In reply to bobzilla :
I still miss both my 6.2L and my 6.5L. One of Detroit's best. I had a 6.2L in a step van that refused to die. I think I sold it with 520k on it.
In reply to bobzilla :
I still miss both my 6.2L and my 6.5L. One of Detroit's best. I had a 6.2L in a step van that refused to die. I think I sold it with 520k on it.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to bobzilla :
I still miss both my 6.2L and my 6.5L. One of Detroit's best. I had a 6.2L in a step van that refused to die. I think I sold it with 520k on it.
They were not fast but good gracious they would run. We did end up at one point with an 83 1-on dually flat bed with a 13 leaf pack, TH400 and 4.56 gears. That one was actually quick and would light the duals up from a roll but 68mph was flat out.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to bobzilla :
I still miss both my 6.2L and my 6.5L. One of Detroit's best. I had a 6.2L in a step van that refused to die. I think I sold it with 520k on it.
Motorweek loved their diesel suburban. Ofcourse they loved it even more with a banks turbo
Appleseed said:LT1. Optispark failures are wildly overblown. I got 192,000 out of one without cracking the seal. Still running when I junked the car. Overshadowed by the original mouse motor and the LSx engines.
I will defend the LT1 to the death. It was a better engine than the small block Chevy it replaced. The Optispark resulted in more accurate ignition timing and the reverse-cooling let it get away with higher compression. The LT1/LT4 was a pretty hot piece. The problem was, it was so short-lived that it never really got a chance to catch on with users and the aftermarket, and the LS motor was even better. And remember, when it came out, the LS motor was pretty maligned at first ("Nobody makes intake manifolds", "Headers lose power", "The cylinder walls are too thin and you can't bore them", "They only have 4 bolts per cylinder, you can't keep a head gasket in them with power adders", "The electronics are too advanced". Seriously, read a Hot Rod Magazine circa 2000 and people hated the LS1. The LT1 never got a chance to get outside that phase.
NickD said:Appleseed said:LT1. Optispark failures are wildly overblown. I got 192,000 out of one without cracking the seal. Still running when I junked the car. Overshadowed by the original mouse motor and the LSx engines.
I will defend the LT1 to the death. It was a better engine than the small block Chevy it replaced. The Optispark resulted in more accurate ignition timing and the reverse-cooling let it get away with higher compression. The LT1/LT4 was a pretty hot piece. The problem was, it was so short-lived that it never really got a chance to catch on with users and the aftermarket, and the LS motor was even better. And remember, when it came out, the LS motor was pretty maligned at first ("Nobody makes intake manifolds", "Headers lose power", "The cylinder walls are too thin and you can't bore them", "They only have 4 bolts per cylinder, you can't keep a head gasket in them with power adders", "The electronics are too advanced". Seriously, read a Hot Rod Magazine circa 2000 and people hated the LS1. The LT1 never got a chance to get outside that phase.
The lt1 also brought the world the very popular vortec heads
I can't comprehend what I read. Never mind.
The "standard" Briggs & Stratton single cylinder engine that ran all kinds of junk for years and was probably outdated 5 years after the first one was built.
As long as we're doing diesels, I vote IH VT365 in Ford 6.0 Powerstroke guise. Anything that can possibly go wrong with it has been documented to the moon and back. They're a known quantity. What it takes to make them live is a trail that was blazed long ago. Yet some people to this day will not touch one.
Datsun A engine - 65hp? Ate head gaskets? No real power but they lived from 1967 to 2009. Shoot, our forklift at work had one.
Now I had 2 cars and really enjoyed them so I'm now bashing too much but on paper they weren't cool engines stock.
Hopefully I don't run into that 50 year 1200 racer.........
In reply to A 401 CJ :
It's also the go-to block for performance builds in the "stroke" world
MotorsportsGordon said:NickD said:Appleseed said:LT1. Optispark failures are wildly overblown. I got 192,000 out of one without cracking the seal. Still running when I junked the car. Overshadowed by the original mouse motor and the LSx engines.
I will defend the LT1 to the death. It was a better engine than the small block Chevy it replaced. The Optispark resulted in more accurate ignition timing and the reverse-cooling let it get away with higher compression. The LT1/LT4 was a pretty hot piece. The problem was, it was so short-lived that it never really got a chance to catch on with users and the aftermarket, and the LS motor was even better. And remember, when it came out, the LS motor was pretty maligned at first ("Nobody makes intake manifolds", "Headers lose power", "The cylinder walls are too thin and you can't bore them", "They only have 4 bolts per cylinder, you can't keep a head gasket in them with power adders", "The electronics are too advanced". Seriously, read a Hot Rod Magazine circa 2000 and people hated the LS1. The LT1 never got a chance to get outside that phase.
The lt1 also brought the world the very popular vortec heads
I always chuckled at the Caprice/Impala guys clamoring to get some of the aluminum LT1 heads because powaaar. I hated to break it to them that the aluminum head had a slightly larger version of the L98 TPI intake port while it was the iron head that birthed the Vortec port design. The only reason the F-body had 15 more hp was the cam.
VWs 1.9L TDI like the ALH had a bad reputation even before dieselgate. Slow and boring. But they can take some pretty hefty boost.
In reply to Ranger50 :
Is this the PT Cruiser/Neon motor that you speak of? Be aware they also put this motor in Jeeps 2004ish. Available with a manual and crappy dual mass flywheel.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
In years after the ALH a lot of the VW diesels have gotten bad reps for small fixable things. BEW/BRM/BHW eat cams if you use the wrong oil. BHW has balance shafts that can do typical balance shaft things. But it's a tune away from 170hp/305ftlbs in a 450lbs package.
I would love a "built" 350 diesel. I don't want to do the work, but I'd love to buy one ready to drop in to something. And they take standard SBC flywheels/clutches/transmissions, right?
The 6.2/6.5 would be okay too. My old boss knew the common issues, and snagged them cheap on craigslist all the time with rattly balancers. He had nine 3/4 ton 'burbs at one point.
Run_Away said:I've always wondered about the Oldmobile Aurora 4.0L V8. Apparently it was used as a basis for an Indy Car engine or something? Related to the Northstar?
Off to google.
EDIT: Wiki sez
The Aurora came standard with Oldsmobile's 4.0 L (244 cu in) L47 V8 engine, a DOHC engine based on Cadillac's 4.6 L Northstar V8. The Northstar engine and 4T80-E had been exclusive to Cadillac prior to the Aurora. The L47 put out 250 hp (186 kW) at 5600 rpm and 260 lb⋅ft (353 N⋅m) torque at 4400 rpm.[7] The Aurora used a four-speed automatic transmission with driver selectable "normal" and "power" shift modes. A highly modified 650 hp (485 kW) version of this engine was used by General Motors racing division initially for Indy Racing League and IMSA competition starting in 1995 with the GM-supported Aurora GTS-1 racing program, then was later used in the Cadillac Northstar LMP program in 2000. Both engines retained the 4.0 L capacity, but the Northstar LMP version was twin-turbocharged.[8]
Apparently it was also used in the Shelby Series 1 car.
I'm assuming it's not easy to adapt to RWD or something. Also plenty of engines that are great in factory form, but lack aftermarket support or require lots of parts to be turned up much which kills it's popularity before it can get started. If you have an engine that makes 250hp stock, and has the head flow and bottom end to support 600hp but the bean counters gave it pencil thin rods then it's not going to become huge. Or even just saddling the engines with a non-enthusiast platform to begin with. Like the Nelsons and the Atlas engines, overlooked because of it's size/oil pan and Trailblazer surroundings, among others.
I'd have another 4.0 Aurora in a heartbeat.....walked quite a few 5.0 stangs and Bro dawgs on 89 getting low twenties around town
Oh oh oh and I get my LB7/ZF6spd back next week after head gaskets, turbo rebuild, water pump/radiator, motor mounts...........OHY
Here is one that isn't necessarily horrible, just forgotten: G4JS 2.4L found in garbage appliances from Hyundai and Mitsubishi.
Someone slapped a big turbo on this guy and made 500whp on stock internals.
Another one that gets little respect: The VG30DE. DOHC 3.0 found in the 300zx '90-96 cars. It only makes around 220hp from the factory, but it will handle buckets of boost. The stock internal record for VG30 guys is one of these and its >700whp IIRC.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Kinda forgot about these. That was the Evo style Sirius block and the head casting was identical to Evo 8-9.
MotorsportsGordon said:frenchyd said:This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
Show/hide post
maschinenbau said:frenchyd said:The Jaguar predecessor of the Atlas
False. Source required for a BS claim like that.
Also, no one says the 4.2 is a "horrible engine". Trailblazers/Enovys have a pretty decent reputation, other than typical 2000's GM plastics and the 4l60e.
Check your Wikipedia. Atlas came out in 2002. Jaguar came out in 1980's ( 88 I think) About the time GM was doing due diligence on buying Jaguar. However they were beat out by Ford who already had an aluminum in line 6 with 4 valves per cylinder
Who said the Atlas 4.2 was Horrible? I owned an early one And loved it. If you read what I wrote I also mentioned the Nelson's getting 824 horsepower from a junkyard one with 165,000 miles on it.
Gm wasn't beat by Ford in buying Jag they looked at it and realized there wasn't anything worth buying at Jaguar just a huge money pit.
You are absolutely right. A fair amount of what Jaguar had at the time was bought 2nd hand from defunct manufacturers before WW2.
Jaguar had bought the old Spitfire ( airplane ) factory from WW 2 ( for 1£) that had made terrible body panels in 1 corner of the massive plant. Then turned it around until they were making high quality bodies.
Prior to Peter Egan taking over Jaguar was heading down hill under BMCH to the tune of something like 40 million Pounds a year in the hole.
A great year was annual production of 10,000 cars/ year. Under Peter Egan it went up to 40,000 annually. But had a reputation well worth the money Ford paid for it.
PS. The reason Ford and GM were interested in Jaguar had little or nothing to do with manufacturing facilities and everything to do with Jaguars reputation.
At the Time GM and Ford both were trapped selling tarted up Fords and Chevies for not that much more than a Ford or a Chevy. While Jaguar could sell its cars for many multiples of a Ford or Chevy.
However once Ford bought Jaguar instead of listening to the people who built the cars that sold for so much they ran it like a division of Ford.
When Ford was going through the downturn, to weather the financial storm Ford resold Jaguar without receiving the benefit they purchased it for.
GeddesB said:In reply to Ranger50 :
Is this the PT Cruiser/Neon motor that you speak of? Be aware they also put this motor in Jeeps 2004ish. Available with a manual and crappy dual mass flywheel.
PT Cruisers, Sebring convertibles and sedans, caravans, liberty's, wranglers, etc....
Sebring coupes were lengthened eclipse's, so they got Mitsubishi 2.4/3.0's....
How 'bout Volkswagen's VR6 and it's W8, 12 and 16 variants?
Used in VW, Audi, Porsche, Bentley, and Bugatti
Compact, can make power and SOUND AWESOME!
bobzilla said:ProDarwin said:I still have love for the Saturn LL0, even though by modern standards its pretty terrible.
Compact, light, cheap, robust. Will run until the end of time if you keep oil in it.
Hit the googles to find that the LL0 is now a 1.2L Turbo engine and was really confused because they came out way after the Saturn brand was gone. Then I realzed GM repurposed the engine code. That was the 1.9 DOHC? Those were fun and durable little engines.
As long as you kept oil in them, which was easier said than done. Did a lot of rering jobs at Saturn on cars with relatively low miles.
I saw a few guys at the dealership had engines stashed away that looked like they wrapped the chain around the crank sprocket and spit it out the side through a self-generated window.
Still kinda would like to have a '95 SL2 in that midnight blue kind of color. Early body with late interior, best of both worlds.
ProDarwin said:Here is one that isn't necessarily horrible, just forgotten: G4JS 2.4L found in garbage appliances from Hyundai and Mitsubishi.
Someone slapped a big turbo on this guy and made 500whp on stock internals.
One of my weirdest coworkers is doing an incredibly clean but esoteric Hyundai G4CS DOHC swap and turbo build in his...get this...2nd gen Sonata 5-speed. I love the Korean/DSM licensed stuff.
That's the continuation of the Mitsubishi 4G64. Nice to see them getting love along side the venerable 4G63.
Mr_Asa said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Please point to anyplace on the internet, except for a frenchy post, where it says that the Atlas motor was designed around the Jag motor?
"Backed by fact" my hairy butt.
Edit: also, the Atlas engine program started in the mid-90s. Nowhere near when GM was doing anything with Jag.
Frenchy is wrong.
That's not the fact I referred to. He stated someone did X with the Atlas 4.2 so it's pretty good.
I'm also not interested in your hairy butt. Thanks for bringing it into the conversation though.
Heck someone could argue GM copied Ford when they made the LS since they finally went away from Siamese exhaust and intake ports too. Are you gonna get upset by that too?
All IC engine improvements are just variations on things others have done and tried.
Engine that gets derided a lot but is actually quite good: SBF. It's not as powerful as other V8s, but it is light, compact, tough and torquey.
Go find me something cool I will buy with all this extra energy instead!
You'll need to log in to post.
