Clarkson: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly discussion thread

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly discussion thread

  • Best Clarkson DVD ever!

    Votes: 76 30.4%
  • Better than most of his DVD's except [insert DVD name]

    Votes: 61 24.4%
  • Most of his other DVD's are better

    Votes: 71 28.4%
  • Worst Clarkson DVD ever!

    Votes: 42 16.8%

  • Total voters
    250
I can't fault Nissan - engine sharing within your range makes good economic sense, and that Nissan v-6 is solid. The GM engine range is a lot more depressing to me. Its symptomatic of their really dire straights with restructuring and unions and whatnot. While their have certainly been updates, from my understanding GM is still using the same small block layout. They keep trying to squeeze more out of it instead of developing anew. They just keep refining them, giving a total miss to technologies like over-head cams, variable valve timing, and now direct chamber fuel injection. The "its not borken so don't fix it" approach has been in effect for a few decades.

I am so sick of that 3800 V-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_3800_engine

Educate ourselves w/ a full list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GM_engines#V8
 
All that aside - adding displacment has advantages, and it isn't necessarily proportional with economy - why is a 8.0L 500 Hp engine necessarily worse than a 5.5L 500hp engine? Tuning can make the economy difference negligible. My subaru 2.5L gets worse fuel economy than some V-8s, I know at least one reason is that it deliberately pumps in more fuel than is needed to cool the charge, hotter than ususal from turbocharging, to squeeze out that 100hp per liter. A 3.5 Litter is heavier, and that definitely has its problems - but it might do the same power more smoothly from lower revs running lean. Plus there is no lag, and a smoother power delivery in general. Is there some kind of legislation in Europe that disincentives displacement?
 
Engine Capacity and Fuel Economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_engine#Engine_capacity

A bigger capacity engine does impact it fuel economy. So no doubt their engine do use up more fuel, compare to other European engine with the same horsepower but less capacity. 8.3L V10 Viper engine to produce 510hp, Mercedes got a little more than that with a 6.2L V8. Corvette 7.0L V8 for 500hp, BMW got that much out with a 5.0 V10.

And now some of you are talking about your Turbo charged engine. Turbo charged engine of course it does harms the fuel economy. Why not compare an Naturally Aspirated engine to a Naturally Aspirated engine. Probably at my first post I shouldn't compare the Viper's engine to the Veyron. Sorry that's my bad. And I shouldn't call European or Japanese engine more efficient. They are just more sophisticated.

Turbo's Drawback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo#Fuel_efficiency

There is another thing to consider about a bigger capacity engine. A bigger heavier engine compromise the handling, especially in a front engine car. It makes the car nose heavy. It spoils the handling. Before ppl start bashing me, I will say its smart for Chevy to use carbon fiber front wing and magnesium cradle, to distribute the weight.

Narcolepsy - the Nissan 3.5 V6 I do agree is a very solid engine =) I love the noise it makes, especially when it's installed into the G35 and the 350Z.

janstett - How old is the 944 Turbo and how old is your Trans AM, many many years has passed. The technology has changed, its not even a suitable comparison.
 
A bigger capacity engine does impact it fuel economy. So no doubt their engine do use up more fuel, compare to other European engine with the same horsepower but less capacity. 8.3L V10 Viper engine to produce 510hp, Mercedes got a little more than that with a 6.2L V8. Corvette 7.0L V8 for 500hp, BMW got that much out with a 5.0 V10.
And yet the 7.0L Z06 gets better economy then the rest of those mentioned. Gearing plays a role. Also look at the torque curve. If a 5.0L engine has to run at 7000RPM to produce 500hp, while a 7.0L engine runs are 3500RMP to produce 500hp, who's going to use more fuel?

There is another thing to consider about a bigger capacity engine. A bigger heavier engine compromise the handling, especially in a front engine car. It makes the car nose heavy. It spoils the handling. Before ppl start bashing me, I will say its smart for Chevy to use carbon fiber front wing and magnesium cradle, to distribute the weight.
The LS7 7.0L V8 used in the Z06 weighs less then the 5.0L V10 used in the M5. Displacement is empty space and carries no weight.
 
And yet the 7.0L Z06 gets better economy then the rest of those mentioned. Gearing plays a role. Also look at the torque curve. If a 5.0L engine has to run at 7000RPM to produce 500hp, while a 7.0L engine runs are 3500RMP to produce 500hp, who's going to use more fuel?


The LS7 7.0L V8 used in the Z06 weighs less then the 5.0L V10 used in the M5. Displacement is empty space and carries no weight.

The Z06 also weights 900-1000 pounds less. That?s huge when it comes to fuel economy...Less weight an engine has to haul around the better the fuel economy will be.
 
The LS7 7.0L V8 used in the Z06 weighs less then the 5.0L V10 used in the M5. Displacement is empty space and carries no weight.


to create more space in the cylinder what are you gonna use? Tracing paper? So it doesn't create weight?
 
engine displacement is the measurement of air that can fill the inside of an engine.

a 5.7l V8 LS1 used in corvettes from 97-04 weighs less than the Vq 3.5l used by nissan. Its also lighter than mazdas 13b fitted with turbos as well. I can go on and on :rolleyes:
 
The Z06 also weights 900-1000 pounds less. That?s huge when it comes to fuel economy...Less weight an engine has to haul around the better the fuel economy will be.

true but i bet if you were to stuff the LS7 into a M5 it would get better gas milage. Since peak tq is so low in the powerband you wouldnt need to wind the engine so high to get anywhere. just a thought :mrgreen:
 
Engine Capacity and Fuel Economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_engine#Engine_capacity

A bigger capacity engine does impact it fuel economy. So no doubt their engine do use up more fuel, compare to other European engine with the same horsepower but less capacity. 8.3L V10 Viper engine to produce 510hp, Mercedes got a little more than that with a 6.2L V8. Corvette 7.0L V8 for 500hp, BMW got that much out with a 5.0 V10.

You know, you say that, but so far, the only proof I've seen is that our big, "ineffecient" engines provide superior fuel economy than and equivelantly powerful Euro engine. When your engines provide the massive amounts of torque some of our v8's do, you can gear them down to the point where you'll get excellent fuel mileage. Those stressed out Euro engines can't do that. It seems the Japanese have trouble as well.

Here's something to ponder

Why is it that the super light Lotus elise, which is also just as Aerodynamic as anything else, with an "effecient' japanese engine, only able to get fuel economy numbers with your standard issue Honda Accord? It's got significantly less weight to lug around, it's only using a 1.8, that by your definition is efficient, and yet it gets 35mpg...

I've heard the Elise can do 35mpg, but I've only seen evidence that it's only meeting epa numbers of 27 highway...something a 7 litre z06 can do with an extra 1k lbs to lug around (infact I've seen more than 3 magazine get 28 with cruise control on). BTW, I'm only talking about the toyta 2zz powered Elise, as that was the one available in the US.

Oh one more, the lighter just as Aerodynamic Lancer Evolution's with their high tech 280hp turbo 4's with manual transmissions can't beat the fuel economy of 7 year older Chevy Camaro v8 with a 4 speed automatic.

And now some of you are talking about your Turbo charged engine. Turbo charged engine of course it does harms the fuel economy. Why not compare an Naturally Aspirated engine to a Naturally Aspirated engine. Probably at my first post I shouldn't compare the Viper's engine to the Veyron. Sorry that's my bad. And I shouldn't call European or Japanese engine more efficient. They are just more sophisticated.

Sophistication costs money. And ever notice how massive a Euro or Nissan v8 is compared to a small block? Toyota has a 4.3 Litre aluminum v8 with 4 cams and VVT on it, it's physically just as big as a small block, and you can't get any more displacement out of it.

I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear GM is working on a new small block with twin cams...still pushrod activated valves though. This way they can impliment VVT while keeping the engine size to a minimum.

There is another thing to consider about a bigger capacity engine. A bigger heavier engine compromise the handling, especially in a front engine car. It makes the car nose heavy. It spoils the handling.

Adding turbo's to a car adds just as much, if not more weight. Ever see how heavy a Honda h22 prelude engine is? An SR20det (with turbo/ic connected) weighs a few pounds less than an GM LSx engine. Of course the SR20de(t) also weighs 30lbs more than the solid cast iron CA18de(t) it replaced...

Another comparison would be the Jag v12's. Much newer design than the GM big blocks v8, which hasn't had a significant update in probably 45 years now. Jag v12 is all aluminum and available in 5.3 or 6.0 litre's (racing versions when upto 7.7, and if you push your luck it will goto 9), the Big Block v8's from GM are solid cast iron, and from the factory came in 7.0 upto 9.3 litres. Both engines are about the same weight.

Honda's "high-tech" and "modern" 4 cylinders are marginally lighter than the Buick 215 v8 (designed in the 50's!). The Brits will know this engine better as the Rover V8. Yep, it's our design, American's gave it up, unfortunately.

I could continue, but I think I've made my point.
 
Last edited:
I don't know where you guys get these facts about the 7.0L weigh less than the engines you guys have listed above. But please prove me wrong here, I'm here to learn. When I gave you fact about bigger capacity engine consume more fuel, please give me some facts about the 7.0L V8 in the Corvette weigh less than all engines you all have said above. I'm not saying you guys are lying, because I know the LS7 is using more lightweight material for it. But just saying you know it is less, doesn't do much. In order to make a bigger capacity engine, you need to have to use more metal to make the cylinder bigger and bigger pistons, this create more weight.


niteriyder - The Mazda 13BTurbo engine is from the 80s, and the LS1 is from the mid 90s. That isn't a suitable comparison. And just like above, where does it say the VQ35 weigh more?

Mazda 13BTurbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Wankel_engine#13B

Chevy LS1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine#LS1

Nissan VQ35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VQ_engine#VQ35HR

Something for everyone to look at: International Engine of the Year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Engine_of_the_Year

...and Ward's 10 Best Engines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines
 
I can't quote a specific source on the weighs as I've pulled them all from my memory (no not my ass I promise). I usually got them from actual people who have weighed them, rather than just some random article that doesn't give you the details of how it was weighed. Some weigh a motor with all the parts hooked up, some will just do a short or long block.

The exceptions to the above point are the "weight lists" running around the net, I used that list to get the Jag v12 weight from. Big block and small block engine weighs are fairly well known.

The LS7 is a race prepped LS1 with larger bores/new thinner liners, and a longer stroke. With the bits of titanium in it, it should be a bit lighter than a standard LSx engine.

The Mazda 13b turbo is relevant only on the basis that many swear it's extremely light...and stripped down it is. Not uncommon to hear of people lifting the engine sans manifolds themselves. Add the turbo's and extra bits and it will easily weigh as much as many aluminum v8's.

edit: Most of the engines I listed in comparison, are fairly close in weight.
 
Last edited:
I don't know where you guys get these facts about the 7.0L weigh less than the engines you guys have listed above. But please prove me wrong here, I'm here to learn. When I gave you fact about bigger capacity engine consume more fuel, please give me some facts about the 7.0L V8 in the Corvette weigh less than all engines you all have said above. I'm not saying you guys are lying, because I know the LS7 is using more lightweight material for it. But just saying you know it is less, doesn't do much. In order to make a bigger capacity engine, you need to have to use more metal to make the cylinder bigger and bigger pistons, this create more weight.

Most of it is common sense. I've heard of fully dressed LS7 motors weighing just 400 pounds, give or take.

The LS7 is all aluminum, with titanium rods and valves. The engine uses 1 camshaft and 16 valves. The cylinder heads are much much smaller because they don't house the cam shafts. A DOHC motor, like the one in the M5, has 4 camshafts and 40 valves and much much larger cylinder heads.
 
I can't fault Nissan - engine sharing within your range makes good economic sense, and that Nissan v-6 is solid.

I'm not saying it's a bad engine. But having it in everything from your bread and butter car to your premiere sports car to an SUV, essentially unchanged, well, I question the strategy. IMO the 350Z isn't all that fast really and since it was introduced I've been waiting for the twin turbo version that so far isn't coming. The 350Z could really use a special engine. I mean, if I spent $35k on a 350Z Track Edition, I'd want more than an Altima engine under the hood.

Narcolepsy said:
The GM engine range is a lot more depressing to me. Its symptomatic of their really dire straights with restructuring and unions and whatnot. While their have certainly been updates, from my understanding GM is still using the same small block layout. They keep trying to squeeze more out of it instead of developing anew. They just keep refining them, giving a total miss to technologies like over-head cams, variable valve timing, and now direct chamber fuel injection. The "its not borken so don't fix it" approach has been in effect for a few decades.

I'm not a fan of the horrible 3600 V6s; however, the LS1 is an amazing engine. First, the LS1 which debuted in the 1997 Corvette was a clean-sheet design (nothing reused from the LT1 that preceeded it) and was actually an advanced pushrod design -- if you can get over thinking "advanced pushrod" is a contradiction of terms. An all-aluminum block, one of the first cars to use a composite intake manifold which is good for heat dissipation and weight, individual coil-packs for each cylinder instead of a distributor, each cylinder has its own individual fuel injector which in conjuction with the mass airflow sensor manages air/fuel ratios per cylinder individually; a lot of work went into the revolutionary, yet simple, cylinder head design. The LS1 is a textbook lesson in not investing in technology for technology's sake. If the base motor makes 350 hp, has a nice flat torque curve, is reliable, light, and cheap, what's the point?

Further, GM did experiment with high tech DOCH engines in the Corvette with the C4 generation's high water mark, the ZR-1 -- which featured the DOHC LT5 engine designed by Lotus and manufactured by Mercury Marine. The LT5 was tempermental and complex -- the pushrod LS1 made the same power but was lighter and more reliable. So why again is DOHC for the sake of DOHC better? Pushrods can be good. There are advantages to pushrods over a DOHC setup -- fewer moving parts (four cams, four additional belts for the valve train), lower center of gravity (the motor is not as tall nor are there 4 camshafts on the top of the motor with rotating mass).

Further, GM does have a range of "advanced" V8 engines with DOHCs, the Northstar range used primarily in Cadillac vehicles. And in virtually every case, when Cadillac needs something special for a performance vehicle, they come calling for the LS2 and LS7 pulled from the Corvette Z06 and not their own DOHC Northstars.

I have a car with an LS1. I liken it to Russian MiG fighter design -- they may use vacuum tubes and not have all the whiz-bang technology of the American fighters, but they stack up against them in a dogfight despite the "inferiority" of the design; it's an old design at heart implemented anew, that has had refinement and technology applied to it.
 
Last edited:
Engine Capacity and Fuel Economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_engine#Engine_capacity

A bigger capacity engine does impact it fuel economy. So no doubt their engine do use up more fuel, compare to other European engine with the same horsepower but less capacity.

Your assumption is faulty. Once again I will point you to the LS2 V8 in a Corvette -- 400 horsepower, 400 torques, 6.0 L, 18 mpg city, 28 mpg highway; compare to the BMW inline 6 -- 3.0 liters, 230 horsepower, 200 torques, 21 mpg highway, 30 mpg city -- near as makes no difference. Also I will point to some highly fuel-inefficient European V8s -- like the Aston's 4.3L 380 hp V8, 14 mpg city, 22 mpg highway. Whaaaa? Or Ferrari's 4.3L V8 in the F430 -- 500 horsepower, 350 torques, 11 mpg city, 16 mpg highway. At the same 500 horsepower, but 150 more torques, the Z06's LS7 gets 16 mpg city, 26 mpg highway. Time to reconsider your theory.

wirelesscoyote said:
There is another thing to consider about a bigger capacity engine. A bigger heavier engine compromise the handling, especially in a front engine car. It makes the car nose heavy. It spoils the handling. Before ppl start bashing me, I will say its smart for Chevy to use carbon fiber front wing and magnesium cradle, to distribute the weight.

And once again you're falling into a trap. The LS1 V8 is only 400-something pounds, and is LIGHTER than many V6 engines. Heck, the LS1 V8 weighs only slightly more than the 2.5L in my Porsche. People have swapped out the Porsche motor for the LS1 and not significantly changed the 944's 50/50 balance.

www.renegadehybrids.com said:
Here is a better way to compare the weight. If you were to take a 944 turbo (951), and remove the Porsche engine and all the supporting systems like the intercooler and oil cooler, then install a stock LS-1 with AC, power steering, the works, your weight bias from front to rear would stay within 1% of stock! Yet, your HP and, especially your torque, would increase substantially. In addition no more costly timing belt repairs, clutch jobs, turbo fires, chronic exhaust issues, well, you get the point!

So your assumption that a bigger capacity engine is heavier is faulty.

janstett - How old is the 944 Turbo and how old is your Trans AM, many many years has passed. The technology has changed, its not even a suitable comparison.

True, I suppose. The 951 is an 86, the TA a 2000. The 951 also weighs 2800 lbs versus the TA's 3500+. However, I can think of many contemporary 4 and 6 cylinder cars that do not get 28 mpg on the highway. Again I will point at the wonderful BMW inline 6 as an example. Or, let's take the 350Z you are so fond of.

3.5L DOHC V6, 300 hp, 260 torques, 19 mpg city, 25 mpg highway.

Do I need to say anything more?

The 500 horsepower 7.0 liter LS7 V8 in the Corvette Z06 (a dry-sump race motor) gets 16 mpg city 26 mpg highway. The mass-produced 400 HP LS2 in the normal Corvette does 18 mpg city 28 mpg highway.

If you still insist bigger displacement equals greater weight, let's look up the weight of the LS2 and the weight of the Nissan V6, shall we?
 
Last edited:
I also just recalled something else about the Jag v12's....

When jag went to Le Mans with the V12's they came up with twin-cam heads for it. The race drivers HATED it, even though it was loads more powerful, it made the car handle worse due to the extra weight (up high). While I doubt any of us on the forum driving a car would notice something like that, it's a valid point none-the-less.

Further, GM did experiment with high tech DOCH engines in the Corvette with the C4 generation's high water mark, the ZR-1 -- which featured the DOHC LT5 engine designed by Lotus and manufactured by Mercury Marine. The LT5 was tempermental and complex -- the pushrod LS1 made the same power but was lighter and more reliable. So why again is DOHC for the sake of DOHC better? Pushrods can be good. There are advantages to pushrods over a DOHC setup -- fewer moving parts (four cams, four additional belts for the valve train), lower center of gravity (the motor is not as tall nor are there 4 camshafts on the top of the motor with rotating mass).

BTW, the epa numbers on the LS7 z06's are underrated. Because they don't take the cars up passed 48, the engines aren't running as well as they would at 65-75 on the highway. This is why many owners who use cruise control on the highway show 28+. Even magazines have done it, I've got 2 articles that say so.

The LT-5 was hampered somewhat by GM before letting Lotus mess with it. From my knowledge the LT-5 uses a single (massive) chain, rather than "4 belts" I don't know of any semi-modern OHC engine with multiple belts.

While it has it's issue's, when an engine builder has free reign over it, it's capable of boat loads of power. Infact an All-motor (Naturally Aspirated) LT-5 properly built has sent a Modified C4 with factory body and chassis and even it's IRS into the low 9's on Gasoline.

Lotus did come up with an excellent and inexpensive way to impliment variable valve timing/duration. They put small throttle plates that blocked off 8 of the 16 ports/valves (each valve had it's own port I guess), the blocked off ports/valves had different valve timing and cam duration. At higher engine speeds these ports would open and you'd gain more top end. This did somewhat hamper peak performance, but greatly improved the torque spread of the engine.

One thing about the LT-5. It has the same bore spacing and displacement as the Regular LT engines of the time. It was much larger, and even though it was all aluminum while the other corvette engines were iron blocks with aluminum heads, both weighed the same.

Lastly, this engine also DOUBLED the cost of the Corvettes it came in.


One of the points I've been trying to make in these lasts posts is, something that seems light because of what it's made of may not be so... See my comments on the CA18de(t) vs SR20DE(t). Aluminum may be lighter, but it's also weaker then iron, and requires more material to be as strong.

After writing all that, and remembering some of the things JC has said about British engineering something just dawned on me...

If it was a brit thought of taking a pack of leaf springs and turning them into 1 carbon fiber unit that doesn't wear out, and mounting it transversly @ the bottom to Double A-arm (wishbone) suspension, he would have called it "British ingenuity" but because it's American it's just "idiotic, and the American proving once again they are just neanderthals."
 
Last edited:
I just now watched this. This video proves it that JC is an idiot. I thought I'd never say it but it is true.
 
According to the numbers from Corvette Action Center the Lotus developed LT5 produces the same power as the LS6 and more than the LS2 in stock form. As for the weight i can't get any figures on the LT5, but the LS1 and the LS6 has a total dressed weight of 226 kg (497 lbs) This might be a silly comparison but the V12 from the Enzo/599 has a total dressed weight of 214 kg and the block is strong enough to be a stressed member. The Carrera GT's V10 weighs 204 kg.

After having wached the video I think it's good entertainment, just like Top Gear, but the comparisons are no good for reference...
 
e V12 from the Enzo/599 has a total dressed weight of 214 kg and the block is strong enough to be a stressed member. The Carrera GT's V10 weighs 204 kg.

Just out of curiosity where did you get the Enzo engine weights? I had forgottedn about the Carrera GT's. This goes without saying, but those are extremely expensive high precision engines.
 
Just out of curiosity where did you get the Enzo engine weights?
Every month Gordon Murray does an article in EVO magazine, and in one of them he killed the myth about the planned BMW M8 would have the McLaren F1 engine, as the latter has nothin in common with the one planned for the M8. However he also mentioned the only compromise he commited with the F1-programme. (the engines weight) Originally one of Murray's demands was no more than 250 kg fully dressed. It ended up weighing some 266 kg, but was significantly more powerfull than the 550 hp ha had originally set as a minimum. Where the Enzo part comes in is that he was suprized that Ferrari would mass-produce such an engine for the 599, and then quoted some specs. I can't rembemer witch issue though...

I was going tho get up the weight for similarly powerful European V8 (Porsche V8, AMG V8, BMW V8, Audi RS-V8) engines, but I couldn't find these stats. The only one I remeber is the Jaguar AJ V8 that weighs 220 kg.
 
Last edited:
Top