not good for our favorite car

[Alan S.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

A dealer in Baltimore is giving 500 shares of GM stock as part of the 'incentive' to buy a new Caddy.
Regards,
Alan

[Mike M.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

lets hope the $2500 worth of GM stock doesn't depreciate as quickly as the new Caddy will. time will tell.

[Clem Z.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

That "buzzing" is the second order unbalanced vertical shaking force acoustically resonating with the body cavity, but it doesn't happen with four-cylinders equipped with balance shafts.

Above idle speed a balance shaft four should feel nearly as smooth as an inline six or cruciform crank V-8 because all primary and secondary forces and couples are balanced in all the these configurations.

Balance shaft fours are an excellent configuration for everyday cars and trucks, but they just don't cut the mustard in a premium, world class sports car.

The first balance shaft four I ever experienced was a Porsche 944. It betrayed its four cylinders at idle, but above idle it was as smooth as silk. Nevertheless, Porschephiles didn't consider the 944 or any other post-356 Porsche will less than six cylinders to be a "real Porsche", and I think the same can be said of Corvettephiles when it comes to less than eight cylinders - with an exception for the '53 to '55 model years.

GM could stick a "Corvette" badge on a Solstace, but long time Corvette fans would not consider it a "real Corvette" just as the Porsche 944 was not considered by to be a "real Porsche", which is why it was dropped from the lineup.

Personally, I feel that if GM decides the C7 will have a four cylinder engine, they should NOT call it a Corvette - just drop the name and leave us with the legacy and all the vintage models.

Duke

hold on duke the FIRST corvettes were 6 cylinders so it would not be going away from tradition.

[Joe L.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

hold on duke the FIRST corvettes were 6 cylinders so it would not be going away from tradition.

clem----


Yes......."back to the future"! It's happened before with a lot of other things. Why not Corvette?

[Martin T.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Ken (Barry), We are really in a bad position. The Muslims want to kill us all (gaining majority vote through mindless reproduction); the car companies won't retool and now may not be able to; Obama wants to give everything to the poor (only problem is we may all be poor soon); those who own the Federal Reserve want to see an economic crisis to enable themselves the ability to further control the world while reducing the population to one billion people; the Mayan calendar says the end of the world will occur December 21, 2012; Chevrolet won't release the C-7. The sad thing is we may be getting so concerned about our own personal matters here in the U.S. lets hope we don't forget about our soldiers and the dangers they face on a daily basis for the good of us here.

[John M.]

Re: not good for our favorite car

Thirty years ago Prof. Charles F. Taylor, retired head of the MIT Sloan Automotive Labs and author of the two volume 1300+ page tome, "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice," which is still the "bible", chided Detroit for saddling us with four-cylinder cars.

Taylor stated that small V-8 engines could deliver similar fuel economy to similar sized four-cylinders.

The move to fewer cylinders then and now is as much about cost as it is about fuel economy.

The V-8 configuration "packages" very well in most cars, is very smooth, and it is even more space efficient in pushrod form. Scaling the current LS-series down to a displacement range or 3-4 liters would considerably reduce volume and mass. The lighter weight valvetrain would be good for 7500-8000 revs with OE durability, and net output could be as high as 100 HP per liter.

I think current technology could yield a 2700 pound Corvette with a 4 liter V-8 (bore and stroke of about 3.38" in a "square" configuration) of at least 350 net HP without driving cost through the roof with expensive light weight materials, and such a configuration could achieve EPA fuel economy ratings of 20+/30+ city/highway driving, which is about what a current four-cylinder mid sized sedan can do.

There is a vehicle system engineering rule of thumb that goes something like this: For every unit of engine mass reduction, vehicle mass can be reduced by a proportional amount via lighter structure, suspension, and drivetrain. I don't remember what the exact amount is, but I think it's something between one and two, so a 150 pound reduction in engine mass means you can reduce vehiclestructure/suspension/drivetrain by up to 300 pounds for a total savings of 450 pounds, which gets you from the current 3200 to 2750. As design/analysis technology improves, "factors of safety", which are required to cover unknowns may be lowered, which yields lower mass parts. Also, current lightweight materials may come down in price in the next decade, which can add to mass reduction throughout the vehicle.

I agree completely - I don't think the V8 is dead at all. The efficiency problem with the Corvette is mostly for city mileage - all of us with modern Corvettes are used to getting in the high 20s/low 30s on the highway. Reducing engine size back to 350 or 327 cubic inches will yield some gains, but I see more returns from direct injection and engine stop/start.