Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

[kevm14]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTOfK0_INE

This is awesome.

Now I want a C4 ZR-1.

I was surprised to see CNC milling machines part of the engine manufacture. Very cool.

[kevm14]

2dfx4 weeks ago

Something that you'd never find anymore.

Would any car manufacturer these days outsource engine assembly to a MARINE engine company?

sidefx9964 weeks ago

2dfx well they must have done a pretty darn good job (better than any other manufacturer could) considering the engine and the car set numerous FIA and World Speed Endurance records

Gene Ebeling4 weeks ago (edited)

2dfx Something to remember. Mercury Marine makes engines for boats that are used to be flogged full throttle constantly. I'd say Lloyd Reuss (former GM President), and David McClellan (former Corvette Chief Engineer) knew that Mercury Marine was up to the task.

Yup.

[kevm14]

This is where the Corvette turned a corner from the smogged up early 70s and awoke after a 20 year nap. The only other interesting gm motor in the previous 20 years was the 3.8 turbo. This about the time it was great to be a car guy again

This is how I feel. Horsepower really started ramping up every few years beginning with that 1990 ZR-1, 92 LT1, 97 LS1, 01 LS6, 06 LS7, 08 LS3, 09 LSA, 09 LS9 and so on (that brings us from 300 to 638 hp before 2010!). Except for Ford. And side note we can thank Corvette for each of those, except the LSA which went to Cadillac in 2009 and eventually the 2012 Camaro ZL1.

But yeah, prior to 1990, it was kind of bad except for a few rare examples like the 3.8 Turbo. I don't know if I even want to throw TPI in there.

And aside from GM, the Japanese were doing cool stuff in the 90s with the NSX V6. Or the turbo wars (RX7, Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT). Oh, the Viper V10.

Bill likes to pretend that nothing good happened in the 90s and 2000s though.

[kevm14]

Modern C4 ZR-1 review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgNtUghaWzQ

I am currently obsessed with these.

[bill25]

And aside from GM, the Japanese were doing cool stuff in the 90s with the NSX V6. Or the turbo wars (RX7, Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT). Oh, the Viper V10.
Bill likes to pretend that nothing good happened in the 90s and 2000s though.
kevm14

Most of what you are talking about were either totally unaffordable (Viper, ZR1) or not GM. I never said there is nothing good in the 90's, more the 2000's-2009's.

I like the Supra, RX-7, and am sure I can name more. While GM did gain HP, they destroyed my favorite cars. The Monte was a joke and the Camaro was an ugly spaceship sled. yes the Corvette was decent. The Malibu and Impala were not exciting at all. It really wasn't good.

In 2000 to 2009, they killed the Camaro, the Monte was still a FWD non-descript car, and the Corvette was ugly. The GTO was ok, but still really not great. Cadillac was starting to get fixed, but honestly, I am not as into that.

Sure the FWD 3800 stuff is good but not really exciting, and FWD...

So yeah, they made a really fast Corvette for 130K. Great...

[kevm14]

So just because it was unaffordable when it was new, that means it is still irrelevant to you as a used car? I don't get that. You only allow yourself to like cars that you could possibly afford new? That is silly. I assume you are aware of depreciation?

Anyway, my point was there was plenty to be excited about as a car enthusiast in the 90s and 2000s (I'd argue powertrain, and then chassis stuff , at least for GM). No, the shapes were not exactly the same as a 60s muscle car, or 80s Monte SS or current Challenger. But I would argue it is possible to like a car for other reasons. At the very least, your preferences are significantly limiting the pool of cars that you are interested in, which I guess you wouldn't disagree with. Meanwhile, there was plenty of performance and engineering stuff going on in the 90s and 2000s that was worthy of a car enthusiast's attention. I assure you that Car and Driver didn't rename themselves "Boring Consumer Appliances" during those two decades.

I mean you always say "I like a variety." In this case, it seems like you don't.

I still wish you wouldn't get hung up on aesthetics when we discuss cars because that is one of the few things that are subjective, especially when you try to turn it into a fact, (i.e. "Obviously everyone thinks Corvettes are ugly therefore their performance or affordability doesn't matter"). I just prefer to stick to specs and performance data. Your (subjective) opinion of a car's styling doesn't change any of those (objective) things. It's a trade space thing - I am not blind to styling but I give aesthetics a wide trade space when taking into account performance and cost. Conversely, you have a very narrow view of what you consider good enough styling to even consider owning which is your opinion, but like I said, is highly limiting. I just cannot handle blanket statements like "there was nothing good in the 90s and 2000s." That is just BS.

My standards have resulted in an affordable car collection (made up of 90s-2000s vehicles) where one runs 13s, two run 14s and one runs very low 15s - nothing earth shattering but all higher performance than your vehicles. And the highest performance one I've owned for SEVEN years! Now that's variety. Where is your variety?

[bill25]

So just because it was unaffordable when it was new, that means it is still irrelevant to you as a used car? I don't get that. You only allow yourself to like cars that you could possibly afford new? That is silly. I assume you are aware of depreciation?

I didn't say any of that. You commented on what I thought about a time frame, when cars were being developed - AKA... new. So I commented on their status during the timeframe you mentioned.

Sure if it is affordable now it is in the discussion. 40K is not there yet for me.

[bill25]

I don't really understand your argument. I specified very specific things I am not interested in, because I have already driven cars similar and would want something different (FWD, V6 etc.), or are FWD which I am not in the market for. Besides a Corvette for 40K what did GM make that is RWD in that timeframe that would be interesting? I named specifically the ones I am not interested in already. We could talk about an RX-7 or Supra, but neither of those are really affordable/decent performance per dollar. That is why I have basically omitted that timeframe. I don't want FWD for a "enthusiast car", and for GM that leaves the Corvette, or Cadillac. I am glad you like Cadillac.

[Adam]

I've continued the RWD discussion in its own thread.
http://forums.kevinallenmoore.com/viewt ... =16&t=2837

[kevm14]

Had to separate this from the Tesla thread.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/19 ... est-review
https://s3.amazonaws.com/amv-prod-cad-a ... jun-89.pdf

June 1989 review of what appeared to be a slightly preproduction ZR-1. I cannot believe how over the top this review is. I still want one of these. Very special car, and by the review, great to drive. And bulletproof.