Sign in to follow this  
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.

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?"

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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 ?

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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.

Sign in to follow this