[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I would not be surprised if cost was the overriding issue in the "no-manual" position, especially since Tadge said a number of times in the interview that there was no supplier willing to develop one at a reasonable cost. From there, the effort required to clear the technical hurdles becomes a lot less attractive. Tadge does present the technical hurdles as insurmountable. It could be that it wasn't worth trying to solve them given the cost involved in getting someone to develop and manufacture a super low volume, high performance manual transaxle. Could be that once cost drove the decision to not include a manual, there was no effort made to protect for eventual inclusion and subsequent design decisions around the tunnel served to slam the door on the idea. From my experience around programs at GM, the latter seems most likely.

Number 3 ….. during your time at GM, how many times did you hear the term "package protect" thrown around? Sounds to me like what happened with MT was a cost decision negated the need to "package protect".

I think you are absolutely correct on "Cost" being the reason. I will play devil's advocate and say that the need/desire to go DCT left even less money on the table for any other transmission options.

I always lament the loss of options, but especially powertrain ones.

While he is half-correct that a transaxle doesn't exist to hold the LT2's torque, Audi/Lambo have had a manual ME car that can handle their V8 and V10 offerings...note this also includes a convertible. This negates his tunnel structure argument, not to mention his linkage argument. Porsche uses cable linkages effectively, and while correct on flat engine design, he leaves out that they still require the cables to go up at the backbone of the P car chassis and over the top of the engine. What he doesn't mention is the LT2's gap below the intake - room enough for a cable set with a little creativity.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That is the interesting part. If it is a true FPC then there is a reason they are smaller displacement and I don't see the production one being 5.5L

The theoretical displacement limit of an FPC engine is due to second order vibration. It has to do with the different accelration/deceleration rates with the pistons at the top and bottom of their respecive strokes.

Ford added a harmonic balancer to their Voodoo engine to help with the vibrations, and Chevy could do the same. But, that also adds mass back to the rotating/reciprocation assembly, which reduces the main benifit of an FPC engine, namely quick to rev.

BUT, as I explained before, Ford already had to add the counterweights back to the crankshaft due to intake limitations that changed the firing order. So, for them, adding a harmonic balancer wasn't a big deal.

Just so folks know, the thoretical limit to an inline-4 cylinder engine is 2.0L. BUT, we see tons of I4's with displacements higher than 2.0L. That's because the engines have a harmonic balancer or balance shaft added. So, it's not as impossible as most folks think to build a large FPC engine. It's just a question of how much mass are you going to add back to balance the second order vibrations, and is it worth it?

If you are building the worlds best super car like Ferrari and others, they want to go with the most exotic engine, no matter the cost. So, compromising is frowned upon. Just keep the diplacement manageable, and add a bunch of boost.

For a mass produced Chevy, adding a little mass (but not nearly as much mass as the Voodoo's heavy counterweighted cranshaft), is probably a compromise they are willing to make. And it won't make nearly the difference to the engines ability to rev quickly like the Voodoo. AND a big plus here is that with a harmonic balancer, the engine will have much less NVH, not only for reliability, it will make the engine a lot smoother.

[TheRealJA105]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Just because someone challenges me to something does not mean I have to answer to it or them. If I answered to you then I'd be answering to every Mustang guy on here challenging me to dumb shit all the time and I don't care enough to prove anything to you guys. You guys seem to think that your opinions of me matter when they don't. Think I'm a liar? Ok. Cool. You're welcome to think whatever you want about me. But know that if I wanted to, I could go and buy this car that all you Mustang guys are foaming at the mouth over and not one of you would be able to. LOL!!

Now this might be the dumbest thing you ever posted, calling me a Mustang guy hahahahahahaha WRONG!
There is not 1 person on this forum that has ever been to 180mph in their Camaro on a road course, so we know you are lying, no thinking involved.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I don't have enough respect for you to reply to anything you have to say from here out. I'm done toying with you. I enjoy seeing you make a fool out of yourself but it's old now and I have better things to do. Enjoy your life and talking about cars you'll never own or whatever. If I decide to get a GT500 then you'll see it on here and M6G. LOL!! And you'll be commenting on my post over there not knowing it's me and you'll be drooling all over it and I'll be here laughing at you, HAHA!! Or I'll get a Redeye instead. Or whatever I decide. And you'll still have your 2015 GT. Heck, maybe I'll buy a GT500 AND a 15 GT and then mod the GT and run 9s just to show you that I can have everything you have and things you'll never have. LOL!! Fun stuff. Anyway, I'm done with you.

You are the one making a fool out of yourself time and time again. Sometimes you are right and I back you up, but not in this case.

Originally Posted by GossipSquirrelJelena

I'll know it'll be you. You'll be just as stupid over there. As you are here. I might buy a plane. I might buy a train. I might buy a GT. Or live in a teepee.
I might run 9s. Or be road course devine. You sound like a retarded Dr. SEUSS. With all the stupid stories of stuff you MIGHT do.Just do anything you've claimed. Hit 180mph on a road course. Actually race someone. For the love of god.

This is pretty funny actually, and it works with your excessive periods.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

The theoretical displacement limit of an FPC engine is due to second order vibration. It has to do with the different accelration/deceleration rates with the pistons at the top and bottom of their respecive strokes.

Ford added a harmonic balancer to their Voodoo engine to help with the vibrations, and Chevy could do the same. But, that also adds mass back to the rotating/reciprocation assembly, which reduces the main benifit of an FPC engine, namely quick to rev.

BUT, as I explained before, Ford already had to add the counterweights back to the crankshaft due to intake limitations that changed the firing order. So, for them, adding a harmonic balancer wasn't a big deal.

Just so folks know, the thoretical limit to an inline-4 cylinder engine is 2.0L. BUT, we see tons of I4's with displacements higher than 2.0L. That's because the engines have a harmonic balancer or balance shaft added. So, it's not as impossible as most folks think to build a large FPC engine. It's just a question of how much mass are you going to add back to balance the second order vibrations, and is it worth it?

If you are building the worlds best super car like Ferrari and others, they want to go with the most exotic engine, no matter the cost. So, compromising is frowned upon. Just keep the diplacement manageable, and add a bunch of boost.

For a mass produced Chevy, adding a little mass (but not nearly as much mass as the Voodoo's heavy counterweighted cranshaft), is probably a compromise they are willing to make. And it won't make nearly the difference to the engines ability to rev quickly like the Voodoo. AND a big plus here is that with a harmonic balancer, the engine will have much less NVH, not only for reliability, it will make the engine a lot smoother.

It will be very interesting to see how they do it. Do you think GM might run into any packaging problems like ford did though? a DOHC engine of that size is going to pretty large and probably taller than the LT2. Doesn't seem like there is a ton of room in the engine bay of the C8

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

It will be very interesting to see how they do it. Do you think GM might run into any packaging problems like ford did though? a DOHC engine of that size is going to pretty large and probably taller than the LT2. Doesn't seem like there is a ton of room in the engine bay of the C8

The top of the LT2 is lower than the top of the tires. A lot of room going up. Now, to the sides might be a different matter.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

It will be very interesting to see how they do it. Do you think GM might run into any packaging problems like ford did though? a DOHC engine of that size is going to pretty large and probably taller than the LT2. Doesn't seem like there is a ton of room in the engine bay of the C8

Keep in mind, Chevy is going from a 6.2L to a 5.5L (supposedly). The LT1 and Coyotee are pretty similar in size even though they are significanly different displacements. So the 5.5L DOHC may end up pretty similar in size to the LT2, just a bit taller.

In my opinion, an FPC engine will fit just fine in the mid-engine layout. If you look at the rear hatch with the window in it in the C8, there is tons of room on top of the engine for a dual intake setup. In fact, the extra room is what gave Chevy the ability to add a highrise inake to the LT2. Also, and FPC engine has a much smaller crankcase, so the lower part of the engine is much smaller. And I am sure that the engine bay of the C8 was specifically designed to handle all power plants they have planned in the future, including an FPC with a TT setup.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Keep in mind, Chevy is going from a 6.2L to a 5.5L (supposedly). The LT1 and Coyotee are pretty similar in size even though they are significanly different displacements. So the 5.5L DOHC may end up pretty similar in size to the LT2, just a bit taller.

In my opinion, an FPC engine will fit just fine in the mid-engine layout. If you look at the rear hatch with the window in it in the C8, there is tons of room on top of the engine for a dual intake setup. In fact, the extra room is what gave Chevy the ability to add a highrise inake to the LT2. Also, and FPC engine has a much smaller crankcase, so the lower part of the engine is much smaller. And I am sure that the engine bay of the C8 was specifically designed to handle all power plants they have planned in the future, including an FPC with a TT setup.

The bold part.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The top of the LT2 is lower than the top of the tires. A lot of room going up. Now, to the sides might be a different matter.

That is true, guess it is hard to judge from photos

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Keep in mind, Chevy is going from a 6.2L to a 5.5L (supposedly). The LT1 and Coyotee are pretty similar in size even though they are significanly different displacements. So the 5.5L DOHC may end up pretty similar in size to the LT2, just a bit taller.

In my opinion, an FPC engine will fit just fine in the mid-engine layout. If you look at the rear hatch with the window in it in the C8, there is tons of room on top of the engine for a dual intake setup. In fact, the extra room is what gave Chevy the ability to add a highrise inake to the LT2. Also, and FPC engine has a much smaller crankcase, so the lower part of the engine is much smaller. And I am sure that the engine bay of the C8 was specifically designed to handle all power plants they have planned in the future, including an FPC with a TT setup.

I feel smarter now lol

But in regards to the bold, the GT350 came out so early in the S550 don't you think Ford had the Voodoo planned well in advance and would have anticipated packaging as well?

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Keep in mind, Chevy is going from a 6.2L to a 5.5L (supposedly). The LT1 and Coyotee are pretty similar in size even though they are significanly different displacements. So the 5.5L DOHC may end up pretty similar in size to the LT2, just a bit taller.

In my opinion, an FPC engine will fit just fine in the mid-engine layout. If you look at the rear hatch with the window in it in the C8, there is tons of room on top of the engine for a dual intake setup. In fact, the extra room is what gave Chevy the ability to add a highrise inake to the LT2. Also, and FPC engine has a much smaller crankcase, so the lower part of the engine is much smaller. And I am sure that the engine bay of the C8 was specifically designed to handle all power plants they have planned in the future, including an FPC with a TT setup.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The bold part.

Especially considering the leaked CAD drawing of the TT DOHC V8 with identical block architecture and belt routing as the Blackwing, but with opposite flowing heads (no Hot-V setup).

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That is true, guess it is hard to judge from photos



I feel smarter now lol

But in regards to the bold, the GT350 came out so early in the S550 don't you think Ford had the Voodoo planned well in advance and would have anticipated packaging as well?

Yes and no. Yes, the Voodoo was in the works before the S550, however, the S550 is not a blank sheet designed chassis, it was a modified S197 chassis, so there were limitations to how different chassis could be. Also, even if they went with a blank slate, the packaging may have made the dimensions of the car different enough to detract from some of the original Mustang formula, i.e. the hood may need to be taller, which would bring up the beltline, or the hood may need to be longer, which would alter where the steering wheel is placed relative to the whole car. That last point may not sound to important, but changes like that can make the car no longer look (enough) like a Mustang.

Also, a mid engine layout with a hatchback design will always give you a taller engine bay than a front engine car (because you have to be able to see over the engine bay in a front engine car).

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Especially considering the leaked CAD drawing of the TT DOHC V8 with identical block architecture and belt routing as the Blackwing, but with opposite flowing heads (no Hot-V setup).

You will also note that the leaked CAD drawing of the TT engine has a dual intake setup. Which would imply that this is a proper FPC engine.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Yes and no. Yes, the Voodoo was in the works before the S550, however, the S550 is not a blank sheet designed chassis, it was a modified S197 chassis, so there were limitations to how different chassis could be. Also, even if they went with a blank slate, the packaging may have made the dimensions of the car different enough to detract from some of the original Mustang formula, i.e. the hood may need to be taller, which would bring up the beltline, or the hood may need to be longer, which would alter where the steering wheel is placed relative to the whole car. That last point may not sound to important, but changes like that can make the car no longer look (enough) like a Mustang.

Also, a mid engine layout with a hatchback design will always give you a taller engine bay than a front engine car (because you have to be able to see over the engine bay in a front engine car).

Great Info!

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The top of the LT2 is lower than the top of the tires. A lot of room going up. Now, to the sides might be a different matter.

From the cross sectional pictures I've seen, the LT2 sits low, but not quite lower than the top of the tires.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The top of the LT2 is lower than the top of the tires. A lot of room going up. Now, to the sides might be a different matter.

Sides might be a little tight, but I'm sure that was already taken care of earlier in development when possibly engines were being considered.