• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

wow... buick's really ARE damn comfortable!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
In 1985 Bentley used a 6.75 Liter V8 with a Garrett AiResearch turbocharger to produce a 0-60mph acceleration time of under six seconds in a 5,000lb car. They used a simple GM 400 three-speed automatic transmission, so the drive train wasn't all that exotic...just don't see why Detroit couldn't slap a power plant like that together today, if not back in the mid 80s.
Bentley is a quarter-million dollar automobile, people who can afford a Bentley don't mind dropping $40 for fuel every other day, or the several thousand dollars that any major repair would cost. GM would have no trouble making a raging beast out of a 350, but they have to sell enough of them to make money, too. If you're wealthy, fuel economy and insurance costs are distant consideration, but then if you're wealthy, you don't buy GM automobiles. Ergo, GM has to develop products that appeal to the sensibilities of consumers who don't have deep pockets, but want a little kick under the hood.

Here's how Buick came to slap a Garret Turbo on their V6. Buick had the official Pace Car of the Indy 500 back in 1975. They used a 1975 Buick Century Custom with a modified 455cid big-block monster. It was too slow. Yes, too slow. Low-end torque was brutal on the 455, but the requirements of an Indy Pace Car dictated that the car be able to achieve certain high speed and acceleration characteristics; 90MPH out of turn three, 110MPH out of turn four, and it needed to hit pit entrance at 120MPH.

The 455 "Free Spirit" Century Custom could accomplish these requirements alright, but it required dropping the accelerator to the floor and standing on it. It was clear to Buick engineers and the Indy Pace Car Team that the 455 was simply out of its element in high speed situations.

So when Buick was again handed the Pace Car duties for 1976, Buick engineers wanted to showcase Buick's engineering talents. Having the Pace Car presented an outstanding opportunity to promote your stuff to the public back then, probably much more so than is true today. There was a palpable "buzz" over the Pace Cars back then that doesn't exist today.

Buick wanted to present something fresh and out of the ordinary, and 650lb large displacement gaz-guzzlers didn't fit that bill in 1975. Everyone offered a large fire-breathing V8 that cost more to put gas in than the purchase price of the vehicle and insurance companies were severely penalizing powerful V8 cars.

A couple years before, Buick purchased its V6 back from AMC-Jeep, which it had sold to in the 1960's when interest in the V6 was low. Buick was determined to make this engine successful as it needed a smaller displacement engine that it could leverage in the economy-conscious markets.

An Explorer Scout Post supported by Buick had already been experimenting with turbocharging when the call went out to do something different with the Pace Car. The project leader had contact with Buick higher-ups and reported some interesting results by turbocharging a V6. The rest is history.

Buick managed to put together a turbocharged V6 for the 1976 Indy Pace Car (same Century body but with minor model changes) that delivered 306HP and 370ft-lbs of torque. High speed acceleration times from 90MHP to 120MPH were cut in half over the 455cid behemoth while getting better overall fuel economy.

When you can start a fire with a piezo ignition device, why wait around for lightening? Technology is good, embrace it.
 
Originally posted by: SuperSix
Originally posted by: Ornery
In 1985 Bentley used a 6.75 Liter V8 with a Garrett AiResearch turbocharger to produce a 0-60mph acceleration time of under six seconds in a 5,000lb car. They used a simple GM 400 three-speed automatic transmission, so the drive train wasn't all that exotic.
  • Maximum power 286.1 kW (386 bhp) at 4000 rpm
    Maximum torque 750 Nm (553lbft) between 2000 and 3450 rpm
I just don't see why Detroit couldn't slap a power plant like that together today, if not back in the mid 80s.

I don't consider a Bentley as a model production car. Very limited numbers, and very expensive.

Maybe I should have worder my one of my past statements better:
"You can turbocharge anything, but like I said, you have to think of it from a mass production standpoint."



They use twin turbos now.. What's the point? Buick and Bentley aren't even on the same level..
Did you miss the part about using a lowly Turbo 350 transmission in this "expensive" car? I doubt the engine block was very radical either. It all seems to boil down to using the "gas saving" six instead of a gas guzzling V8. With 12MPG SUVs dominating the landscape, I don't think gas savings is such an issue now either. I don't know if there's enough room under the hood, but I'd sure as hell rather have a turbo charged V8 under the hood of the Marauder, than a turbo charged six. Just don't give a damn about the MPG issue, that's all.
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Originally posted by: SuperSix
Originally posted by: Ornery
In 1985 Bentley used a 6.75 Liter V8 with a Garrett AiResearch turbocharger to produce a 0-60mph acceleration time of under six seconds in a 5,000lb car. They used a simple GM 400 three-speed automatic transmission, so the drive train wasn't all that exotic.
  • Maximum power 286.1 kW (386 bhp) at 4000 rpm
    Maximum torque 750 Nm (553lbft) between 2000 and 3450 rpm
I just don't see why Detroit couldn't slap a power plant like that together today, if not back in the mid 80s.

I don't consider a Bentley as a model production car. Very limited numbers, and very expensive.

Maybe I should have worder my one of my past statements better:
"You can turbocharge anything, but like I said, you have to think of it from a mass production standpoint."



They use twin turbos now.. What's the point? Buick and Bentley aren't even on the same level..
Did you miss the part about using a lowly Turbo 350 transmission in this "expensive" car? I doubt the engine block was very radical either. It all seems to boil down to using the "gas saving" six instead of a gas guzzling V8. With 12MPG SUVs dominating the landscape, I don't think gas savings is such an issue now either. I don't know if there's enough room under the hood, but I'd sure as hell rather have a turbo charged V8 under the hood of the Marauder, than a turbo charged six. Just don't give a damn about the MPG issue, that's all.


There's nothing "lowly" about a properly built GM transmission, A modified version of the venerable 2-speed Powerglide is used in many sub 7sec - 1/4 miles cars. The 200R4 used in the Turbo Regal is very stout (THey do use a valve body unique to the Turbo Regal/Monte Carlo SS), and with some basic stiffening, can propel these 3500+ lb cars to high 10's, low 11 sec 1/4 mile runs.

Back to the Bentley, how many miles/year do you think they are driven on average? I would bet it's VERY low, hence possible less need for long-term reliability. I highly doubt there's many 100k+ mile Bentleys still racing around, there's many 400+hp nearly stock Turbo Buicks still terrorizing the streets... with over 100k on the clock.

Apples to oranges, IMHO..

And the Marauder is Supercharged, a very wasteful form of forced induction. Yes, no turbo lag, but it takes a lot of horsepower to spin a supercharger, it takes very little comparitively to spin turbocharger. And with the advancements made in wastegate/turbo/intercooler/intake design, turbo lag has been greatly minimized... Supercharges has advantages (less heat in the engine compartment, more compact integration, less overall HP = less stress on engine internals), I think they are great for strict stock vehicles.
 
I have zero problems with the Turbo 400. The point is that a $140,000.00 Bentley is using a $600.00 GM tranny. The other point is that the V8 puts out GOBS of power with the turbo. I'm saying that's at the expense of more gasoline and you're saying it's at the expense of longevity. Are you saying a "modular" six would be more trouble free than the "modular" eight of the same family of blocks? There's NO DOUBT which would have more power. I believe the same turbo mods applied to an eight as a six would result in equal reliability, if they're from the same "modular" family. Only down side would be fuel usage... but who cares?
 
But why bother how your getting the power? If both engines offer the same power output and the same delivery (flat torque curve from 2000rpm rather than a whiplash-like effect from 4000PM) who cares if its a V8 or a V6? As long as you get the power..it shouldn't matter. By your logic, why not use a V10 or a V12? If the V6 offers the same power at a lower price in terms of maintenance, gas costs, insurance cost, etc.. shouldn't they use that instead of the V8? In business you try to maximize your products while minimizing costs. The Buick turbocharged V6 did that, there's no reason why they should have used the V8 when it was cheaper to produce/run with a V6.

Also, most of the GM V8s used in those cars were all about low-end torque to accelerate quickly off the street. While its good for daily commuting cars where that kind of power delivery is used the most, they often didn't have that high-end pull to accelerate quickly on the highway or raceway (as the other poster discussed).
 
"If both engines offer the same power output and the same delivery (flat torque curve from 2000rpm rather than a whiplash-like effect from 4000PM) who cares if its a V8 or a V6?"

They already built lots of V8s, from the 307 on up to the 455. Just slap the same mods on one of them as was done to the six and go! The Buick had plenty of room under the hood to accommodate one, so that wasn't the problem. The only reason I can think of to go with the smaller engine is lack of space, as is the problem with todays FWD go-karts. You can't get the same torque from a six that you can from an eight if they both are using a turbo... simple, no?

Edit: If your question is referring to the fact that you can make a six perform like an eight by using a turbo, I'd rather have the simple, non turbo eight if their performance is identical. Fewer fragile parts to break and less stress on the engine.
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Here's how Buick came to slap a Garret Turbo on their V6. Buick had the official Pace Car of the Indy 500 back in 1975. They used a 1975 Buick Century Custom with a modified 455cid big-block monster. It was too slow. Yes, too slow. Low-end torque was brutal on the 455, but the requirements of an Indy Pace Car dictated that the car be able to achieve certain high speed and acceleration characteristics; 90MPH out of turn three, 110MPH out of turn four, and it needed to hit pit entrance at 120MPH.

Good god. A 455 from '75 & '76 only had 205 Hp. from the factory. What did they do "beef it up" to 250 Hp? Lol. A 1970 455 had 370 Hp (for comparison), it all went downhill from there. Til they turboed the six, that is.

<---- Still thinks twin-turbo's on a 455 is a wonderful thing.😀
 
Originally posted by: UberDave<br
yeah my dad has a premium town car that he got for free from his rich brother (too bad he doesn't make gifts like this more often). It's got tan leather and stuff and i can't wait to take it out with a girl one day 🙂 ....my friend wants to use it for prom but im like ....uhhhh no ? does that come out of leather? lol

Hahah, I thought you wrote ".......my friend wants to use it for porn but im like ....uhhhh no ?"

 
But why bother how your getting the power? If both engines offer the same power output and the same delivery (flat torque curve from 2000rpm rather than a whiplash-like effect from 4000PM) who cares if its a V8 or a V6? As long as you get the power..it shouldn't matter. By your logic, why not use a V10 or a V12? If the V6 offers the same power at a lower price in terms of maintenance, gas costs, insurance cost, etc.. shouldn't they use that instead of the V8?
Exactly, there are ELECTRIC vehicles weighing 3000lbs that are doing 13 seconds in the quarter mile. 13 seconds is 13 seconds, whether or not you enter into risky foreign policies and make alliances with unsavory regimes that invite outrage among the regions of the world where your influence is not wanted.

Our love affair with petroleum has a price that is only going to get steeper. To pretend there is no cost is deliberate ignorance. The air quality 40 miles from me can be choking on 105 degree days and visibility is less than 1/4 mile - 90% of which is caused by air pollution from cars. There is something disturbing about 'seeing' air, but when the air is allowed to become so saturated with pollutants it irritates your sinuses and airways, that is criminal.

After the Buick Turbo V6 found its way into production vehicles, Buick gave Motor Trend a 1978 Lesabre Custom with a 350 V-8 to test against a 1978 Lesabre Custom with a turbocharged V6. The turbocharged V6 equaled or outperformed the 350 in every test, 0-60, 1/8th mile, and 1/4 mile, and it did so while getting 4MPG better fuel economy. 4MPG may not sound like much, until its multiplied by 50 million vehicles.

Small gestures done on a massive scale nets meaningful benefits. Technology has enabled us to reduce fuel consumption while offering reasonable performance, why the hell shouldn't you pursue both? When you can get 12 seconds out of a V6, why use a V8? Just because?
Good god. A 455 from '75 & '76 only had 205 Hp. from the factory. What did they do "beef it up" to 250 Hp? Lol. A 1970 455 had 370 Hp (for comparison), it all went downhill from there. Til they turboed the six, that is.
The Free Spirit 455 used in the Century Custom put out 275HP. In order to get the high-speed performance required of the Pace Car, they would need to increase the HP/TQ curve of the 455 to generate its max power at much higher RPMs. This is very expensive to do on big block engines because of the inherent challenges of rotating more mass at higher RPM's. The entire reciprocating assembly would have needed internal balancing and reinforcing = a lot more expensive. Then different reciprocating assembly characteristics may throw the cam profile out of whack so you have to grind a custom cam = more expensive.

These are engines that due to their power curves are suitable in farm tractors, RV's, irrigation equipment, and tow trucks, not in passenger vehicles.

And again:

"Buick wanted to present something fresh and out of the ordinary, and 650lb large displacement gaz-guzzlers didn't fit that bill in 1975. Everyone offered a large fire-breathing V8 that cost more to put gas in than the purchase price of the vehicle and insurance companies were severely penalizing powerful V8 cars."
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
These are engines that due to their power curves are suitable in farm tractors, RV's, irrigation equipment, and tow trucks, not in passenger vehicles.

<----Has driven a farm tractor, an RV, and a tow truck. I can honestly say that they drove nothing like my Riviera.😀


. . . irrigation equipment . . . BaHaaaahahaaahhhaaaahahah!😉
rolleye.gif
😀
 
Has driven a farm tractor, an RV, and a tow truck. I can honestly say that they drove nothing like my Riviera.
I should hope not!
irrigation equipment
My friend's dad scavenged a big block out of a truck and rebuilt it. He used that damned thing for everything, irrigation (3000 acres) and power generating. Of course, it was a diesel. He loved that old big block more than his wife, I think.
 
"When you can get 12 seconds out of a V6, why use a V8? Just because?"

When the six requires "exotic" parts to perform as well as a low tech V8, I'll take the V8. I had a friend who purchased that Grand National used when it was only a couple years old. He bought an extended warranty for it which paid for itself right away. The thing was literally in the garage more than on the road. In the end, it was determined that some kind of "pick up" on the crank was at fault. Ran fine after that was repaired. The point is, this device is just one small component adding to the complexity required to bring it up to the performance of an eight cylinder.

As jamautosound mentioned, 1970 455 had 370 Hp without any expensive balanced cranks, cams or turbos. No good MPG either, but it wasn't built for MPG, just low tech, durable grunt! With the current price of fuel, trading less mileage for reliability and less complexity is a no brainer. I'm willing to do my share for cleaner air. I'll willingly accept a ration of gasoline per year to use as I see fit, so long as everybody else is subjected to the same ration. And if my vehicle of choice passes emission standards, I don't see how ANYONE can bitch.
 
Why would u need V8 engines in irrigation?? Aren't the water pumps electric?
You wouldn't "need" a V8, unless you've got some major pumping to do...like draining a lake or something. You don't need dynamite to re-rout streams and break-up tree stumps, either, but he did that, too. Smaller water pumps are usually electric but gasoline or diesel engines are used a lot for volume pumping projects.
When the six requires "exotic" parts to perform as well as a low tech V8, I'll take the V8.
We've made note of your opinion and have added it to the other thirty or fourty thousand Americans who share it vs. the thirty or fourty million Americans who don't.
 
I just got back from vacation where i had rented a buick rendevous. that car is the biggest piece of ish i have ever driven. i was sooo pissed everytime i got in it. in high school i drove an '87 buick century. that car sucked too. i'm not going to be buying any buicks anytime soon hehe 😉

edit: fixed typo
 
Unfortunately, consumers forced Detroit to quit building 'em. At this point, if that's what you want for that price, you'd have to settle for America's best selling vehicle. Detroit could easily build a decent family car with V8, body on frame, RWD, but the average consumer wants to save gas instead. The Grand Marquis is just a little over $20K, proving that it wouldn't be hard to do. BTW, the Crown Vic/G. Marquis both get 18 mpg / 26 mpg, which ain't bad!
 
Back
Top