Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
The one article said the new LT1 was heavier, but not by how much. It could be 1 pound, it could be 50 pounds. It makes me nervous that they don't say how much.
Like No. 3 said - less info means more guessing...and with just under a year till production/sales...that's their best protection against immediate competition.
nobody asked for it and nobody (essentially) wants it.
|
Careful here....if it's good...it will be hailed. And even if it isn't...efficiency is the name of the game, for better or worse. This technology is a heavy-hitter and GM would be more foolish to ignore it, than use it.
Remember - they fully intended to use AFM this on the C6. But they weren't happy with the way it performed...I very much doubt they've lowered their standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
What's so hard to understand about the illogic of putting cylinder deactivation on the engine used in a top model performance car? It adds weight and complexity and makes the car drive and sound odd and makes the car perform less and cost more.
If anything, I should be "Captain Obvious" on this one...
|
It sounds like this is an "improved edition"...I've always felt, personally, that AFM was a fantastic technology...just very young and unrefined. I'm holding out hope that this new generation of engines will change the current reputation.
As far as weight and complexity, it's interesting you brought this up. There was an article where they asked that exact question. A powertrain development engineer stated that they considered many option/variants, etc...and that the results in efficiency/performance of the added features of the engine far outweighed any loss attributed to weight.