Name a better eight cylinder engine >oh wait you cant

File: 440 magnum.jpg (18KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x240px

>>16510029
okay

>>16510035
>Chrysler
KEK

>>16510044
okay

>>16510029
>chebby 305

Bastard revved to the moon

>>16510029
The modern coyote motor is better than this particular motor and any arguments otherwise are going to appeal to tradition.

File: ebay1011480.jpg (133KB, 1066x800px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1066x800px

>>16510029
That's not a DZ302.
In comparison, the Ford 302 did make more peak power, but it had a retarded intake manifold that made them very peaky. That peakyness made it extremely hard to keep in the powerband while racing. Thsi explains why it lost 2 years straight to Chevy's 302 in Trans Am racing.

>>16510060
*302.
The 305 can't rev for shit.

Buick 215

File: a8dc53229186edc77101f49398b4629e.jpg (92KB, 736x588px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 736x588px

>>16510060
>>16510084

An OHV engine from the stone-age era of automotive technology really rev that hng? or was it high for an OHV? 50s 60s and 70s engines are new grounds for me.

>>16510098
>302
My autism kicked in for a second. Was thinking about the truck motor for some reason
>>16510084

Chevy 302 used in the first camaro rs was specifically built for trans am racing. Revved to the moon. You can swap a 350 with a 283 stroker or something like that and have a 302 rev to 8500.

Can anyone correct me if im wrong with the 350 and 283 stroker and rods?

>>16510115
you're correct on the 350 block and 283 crank.
Early 302s in the Camaro Z28 were built using 327 blocks though.
What you need for a Chevy 302 is a 4 inch bore (so a 350 or 327 block will do), and a 3 inch stroke crankshaft, so a 283 crankshaft in the gen 1 SBCs, and a 265/L99 in the gen 2 LT series.

>>16510098
The Chevy SBC 302 was a homologation special for Trans Am racing. Big bore, short stroke. It was ONLY available in 1967-1969 Camaro Z28's. The 302 Z28s were actually faster than the Camaro SS's of the time that came with 350's.
The DZ302 as it's known was well known for revving to 7k stock. They were rated at 290 HP in street form, though dyno tests by Hot Rod magazine show the output of road cars was closer to 360 HP. Race spec Trans Am Z28s made over 450 HP. The 302 is fondly remembered as THE highest revving of all the Chevy small blocks. 8500 RPM is not unheard of. Those fuckers will scream.

>>16510138
BTW, the reason to homologate the 302 for racing was that the Trans Am race series had a 305 cubic inch displacement limit. The series continued well into the 1970s, but the rules were changed in 1970 regarding the homologation models. The street models could use a larger engine provided the race car used a destroked version 5.0L variant.
So 1970+ second gen Z28's got a 350 and the Challenger T/A's got a 340.

File: images (4).jpg (25KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 470x313px

>>16510029
351 Cleveland

>>16510035
This.

File: hot-rods-427-cammer-build.jpg (484KB, 2048x1340px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 2048x1340px

cammer

>>16510223
nah lol

File: lsjuan.jpg (1MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2848px

just your regular sbc 350 passing by

dont mind my unmatched reliability, aftermarket or adaptability, i love boost, long highway pulls and sip fuel

>>16510234
LS=/=SBC

File: 1383108112808.jpg (40KB, 650x440px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 650x440px

>>16510239
It's a small block and it's made by chebby, same thing

>>16510240
truly this, it revolutionized the industry and popularized the V8, even today they can still make power.

File: hrdp-9808-01-o+the-LS1-engine+cutout.jpg (560KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1600x1200px

>>16510239
retard
>>16510244
yes

>>16510245
with a shit tonne of work
>efi
>ohv conversion
>barely pushes 300rwhp
https://youtu.be/HGkkck1WBso
its good for a incredibly old engine but a stock ls craps over it

>>16510138
>>16510163
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ZiUsz9MFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0P9AZ_fG9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJu2nEAtPeE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EV9f76i0OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EV9f76i0OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeps18chvC0

DZ302 is glorious.

>>16510255
Different firing order, not an SBC

this is pretty impressive i dunno why everyone shits on the n/a ls especially these junkyard ones

https://youtu.be/qRtgUuYFX0M
>>16510263
>500 replies later
next thing your gonna say is that it copied the ford 35x

>>16510268
>>500 replies later
>next thing your gonna say is that it copied the ford 35x
The LS based GM small-block engine is the primary V-8 used in General Motors' line of rear-wheel-drive cars and trucks. Introduced in January 1995, it is a "clean sheet" design with only rod bearings and bore spacing in common with the longstanding Chevrolet small block V8 that preceded it as the basis for GM small-block V8s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_based_GM_small-block_engine

Not the same engine, right from the horse's mouth.

File: modp_1003_09_o+1991_nissan_240sx+2000_chevrolet_ls1.jpg (459KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1600x1200px

Just gonna post ls because carbie retards and ford babbies cant handle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsmbbuSq9m0
>>16510271
>mfw the ls is 22 years old this month
happy bday ls! Your the most swapped engine in the world and we love you, dont listen to the autistic benchracers on here.

>>16510268
REMINDER

THE LS IS 100% FROM TOP TO BOTTOM A FORD ENGINE.
1. FORD FIRING ORDER.
2. FORD OILING SYSTEM.
3. FORD CROSS BOLT MAINS.
4. FORD COOLING SYSTEMS.
5. FORD 10 BOLT HEAD PATTERN.
6.FORD CENTERED THRUST BEARING.
7. FORD SYMMETRICAL INTAKE AND EXHAUST PORTS COMBINED WITH FORD 427 HIGH RISER PORTS.
8. SODIUM FILLED V ALVES (FORD RACE VALVE).
9. BEEHIVE VALVE SPRINGS (FORD COSWORTH).
10. FORD ANGLED PLUG.
THE LS BLOCK IS A COPY OF THE 351W WITH THICKER WEBBING.

>>16510276
>ls is 22 years old this month

When is it's Birthday?

File: posercrap.jpg (2MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5184x3456px

Why does pic related attract so many boomers and bogan redneck retards? Most of them actually lose hp just for cosmetics over regular efi hahha

>>16510277
hahah thank you i miss that pasta

Ironic how it took GM to fix fords design to make it good.
>>16510281
no concrete date but wiki says around 1995 it started as a clean sheet design and was first put in the 1997 Vette so its a 22 year old design released 20 years ago

>>16510285
Aesthetics

File: Mercedes M-25.jpg (151KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 700x400px

>no straight 8 yet
Mercedes M-25, pushing the Mercedes W-125 to a topspeed over 320km/h (200mph+) in 1934.
Generating 570Ps from 5,66L featuring DOHC, dry sump oil system an a roots blower.
Overall weight of the W 125 beeing 744kg.

>>16510289
Doesnt look aesthetic to me but i grew up with 80's and 90's efi so i dont put carborated crap up on a mantle like some oldfags

>>16510276
>Your the most swapped engine in the world and we love you, dont listen to the autistic benchracers on here.
Nobody cares, this argument is about whether it's a true SBC or not and it's not.

>>16510312
dem balance issues
they could have got more power by going with a new design

File: dsc_0056.jpg (248KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1600x1063px

>>16510414
There weren't balance issues, it was a smooth running engine until you pushed it hard.
Rebuilt bonneville straight 8s have been known to run to like 7k, even then they're built for low range torque.

>>16510245
flatheads are rubbish
olds and the ohv rocket were what changed everything

>>16510440
oops I was thinking of the w125

>>16510380
>Nobody cares, this argument is about whether it's a true SBC or not and it's not.
i dont care, apples and oranges

File: M_273__E_500_5.5__Motor_Solo.jpg (41KB, 421x355px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 421x355px

>>16510029
This one

>>16510474
>olds and the ohv rocket were what changed everything
Nowhere near as much as the flattie.

File: S62.jpg (176KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1024x768px

out of the V8 cars i have actually driven, this one

3UZ-FE

302s arent even good

File: buick-1952-super-rivera-1950-roadmaster-fireball-8-engine.jpg (557KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1200x1600px

>>16510029

u got it familam

File: street-hemi.jpg (70KB, 792x489px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 792x489px

>>16510044
>he doesn't realize that Chrysler was tops in the 60s

File: GRCW567TE7BN7FN4BYANPANAVBY6YIT4.jpg (23KB, 500x424px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x424px

>>16511118
Imagine a 5.2 liter DOHC straight 8 with cross-flow heads and non-siamese ports and MPI.


>>16511179
Chrysler, the conservative car company was the only one innovating in the mid 50's to late 60's.

File: IMG_20160303_141737706.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>16510029
Millions made, and still being made to this day for a reason.


>he doesn't have a 350

>>16511194
>Chrysler, the conservative car company was the only one innovating in the mid 50's to late 60's.


GM and Ford btfo Chrysler when it came to delevopment in that period

File: 1458777830971.jpg (111KB, 851x623px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 851x623px

>>16511777
>still being made to this day

>>16510258
300hp is a lot

>>16510029
>iron
>limited horsepower
>weak block
>limited modern aftermarket

Outperformed by the Windsor as the lightest most compact small block, outperformed in power by any modern LS or 3rd gen ''Hemi''.

>>16510223
>pigfat
>10 foot timing chain
That thing was so bad Ford never even homologated it for Nascar, delegated it to dragracing, and even there it eventually lost out to the 2nd gen Hemi.

>>16510239
Strictly speaking, the LS is the 3rd generationSBC, although the LS1 is 345ci, not a true 350.

>>16511194
Better still, imagine a Roots-blown 2.0 DOHC straight eight made out of two superbike engines - and put it in a Type 35.

>>16511804
None of them beat the Hemi, Mopar ruled both strip and Nascar. With the kind of budget Chrysler had compared to the other two, they pulled off a lot of development.

>>16510098
The DZ302, Boss 302 and Mopar 304 all had about a 4''bore and a 3'' strokeon pretty low deck blocks, so they had low piston speeds, and pretty short pushrods. Short pushrods means less valvetrain inertia, and combined with a host of other tricks, those things could run 8000+RPM in 1970. That's high for any V8 nowadays, nevermind for 1970.

When Ford tells you they need a flat plane crank to get the Modular up to 8250RPM - you should start doubting some of their modern engineering. For an even funnier story, Honda made a 4v pushrod motorcycle (CX500) that could make 9500RPM - in 1978. You'd think a 2016 Voodoo would go well over 10K RPM, but somehow, the Big Three disappoint all of us.

VORTEC LQ9

>best anything
>carburetor
boomers get out

>>16512002
>I'm incapable of EFI swaps: the post

>>16511969
uhh what Ford dominated NASCAR in the 60s and the Cammer killed Hemis

>>16512019
The Cammer was banned before it saw a racetrack tard.

>>16512027
no it wasnt you fucktard

it was used in the NHRA (and kicked the Hemi ass)

Boss 429 was their NASCAR engine (and it kicked Hemi ass)

>>16512009
if it was the best it wouldn't need any changes

>>16511926
It's true.

>>16510029
I literally cant.

Op was not a faggot today

>>16512019
427 did for a few years but was clearly outstripped by the Hemi - hence the development of the Cammer.

And then Ford saw that the Cammer was bad - heavy as balls. Somehow, a OHC iron big block isn't good for taking corners, even in NASCAR, at 150+ MPH. The three foot timing chain certainly wouldn't have helped reliability. Later, Ford practically gave the engines away to dragracers, and they have to adcance one cam as to compensate for the timing chain stretch in the bastard. They cost about 2000 dollars back in the day - which could have gotten you a nice new car.

Want more evidence that the Cammer was bad? They never even used it in the GT40.

>>16512027
[citation needed]
Ford could have homologated it, like they did with the Boss 429 - yes, even by having Kar Kraft install 500 into heavily, heavily modified Mustangs, and then running it in the Torino Talladega. Even with that retarded homologation process, they could have homologated the Cammer, but they didn't, and for good reason - see above.

Also, funny how Ford basically threw NotHemi (TM) heads on the new 385, desperately called them Crescent/Shotgun, and then got the port sizes all wrong (like they did with Boss 302) which removed a lot of performance.

>>16512038
Hemi kicked Cammer ass in dragracing. do you see any Cammers on Top Fuel events nowadays? Me neither.

Between 1964 and 1972, Mopar won 6 NASCAR championships, Ford won 3. The Boss 429 only won 1 season (1969), and then got outpaced by the Hemi again.

>>16512038
Cammer was not good at nhra top fuel. The heads couldn't take the heat and there were too many curves in the intake port to make power at the highest level. Read the take 5 interview on hot rod magazine from November of 16. It's got a fantastic interview with the man who raced and developed them in top fuel in the era

>>16511954
>302 outperformed by the windsor
>302 outperformed by itself

>>16512115
As a Ford guy, the dz302 is a badass engine

>>16512115
302 Boss, not 302 Windsor. The SBF family is confusing. Basically, the Boss was a Windsor with Cleveland heads (there's more to it), and that made it a lot wider since the Cleveland heads have splayed valves.

>>16512097
>got the port sizes all wrong
>was being strangled to death by a single holley 735 cfm carburetor

>>16512097
>[citation needed]
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2014/08/21/cammer-the-real-story-of-the-legendary-ford-427-sohc-v8/
The Cammer was designed for NASCAR, who banned it before it ever saw a track.
>The first public mention of the Cammer V8 appeared in the Daytona Beach Morning Journal on Feb. 23, 1964. Beaten up at Daytona all month by the new 426 Hemi engines from the Dodge/Plymouth camp, Ford officials asked NASCAR to approve an overhead-cam V8 the company had in the works. But as the Journal reports here, NASCAR boss Bill France turned thumbs down on Ford’s proposed engine. France regarded overhead cams and such to be European exotica, a poor fit with his down-home vision for Grand National stock car racing.

>>16510029
M156 family

>>16512097
Mopar did not do that well in NASCAR

NASCAR manufacturer champions of the 60s

1960-61: Chevy
1962: Pontiac
1963-1969: Ford

Dodge won 1970 and 1971

>Cammers on Top Fuel events nowadays? Me neither.

retard logic

Cammers kicked the Hemis ass in funny cars
>>16512111
yet Cammers dominated the funny car scene and did well in stockers

>>16512097
>[citation needed]
"The first public mention of the Cammer V8 appeared in the Daytona Beach Morning Journal on Feb. 23, 1964. Beaten up at Daytona all month by the new 426 Hemi engines from the Dodge/Plymouth camp, Ford officials asked NASCAR to approve an overhead-cam V8 the company had in the works. But as the Journal reports here, NASCAR boss Bill France turned thumbs down on Ford’s proposed engine. France regarded overhead cams and such to be European exotica, a poor fit with his down-home vision for Grand National stock car racing."

From here. Includes pic of the "Journal" article

http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2014/08/21/cammer-the-real-story-of-the-legendary-ford-427-sohc-v8/

>>16512162
I believe that. I just mean when it comes to the top flight cars, there's a reason the hemi reigned supreme.

Also everyone complaining about chain stretch, most users ran timing gears and the chain didn't stretch that much

>>16512097
>427 did for a few years but was clearly outstripped by the Hemi
Oh, and you know what it took for the Ford 427 to keep up with the Hemi on the superspeedways?

Dual quads. That's what Nascar offered as balance for the Hemi, and it worked. Ford's dopey old FE keeping up with the vaunted Hemi with just a little more carburetion.

FWIW Bill France regretted even allowing the Hemi.

File: A925_DOHC_Hemi_6_Lg.jpg (173KB, 637x825px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 637x825px

>>16512134
>>16512165
I've seen that article. Nowhere does it have a direct claim from Bill France himself that it wasn't in the spirit of NASCAR or something like that, it's only the secondary source (MMC Garage) claiming this.

Here's my take on it:
>Ford and GM complain about Hemi dominance
>NASCAR installs homologation rule
>Ford develops Cammer
>Go to NASCAR officials
>?????
>?????
>Ford homologates 429 instead

We'll never know, but what I think happened is that they were told to homologate, and failed to do so. Probably because the Cammer has it's flaws - otherwise, we would've seen it in the GT40.

Still, I'd love to build a GT40 replica with a Cammer and Hillborn stack injection - show the world what could have/should have been.

>>16512162
My bad, I confused driver and mfg. championships (couldn't find the latter).

Cammers only killed it in Funny Cars because Ford ordered the earliest funny car bodies, and because Ford gave away a lot of Cammers to dragracers at that exact point in time. TBy the mid-70's, they were mostly gone from dragracing, but the Hemi was there to stay to this very day.

>>16512202
Bill France should've let the pushrod big blocks keep playing in a lower league, and allow manufacturers to go balls to the wall in the actual high-end racing. We never got a Plymotuh Superbird, powered by a DOHC Hemi, screaming across a superspeedway next to a Cammer-powered Talledega because of that bastard.

>>16512202
True hemispherical design is inferior to a quenched semi hemispherical design btw

File: Jack-Chrisman-Comet-roadster.jpg (106KB, 1000x654px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x654px

>>16512242
>>16512162
Oh, and for what it's worth, my favorite ever Funny Car is Jack Chrisman's Mercury Comet Roadster. Not only is that my exact favorite generation of Comet, but that guy got a Cammer and a brand-new Funny Car body directly through Ford - and then cut it up so it was even lighter. He kicked ass with it, and then his parachute failed to deploy in1966, he crashed, and the thing burned to the ground. Mercury was apparently so butthurt about him cutting their brand new racecar up (one of the first of it's kind), ruining the marketing stunt, that they told the fire crew to stand down, and let it burn.

>>16512278
This, but mostly because domed pistons (to keep the compression ratio up) suck balls.

File: xjv8engine.jpg (355KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 800x600px

>>16510029
shut it down

>>16512278
>not multispheric combustion chamber with a massive quench pad
shiggums mcbiggums

>>16512306
>not a patented turbulent 2 stroke rotary engine

File: mopp_0608_04z-dodge_hemi_colt-passengers_side_view.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&fit=around%7C596%3A372&crop=596%3A372%3B*%2C*.jpg (91KB, 596x372px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 596x372px

>>16512242
the rules dont allow for the Cammer to run any more or the 429 for that matter if someone wanted to

people stopped using the Cammer and started using the Boss instead

sure it wasnt the top fuel beast like a Hemi but it kicked ass in stockers and funny cars until the rules changed in the 2000s

>>16512291
well thats some shit
never heard of it either

and its not like I dont like some Hemi cars

>>16510312
Wow thanks for the share anon truly impressive

>>16510244

This is true but I almost never hear anyone refer to LS engines (and variants) as "SBC". They just call them LS.

File: sema-2009_honda-2001-cart-engine.jpg (105KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x450px

Just gonna put this here for yous

>>16511959
>2.0
lol no thanks.

ls3

File: BlockAndHeads copy.jpg (114KB, 1478x914px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1478x914px

the best one if the one you build yourself

>>16510223
meme engine
the boss 9 beats it in every way except for the "valvetrain: sohc" part of the brochure

File: Rockers-IntakePorts%20copy.jpg (114KB, 1790x1266px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1790x1266px

>>16514479
by the way, rate my porting

File: Latest_BOSS_chamber.jpg (61KB, 767x546px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 767x546px

>>16514502
boss 9 doesnt have side oiler mains. the FE is a perfectly good block.

File: ExhaustPorts copy.jpg (116KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 2048x1536px

>>16514508

>>16514479

Thats not a Cleveland.

>>16514519
yes, thank god.

>>16514519
Of course, It's not a piece of shit.

>>16512585
>Honda makes a V8?
>That must be for that pickup they make.
>Oh, that engine is race only
>What's the pickup use then?
>3.5L V6
>That's not bad, I guess...
>Transverse
>wat
>Front wheel drive
>WHAT

>TRANSVERSE
>FRONT WHEEL DRIVE
>PICKUP TRUCK

File: RAMPAGE9-2006015.jpg (109KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x480px

>>16514991
meh. Dodge did the FWD pickup thing better with the Dodge Rampage back in the 1980s.
>tfw no turbo 2 Rampage

>>16515019
looks like a fucking gundam

File: Chrysler_2.2_Intercooled_Turbo_engine.jpg (589KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1024x768px

>>16515023
b-buy muh Chrysler turbo,

>>16515019

>FWD pickup

that's a fucking coupe with a bed on the back you fucking retard

it's funny because the J35 makes more power than that piece of shit ever can

>>16515051
>t's funny because the J35 makes more power than that piece of shit ever can
Nobody cares, Rampage will always be cooler.

https://youtu.be/m9imo_dGg9A

All other engines a shit

except ls/sbc

>>16515019
ah yes, dodge's hot wheels version of the el camino

>>16515086
oh, the engine only good for a quarter mile long straight line.

was waiting for one of you fags to show up.

>>16515051
>it's funny because the J35 makes more power than that piece of shit ever can
really? The J35 has aftermarket support capable of taking it up to 10 seconds down the 1/4 mile without custom work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r6NLSzI0XU

>>16514991
Aren't most jap Utes FWD

>>16515131
no. The Honda Ridgeline is the exception., not the rule. most Japanese utes/trucks are RWD.

>>16514508
>>16514517
>rate my porting
Did you use a flowbench and control valve lift?

>>16515104
then how come every 2nd car is a LS swap or drift car?

>>16511804

>btfo out of Chrysler
>at a a time where Chrysler was developing a turbine car
>when they were experimenting with aerodynamics
>when they were developing breakthroughs in air flow technology

I mean, seriously, are you retarded? Because between the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Chrysler was raping the competition so hard that they had to bribe every racing commission to place heavy sanctions on Mopar to save face.

When the original 426 Hemi came out, it was rape on wheels and specifically targeted and decimated stock car racing until they rewrote the rules to outlaw it.

File: bi_graphics_carweb-5.png (558KB, 1200x1498px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1200x1498px

>>16516389
rip modern Chrysler

>>16511179
Top in the small block but never the big block.

>>16516389
Modern Chrysler is shitty, but 20th century Chrysler dominated the market.

>>16516425

Well, that's not entirely true. It's just that every time Chrysler starts to innovate and do amazing things, the competition starts lobbying to blockade them.

Look at the GLH in rally, or the Viper at Le Mons. Look at the Challenger in NASCAR or Trans Am. Every single time they start a big showing, the rules change to shut them down.

Sure, their build quality is questionable and they make strange design decisions, but they consistently output incredible performance cars to circumvent regulations and crush their competition.

Think about how absolutely Savage the last twenty years of Viper racing has been. Think about how entirely that car decimated it's competition and how its reputation grew into the Legend of the Snek.

All of that was crushed because tm Ford, GM, and some Eurocuck brands couldn't stand being beaten by Jethro's hot rod.

>>16511194
>Chrysler, the conservative car company was the only one innovating in the mid 50's to late 60's.
GM fuel injection in the 50s
GM turbocharging in the early 60s
GM turbo charged flat 6 before porch.
GM small aluminum v-8 in the early 60s

GM innovated alot, they just abondoned shit in a hurry.

>>16516356
>then how come every 2nd car is a LS swap or drift car?
Because it's physically small enough to fit in most engine bays. That's the one redeeming factor of LS.

>>16516389
additionally, a the first gen Hemi was a fucking jump for Chrysler which at the time, was still selling the popular flathead straight six.
Chrysler was a straight six company before the Hemi.

>>16515104
>oh, the engine only good for a quarter mile long straight line.
I could be wrong, but I think the LS series has a pretty good history in endurance racing.

>>16516726
Because it's a good fucking engine that makes stupid power and torque and weighs less than most other engines on the market.

Oh and its a race engine out of the box with a unmatched aftermarket and huge cult following.

But yeah packaging too.

>>16516738
Don't mind him he's probably never even driven a LS powered car so he benchracers

>>16516704
>GM fuel injection in the 50s
Actually, DeSoto offered the first ever EFI systems in consumer cars.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/electrojector.html
Chevrolet never pioneered fuel injection. It had first been invented in France, and then popularised in German aviation. By the mid-50's, the Germans had already put mechanical fuel injection in several consumer cars, and they had already pioneered direct injection in the 300SL.

>GM small aluminum v-8 in the early 60s
GM did produce the first consumer-grade aluminium V8 in 1961 with the Buick 215, but not the first all-aluminium economy engine, that title goes to the 1958 170ci Slant Six.
I personally think that their entire LS line, especially the fifth gen LT series, is much more impressive, shifting the entire V8 lineup into full aluminium.

>>16516733
>Chrysler was a straight six company before the Hemi.
So was Chevrolet before the SBC.

>>16516704
>GM fuel injection in the 50s
1958 Desoto electrojetter was the first modern use of EFI

>GM turbocharging in the early 60s
>GM turbo charged flat 6 before porch.

I own a Corvair, i can tell you the turbo doesn't fix what's wrong with that engine.

>GM small aluminum v-8 in the early 60s

Meanwhile Chrysler popularized:
>slanting straight engines
>popularized testing head geometry with single cylinder engines
>offered 12k mile powertrain warranties while GM at least offered 90 days and 4k miles.
>turbine car
>experimenting with aerodynamics, >standardized electronic ignition,
>standardized the alternator
>invented overdrive
>first engine with 1hp/Cu In
>first 4wd automatic
Meanwhile oil filters were still an option on Chevys up until 1961 lmao.

>>16516739
>Because it's a good fucking engine that makes stupid power and torque
lmao
The only reason it's popular is because it'll fit in miatas driven by faggots like you

>>16516788
Then why is it in my 3800lb muscle car?

>>16516738
>>16516356
I was referring to an engine only suitable for a drag car.

2500hp is not good for the street.

>>16516797
>3800lb muscle car?
Good god, pigfat indeed.

>>16516788
The only reason it's popular is because it's super light, super cheap, flows extremely well and makes great power with very little modifications.

That's why it is good.

File: 1484350672460.jpg (51KB, 957x717px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 957x717px

>>16516802
Go stuff your vape up your ass

>>16516784
I'll be the first guy to admit he likes Chrysler, but

>turbine car
Which was a failure.
>invented overdrive
[Citation needed]
They may have popularised it, but it's a mathematic principle that you can apply on a set of gears, not an invention.
>first engine with 1hp/Cu In
That was gross hp, and it's a completely arbitrary point. Why not 10hp/cc? 4 kW in a cup?

>>16516803
>flows extremely well
3rd gen Hemi was here, LS flows about as well as a clogged funnel (by comparison).

The LS isn't all that special when you break it down.

It's literally just an oversized, overbuilt SBC.
Bigger valves, bigger ports, bigger heads, bigger cam, stronger mains in a pushrod V8.

And that's why any and every retard swaps one because its 100 year old thinking in a new package.

>>16516809
Then why do SBC and BBC turbo builds dominate track street and drag racing.

>>16516809
Third gen hemi is almost as big as a first gen Xbox though.

I would love a hot rod challenger with the 5.7 though, don't care about transmission. Those things are so cool. Great engine to drive with too.

>>16516784
>>first engine with 1hp/Cu In
I thought that was the 1957 Chevrolet Corvette with the fuel injected 283 V8?

>>16516812
The engine is only as special as its inherent design and aftermarket.

That's why the LS is special.

/o/ is just mad because it's popular if the Mopar or coyote where as popular /o/ would hate them too.

Get u all dicksuck the jz and RB iron pig heavy i6 boat Anchors because muh jdm
>>16516817
Xbox hueg that brings me back I haven't heard that meme since mid 2000s

>>16516817
>Third gen hemi is almost as big as a first gen Xbox though.
I giggled.

>>16516809
>Which was a failure.
It was innovation

>[Citation needed]
They may have popularised it, but it's a mathematic principle that you can apply on a set of gears, not an invention.
Chrysler invented an OD but decided it was too much, so they outsourced to BorgWarner.
http://www.leducchrysler.ca/history-automatic-transmission.htm
If you can find a physical unit that predates this then please post it.


>That was gross hp, and it's a completely arbitrary point. Why not 10hp/cc? 4 kW in a cup?
It doesn't matter whether it was gross or net, it achieved. Literally everyone regards the first gen Hemi as the first production engine to achieve this milestone.

>>16516808
3800 pounds is borderline pickup truck, fuck outta here with such a fat automobile.

>>16516825
maybe but the criteria was production engine and the FI on 283 didn't survive every long

>>16516812
100 year old thinking that still works beautifully though, especially once you add modern tech like VVT, direct injection and the aluminium block.

>>16516815
Because aftermarket internals and boost are great for any engine. Come back when a SBC wins Engine Masters again - in naturally aspirated form, you just can't beat the Hemi. Too bad the 3rd gen just doesn't have the aftermarket.

Also, 2nd gen Hemi >>>>> BBC.

>>16516817
I think that 3rd gen Hemi's just appear big when you compare them to the LS. They're pretty compact, and either will support up to 400ci.

Why would you want a 5.7 if you can have a 392 or 426 though? Also, I'd much rather have one in an A-body, screw the pigfat.

>>16516825
Nope, 1956 DeSoto with the 341ci FireDome (1st gen Hemi), producing 343 gross hp.

>>16516836
Jelly of my 1700kg comfy mobile that can turn and stop?

>>16516837
That's because they are. The head is massive.

And I don't need much power, you build a 450hp 5.7 for chump change and then stroke it to the moon if need be. Also they're dirt cheap. I mean the new hemi senpai, that didn't come in 426

>>16516836
>maybe but the criteria was production engine and the FI on 283 didn't survive every long
It was a production engine though.
Chevy's mechanical fuel injection was just notoriously unreliable.

>>16516837
>Nope, 1956 DeSoto with the 341ci FireDome (1st gen Hemi), producing 343 gross hp.
Ah. I stand corrected then. Thank you. Those first gen Hemis were special.
I'd love to get a 1957 Plymouth 2 door hardtop and swap in a first gen Hemi for the lulz.

Big GM fan myself, but I have enoughmous respect for Chrysler's innovations.

>>16516844
Why? My Dad's truck can do the same lmao

>>16516797
because you're lazy

>>16516846
>I'd love to get a 1957 Plymouth 2 door hardtop and swap in a first gen Hemi for the lulz.
Hyfires were junk. Firepower was the only Hemi worth shit.

You are now aware that Chrysler was the performance and luxury brand of...well..Chrysler.

>>16516809

The Chrysler Turbine car was not a failure. There are functional examples. It worked. It just couldn't get the green light for production.

That car is probably one of the single most amazing innovations in automotive technology. Don't diminish that.

>>16516780
I do believe GM was the first to offer fuel injection , mechanical all be it, in main stream affordable cars. It is much easier to find a 57 fuelly chevy than a 58 chyrsler fuel injected car. It will be much cheaper to buy a 57 chevy fuelly than a benz 300sl

I was no way implying that GM was the grand daddy of innovation, but to say they did nothing in the 50s and 60s is nonsense.

>>16516812
>The LS isn't all that special when you break it down.
No it is simple and just about perfect in terms of efficiency, weight, size, cost, and power.

File: Holden-Commodore-VX-SS-sedan-2002-5.jpg (94KB, 1140x643px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1140x643px

>>16516851
Does it have irs and look like this?

No?

Rip anons ute

>>16516865
>Australia
lol, a nobody

>>16516863
>Fuellie Bel air or corvette
>Affordable
Nah m8. Not even. It wasn't even remotely affordable until things like the 2002 tii

>>16516858
Never said anything about using a Hyfire. I just like the 57 Plymouth's body. I'd probably use a Firepower or a Firedome.

>>16516868
Then why did the Chevrolet SS win every review in its class and nobody bought it? Americans have shit taste go drift you're shitbox ute up your mum's giant ularu sized cunt

>>16516860
>The Chrysler Turbine car was not a failure.
Yes, yes it was. It was not very practical for automobiles.. if it was somebody would have put a turbine car into production, but a turbine isn't really all that great for lots of stop and go. it does best at constant speeds. I could see it having a role in truck or train, but they arn't used there because they are a bit expensive. There is a reason boxer engines are in front of many small aircraft instead of turbines.

>>16516870
GM fuel injection was a $550 option in 57. The bel air was $2390 base. So a fuelly bel air would have been under 3000 while a Benz 180D was close to $4000.

>>16516836
We're confusing three things here.

The first is the mathematical principle of an overdrive-geared transmission: that is, a transmission that will have an output going slower than it's input, effectively keeping the engine at a low RPM at high wheel speeds. This is not an invention, but a mathematical principle. Chrysler did not popularise this.

Then you could be talking about the ''Overdrive Box'' an addon that can take a regular transmissions 1-to-1 output, and turn that into overdrive (for example, 1 engine revolution becomes 0.7 tailshaft revolutions). This was invented by de Normanville in the late 1940's.

Then you have the automatic transmission, which is what you're talking about. Chrysler was the first to use fluid couplings to replcae the clutch, and did so in the 1930's. However, GM was the first to market with a fully automatic transmission.

>It doesn't matter whether it was gross or net, it achieved.
It does matter, because the early first gen Hemis did not make 1 net hp per ci. Also, the achievement was still completely arbitrary. They did reach the milestone first, though.

>>16516845
>I mean the new hemi senpai, that didn't come in 426
https://www.mopar.com/etc/designs/mopar/pdf/Hemi_Gen_III.pdf
They don't come in 426 from the factory, but you can order 426 3rd gen crate engines.

>>16516846
>Chevy's mechanical fuel injection was just notoriously unreliable.
Not exactly. Most of the problem was Chevrolet technicians having no prior knowledge on how to work on the system. A well-maintained Rochester setup can be as reliable as any mechanical injection setup can be, it's just that nobody knew how to work on them.

>>16516860
It was functional, but an economic and practical failure.

>>16516877
Because its shit cunt

>>16516905
10/10 you pass aussieness test m8

T. Aussie

>>16516905
No it isn't. It's just expensive and under-advertised.

>>16516863
>I do believe GM was the first to offer fuel injection
Nope. Bosch pioneered fuel injection in the early 1950's, and it was used in ''affordable cars''.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutbrod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_GP700

>but to say they did nothing in the 50s and 60s is nonsense.
Of course they didn't. They carried a lot of the muscle car era, and innovated massively. All of the Big Three did.

>>16516894
The 300SL was a road-legal racecar, costing about 12K. A fuellie Corvette would have set you back about 3.5-4K. There's much more to the Benz than just the injection system, and all that basically creates the 8K price difference.

Besides, there were affordable injected cars back then (see above).

>>16516881
>>16516901

>economic failure

Yes, yes it was. But that's not the point I addressed. More importantly, Chrysler was working on making the car more economical when the US Government basically gave them a C&D.

When you have a functional model, it's much simpler to address issues of fuel economy. Given time, they could have put into production a car unmatched in its innovation. It could have been something incredible - hell, no one expected the concept to function in the first place.

People forget that Chrysler was cutting edge in rocket propulsion technology. They were a military contractor with access to unlimited resources at one time.

All of that was thrown away because it seemed like a waste of effort. Fifty years of hindsight prove how foolish that mentality was.

Turbine technology is leaps and bounds ahead of where we were at the advent of that concept and it could have been in cars if not for the short-sightedness of bureaucrats.

Literally any AMG V8.

>>16516923
>When you have a functional model, it's much simpler to address issues of fuel economy.
It isn't when the concept is so inherently flawed.

> Given time, they could have put into production a car unmatched in its innovation.
They could not. Itt would have been so absurdly expensive to produce, that it would have priced itself out of the market.

>It could have been in cars if not for the short-sightedness of bureaucrats.
No. Even today, turbine engines would not work. Take the C-X75 for example. Even in the supercar world, with massive budgets, with complete disregard for fuel economy, and a great emphasis on lightweight engines (where turbines excel), and a stationary load on the engine (which is where turbines perform best), it failed. In the most perfect use scenario an engineer could possible dream of for that turbine engine, it didn't succeed.

File: THIN WALL.jpg (9KB, 149x193px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 149x193px

>>16514508
>rate my porting
ape

>>16516901
>The first is the mathematical principle of an overdrive-geared transmission: that is, a transmission that will have an output going slower than it's input, effectively keeping the engine at a low RPM at high wheel speeds. This is not an invention, but a mathematical principle. Chrysler did not popularise this.
Wasn't talking about this.
I was specifically referring to an OD unit.

>Then you have the automatic transmission, which is what you're talking about. Chrysler was the first to use fluid couplings to replcae the clutch, and did so in the 1930's. However, GM was the first to market with a fully automatic transmission.
Read the link nigger.

>>16516909
fug...

>>16517038
If you were talking about an OD box, that article has literally zero mention of it.

>>16517060
>If you were talking about an OD box, that article has literally zero mention of it.
Their fourth gear model, which utilized the Keller clutch was invented at Chrysler but, in a clever move, was outsourced to Borg-Warner
this was an Od unit.

>>16516954

You speak in terms of what is, not what could have been. You can't know what would have happened if things were different. You can only speculate.

If Chrysler was granted the funds to continue R&D on the project, there are very different possibilities for what would have occurred. There are limitations you cite that could have been overcome. Turbine technology has focused on aerospace functionality for decades because there are very few applications for land use.

Remember, there was a point where people said electric cars could never become practical. Now Tesla is resoundingly proving that claim false.

Turbine technology in cars could have been a massive success but no one wanted to invest in it.

>>16517093
>You can only speculate.
No, I can rationalise, because we now have modern resources that overcome design challenges way easier than they used to.

>There are limitations you cite that could have been overcome.
No. You cannot overcome the inherent complexity, small parts, complex design, susceptibility to specific octane, and the poor fuel efficiency.

>Turbine technology has focused on aerospace functionality for decades because there are very few applications for land use.
There are acutally several, such as tanks. Usuaully you scale up a car diesel to fit in a tank, but for the Abrams, they designed a turbine engine. However, it's impractical. You could scale it down and use it in a car, but it won't work due to the market demands for power, weight and fuel economy we've got.

>Remember, there was a point where people said electric cars could never become practical. Now Tesla is resoundingly proving that claim false.
Tesla isn't. Batteries have advanced, and yes, Tesla is a few years ahead of the curve thanks to a streamlined organisation and leadership, but electric experiments have happened throughout the 20th century. Hybridisation already hit before 2000 (on the back of Honda, Toyota and GM), and it was only a matter of time before some startup actually started making electric cars.

The resurgence of electric vehicles can be explained very simply by advances in battery tech. Those don't apply to turbines.

>Turbine technology in cars could have been a massive success
It could not. Nowadays, we can easily simulate a turbine up to 99% accurately, and easily scale it down for automotive use. It's simply not practical due to weight, size, cost, and most importantly, the fact that a turbine has poor fuel efficiency during shifting loads and RPM. This doesn't change when you scale it down. The only way a turbine could be used in a modern car, would be as an onboard generator for a set of batteries, and even that has failed.

>>16517093
I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but I agree with him.
The Chrysler turbine cars were cool, but they are horribly impractical.
The engines idle at 30,000 rpm. Until you can get a turbine to idle at 1000 rpm like a normal piston engine, it will never be practical or fuel efficient enough to successfully power a conventional car.

>>16517157
it had 11mpg, not bad for a first generation prototype.

>>16517166

This is the gist of what I'm getting at. The turbine in use was efficient enough to rival V8s of the time. The issue with comparing that technology to what exists today is that current models don't really have the concern of fuel efficiency.

Look at the largest turbine engines in use today. Do you think they give a shit about idle speed consumption on an Antonov?

The argument I'm presenting is that Chrysler spent DECADES refining propulsion technology to ludicrously efficient degrees. It is not unreasonable to assume they could have developed some sort of scram jet technology to improve fuel economy in traffic.

You can argue that current models cannot be scaled down, but I couldn't give a shit less about current models. Chrysler was on the verge of something special. Their R&D department were masters of overcoming obstacles.

You speak in absolutes as if we have a complete grasp of turbine technology when, in fact, the major developers of the technology are actively trying to bleed their consumers for every cent they're worth.

>>16517243
Turbines are fucking expensive and only efficient under full load.
SCRAM jets are insanely inefficient, and they only work at supersonic speed, wich makes them even more inefficient.

The future will be plug in hybrids and electric cars.

>>16517243
>The turbine in use was efficient enough to rival V8s of the time.
Which weren't horribly inefficient by design, but by purpose. The turbine engine is inefficient in automotive use by design.

>The issue with comparing that technology to what exists today is that current models don't really have the concern of fuel efficiency.
CAFE standards are a thing though, and they're impossible to meet with a turbine.Current models are almost solely focused on fuel efficiency.

>Do you think they give a shit about idle speed consumption on an Antonov?
No, because it's not designed to operate at idle, and only spend a fraction of it's time there. This is completely different in cars, since you regularly idle a car. It's even a part of most fuel efficiency testing. Nevermind just idling, a turbine performs poorly at just about any change of RPM - which a car usually has.

>The argument I'm presenting is that Chrysler spent DECADES refining propulsion technology to ludicrously efficient degrees.
No. Fundementally, very little has changed. The major changes are in the computerised simulations that can design advanced engines. Those very simulations can be used for turbines as well, and there's good reason that, despite the relatively easy scaling of turbines, we aren't using them.

> Chrysler was on the verge of something special.
No.

>Their R&D department were masters of overcoming obstacles.
Some obstacles cannot be overcome. It's just the way physics works.

I can appreciate that you're trying to romanticise and rationalise the turbine car, but it simply doesn't work in the real world.

>You speak in absolutes as if we have a complete grasp of turbine technology when
We do.

File: God Machine.jpg (158KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 960x720px

>>16510029
>ctrl+f "455 SD"
>0 results

You fucking plebs.
https://youtu.be/hJde8R33S6c

600+ HP is easily done.

>>16516808
>>16516836
For reference my truck, a V6 '99 Dakota, weighs in at 3500 lbs.

Any thing, other than trucks, over 3000 lbs is pig fat.

>>16516844
Not at all.

>>16516844
>1700kg
That is quite pigfat.

>>16517313

>we do

Okay, Wikipedia, then why don't you explain the jump in technology with the proposed SR-72? Why don't you explain how compact turbines like the ones on Yves Rossy's wing pack have only recently emerged and been put into practical application?

Look, man, I work in aerospace. I understand how turbine engines work. I have played with the simulation programs you're talking about. I understand your autistic approach to this argument, but you seem to fail in understanding what I'm saying.

Turbine technology has advanced in relation to problems emerging in its application. No one is interested in turbine cars anymore unless they're trying for a land speed record.

The simple fact is, where a problem is, a solution can generally be found. Within the confines of general physics and thermodynamics, there is a conceivable argument for what I am saying.

You are looking at everything I've posted from a very narrow perspective and I can appreciate that. You're right, it is virtually impossible to scale down RPM to compensate for idling. However, you fail to look toward outside solutions. Efficiency can be achieved through proper use of turbine deactivation. A form of start/stop and power storing could alleviate loads of problems.

I understand that actually running a car on turbine power 100% of the time is unlikely to be efficient. Hybridized turbine/electric cars, however, are entirely plausible.

This is technology that could have been developed back then. It's something that could have been a reality. You're blatantly wrong if you think otherwise.

More importantly, demand would drive innovation. There are elements of turbine technology that weren't explored very thoroughly. Emission recycling, specifically, was something Chrysler wanted to look into.

There was and still is an argument for the concept. I'm not saying it's a better idea than piston engines, I simply argue that there is more merit to the notion than you, or most people, offer.

>>16517796
>Hybridized turbine/electric cars, however, are entirely plausible.
Then how come they aren't being used if the market it literally perfect for them right now (and face it, it is)?

>This is technology that could have been developed back then.
Hybrid turbine cars could have been made ''back then''? I'll have some of what you're on.

>>16517830
Not him.
That was tried once, but turbines are to expensive, these cars would have costed to much.

>>16517830

>how do I into simple concepts of supply and demand

There is one company looking into hybrid turbine electric cars at the moment. They are a miniscule, specialist company with very little investment potentail.

You are comparing that to a world class heavyweight automotive manufacturer with funding directly from a world superpower.

Yes, dipshit, it is entirely possible that they could have drawn these conclusions back in the 70s. If Chrysler had been permitted to continue R&D, these problems would have been addressed to the best of their ability.

Nearly fifty goddamn years of continuous work could have developed something far beyond what a Prius is capable of.

File: 1433702038752.jpg (40KB, 360x450px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 360x450px

>>16510263
So if I run a 5-7 firing order swap cam, a SBC is no longer a SBC?

>>16511777
>Millions made, and still being made to this day for a reason

Britney Spears and Justin Beiber have sold millions of records, it doesn't mean their music isn't garbage.

>>16518033
Even worse, it might become an SBF if you plug the spark plug leads in wrong.

>>16518133
>Britney Spears and Justin Beiber
But if the purpose is to sell music, then they're winners. Who wants to listen to some unpopular crap music no one ever heard of? Britney Spears and Beiber are the giants of the music world, no one really cares about some poorfag "muh feels" music from some no name that can't even make the top 100.

File: södertälje symphony orchestra.jpg (136KB, 690x400px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 690x400px

>>16510029
SWEDEN YES!

>>16518210
>diesel
yuropoor, please leave.

File: 2nd best v8.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>16518229
Since you're a man with shit taste in fuel i give the second best v8

File: ccrp-1204-650hp-modular-ford-horsepower-000[1].jpg (341KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1600x1200px

Friendly reminder there is no LS engine running 5's

https://accufabracing.com/accufab-mustang

File: Hemi.jpg (70KB, 560x792px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 560x792px

>>16518554
thats not very impressive. its just a drag race.
the engine isnt even under any load. i bet its some lossy powerglide too. who cares about an engine that only needs to run for less than a minute? as a former engine builder im VERY VERY cynical at this kind of bragging.

>>16518229
Negative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMetAxpr7_o

>>16518622
>damage control

chrysler literally couldn't compete with the cammer

>>16518634
https://youtu.be/5dLgZwcWe8Q?t=133

the fuck. it doesnt even sound as good as a cat engine

>>16510312
Came here to post this

>>16516400
This map seems very outdated, but have a check'd

File: 1e79fb730a0d02b700f549de8b5d8515[1].jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>16510029
Chevy Chevelle SS 454 Big Block

>>16519187
prefer that over the Hemi when it comes to the big bad muscle engines

makes like 20-40 hp less but is 100 lbs lighter

dat Rockcrusher too

>>16510029
http://www.enginelabs.com/news/katechs-lt1-numbers-smashed-by-danzio-performance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=katechs-lt1-numbers-smashed-by-danzio-performance

There we go.