: Lambo V12 similiar to N*?



fpmesiIII
07-17-07, 10:43 AM
Check the specs:

Lambo - DOHC 48-valve V-12, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

N* - DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads

Seems like Cadillac engineers had it going with their highly advanced engine for the time. The same concepts are being used in todays super cars. Just a thought.

jadcock
07-17-07, 11:04 AM
Boy, that's a pretty generalized comparison. By that same token, the V-6 engine in my neighbor's Honda Odyssey has it right up there with the Lamborghini (DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection).

At the time, early '90s, the Northstar engine was very advanced, innovative, groundbreaking (in its segment), and a real awakening for many other luxury makes. Over the last 15 years, however, it's seen engine upgrades that couldn't be described as more than tweaks (at least in the FWD versions) and its rated power has long been surpassed by newer designs from GM and from other makes. I'd like to see GM apply the same fantastic technology in their new 300-hp direct-injected 3.6L to the Northstar -- and they'd have a true screamer.

msta293412
07-17-07, 01:02 PM
The new Northstar in the xlr, is vvt- and has 360 hp. (naturally aspirated)I would love some details on that.

jadcock
07-17-07, 02:08 PM
The new Northstar in the xlr, is vvt- and has 360 hp. (naturally aspirated)I would love some details on that.

It's rated at 320 hp and 310 lb*ft of torque. The Variable Valve Timing (VVT) was implemented on the RWD engines only. The FWD engines continue with the old ratings (which have fallen to 292 hp and 288 lb*ft of torque for the FWD L37).

Submariner409
07-17-07, 07:45 PM
:stirpot: Comparing a Lamborghini (or Ferrari) engine to a N* is like comparing a fine Swiss mechanical watch to a Timex.

misfit6794
07-17-07, 07:55 PM
The northstar has about as much in common with the lambo v12 as john force's funny car does with its factory mustang counterpart.

peteski
07-18-07, 02:31 AM
I think that Lamborghini was producing those type of engines (V12, DOHC, Al block and heads) in the 70s. About 15 years before N*.

Peteski

Destroyer
07-18-07, 07:06 PM
I had an '85 Porsche 928 a 4 cam/32 valve aluminum 5.0 litre V8. Cadillac was rolling out 4.1 litre engines at the time. How many years later did the N* come out again?, and how many years till they got it right? Oh wait, they never did get it right did they?.

eldorado1
07-18-07, 07:20 PM
Yeah, well Cadillac was the first one to mass produce a V8....... so there.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-18-07, 08:32 PM
I had an '85 Porsche 928 a 4 cam/32 valve aluminum 5.0 litre V8. Cadillac was rolling out 4.1 litre engines at the time. How many years later did the N* come out again?, and how many years till they got it right? Oh wait, they never did get it right did they?.


Four point nine.

peteski
07-19-07, 02:56 AM
Yeah, well Cadillac was the first one to mass produce a V8....... so there.

That is true.

Peteski

jadcock
07-19-07, 07:25 AM
Kind of. Cadillac was first out with an American V-8 engine, but it was hand-built. Rolls beat them by 10 years in England, turning out their first V-8 in 1905. The most successful early V-8 was the 1932 Ford flathead. Cadillac and Oldsmobile both came out with "the first" high compression OHV V-8 engine in 1948/1949. Both argued about who was first. Oldsmobile always claims they were first. I'm sure Cadillac does the same.

Comparing what Porsche was doing to what Cadillac was doing in 1985 makes about as much sense to me as comparing Cadillac with Lamborghini.

Destroyer
07-19-07, 07:04 PM
Comparing what Porsche was doing to what Cadillac was doing in 1985 makes about as much sense to me as comparing Cadillac with Lamborghini.I totally agree with you BUT we were discussing the mechanical marvel the Northstar was when it made its debut. All I'm saying is that it wasn't exactly an innovative leap considering the technology was around for a long time already.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-19-07, 07:14 PM
Yeah. When did DOHC motors really come out? I always thought it was in the mid '70s somewhere in the Lamborghins and Maseratis. Anyways, it was pretty ahead of the time in 1993 to install a high output DOHC V8 into a luxury sedan targeted at senior citizens.

AJxtcman
07-19-07, 07:30 PM
:stirpot: Comparing a Lamborghini (or Ferrari) engine to a N* is like comparing a fine Swiss mechanical watch to a Timex.

What kind of drugs do you take?
.
.
I have a Ferrari muffler on my northstar. It had some damage that I repaired. The muffler has absorbent pads built in to it.
I am not talking sound deaden-er.
They burn soooooo much oil.
They need the valves adjusted and a ton of maintenance just to put 5K on it a year.
The fuel injection is a joke, but it is OK because you own a Ferrari.
.
.
It is an illusion.
If you worked on them all the time the illusion is gone.
I put my car together just on the principle of the Northstar illusion bringing top dollar.

dkozloski
07-19-07, 07:36 PM
There were DOHC motors before 1920. There were Alpha-Romeos putting out more than 100HP/liter in the early 1920s. Here's a 1.5L motor that put out about 550HP in 1949 http://www.billzilla.org/BRM-pushstart.mp3 . Give some of the old timers a little credit. Look at this site. http://www.milleroffy.com/

dkozloski
07-19-07, 08:00 PM
The 1913 Peugeot had double overhead cams and 4 valves /cyl. There is nothing new under the sun.

dkozloski
07-19-07, 08:27 PM
If you like to look at beautiful engines you must visit this site. http://www.museumofamericanspeed.com/Website/WorkPages/EngineAllThumbs.shtml

Gearheaad43
07-22-07, 05:18 AM
What kind of drugs do you take?
.
.
I have a Ferrari muffler on my northstar. It had some damage that I repaired. The muffler has absorbent pads built in to it.
I am not talking sound deaden-er.
They burn soooooo much oil.
They need the valves adjusted and a ton of maintenance just to put 5K on it a year.
The fuel injection is a joke, but it is OK because you own a Ferrari.
.
.
It is an illusion.
If you worked on them all the time the illusion is gone.
I put my car together just on the principle of the Northstar illusion bringing top dollar.

This is True.... Imports are not the best anymore.. They USED to be in the 70-80's.. But now the American cars have caught up.... You don't believe it? .. Then stop reading Consumer Reports and start working at an import dealer as an ASE certified mechanic, you'll learn real fast that the imports are not all what they are cracked up to be.....:thepan:

Destroyer
07-22-07, 10:22 PM
Yeah. When did DOHC motors really come out? I always thought it was in the mid '70s somewhere in the Lamborghins and Maseratis. Anyways, it was pretty ahead of the time in 1993 to install a high output DOHC V8 into a luxury sedan targeted at senior citizens.Like others have said, DOHC motors were around for a VERY long time. Not newer technology, Japanese have been doing it for a very long time and so have the Europeans. For American cars, yeah for '93 to have a DOHC V8 was new. The Mark VIII, Nothstars and the ZR1 is all I can think of. :alchi:

Eldobroken
07-23-07, 06:18 AM
:stirpot: Comparing a Lamborghini (or Ferrari) engine to a N* is like comparing a fine Swiss mechanical watch to a Timex.
Not even The Timex takes a liking and keeps on ticking :thepan: Can't say the same for the Northstar problmes I have had over the years. They just never end.

Maxb49
07-31-07, 02:29 PM
This is True.... Imports are not the best anymore.. They USED to be in the 70-80's.. But now the American cars have caught up.... You don't believe it? .. Then stop reading Consumer Reports and start working at an import dealer as an ASE certified mechanic, you'll learn real fast that the imports are not all what they are cracked up to be.....:thepan:

For the longest time Consumer Reports was my Bible. Then I went against their recommendation and purchased something they didn't like. I think they were wrong. What skews their tests?

jadcock
07-31-07, 09:01 PM
For the longest time Consumer Reports was my Bible. Then I went against their recommendation and purchased something they didn't like. I think they were wrong. What skews their tests?

Nothing I've ever owned (automobile) has been recommended by CR. Go figure.

As far as the objective TESTING, I'm sure CR does a fine job. I follow their tire tests pretty regularly, and even participate daily in their tire discussion forum.

But their auto reliability scores are based on user input. This user input comes from a very select and likely slanted audience -- those folks who subscribe to CR. These surveys don't have ANY statistical value and are not repeatable. The data cannot be verified, and method of collection is scattered. I've taken a few of their surveys (even web-only subscribers apparently are invited to take them). The real problem with their rankings is the (in)validity of the data. It's just not valid as a true purchasing tool. Use it as part of your decision, fine. But to live and die solely on what one source says (especially with unverified data from, literally, who knows where) is fool-hardy in my opinion.

The whole situation is similar to that Chicago newspaper that declared an early Presidential victory (I think it was Roosevelt). They wanted to scoop the story, so they called all their subscribers (mostly Republican) who they voted for, and based their story on that data. The selection set was very small and slanted toward one direction.

This whole notion has a name (some statistical theory), but I can't place it at the moment.

Maxb49
07-31-07, 11:04 PM
I'm on the CR discussion forum too!

What's your screen name?!?!

jadcock
08-01-07, 10:24 AM
Jason_Adcock. I only frequent the tire section. I can't stomach all the psycho-babble-pro-Toyonda junk in the main cars section. :)

Who are you signed up as?

jadcock
08-01-07, 10:35 AM
By the way, here's an article on Biased Sampling, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample

The "Examples of biased samples" section describes CR's method of polling precisely. CR's polls are almost literally "call in" polls, and on top of that, only offered to an already select set of individuals.

It's actually very similar (in my opinion) to folks coming on here, looking at a few head gasket threads, and assuming all Northstars are bad. It's a grossly inaccurate generalization drawn from a small and selective grouping of individuals.

blb
08-01-07, 12:24 PM
Jason_Adcock. I only frequent the tire section. I can't stomach all the psycho-babble-pro-Toyonda junk in the main cars section.



So, CR is great for car tire information but the car section only contains "psycho-babble"?

jadcock
08-01-07, 09:04 PM
You didn't read my post above about biased sampling vs. objective testing. User surveys are not part of many of their niche market recommendations, including tires. If they tried to take polls about which brands of tires lasted the longest or didn't suffer flats, the data would be as unusable as the other niche markets' data, and the recommendations would be similarly without merit.

Edit: in other words, in the tire forums, the CR experts say things like "brand X is recommended because it stopped in the shortest distance in this particular test". In the car forums, the CR experts say things like "we recommend brand Y because the user surveys report higher than average reliability". There's a distinct difference in value in those two recommendations.

blb
08-02-07, 06:46 AM
So, you would rather base decisions on testing of a statistically insignificant sample size of one (the one selected by CR for their test) in a controlled environment, rather than hundreds or thousands in varied real life environments.

jadcock
08-02-07, 07:24 AM
Well, personally, I don't base my decision off any one single source anyway. Fortunately with tires, there is a plethora of information out there, from objective testing from CR, to objective and subjective reviews on sites like Tirerack.com and 1010tires.com. The trick is to gather a bunch of information together and start to observe trends. Real good tires are going to perform well in CR's testing, are going to perform well in Tirerack's testing, are going to be well-reviewed by folks on Tirerack, etc.

You're correct that it would be inappropriate to base one's purchase decision solely upon one test of one tire size. I agree with you, and that's not what I implied above. I simply said that I participate in the tire forum discussions because it's based mostly upon objective results rather than subjective reviews.

To get to your point, I personally give very little merit (especially as a single source of input) to user reviews, whether we're talking about tires, cars, toaster ovens, or lawn mowers. Just as I wouldn't expect anyone to make a purchase decision based solely on the answers provided here to "how do you like your Cadillac", I wouldn't make a decision based upon what CR reports as user data. The data are uncontrolled, unverified, and unrepeatable.

I feel very much the same about Carfax. The data is largely unverified and not trustworthy. But I still use Carfax when I buy cars. It's a cheap way (only $20) to put together a trend. If the dealer says the car was a local car, and Carfax indicates that it was sold and serviced at that dealer, you can be pretty confident in what that dealer is saying. But if Carfax said that the car was sold and serviced across the country, it opens an opportunity for discussion with that dealer about the true history of the car.

The great thing about all these resources is they're relatively cheap and easy to access, so it makes it easy for those who choose to do their homework to do so. If one chooses to take one source's opinion as fact and go on that, that's certainly their choice; it's just not one that I would make.