2008 Pontiac G8 Starts at $27,595 and the V8 Powered G8 GT Starts at $29,995

This is a rebadged Vauxhall VXR8 which itself is a rebadged HSV Clubsport R8

Is HSV short for Holden? I know that the GTO was originally designed by Holden in Australia as the Manaro. From the looks of it, Holden should design all Pontiac vehicles from here on out. This car looks like an EVO from the front, and the sides and rear remind me of a BMW or an Audi. Not bad overall. The interior however is questionable.

So, not only are they wussing up the LS2, but no manual? Gotta hand it to GM, they know how to take something decent and flush it down the toilet.

Wow, I didn't think the GT model would start life that low. That's pretty damn good. Looks good too.

That sucks for no manual. But at least its still a six speed. I see they kept the excellent interior of the GTO though. And its not like they gimped the LS2. Just a different cam. Easily fixed.

Sounds good, cheap too. Pontiac just keeps making better and better cars. I'm not sure why their sales still suck. Between the G5, G6, Solstice and now G8, their cars are at least as good as the competition and cheaper for the most part.

Lol, another rebadged aussie Holden. Totaly designed and built in Australia...and HSV stands for Holden Special Vehicle by the way.

lame, lame, no stick.

jesus christ, what is wrong with car companies these days.

the Charger or Magnun all auto. the skyline also auto(dsg)
now the father of all muscle car also auto.

serious I can't imagine driving this car in dangerous curves or making high speed turns.

maybe it's only good for 10sec drag racing.

Actually HSV stands for Holden Special Vehicles - plural. It is the performance division of Holden Australia. The G8 is a rebadged/tweaked Holden Commodore that has had the HSV treatment - kinda like AMG for Mercedes or M series for BMW - but cheaper! The GTO is a Monaro, not a Manaro btw. Both are classic aussie muscle cars with fantastic racing histories. Now, if only Holden would remake a Torana...

Lack of a manual would be my only complaint. GM has been on the up and up as far as reliability goes, and considering this is actually a Holden design I would imagine it would be a very reliable car.

I can kind of see hints of and Audio and TL in the side profile. All around a damn nice looking car. Imagine pulling up next to a $40k plus TL Type-S and roasting it.

It is indeed the most powerful vehicle that (new) comes in under $30,000, but it better have road holding capabilities.

Also, is it true that this is the LS2? I thought it might be an iron-block version (therefor the reason it had less power), but if it is an LS2 but with a different cam, then :)

*Who wants to void a factory warranty right the fuck away?*

It blows my mind when companies release seemingly performance centric vehicles, and fail to offer a manual transmission.

Here's lookin at you Pontiac G8 GT (another example being the Lexus IS-350 and possibly the LF-A, teh fuk?)

A 6.0L that does less than 400 horses. Thats darn right wimpy power for such a large displacement engine. Other manufacturers do more with less...
GM should be ashamed.

The fact that there is no manual is even worst. At minimum GM should have put an auto stick in there. Chrysler offers it on its LX sedans. You can't have a rear wheel drive performance vehicle when your stuck with a automatic only.

I think GM is off to a good start though. Tune the V8 up to 400 horses and add an auto stick as standard and this thing will sell like hot cakes.

I wish Ford would bring the Falcon over here. If the G8 sells well, Ford will have to bring the Falcon over.

It is curious that GM will not sell this vehicle in the US with a manual, as the near-identical vehichle in Australia (Commodore SV6, SV8, SS, etc etc) all have a 6 speed manual option. I would take a punt that its a cost cutting option as they then only have to import one transmission to the states.

It is curious: that GM would produce two versions of that V8 and both would be aluminum. I guess they reduced the compression ration so it'd run on regular 87 octane. Still, a tuned up engine that ran on 91 octane (LS2?) would be nice.

At least it doesn't weigh too much, about as much in the curb weight as the 500i. Just hope its not nose heavy.

As for the manual, not everything on Torque report seems to be 100% accurate all the time. A lot of sources still report it as having a 6 speed manual option.

One more thing: is it not strange that today a manual is the optional equipment? Hah, early this decade manuals were standard and automatics still options. Now its reversed. Nothing wrong with that, indeed a lot of people who don't belong driving sticks won't now.

Hold on...how are people not astounded that GM needs 6 gigantic liters to get only 361 horse? Only an American car company can produce such a pathetic engine. Yes, it the bhp number is big, but compared to the liters required, quite pathetic. 60.2hp/L is worse than my 12 year old Subaru grocery getter.

That said, I'm sure with cams, headers, port/polish, lighter internals, tuned intake, remapped ECU, and high-flow cats/exhaust, the thing might be able to push a still pitiful(in terms of displacement) 400-425 horse.

I don't even want to know the mpg of that thing. Plus, no manual transmission? GM really knows how to drive me away from their cars...

Look at the picturs again. Both interior shots shows manual trans. Look at the stick and you'll see gear numbers.
I'm sure to compete with euro cars GM would not be that stupid to omit that very important delail.

Look at the picturs again. Both interior shots shows manual trans. Look at the stick and you'll see gear numbers.
I'm sure to compete with euro cars GM would not be that stupid to omit that very important delail.

Look at the picturs again. Both interior shots shows manual trans. Look at the stick and you'll see gear numbers.
I'm sure to compete with euro cars GM would not be that stupid to omit that very important delail.

Look at the picturs again. Both interior shots shows manual trans. Look at the stick and you'll see gear numbers.
I'm sure to compete with euro cars GM would not be that stupid to omit that very important thing.

Horsepower ratings are finicky critters... at what RPM does the motor make the quoted bhp?

Chevy has been historically notorious for quoting lower RPM/horsepower figures on its lower end cars to avoid "competing" with the performance cars.

I wouldn't be surprised if the G8 V8 can really pull a heck of a lot more bhp at higher RPM.

Ummm, I'm not exactly a car fanatic, but it seems to me that the interior pics show a manual transmission...

probably going to be the biggest piece of shit, with the worst gas millage for under $30,000 too

Ok

So you yanks stop winging about power (and also for the other people obviously from other countries bagging the engine) this is actually the least powerfull V8 available in Australia for the commodore. There is also a 307kw version about 410hp.

Oh and those people that are bagging the power.
It is made at 5700rpm Aussies version with 270kw.
Not to mention 530NM of torque at 4400rpm.

Also they rev at something like 1200rpm in 6th gear whilst going 100km/h on a freeway. Id like to see some crappy high revving euro v8 do that and still be able to accelarate.

And yes we can get 6 speed manual overhere.

Onlything i'm gonna winge about is why is it cheaper in the states then what it is in Australia. The G8 GT is basically like our commodore SS-V. Yet our SS-V costs $AUD52500 plus another 2000 for an auto. Thats like $45000 US for an auto model here. No fair. Its not just this car though It's very car on our market costs a lot more.

Still a much better deal than a Merc E-calss or BMW 5 series though. These things trash them in value for money.

HP per liter of displacement is interesting but is not a measure of how good an engine is. HP per pound of engine weight (and to a certain extent overall engine size) is much more important. Additionally the entire power band is important, not just peak numbers. Chevy's small block V8 has a nicer power band than most engines making good power across a wider range of RPM's, giving you more usable power when driving. The V8 in question here avoids using parts like dual overhead cams which can give you more horsepower per liter but add weight. Really if you actually know anything about cars and engines the numbers sound decent IF the engine includes displacement on demand and is tuned for 87 octane.

Having said that I won't be getting one, if I get a sedan in the near future it'll have AWD because I'd like a second car with AWD for easier winter driving and such. But if you want a full size sedan it'd be ignorant to dismiss the G8 without checking one out. Of course it also seems a bit ignorant for GM to not offer a manual transmission option, the engineering work has been done and I find it hard to believe any serious market research didn't show significant demand for a manual.

@Tal: how can the car not have manual transmission when the pics clearly show a manual stick?

Another proofpoint that when americans stay away from specifying and designing a car, you might actually end-up with something.

So they had to ask the Australians.....

I have heard that the manual version will be available in march. The majority of car buyers want a automatic (not everyone is a car enthusiast), the manual gets second priority.

That's an expensive car that won't sell in the long run. You'll be lucky to get a V6 out the door below 30k onced optioned. Why does GM always screw up something good.

The car will have a manual, just not at launch time. You'll have to wait a few months. I'm hoping they make an LS3 version soon.

Very nice. That interior is very Holdenesque and not so much Pontiac which is a GOOD thing. Looks fairly upscale for a not so upscale price. I'm looking for a replacement for my last gen TL Type S and 361HP sounds good to me. Since this is the 6.0L LS2, wouldn't you think there might be a few cheap mods and/or an aftermarket handheld tuner to add some easy HP?

Dear Matt Damons ,

Gee there is a manual in the picture??? But I can't read..... it must be manual???

The article says:

"Unfortunately no manual transmission is going to be offered. It's too bad that the concept version teased us with the stick shift transmission."

DID YOU FREAKING READ THE ARTICLE????

Who cares if it is 6.0L.. Guess what Genius??? Chevy has been doing this for a while. You ever heard of those cars called the Corvette or Camaro ????? The whole point of selling this car is that it's is priced near/under 30k.....

What you want to buy a Porsche 911/ Turbo.... or one of those 4 banger rice burners??? for more money ???

get a clue... They build cars to sell not to entertain a 13 year old boy in his mom's basement eating a hotpocket....

Austrailia builds a decent car do you want a medal of honor badge or something? Besides having a lot of poisonous snakes, and kangaroo poop what else do you got? haha...... Crocodile Dundee and Russel Crowe??

The automatic is default because it will sell to people who have money!!! Not speed racer flipping fries at mcDonalds. Simply easier to produce. Especially when GM needs to save every penny during production.

First off Josh I don't like your tone. *spaghetti western music plays*

As for the manual in the picture, that is the concept car, which is vastly different from the production car.

Also, while I agree horsepower per pound is important, saying that dual overhead cams add weight is laughable. BMW has a DOHC engine coming out for the M3 that weighs 400lbs. A measly 400lbs! The blocks on most GM V8s usually weigh 225-300 lbs by themselves, the weight of the engine after you add all the parts can sometimes (I have built small-block chevys before) weight up to just under a thousand pounds! Hell, if you want to hear a story, I can write an full page article for the New York Times describing all the hell we went through with an old-style GM 427 once.

I simply do not get the fascination with people on this blog with weak engines that needed to be revved to the next century to make any power.

Everyone complaining about 6 liters, how much horsepower and torque do your high revving euroweenie engines make at 3,000 RPM and under where you'll spend 95% of your time? Meh, euro buzzbomb engines at 6,000 RPM will be lucky to make the power this engine does at 3,000 RPM.

Guess what, I'm going to hit 3,000 RPM and be gone, and even cruising at 65+ in 6th gear at 1,100 RPM while you are watching your tach at 2,000 RPM waiting for it to crawl up to 9,000 RPM.

Thank you, shut up now.

BTW my car is only 4.6L and it is DOHC and it makes 700 ft/lbs just after 2,000 RPM.

It takes a 6-7 L V12 @ 9,000 RPM that gets 10 mpg for you Eurobrats to make that much power, whats wrong with THAT picture, hmmmmmm??

Thats what I thought.

Allen:

Uhm a complete LS1 engine, totally dressed with all accessories and fluids, weighs something like 450 lbs.

I think there are some serious misconceptions over engine weights... There is like a 70lb difference between a iron and aluminum block, as the aluminum block needs more thickness and webbing for strength, thus negating some of the advantage.

Also DOHC heads are MASSIVE and weigh much more than a LS1 head, even when aluminum.

And the little things like that long heavy timing chain, all the idlers and tensioners and guides (none of which are necessary at all on a cam in block engine), 4 cams instead of 1, etc.

Its common knowledge that a DOHC engine design weighs more, occupies more space, and is generally lower displacement than a comparable non OHC engine of the same dimensions.

"Everyone complaining about 6 liters, how much horsepower and torque do your high revving euroweenie engines make at 3,000 RPM and under where you'll spend 95% of your time? Meh, euro buzzbomb engines at 6,000 RPM will be lucky to make the power this engine does at 3,000 RPM."

And Chris just proved that he's never looked at the specs or read anything about European cars!

*hands Chris the Dumbass Comment of the Week Award*

You put a lot of time and effort into being this uninformed...you deserve to win!

*High fives Remy*

Chris, comparable German cars have been beating American cars on the track for decades. Only in a drag race do some American cars do better, and/or if a niche model like your Cobra comes along. But while Ford had to make a DOHC 4.6L and specially tuned suspension for the Cobra to beat Euro cars, nearly all Euro cars in their standard forms will beat standard form American cars.

As to weight, once again I call bullshit on you. I've built small block chevy engines before. And I will assure you that there is no way a LS1 weighs a mere 450 lbs once built. As to that 427 that weight just under a thousand, let me tell you what happens when you build a twin-four barrel setup sometime. Weight. Gets. Added.

As to weenie engines, its funny, Formula 1 cars have been running Honda V8s (a 3.5 Liter) and making oodles of power for some time now. Granted these are specialized track engines, but its funny that every NASCAR driver including Jeff Gordan that has tried a Formula 1 Car has been amazed by the power and speed of the cars.

And also, if American engines and cars were so great, why don't they win more at Lemans or on the GT series cups?

Finally, looking at the spec of an 03 Ford Mustang, I find a few things. One is the presence of three 4.6 Liter engines, a 260 hp version, a 305 hp version, and a 390 hp version.

It, the 390 hp version, makes its power at 6000 rpm and its 390 ft-lbs of torque at 3500 RPM. The 305 hp version comes it at 5800 RPM and its 320 lbs of torque come at 4200 RPM.

Compare this to a 2008 BMW 650i. Its 4.8 Liter, lightweight V8 makes 360 hp at 6300 RPM and its 360 lbs of torque at 3200 RPM.

This means that the base 650i coupe has more power and torque at better revlines than a Mustang Mach 1, not to mention the better weight distribution, and luxury interior and ammentities. It takes an extremely limited production run Cobra SVT, which I can read off lists of maintence issues for, to beat a German luxury car on the track.

The BMW is not even a race-car: its just the luxury coupe.

As to euro buzzbombs: I'd really like your car to say that to the front fascia of a C65 AMG Black edition...

Actually, lets do that race. My BMW M6 versus your Cobra SVT. I have a 500 horse V10 with 383 foot-pounds (barely less than your Cobra). It revs extremely fast too. First lets do a drag race, then a road race.

Afterwards, I do take checks, but cash is prefered. Prepaid gift cards to Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss are fine too.

Although I will say this: price to performance, the G8 is a hard to beat car. Now for those of us with bigger pocket books we can easily surpass this. But if your like me and like to shave pennies where possible (to spend on the woman in your life), then the G8 can make sense up until that nose section becomes apparent.

I'm sure Chris will agree on this even: look at that nose on the concept model (which is pictured above) then look at the nose of the production car (which can be viewed at the G8 minisite) and say it with me: "Damn. GM can kill wood like only Hilary Clinton could before them."

Uhm my Cobra is pushing about 700 HP to the wheels. Kenne Bell 2.4 twin screw, full Bassani, 60# injectors, 5/8" rails, etc... if I get around to the twin turbo and stroked bottom end, expect 1200 HP on pump gas @ 21 psi. It will still be about 5.3L.

About 3,700 LB weight. Whats a BMW M6 weigh? 4400 lbs? "Man that thing must not corner or change direction for squat with all that weight, must only be good for a straight line" would be what someone would say if an American car weighed that much...

And I guess you've never seen a '03 Cobra road race and autocross at the front of the pack with BMWs and Corvettes either?

Haven't paid any attention to the G8, but I liked the LS2 GTO, that was a nice car. Hate to see it go so quickly.

BMWs are nice cars, but people quickly forget that they are comparing cars that are 2x or more different in price. "My ($50,000) BMW smokes that piece of junk GM ($15,000) Malibu lawlz0rz!" It better... or you have problems.

As for Remy:

Murcielago 6.5L V12 640HP@8000 RPM and 478TQ@6000 RPM...

I make more than that at 2000 RPM with only 4.6L, why does Lamborghini need 6.5L huh? Now I'm not trying to compare my Cobra with a Lambo, but I'm just showing how absurd these 'horsepower per liter' arguments are; you can spin it either way.

You can say no fair my car is modified, but some of those modifications are things that were left out by the factory to keep sales price down, while they are standard on a Lambo because price is not an issue.

Also note, that even while "limited production" that highly tuned SVT Cobra that it takes to beat a German luxary car is still half the price...

Wonder what kind of average Mustangs we would have if people were willing to pay $30-50,000 for them?

There are some things I agree about, esp on American interior styling sucking the big one. Stiched leather and aluminum accents go a long way to making the inside nicer and don't cost too much.

But the whole "if it doesn't have 300 valves and rev to 10,000,000 RPM and make 1000 HP with 0.001 liters it sucks" and "its not a BMW so its only good in a straight line" type of BS needs to stop.

As for the weight of a LS1, look it up, you already have your browser open. I'm not a GM/Chevy person, but I cross checked that number across multiple sources and it's generally around 450 lbs. It's a fact that a LS1 weighs as much than most DOHC V6s and fits in less space.

Oh Remy, you were comparing a 650i's 4.8L V8 to a 4.6L Mustang V8. Try something in the same price range.

$70,000 BMW 4.8L

16/22 MPG
360HP @ 6300
360TQ @ 3200

$70,000 Z06 7.0L

16/26 mpg
505HP @ 6300
470TQ @ 4800

And the LS7 is a 'highly engineered" engine comprising of lightweight aluminum and titanium throughout. I don't feel like looking up the numbers, but I bet it's lighter than the BMW engine.

Now why don't we have LS7s in average luxury coupes? Because our average luxury coupes don't cost $70,000 like a Z06 or 650i. Interesting that you keep saying that the BMW is just a typical luxury coupe, nothing special, I didn't know $70,000 luxury coupes were high volume average cars... You're just the kind of person that would say a 318 is better than a Mustang, then use the specs of the 650i to prove it...and then by association of name brand, the 318 is also better! Really winner right there.

I think somebody is a easy target for marketing and falls for buzz words and acronyms. That or just a patriotic Euro-peon that by default, bashes anything American.

BTW Remy, one last thing...

The reason Formula engines have small displacements and rely on high revs is because they are restricted to a maximum displacement and revs are the only other way to flow the required air/fuel to make a given power target.

Do you think if that limit went up that Ferrari would be content staying with a 2.4L engine if everyone else was allowed to run 8.0L? If a 2.4L Formula engine designed to make maximum possible power out of the the given displacement can make as much power as it does, how much power do you think Ferrari could make if it was allowed to use 8.0L?

Do you think Subaru would stay with a 2.0L rally engine if everyone else was allowed to use 4.0L because they can do it better with a high revving 2.0L? Please say "no" so I can laugh at you.

Ironically, to your dismay, the displacement is actually limited in those classes, not because higher revving small displacement engines are superior in any way... displacement limits were put in place to limit power output, not because higher revving is better :-)

First Chris, I know the Cobra well, I've driven one now even. Second, somehow I doubt you will be on pump gas at 1200hp. And even so, I love to laugh at your logic: your saying a 4.6L can reach 700 hp while BMWs 4.8 Liter cannot on pump gas. All because of what, a better cam setup?

Its not just me, its scientific and engineering fact that a DOHC setup makes more power than a pushrod setup. If you go to an engineering school and tell them pushrods are better, you are going to get laughed at.

Second, I, not Remy, talked about Formula cars. Go figure you'd screw that up.

Third, a 7.0L engine that needs titanium rods and rings and magnesium alloy everything to remain at the LS7s weight is pathetic. Euro- V8s have been weighing in at what the LS7 weighs for quite some time without it, and with Magnesium alloy and the new M3 will have far lower weight that most other engines in its class.

And like we were saying earlier, its pathetic that American makes need so much displacement to make so much power. As I have stated (and you agreed) BMW makes 360 hp on 4.8 Liters, while GM is making that on six! If BMW were to make a 6 liter with as much efficiently as its 4.8, it would have 450hp! And LS2 did not come CLOSE to that, AND it too ran on premium fuel. So When GM makes a 6.0L V8, it gets 400hp on premium gas (the LS2). If BMW were so bad as to make an engine that large, it'd make 50 hp more and have more torque.

Also, just to let you know: your DOHC Cobra V8 is vastly different from a 327 Small black chevy, but if you are going to take displacement on it to 5.3 Liters (basically that translates to 327 cubic inches) AND be getting 1200hp out of it on pump gas, you will make yourself a legend. The most I've ever reliably got out of a 5.3 Liter GM V8 (of the two I've assisted in building). The best I've ever done with one of those was 950hp, on race fuel. A 97 Chevrolet Tahoe with the old 5.7L LT1 I saw once at a Texas autoshow making 840hp on race fuel. Thats pretty bad.

And to make a little more mockery of this "displacement" arguement: Dodge makes an 8.3 Liter V10 that makes 610 hp. With the 75hp per liter of BMW's caliber, that engine should be making 622 hp and still run on pump gas. And knowing how BMW and Mercedes do large engines, I'd expect it to only have more than that: A 5.5 Liter V12 from Mercedes without forced induction makes 510 hp, or 92hp per liter, on pump gas. Increase that to 8.3 Liters and Mercedes could make that engine with 763.6 hp.

The point is that Germans are making as much power with the same if not better rev-lines then American makes with less displacement, and less weight. For a fact the new M3 has better power-to-weight ratios than an LS1: even if your numbers of 450lbs were correct (I think they are lowballed by at least 50 pounds) (note that an LS1 is not the 427 engine I have been talking about), BMW makes more hp than the old LS1 did on only 4 liters, and we know that the M3 is a fast car with power in plenty of places. Its torque is a little low, but then again it comes in at low RPMs, and once you are in the top end horsepower carries more weight than torque.

All you have is one, one single 4.6L V8 from Ford that is built exactly like European and Japanese Car Makers build them: with Dual-Overhead-Cams. And you are lauding its capabilities left and right. Hmmm, and criticizing the Euro makers out there. Might notice too that a stock 4.8L BMW V8 had a lower compression ratio than the Cobra did (with both cars stock).

So your being hypocritical here.

No, you're getting laughed at right now. It is inconsequential whether or not an engine uses push rods or overhead cams, or whether it has 2 valves or 5 valves per cylinder. What matters is air flow, period, and it doesn't matter how you get it.

You *do* realize that the advantage of greater valve area that DOHC allows is only really useful on a smaller engine when comparing it to a bigger engine, right?

With a larger bore that allows for larger valves, you can flow just as much through a single larger valve in a 427 as you can with two smaller ones in a 281. And of course you could also have DOHC on the larger bore engine and flow yet MORE air still, but you aren't advocating that. DOHC does not have any inherent advantage unless the two engines are of equal bore and face the same valve size restrictions. But since we are comparing small displacement OHC engines with large displacement OHV engines, OHC has no inherent advantage other than to not lose airflow compared to the larger engine.

There is nothing inherently better about OHC vs OHV; the advantage of OHC just happens to be better suited when cylinder bore is limited in size. I'd love to see DOHC 4V on a big block with a 4.5" bore, but until that happens, DOHC is only useful in the real world to get as much valve area as possible in the small bores of tiny engines. You say "what if BMW used 7.0" well they don't. I could also say "what if the LS7 had DOHC" then what? You'd be comparing a 7.0L DOHC to a 4.8L DOHC and BMW wouldn't stand a chance. BMW could make even more power with a bigger engine, and GM could make more power with their already big engine with more valve area. And the point?

So you guys talk about aluminum and 'advanced composites' and stuff all the time, now you are trying to say that European engines don't have all that stuff? So what kind of low density iron and aluminum are they digging up over there that we don't have on our periodic table over here? *rolls eyes*

Side note on the '03 Cobra 4.6L, those engines have made upwards of 1400-1600 HP with the VT324 and MMR325 stroker engines with the ballpark of around 21 lbs boost, which is 91-93 octane friendly on turbo, so 1200 HP is a fair number to aim for a street car not quite tuned to that level. The stock displacement sock engine is putting out 850 RWHP with 18-21 lbs boost on 91 octane, so figure what another liter of displacement and some head work would do.

I have nothing against other cars or OHC vs OHV, etc.

I'm just tired of all the bias and all the people that believe all the marketing they here while knowing nothing about physics or cars.

If you had twice the displacement but still got the same power, same or better gas mileage, at a lower RPM, why does it matter? How is one better than the other just because its smaller? I don't get how "my engine is smaller than yours" is bragging rights because the larger displacement engine will always have the greater potential when built the same way.

I happen to prefer DOHC, hence I have the Cobra and not something else. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like more displacement as well, and it doesn't mean one is better than the other. In theory DOHC has an advantage all else held constant, but until Ford and BMW builds their DOHC engines with 7.0L or until GM builds their 7.0L engines with DOHC, that theoretical advantage doesn't mean much.

I chuckle that you guys think "DOHC" is some advanced exotic technology, btw.

Oh yeah...

That "only 400 HP LSx with 6.0L" responds very well to bolt on performance improvements. Better heads, cams, etc, can get them to 500 HP territory N/A.

The BMW just has those bolt ons factory installed and you pay more for it.

The only reason you see "big engines making weak power" is that a lot of simple things are left on the table to cut costs and keep prices down.

Can you get 100 HP out of your BMW for $1500 in after market parts? I seriously doubt it, because that "extra" power was already wrung out of it from the "highly tuned" factory setup.

I do agree with much of what you said, such as the examples you gave with built engines making little power. A properly built and blown race gas 5.7L should be putting out in excess of 1500 HP, not 800.

If this doesn't get the point across that I have been trying to make for several weeks now to the Euro snobs that frequent TTR, then you guys are just a lost cause and are in the pockets of BMW's marketing department and read too many magazines.

Aero Ultimate TT, now the fastest "production car" in the world, all American made. But it's a race car, not a luxury car that is also fast, like the Veyron, so I wont compare the cars, just the engines, since you guys like to talk about HP/L.

Veyron:
8 liters, 16 cylinders, 4 turbos, overhead cam, 1000 HP

Aero TT:
6 liters, 8 cylinders, 2 turbos, push rods, 1200 HP

(Yes the TT runs on 93 octane)

Ask yourself how that can be, and then slap yourself in the back of the head for missing that very point that I've been trying to burn into your little brains since day one of posting on this site.

My guess is your reply will start out with something like "well the Veyron is detuned and not putting out it's full potential..."

You mean kind of like our mass market large displacement Ford, Dodge, and GM engines that don't seem to make quite the power they should be? Nah... couldn't be...

/handtoforehead

"Murcielago 6.5L V12 640HP@8000 RPM and 478TQ@6000 RPM...

I make more than that at 2000 RPM with only 4.6L, why does Lamborghini need 6.5L huh?"

Easy - you admitted that you put a turbo on your car. I've seen turbo Lambo's (very rare...a guy named Heffner in Florida will build one for you though) and they'd leave your car in the dust. Now, you tried making an excuse of "oh all these modifications were left off at the factory" - that's crap and you know it. If they were supposed to be there then at the very least it would be an expensive option to have all that stuff dropped in at the factory. Secondly, lets say your claim is true - that still doesn't account for you adding a turbo. Plus, you fail (as you have every time) to take into account that cars like the Lambo and M3 have very broad power curves - so they have 85% of max torque very low, even if they have to rev higher than your engine to hit max torque.

Look at you dodge the point yet again.

It's ok to blast American cars if they use big engines when someone else can make a smaller engine that is 'more efficient' ...

But when I tip the scales and I bring up such an American engine and compare it to a larger euro-peon engine that makes less power you say "oh well add turbos to a lambo", so typical. I didn't ask you about adding turbos to a Lambo, I asked you why a Lambo has a huge 6.5L engine and only makes 640 HP when there are 4.6L Ford engines making that or more, hmm?

And what do you mean "supposed to be there", only BMW, VW, etc are allowed to build cars with turbos, and if anyone else uses one, it's "not supposed to be there" because it's not factory stock on a car that doesn't cost $60,000?

Btw my car doesn't have turbos...

Now ask yourself, if you added turbos to the lambo why would it have more potential? 6.5L vs 4.6L, thats why.

Thats it, pure and simple. Doesn't matter if it has 50 cams and 1000 valves.

But still 6.5L damn thats huge by your Euro standards, what happened to efficient Euro-peon engineering??? Shouldn't a Lambo be making 640 HP with only 4 liters or less and revving to 15k? What gives Remy?

And a flat torque curve is having 700 ft-lbs from 2000 RPM to 7000 RPM perfectly flat with a y = x horsepower curve peaking at 700 HP. Kinda like cars built like mine have...

I like how you also didn't address the fact that the Aero Ultimate TT has 2 liters less, 2 turbos less, and 8 cylinders less, 3 cams less and 16 valves less, but makes 200 more HP than the Veyon's big heavy fuel inefficient gas guzzling 8L W16... using nothing but a 2V push rod LSx based GM engine...

In terms you like to see, that puts Veyron at 125 HP/L and the LSx at 200 HP/L... ouch. Where is all this exotic engineering now?

You people who learned all you know about cars reading magazines and watching Fast and the Furious and Top Gear crack me up.

and i thought this was about an Australian car?

"But when I tip the scales and I bring up such an American engine and compare it to a larger euro-peon engine that makes less power you say "oh well add turbos to a lambo", so typical. I didn't ask you about adding turbos to a Lambo, I asked you why a Lambo has a huge 6.5L engine and only makes 640 HP when there are 4.6L Ford engines making that or more, hmm?"

Your car has turbos - naturally aspirated, I'm willing to bet it doesn't make 640 hp. Could Lambo take it higher? Sure, but the point Allen and I have been making still holds true - you won't see an American company getting 98.46 hp per liter.

"Btw my car doesn't have turbos..."

Supercharger, whatever. It's forced induction. Hell, you'd probably have more power if you did use turbo's.

"But still 6.5L damn thats huge by your Euro standards"

Not for a V-12. It's quite normaly to see V-12's in the 6 liter range in Europe. Again, I suggest you actually bother to read up on cars other than American ones.

"Kinda like cars built like mine have..."

Your car is modified to achieve just that. This conversation was never about what you can modify a car to do - it's about how American car companies build their cars. Also, I doubt your car will hit 60 in 3.4 seconds.

"In terms you like to see, that puts Veyron at 125 HP/L and the LSx at 200 HP/L... ouch. Where is all this exotic engineering now?"

I'm not the one who brought it up, but I will make a quick point - the Veyron is built to be used on the streets - from what I know, the Aero TT is not, and therefore doesn't have to worry about reliability beyond the length of the race. Just like how it's acceptable for dragsters to go through a clutch per race (sometimes they'll last two) - that is not acceptable on a street car.

Reliability and longevity huh? Isn't that what people say when defending large displacement low revving American engines that make the same power as the competition's smaller displacement higher revving engines...but you guys don't want to buy that, and here the roles are now reversed and you are now making the same argument. Getting the whole picture now?

My car may have a supercharger, but take a look at the Cobra R and the Mach 1 and even the LSx cars, some of the N/A engines people build up making 600+ N/A HP on the stock 4.6L or 5.7L of displacement. No it's not stock, but ask yourself why that is while comparing prices. You think Ford or Chevy would hesitate at all to have every average sedan have 500+ HP N/A 4.6 and 5.7L engines in every Mustang, Taurus, Impala, etc, if the average American was willing to spend $40,000 on a Taurus?

It costs $20,000+ for all that N/A power just like a BMW engine, the only difference is you have the option to do it yourself with after market and even non production OEM parts (ie: Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog), and not pay for it from the factory. Which is why you don't see them in production cars and why American cars cost less than the BMWs you are comparing them to.

There are a lot of things I'd like to see improve on American cars, but this rampant ignorance when it comes to engines and engine technology is absurd, and many of you can't fathom the concept that some things are done on purpose to meet a market segment or keep pricing under control for the mass market. It's not that they can't, but they won't, for one reason or the other. Case in point the Northstar engine. GM doesn't need a DOHC V8 when the LSx meets and exceeds all their needs and goals. They only made one for that target market, people like you, who want to see a DOHC stamped on their intake to feel like they have something advanced and high tech. It's all market perception and misconception. If you stuck a LS2 in place of that Northstar, nobody would even notice unless they popped the hood.

Some people are just fan boys and fashion label bandwagon adopters who buy into the fancy "ultimate engineering" ads and can't simply accept that there is more than one way to do the same thing and neither are inferior or superior to the other. Just two differing approaches, it's as simple as that.

End of discussion.

As an aside, why does HP/L matter so much to people if two engines can make the same power, get the same MPG, and have similar weight and packaging constraints?

It's generally known that a 2V engine has to have a higher displacement (specifically bore) in order to achieve the breathing headroom of a smaller bore 4V engine.

But if it's the same power and MPG, why do people care which method is used?

Ignorance of engine technology and wanting to feel good and justify paying more for their car maybe?

Or maybe they just like fixing things that aren't broken to feel like they have something new and state of the art even if its not necessarily better than the previous solution?

Just simply don't like 'old' things even if they work just as well as 'new' things?

Maybe all the shiny letters and acronyms embossed under the hood and all over their trunk lid and fenders make them feel better?

*shrug* Amusing to watch sheep graze from afar, to say the least.

Chris you proved my point for me. I said that with equivalent sized engines (lets say both 7 Liters) and one had OHV and another had DOHC, the DOHC engine would make more power. You even agreed to that in your post, yet your still argueing?

Second, large displacement OHV engines are not making the same gas mileage as Euro-spec engines. On this new G8, Pontiac is using an automatic transmission so that the car won;t have to pay a gas-guzzler tax. The 550i does not pay that tax and its very close in terms of power. Also, the torque curves on DOHC engines are not flat: having built these before, I can attest to it.

All it attests to in you is that you've never seen a DOHC engine dyno'd before.

And again, our point is that DOHC flows more than OHV, so you don't need as much displacement and can loose some weight, and get better mileage. Just check "stock" mileage ratings of cars then go to some forums and see what people are saying about their cars. Even in American cars that use DOHC designs people are saying that they get equal to or better than listed gas mileage. The same is not true of big-displacement American engines.

Yes the Corvette LS7 has won a few times at Lemans, but against its Euro-spec competitiors is it winning a lot? No, its being beaten time and time again. Funny, if a Corvette Z06 was such a potent power plant due to its larger displacement, why is it being beaten by cars with less displacement that weigh even less? OHV in that engine was just a cost-cutting measure. Like we have both stated now, if it was DOHC, it'd make much more power, with all else held equal.

I didn't say DOHC has a flat power band, I said my car does. In N/A form the curve is almost opposite of a SOHC/OHV engine, in that it starts off slow down low but doesn't drop off up high. American drivers prefer to have all their torque and power down low in the range we spend most of our time in; we don't drive around town and take off from stop signs at 8,000 RPM all the time...

Traditionally DOHC sacrifices port velocity, and thus intake stream momentum, and has poor and inefficient cylinder filling at low RPM. But in return, more flow up top.

But DOHC *can* have a very flat power band when paired with a belt driven supercharger with instant boost.

Add a supercharger, and you take care of the first problem by pressurizing the intake with the instant down low boost of the blower so that air violently rushes in the valves as soon as they crack open due to the pressure difference; port velocity in the N/A sense no longer matters. And up high when the boost builds, it works with the DOHC heads to swallow that boost up like no tomorrow without dropping off due to air flow choke like a 2V engine would.

DOHC + FI = win win situation. That is why I'm a big fan of the '03 Cobra, in my opinion it is the ideal DOHC setup that reaps all the advantages of DOHC while curing it's drawbacks (except the fact that that 281" engine is bigger than a 454" and I can't even remove valve covers with the engine in the car...)

But as you said "if all else is held equal" and the engines we've been discussing are not in fact equal. One is 4.x liters and the other is 6+ liters. With the larger bore and large valves, and larger cylinder volume sweeping the stroke in the same amount of time, a 2V head can flow just as much air, if not more, as a small displacement 4V engine when built correctly (compare the 351 4 bbl heads CFM vs the 281 DOHC heads, for example).

In theory DOHC, rather more valves (if you could even do that WITHOUT DOHC), has more potential, all else held equal. But in the real world, not all else is held equal, and if there are two engines that make the same power and same mileage, why is it so important which one it has? The gas mileage of a 6L LS2 is better than my 4.6L DOHC, many BMW 4.xL engines, and even better than many turbo 2.0L engines...

What I don't understand is why we can't have BOTH. You guys want small engines with DOHC, old school guys want big engines with push rods.

I want Ford to bring back the 429 in a DOHC modular configuration... 800 HP N/A @ 6,000 RPM? *grin*

If Ford had a 429 DOHC, you wouldn't see me here for two weeks: I'd be whacking the crap out of it trying to get it over 3000hp with a STS universal turbo setup :)

But like you said, they don't. And uh, the LS2 gas mileage really is not that great: Chevy needs CAGS to get it out of the gas guzzler ratings. BMW does not have CAGS but gets out of Gas guzzler.

Your 4.6 L DOHC Cobra is not something I compare stock cars to: why? It has that twin-screw supercharger and modification: in reality, proper modifications can make any engine do almost anything. People, we can have Nissan VQ engines over 3000hp, it just takes a lot of reinforcing and massive turbo setups.

But I'd expect any supercharged engine to get worse gas mileage: it has to use engine power to make more of it. Compared to turbos, which can increase power and (if done right) fuel economy as well, because they are not driven by engine power, just exhaust velocity.

As to more displacement and "not equal," we haven't needed more displacement to get more power thanks to DOHC and technology like BMW's Dual-VANOS or Honda's V-tech. As you said, DOHC does "traditionally" give up some low-end, but those little engineering feats gain it back.

And to gas mileage again: an LS2 just does not get better gas mileage than the 4.8L from BMW. Maybe if you put the LS2 in a lighter car, sure, but that has less to do with the engine and more to do with the cars weight. The Corvette is lighter than a 550i because the 550i is a luxury sedan. Place the 4.8 in a Corvette, the Corvettes weight would drop more. And the fact that a sedan gets better gas mileage already than a lighter Corvette with the LS2 is a testament to DOHC.

I will say this about European cars though: their aftermarket sucks compared to American and Japanese cars. If you want to mod a BMW, what do you do? Call Dinan or Alpina. Mercedes? Brabus. Audi? Is there even an aftermarket shop for Audi?

Because of tight restrictions on modding in Germany, there simply are not many shops that make aftermarket parts.

Compare that to American cars, which have oodles of aftermarket goodies. One reason to wait for the G8: General Motors even has its own aftermarket parts for it, just go get an L92head and watch the horsepower levels climb above a stock LS2. Ford, as Chris will attest, has massive aftermarket performance accessories and add-ons, and MOPAR lives on its after market.

With Japanese makes its no different. Tommy Kiara, Mugen, are just two aftermarket shops of hundreds. And in America there are parts galore available for Honda, Toyota and Nissan cars.

So while European cars have great levels of performance out of the shop, its not hard to mod some Japanese or American cars to beat them, the parts are just THERE.

"My car may have a supercharger, but take a look at the Cobra R and the Mach 1 and even the LSx cars, some of the N/A engines people build up making 600+ N/A HP on the stock 4.6L or 5.7L of displacement. No it's not stock, but ask yourself why that is while comparing prices. You think Ford or Chevy would hesitate at all to have every average sedan have 500+ HP N/A 4.6 and 5.7L engines in every Mustang, Taurus, Impala, etc, if the average American was willing to spend $40,000 on a Taurus?"

First, this conversation was NEVER about what you can MODIFY a car to do - it's about how companies build their cars. This is not the first time I've had to remind you this, yet you still go back to this "Well, if I cover up for Ford/GM's mistakes..." argument. Second, why does properly tuning an engine require the car to cost $20,000 more? Maybe - MAYBE - if they're using special new camshafts or whatever they might have to charge a few hundred more per unit, but there's no reason for the price to really change at all. That's also how you get sales to improve - provide a better product for the same price.

Now, you want to talk about "comparing prices" - the price of BMW's, Ferrari's, and Lamborghini's is NOT just about power. Some of it is, but a much larger portion is design and things like the quality of the interior. For now (until I graduate college in a year) I have a '96 Mazda Protege - nothing special, but it gets good gas mileage and it's reliable. I never thought much about the interior until I rode in a new Chrysler and realized just how nice the interior of my car is. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have SHIT interiors in most of their cars. They may have the occasional exception, but the rule of thumb is stuff that would look cheap if you put it on a Playskool car.

Bottom line people...

This care runs the quarter is the high 13 sec bracket and with minor tweaks (software/exhaust) can run potentially in the 12s...for the price I'd like to see what other cars can compete with it...

It even laps race tracks within sight of uber expensive machinery...stock

Plus it's bulletproof, carries 5 people, can tow a van or boat and can be driven round the track and home again without blowing up.

Kinda like the common 'mans' (it's just a phrase) all round workhorse...

It can also (just about) keep with an Evo...which says alot! Though of course an evo can't tow and is much smaller, more expensive and less comfortable.

Add a supercharger and you get about 500 hp easily...twin turbo versions is Aus get about 1500 hp so all you crazy HP Heros can go nuts.

Hey I'd settle for a tweaked 450hp NA LS2 a 12.7 quarter and 300,000 km worth of reliability any day...keep the cost of motoring down and still hose 98% of cars on the road!

Bargain...

"Hey I'd settle for a tweaked 450hp NA LS2 a 12.7 quarter and 300,000 km worth of reliability any day...keep the cost of motoring down and still hose 98% of cars on the road!"

.........you'd settle for less than 200,000 miles? Really, counting the number of Japanese and German cars that have ROLLED OVER the odometer and are still on the road, that's saying something about American car quality when people think less than 200,000 miles is a long lifetime.

Well, looks like I missed a great debate. I will add one thing though to the DOHC versus cam in block: DOHC allows much finer tuning of intake and exhaust timing, not to mention valve lift. From an engineer's perspective, DOHC is the best way to go for performance due to its ease of tuning. Cam in block, is simply put, a stupid design. If it's so great, why are the only engines using such 'technology' made in America? With the exception of NASCAR, which isn't racing, absolutely no real racing engine uses cam-in-block.

Now, as for the Veyron vs Aero TT engine comparison, yes, the Aero has the better engine. The fact that the Veyron needs 4 turbos to get 1000bhp, even though it's probably nearer to 1300bhp, from an 8 liter W-16 is pretty bad.

Forced induction is used if the manufacturer or tuner does not have the time nor money to spend to properly tune an engine to its full potential. There is no question that putting a turbo or super on an engine is much cheaper than high bhp N/A builds, but which make better race engines?

With the exception of diesels, comparing a forced induction engine's hp/L ratio to a naturally aspirated engine's ratio makes no sense. In forced induction, just change the boost level to reach whatever hp/L figure you want. In N/A, you have to actually engineer the engine to work better with what airflow is available.

Chris, we get that you like your Cobra. More power to you. Because your car is so tuned it cannot be compared against anything aside from other highly tuned drag racers.

@Remy, You ever notice how "high mileage" oils are marketed for cars with over 75,000 miles on them? In good ol' America, since consumers buy cars that tend to fall apart after, oh, 50,000 miles or so, if a car makes it to 75,000 it is usually about to fall apart. Only in America could a manufacturer get away with that.

There are verified reports of Subarus with the original stock drivetrain, engine, tranny, differentials, and all internals therein, with nearly 850,000 miles on them. I would like to see any American vehicle match that lifespan with the original from-factory driveline/engine/engine internals. For reference, the specific car I am referencing is a 97-98 model year, with the 2.5L engine.

Cars don't last in America because people here are lazy slobs that buy a cheap disposable car, don't maintain it, drive it into the ground, then finance another one when it breaks. People here don't even keep their tires properly inflated and finding a car thats been running for miles and miles with enameled oil on a dry dipstick is not uncommon.

Someone buying a $60,000 BMW is obviously going to be more prideful and take more care of it, if not seek regular premium dealer service.

I would wager that in the same conditions, from an honest engineering perspective, the BMW would be less reliable (or rather require more maintenance), due to the nature of the components being tighter precision, less slop and tolerance, etc. Not a knock on BMW, it's just the nature of any precision instrument.

For example, what do you expect to malfunction in the desert sands first, a tightly tuned precision target pistol with 0.00001" tolerances, or a clunky sloppy H&K USP? I'd rather have the H&K. Not the most accurate, but accurate enough. And reliable as a fork.

Remy LeBeau:

Remy you moron...how many cars make it round the odo (1 million ks????) when they are thrashed to death, do track days and drag meets?

Only Toyota's and german heavy metal can do over 300,000 mercilous redline screaming kilometres and still play nice...and that is if there were built tonka tough in the first place

Idiot...

Don't expect a '89 daewoo or hyundai excel econo box (nor your awe inspiring '96 Mazda Protege) to go 'round the clock' even with granma Remy holding their hand!

You also show how creatinous you are...American car...don't you read? It's Australian and it's a fast, crazy machine that is built tough. Did I mention easy, reliable 12 sec quarters??? Hello...Ferrari bashing power and speed??

When I said 300,000 Ks...I obvously meant HARD k's...go back to your low tech, low reving, understeering mazda wonder machine looser.

Chris, I've had it. I did not notice your last post for some time, but I have to say your calling the import cars reliability worse due to better precision has got to be the worst hunk of shit logic I've ever run across.

Notice that Japanese cars have been running far higher precision for quite some time, yet if the past 30 years of automotive history serve well, they do not break half as often as American cars.

BTW, I was being kind when you said DOHC engines are heavier than OHV. The CLK63 AMG in 2007 uses an 6.3 Liter weighs 439 pounds to the LS7 in the 2007 Corvettes 458 lbs. The Ferrari F50's engine weighs only 437.

Other engines make more power or the same power on the same weight as well. Listen Chris, if you want to spread your bullshit logic here again, feel free to come into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As to and H&K: I own several handguns, and those H&K's are about a tenth as reliable as anything from Glock.

Dude you are on friggin crack. THe Benz 6.3 weighs less than the LS7? Common friggin sense hear: The heads are PHYSICALLY bigger on the benz, 32 valves vs. 16, 32 springs, retainers and lock vs. 16.. The block is PHYSICALLY BIGGER to fit the WIDE ASS DOHC heads vs. the LS7 block. So you think the Benz still weighs less? ONly in your diluted fantasy world.

The Ferrari only weighs 437 lbs? If you believe that the your are a tool.

Fucking PROVE with a CORRELATIONAL STUDY the these foriegn cars are more reliable. PROVE IT WITH RESEARCH!!

Lets see any of your so called wonder engines get 30+ MPG.

Posted on October 8, 2007 23:48

Allen:
Chris, I've had it. I did not notice your last post for some time, but I have to say your calling the import cars reliability worse due to better precision has got to be the worst hunk of shit logic I've ever run across.

Notice that Japanese cars have been running far higher precision for quite some time, yet if the past 30 years of automotive history serve well, they do not break half as often as American cars.

BTW, I was being kind when you said DOHC engines are heavier than OHV. The CLK63 AMG in 2007 uses an 6.3 Liter weighs 439 pounds to the LS7 in the 2007 Corvettes 458 lbs. The Ferrari F50's engine weighs only 437.

Other engines make more power or the same power on the same weight as well. Listen Chris, if you want to spread your bullshit logic here again, feel free to come into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As to and H&K: I own several handguns, and those H&K's are about a tenth as reliable as anything from Glock.

Dude you are on friggin crack. THe Benz 6.3 weighs less than the LS7? Common friggin sense hear: The heads are PHYSICALLY bigger on the benz, 32 valves vs. 16, 32 springs, retainers and lock vs. 16.. The block is PHYSICALLY BIGGER to fit the WIDE ASS DOHC heads vs. the LS7 block 4 cams vs. one cam. So you think the Benz still weighs less? ONly in your diluted fantasy world.

The Ferrari only weighs 437 lbs? If you believe that the your are a tool.

Fucking PROVE with a CORRELATIONAL STUDY the these foriegn cars are more reliable. PROVE IT WITH RESEARCH!!

Lets see any of your so called wonder engines get 30+ MPG.

Posted on October 8, 2007 23:48

Allen:
Chris, I've had it. I did not notice your last post for some time, but I have to say your calling the import cars reliability worse due to better precision has got to be the worst hunk of shit logic I've ever run across.

Notice that Japanese cars have been running far higher precision for quite some time, yet if the past 30 years of automotive history serve well, they do not break half as often as American cars.

BTW, I was being kind when you said DOHC engines are heavier than OHV. The CLK63 AMG in 2007 uses an 6.3 Liter weighs 439 pounds to the LS7 in the 2007 Corvettes 458 lbs. The Ferrari F50's engine weighs only 437.

Other engines make more power or the same power on the same weight as well. Listen Chris, if you want to spread your bullshit logic here again, feel free to come into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As to and H&K: I own several handguns, and those H&K's are about a tenth as reliable as anything from Glock.

I don't understand why you would post such shitty inof when you don't have all the facts, so why post?

Show me any FRIGGIN car out ther that has 362HP on 87 octane? Ohter do it wiht less and less torque as well. DO you think that they could not get more Hp out of the L76?\

There will be a manual about 6 months after introduction. THERE WILL BE A MANUAL IN THE GT G8.

Posted on October 2, 2007 20:59

Darnell Morgan:
A 6.0L that does less than 400 horses. Thats darn right wimpy power for such a large displacement engine. Other manufacturers do more with less...
GM should be ashamed.

The fact that there is no manual is even worst. At minimum GM should have put an auto stick in there. Chrysler offers it on its LX sedans. You can't have a rear wheel drive performance vehicle when your stuck with a automatic only.

I think GM is off to a good start though. Tune the V8 up to 400 horses and add an auto stick as standard and this thing will sell like hot cakes.

I wish Ford would bring the Falcon over here. If the G8 sells well, Ford will have to bring the Falcon over.

Your are a total ass. Pathetic. Lets see physically smaller, weighs less, better gas milage and more USABLE torque and that is pathetic? What's pathetic is your ricer attempt at HP/L. Why don't you compute HP/LBS? Lets see where your pathetic range falls with this.

I am ASTOUNDED that you need 3 more cams, 16 more valves to get a small INCREASE in power while being more expensive and getting less fuel economy.
Take your subaru and race a G8 and and after you LOSE tell us how much better your HP/L ratio is.

You don't know your ass from your mouth. With a tune and headers these things pick up 40 hp. THere are LS1 with a cam, headers and a tune hitting 500hp. SO you don;t know Jack Schitt!

I know you don't want to know the MPG becase it will kill anythng you can find in the same HP range. Plus it runs on 87 OCTANE. Show me one vehicle with 362 HP that runs on 87. Plus the compression ration is 10.5:1, it is not low cokpression like some toll stated earlier.

The L76 in the G8 is just a DETUNED ls3 thats in the Corvette, the 436hp one. DIfferent intake and cam.

I hope you never buy a GM or any American car, traitor!

Posted by Allen | October 2, 2007 9:43 PM

Posted on October 2, 2007 21:43

Bimmerman:
Hold on...how are people not astounded that GM needs 6 gigantic liters to get only 361 horse? Only an American car company can produce such a pathetic engine. Yes, it the bhp number is big, but compared to the liters required, quite pathetic. 60.2hp/L is worse than my 12 year old Subaru grocery getter.

That said, I'm sure with cams, headers, port/polish, lighter internals, tuned intake, remapped ECU, and high-flow cats/exhaust, the thing might be able to push a still pitiful(in terms of displacement) 400-425 horse.

I don't even want to know the mpg of that thing. Plus, no manual transmission? GM really knows how to drive me away from their cars...

Dude your are a fucking IDIOT. No Chvy motor weighs close to or weighs 1,000LBS. ass wipe. AN all iron BBC only weihgs around 600lbs. THe aluminum block in the LSX weighs about 95 lbs. Where in the fuck do you get 225-300? The iron block weigh right around 200. So you are a LIAR!!!!

Show me PROFF that the BMW V8 only weighs 400lbs. Physically bigger block and heads, 4 cams, 32 valves, 32 sprins, retainers, locks, cam sprockets and a big ass timing chain vs, PHYSICALLY smaller block, heads, 1 cam, 16 valves, 16 sprins, eretainers and locks, one cam sprocket and a small timing chain.

So tell how how in REALITY, not your FANTASYLAND that the BMW v8 weighs less than the LAX motors?

Go ahead write an article, I want to read it.

If you went through hell building a BBC 427 that's beacause you did not know what you were doing.

Posted by Josh | October 3, 2007 9:59 AM

Posted on October 3, 2007 09:59

Allen:
First off Josh I don't like your tone. *spaghetti western music plays*

As for the manual in the picture, that is the concept car, which is vastly different from the production car.

Also, while I agree horsepower per pound is important, saying that dual overhead cams add weight is laughable. BMW has a DOHC engine coming out for the M3 that weighs 400lbs. A measly 400lbs! The blocks on most GM V8s usually weigh 225-300 lbs by themselves, the weight of the engine after you add all the parts can sometimes (I have built small-block chevys before) weight up to just under a thousand pounds! Hell, if you want to hear a story, I can write an full page article for the New York Times describing all the hell we went through with an old-style GM 427 once.

Make no mistake, this is not the magnificent brute LS-2 that is in my GTO. This engine is coded L76. The cam and intake are different, and the compression is lower. LS 2 uses 10.8:1 Pistons, and this L76 is 9.5:1 to allow for slower-burn (cheaper 87 octane gas) I would assume with a cold air kit and a good tune, you should be approaching 380 hp, and 400+ on 91 or 93 octane, but you'll have to figure out how to defeat the Active Fuel Managment for what this motor was designed around.

Eh... Looks alright.

But I prefer the Charger R/T, even if it is has an autotragic tranny.

Oh, and OHV is too inefficient. An OHC engine with the same displacement would make much more power.

Beautiful car . i'm looking foward to seeing this up close. it looks like a great bang for the buck but the only way i'll buy one is if it comes with a manual trans.
4 friend of mine feel the sameway. I also think they should offer a supercharged model for a small add the price NOT a 10k jump in sticker price. if we can't even get a manaul trans a supercharged model will never happen.

this is just some gearhead blabering

matt

LiL BiLL:

I just purchased my G8 GT a week ago ( number 383 of 888) and I must say that this car really has balls! I'm getting 15 mpg 25 hwy respectively. It is quiet when driven normal (Cops don't pay any attention to you) but smash the gas and that 6.0L V8 screams! Oh, and the radio volume knob must go! It takes entirely too long to turn the music down when needed!

I raced a Dodge RT Magnum and I slowly pulled passed him when we entered triple digit speeds! Boy was that guy pissed off when I pulled away reaching my top speed of 143 mph!

Now, for some reason my G8 GT is very quick to reach 140 mph but then suddenly it loses it's thrust! I held 140 mph on I-95 for over 20 sec trying to reach at least 150 mph but the G8 just won't do it! I shoved it into 5th gear to raise the rpms but that didn't work either! Shifts aren't that crisp yet and the engine sometimes takes alittle too long to respond which can give another person the jump on you!

Overall, the 2008 G8 GT is a great car I must say! Turn the ESP off and feel all 385 lb torque as the back of the car sways under hard throttle until it hooks up! Watch as friends and family swear there isn't enough room for three in the back seat and then marvel as they sit so comfortably. Let the quiet 6.0L V8 engine prowl up a downtown city block and then smash on the gas in auto-stick mode and watch every shopper turn their head and say to one another; "I didn't know that was a V8!"