Iggy

Hollman-Moody was one of the orignial manufacturers of the GT-40.
They are building new ones from the original drawings and tooling. They also have sequential serial numbers. Their cars don't use the Ford name, they're called Holman GT-40's.

415stinger

Weren't the Corvette ZR1 engines made by Mercruiser? How come none of them ended up in boats?

rmbuilder

I seem to remember a magazine (Powerboat?) that did a project boat (20-22 ft Baja ??) with a ZR 1 engine in the early / mid 90's. If I remember correctly it didn't take to water very well with a power curve like this. I don't think anyone wanted to invest the time or resources into an engine designed to run outside the power band necessary for a marine application.

Power: (s.1) 405hp@5800 rpm, est. Torque: (s.1) 385ft/lbs.@4800 rpm, est.
(s.2) 425hp@6800 rpm, est. (s.2) 400ft/lbs.@5200 rpm, est.

Bob

rmbuilder

Here is a SAE tech brief that gives a look at GM 3V heads on page 5 of the PDF file. They are claiming the LS7 will rev to 8000 and be close to 500 HP. There are also some papers on the DI systems and the XV 16 engine. It also seems many American automotive manufacturers are taking an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to technological development due to the necessity of meeting the stringent pending CAFE requirements.

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-111-9-26.pdf

http://www.media.holden.com.au/divis...OHV_3valve.pdf

http://www.gminsidenews.com/xv82.htm

Whipple Charged

If you guys want to see something pretty cool. Wish I had the money to do this on our packages:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/m...EO&id=1&bhcp=1

Iggy

I have no problem with American iron or aluminum.

The Can-Am cars of the 70's that ran the BBC aluminum engines were some of the fastest on the track. The SBC has been in more forms of racing than any other engine. Smokey Yunik built several overhead cam SBC's and even a splayed valve head (like the BBC head) for it.
Dan Gurney built a DOHC head for the SB Ford engine and ran Indy with it as well as F-1. The first GT-40's ran 289 inch SB's and beat almost everything on the track. The American racing teams went to europe and showed them what American iron can do. Even Ferrari gave up and refused to race against them. He couldn't win.

When I had my 66 Shelby it would (in it's day) outrun any other small block on the street. It would run door to door with 396's, 383's and 440's. And that was with a little ol' 289.
I had a friend that had a '71 Chevelle SS 454 that I built the engine for. On Baldwin-Motion's chassis dyno it pumped out 450 hp at the wheels and still got 15 mpg.

The pushrod engine is far from dead.
I never said it was or that we should look to the Japanese for technology.
The NASCAR engines do a remarkable job at staying together for the duration of a 500 mile race. No doubt about it.
I just think it's time to persue a new direction in technology. The SBC and BBC are based on a design that's over 50 years old. Even the europeans were running dual ovehead cams and four valves per cylinder almost 80 years ago.
With all the current knowlage on thermodynamics, electronic engine management and metalurgy the automakers could design a new engine.
But, like I said, they are too bottom line oriented. If they can't recoup the the money they spent in design and prototyping in, say, four or five years they won't do it.


This is my opinion and in no way reflects those of the managenment.

mcollinstn

I assure you that ALL auto mfrs, regardless of the country of origin, are involved heavily in new engine designs. The US program is producing equivalent results and progress to the best of the world.

Unfortunately for us motorheads, the engine programs are not performance-based. They are emissions and economy based. We are talking about hydrogen motors, direct-to-motion fuel cell technology, incredible advances in electric and battery power density issues, and related fields. The thrust in those directions is so focused that it is amazing that ANY conventional performance advances are currently being made at ALL.

A truly new gasoline powered internal combustion motor anytime soon? Nope, just some repackaged stuff Nothing truly revolutionary.

If you start griping about 50 year old pushrod technology in domestic motors, it goes even further back than that - we are centering not only on pushrod distinction, but the entire realm of a piston-powered poppet-valve motor, which is technology that is not just 50 years old, but more like 125 years old. We have seen major improvements in fueling and sparking technology, as well as inrflow management and combustion efficiency. What we're doing, though, is STILL using pistons and poppet valves.

We've been shown many alternative configurations that showed initial promise. The Wankel is an example, but has its issues. The Stirling and Gatlin-style rotating vee motors were a brief flash of promise until their production problems were deemed hard to produce (read: expensive).

Given the requirements for longevity, reliability, and brand identification - there is nothing WRONG with a pushrod motor. Multivalve motors are indeed a significant performance advance for SMALLER engines. Multivalve technology will allow a motor to be tuned for high rpm power, yet still provide good airflow velocity and combustion efficiency (read: torque) at lower rpm. Small motors REQUIRE this edge over 2valve motors.
Many "high tech" euro motors are "small". This means they need to use high tech stuffto produce reasonable outputs.

A 500 inch V8 doesn't need a torque boost on the bottom end, and conventional limitations on piston speed from a reliability standpoint means that you don't need to cam for extremely high rpm since you won't be spinning it so high anyhow.

I LOVE high tech stuff. I THRIVE on it.
Have any of you really taken a hard look at the Northstar/Aurora V8? You guys got a problem with its technology OR are you just conveniently overlooking it?

And has the introduction of the wonderful Northstar motor caused domestic auto buyers to demand the powerplant in all of their cars? Nope. Caddy had to make a corporate decision to put the motor in ALL of their lineup to keep it from being cut due to lack of demand.

Domestic cars used to lead the performance pack. In the hotrod muscle days, power levels rose, and doestic autos were known the world over for huge levels of torque and tire melting performance. The emissions and fuel crisis of the early 70's turned all the domestic iron into huge barely-running boat anchors. During those times, euro and japanese imports still came to these shores with small, but high revving, cammers. True output was not necessarily that high, but the "feel" of performance was there. Consumers are essentially a bunch of idiots, so somewhere in there it was decided that imports were high tech.

GM repsonded at some point with the ZR-1 LT5 aluminum quadcam V8 Vette. Lackluster sales. Pricing was prohibitive, but GM had cut it to the bone, a loss leader to establish itself as a high tech manufacturer. Praises from all corners of motorhead-dom.

Here we are, though, a handfull of years later with a Z06 (old tech - 50yr old) motor that makes MORE of everything that the LT5 did, with ancient pushrod technology (nothing wrong with pushrods under 6500 rpm).

Tech tech tech.
We all got a different idea of what is high tech and what is low tech.

Adivanman

mcollinstn - very well said