I was reading about that in Diesel Power a few months back. It is one of the
(many) space saving designs they used.
Still not quite sure why they made it a 4.5L V8 instead of a 4.5L I4, V6 or
I6. That would have saved more money and design issues.
Someday, maybe I'll pop one of those in my Avalanche if the 5.3L gasser
gives up the ghost.
Seems like semantics to me. Call something by another name! Even the
picture shows what sure appear to be manifolds. From the writeup,
indeed it sounds like the exhaust manifold design is simpler, and
depending on how you partition parts and functions, the exhaust
manifold may be part of another part or assembly. But to say the
engine has no manifolds seems like a lot of hyperbole to me.
Interesting, but I would hope this design, if ever produced, is thoroughly
tested before being put into service. Better than even chances that some
faults may raise their snaky heads on something like this...not, however,
new to GM
On May 12, 12:03 pm, email@example.com wrote:
This thread reminds me of the car ads when Olds sold their diesel.
The ads claimed the engine was simpler, since there was no
carburetor. Never mind that the fuel injection system was much more
complex than carburetors of that era.
I've been wondering how long it would take before a manufacturer built
an automotive diesel v8 this way. Its been the norm in locomotive
engines for decades- both the EMD 2-strokes and the GE FDL 4-stroke
locomotive diesels have the exhaust in the "valley". On the GE, the
intakes are "logs" along the outside where car v-type engines would have
exhaust manifolds, and on the EMD 2-strokes the intake is through the
cylinder case. Caterpillar marine diesels are laid out the same way-
exhaust and turbos in the "V", intake trunks along the outside of the "V".
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.