Educational

Author Topic: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about  (Read 1703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

purposefulinsanity

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2007, 08:08:55 AM »
What's the next number you're aiming for with your karma?

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2007, 08:19:58 AM »
I know that there are some gun company in the US that has made a revolver with a 7 shot chamber instead of 6, but there have never been a 7 cylinder car built that has worked for some reason.  ???

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2007, 01:22:21 PM »
I know that there are some gun company in the US that has made a revolver with a 7 shot chamber instead of 6, but there have never been a 7 cylinder car built that has worked for some reason.  ???

No, but there were many 7 cylinder radial engines built for aircaft. Double-row 14 cylinders were also common.

A 7-cylinder car engine would serve no practical purpose. It would have to be an inline engine which would make it too long to fit in most engine compartments. A V-8 on the other hand would be shorter and have more power.

The 5-cylinder engine is a different story. Mercedes first produced one and the reason for the 5-cylinder is that it gives a perfomance advantage over a 4-cylinder and can fit into engine compartments that the longer inline-6 and wider V-6 can't fit into.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2007, 01:28:20 PM »
What's the next number you're aiming for with your karma?

Next would be a Chevy 327........ then a Dodge 340  8)

purposefulinsanity

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2007, 01:33:14 PM »
Well let me get you a point closer then. :green:

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2007, 01:37:36 PM »
did you naswer my question about how many mpg that your beloved 5.0 get on the highway?
Misunderstood.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2007, 01:41:49 PM »
did you naswer my question about how many mpg that your beloved 5.0 get on the highway?

There's too many versions of 5.0L V-8's to give an acurate number. They vary from the racing 302's which got 3-4 MPG to about 25 for a modern TPI 305.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2007, 01:42:35 PM »
Well let me get you a point closer then. :green:

Thanx.  ;)

Offline ASpHole

  • Uncle Hardcore Meat from The Mothers of Invasion
  • Elder
  • Intense Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • Karma: 177
  • Gender: Male
  • Econoclass Iconoclast
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2007, 08:38:34 PM »


A 7-cylinder car engine would serve no practical purpose. It would have to be an inline engine which would make it too long to fit in most engine compartments. A V-8 on the other hand would be shorter and have more power.

Actually a slim profile 'V'/Staggered inline like the VW VR6 and the 5 cylinder engine that Mercedes uses for the Sprinter would be doable. --It would take up a bit less space than a straight 6, and provide a bit more power.
"When there's no 'there' to get to, we're so there!"

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2007, 01:03:57 PM »


A 7-cylinder car engine would serve no practical purpose. It would have to be an inline engine which would make it too long to fit in most engine compartments. A V-8 on the other hand would be shorter and have more power.

Actually a slim profile 'V'/Staggered inline like the VW VR6 and the 5 cylinder engine that Mercedes uses for the Sprinter would be doable. --It would take up a bit less space than a straight 6, and provide a bit more power.

Yes, but it would vibrate like a motherfucker. You'd have to have HUGE ballance shafts to keep the vibrations under controll. Then you'd realize...... WOW I could've had a V-8!!!

You cant get past the "Why bother" element of a 7 cylinder. A 5 cylinder, however makes sense.

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2007, 08:36:20 AM »
333 isn't an engine size that I know of.  ::)

purposefulinsanity

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2007, 08:40:24 AM »
333 isn't an engine size that I know of.  ::)

So what's the nearest one to 333?

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2007, 02:02:14 PM »
333 isn't an engine size that I know of.  ::)

So what's the nearest one to 333?

That would be the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth High Performance 340.  8)

purposefulinsanity

  • Guest
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2007, 02:37:51 AM »
333 isn't an engine size that I know of.  ::)

So what's the nearest one to 333?

That would be the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth High Performance 340.  8)

Ok I'll plus you 1 step nearer to that.

Offline ASpHole

  • Uncle Hardcore Meat from The Mothers of Invasion
  • Elder
  • Intense Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • Karma: 177
  • Gender: Male
  • Econoclass Iconoclast
Re: Things about 5.0L V-8's you didn't care about
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2007, 03:26:35 AM »
333 isn't an engine size that I know of.  ::)

So what's the nearest one to 333?

That would be the Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth High Performance 340.  8)

Actually, moving down the displacement scale, the Chevy 327 is a bit closer. --Bothe are good engines in their own right, though.
"When there's no 'there' to get to, we're so there!"