Chevy 4 Cylinder engine

[hal stclair]

And remember the Odd Couple hemi and small block Chevy twin engine dragster. Lots of free thinkers around then. Hal
--
1977 Royale 101348,

1977 Royale 101586, Diesel powered,

1975 Eleganza II, 101230,

1974 Eagle Bus 45',w/slideout,

Rio Rancho, NM

 

[robert burkitt]

Matt -

No second generation 426 hemi in 1962; 1964 was the first year. I used to
be in contact with late creator/engineer of the 426 hemi Tom Hoover through
Mopar's racing program. Three beer story sometime, as you often say.

Bob Burkitt (Maybe two beers)

-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Matt
Colie
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 12:31 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Chevy 4 Cylinder engine

Then there is "Golden Rod".
4 each Chrysler 426 hemis geared to all four wheels and still is the record
for naturally aspirated piston engine wheel drive since 1962(iirc).

Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org

 

[thomas phipps]

And then there was the Hot Rod magazine build that used two Chrysler slant 6's, side by side. One drove the front wheels, the other drove the rear
wheels.

Imagination and money is all it takes.
Tom
--
2012 Phoenix Cruiser model 2552
KA4CSG

 

[dave stragand1]

Google the Chrysler A57 tank engine. If I recall correctly, it was 5 in-line sixes sharing a common crank. Amazing engineering!

 

[gmc260]

after more thinking about this, the frame and transmission sorta lends itself to a dual engine set-up, isnt there a way to make the transmission
reverse direction internally? then you could bolt in another drivetrain pretty easily to a roller frame and build out the body to suit it.

the only thing that would be tricky I think is getting both transmissions to cooperate since there is no electronics on it. how could you make that
happen? shift and lock up in sync?

you could keep it all GM and use two corvair engines or go all out with two porsche 996 engines. I cant think of any flat diesel engines but
horizontally opposed engines would help you keep the floor low.

I think it could be done and probably retain a stock appearance too.

 

[bryan hayes]

> But it's still a 4 cylinder engine.
>
> In my opinion, the worst thing about a 4 is the way it idles with the trans in gear and the air conditioner on. They're better than the crappy 4
> cylindered cars of the 70's and 80's but the late model 4's I've been in still let you know there's a 4 cyl throbbing under the hood. Fine for a
> cheap economy car, not what I would want to drive every day.
>
> The second worst thing about a 4 is that it sounds like a 4. I don't like it. Buzz, buzz, buzz.
>
> I prefer a V8 but will drive a V6 if the 8 is not available. I would not buy a 4 unless in a cheap economy car with manual trans.
>
> Just my opinion.

This, a thousand times! A few years ago, I was in the market for a new car after my old V6-powered Saturn got rear-ended. I tried several 4-cylinder
cars, but the vibration just about rattled the many fillings out of my teeth. I finally settled on a V8-powered car, which are becoming hard to find.

Four-cylinder engines can be smooth, though. In college, I remember driving an old Dodge Colt with a Mitsubishi 4-cylinder engine. That engine was so
smooth, you could barely tell it was running. Power was not its strength, though.

--
Bryan Hayes
'76 Eleganza II
Salt Lake City, Utah

 

[Jim Hupy]

Nothing fundamentally wrong with 4's. As long as they don't have too much
reciprocating mass. Only two layouts. 180° crankpins, and 90°. The 90 is a
bit smoother. I rebuilt a Mitsubishi 3000 Gt turbo, it had an adjustable
wastegate. We dialed it up a bit and tweaked the fuel injection. It would
flat out run. 5 speed manual trans. Sure did not lack for power. But for
heavy vehicles, you need torque at low rpm. That takes displacement, not
rpm's.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 GMC ROYALE 403

> > But it's still a 4 cylinder engine.
> >
> > In my opinion, the worst thing about a 4 is the way it idles with the
> trans in gear and the air conditioner on. They're better than the crappy 4
> > cylindered cars of the 70's and 80's but the late model 4's I've been in
> still let you know there's a 4 cyl throbbing under the hood. Fine for a
> > cheap economy car, not what I would want to drive every day.
> >
> > The second worst thing about a 4 is that it sounds like a 4. I don't
> like it. Buzz, buzz, buzz.
> >
> > I prefer a V8 but will drive a V6 if the 8 is not available. I would not
> buy a 4 unless in a cheap economy car with manual trans.
> >
> > Just my opinion.
>
>
> This, a thousand times! A few years ago, I was in the market for a new car
> after my old V6-powered Saturn got rear-ended. I tried several 4-cylinder
> cars, but the vibration just about rattled the many fillings out of my
> teeth. I finally settled on a V8-powered car, which are becoming hard to
> find.
>
> Four-cylinder engines can be smooth, though. In college, I remember
> driving an old Dodge Colt with a Mitsubishi 4-cylinder engine. That engine
> was so
> smooth, you could barely tell it was running. Power was not its strength,
> though.
>
> --
> Bryan Hayes
> '76 Eleganza II
> Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>

 

[Rob]

The requirement for "displacement" in heavy vehicles has changed dramatically in recent years. Forced induction, direct injection and modern engines controls can create a LOT of low end torque...

Take the 2018 Lincoln Navigator as an example (not a great vehicle - but works in this case): curb weight WELL over 6,000 lbs, but it hits 60 mph in 5.5 seconds from a 3.5 L V6... Its turbocharged V6 creates a lot more torque at 1500 rpm than a 5 or 6 L NA V8.

I'm sure the shift will continue. I'm interested in seeing how these high boost engines hold up over time (especially after being abused by the average consumer for a few years!).

Rob
Victoria, BC
76 Royale - Rear Twins/Dry Bath

>
> But for heavy vehicles, you need torque at low rpm. That takes displacement, not rpm's.
>
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, Or
> 78 GMC ROYALE 403

 

[james ernst]

GMC announced to us here at the dealership this week that a new 2.7L 4cyl.
Turbo will be available in their pickups. It is rated at 300 HP and 348ish
lbs.ft of torque. It should be interesting to see what this runs like.

Jim Ernst
77PB
77 Kingsley
Columbus, NE

> The requirement for "displacement" in heavy vehicles has changed
> dramatically in recent years. Forced induction, direct injection and modern
> engines controls can create a LOT of low end torque...
>
> Take the 2018 Lincoln Navigator as an example (not a great vehicle - but
> works in this case): curb weight WELL over 6,000 lbs, but it hits 60 mph in
> 5.5 seconds from a 3.5 L V6... Its turbocharged V6 creates a lot more
> torque at 1500 rpm than a 5 or 6 L NA V8.
>
> I'm sure the shift will continue. I'm interested in seeing how these high
> boost engines hold up over time (especially after being abused by the
> average consumer for a few years!).
>
> Rob
> Victoria, BC
> 76 Royale - Rear Twins/Dry Bath
>

> >
> > But for heavy vehicles, you need torque at low rpm. That takes
> displacement, not rpm's.
> >
> > Jim Hupy
> > Salem, Or
> > 78 GMC ROYALE 403
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>