Hybrid Hellcat??

V10 is a more modern (to me) design. Even though it dates back to 1991, this "new" engine looks more like something from the '50s.

The current version of the V10 has a lot of oomph. They put it in the largest (light end of the medium duty) trucks they make.

But I agree that low tech sometimes just works to get the job done, and if it makes enough power and is durable, then so be it.

It does have VVT, which I didn't even know was a thing in pushrod motors. There is something to be said for simplicity and durability in a truck engine. Like the venerable 300-6 that Ford made forever.

GM has had vvt in pushrod engines for over a decade.

Yeah, I just discovered that. I haven't been keeping abreast of developments in domestic pushrod engines I guess. Time for a refresher course considering how much I enjoy the Cleetus Mcfarland youtube vids.

The last hoorah for the 60 degree V6, which debuted WAY back in 1980 in the X-body, and was hardly a cutting edge engine even then, got VVT in both the 3.5L and 3.9L variations. And, truth be told, they pretty much fixed most all that was left of that engine family's shortcomings by then. Fixed the chronic intake gasket leaks the 3.1L and 3.4L had with torque limiters in them, fixed the head gasket blowing issues the 3.4L had with a proper MLS head gasket, further tweaked and improved the engine management system, and in some models mated to a more modern 6sp automatic provided by Aisin. Those 3.5L and 3.9L engines were pretty good, and reasonably powerful even if they didn't have a lofty peak HP number on paper. Then, once they pretty much perfected this engine family, which took 30 years, they dumped it and replaced it with the miserable chain chucking turd of the 3.6L.

So, the old pushrod engine quietly died in the 2011 Impala in the back of rental lots and motor pool fleets. Unloved, unknown, and forgotten.

They also use, and still use, VVT in the V8s and truck pushrod 4.3L V6. Along with cylinder deactivation, which causes a lot of problems because these have no tolerance for lack of PM. Which happens quite frequently in company trucks. And why we spend so much time replacing engines in them. Something the older GM trucks didn't have to worry about. The old 4.3L (which was, to all you rednecks, essentially a "three-fifty" with two cylinders lopped off), was a pretty tough engine. It could run with half its crankcase empty and still get the job done.

GM catches a fair bit of flack around here, but I had an '87 Monte Carlo with the 4.3 and absolutely loved that car. I didn't drive it winters, so that helped. Those big engine bays and relatively simple engines sure made servicing them a lot more pleasant than most of today's cramped bays packed with junk.

The G-body was pretty low tech, and that was one of the things that GM knew how to build as it was by then pretty ancient design wise. The fit and finish (body panel gaps, etc.) was pretty abysmal, but that type of stuff never caused an issue with getting the job done.

All my G-body cars were pretty junky, and I always felt like they looked best abandoned in the front yards of trailer parks along with their similar F-body brethren (of which I had a couple, too).

But now I kinda think it would be neat to find a nice, unmolested G-bpdy El Camino. May even grow a mullet back.

Some of the delinquent guys I ran with in my youth had a good relationship with a local auto recycler/scrapper, a friend of the family of one of us, so we were always doing odd jobs for him and he "paid" us with cars and parts and a little cash. One of the guy's mom had a G-body station wagon, a Buick Regal, with a blown-up 4.3L V6 diesel, but was otherwise in almost mint condition. We decided we wanted to swap engines and fix it up. We asked if we could find a small block Chevy (the redneck staple) to put in it. He told us we could use whatever we found, he didn't care. As luck would have it, he had a crashed... bad... 1980 Pontiac Trans Am Turbo in the yard, complete with its 4sp manual. Boys being boys... guess what we built?

Total sleeper. This fugly brown/maroon metallic Buick station wagon with a turbocharged V8 under the hood, and we were still using the original rear end from the diesel, so it was geared pretty low. It was a 1/4 mile blast, even if you were already in 4th halfway down the track. We must have burnt through 20 sets of rear tires on that thing.

^ That's pretty awesome!

oilhammer said:

But now I kinda think it would be neat to find a nice, unmolested G-bpdy El Camino. May even grow a mullet back.

Click to expand...

Was playing some oddball streaming station the other day when a song came on called "Mullets and Monte Carlos" lol. You should go for it. That style must be making a comeback.

Everything is cyclical, so you know mullets will be making a comeback. I always thought it would be awesome to turbo my Monte and have a sort of Grand National/GNX knockoff. I sold that car for way too cheap (it was pristine) to a guy who said he was going to do a V8 swap and stock car race it. So it probably is beat to hell in some trailer park front yard or scrapyard by now.

In my NSHO I get so tired of the concept of a hybrid or full electric anything. So where do these imbeciles think the electricity to power these cars is going to come from? I guess that you just shuffle over to the plug in in your house and the power is just magically there.

So how exactly is burning coal to produce electricity cleaner than burning others types of fossil fuels to directly produce automotive motion?

It's not about common sense, it's about generating money within the confines of government intelligence.

Well, I like the idea of a twin turbo V6 Challenger with a mild hybrid system. The Hellcat/Demon was a neat novelty, but really isn't a sustainable production powertrain.

https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2019/01/22/next-challenger-could-be-hybrid