Jump to content

Supercharged V8's on the way??

TNTSierra
 Share

Recommended Posts

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I was surprised the Fiero didn’t stay around. My wife had two. And 84 and 86GT V-6. Her first toys. The 86 was actually quite fun. 

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TNTSierra
TNTSierra

Yes, 668HP is nice, but let's just skip the nonsense and put the LT5 into all of them and get 755HP!!  We both know that sounds so much more enticing!!!  Claiming 755HP with a Corvette ZR1 motor would

f8l vnm
f8l vnm

If Dodge/Fiat/Stillantis can give every damn thing in their lineup a 700+ HP motor , i agree why not get LT5 ? At worse you can rate it at 700 .. IT WILL SELL! People who buy these cars dont care abou

garagerog
garagerog

Don't count on Mary, when it comes to the bowties all she sees is chEVrolet. John deLorean barely slipped the GTO past Ed Cole, Mary would have de-nutted him.

Posted Images

TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Way to many headaches with the motors back then. Weren’t they called the “iron duke”   Many had issues with catching on fire. 
 

When I was in elementary school a high schooler had a maroon GT Fiero, and I remember playing on the playground and watching that thing drive by. Man was it a sweet ride. Reminded me of a Ferrari. Because every kid back then had a picture in his bedroom of a red Ferrari Testerosa like the one in Magnum PI.   🤣👍 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

Way to many headaches with the motors back then. Weren’t they called the “iron duke”   Many had issues with catching on fire. 
 

When I was in elementary school a high schooler had a maroon GT Fiero, and I remember playing on the playground and watching that thing drive by. Man was it a sweet ride. Reminded me of a Ferrari. Because every kid back then had a picture in his bedroom of a red Ferrari Testerosa like the one in Magnum PI.   🤣👍 

The first one a 4 cylinder was the iron duke. I remember them being pretty tough. The second was I believe a 2.8 V-6. I remember seeing V-8 conversion for those. We had the GT for awhile. They both were trouble free. A remember reading articles about GM finally got it right with the GT but too little, too late. I was pretty hands on back then so I was always checking it out. My wife’s main ride back  then was a 74 impala I modified with a 454, 700R4, 373. So we didn’t think of those as fast. I guess anything can be a fire hazard if not taken care of. A little oil leak in that small space, I can see it. I ended giving the GT to my daughter for college. She drove it through college, getting married until the little one came along. A 94 impala ss took its spot. 

  • Like 1
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
  • Author
Posted
28 minutes ago, KARNUT said:

The first one a 4 cylinder was the iron duke. I remember them being pretty tough. The second was I believe a 2.8 V-6. I remember seeing V-8 conversion for those. We had the GT for awhile. They both were trouble free. A remember reading articles about GM finally got it right with the GT but too little, too late. I was pretty hands on back then so I was always checking it out. My wife’s main ride back  then was a 74 impala I modified with a 454, 700R4, 373. So we didn’t think of those as fast. I guess anything can be a fire hazard if not taken care of. A little oil leak in that small space, I can see it. I ended giving the GT to my daughter for college. She drove it through college, getting married until the little one came along. A 94 impala ss took its spot. 

If they just could have found a way to put a TPI 305 in it. Thing would have scooted!  But then again it would have probably taken sales away from the camaro and corvette. Who knows but I’m a guy who’s all in and if you are going to do something. Do it to its fullest!!!  Could have been a bad@ss performing car as well as bad@ss looking car. 

  • Like 1
Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/21/2022 at 5:04 AM, TNTSilverado said:

Way to many headaches with the motors back then. Weren’t they called the “iron duke”   Many had issues with catching on fire. 
 

When I was in elementary school a high schooler had a maroon GT Fiero, and I remember playing on the playground and watching that thing drive by. Man was it a sweet ride. Reminded me of a Ferrari. Because every kid back then had a picture in his bedroom of a red Ferrari Testerosa like the one in Magnum PI.   🤣👍 

The fire issue was due to a typo in the service manual stating it only took 3 quarts.  Apparently some people were too stupid to check the oil dip stick back then. 

Edited by Transient
Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
On 1/21/2022 at 5:53 AM, TNTSilverado said:

If they just could have found a way to put a TPI 305 in it. Thing would have scooted!  But then again it would have probably taken sales away from the camaro and corvette. Who knows but I’m a guy who’s all in and if you are going to do something. Do it to its fullest!!!  Could have been a bad@ss performing car as well as bad@ss looking car. 

Look up Fiero Formula.  Also, nothing could be faster than the Corvette.  Fiero was so small and light that it definitely could've destroyed a Corvette with the correct powertrain. 

TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Transient said:

668hp/659tq

I’m saying 755hp/755tq.  Read another article that states Cadillac is going big on this engine. I believe the reason they didn’t show numbers is because an LT5 is under the hood. If this is true, I already talked to the wife and if it’s right at $100k. I might pull the trigger. But if it’s above $125k. Then heck no!!

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

I’m saying 755hp/755tq.  Read another article that states Cadillac is going big on this engine. I believe the reason they didn’t show numbers is because an LT5 is under the hood. If this is true, I already talked to the wife and if it’s right at $100k. I might pull the trigger. But if it’s above $125k. Then heck no!!

I have a hard time believing its getting LT5 but man would that be something.  Price wise is interesting take here.  

The X5 M Comp starts around 106K while the X7 starts at 100k . LOL what a bargain compared to the -->The Benz GLS 63 which starts around 130k .  I would imagine it will 125k is obtainable ( with the LT4) With LT5 I'm thinking more.  I mean the ZR1's were around 120k right ? 

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

I’m saying 755hp/755tq.  Read another article that states Cadillac is going big on this engine. I believe the reason they didn’t show numbers is because an LT5 is under the hood. If this is true, I already talked to the wife and if it’s right at $100k. I might pull the trigger. But if it’s above $125k. Then heck no!!

Article I read gave the numbers I posted.  That's why I posted that. 

TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, Transient said:

Article I read gave the numbers I posted.  That's why I posted that. 

Interesting. What article was that?  Motortrend and car and driver both said nothing. They did say the CT5 has the black wing motor with 668/659 but they aren’t for sure it’s that’s going in the Escalade. 

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

Interesting. What article was that?  Motortrend and car and driver both said nothing. They did say the CT5 has the black wing motor with 668/659 but they aren’t for sure it’s that’s going in the Escalade. 

I'll have to see if I can find it.  It was one of those recommended articles you get from Google when you open a new page and have Google as your homepage. 

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted

I thought BlackWing was the name of the 4.2 TT motor ?

And WTF happened to that motor? 

M1ck3y Senior Enthusiast

M1ck3y

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, f8l vnm said:

I thought BlackWing was the name of the 4.2 TT motor ?

And WTF happened to that motor? 

 

It was, and they scraped it. Damn Shame :shakehead:

 

Imo they're taking that tech/what they learned, and are applying it to the Zr1. What's the engine designation, Lt6? 

 

There's going to be way to many power train options for the corvette.

 

Lt2

Lt5

Lt6

 

Potential hybrid lt2, hybrid Lt6, full electric version... 

Edited by M1ck3y

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...