Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Last GM Big-Block V-8 Rolls Off the Line

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the blow-it-out-gto dept.

Transportation 525

DesScorp writes "It's the end of an era in auto technology, as the very last big block V-8 engine from GM has rolled off the production line. The L18 engine was the last variant of an engine that had been in continuous production for over 50 years. The big blocks powered everything from the classic muscle cars of the '60s and '70s to heavy-duty trucks today. From the Buffalo News: 'When GM said last June the L18 would be eliminated by year's end, the announcement triggered another show of devotion to the product. Some customers ordered two years' worth of L18s, to put on the shelf for future use.' More than 5 million big blocks have been produced over the engine's history. The final big block engine to come off the line in Tonawanda, NY is headed for the GM Heritage Center in Sterling Heights, MI."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


I just pictured an oil sheik... (5, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30519988)

...with a single tear running down his face.

A: Because it breaks the flow of a message (5, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520238)

Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly annoying?

Q: Because its been used before. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520408)

A: Why am I about to log in to mod that redundant?

Jeopardy. Use Jeopardy style. Then next time this all could have been avoided. Don't just rest on the laurels of other posters. Innovate or Die!

asdfasdf (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520490)

Seriously though, does anyone else read the content first and usually skip the subject of a post?

DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520544)

DNS-and-BIND's screeds are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of denominationalism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that the most valuable skill one can have is the ability to lie convincingly, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of alcoholism. I assume you already know that he doesn't care much for airy-fairy things such as morality and integrity, but I have something more important to tell you. The fact is, ever since DNS-and-BIND decided to make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to his propositions, his consistent, unvarying line has been that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. He looks down upon the rest of us. From DNS-and-BIND's perspective, we are blind so he must tell us what to see; we are deaf so he must tell us what to hear; and we are mute so he must tell us what to say. Such views may fool acrimonious roustabouts, but I aver that DNS-and-BIND just reported that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on DNS-and-BIND's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to promote, foster, and institute adversarialism.

By using bombastic language and selective quotation, DNS-and-BIND is able to promote vapid ideologies such as misoneism. Sounds pretty disorganized, doesn't it? But is it any more so than his vicious wheelings and dealings? In case you have any doubts, some people have indicated that he has a morbid fascination with all that is inferior, debased, deformed, unsympathetic, and deceitful. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that if DNS-and-BIND manages to lionize irritating, pathetic pinheads, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which termagant wackos meddle in everyone else's affairs.

But it gets much worse than that. As I've said in the past, DNS-and-BIND seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, the worst kinds of manipulative, ostentatious warlords I've ever seen. I correctly predicted that he would leave us in the lurch. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon. I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but if DNS-and-BIND's admirers had even an ounce of integrity they would reinforce what is best in people. What's the best way to oust DNS-and-BIND and his ophidian, flippant stooges, who are legion, from anywhere we find them making my blood curdle? That's actually a tough nut to crack. The answer is related the way that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that DNS-and-BIND will offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. And to overcome these fears, we must urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that DNS-and-BIND may be engaged in extortion, racketeering, and/or money laundering.

With friends like DNS-and-BIND, who needs enemies? I mean, nothing unites people like a common enemy. That's why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at DNS-and-BIND by reprimanding him for preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. He craves more power. I say we should give DNS-and-BIND more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it.

Although the dialectics of mentally deficient praxis will formulate social policies and action programs based on the most quarrelsome sorts of fascism in existence in the near future, mutinous segregationists, motivated by either McCarthyism or a desire to lead a pernicious, uneducated life, are eager to help DNS-and-BIND alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. But it goes further than that; if he were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for DNS-and-BIND, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: DNS-and-BIND. DNS-and-BIND has been trying to conceal his plans to suborn inaniloquent, destructive litterbugs to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his spleeny barbs. Fortunately, the truth about his bad-tempered, domineering maneuvers is spreading like a jungle fire. Soon, everyone will know that DNS-and-BIND takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. With this letter, I hope I have made my views clear: DNS-and-BIND's rhetorical posturings are blisteringly oligophrenic.

Re:DNS-and-BIND is a copypasta Jew (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520574)

Dude. Get back on your medication. Seriously.


I just pictured kdawson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520626)

...with several tears running down his face.

Innovation! (2, Insightful)

awyeah (70462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30519990)

It sounds like this is the result of innovation? I imagine that these "big-block" engines will be replaced by smaller-block V8s or perhaps more powerful V6s that have similar performance?

The only bad part of this is some people are going to lose their jobs (according to the AP [google.com]).

Re:Innovation! (2, Insightful)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520030)

Screw V-6's. Inline 6's have more power and better reliability. Inline engines always do.

Re:Innovation! (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520072)

Screw V-6's. Inline 6's have more power and better reliability. Inline engines always do.

Shoehorn anyone? Inline V-8(or God forbid I-10 or 12) tends to be a bit of a reach for real estate under the hood.

Regardless of "better" designs, we're witnessing an end of an era here, considering this format has survived for 50 out of the last 100 years of the automobile. A sad day indeed.

You want an IT analogy? Fine. Sometimes it's about the finesse and raw power coming from a 1000W system with dual graphics cards and 15K RPM drives, and not always about "green" designs or overall reliability. Sometimes you want your machine to haul ass and look good no matter the cost.

Re:Innovation! (4, Insightful)

LaRoach (968977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520130)

Er, inline V8? I do not think that means what you think it means...

Re:Innovation! (3, Funny)

The Wooden Badger (540258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520330)

An inline V8 would be an innovation.

Re:Innovation! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520552)

No it wouldn't. Old Buicks had inline 8s in the 1940s.


Re:Innovation! (4, Informative)

MikShapi (681808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520660)

I think what they were saying is that pistons in a V configuration (e.g. V6, V8, V12 etc) are not in a line, hence they are not inline engines. An engine can either be a V or an inline, not both, much like a line can't be straight and curved at the same time.

Re:Innovation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520600)

Even though GP was obviously confused, a sort of inline Vn already exists, it's called VRn, for instance the VR6 [wikipedia.org] engine.

Re:Innovation! (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520198)

Not really an end of an era, they still make the small block, and the only way I see that going away is if GM is dissolved.

Even then, I'm sure someone would buy up the tooling and keep making them.

Re:Innovation! (3, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520272)

Regardless of "better" designs, we're witnessing an end of an era here, considering this format has survived for 50 out of the last 100 years of the automobile. A sad day indeed.

What's sad is that GM had to almost go out of business before they'd finally acknowledge that such an inefficient engine type was obsolete. The handwriting's been on the wall since 19 ****ing 74 [wikipedia.org], for crisakes. But GM couldn't change its mindset, and instead sat and twiddled their thumbs while the Japanese took away their business.

I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors. But then, I'm an embittered ex-Sun employee...

Re:Innovation! (4, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520346)

I suspect GM kept at it this long for a good business reason: tinkerers loved that kind of engine: relatively easy to self-repair and powerful. Now the only choices will be wimpy or too complex to self-service. The Duke boys will have to rely much more on Cooter now.

Re:Innovation! (4, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520468)

I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors.

C'mon man - what this thread really needs is a car analogy.

Re:Innovation! (3, Insightful)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520554)

So obsolete that people went on a buying frenzy when they announced they were stopping production, because there was such a demand for them...

Re:Innovation! (1, Insightful)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520274)

Sure, but a V8 can't touch a straight six turbo in the "looks good and hauls ass" department.

we're witnessing an end of an era here

Not really. Don't get me wrong - I like classic muscle as much as the next guy - but that era ended a long time ago. Nothing to get sentimental about here.

Re:Innovation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520538)

Really? Because I'm pretty sure my M3 would eat a 335i alive.

Re:Innovation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520562)

I'm pretty sure my M3 would eat a 335i alive.

Until you come to the first corner.

Re:Innovation! (0)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520620)

Yes, because a M3 and a 335i are in a roughly comparable state of tune aren't they?

Compare the M3 to a six-turbo that has a similar level of development (and price!) and you'll get a very different picture.

Re:Innovation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520578)

There is one good advantage of a V8, and that is smooth power. Yes, you can get a 4 cylinder up to top speed fast, but with a lot of smaller engines, there is full on pedal stop, and there is no acceleration -- the engine just doesn't accelerate smoothly.

So, for a daily driving car, what would be ideal would be an efficient hybrid V8 that on highway cruising speed can use six cylinders. The hybrid part is excellent at not wasting energy when the vehicle is idling, and when at a crusing speed, having six cylinders do the work also saves a notable amount of fuel.

The problem is that with the lackluster power of most 4-6 cylinders, people are used to cars which are relative sluggards, such as Hondas which are extremely reliable, but almost always are anemically underpowered compared to the competition. Driving a decent v8 powered car will easy change perceptions of what is a fun engine to have for long drives, and what is a decent engine for getting from the house to the grocery store with a stop by the soccer field.

Re:Innovation! (2)

crispin_bollocks (1144567) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520582)

Sorry, the exhaust note from a six sounds like Felix Unger clearing his sinuses. You may haul ass, but there's no sex appeal in the way it sounds.

Re:Innovation! (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520686)

HA! I guess it rather depends on who you are trying to impress.

My tastes run more along the lines of athletic cosmopolitan babes then trucker-cap wearing hill-billies, so the lack of a V8 exhaust note is probably not an issue.

Re:Innovation! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520298)

If you're pulling 1000W system with dual graphics cards and 15K RPM drives, You've left finesse WAY behind. Also, you'll get the same performance for a heck of a lot more stability with one graphic card in just a year down the road, but that's neither here or there.

It's not like GM is killing this line because the engine isn't green enough. It just isn't selling enough. It's sad that there isn't the market for V8s, like there was long ago. But that doesn't make it a travesty. It's just a marker for an end of an era.

Re:Innovation! (1)

LaRoach (968977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520112)

Inline sixes also can weigh more, take up more space under the hood and can require a stronger frame in an offset front end crash. Remember, accountants run the companies, not the engineers. Don't get me wrong, I have four cars with inline sixes outside as I type this but the bean counters don't really like them.

Re:Innovation! (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520332)

Says the Ford man! That would seem to be one of the great bones of contention between Ford and Holden (GM) supporters. Personally I love the Ford straight 6's. I've always had straight 6's in my work cars. So much easier to work on than a V6! On the other hand, I also love my '78 ZH Fairlane's 302 Cleveland (V8). Even in such a big car with so much space under the hood, I doubt that a straight 8 would quite fit...

Re:Innovation! (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520084)

"It sounds like this is the result of innovation?"

More like the rise in fuel costs coupled with the recession.

The big block Chevrolet is a simple, tough engine that produces excellent torque, is durable, very easy to work on and inexpensive to repair. Aftermarket support is excellent and one can build complete engines without using a single GM part.

The powerplant of choice that replaced big block gas engines is the diesel, which is vastly more complex, brutally expensive to repair, difficult to work on even for well-equipped shops, and burdened with complex emission systems. Diesel fuel quality is always a concern, especially with low-sulfur diesel. They make great power, but you pay dearly for it.

I'll be hunting more of them for spares (I just rebuilt a 366 for my C30 wrecker). Like the small block Chevrolet, these adaptable engines will be working for many decades to come.

Re:Innovation! (5, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520224)

While diesels do have their own problems, I've never seen a big block with over a million miles on it.

Re:Innovation! (5, Interesting)

zippyspringboard (1483595) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520448)

While the big block wont EVER make it to a million, I've seen an awful AWFUL lot of diesels fail to make 500k. When it comes time to rebuild the engine the big block can be rebuilt several times over for what the Diesel will Cost. (atleast in parts and machining costs) Diesels commonly give twice the service life of their gas equivalents, anything more than that while not unheard of, is not to be expected either. (some gas engines go 400k too) Don't get me wrong, I would trade my Vortec 454 for a diesel in a heartbeat. But my motivation would be for the improved gas mileage. ESPECIALLY when Towing. The only reason I own Big block is for pulling a 10,000# trailer, and it does this VERY VERY well. But it get's about 10mpg when towing (15.5 when not) A Diesel would probably get 18mpg when towing and i could run homemade bio diesel. My tow vehicle with a big block is inexpensive, dependable, easy to work on, and gets pretty poor gas mileage....

Re:Innovation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520536)

Certainly the chevy rat was no slant6.

Re:Innovation! (0)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520682)

I grew up in North America in the days of nostalgia. My high school years were 82 to 87. And I had friends with Hurst shifters, and big blocks 440's and the likes....

BUT let me tell you about a story on the German Autobahn... My father took a Z-28 Camero big block around 86 to Europe. Everybody looked at it, and they were in awe. UNTIL they took it on the Autobahn. It ended up jamming. Why? Because the rear differential at the time was intended for 4 banger usage. The autodealer said so themselves.

Putting it simple... The nostalgia that everyone craves is all show no go! I will take a Europe sports car anyday... The only car that really showed its stuff on the German autobahn was the Dodge Viper! I know because my car was limited to 250 KPH (as most are due to insurance), but the Viper just passed me with ease. That car is a true sports car!!!

Re:Innovation! (1)

Temkin (112574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520464)

Nor will you see a big-block putting out 700+ ft/lbs. of torque for 250K miles. 12.5 mpg vs. 7 mpg in heavy towing applications plays a part as well.

The BB's were great engines, but there's a reason why there's all those diesel pickups out there these days.

Re:Innovation! (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520564)

It sounds like this is the result of innovation? I imagine that these "big-block" engines will be replaced by smaller-block V8s or perhaps more powerful V6s that have similar performance?

I am curious about the GMC commercials talking about a "6.2 liter nutcracker." If a 6.2 liter V8 is not a big block, then what is?

Car stories need computer analogies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30519992)

This is like Intel producing the last x86 chip.

Good Riddance (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520026)

Now they can finally join the 80's and work on getting rid of leaf springs next.

Re:Good Riddance (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520118)

"Now they can finally join the 80's and work on getting rid of leaf springs next."

Leaves are versatile, easily stacked to suit intended use, and tough.

If you want an F1 car by all means buy one, but leaf springs work very well on trucks and other applications where coil spring towers would be awkward (and coils risk coil bind when overloaded).

Re:Good Riddance (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520218)

Don't forget that the Corvette still uses a leaf spring suspension. Granted it's barely related to what we traditionally think of as leaf spring suspensions (stacked iron or steel leaves per wheel), using a single leaf made of a composite material in a transverse application for the rear suspension.

Replacing the vette's leaf springs (or its pushrod V8) would be like Porsche trying to make a non-rear engined 911. In both cases, they've spent decades applying technology to an initially flawed design, and owners would not have it any other way.

Re:Good Riddance (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520232)

but leaf springs work very well on trucks and other applications where coil spring towers would be awkward (and coils risk coil bind when overloaded).

Not only that but it's easier to tie into supporting members (eg. the frame) so you can carry more sprung weight. This is why heavy-duty machinery almost always has leaf springs. Plus you need less lateral support and they are stronger in general.

Leaf springs have their uses even on the most modern equipment.

Re:Good Riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520266)

I'm the OP and I agree with you 100%. Leaves certainly have their place in medium and heavy duty applications.

Re:Good Riddance (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520384)

What the hell is a leaf spring? Could you provide, like, a computer analogy of what it does?

big blocks (2, Interesting)

kqc7011 (525426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520048)

Plenty of other big blocks being made, no real reason to want a 50 year old design of a cast iron lump. Lots of new ones being built and machined, mostly aluminum.

Re:big blocks (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520172)

Aluminum is nice for racing, but there is no penalty for using iron (which is also more stable) in truck applications. For hauling, the front end weight is a plus (and part of why I just installed a 366 in my wrecker).

Re:big blocks (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520584)

mostly aluminum.

... Aluminum overheats at nothing. Your radiator goes on an aluminum engine and chances are good the engine's got a hole in it now too. Berate cast iron all you want, but at least it could handle a cheap component failing without exploding.

diesel (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520052)

So... What will GM be using for diesel engines? I'd thought their Duramax engines were V8s.

Re:diesel (2, Insightful)

terraformer (617565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520160)

Big block v. Small block. The will continue to have V8s, just smaller ones. The classic GM big block was the 454 ci. They will continue to have the 350 ci.

Re:diesel (1)

kryptKnight (698857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520174)

Duramax engines are made by DMAX, which is a joint venture between GM and Isuzu. They aren't related to the Chevy big block, which is a gasoline engine (there are differences between the Diesel cycle [wikipedia.org] and the Otto cycle [wikipedia.org] other than what fuel they use.)

Two years' worth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520070)

Love that quote. Just how much is two years' worth of big blocks? Who is "some customers"? Joe the plumber? Fedex? How many Library of Congress are we talking here?

Re:Two years' worth (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520244)

Pretty sure they are talking about things like boat manufacturers and water pump manufacturers. GM stopped using this engine in their trucks over 2 years ago, the production line was kept running to fill those outside customer orders. Since this beast needed 30% more displacement to produce 10% more torque and significantly LESS HP than the 6.2L V8 it's no surprise that GM stopped using it.

Re:Two years' worth (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520288)

If they all idled simultaneously nonstop, how many daily barrels of crude oil would it take to keep them running?

I suppose it was inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520122)

The big block put out a lot of power, but it also sucked a lot of gas. V6's have been around for years that put out a lot of power too. The really big block engines went away years ago (440, 383, 426 Hemi --and I'm not talking about the 5.9 liter hemi either, I'm talking about the old fashioned 7.0 liter hemi!). The old Ford 390 and the 428 Cobra Jet. Those old really big V8 engines are all long gone (like nearly 30 years ago). The small and medium block V8's have been around for a while 350, 360, 351 etc. But now they are going too. The small block V8's are still around 318, 313, 305, 289, 327 etc. Still lots of go in those engines. The V6's have gotten more powerful too. But one of the problems is that people don't want to get hammered at the gas pump anymore, and they don't want to go through gas like its water anymore. If there's really only 30 years left, lets use less and make it last a bit longer. A lot of people (me too) got kind of really grumpy paying stupid high prices 2 years ago, followed by paying wildly less 6 months later. The oil companies would like to shock us and soak us again, but they and the Arabs pissed too many people off. The green shit is happening. Even if you don't believe any of the environmental stuff, being able to force their hand and make them play nice is good monetary and business sense (if you are a consumer, if you're an oil company or an Arab, it will be the first time you've had to compete in your lifetime, so from their perspective, business is sucking hard). Using less means using less. It never made sense to me why one guy would want 500 cubic feet around him, just to get to work, when 150 would do exactly the same thing.

Re:I suppose it was inevitable (5, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520352)

Uh, this was the 8.1L (496 cu) engine that's being retired, it was a true big block. It was also a big hunk of cast iron with iron headers and hence heavy as all get out (734 lbs shipping weight vs 564 for the 6200).

Somehow, some way... (4, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520126)

Kill off another icon?

I'm getting one of these and jamming it into my SAAB.

Front heavy front wheel drive indeed.

Had a 454 Suburban (3, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520138)

74 3/4 ton suburban with towing package. Damn that thing would pull anything. It got 11 miles per gallon in town, on the road, pulling a trailer. No matter what it always got 11 miles per gallon. Drive it 35 miles per hour or 85 and it still got 11 miles per gallon. Weird. I miss that big boxy thing. Nothing has that much room anymore.

Re:Had a 454 Suburban (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520570)

perhaps your fuel gauge was broken as well. (possibly also made in America)

Re:Had a 454 Suburban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520616)

and you never had to guess what it would cost to go somewhere, or worry about making up some hill. it is a sad day.

V-8's rock (2, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520156)

It's fine if these engines are being killed because something better (as powerful with better efficiency) has come along. If not, it sucks.

To see which it is, just take a look at Ford Motor Company - you know, the one that ISN'T owned by the government! ;-)

BTW, regardless diesel engines rock! :-)

Once again, FUBO! =:-D

Re:V-8's rock (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520226)

"BTW, regardless diesel engines rock! :-)"

Real diesels, in trucks that go "kssh" and bend in the middle, do rock. :)

The Navistar abortions that triggered the lawsuitfest with Ford aren't their finest hour, and light truck diesels generally are brutally expensive to repair. For the cost of replacing a set of diesel injectors, I can rebuild a complete big block Chevy, and for what diesels trucks cost to purchase I could stuff 460s and 454s into my Fords and Chevys and feed them premium for years. Inline Cummins engines are nice but one has to buy a Dodge to get them...

Diesels are getting ever more complex, and with low sulfur diesel fuel combined with tightening emissions regs that ain't gonna change.

Re:V-8's rock (0)

barfy (256323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520324)

No, diesel fuel rocks. The reason you get more mileage from them, is that there is more energy released from the fuel.

Do you know that you get almost half as much diesel as you do from regular fuel. And that you get more mileage from a barrel of oil from gasoline rather than diesel?

Nah, probably not.

Re:V-8's rock (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520466)

Wrong. Diesel is lower in energy in gasoline per pound mass. Evenso, the difference is one of a few percent and not anywhere close to half as you claimed. The reason you get more thermodynamic efficiency is that diesels run at a higher compression ratio. The compression ratio that an engineer selects is a function of a number of variables the most significant of which is the type of fuel. Engines and fuels go hand in hand in the design process. One does not "rock" compared to the other.

Vehicle fuel economy is another matter altogether. It very easy to have a vehicle that is diesel power that gets poor mileage.


Re:V-8's rock (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520496)

It's a good thing I don't have to run my own refinery then. At this point in time, diesel is still cheaper per unit of energy at the pump, which is where it matters to consumers. no?

AFAIK diesel is cheaper to refine as well.

Re:V-8's rock (1)

compass46 (259596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520360)

The leaks regarding the 2011 Mustang GT's (the V8 model) engine specs have the previous 315hp engine being replaced with a 412hp engine. It'll still get about 24mpg highway though. On the other hand, the V6's 210hp engine is being replaced by a 305hp model 2011. And get this, going from 16/24mpg to 19/30mpg. (Those numbers reflect the automatic transmision model.)

As for GM, it was the reintroduced 2010 Camaro, especially the V6 model which currently has comparable numbers to the upcoming Mustang V6, that really spurred Ford on.

Re:V-8's rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520432)

The 2010 camero is a fucking ugly piece of shit. It looks better than the 2003 redesign, but that's like saying cmdrtaco's ass smells better than cowboy neal's ass. If I'm smelling ass, there better be a vagina on the other side.

Re:V-8's rock (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520364)

The 6200 has 10% less torque and more HP for a couple hundred less pounds of weight and significantly better fuel economy.

Add a supercharger... (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520170)

and one day Mad Max will get this engine. Now we know; the clock is ticking on the apocalypse.

Re:Add a supercharger... (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520254)

Mad Max drove a few different Ford Falcons. I think they had a ford 351 (small block) V8.

Re:Add a supercharger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520296)

Mad Max drove a few different Ford Falcons. I think they had a ford 351 (small block) V8.

True, and we all know it's impossible to put a different engine in them because of the dynamite wired to their gas tanks.

Mad max (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520210)

Crazy mechanic to mad max: ...last of the V8s. Piece of history.

the joy's of running a big block (2, Interesting)

onepoint (301486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520216)

so goes another point of history, maybe for the better, but there was something about when you opened the hood and you saw one, now you look under the hood and it's confusing. I guess age is getting the better of me LOL.

well I guess you'll all start wondering what it was like to have 550hp+, and punching it, there is just a sound, not like any other sound, it's the sound of power, raw, and tamed by only your nerve as you head down the strip. light to light, pole to pole, neck to neck, blasting the traps at 145mph+ in mid 10's, then, only after the trophy is handed to you, you drive your car home, listening to the sweet rumble.

I never had the balls to put slicks on, always felt that control at that level of speed was worth my life. lost a few - won a few, made me money while I was in school and never lost on the street ( nor was I caught ) and earn the respect of my peers in the parking lot. Had geek cred - grease in my blood - and I loved my "RAT" ... what more can you ask for when your 17 and it's 1983 ( well maybe DEC-VAX mainframe )

anyway thanks for reading

Re:the joy's of running a big block (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520258)

Just don't go punching gas using that thing anywhere near my house, you asshole. I fucking hate people with loud vehicles. Keep that bullshit where it belongs, on a track. And stop polluting the world with your useless egotistic noise. Go beat on your wife if you need to boost your pathetic ego like that.

Re:the joy's of running a big block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520392)

please, for the love of the lord, go get your transgender operation overwith already. you don't want to miss the next communist party gathering at copenhagen.

Re:the joy's of running a big block (0, Troll)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520456)

Yeah, it's all great until you kill someone [theage.com.au] in an effort to lengthen your pathetically small penis. Oh, and the DEC VAX is a supermini - not a mainframe (the PDP-10 was the mainframe).

Re:the joy's of running a big block (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520614)

No, no, no. The people who race American cars know better. They know the WMD they pilot.

99% of deaths due to street racing happen at the hands of kids who watched "The Fast and the Furious" and think that stock Civics or M3's with spoilers and fart-pipes give them over 9000 horsepower with enough cred and experience to race in the middle of traffic.

Re:the joy's of running a big block (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520642)

Dude, did you read the linked article? He was driving a Holden Commodore - it's a General Motors V8 sedan. Most of the hooning deaths in Australia are in Ford and Holden V8s.

Re:the joy's of running a big block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520650)

sounds like you're mad bro.

Re:the joy's of running a big block (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520500)

The engine being retired made 450HP which Ford is making with a midsized V-6 (ok only 415, but still). The Ford V6 is almost half the weight (449 lbs vs 734). Ok it's apples and bananas since one's a big truck V8 optimized for torque and the other's a race car V6 with twin turbochargers, but the point remains that old technology is old and there's very little need for 8.1L gas engine.

Smokey Yunick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520250)

He said it best with why he closed up shop "there was no more good mechanics". Indeed, all the best talent was interested in engine when the BBC, 385 Series(BBF), and the 440 where developed. The tech talent moved on to stuff like stereos in the 80's and computers in the 90's.

That being said, there is still some of that star talent. The aftermarket has some serious power.
Production engine - 1200hp - 557ci(9.1L) Big Block Chevy - link [mercuryracing.com]
Custom engine - 1400hp - 600ci(9.8L) Big Block Chevy - link [youngperfo...marine.com]

Those engine are built to run WOT for long periods of time. A serious engineering and technological marvel.

old friend (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520268)

good bye my old friend, you will be missed.

as a gear head, not much is more impressive than a big ol rat motor sticking out of the hood of your car. I will really miss this motor, gas hog or not

turn the page (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520340)

I'm old enough to appreciate the value of a piece of tech that has served so well for so long. Likewise, I have a soft spot for the land-line and the command line. But there are pleasurable vices that we simply can't afford to cling to, and the big petrol-burning engine is one of them.

Re:turn the page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520406)

I can say its sad to see this engine go because of history, but POTS will take a lot longer to die especially in rural US areas and then the command line... really do you only work on windows machines? I use the command line everyday and quite honestly it is so much easier to determine what is going on with a machine then a GUI ever will.

Beasts! (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520398)

We used to have an old 87 Chevy 3500 van and a 85 Chevy cube truck. Both were powered by the big block 366. Those things were nasty, I could chirp the tires on the cube truck with a light load! The van was a rocket ship, you had to be gentle on the pedal. They were hardy engines and you could pile on miles with little problems. The trucks rear finally blew in the 2000 and we junked it and sold the van. Replaced them with two GM 3500 vans which have the small block but are very ballsy. Can handle a 2700lb load with no problems, even in the PA mountains on the 70/76.

One they are retired we will switch to Sprinters with diesel engines.

RIP big block, you were a monster and legend for your day. We just don't need you anymore.

sniffle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520442)

Good bye old friend

Big Block is Meaningless (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30520494)

GM produces a 7 liter motor, the same size as the old big block 427. The 427 was a wicked powerful motor. The new engine is better. Who cares if one was called the big block. Power is the real important number. Weight and compactness are important as well. Even displacement is meaningless in the forced induction era. The term big block is meaningless. The performance cars and heavy duty trucks of today are far and away superior to their forebears in every way.


car analogies (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520638)

The big block V8 is like the Itanium. Big and power hungry and a real commercial workhorse.

It think people are sad because it would be like if Intel stopped making Core 2 Quads and decided all you needed was an Atom chip.

8.1L (1, Insightful)

postmortem (906676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30520672)

What a waste of fuel through the years. If normal size engines with decent fuel mileage were used, we'd have much bigger oil reserves today. SUVs and trucks with such engines are not necessary to get to work or drive hundreds of miles on interstate or to drive to Walmart and get groceries. That's where I see them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account