Community Forums

rlwithrow · 01-10-2014, 11:59 AM

I seen someone posted on another forum that GM just came out with an 8.0 crate motor that makes 375 hp and 475 ft.lbs. torque. It's designed to work for heavy duty truck applications. It's on page 288 or 290 somewhere.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam...ce-catalog.pdf

RustyJC · 01-10-2014, 12:23 PM

Probably this 502 engine - SEE HERE - listed for truck repowers in the Chevy Performance catalog. I'm not sure that it's emissions certified for modern vehicles, but these crate engines have been available for a long time. Note some of the critical differences between this 502 crate engine and the production 496 (8.1L) such as forged steel crankshaft, forged aluminum pistons, etc.

Rusty

rlwithrow · 01-10-2014, 12:40 PM

Not the 502. It has a forged crank and rods among other features.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam...ce-catalog.pdf

I guess this link won't take you to page 290. It's a tall deck motor displacing 488 cu in and it is set up to run CNG/LP on highway

RustyJC · 01-10-2014, 12:51 PM

So does the 502. I guess you have a choice with the 488 shown on page 288; the 488, being a tall deck engine like the 496 as opposed to a short deck like the 502, would be able to utilize the 496 intake manifold, etc. Did you notice the 9.9:1 compression ratio on the 488?? That's optimum for LPG/CNG use, but I wonder what octane requirements will be for a gasoline application.

I hate to bring this up, but 475 lb-ft of torque (at sea level) is a far cry from the 800-850 lb-ft of current pickup diesels, and a turbocharged diesel (2013 & up 6.7L Cummins HO, at least) holds its sea level 385 BHP @ 2800 RPM and 850 lb-ft @ 1700 RPM ratings up to 10,000 ft elevation whereas a naturally aspirated gas engine loses 3% to 4% of its sea level ratings for every 1000 ft increase in elevation.

Rusty

rlwithrow · 01-11-2014, 11:52 AM

Yes but do you really need 800 ft lbs of torque? My 1988 Mack Superliner with the 350 Mack motor made 350 hp and around 1400 ft lbs of torque at 1200 rpm. My 2003 GMC with the 8.1 I never have ran at wide open throttle while pulling anything, as I doubt anyone with a diesel pickup has either going down the highway. My 8.1 makes 455 ft lbs and it's done very well running with just about any traffic. It was only 65 ft lbs short of the same year Duramax back then and everyone was very well pleased with it's performance. I think competition among manufactures has placed more emphasis on more torque than the average consumer. It's like that among many products. Will the future hold 1200 ft lbs torque in 3/4 ton pickups and $80,000 price tags? The market will get tired of that I believe.

In my favorite hobby, archery,, it's now common to find $1000.00 price tags on most top shelf compound bows. Some are well over the $1500.00 mark also. My brother bought a new Chevy 1 ton diesel back in November. I didn't ask what it cost him but I went to Chevy's site and looked at what one would be and it was over $64,000.00 .

hone eagle · 01-11-2014, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlwithrow

Yes but do you really need 800 ft lbs of torque? My 1988 Mack Superliner with the 350 Mack motor made 350 hp and around 1400 ft lbs of torque at 1200 rpm. My 2003 GMC with the 8.1 I never have ran at wide open throttle while pulling anything, as I doubt anyone with a diesel pickup has either going down the highway. My 8.1 makes 455 ft lbs and it's done very well running with just about any traffic. It was only 65 ft lbs short of the same year Duramax back then and everyone was very well pleased with it's performance. I think competition among manufactures has placed more emphasis on more torque than the average consumer. It's like that among many products. Will the future hold 1200 ft lbs torque in 3/4 ton pickups and $80,000 price tags? The market will get tired of that I believe.

In my favorite hobby, archery,, it's now common to find $1000.00 price tags on most top shelf compound bows. Some are well over the $1500.00 mark also. My brother bought a new Chevy 1 ton diesel back in November. I didn't ask what it cost him but I went to Chevy's site and looked at what one would be and it was over $64,000.00 .

1650 ft lb and need and love every one of em'!
better to have and rarely need then need and not have.

Scarab0088 · 01-11-2014, 12:49 PM

The "gas" engine has a alternate future that is just starting to appear in commercial applications...LNG/CNG.

I have read that these fuels have a slightly lower BTU rating than gasoline, but if gasoline becomes scarce, these fuels will become more common...plus, the are VERY clean burning and the tree huggers like the sustainability.

Reportedly, the Ford F53 can be upfitted to LNG/CNG at the present time.
See: 2014 Ford Stripped Chassis F-53 Class A Motorhome | See All The Stripped Chassis F-53 Class A Motorhome Highlights | Ford.com

Only time will tell.

Safe travels

gap23 · 01-11-2014, 01:06 PM

Scarab0088 I have been using CNG for several years pulling my 34' travel trailer from MI to CA. The cost is about half as much as gas. I think it runs better and quitter and I am very happy with CNG.

sswilson · 01-11-2014, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarab0088

The "gas" engine has a alternate future that is just starting to appear in commercial applications...LNG/CNG.

I have read that these fuels have a slightly lower BTU rating than gasoline, but if gasoline becomes scarce, these fuels will become more common...plus, the are VERY clean burning and the tree huggers like the sustainability.

Reportedly, the Ford F53 can be upfitted to LNG/CNG at the present time.
See: 2014 Ford Stripped Chassis F-53 Class A Motorhome | See All The Stripped Chassis F-53 Class A Motorhome Highlights | Ford.com

Only time will tell.

Safe travels

These fuels have been used commercially for a long time. I drove a international 5ton truck in the 80's that was a combination of diesel and CNG. It used approx 15% diesel for lubrication and firing. Ran better and had more power while running on CNG. The new technology is making LNG more viable for long run and extended use vehicles. Don't need as many storage tanks to get distance. I understand there is an issue if LNG is left in tank (not used), it goes bad? Not sure where tanks could be installed for CNG without a good loss of storage space.

Scarab0088 · 01-11-2014, 01:22 PM

Thanks for the posts, Gap and Steve...

I was not aware of these systems being rolled-out. I have only seen 1 station selling CNG in my travels...it had E15 and bio-Diesel too.

I had heard of LP being used in these applications, but Gap's profile pic confirms that LNG/CNG is already out there.

Doesn't it take something like pressures over 3000psi and/or freezing to keep the gas in a liquid state?

The future could be very bright for the old suck-squeeze-(bang)-push-blow internal combustion engine.

Safe travels

RustyJC · 01-11-2014, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlwithrow

Yes but do you really need 800 ft lbs of torque? My 1988 Mack Superliner with the 350 Mack motor made 350 hp and around 1400 ft lbs of torque at 1200 rpm.

Then you should know that the driver of a heavily-loaded diesel-powered vehicle rides the torque curve (torque rise) pulling every grade. The more torque, the fewer downshifts and the less speed degradation.

Rusty

sswilson · 01-11-2014, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarab0088

Thanks for the posts, Gap and Steve...

I was not aware of these systems being rolled-out. I have only seen 1 station selling CNG in my travels...it had E15 and bio-Diesel too.

I had heard of LP being used in these applications, but Gap's profile pic confirms that LNG/CNG is already out there.

Doesn't it take something like pressures over 3000psi and/or freezing to keep the gas in a liquid state?

The future could be very bright for the old suck-squeeze-(bang)-push-blow internal combustion engine.

Safe travels

CNG itself is pressurized to approx 3200 psi when filling tanks. I am unsure of pressures on LNG but I do know that the tanks are very well insulated and regulators have to be kept from freezing. I would suggest that LNG would be much like LPG except at the approx -300 degree liquid state. It is used as it boils off in tank?

sswilson · 01-11-2014, 02:03 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop...g-or-gasoline/

This link is an article on CNG and LNG and the project to turn this fuel into gasoline. Just hit continue to site. It's only money right?

gap23 · 01-11-2014, 03:33 PM

LNG at this point is only for the big rigs. It takes special training and equipment to fill the tanks. It is regulated down to CNG before it gets to the engine. The big advantage it has is capacity for the big rigs. My truck is a F150 made by Ford back in 2004. I gave a travel report on this site this fall if you want to read it http://www.irv2.com/forums/f90/mi-to...on-161430.html Hope that helps answer question. or search MI to CA $500