Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ToniCipriani

If 68 took over GM...

18 posts in this topic

I don't know, if it were a 4dr ht, maybe. But it's a convertible, and we all know '68s isn't down with ragtops.

Interestingly, it does look like the Audi A7 will have a 4dr folding roof coupe/convertible model...looks great from what I've seen so far.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why, but for the first millisecond I looked at it, I said, "What happened to the back of that Volvo?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmmmm.... NO.

What if I was running GM design like Harley Earl was in the 1950s though....?

I'd build a 1930s retro, 4.0 liter V16 powered Cadillac LaSalle concept

along the lines of the EFIJI, hardtop and all, teardrop ass, fat-fendered

and with narrow-placed pod headlights coming off a tall, "art deco"

grille-shell with more brightwork than a '58 Buick.

And, as an added touch it would have some sort of tailfin(s)

RWD, pushrod based V16 BTW, think two 1/2-scale SBCs fused together.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I forgot the last part:

Just like H.E. with his "GM LeSabre" concept car, I would

daily drive it like it was a work truck or company car. :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why, but for the first millisecond I looked at it, I said, "What happened to the back of that Volvo?"

Really? I thought of the Verona/Epica first.

After all this car IS a competitor for the Epica in China.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why, but for the first millisecond I looked at it, I said, "What happened to the back of that Volvo?"

Really? I thought of the Verona/Epica first.

After all this car IS a competitor for the Epica in China.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"...think two 1/2-scale SBCs fused together."<<

Please stop wording it this way. V-16s, V-12s were never built by 'putting 2 V-6/V-8s on a common crank'. The portrayal is goofy, the descriptor isn't necc, and of course... I have only ever read this loose description in connection with GM multi-cylinder engines- implying, naturally, a degree of cheapness. Take another look at your IC hero, the 452, and tell me there's any 'GM cheapness' there.

Thank you for your support.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Balthy.... but I am not a millionare and therefore something

I dream of commissioning in the REAL world, would be a "fusing" of

two relatively bread & butter V8s.

Now if I could dream up (and FINANCE) something wacky like a V16

based on two pre-war Packard, Pontiac or Buick V8s, that would be

much more fittig of the IDEA of a V16.

And the way things are buttered together these days basing a new

V16 on an existing V8 would natrually be more realistic... not that,

if the money was there, it would not make sense to design a ground

up V16 motor for Cadillac that would share NOTHING with the more

pedestrian V8s. (be it No* or SCB)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and as far as that (awkward) annalogy I'm meerly saying 1/2 scale

in terms of the displacement & size (mostly concernd with length)

I'm sick of many of the dopes & negative-nellys here on the forum

implying that IF a V16 would be made the fuel economy would be

atrocious. Why?

Does a V16 have to displace 10.5 liters and be as long as two 5.3

V8s out of a Chevy Silverado?

NO, bull&#036;h&#33; it does.

A clean-sheet, mini-displacement (as relative to the cylinder) V16

with the right gearing could do excellent on MPGs... The Sixteen

concept was made in 2002 so fuel prices were NOT a big concern.

Does a V16 Caillac need 1000 horsepower?

Hell no, even a 300hp Northstar is way more than anyone will

ever NEED, but in this day & age a 6.0 liter V16 that would put

out silky smooth, natrually aspired 500 horsepower on 93 octane

with about the length of a BMW V12 would be Automotive heaven.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
V-16s, V-12s were never built by 'putting 2 V-6/V-8s on a common crank'.

I beg to differ. Packard didn't call their early (1915-1923) V-12 a "Twin Six" for nothing: it was quite literally cast in two blocks of six cylinders each and shared a common crank, cylinder heads, valve covers, intake manifold, exhaust manifolds, water jackets, etc. Then production halted for a while, development continued for marine and aircraft applications only, and it was not until the early 1930's that they released a V-12 with the block done as a single casting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XP... yeah agreed, we've had hours of convrsation about this topic.

However I think Balthy was driving at the comparison of the Holy

Grail of motors, the styled, gorgeous, advanced OHV 452 cu.in. V16

to a mere pedestrian Chevy small block.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And speaking of which Chevrolet's first V8 was cast as two 4-cyl bocks with a common crank

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Packard V-6s were used on a common crank to engineer the Twin-Six?

By the same token, how would/could an existing V-8 be even partially used on a common crank to build a V-16? Engineers could copy certain specs --bore spacings, rod design, basic crank geometry--, but make no mistake; it's a 'clean sheet' project every time. You might get 15% carryover.

The statement is purely figurative.

BTW XP, you are correct; the Packard Twin-Six did have a block cast in 2 pieces. However, the 2-pieces seam did NOT run North/South, but East/West. In other words, the seam ran horizontally, at mid-block. You can see pics of both production Packard V-12s and proposed I-6s both using this same type of construction HERE.

Kinda kills the whole '2 V-anythings on a common crank = double the cylinders, it's Miller Time' nonsense right quick, no?

Oh, I'm not trying to say it's completely impossible... but in the realm of history , it's oversimplification to the nth degree, and I know some are reading it and thinking 'Gee, it's that simple?'

Do we really want to deal with that as historical curators?

Parting note: during Packard's period of multi-cylinder consideration, thought was given to building a 'Twin-Four'. No- it was NOT a proposal to build a V-8 out of 2 Packard I-4s, either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooooo.... flat-8?

I'm lost.

----

Getting back to my "wham-bam-thankyoo-mam-V16, it's miller time" idea: :AH-HA_wink:

Of course if I had the money I'd pay top-dollar to a top-notch

engineer to use the blueprints to the 452 and crank 'em out

not only for myslef but for other entusiast who want somthing

extra-special in their hot rod, custom or under the butterfly

hoods of pre-war classic.

THAT being said I think it would be fun to hodge-podge together

a redneck-V16 from two "pedestrian" V8s, drop the whole damn

thing into a scummy Cadillac hardtop with ample patina * giant

tailfins (or Rat Rodded pre-war car) & then blow people's minds,

well most of the "OMG it's a V10 motor" crowd.

The bonus would be saying "yeah, I got like $17,000 in the car"

...but I also have to cut that MIT engineer's lawn for the rest of

my life & repaint his fence every 2 years. :spin:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah; it'd be cool to drive it around, and you might actually --for a milli-moment-- forget the 1,000,000 metric tons of 200-proof frustration and the endless trial & error and the quarter mil you spent to get it done, aside from all the mow jobs.

Wouldn't you really rather have an Allison V-1710 ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0