pbender Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 I know there are big cars with V8s and FWD... I'd never own one though. It just makes sense to me that engines that long should be turned the correct way... That depnds on what your definition of "turned the correct way" is One definition I suppose is easy to get to all the cylinders, but I don't think that's the right definition. Those old Caddies fit this defintion with thier longitudinal mounted engines. A transverse mounted engine actually is in many ways more efficient, even for a rear wheel drive car. The main efficiency gain is from mounting the motor so that it spins in the same direction as the wheels do. This leads to fewer drivetrain components, and therefore fewer parts adding friction to the system, and fewer parts that could break. Of course, this also leads to having either rear engined RWD cars, or FWD cars. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matts93z34 Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 I would just like to let you guys know that i am the one with ASG 5.0 motor in my z34. I have talked to Adam the person in charge of ASG and he said that all tooling on the 5.0 motor has stoped due to lack of sales. So finding this motor would be exteremly hard to do. This motor as stated earler is a re-built 4.9L out of the 91-95 Deville/Fleetwood. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted June 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 my uncle had one of those old Toronados...a 67 model I think...the one with the hide-away headlights and that fastback roof...he took me for a ride once(before I had my license) and my god that thing would fly (then again, young men are easily impressed),,,at any rate, I liked the set-up that was in my Intrepid...longitudinal engine and tranny w/ the differential sharing the torque converter housing casting...the tranny is actually a "U"drive arrangement with a primary chain and gears...altogether in a single unit...very good packaging that offered good weight balance as well as ease of maintnence on the engine itself...I was always fascinated by the concept of transplanting the whole cradle to the rear, thereby creating an instant mid-engine car...the Chrysler Prowler used the "LH" car driveline components by just moving the entire transaxle to the rear of the car (the torque converter staying up front with the engine)...but whichever way the engine sits doesnt change the fact that cars like the Aurora and the Caddy STS are pretty stout performers considering the weight they are hauling around...and they still have that unmistakeable V8 growl...I've even told qiute a few guys I work with (who are Harley owners) that if Honda would add 2 more cylinders to the GoldWing/Valkyrie (even if displacement stayed the same) the bike would sell big on its sound alone (which is why so many people buy Harleys)...for pity sake, look at howmany horsepower and noise crazies buy the BossHoss motorcycle (even tho it barely fits that classification)...why? cuz it looks and sounds mean as hell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THe_DeTAiL3R Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 I understand how a transverse mounted engine, as in most cars these days, is more efficient. It only makes sense. Longitudinal mounted FWD is just plain bewildering design in my mind.. everything is lined up to go to the back wheels why cram it all in the front I just find that looking at any V8 RWD car, have it be a 302 or a 426Hemi (which take up quite a bit of room) its just way easier to work on those things. With a V6 such as in mid 80s Fox body.. hell, with a 3.8 theres still almost room to climb in the bay and work. I have nothing against FWD cars in general.. we've been forced to buy them, they are just as reliable for the most part, and they are GREAT in snow. But when it comes to a V8, I just think thats where they should draw the line and make it longitudinal/RWD because it is a practical design which is easiest and cheapest to work on and maintain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutlessSupreme Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 I understand how a transverse mounted engine, as in most cars these days, is more efficient. It only makes sense. Longitudinal mounted FWD is just plain bewildering design in my mind.. everything is lined up to go to the back wheels why cram it all in the front Chrysler LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, 300M, LHS, and the other one under Eagle) all had Longitudinal mounted V6s and they're all FWD.. the amount of drivetrain powerloss those cars have is dumbfounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gp90se Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Chrysler LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, 300M, LHS, and the other one under Eagle) all had Longitudinal mounted V6s and they're all FWD.. the amount of drivetrain powerloss those cars have is dumbfounding. your avarage FWD GM vehical looses 20-25% thru the tranny, a FWD longitudnal mopar motor is a 45+% loss, but yet, still have 1 of the worst tranny failor rates of all time. -Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 I understand how a transverse mounted engine, as in most cars these days, is more efficient. It only makes sense. Longitudinal mounted FWD is just plain bewildering design in my mind.. everything is lined up to go to the back wheels why cram it all in the front I thought this was relevant to the new discussion going here. http://www.members.aol.com/platjblser/images/fwd.jpg From one of my auto books(a manual transmission/transaxle book to be exact, had that class spring 1/4 @ school.now for the fun part this summer 1/4 starting July..rebuilding auto trannies and tranaxles 8) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted June 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 thats a surprising figure on how much power loss there is on the mopar tranny...its a very similar design setup as exotic mid-engine cars use (although most of those are manuals)...but the sequential shift autos are becoming more and more popular even in those high end cars...it wouldnt surprise me if the chrysler ME412 supercar concept doesnt have a similar set up....anyways, all this other discussion aside, I hope GM does go the route of offering a small displacement V8 in the "W" platform...the Europeans have proved for years that you can make an engine much more efficent by having more cylinders per your displacement...i.e. a small V8 being more efficent than a big V6...look at the Jaguar and Aston Martin V12s...I dont think any of them are over 6 liters...as a matter of fact I think the Jag is under 5.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett8 Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 i think the V12 vanquish is like 6.3 or 6.4 i maybe wrong though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tru2Chevy Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 I have heard more recently rumors about a 5.3L LS1-derived engine being available in the Grand Prix for 05, but I don't know if that's true or not. I believe it was on the GM Inside News forums, but they are allegedly planning a 5.3L version of the LS1 (to be called the LS4) for at least the Monte SS and Impalla SS. - Justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95 BLKDOUT Drop Top Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 I didnt kno the asg kit was out of production. oh well so much for that plan. dont the new buick park ave come with a transverse V8? and so does the Olds Aurora. I like the idea of power in a family sedan package but honestly i think v8s should stick to rear wheel drive, but then again the Aurora V8 is a 4.0, the chevy blazer has had a 4.3 V6 standard in it for a decade. that seems wierd to me because why would you make a whole new small displacement V8 when u could use the blazer motor out of the parts bin to save cash? What are the power numbers of the Aurora motor and the Blazer motor? Is it posible to transplant an Aurora motor/tranny assembly into any W car? Oh and to the person talkin about the Fox-body mustang: :verymad: :guns: to hell with FORD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 No, Aurora 4.0L has exact same dimensions as a Northstar, it's basically the same engine with smaller bore. It won't fit a first gen W-body, but it could fit a gen 2... but why bother, Northstar has more power! They couldn't use the 4.3L out of a Blazer because RWD and FWD have different tranny bolt patterns. ANY V8 they adapt to a FWD platform will be an all new engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbender Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 ANY V8 they adapt to a FWD platform will be an all new engine. Or force a new bellhousing for the transaxle, which I would think might be less work, provided it doesn't require redesigning the whole tranaxle. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutlassdude96 Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/gmpow/l47.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/northstar/apps/l37.htm ...yeah baby! now thats what I'm talkin about...this would be badazz and make my Bat Thunder for sure...even if it were stone stock!...a couple of little mods and she be screamin!...not to mention soundin mean and nasty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 hey shawn,...do you happen to know if the Aurora 4.0 has all the same engine control systems as the NorthStar? i.e. cylinder fuel shutoff, overheat prevention, limp home mode, etc...or is are all those features part of the "NorthStar System"...basically, is the 4.0 using electronics closer to what our cars are already using?...or more to the point would be is the 4.0 a more easily adaptable engine setup to our chassis?...I realize mechanically (mounts and such) are the same as the 4.6, but would that cause more headaches in other areas? (tach, guages, sensors and the like) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 I don't know, I never researched them so I'm clueless. IF the 4.0L engine electronics is less complicated, you should be able to use it on the 4.6L engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2004 I'm so far away from actually doing anything of this like this is all kind of a moot point. On the other hand, gathering info on something never hurt and I would like to be able to have the engine built and ready for the car by the time my 3.8 expires (so I should have plenty of time)...maybe I'll get lucky and GM will move forward with this 5.3 LS4 and I'll be able to get one of those from a salvage yard by then...whichever route I wind up taking a V8 powered GP will make a cool cruiser and showcar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutlassdude96 Posted July 3, 2004 Report Share Posted July 3, 2004 hey shawn,...do you happen to know if the Aurora 4.0 has all the same engine control systems as the NorthStar? i.e. cylinder fuel shutoff, overheat prevention, limp home mode, etc...or is are all those features part of the "NorthStar System"...basically, is the 4.0 using electronics closer to what our cars are already using?...or more to the point would be is the 4.0 a more easily adaptable engine setup to our chassis?...I realize mechanically (mounts and such) are the same as the 4.6, but would that cause more headaches in other areas? (tach, guages, sensors and the like) it does Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 a guy over on the Grand prix board says theres a shop in New Hampshire thats converting an 04 GTP to LS1, 6spd and RWD...could be interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THe_DeTAiL3R Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 a guy over on the Grand prix board says theres a shop in New Hampshire thats converting an 04 GTP to LS1, 6spd and RWD...could be interesting... Wow someone has money coming out of their ass... :? It really should be done to a first gen of some sort.. maybe a GP SE with the gutlass 2.8, or a Z34 with a blown 3.4... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
god910 Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 I can tell you that if I was going to fuck up a perfectly good brand new car, I wouldn't put a tiny ass LS1 in it. I'd have to make it worth my time. BTW, tell them to send that engine and tranny to ME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 I'm betting you'll be able to find the old engine and tranny on ebay...that seems to be the custom car builders new salvage yard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 just read on one the other boards i post on that Gm is green lighting the LS4 for 2005...this info was posted by a GM employee i think but I'm not sure...he may work at a dealer because he stated that they were already recieving specs and service bulletins about this new engine/drivetrain setup. He also said that it wont be available for the fall release but should be in production by first of the year...he said he believed the hp/torque figures were 285-295/300...I would assume that GM is moving forward quickly on this setup to be able to offer it in the Impala police package since Chrysler is offering a police version of the new 300 armed with the 340hp Hemi...I also think they want a V8 engine in the MonteSS to make it more appealing to the NASCAR crowd...I say bring it on baby!...the sooner it goes to production in a "W"...the sooner one will wind up in the salvage yard...ripe for the plucking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBat Posted July 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 maybe an LS4 in one of these...(see sig pic)...boy this oughta get a reaction!...like, WTF??!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.