This way they could have used pistons, rings, valves (with all their seals, springs, etc), bearings, connecting rods, pushrods, etc.
They would just have needed to make new engine blocks, heads, crankshafts and camshafts.
This way they could have used pistons, rings, valves (with all their seals, springs, etc), bearings, connecting rods, pushrods, etc.
They would just have needed to make new engine blocks, heads, crankshafts and camshafts.
Because all the parts you've listed are available off the shelf in many other sizes and options including BETTER performance that the Vipers.
The block is MUCH more critical in high performance than the moving components as it must be light and yet strong enough to not twist under the stresses.
the original V10 was based off a truck engine...
it was a V8 with 2 extra holes.
a Viper without a V10 is like a vette without a V8 ;). Simple as that
[quote=coolieman1220;959705]the original V10 was based off a truck engine...
it was a V8 with 2 extra holes.[/quote]
This. Cheaper production, plus a torque monster... besides, no one else was gonna do it which guaranteed Dodge market position.
An american sportscar with a V12 is somewhat strange to me... I really can't think of a single one (except the Chrysler ME-4-12 which was never built). Apart from that, V12s are super complicated an would have made the Viper less reliable. The V10 is fine, the only thing that has to change is the fuel economy ;).
V12's arent complicated, but they generally arent on a 90 degree bank angle like just about every V8. V6/I6 is a more logical start for a V12.
[quote=fpv_gtho;959736]V12's arent complicated[/quote]
More cylinders= more moving parts= more complicated.
v12's work so well because they are balanced. v10's arn't. straight 6's are also great so why not put 2 together? = v12!
The V12 engine is the holy grail for the true car enthusiast. Enough said. However, the days of the good old naturally aspirated large capacity engine are numbered (well at least in the EU they are). Brussels want every car maker's fleet average emissions to be 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre by next year. I am not aware of the existence of a V12 car which emits < 300g/km. The USA doesn't have any limits on CO2 so I think that while Europe was always the home of the V12, this could change. Please America, start making V12s! But keep the V8s too. Whatever you do, don't start making very small turbocharged I4s.
To answer the question: It's probably because V12s are very expensive and complex to develop. Also, the Viper was always known for having a massive, lazy, torque laden V10. The 8.3 V10 behaved in the way it was intended to and therefore Dodge kept an "If it ain't broke don't fix it" policy. Personally, I've always like the big Viper and the sound of it's V10 from the side of the race track. It still races in the British GT championship and it provides a good contrast to the more purpose built machines.
[quote=Commodore GS/E;959735]An american sportscar with a V12 is somewhat strange to me... I really can't think of a single one (except the Chrysler ME-4-12 which was never built). Apart from that, V12s are super complicated an would have made the Viper less reliable. The V10 is fine, the only thing that has to change is the fuel economy ;).[/quote]
I always thought of V12's as truck motors...
[url="http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/gmc/60s_brochure/page05.jpg"]http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/gmc/60s_brochure/page05.jpg[/url]
;)
Seriously though, before WW2 the US had a number of V12s including the Packard V12s which enchanted Enzo Ferrari.
[url="http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4950154"]1936 PACKARD V12 SPEEDSTER | Motor Cars Auction</li> | Pre War | Christie's
[/url]
I think America moved away from V12s basically because they had little going for them over the very good V8s we had. There really isn't any reason to make a V12 when the US manufactures were so good at producing cost effective (and just out right great) V8 motors. This is likely why the V12 passed into obsurity in the US.
I suspect the Viper V10 came about in part because a V12 would be too long to fit in a truck. While Chrysler might have been able to extend the Viper chassis for a V12 I doubt they could have fit a V12 in the trucks. The V10 was meant to be Chrysler's big dog gas motor (Ford did the same thing). As thirsty as that might have been when Chrysler was making that choice, my Miata now cost more per mile than a V10 Ram truck did when the V10 first came out. I can imagine a V12 being any harder to produce from a V8 than this V10.
There is still a certain coolness to the V12 which will ensure it doesn't die out too fast in the highest end cars but really, there is little reason to pick a V12 over a V8 given a quality V8.
[quote=group c n b man;959760]The V12 engine is the holy grail for the true car enthusiast. Enough said. However, the days of the good old naturally aspirated large capacity engine are numbered (well at least in the EU they are). Brussels want every car maker's fleet average emissions to be 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre by next year. I am not aware of the existence of a V12 car which emits < 300g/km. The USA doesn't have any limits on CO2 so I think that while Europe was always the home of the V12, this could change. Please America, start making V12s! But keep the V8s too. Whatever you do, don't start making very small turbocharged I4s.[/quote]
The US doesn't have CO2 limits but we have mileage rules which are almost the same. They do differ in that diesel vs gas is directly comparable in Europe (since a liter of diesel doesn't have the same carbon content as a liter of gasoline).
Sadly, that means you guys are getting the same stupidity that we have with regards to fuel economy standards. The standards haven't proven that great in the US. At some point there is a natural balance where the price of gas and the purchasing choice of the average buyer line up such that the market naturally meets a given fuel economy target. During the Arab oil embargo in the late 1970s the average fuel economy of new cars in the US actually exceeded the the CAFE standards. During that time the price of gas was high enough to make people want cars that got mileage above the government targets. In the early 90s with ~$1.20/gallon gas (and into the later 90s when I found gas for my all time low of $0.69/gallon) the buying market would have been happy with high power 20mpg cars. Fuel economy was just a non-issue. When gas prices spiked, well we once again bought cars that exceeded CAFE mandates.
So I think it's clear that high fuel prices will bring fleet economy up by simple public demand. No need to write laws there. However, it goes father than that. Higher fuel costs cause people not only buy more fuel efficient cars but also to try to be more efficient with their existing cars. When gas was cheap I didn't care about driving 15 miles to some store to window shop. That trip cost me $1. At three times the price I start paying attention to such things. The cost of my commute went from $400/year to $1000/year. Well I can afford the extra $600 but I sure would rather spend that on other things! The high cost of gas makes people think about living closer to work and driving less. In the 1980s and 1990s suburban sprawl became really bad in the US. Part of the reason was that, thanks in part to our mandated high mileage cars, we could easily afford to live far out in the country and commute in to work. I could live in a small in town house and spend $400/year on gas or move to the country and spend $600/year. In the country I have a bigger house and bigger lot and... etc. Expensive gas is now causing a reversal of that trend (in conjunction with people who are tired of congestion).
Not to mention we can argue about do we need to limit CO2 or does it help if we do but that's another rant....
Anyway, that was my CAFE rant (modified to be a CO2/km rant).
Seagrave built large gasoline V12s from the 1930s untill recently, mainly for use in fire trucks though earlier they often saw marine service. The biggest difference between Dodge and Ford V10s was the Triton was a fresh sheet of paper design and OHC; Dodge based theirs on the 318 OHV V8. Both make good torque, the Triton gets slightly better fuel economy. Roughly the same dimensions so yes, packaging issues VS torque needed for trucks obviated any reason to produce V12s.
High US fuel prices? :confused: The fact that US fuel costs have been kept artificially low has been the key element in the expansion of sub and ex-urban development, to the extent that we use more energy per capita than any other country. Pretty sad that we only react when it costs more dollars to drive our SUVs to the mall than we want to pay. Then we bitch and complain about oil producers holding us hostage.
[quote=culver;959768]The US doesn't have CO2 limits but we have mileage rules which are almost the same. They do differ in that diesel vs gas is directly comparable in Europe (since a liter of diesel doesn't have the same carbon content as a liter of gasoline).
Sadly, that means you guys are getting the same stupidity that we have with regards to fuel economy standards. The standards haven't proven that great in the US. At some point there is a natural balance where the price of gas and the purchasing choice of the average buyer line up such that the market naturally meets a given fuel economy target. During the Arab oil embargo in the late 1970s the average fuel economy of new cars in the US actually exceeded the the CAFE standards. During that time the price of gas was high enough to make people want cars that got mileage above the government targets. In the early 90s with ~$1.20/gallon gas (and into the later 90s when I found gas for my all time low of $0.69/gallon) the buying market would have been happy with high power 20mpg cars. Fuel economy was just a non-issue. When gas prices spiked, well we once again bought cars that exceeded CAFE mandates.
So I think it's clear that high fuel prices will bring fleet economy up by simple public demand. No need to write laws there. However, it goes father than that. Higher fuel costs cause people not only buy more fuel efficient cars but also to try to be more efficient with their existing cars. When gas was cheap I didn't care about driving 15 miles to some store to window shop. That trip cost me $1. At three times the price I start paying attention to such things. The cost of my commute went from $400/year to $1000/year. Well I can afford the extra $600 but I sure would rather spend that on other things! The high cost of gas makes people think about living closer to work and driving less. In the 1980s and 1990s suburban sprawl became really bad in the US. Part of the reason was that, thanks in part to our mandated high mileage cars, we could easily afford to live far out in the country and commute in to work. I could live in a small in town house and spend $400/year on gas or move to the country and spend $600/year. In the country I have a bigger house and bigger lot and... etc. Expensive gas is now causing a reversal of that trend (in conjunction with people who are tired of congestion).
Not to mention we can argue about do we need to limit CO2 or does it help if we do but that's another rant....
Anyway, that was my CAFE rant (modified to be a CO2/km rant).[/quote]
Fuel in the US is still a couple of factors less than it is here. Regular unleaded is £1.29 per litre, which is over £6 per gallon which is about $10! Super unleaded and Diesel fuel are 4 or 5p higher than that per litre. My dad has a Subaru Impreza WRX with a Prodrive performance upgrade and he does 15,000 miles per year. He only gets about 280-300 miles per tank on average and I once calculated his annual fuel bill to be £2500, that's not far off $4000 per year! I keep on persuading him to buy a modern, fast diesel car which would offer similar performance but reduce his fuel bill by about £1000 per year. However he stubbornly thinks that the much higher buying cost of an Audi 3.0tdi or BMW 330d would negate any fuel saving advantages.
[quote=csl177;959779]The biggest difference between Dodge and Ford V10s was the Triton was a fresh sheet of paper design and OHC; Dodge based theirs on the 318 OHV V8. Both make good torque, the Triton gets slightly better fuel economy. Roughly the same dimensions so yes, packaging issues VS torque needed for trucks obviated any reason to produce V12s[/quote]
Fords V10 is based off the 5.4L V8.
[quote=group c n b man;959787]However he stubbornly thinks that the much higher buying cost of an Audi 3.0tdi or BMW 330d would negate any fuel saving advantages.[/quote]
Or more likely, that he can't stand the UK image of [EMAIL="w@nkers"]w@nkers[/EMAIL] in Audi and Beemer oil burners.
You cant put a price on fun :)
The RX-8 would LOVE to think it could one day get 300 miles from a full tank but I ain't gonna let THAT happen !!!!
The days of parents leaving money for kids is gone and we're gonna spend it having our own fun :) :) :) Live with it :) :) :)
clsman,
US fuel prices are not subsidized directly. Yes, we don't add things like the cost of defending fuel supplies to the cost per gallon but we are also not like some oil producing countries where the fuel is sold below manufacture's cost. Even without, you are right and effectively reiterated my point. Fuel economy standards don't encourage efficiency. High prices do.
group c n b,
I wouldn't claim US prices are high compared to anywhere else. I think prices right now are similar but not quite as high as Europe was in the late 90s when oil was cheap. However, fuel prices have gone up nearly 300% in the last 10 years. That price increase has been enough to make many people pay attention more than they used to.
[quote=fpv_gtho;959789]Fords V10 is based off the 5.4L V8.[/quote]
Or even the 4.6, though development of the V10 was concurrent with the V8. AFAIK Ford's Romeo/Windsor engines being OHC share nothing with their OHV predecessors. Worth noting that the Koenigsegg CCR utilizes a DOHC engine from this series.
Regarding fuel subsidies in the US, it's more than just protecting crude sources around the globe.
[quote=Matra et Alpine;959791]Or more likely, that he can't stand the UK image of [EMAIL="w@nkers"]w@nkers[/EMAIL] in Audi and Beemer oil burners.
You cant put a price on fun :)
The RX-8 would LOVE to think it could one day get 300 miles from a full tank but I ain't gonna let THAT happen !!!!
The days of parents leaving money for kids is gone and we're gonna spend it having our own fun :) :) :) Live with it :) :) :)[/quote]
He's 48 years old now, he must grow up and stop driving around in a pseudo rally car. The reason he sticks to it is becasue he wants something fast 4wd and cheap. You probably won't be able to find any other newish car that does 0-60 in just over 5 seconds, is 4wd and doesn't cost more than £13k. Any alternative "nice" car either: Is slower than what he has currently, Is much more expensive, lacks 4wd or is older than what he has currently. Audis - too expensive, BMWs- too expensive and lack 4wd, Jaguar- No way, Hot Hatch of some description - slower than than the Subaru. If he did fewer miles then an Evo would be an option but they're just horrid. The only other cars that could fit the bill would be the original Audi RS4 or a Nissan Skyline R34. Both of which are significantly older than the Scoob.
Object to that ..... WHY must he "grow up" ?
besides, what's not grown up about driving a fast car ?
[quote=Matra et Alpine;959801]Object to that ..... WHY must he "grow up" ?
besides, what's not grown up about driving a fast car ?[/quote]
Mainly just irrational, preconceived ideas of mine :D Most of my dad's driving miles are spent on the M8 or M90 going back and forward from down here up to Aberdeen every once or twice a week. It's not as if this is the type of environment best suited to a Subaru. Ofcourse it's his choice but if it were my commute, I'd buy something a bit more refined.
[quote=csl177;959798]Or even the 4.6, though development of the V10 was concurrent with the V8. AFAIK Ford's Romeo/Windsor engines being OHC share nothing with their OHV predecessors. Worth noting that the Koenigsegg CCR utilizes a DOHC engine from this series.
Regarding fuel subsidies in the US, it's more than just protecting crude sources around the globe.[/quote]
The oil companies did get nice tax breaks which I guess also counts though that's only recently. I don't see what you are really claiming to be a subside. The US isn't like Venezuela where the price of gas is directly subsidized.
[quote=group c n b man;959802]Most of my dad's driving miles are spent on the M8 or M90 going back and forward from down here up to Aberdeen every once or twice a week. It's not as if this is the type of environment best suited to a Subaru.[/quote]
I'm betting he regularly goes the A93 .... I do for the fun :)
[quote=group c n b man;959800]He's 48 years old now, he must grow up and stop driving around in a pseudo rally car. The reason he sticks to it is becasue he wants something fast 4wd and cheap. You probably won't be able to find any other newish car that does 0-60 in just over 5 seconds, is 4wd and doesn't cost more than £13k. Any alternative "nice" car either: Is slower than what he has currently, Is much more expensive, lacks 4wd or is older than what he has currently. Audis - too expensive, BMWs- too expensive and lack 4wd, Jaguar- No way, Hot Hatch of some description - slower than than the Subaru. If he did fewer miles then an Evo would be an option but they're just horrid. The only other cars that could fit the bill would be the original Audi RS4 or a Nissan Skyline R34. Both of which are significantly older than the Scoob.[/quote]
buy a cheap diesel for commuting and strip out the subaru for weekends. job done
Where are the V16's? ;):D:rolleyes:
V10 was a cheap way to get into some big-block power, and it's worked well for the Viper. It's a quirky car anyway, so I actually think the V10 is a great fit. I could see a V12 coming from Cadillac - the two seem right together - but not so much for a sportscar in the land of the V8. See: Ford GT, Corvette, et. al.
Aloser,
I appreciate the knowledge you are showing in many of your posts but is it really necessarily to drag up so many long dormant threads?
Eh, no big. It doesn't bother me like it seems to for so many people.
A bigger engine is not always a better engine.
[quote=thebrochureman;980523]A bigger engine is not always a better engine.[/quote]
But it can be so much fun :)
Not that I'm in possession of a whole lot of big engine-ness...counting all the vehicles below, my "average" displacement is 2,4l, if you leave the Mustang out, the average is only a little over 1,4l