rkmdogs

Yes, I know Mike Morgan well. His currently is the President of Go Fasst. I was at his house when he did the blower install on his SS!

Thank you DBeaaSSt for your kind words. "Casper" appreciates your praise! If you would like to see him up close and personal, I broke my own rule, or rather made an exception, and entered him, in one of the most fantastic car shows in this part of the country. The Lake Mirror Classic 2005 is being held October 14-16, 2005 in downtown Lakeland, Florida. For this show, they block off over six square blocks in the heart of downtown Lakeland and go all around Mirror lake, in the center of Lakeland to display the cars of many, many categories. I've seen cars here that I had only seen before in books! You can get a little taste of it at the website, go to: http://www.lakemirrorclassic.com and check out the gallery. The Greater Orlando Florida Area Super Sport Team (GoFaSSt), recognized chapter of ISSCA (Impala SS Club of America) will be there in force, with many nationally known cars. Come out and join us! :rolleyes:

You presume that throttle openings and therefore fuel consumption would be the same, which of course they would not be. You also presume that the air/fuel ratio would remain constant, which we also know would not be true. Your rationale of x amount of pollutants is constant across a broad engine speed range does not hold water. That is one reason why emission tests vary the operating conditions!

You have not stated a correct hypothesis, when you say that both cars feature identical efficiencies and both burn the same amount of fuel at a given HP. The factors that allows one engine to produce any given horsepower at a different set of operating conditions indicates that they cannot have the same operating characteristics, and therefore their efficiencies are also different at any snapshot point. This reminds me of an old, old incident that occurred back in the 70'd when emission controls were first made mandatory. Engineering students at Berkeley compared a new 1973 Chevy to the same model of a 1963 vintage. They measured the total amount of pollutants emitted by the 1973 vehicle, with the required emissions controls in a given period of time. They then operated the 1963 vehicle under the same conditions and measured its' total pollutants. They were less on the older car, because that engine gave better gas milage since it was operating more efficiently than the brand new 1973 version, which had the restrictive emission equipment! Their argument, which they did not win in front of the air board, was that older cars, operating properly can pollute less than the new ones with the mandated emission control devices because of their higher efficiency and better gas mileage! B)

[quote name='razoredge' date='Sep 18 2005, 09:17 AM'] Great Info, somehow I missed the last few posts of this thread way back when. I never knew much about the Scarabs, I need to do some research." Here is a pic of the last front-engined Scarab, #4. I don't remember the details of who now owns this car, the caption says Tony & Bob --- but that is all I remember! It is still being raced in the vintage category. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you have to have some way to tell if it is an American Buick or a Chinese one! :(

I've seen some of the convertible conversions years ago at the Chicago Auto show, but the price tags.......... if you had to ask, you shouldn't own one! :o

If this car was based on the Citation, Ventura, Omega "X" body family, The engine that was introduced then was the narrow-angle V-6. It probably would also be in this prototype, if in fact it had an engine! The "X" family of cars, introduced in 1980 became notorious for having one of the most flexible frames around. They would bend just from hard driving!....... and in an accident, they would tear in half! These were all front wheel drive vehicles.

I think the fender flairs add a "boss" staement to the appearance of this otherwise very mundane vehicle.......... and don't ever get me started on the concept of five or even 10 cylinder engines! The 5.3L V-8 in this truck should have been an option from the git-go, no questions asked! Now that would be making an "SS" statement!

Dug this one out of an old GM press photo archive, Harley. But, YOU take the cake, hands down for coming up with the best variety of pics. I just wish that I still had all my old files, but when we moved South, somethin' had to go, and it was my second generation collection of car literature. Over 3300 pieces, that I sold to a dealer in N.Y. I had pieces from 1960 thru 2003. My first generation collection I had to get rid of when it started sagging the attic! Sold that bunch to a collector in Chicago. That batch went back to 1948! It was almost 1000 pieces, and included Vol1, No.1 of Hot Rod magazine! I sold that whole bunch for $25.00! Do you know what that one magazine alone is worth today? I don't want to even think about it. Another aside........ I just checked my records. In that second batch of lit., I sold the 1960 Corvair FSM that I had, which had a whole chapter on the original South Wind gas heaters. Most people do not even know that the first year Corvairs even came with a gas heater standard! Wish I still had that book..................... :(

Wanna talk about good lookin' front ends? I like what they did with this Colorado Cruz special for the Woodward cruise..... Especially the 5.3L V-8 under the hood!

Where is it????? :ph34r:

Where's the chart????

There is another factor. The entire power train can be sub-assembled off line, and inserted as a complete sub-assembly. This simplifies the assembly process on the main line, and therefore also reduces cost. But..... the down side to that is........... when you have to go and service or replace something in that FWD drivetrain, it is harder to get at, more parts need to be removed & reinstalled, etc. Just ask any transmission shop what costs more...... to repair or replace a transmission on a FWD car vs. a RWD car, provided that the RWD car is not 4WD! http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif

O.K. Dave, I went back to my resources and found the magazine article that started me wondering. It was in the July,1997 issue of "Car Craft" magazine, in an article called,"Shoe-In", starting on page 41. It was written by Marlan Davis, a man who knows cars. This article is about transplanting a '97 Corvette LS1 V-8 into a '55 Chevy Del Ray 2 dr. shoebox. The transplant was being done as an experimental exercise by Scott Leon of the Chevy Raceshop at their Desert Proving grounds, to see what would be necessary to make this a successful transplant. On page 42 of the article,Davis quotes from Leon, "Unlike the late LT1 and its reverse-flow cooling system, LS1's use bottom-up cooling, albeit modified from conventional systems with a suction-side thermostat and weep lines coming off the rear of the heads."............. The article also has a list of the 24 stock Chevy parts that were used from other applications to make this transplant a success. I guess all things are possible when you have the entire GM parts bin to pick from! But nowhere in this or any other article is an explanation of why the cooling system was reversed -- again! As an aside to this is a comment that was made in another thread about the new Impala 9C1 & 9C3 police cars, not using the new V-8 because of idling cooling problems! Hm-m-m-m???

Huh??? I'm a retired engineer, and I don't follow you! Say it in English, please. Your first statement is right on the head- "It depends on the design details more than the behaviour of the engine." When engines are designed and tested, two parameters are used that usually don't see the light og day for the consumer enthusiast. One is the BEMP, which is Brake Mean Effective Pressure, and is the measure of how efficient the engine design is at any snapshot point. A corollary to this is the fuel consumption measured in lbs./hr. This factor wraps up the design of fuel delivery and burn efficiency. Another factor that you don't normally see is pumping losses. This is power requirement necessary turn the internal engine parts caused by the internal friction of the engine. This relates to surface areas and swept volume of the moving parts. The basic question is more complex than you gave it credit for, and not enough info was stated for a valid comparison. Remember and internal combustion engine is nothing more than an air pump!

Northstar, did you check the numbers? The ideal numbers are from the '80's "G" body Malibu's, and I compared them to the '06 Impala! They are like kissin' cousins! They are almost identical! The current Impala size is the 80's Malibu size, by the numbers! Now unless you know how to make a "blivit", how do you make the interior bigger, while keeping the same outside dim.'s, unless you use Barthamew-type tissue paper for the skin!

Thanks for the confidence Harley......... However the assets are frozen, so you'll just have to wait! Well, since I could not get the third pic to open in the previous post, I moved it here! B) You will note that on the above data, it was supposed to be in a comparison chart format, the ideal data vs. the '06 Impala, but when I entered it, the system would not show it that way!

I just did some research comparisons. IMO, this is the specs for the optimum car that Chevy should build for the masses. I'll include some current specs for comparison Ideal ---- / ---- '06 Impala Overall Length 192.7"---- / ---- 200.4" Overall Width 72.3"---- / ---- 72.9" Overall Height 55.7" ---- / ---- 58.7" Wheelbase 108.1"---- / ---- 110.5" Fuel Tank Capacity 18.1 gal. ---- / ---- 17.5 gal. Track ???? ---- / ---- Frt: 62.4" Rear: 61.5" Headroom-Frt. 38.5" ---- / ---- 39.4" Legroom-Frt. 42.8" ---- / ---- 42.3" Shoulderroom-Frt. 56.7" ---- / ---- 58.7" HipRoom-Frt. 52.2" ----- / ---- 56.4" Headroom-rear 37.4" ---- / ---- 37.8" Legroom-rear 38.0" ---- / ---- 37.6" Shoulderroom-rear 57.1" ---- / ---- 58.6" Hiproom-rear 55.6" ---- / ---- 57.2" Usable LuggageCap. 16.6cu.ft.---- / ---- 18.6cu.ft. And now if they looked like any one of these: But, I must admit, being from the old-school, I'd prefer the RWD versions!

Well just to compare it to a Lucerne doesn't make it right! Some people make the same mistake more than once! I was comparing to the displays in the Jap cars, and the German cars. Those are mostly at the top of the dash, not buried half-way down! :o

That was the Stehr company prototype that they were trying to sell to GM as a retro model, built on a C5 chassis. Chevy didn't buy it, since they already had the C6 in the works, so Steyr put it on the market as a conversion kit....... but the price is $$$$$$$$! :o

Buick lost direction when corporate decreed that Oldsmobile would be the innovative division......... and look what happened to them! But Buick in the past has had some of the most solid engineering advancements of all the divisions. They sure as hell were not "me-toos" when they created the 3.8L V-6, nor were they sitting in the back seat when the Grand Nationals were alive! Here's a design that they should have followed thru on, with a modern DOD V-6, with variable valve timing, and of course....... a turbo! :rolleyes:

[quote name='caddycruiser' date='Sep 17 2005, 09:23 AM'] Good question...not to mention the fact that is also has a better interior layout and details than even the Lacrosse. Here's a good comparison to the domestic Regal: /quote] Lets check everybodys' powers of observation vs. human anatomy. Look where that NAV screen is placed. Unless the car is driven by a 3'6" midget, the average adult sitting in the front seatswould have to bend over to look at it! Even the Japs and the Germans place their screens closer to eye level so that they can be seen without taking an eye off the road---- that is, if you look at it while moving! In China, the country is so big, who cares if you run off the road a few times, looking at your tiny NAV screen............. B)

When the Lt1 first came out, a big deal was made about the flow direction of the coolant, from the top, or heads on down, as an improvement in engine cooling system technology, and adding to the longevity of an engine. Now, I recently read that the LS1 & LS2 were reverted back to the old system, of coolant flow from the bottom of the engine up and out thru the heads. My question is, is this correct, and if so, why? What was the technical reasons for reverting back? The explanations for going to the heads first system made a lot of sense, and I have not heard anything about why this methodology was dropped, if in fact it was dropped. If it wasn't, then why is this significant difference not publicized as superior to the life of the new small-block engines, when compared to the competition?

What'a with the log-in clock? Today, when it acknowledged my log-in, it said my last log-in was Aug 27th! I've posted replies since then----- and was at these forums only yesterday, Sept. 16th! Something ain't right ------- and I still have to register each time I come here, even after checking off the box to remember me, and I haven't deleted any cookies!!!