to figure out how things work. Three years to basically come up with your own design on and exhisting idea would be embarassing. Obviously you know more than me so please educate me on how technologically superior this ecoboost technology is to anything on the market? I dont want magic tricks, propaganda or "the reality is" I want a technical breakdown on how this engine is something groundbreaking and should cause the industry to spin on it's head?
Are you on Ford's ecoboost propaganda payroll? So a "Genuine high mileage V8 alternative" you guessed would give the mustang 27 MPG. Is that what you call high mileage? Wow my heavier GTO with a 400/400 V8 cam in block can best that with less than 500$ My Camaro did that stock with a 4 speed auto. That is not a "genuine high mileage V8 alternative" it is something a little better than what you have in stock now. 27 mpg is not drastic by any means especially when the cost of this plant will be more than more than the V8. So wouldn't that meant that the Mustang's price would be in the same position if not worse than the Camaro in that respect? Don't answer that I already know it is. Duck and dodge all you want the purpose of this thread and some of this debate is right there. I wish I could share your enthusiasm but the reality is this, the ecoboost is a TTDI-V6 that shares minimal differences than any other TT V6 save for the DI. If it is economical for Ford to implement then it is a help to Ford. Nothing more nothing less. I reiterrate it is not groundbreaking.
True and neither is the TTDIV6. Ford and Lexus has better hybrid V8 designs? Which? You have to be talking about V8 hybrid tech surely you are not going to bring up 4 cylinder and possibly 6 cylinder hybrid talk when other than a few outside references this entire thread is about V8's to begin with and the problem with CAFE whic most currently affects V8's. No it isn't a solution that only GM has access or has even tried however, GM at the current time is leading the industry in full size hybrid tech which by the way as I have stated many times over is more of a factor to CAFE than a 30 mpg car by far. I find it funny you laud BMW and Mercedes elsewhere yet here make mention that Toyota will be the likely front runner in this area. I find it funny in that both BMW and Mercedes chose GM hybrid technology OVER Toyota's. Both competed Toyota lost. Will GM continue to lead this who knows but unless someone comes up with something truly innovative GM is in as good a shape as anyone.
Where do you get this from? DI from the start improved HP and economy what it didn't do was help the emissions part or the complexity and cost benefit. Mitsubisi was the first to have a mainstream vehicle to be direct injected which improved both HP and fuel efficiency. It did the same in WWII fighters as well. The reality of this situation is you have no clue into this subject. You might think of it as a breakthrough because of your lack of insight or maybe actual automotive knowledge I don't know but you use alot of conjecture and alot of stuff that is obviously just though up out of your head. I'd be willing to bet you can't find one fact to support this last paragraph alone.
To be even more blunt you use alot more propaganda than I do. The only thing you have even mentioned that is actually on the ground is the Lexus. One off R&D piece? GM has DI in a V6 and 2 current 4 cylinders and now releases its test design along with a press release hinting to the switch to DI on all V8's and it has no production plausibility or driveability yet bank on something that as of right now is not even in a single vehicle or even the technology shared with it. Here as well is proof that you either don't pay attention to detail or don't care. When have I used a vette for any comparison? I have yet to mention much at all if anything about the vette as it has little to nothing to due with CAFE. It will be immune to it as far as GM is concerned and will make up for it with other cars so the vette is the farthest thing from my train of thought.
Please yourself. Ok so other than size 4.6L and v8 powered my bad. Until GM redoes that line it is in no way comparable to anything higher tech whatsoever.
OK Lasorda, so the same OLD 4.6 in the DTS is in the STS and it makes your lopsided arguement anymore valid? My escalade comparison is a much better case than this.
Yawn, you bore me. Identical numbers MPG numbers from the two. One a high tech wonder (so you say) one a brutish beast. How does that help CAFE any? An 8 speed, DI car vs a 6 speed non DI with identical numbers and a better flatter hp and tq curve that is much lower in the RPM band. Are we impressed yet? I'm not.
The real rebuttals you have and will still refuse to answer.
This isn't a secret. Thus far reaping the full potential of DI has proved a bit ellusive to say the least, particularly for naturally aspirated applications. As I stated earlier most DI applications represented a decent improvement on hp or mileage if only because the advantage was small enough that trying to improve both netted too little advantage in either respect. Take GM's 3.6L V6 for example. The switch to DI nets 40hp but no gain in hwy fuel economy and a small loss in city fuel economy. That's a whole lot of change to the fuel induction setup to get 40hp and lose some city mpg.
Google? lol funny I have yet to use a search to bolster anything. I don't need to. Everything I cite is from learned knowledge I could try to include snippets but given the conjecture you post up I have no need to. Like I said earlier let me use your sources I love reading and learning everything I can about engine technology. Nice dodge here but I caught it. The problems I cited are general DI knowledge. Not this certain situation you spoke of which would lend better to the ohc argument not here. That was the basis of my question now answer it. It had nothing to do whith some of the problems associated with DI generally but specifically in ohc vs ohv.
Nope they occur during the entire spectrum that is the problem. I want to know about this certain situation. Is it high load low rpm, high rpm low load etc what? Now you go to a hybrid injection system instead of a OHV. I haven't answered my question any more than you have because flatly you can't.
Wow I think I might cry. If this would amount to chest beating then you quite frankly don't have much of a chest to beat. I could learn alot on these forums but I learn more elsewhere and from many more than just this one. You just think that because you can put a structured sentence together dodge a few questions and slip in a bit of interjection you have somehow eeked a better argument based on facts? Not hardly.
GM could go a lot of different routes to manage the same thing Lexus has, but given what we know right now maintaining the typical pushrod route isn't likely one of them. There may prove to be a fix that allows the continuation of push-rods with no drawbacks but, if there is, we don't yet know what it is and that is a problem. Lexus has found a solution to this problem that any automaker who currently produces DOHC V8's can employ without having to completely revise their designs. Since the other routes GM could take more or less involve a different engine design altogether they aren't exactly a quick fix.
No it does not. Try again. Higher degree of control? Ok try again. 3 overhead valves is busy with one cam alone. Might that be a reason Mercedes switched to DOHC? Or might it be they are already into the OHC developement and it is cheaper to add the other cam than the complexity to add a further degree of valve timing in their application.
The antique Northstar and aurora are out and have been.
They may at that. And then again they may just copy it, they certainly can since their engine design is very similar to what Lexus employs already sans the DI. No question more than a few R&D departments are tearing down Lexus V8's top figure out how to implement what Lexus has accomplished. The point is that they can just copy it if they have to and without the need to seriously retool their existing/upcoming V8. We know that what Lexus has done is a serious solution to a serious issue and that it works on engines like Ford's V8. We cannot say the same about GM's smallblock since DOHC's have thus far always been a part of the DI solution.
As I stated initially. GM has no V8 alternative anywhere near ready to go and the ability of the small block to up the ante as significantly as designs like the new Lexus V8 is questionable at best. GM has some TDi V8's coming for pickups, but so does Ford with the reality being that, right now, Ford is ahead in the race for greater mpg in nearly all respects.
Ford has the Ecoboost V6 set to debut in the 2009 MKS with applications slated to run from F-Series, to Edge, to Flex and beyond. GM currently has no counterpart. Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost set to debut within the same time frame. GM's existing turbo four is more akin to the existing Mazda MZR designs and wont be competitive with Ecoboost in terms of economy despite delivering less hp than does the Ford unit. GM has no apparent plans for a comparable low pressure turbo four anytime in the near future.
Currently Ford has an advantage here, no plainer way to state it.
This is hilarious. Hopefully you are being sarcastic. It is not quantum physics. Far from it. Nothing the automotive world can produce in say the next 10 to 15 years will be voodoo or even a major breakthrough. Unless one gets into a financial situation where they can allocate alot of money to completely design something innovative what you will get is a spin off of their exhisting tech or something designed for dual purpose. Alot of why a manufacture brings to the table technology they have is that they already have aspects of it in use (i.e. the ecoboost being a duratec 35 in nonboosted applications). If the ecoboost was only able to be a turbocharged application it would not be considered at all in any application. Ever wonder why even the exotic Ford GT did not have an engine that was 100% designed for it and all parts exclusive to it? Ford designed the ecoboost with the duratec NA in mind and both are to share many components. That is the reality of the ecoboost whether you want to admit it or not. However long it took to design was not invested in just the ecoboost protion of the engine developement. If you truly believe that then you know less than I gave you credit for.
Yawn, what gas mileage does it get in the vehicle it is installed in? Is this the example of propaganda numbers you mention below?
It means nothing at this point. The reality is you are guessing and inferring hoping that what you have read in a forum or blog somewhere will add credit to the guesswork you lay down through this entire thread. That is the reality of it.
Again with assumptions. Do you base all your facts off of rumors? I highly doubt GM is trying to work on a volume production "replacement" for the V8. What they ARE doing and more than likely will do is further their current V8 technology through DI and enhanced combustion processes. There are more than enough official anouncements or working concepts to prove this. Guess what you want at this venture. The ecoboost might see its way into vehicles in say 2012 however it will not replace the V8 in most trucks. You can hypothesize untill you are blue in the face but this is not debatable- The ecoboost is not in any vehicle and you do not know exactly what it will be in or to what capacity.
Potential relese date on a possible turbo V6 from GM? Yes Lutz did in a press conference referring to Australians not getting a V8 CTS, he didn't explicitly imply when but said they are working on it which at this point is no less than where the "ecoboost" was about 6 months ago. Multivalve multi cam engines in the works? Yes of several different capacities. Try hanging out a little more at different forums and seeing all the announcements made from a variety of different sources. Just about everything I put out so far was released by some automotive media outlet and I have my own sources for verification.
The reality of the situation is you insist on thinking that your reality on a situation makes it more true than it is. This reality you speak of is no more than your insistance on a blind hatred of anything GM. It causes your reality to become jaded hence you miss alot of what I or someone else speak about or dance around something entirely. GM is well behind Ford on one thing at this venture, the Mustang is out the Camaro is not. That is all that I will conceed on and all that is a fact at this venture. GM still has cam in block OHV V8's that match what you are proposing this ecoboost will do to the Mustang. Even I can boost the mustangs MPG ratings a couple of MPG with the current V8 that is in it. It is nothing that spectacular that it will make the industry stand on its head and do an about face.
Obviously you have never towed anything that big then. 340 is not going to cut it. That's one of those instances where 400lb ft or more is needed, which at the current time is best achieved through diesels (another route GM is throwing massive redevelopement into) or big cube V8's. Unless something radical in technology is developed there is nothing out there that can be put to a V6, aside from a massive cubic inch infusion, to enable those feats. The 4.6L could tow what 6K maybe 7?
This is probably the funniest thing I think I have ever heard. A cookie is just a cookie but newtons are fruited cake. The ecoboost is this. An all new design (not new to the ecoboost solely though) Direct injected twin turbo V6. The engine has 6 cylinders in a V configuration. The pistons are likely shaped to help enhance the swirl effect of the DI and set up to an 8.5 to 9.0 Compression ratio. Moly coatings are more than likely used to reduce friction on the surfaces of the pistons. The combustion chamber is probably designed to aid in the swirling effect with maybe a little flame front science thrown in. DI is incorporated using high pressure to inject the gasoline directly into the cylinder which is needed as DI poses a problem with this at ALL RPM's and conditions if uncorrected. The port flow is based on the tried and true methods that have been employed for eons but maximized in as high a capacity as the limited current head design can deliver (hint), probably using flow data incorporated into the CAD models to try to maximize this huge downfall to most modern engines. The turbos are mounted in the exhaust path allowing the inlet side to spin and increase positive pressure. I have no clue on who the inside of the block looks but more than likely given the heat of a turbo application the coolant flow around the heads is sufficient and routed in a manner that there are no hot spot cylinders. The turbos are likely small diameter with boost ranging from around 7 to 15psi. The block was probably designed to be able to withstand around 450 hp moving internal webbign around to achieve this. The crankshaft is likely steel and rods forged with the pistons probably being hypereutectic given Forged pistons obvious lack of start up emissions (due to heat expansion properties etc)fesaibility on a supposedly emissions friendly powerplant. Now don't quote much as this is all on memory using no outside source but given what I just said it is safe to assume 90+% of this describes this ecoboost to a T right? Please explain how a turbo charged DI v6 (Ford's Ecoboost) is different from a DI TT V6. I want technical details here.
Because I know engine theory and advanved mechanics and there is nothing there that impresses me. I have seen what their engineers get to play with, and know that there is more than just one guy locked in a closet sitting around trying to figure out how things work. Three years to basically come up with your own design on and exhisting idea would be embarassing. Obviously you know more than me so please educate me on how technologically superior this ecoboost technology is to anything on the market? I dont want magic tricks, propaganda or "the reality is" I want a technical breakdown on how this engine is something groundbreaking and should cause the industry to spin on it's head?
Are you on Ford's ecoboost propaganda payroll? So a "Genuine high mileage V8 alternative" you guessed would give the mustang 27 MPG. Is that what you call high mileage? Wow my heavier GTO with a 400/400 V8 cam in block can best that with less than 500$ My Camaro did that stock with a 4 speed auto. That is not a "genuine high mileage V8 alternative" it is something a little better than what you have in stock now. 27 mpg is not drastic by any means especially when the cost of this plant will be more than more than the V8. So wouldn't that meant that the Mustang's price would be in the same position if not worse than the Camaro in that respect? Don't answer that I already know it is. Duck and dodge all you want the purpose of this thread and some of this debate is right there. I wish I could share your enthusiasm but the reality is this, the ecoboost is a TTDI-V6 that shares minimal differences than any other TT V6 save for the DI. If it is economical for Ford to implement then it is a help to Ford. Nothing more nothing less. I reiterrate it is not groundbreaking.
True and neither is the TTDIV6. Ford and Lexus has better hybrid V8 designs? Which? You have to be talking about V8 hybrid tech surely you are not going to bring up 4 cylinder and possibly 6 cylinder hybrid talk when other than a few outside references this entire thread is about V8's to begin with and the problem with CAFE whic most currently affects V8's. No it isn't a solution that only GM has access or has even tried however, GM at the current time is leading the industry in full size hybrid tech which by the way as I have stated many times over is more of a factor to CAFE than a 30 mpg car by far. I find it funny you laud BMW and Mercedes elsewhere yet here make mention that Toyota will be the likely front runner in this area. I find it funny in that both BMW and Mercedes chose GM hybrid technology OVER Toyota's. Both competed Toyota lost. Will GM continue to lead this who knows but unless someone comes up with something truly innovative GM is in as good a shape as anyone.
Where do you get this from? DI from the start improved HP and economy what it didn't do was help the emissions part or the complexity and cost benefit. Mitsubisi was the first to have a mainstream vehicle to be direct injected which improved both HP and fuel efficiency. It did the same in WWII fighters as well. The reality of this situation is you have no clue into this subject. You might think of it as a breakthrough because of your lack of insight or maybe actual automotive knowledge I don't know but you use alot of conjecture and alot of stuff that is obviously just though up out of your head. I'd be willing to bet you can't find one fact to support this last paragraph alone.
To be even more blunt you use alot more propaganda than I do. The only thing you have even mentioned that is actually on the ground is the Lexus. One off R&D piece? GM has DI in a V6 and 2 current 4 cylinders and now releases its test design along with a press release hinting to the switch to DI on all V8's and it has no production plausibility or driveability yet bank on something that as of right now is not even in a single vehicle or even the technology shared with it. Here as well is proof that you either don't pay attention to detail or don't care. When have I used a vette for any comparison? I have yet to mention much at all if anything about the vette as it has little to nothing to due with CAFE. It will be immune to it as far as GM is concerned and will make up for it with other cars so the vette is the farthest thing from my train of thought.
Please yourself. Ok so other than size 4.6L and v8 powered my bad. Until GM redoes that line it is in no way comparable to anything higher tech whatsoever.
OK Lasorda, so the same OLD 4.6 in the DTS is in the STS and it makes your lopsided arguement anymore valid? My escalade comparison is a much better case than this.
Yawn, you bore me. Identical numbers MPG numbers from the two. One a high tech wonder (so you say) one a brutish beast. How does that help CAFE any? An 8 speed, DI car vs a 6 speed non DI with identical numbers and a better flatter hp and tq curve that is much lower in the RPM band. Are we impressed yet? I'm not.
The real rebuttals you have and will still refuse to answer.
This isn't a secret. Thus far reaping the full potential of DI has proved a bit ellusive to say the least, particularly for naturally aspirated applications. As I stated earlier most DI applications represented a decent improvement on hp or mileage if only because the advantage was small enough that trying to improve both netted too little advantage in either respect. Take GM's 3.6L V6 for example. The switch to DI nets 40hp but no gain in hwy fuel economy and a small loss in city fuel economy. That's a whole lot of change to the fuel induction setup to get 40hp and lose some city mpg.
Google? lol funny I have yet to use a search to bolster anything. I don't need to. Everything I cite is from learned knowledge I could try to include snippets but given the conjecture you post up I have no need to. Like I said earlier let me use your sources I love reading and learning everything I can about engine technology. Nice dodge here but I caught it. The problems I cited are general DI knowledge. Not this certain situation you spoke of which would lend better to the ohc argument not here. That was the basis of my question now answer it. It had nothing to do whith some of the problems associated with DI generally but specifically in ohc vs ohv.
Nope they occur during the entire spectrum that is the problem. I want to know about this certain situation. Is it high load low rpm, high rpm low load etc what? Now you go to a hybrid injection system instead of a OHV. I haven't answered my question any more than you have because flatly you can't.
Wow I think I might cry. If this would amount to chest beating then you quite frankly don't have much of a chest to beat. I could learn alot on these forums but I learn more elsewhere and from many more than just this one. You just think that because you can put a structured sentence together dodge a few questions and slip in a bit of interjection you have somehow eeked a better argument based on facts? Not hardly.
GM could go a lot of different routes to manage the same thing Lexus has, but given what we know right now maintaining the typical pushrod route isn't likely one of them. There may prove to be a fix that allows the continuation of push-rods with no drawbacks but, if there is, we don't yet know what it is and that is a problem. Lexus has found a solution to this problem that any automaker who currently produces DOHC V8's can employ without having to completely revise their designs. Since the other routes GM could take more or less involve a different engine design altogether they aren't exactly a quick fix.
No it does not. Try again. Higher degree of control? Ok try again. 3 overhead valves is busy with one cam alone. Might that be a reason Mercedes switched to DOHC? Or might it be they are already into the OHC developement and it is cheaper to add the other cam than the complexity to add a further degree of valve timing in their application.
The antique Northstar and aurora are out and have been.
They may at that. And then again they may just copy it, they certainly can since their engine design is very similar to what Lexus employs already sans the DI. No question more than a few R&D departments are tearing down Lexus V8's top figure out how to implement what Lexus has accomplished. The point is that they can just copy it if they have to and without the need to seriously retool their existing/upcoming V8. We know that what Lexus has done is a serious solution to a serious issue and that it works on engines like Ford's V8. We cannot say the same about GM's smallblock since DOHC's have thus far always been a part of the DI solution.
As I stated initially. GM has no V8 alternative anywhere near ready to go and the ability of the small block to up the ante as significantly as designs like the new Lexus V8 is questionable at best. GM has some TDi V8's coming for pickups, but so does Ford with the reality being that, right now, Ford is ahead in the race for greater mpg in nearly all respects.
Ford has the Ecoboost V6 set to debut in the 2009 MKS with applications slated to run from F-Series, to Edge, to Flex and beyond. GM currently has no counterpart. Ford has the 4 cylinder Ecoboost set to debut within the same time frame. GM's existing turbo four is more akin to the existing Mazda MZR designs and wont be competitive with Ecoboost in terms of economy despite delivering less hp than does the Ford unit. GM has no apparent plans for a comparable low pressure turbo four anytime in the near future.
Currently Ford has an advantage here, no plainer way to state it.
I think I covered the last few already way up or in earlier posts. No plainer way to state it will not make it so. The reality here is No one has a definitive edge in reguards to CAFE right now and until then comes you can pray all you want but it wont make much of a difference in whay the are planning or doing at this point.[/quote]
I thought I would quote it again just to add some length to this post..... Good lord buddy you got enough rant going on? Go to some GM forums so you don't have to break your keyboard or put any of us to sleep. I'm sure you have some fantastic points but do you actually expect anyone to read this??
2/15/08, 12:54 PM
#50
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only the one that is involved really, it's an ongoing debate.
Staying on one forum tends to lead to only fanboy type information disemination usually. Good bad and the ugly is usually covered better under several different sources pro and con. Plus most GM boards don't need this diatribe because so much misinformation about GM is not used posted in a GM board.
Staying on one forum tends to lead to only fanboy type information disemination usually. Good bad and the ugly is usually covered better under several different sources pro and con. Plus most GM boards don't need this diatribe because so much misinformation about GM is not used posted in a GM board.
2/15/08, 01:32 PM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 11, 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only the one that is involved really, it's an ongoing debate.
Staying on one forum tends to lead to only fanboy type information disemination usually. Good bad and the ugly is usually covered better under several different sources pro and con. Plus most GM boards don't need this diatribe because so much misinformation about GM is not used posted in a GM board.
Staying on one forum tends to lead to only fanboy type information disemination usually. Good bad and the ugly is usually covered better under several different sources pro and con. Plus most GM boards don't need this diatribe because so much misinformation about GM is not used posted in a GM board.
2/15/08, 03:52 PM
#52
Needs to be more Astony
Are you on Ford's ecoboost propaganda payroll? So a "Genuine high mileage V8 alternative" you guessed would give the mustang 27 MPG. Is that what you call high mileage? Wow my heavier GTO with a 400/400 V8 cam in block can best that with less than 500$ My Camaro did that stock with a 4 speed auto.
The GTO is rated 25hwy and you can prob get higher then 27mpg no doubt there. but if the mustang is rated at 27 then i would expect real world to get aorund 30mpg. not to mention the 27 is based on 2008 guides and the 25 the GTO is rated is the old style.
2/16/08, 05:37 AM
#53
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, I'm saying I can raise my 25 rated (I can average roughly 27) to about a 27 rated (average 30) easily with about 500 dollars while keeping the same engine trans gears etc. My Z28 has gotten as high as 32 MPG actual even though it was rated much lower, however that was with some bolton's of course and responsible driving (wasn't me I swear it was my father 
). And his numbers are guesses as there is no ecoboost mustang yet as well.
). And his numbers are guesses as there is no ecoboost mustang yet as well.
2/16/08, 05:46 AM
#54
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a valid point lol. Typically though in my experience (I use to be a pontiac fanboy) the GM crowd tends to bash the Ford crowd far more. I remember about a year ago when GM was just starting to turn around and Ford was still digging their hole one site I was on fairly frequently there were like 5 threads on how Ford was in talks with Honda to be bought out (worst misinformation I've ever seen). Nonetheless not my intention to run you off in fact typically you have some excellent insights but good lord I think that might be the biggest rant post I have seen in some time hahahaha.
2/16/08, 05:56 PM
#55
My first 'real' job was with JCI several years ago and I spent the last couple years there helping engineers streamline products into production. (well Hell....what'da ya know) The reality is that the development of the part and the components necessary to make them most often take place at the same time for reasons which should be obvious to anybody employing a modicum of common sense. Not the least of these is that it would be utterly ridiculous to fully design the part and then go through the rigors of tooling for production since the latter frequently mandates changes in the very part your making.
Finishing touches on the tooling and adjustments to the production process are the final step here but these take a few months after the product is completed, not years. And even during that time engineers are making last minute adjustments to the part before production ramps up.
Even worse than the above you've seriously contradicted yourself. You earlier ranted that an engine can be developed in a year in direct response to my claim that GM cannot produce a V8 alternative comparable to the Ecoboost V6 without a few more years time at least effectively refuting my statement outright. Now you post the above developmental model under which GM couldn't possibly have an Ecoboost competitor ready to go within the next couple years....so which is it?
This is hilarious. Hopefully you are being sarcastic. It is not quantum physics. Far from it......took to design was not invested in just the ecoboost protion of the engine developement. If you truly believe that then you know less than I gave you credit for.
Yawn, what gas mileage does it get in the vehicle it is installed in? Is this the example of propaganda numbers you mention below?
It means nothing at this point. The reality is you are guessing and inferring hoping that what you have read in a forum or blog somewhere will add credit to the guesswork you lay down through this entire thread. That is the reality of it.
Again with assumptions. Do you base all your facts off of rumors? I highly doubt GM is trying to work on a.....in any vehicle and you do not know exactly what it will be in or to what capacity.
This is where I really love the Chevy fanbois breakdowns. Your problem isn't with the validity of Ford's claims, and for the benefit of the other forum members here please do remember to mention that the claims you are refuting are Ford's....I'm simply quoting them, you just don't like what they infer regarding the positioning of Ford and Chevy in the near future.
Potential relese date on a possible turbo V6 from GM? Yes Lutz did in a press conference.....a variety of different sources. Just about everything I put out so far was released by some automotive media outlet and I have my own sources for verification.
The reality of the situation is you insist on thinking that your reality on a situation makes it more true than it is..... mustangs MPG ratings a couple of MPG with the current V8 that is in it. It is nothing that spectacular that it will make the industry stand on its head and do an about face.
Obviously you have never towed anything that big then. 340 is not going to cut it. That's one of those instances where 400lb...... a V6, aside from a massive cubic inch infusion, to enable those feats. The 4.6L could tow what 6K maybe 7?
I 've got to admit that didn't even pay attention to your 10,000lb comment earlier, likely because it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I also re-read your earlier comment regarding the TF V6 not replacing V8's across the board, which is of course related to the 10,000lb comments. Again, exactly who were you arguing with? I've yet to see the first insinuation in this thread by anyone that the 3.5L GTDi V6 would be replacing anything outside of Fords existing small V8's. Could your arguments be any more random and pointless?
The 3.5L GTDi V6 will more than surpass what the 4.6L currently manages in the F150 and compares surprisingly well to the existing 5.4L. Will the 3.5L GTDi tow 10k lb? Given the minimum torque ratings we now have in hand we can say that it will likely get as close to managing the feat as either the 4.6L or existing 5.4L engines do. The reality is that the 3.5L is more than enough to tow what existing owners of 4.6l and 5.4L powered F150's generally tow. That would seem to be all that matters.
This is probably the funniest thing I think I have ever heard. A cookie is just a cookie but newtons are....... to a T right? Please explain how a turbo charged DI v6 (Ford's Ecoboost) is different from a DI TT V6. I want technical details here.
The BMW manages a very conservatively rated 300hp/300lb-ft tq from a 3.0L GTDi I6 in a car which weighs more than 500lb more than the Solstice GXP while the lighter Pontiac can only muster 28mpg epa highway despite making 40hp less and it's weight advantage. No amount of spin is going to change the fact that BMW's design works better, but the engines have similar specs so this shouldn't be according to you. You're the one who claims these engines aren't impressive, explain away the far more impressive performance of the BMW TT I6 since what the car actually does supports my argument. The numbers support me, what supports you? You tell all of us exactly why the BMW works so much better. This thread has been nothing but you copying and pasting from myriad websites followed by me explaining why all of the assumptions you draw from that info is flawed. Here's you chance, shows us that grasp on engine mechanics. After all, you are the engineering genius...it should be simple. I can't wait to hear what you ahve to say on this one.
It's worth stating at this point that your understanding of engines is elementary to be kind, and in no small part this is made apparent by how easily you think things can be explained away. The nuances differences that make one engine superior to another, especially from the factory, can be amazingly small. The difference could be a superior VVT system or even a superior engine management program. Or it could be a superior combination of minor spec changes which happen to work better together despite the relatively minor differences one design and another. It can take engineers reverse engineering a product months if not years to figure out what the competition did to make their similar design work so much better. It is obvious to everybody here with a modicum of experience with engines that, not only do you not know, you don't even know enough to understand just how little you know or how apparent your lack of knowledge is.
Are you on Ford's ecoboost propaganda payroll? So a "Genuine high mileage V8 alternative" you guessed wou......V6 save for the DI. If it is economical for Ford to implement then it is a help to Ford. Nothing more nothing less. I reiterrate it is not groundbreaking.
Where do you get this from? DI from the start improved HP and economy what it didn't do was help the......I don't know but you use alot of conjecture and alot of stuff that is obviously just though up out of your head. I'd be willing to bet you can't find one fact to support this last paragraph alone.
Yawn, you bore me. Identical numbers MPG numbers from the two. One a high tech wonder (so you say) one a brutish beast. How does that help CAFE any? An 8 speed, DI car vs a 6 speed non DI with identical numbers and a better flatter hp and tq curve that is much lower in the RPM band. Are we impressed yet? I'm not.
The G8 does make more torque, 24lb ft more but at 300rpm higher than the Lexus V8 does. Much lower in the rpm band? Stretching it just a bit aren't we? Here is a number you happily choose to ignore. The Lexus weighs about 500lb more than a G8 does give or take a few pounds. For reference the 2006 GTO weighed about 400lb and change more than a 2006 C6 Vette while utilizing the same engine and a nearly identical final drive ratio. EPA fuel economy ratings saw the Vette getting 3mpg better hwy fuel economy due to nothing more than a 400-500lb weight difference and a small aero advantage. But don't stop ignoring the issues, like weight differences, which don't suit your argument for the sake of accuracy now...your on a roll.
This is getting tiresome. When you can get a cohesive argument together, keep it that way for more than a paragraph, give up on trying to convince a slew of folks who know better that you know a lot more than you do, and give up on the idea of convincing the world of how superior GM is despite what the reality is you might have something offer.....I'm not holding my breath.
2/16/08, 06:53 PM
#56
2/17/08, 09:27 AM
#58
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think they design an engine only to prop it up on a shelf somewhere while they spend the next two years tooling up production facilities and deciding which vehicles to drop it into and why? If Detroit worked like this they would have all gone broke years ago. Forget engineering try any basic business class. That developmental model you posted might represent the most inefficient use of work in the history of the Western world.
My first 'real' job was with JCI several years ago and I spent the last couple years there helping engineers streamline products into production. (well Hell....what'da ya know) The reality is that the development of the part and the components necessary to make them most often take place at the same time for reasons which should be obvious to anybody employing a modicum of common sense. Not the least of these is that it would be utterly ridiculous to fully design the part and then go through the rigors of tooling for production since the latter frequently mandates changes in the very part your making.
My first 'real' job was with JCI several years ago and I spent the last couple years there helping engineers streamline products into production. (well Hell....what'da ya know) The reality is that the development of the part and the components necessary to make them most often take place at the same time for reasons which should be obvious to anybody employing a modicum of common sense. Not the least of these is that it would be utterly ridiculous to fully design the part and then go through the rigors of tooling for production since the latter frequently mandates changes in the very part your making.
So you spent time pushing barbie and ken Dolls Down the line and you think since you did a different product this way that they will do it the same? Ok I see your logic now. Who'd ya help Ford, Kia, DMC, must have been AMC. BS I'm going to pull a Jsaylor I don't believe you. I didn't read it on the internet so it can't be true, somebody other than me can actually prove a point on the intraweb.
Even worse than the above you've seriously contradicted yourself. You earlier ranted that an engine can be developed in a year in direct response to my claim that GM cannot produce a V8 alternative comparable to the Ecoboost V6 without a few more years time at least effectively refuting my statement outright. Now you post the above developmental model under which GM couldn't possibly have an Ecoboost competitor ready to go within the next couple years....so which is it?
Do you even know what you're saying or why you're saying it? You do realize that the new Duratec V6 upon which the Ecoboost is based will have been on the market for well over two years when the Ecoboost version debuts? And since the Lincoln MKR concept debuted with a running prototype of the upcoming Twinforce /Ecoboost engine under the hood we know that development of the TF/EB began before the 2007 NAIAS. If it only takes a year to develop an engine TF/EB would have been done before the first 2008MY car ever hit the showroom floor according to your logic. So just exactly what do you propose Ford has been doing with their time since the 3.5L Duratec debuted? Chiseling tooling for the Ecoboost out of stone or mulling over what cars to put it in while they sipped coffee in the break room?
Yes, because Ford's recent pre-production numbers, which these numbers represent for the Ecoboost, haven't been conservative. Oops, wait a second...they have. Nothing too difficult here since Ford spells out the situation clearly.....look at what you get now and add twenty percent and likely more. Although, I must say that the numbers you produced earlier for a GM DI engine mule which will never see the light of day were oh so much more useful. Is hypocrisy an ongoing problem for you?
Please feel free to dismiss what Ford themselves has released regarding their upcoming production engine at your discretion, but don't expect that to make anybody on this forum outside of Hollywood take you seriously.
Again we see you verging on the ridiculous only to eventually go completely over the edge. We know based on what Ford has released what the Ecoboost offers over the existing 4.6L V8 engine lineup within a more than reasonable standard of measure, and that is more than enough to tell us what we need to know for the purposes here. We can expect a 20% improvement over existing 4.6L applications and, given Ford's string of conservative estimates over the last few years, you can reasonably expect that number to be conservative as well. It isn't especially difficult to take those numbers and plug them into the existing 4.6L V8 powered Ford lineup.
This is where I really love the Chevy fanbois breakdowns. Your problem isn't with the validity of Ford's claims, and for the benefit of the other forum members here please do remember to mention that the claims you are refuting are Ford's....I'm simply quoting them, you just don't like what they infer regarding the positioning of Ford and Chevy in the near future.
Your posts have more misinformation than a Clinton campaign rally. "No more than Ecoboost was six months ago". We saw a running prototype of the Twinforce/Ecoboost engine lineup at the 2007 NYIAS, that was a bit more than a year ago now. Where is that running prototype of a GTDi version of the High feature V6 again? And last I heard the Ultra V8 was canceled meaning GM effectively has no future plans for an OHC V8 of any kind.
You talk about engineering theory and then discuss what you can do in your garage to improve the fuel economy Mustang. Four simple words cover it....total disconnect with reality. Also, since you made the claim, I'd love to see the production GM small-block which can manage a 27mpg highway or better epa rating in a 3500lb car. Last I knew a 3300lb Corvette couldn't manage that.
The disconnect from reality is the fact you know nothing about a vehicle except what someone tells you. Can you even do anything more than add gasoline to a car. You must be one of those that pay someone to do work because you think you are smarter and above. Ask anyone even here who has bolt on's that improve engine efficiency such as CAI's cat backs, headers, and a tune if they get better gas mileage and get back with me on that. Every engine from the factory is corked to reduce noise and esthetics. Tunes are always conservative. Increase the efficiency of the engine and that will make more difference in where a cam is located. Do some real research. I never said a production car of any type gets an EPA 27 MPG, either READ!!
What is your point here?
I 've got to admit that didn't even pay attention to your 10,000lb comment earlier, likely because it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I also re-read your earlier comment regarding the TF V6 not replacing V8's across the board, which is of course related to the 10,000lb comments. Again, exactly who were you arguing with? I've yet to see the first insinuation in this thread by anyone that the 3.5L GTDi V6 would be replacing anything outside of Fords existing small V8's. Could your arguments be any more random and pointless?
I 've got to admit that didn't even pay attention to your 10,000lb comment earlier, likely because it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I also re-read your earlier comment regarding the TF V6 not replacing V8's across the board, which is of course related to the 10,000lb comments. Again, exactly who were you arguing with? I've yet to see the first insinuation in this thread by anyone that the 3.5L GTDi V6 would be replacing anything outside of Fords existing small V8's. Could your arguments be any more random and pointless?
The 3.5L GTDi V6 will more than surpass what the 4.6L currently manages in the F150 and compares surprisingly well to the existing 5.4L. Will the 3.5L GTDi tow 10k lb? Given the minimum torque ratings we now have in hand we can say that it will likely get as close to managing the feat as either the 4.6L or existing 5.4L engines do. The reality is that the 3.5L is more than enough to tow what existing owners of 4.6l and 5.4L powered F150's generally tow. That would seem to be all that matters.
Here we go with the Google button again, you could have simply done a copy and paste and saved yourself a lot of time. And I'm frankly not sure why you want an explanation since we both know that you wouldn't understand it. Regardless, the 3.5L Ecoboost is simply a low pressure/twin scroll turbocharged, DI, V6 engine. For the sake of simplicity, let's use the BMW engine for this example since it exists in production already and since your admittedly unimpressed with it along with the Ford mill.
The BMW manages a very conservatively rated 300hp/300lb-ft tq from a 3.0L GTDi I6 in a car which weighs more than 500lb more than the Solstice GXP while the lighter Pontiac can only muster 28mpg epa highway despite making 40hp less and it's weight advantage. No amount of spin is going to change the fact that BMW's design works better, but the engines have similar specs so this shouldn't be according to you. You're the one who claims these engines aren't impressive, explain away the far more impressive performance of the BMW TT I6 since what the car actually does supports my argument. The numbers support me, what supports you? You tell all of us exactly why the BMW works so much better. This thread has been nothing but you copying and pasting from myriad websites followed by me explaining why all of the assumptions you draw from that info is flawed. Here's you chance, shows us that grasp on engine mechanics. After all, you are the engineering genius...it should be simple. I can't wait to hear what you ahve to say on this one.
It's worth stating at this point that your understanding of engines is elementary to be kind, and in no small part this is made apparent by how easily you think things can be explained away. The nuances differences that make one engine superior to another, especially from the factory, can be amazingly small. The difference could be a superior VVT system or even a superior engine management program. Or it could be a superior combination of minor spec changes which happen to work better together despite the relatively minor differences one design and another. It can take engineers reverse engineering a product months if not years to figure out what the competition did to make their similar design work so much better. It is obvious to everybody here with a modicum of experience with engines that, not only do you not know, you don't even know enough to understand just how little you know or how apparent your lack of knowledge is.
"Considering the torque-happy nature of supercharged motors, and the actual 500hp this car is making, the GTO would need to bring a decent bit more than 500hp to the party to even keep up with this car. More weight, similar hp, and weaker low end torque would hardly make the Goat a faster car. And right now a 500hp factory Goat is not even on the radar screen to begin with."
Sound familiar? I can prove more often than not you being wrong with your guesses. I don't guess, dodge, or use baseless comparisons. This is what happens whe I use the google button. I find you trolling GTO sites. Among others. I am on a few mustang sites and have yet to post trolling bits or start arguements on any.
Not two paragraphs ago you bragged about your grasp on engineering theory and engine dynamics and here you can't even grasp the simple concept of the difference between an epa rating and what you personally managed in fuel economy on the drive to Domino's. Are you beginning to grasp why there is a believability problem when it comes to your claims? Amazing
More Google search based arguments......sigh. Do you really think people can't tell? As for the DI issue, here's one for you. The Cadillac CTS uses both a DI and MPI version of the HF V6 engine. City fuel economy is actually worse in the DI model while highway fuel economy is the same. For that 1mpg drop in city fuel economy Caddy gives you a whopping 40 more hp and 20 more lb-ft of torque. Wow, I'm awestruck. If you tried to divide that thin advantage up between power and fuel economy it wouldn't be worth the effort required to put DI on in the first place. Good thing for you your not a betting man.
Use your advanced engineering skills to get a grasp on this one. Since the G8's final drive ratio is actually barely taller the 8-speed provides no advantage in hwy economy. (your keen engineering insight is of course telling you this already) The G8 makes less hp (you might do well to note that with hp you actually want the peak to be at a higher rpm so a lower, flatter hp curve isn't exactly brag-worthy, but again your engineering prowess certainly meant you already knew this and your comment was simply a 'slip of the thumb')
More Google search based arguments......sigh. Do you really think people can't tell? As for the DI issue, here's one for you. The Cadillac CTS uses both a DI and MPI version of the HF V6 engine. City fuel economy is actually worse in the DI model while highway fuel economy is the same. For that 1mpg drop in city fuel economy Caddy gives you a whopping 40 more hp and 20 more lb-ft of torque. Wow, I'm awestruck. If you tried to divide that thin advantage up between power and fuel economy it wouldn't be worth the effort required to put DI on in the first place. Good thing for you your not a betting man.
Use your advanced engineering skills to get a grasp on this one. Since the G8's final drive ratio is actually barely taller the 8-speed provides no advantage in hwy economy. (your keen engineering insight is of course telling you this already) The G8 makes less hp (you might do well to note that with hp you actually want the peak to be at a higher rpm so a lower, flatter hp curve isn't exactly brag-worthy, but again your engineering prowess certainly meant you already knew this and your comment was simply a 'slip of the thumb')
The G8 does make more torque, 24lb ft more but at 300rpm higher than the Lexus V8 does. Much lower in the rpm band? Stretching it just a bit aren't we? Here is a number you happily choose to ignore. The Lexus weighs about 500lb more than a G8 does give or take a few pounds. For reference the 2006 GTO weighed about 400lb and change more than a 2006 C6 Vette while utilizing the same engine and a nearly identical final drive ratio. EPA fuel economy ratings saw the Vette getting 3mpg better hwy fuel economy due to nothing more than a 400-500lb weight difference and a small aero advantage. But don't stop ignoring the issues, like weight differences, which don't suit your argument for the sake of accuracy now...your on a roll.
This is getting tiresome. When you can get a cohesive argument together, keep it that way for more than a paragraph, give up on trying to convince a slew of folks who know better that you know a lot more than you do, and give up on the idea of convincing the world of how superior GM is despite what the reality is you might have something offer.....I'm not holding my breath.
This is getting tiresome. When you can get a cohesive argument together, keep it that way for more than a paragraph, give up on trying to convince a slew of folks who know better that you know a lot more than you do, and give up on the idea of convincing the world of how superior GM is despite what the reality is you might have something offer.....I'm not holding my breath.
. Everything you post is a "copy paste" from some site. I'm through with you. All you want to do is argue even on other sites. Several sights I don't know for sure they are you ( the guitar arguement) but given the post do the same as this one I'll bet that Jsaylor is probably you. Your points were dried up along time ago. Want some real technology database info? Try sema's site and search or use database sharing section (you helped engineers you do have access to their CAD sharing section right? You can pull up Ford GM Scion current CAD patents and those currently in application for). They also have many links to follow (you should be good at that). Another great one you should check out is Motor Age (great magazine) you will find lots of real world tech info. Good day Good night That's all Folks. We have nothing more to discuss.
