General Motors has canceled plans to build a new advanced double overhead-cam V8 for its luxury cars. The move means the future for Cadillac's V8 car engines is unclear.

In January 2007, GM said it would invest $300 million in its Tonawanda, N.Y., engine plant for the new V8 engine, which was scheduled to start production in 2009 and be used in luxury cars. (SEE HERE)

GM said today that the project is dead. That engine likely would have replaced Cadillac's long-running Northstar V8, which is scheduled to end production in 2010. Cadillac could switch to high-powered V6s in its cars, except for the Corvette-based XLR. The new direct-injected V6 in the 2008 CTS develops 304 hp, while the current Northstar V8 makes 275 hp in the 2008 DTS.

Cadillac spokesman Kevin Smith said, "We've really seen the V-6 become the predominant engine in sales on the (2008) STS because it's so close in power to the V-8." He added that the V6 is about 150 to 200 pounds lighter.

The cancellation of the new V8 comes just days after President Bush signed into law new fuel economy standards that call for a 40 percent fuel economy improvement by 2020. The new standards start phasing in in 2011.
The Tonawanda plant still gets at least one new engine, an all-new 4.5-liter diesel V8 engine that starts production in 2010. That engine, GM said earlier, will be used in light pickups and SUVs.





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Woot for diesels!
It's too bad they've decided to cancel the DOHC v-8s though. It's really about time GM caught up with the rest of the world and started building engines that are actually volumetrically efficient, rather than just updating 20yr-old engine designs with elecronic controls. I have to say though, that the LS-series engines (LSx, whatever) seems to defy physics by being consistently a desireable engine and excellent tuning platform (for muscle cars) even with only 2 valves per cylinder. It probably has something to do with its displacement advantage relative to import 6-cyls. (Nissan VG- and VQ- and RB- series engines, Toyota 2JZ, etc.) and Ford's 3-valve and 4-valve 4.6L and 5.4L engines.
don't misunderstand: I'm not hating on GM, I prefer GM out of the Big Three and even over more than a few import brands. I just wish they would actually develop a truely new engine every now and then. they have recently, I suppose, but for about 50 years, the only really new engines GM developed were the C4 ZR-1 engine (LT5?), the Northstar, the Aurora (related to the Northstar?), the Quad/T.C., the Eco, and a few variations on DOHC 'high-feature' v-6s. that's maybe a dozen engines in 50 years, really more like the last 15-20? I pay more attention to GM than Mopar and Ford, but it seems like they're all largely stuck in the past, and that's one of the biggest reasons they have fallen behind imports in public opinion, I think.
It seems GM has decided the money they were spending on the DOHC V-8 program would be better spent on diesels. I can't find much fault with this thinking except looking at the last time GM tried building diesels for passenger cars. that was a mess. Diesel is much more efficient than gas, and while diesel alone won't satisfy America's energy demands, It's one more thing that could help greatly, given a little more faith from the public. too bad that faith was destroyed by GM and Mercedes in the 80s.

Why "fix" or redesign something that has been working for 50+ years?? Ford tried that with their 4.6 and 5.4 by moving the spark plug next to the intake manifold.



See the end of the plug after the threads??? They need that for it to reach the combustion chamber. But(this is straight from the dealer) that piece will seize in the head and break off from the threads and nut. Now the "proper" way(again straight from ford) to get them out after they have broken off in the head, is to remove the engine and remove the head. Now my question to the brainie acts at ford is: Why change the location when it has been serving you loyally for 50+ years??

Even if they are less evironmental friendly and gas hungier, i'll take a SBC or BBC over any of OHC"new technology" V-8 any day.



For the tree huggers that blame engines for global warming(i know the dont help). Have you ever stood in a black topped parking lot in the middle of the day? Its freakin hot. This is a theory that i heard and think makes some sence, all the black pavement on the planet is gettin heated and radiating the heat, raising the temp. What if we colored the pavement differently so it didnt absobe soo much heat? I wouldnt mind driving on a green road. But a pink road might be alittle weird.


"Project 69'"
1969 Chevrolet C/10, 1/2 ton, 2wd
-Boosted LS1?
-Richmond ROD 6-speed(will get sometime)
-Posi 12-bolt(built w/eaton posi unit and richmond 3.73 gears)
-Disc brake and 5 lug swap
+little extras

sucks for buffalo......i believe they are cutting 300 or so........on top of all the other jobs they cut recently. jobs around here are becoming harder and harder to get

toyotaz87 wrote:It's too bad they've decided to cancel the DOHC v-8s though. It's really about time GM caught up with the rest of the world and started building engines that are actually volumetrically efficient, rather than just updating 20yr-old engine designs with elecronic controls. I have to say though, that the LS-series engines (LSx, whatever) seems to defy physics by being consistently a desireable engine and excellent tuning platform (for muscle cars) even with only 2 valves per cylinder. It probably has something to do with its displacement advantage relative to import 6-cyls. (Nissan VG- and VQ- and RB- series engines, Toyota 2JZ, etc.) and Ford's 3-valve and 4-valve 4.6L and 5.4L engines.

DOHC motors have two things going for them, volumetric efficiency and "smoother" operation. The VE comes from 4-valves, and the "smoothness" from valvetrain configurstion. A 2-valve motor, however, has greater thermal efficiency, and a cam-in-block motor can have better mechanical efficiency along with a significantly lower COG. If you truly think GM is just using "old" technology just because they aren't capable of being "innovative", you've been sucking on too many tailpipes. Remember, automotive journalists aren't designing engines for a reason, and I applaud GM for not caving to the want of public misconceptions.
High output DOHC 4 and 6 in the commuter cars, uber-performance cam-in-block 8s for the sportscars, brilliant




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

toyotaz87 wrote:Woot for diesels!
It's too bad they've decided to cancel the DOHC v-8s though. It's really about time GM caught up with the rest of the world and started building engines that are actually volumetrically efficient, rather than just updating 20yr-old engine designs with elecronic controls. I have to say though, that the LS-series engines (LSx, whatever) seems to defy physics by being consistently a desireable engine and excellent tuning platform (for muscle cars) even with only 2 valves per cylinder. It probably has something to do with its displacement advantage relative to import 6-cyls. (Nissan VG- and VQ- and RB- series engines, Toyota 2JZ, etc.) and Ford's 3-valve and 4-valve 4.6L and 5.4L engines.
don't misunderstand: I'm not hating on GM, I prefer GM out of the Big Three and even over more than a few import brands. I just wish they would actually develop a truely new engine every now and then. they have recently, I suppose, but for about 50 years, the only really new engines GM developed were the C4 ZR-1 engine (LT5?), the Northstar, the Aurora (related to the Northstar?), the Quad/T.C., the Eco, and a few variations on DOHC 'high-feature' v-6s. that's maybe a dozen engines in 50 years, really more like the last 15-20? I pay more attention to GM than Mopar and Ford, but it seems like they're all largely stuck in the past, and that's one of the biggest reasons they have fallen behind imports in public opinion, I think.
It seems GM has decided the money they were spending on the DOHC V-8 program would be better spent on diesels. I can't find much fault with this thinking except looking at the last time GM tried building diesels for passenger cars. that was a mess. Diesel is much more efficient than gas, and while diesel alone won't satisfy America's energy demands, It's one more thing that could help greatly, given a little more faith from the public. too bad that faith was destroyed by GM and Mercedes in the 80s.

Uhm GM was actually at the fore front of OHC motors and v8s also. The LS series motor was a complete redesign from the traditional small blocks.



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30

Tinkles wrote:
For the tree huggers that blame engines for global warming(i know the dont help). Have you ever stood in a black topped parking lot in the middle of the day? Its freakin hot. This is a theory that i heard and think makes some sence, all the black pavement on the planet is gettin heated and radiating the heat, raising the temp. What if we colored the pavement differently so it didnt absobe soo much heat? I wouldnt mind driving on a green road. But a pink road might be alittle weird.

this is possibly the dumbest thing i have ever heard
how much heat asphalt absorbs has absolutely nothing to do with global warming
global warming occurs in the atmosphere, when heat that normally escapes is trapped up there

global warming is a natural function of the planet

and something for people to bitch about

While I like V8's, it makes much more sense to me to spend the money developing an engine that will be more widely used. Especially since GM has the DI 3.6L V6.

I'd like to see a smaller diesel engine available in any SUV or small truck.

Efficient small turbocharged 4cyl engines for all the small cars.

Efficient smaller V6 to replace the 3500 V6

But what do I know.

You do all notice that this is a play from Lincoln's playbook: Focusing on V6s and not V8s.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Lincoln has a play book?



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.523@111.30

Sappy96 wrote:Lincoln has a play book?

Duh!
It's titled : "Roll Over and Die"




www.drluc.ca

Thats Mercury's playbook



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"

Short Hand wrote:Thats Mercury's playbook

I could have sworn Mercury's was: " Barrel in mouth, pull trigger with toe"




www.drluc.ca

Lincoln is not putting V8s on their future cars. Only V6s, V6 DI and V6 Turbo to get V8 territory power numbers.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Quote:

LT5 was designed and developed by Group Lotus. Chevrolet-Pontiac-GM Canada (CPC) Engineering provided concept direction and design input. Interestingly, during the LT5 program, GM bought Group Lotus so, in the end, the design of the LT5 ended up an intercontinental, in-house effort.

what was that about GM and the old zr1 motor?

^^^ it was a passing reference... DOHC v-8s...