why didn't GM just glue two of these together to make a 380hp 4.6 V8 instead of doing the LT5?
>>28926264Because they're not BMW
>why didn't GMa question for the ages
>>28926264Because diminishing returns and those things had the NVH characteristics of a typical American 4cyl but had some balls. A N* on the other hand is a silky smooth 300hp powerplant albeit with some issues that needed worked out over the first decade of production.
>>28926264because that rarely ever goes well
>>28926277alright, then why not a 3.5L I6?that would scale way easier, keep the simplicity of an inline engine with the added benefit of the balance of an i6?I suppose it's just Americans would rather have had a shitty 200hp 5.0 SBC vee ate than a 250+hp 3.5 I6 back then>>28926283I skimmed an article and it seems none of the issues with the engines were inherently from it being combined out of two I4s
>>28926277>>28926297Crossplane V8s have perfect primary and secondary balance just like I6s.
>>28926297>balance of an i6Holy shit that gets old.You dont even understand what that means>protip: it means nothingThere are V8 race engines that live at 20k rpms.You can buy 4 banger crotch rockets that will rev to 13k for 100,000 miles.>I6's still need harmonic balancers and crankshaft counterweights.If the apocalypse happens and youre sand casting engine components on a barn floor, fine. Make an I6.But you'll never do that.Only a couple companies are clinging to I6s because modern design negates the "inherent balance" of I6s so we can have V8s or I4s that are as smooth as any I6 ever produced.
>>28926297>I suppose it's just Americans would rather have had a shitty 200hp 5.0 SBC vee ate than a 250+hp 3.5 I6 back thenThe N* was 275-300hp and 295-300tq Anon. What mass produced I6 was making that kind of power in '93?>>28926301And I said it was silky smooth compared to the harsh Quad 4. Can you retards read?>>28926370Do you have this pasta saved to notepad or something?
>>28926264>Oldsmobile Quad4 based I6, V8With what money? Oldsmobile was essentially moribund by then and they were lucky to scrape enough together for the Quad4 let alone anything else. They might have hoped to do a V8 version for what became the Aurora but ended up buying a 4 liter N* from Cadillac instead. Probably because they would have been tapped out and the Aurora was a Hail Mary for a dying division anyway
>>28926268Opel GT chassis, 60s corvette rear end, and somehow a fisker karma grill. Did a time traveler design this car?
>>28926264Too expensive for them to make. Theres a reason this and the Zr1 LT5, and even the 'stars were such relatively short and or limited run engines, because the big money is in lawnmower pushrod engines and GM knows it
Expensive, not worth it and meh. Anyone who had experienced old gm sporty compacts would've preferred the torque from any of the 3.1/3.4 v6s that already fit and good luck finding the unicorn that had them with a stick
>>28926718Fuck I'm retarded and can't read
>>28926433>And I said it was silky smooth compared to the harsh Quad 4.And I said a dual Quad 4 would also be smooth because it would be balanced, unlike a 4 cylinder.
>>28926433>Do you have this pasta saved to notepad or something?Do you have an actual counter argument to it?No?Then shut the fuck up.
