Jump to content
Create New...

3 valve or s/c ?


loki

Recommended Posts

Carguy, you seem to have a lot of "they should just..." ideas that seem to be a lot more then slapping a coat of lipstick on a pig. They already have trouble with the torque from the 5.3 in the FWD cars. You don't think that 350hp and the corosponding torque won't cause MORE problems? While I'm sure 350hp in a FWD Impala SS is possible, I can't imagine many people thinking of that as a good idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carguy, you seem to have a lot of "they should just..." ideas that seem to be a lot more then slapping a coat of lipstick on a pig.

They already have trouble with the torque from the 5.3 in the FWD cars. You don't think that 350hp and the corosponding torque won't cause MORE problems?

While I'm sure 350hp in a FWD Impala SS is possible, I can't imagine many people thinking of that as a good idea.

[post="13124"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Honestly, I'm all for FWD cars (in the sense that I have nothing against them and will probably only own them), but if the people really want so much horsepower, wouldn't they want it in a RWD vehicle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carguy, you seem to have a lot of "they should just..." ideas that seem to be a lot more then slapping a coat of lipstick on a pig.

They already have trouble with the torque from the 5.3 in the FWD cars. You don't think that 350hp and the corosponding torque won't cause MORE problems?

While I'm sure 350hp in a FWD Impala SS is possible, I can't imagine many people thinking of that as a good idea.

[post="13124"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well being that ZETA is comeing back now and there have been rumbleings about a 350HP upgrade for the 5.3 I simply put the two together. I should have refered to that in my post in what it was I was trying to say. I do think the 4.8L V8 should be moved from the fullsize truck "instead of droped" and used in FWD or RWD "non Caddy" cars. It has less torque then the present FWD Imp SS/GP GXP 5.3L V8 = better for FWD and with DOD could use less fuel then a SC 3.9L V6. I also think the 4.8L should be used in the COLORADO/CANYON smaller trucks as an opt over the 3.5L I5. Why should they KILL this good V8 only becouse its not to be used in the BIG trucks in the future? They should keep the 4.8L in production by useing it in the small trucks then use it as a simple upgrade (non SS/GXP) over the 3.9L V8 first in a Buick La Crosse Ultra.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would T 3.6 be cheaper than SC 3.9 ? Anyhow forced induction may not be on the tip of everyones tongues with current and future oil issues. I dont know what Im going to do with the LSS, we dont want to pay 3.65 for gas, hell we cant afford it, hell we cant afford regular. Anyhow, improving effeciency is more important at this time than ultra performance. So Id have to say 3 valve. I know nothing about the engines mentioned above but for once in my life carguy might make sence. Sounds like it (4.8) would still require much engineering however. Maybe smaller displacement DOD V8's would be an answer to everyone V6 gripes. V12's have been made as small as 2.6 litre (that was a guess from memory). We could have 3-4 litre 90*DOD aluminum V8's. Costly however. HMM ? Ponder that ??? Maybe some great fuel economy would come from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings