Hey guys, this post isn't to sing GM's praises, just to keep everyone informed on our competition. FMOS and I had a conversation going in a thread about Dak's, and it was focused on the feasability of the construction of the John Moss' Silverado SS. The big sticking point seemed to be the engine that John had created. It had a few things done (Like blue printing and balancing) that you wouldn't normally find with an assembly line motor.

Well, while poking around, I found a STOCK GM motor that may be exactly the answer for what GM can put in the Silverado SS >IF< they actually get the stones to build it.

Here's a link to the motor, which is currently only available to people who are racing in the ASA series. It is fuel injected, runs on 91 octane, and its specs are amazingly close to a normal LS1, with the exception of the higher redline and of course that pesky 430 HP and 430 Lb-Ft of torque!

http://www.gmpowertrain.com/engines_..._red/index.htm

Next, for anyone who feels like the engine must be some wild one-off that could never be placed into a "Normal" street car, here is another link explaining just how "Mild" and feasible the motor really is.

http://www.gmpowertrain.com/motorsports/asa/event.htm

 

This is a more likely motor, still in the sprit of the 454ss Truck:

340 HP, 460 ft.lb. torque
RPO code L18-One piece rear main seal
-6 bolt mains
-longer connecting rod places rings closer to piston tops
-enormous dual plane aluminum intake plenum
-tall, narrow, gasket matched intake & exhaust ports just like the LS1
-cast aluminum oil pan which is an integral part of the lower block structure (not simply a bolt on oil pan). Also on 4x4 models, the oil pan will act as a mount for the front differential
-improved oiling system
-Ability to cut out 4 cyl's for highway cruising (don't worry...it's not like the early 80's caddy's with the 8-6-4)
-8 individual coil on plug assembly like the LS1
-stainless steel exhaust mainfolds (headers from the factory! )
-Live by wire throttle body (like the C5) http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/news/SE...ralMotors.html
Not sure how much of this is the cold facts but there it is.


[This message has been edited by 2000Silverbulletonorder (edited 01-03-2000).]

 

It could be you're right, but in my opinion, they'd more likely go with the smaller motor. Their gas mileage would be better, which is a big concern to GM, their HP would be more, and the weight would be less. The motor pictured there in Edmunds sounds like a low rpm torque motor, not a motor that has a nice fat power band like the LS1 does. What's more is, performance parts on a V10 would be hard to come by for the aftermarket enthusiast.

GM is so adamant about their gase mileage that they refuse to have any of their passenger cars pay the gas guzzler tax.

Also, a motor that must be fairly close to the one in that link is already slated as an option for the 2001 Corvette (The LS6).

Oh, as an addition, I hope no one gets the idea that I'm trying to say that an 8.1 liter V10 can't be made to out power a 5.7 V8, because it could, and it would do it more reliably at comparable HP levels. But, that motor would have to make a lot more power than that little 5.7 just to make up for the weight difference that it would impose.

[This message has been edited by Typhoon (edited 01-03-2000).]

 

This one is Cheap, it is already going into the Heavy Duty Trucks. Mileage should not be that bad because it has the Ability to cut out 4 cyl's for highway cruising. (not sure about this but this is what I've heard)

 

Two other notes. Adding that much extra weight to the front would be totally in contradiction to the idea of a performance truck in the style of a Lightning.

First, that much extra weight in the front would make it hard to produce a truck that handled any better than a Greyhound.

Second, the extra weight in the front would really hurt off the line traction. The front end would be less willing to lift up, and would move slower once it did. That translates into poor weight transfer to the rear tires, which would make traction a REAL problem in a truck that makes 460 ft-lbs of torque (Probably from right near an idle ).

 

As a note not on the subject of this thread, thanks 2000SB for your post on the Downs Pulley thread. It was appreciated, even though a few appear to have made light of it.



[This message has been edited by Typhoon (edited 01-03-2000).]

 

Thanks.
This is A GM Vehicle, so extra weight in the front makes it push more (in hard cornering). consistant with most of their latest car. Anyways, you are right about the weight thing, I just hope they build it...

 

I wonder what the secret is with the "red" engine? Seems basic enough, even though the heads have big combustion chambers. Going to 6800 rpms seems rather un-trucklike, but I'd sure go for it. I love a engine that'll spin.


This is REALLY off thread, but...

Have you guys read about the - ahem - 4 valve engine that MAY go in the C6 Corvette? 4 valve - with PUSHRODS? Crazy thing uses two cams, both in the block, and pushrods. GM claims it makes it less expensive to manufacture and more compact (that's not hard to imagine).

Promised numbers are pretty impressive; something like 450 hp from a N/A 5.7 liter engine.

Later!
Jeff S.

 

I read something about it, but not much info there.

------------------
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
PFA
'99 WHITE LIGHTNIN'
#0873--1 of 866--
RHINO, Soft cover, LoJack, Valentine 1, Mobil 1
Superchip, Water Wetter, Phantom Boost Gauge
Best ET to date-13.54 @101.51MPH--10/29/99
Best MPH to date-102.33
NEWEST ADD.--16" SNOW TIRES
SuperChip out for now

'98 Red Lincoln Continental

 

Typhoon
The 8.1 L Chevy is a V8, not a V10.

------------------
99 Black Lightning
Rhino liner
Superchip

 

Oops, double post

[This message has been edited by Typhoon (edited 01-03-2000).]

 

Don't fault me, my contribution to this thread was "Vortec Red". I see 8 in the picture, but Edmunds is where I got the "V10" from. Until this thread, I didn't even realize that the 8100 was even something being talked about.

Click on 2000SB's link and go to the bottom where they talk about the 8100. Like I said, I can see from the exhaust manifold that it's an 8, so either the pic or their write-up is wrong.

Just for something to talk about, it would be nice if it was a V10. It would be a smoother running, higher revving motor. Not only that, both of GM's competitors have V10's now.

 

Edmunds article is wrong, it's an 8cyl 496, and the chevy owners who plan on upgrading it should be glad it is an 8. when it comes to performance parts for a 10, they are almost twice the price of the 8. i'm glad to see one of the big3 not jumping on the me too v-10 bandwagon.

 

MRBBQMAN
Since you own a blown V10 and V8, is the V10 much smoother than the 8?

I remember F1 going to V10 engines because it was the best compromise between V8 economy and V12 power.(for the same displacement)

------------------
99 Black Lightning
Rhino liner
Superchip

 

Hi Blacklight,
my ram v-10 had a rough idle, but when you came off idle, it was very smooth, i ran it on propane(.50gal) for the first 2-years b4 i got the hp bug and tore into it. my 10 fires 2 cyls simultaniously, so my firing order is like a huge 5 cyl. the ford ohc v-10 is probably smoother (newer design), but some say it sounds like a sewing machine w/firing order. kind of hard to compare an "old" mopar to the new blown triton, i'd have to give the nod to the new technology, since i don't own a triton v-10 to compare my "L" to. but in 94 the 1st of it's kind 488ci V-10w/hd upgrades on "everything" was a steal and a show stealer at a $400.00 premium from a V-8.