Chevelles.com banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,662 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,801 Posts
Lots more parts means lots more cost to produce. And with all those moving parts friction goes up a lot, too. None of this works toward reduced fuel consumption. At some point GM lost its magic. They spent tons of money on dead-end projects that they did not realize had gotten to a dead end.
My first job as a newly graduated engineer was working on the GT309 (later the GT404) gas turbine engine for trucks and industrial applications. That was in 1969. In 1991 I visited GM Powertrain Engineering and saw evidence that they were still fiddling with it. Despite the fact that all the other automotive companies has killed off their gas turbine projects, GM was still going on. The amount of money they wasted on that stuff was likely mind boggling. That V12 was probably part of the same thinking. As for the gas turbine, it seems that they could not read the writing on the wall and admit it was a dud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
I have a 351 cu/in "Big Block" V6 in my 1964 C30 flat bed dually. I also have 2 of the 702 cu/in "Twin Six" V12 engines. They are all cast iron, and the 351 weighs in at a paltry 995 lbs, the V12, 1,394 lbs. I've never run the V12's, nothing to put them in, but the V6 runs well, gets terrible fuel mileage, and pulls just about anything you please down the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
The OHC design of the prototype Cadillac V-12 made it too complex. And, as the article stated, it wouldn't fit transversely under the hood of the upcoming FWD Eldorado. GM specialty FWD luxury barges never sold in great numbers. (66-78) And they were filled with gadgets and gee-gaws that broke with time, and were expensive to fix. Why didn't they simply slap a pair of cylinders (or two) on their 425/472/500 engine family instead? Chrysler did it later with their V-10 engine, as did Ford with their Triton (modular) V-10 OHC engine as well.
The OHC concept works well with small fours, that are installed in front driven base economy cars. Beyond that, they are a mistake and the OHV design is better. Believe Ford erred with their mid nineties conversion to OHC in the V-8 engines. The Ford "modular" V-8, while not horrible, has several inherent defects. The engines are very wide, hard to package into most cars and don't age well. Meaning plastic parts and pieces that eventually get baked by heat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,548 Posts
Lots more parts means lots more cost to produce. And with all those moving parts friction goes up a lot, too. None of this works toward reduced fuel consumption. At some point GM lost its magic. They spent tons of money on dead-end projects that they did not realize had gotten to a dead end.
My first job as a newly graduated engineer was working on the GT309 (later the GT404) gas turbine engine for trucks and industrial applications. That was in 1969. In 1991 I visited GM Powertrain Engineering and saw evidence that they were still fiddling with it. Despite the fact that all the other automotive companies has killed off their gas turbine projects, GM was still going on. The amount of money they wasted on that stuff was likely mind boggling. That V12 was probably part of the same thinking. As for the gas turbine, it seems that they could not read the writing on the wall and admit it was a dud.
It was the perfect storm that got them. Emissions, ignoring customers on the service drive, not fixing production problems as they surfaced, switching to one engine fit's all like Ford and Chrysler and bean counters. Engineering was a major problem for several models such as the Vega. They had engine problems that should never have hit the production floor. The problems were primarily created by management although "some" union members should have been fired for their stupidity. Not the majority though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,119 Posts
I have a 351 cu/in "Big Block" V6 in my 1964 C30 flat bed dually. I also have 2 of the 702 cu/in "Twin Six" V12 engines. They are all cast iron, and the 351 weighs in at a paltry 995 lbs, the V12, 1,394 lbs. I've never run the V12's, nothing to put them in, but the V6 runs well, gets terrible fuel mileage, and pulls just about anything you please down the road.
I have a customer with three V12s. Two runners and a surplus block in the crate. What are they worth? He wants $4k for all three.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top