performance isn't really the point on a vehicle like that though. More the spectacle. Having something different. personally I'd much rather have 2 v6's joined together than a bmw or jag v12 with $$$$$$ parts and poop reliability. If the point was efficiency or performance everyone would run ls1.
andrave wrote: performance isn't really the point on a vehicle like that though. More the spectacle. Having something different. personally I'd much rather have 2 v6's joined together than a bmw or jag v12 with $$$$$$ parts and poop reliability. If the point was efficiency or performance everyone would run ls1.
To clarify only: This is not two V6s joined together. There is one block and four cylinder heads. Weird, but true. And I want one, in anything, badly.
tuna55 wrote:andrave wrote: performance isn't really the point on a vehicle like that though. More the spectacle. Having something different. personally I'd much rather have 2 v6's joined together than a bmw or jag v12 with $$$$$$ parts and poop reliability. If the point was efficiency or performance everyone would run ls1.To clarify only: This is not two V6s joined together. There is one block and four cylinder heads. Weird, but true. And I want one, in *my C10*, badly.
Fixed that for you, Tuna.
(enable enable enable enable)
Yeah from looking at the pictures I figured thats how they work. but I mean as long as the block and crack stay solid it seems like most of the parts people play with would be readily available and for cheap from the local napa or summit. versus jag or bimmer pistons... which... aren't?
Looks like they used a Toronado trans to me.
They also were popular as powerplants for pumps and generators where they would spin at low rpms for years, often powered by natural gas.
the hot trick for ignition parts is go set up a crank trigger and go DIS.
In reply to Rob_Mopar:
No, I don't want it......but it would be the best ever engine for an old skool monster truck. Its a good thing
That I'm not into that.
JohnInKansas wrote:tuna55 wrote:Fixed that for you, Tuna. (enable enable enable enable)andrave wrote: performance isn't really the point on a vehicle like that though. More the spectacle. Having something different. personally I'd much rather have 2 v6's joined together than a bmw or jag v12 with $$$$$$ parts and poop reliability. If the point was efficiency or performance everyone would run ls1.To clarify only: This is not two V6s joined together. There is one block and four cylinder heads. Weird, but true. And I want one, in *my C10*, badly.
Dangerous words, John. Remember how you once faux offered to do the bodywork for me? You do it, I'll drop this engine in it... somwhere... and that's a real offer.
GameboyRMH wrote:andrave wrote: only historical value? Its just 2 v6's together. Lots of possibilities for ho up parts.And probably less powerful than a modern V6 while less efficient than...anything you can get in a roadgoing vehicle these days. And this is one of the ugliest engines I've ever seen so it doesn't even look good (Edit: The tarted-up ones above aren't an eyesore (not sure about the one in the hot rod), but still look like they belong in a tractor). There are many better V12s out there and plenty of V8s that would still outperform it.
You could say the same thing about flathead Fords, but they're still popular 
andrave wrote: Yeah from looking at the pictures I figured thats how they work. but I mean as long as the block and crack stay solid it seems like most of the parts people play with would be readily available and for cheap from the local napa or summit. versus jag or bimmer pistons... which... aren't?
Um, yeah, no...there's a relatively huge aftermarket for the Jaguar V12. The BMW, not as much. Both are still probably more sane engine choices than the GMC; if a bit more complicated, I'd think it would be a lot easier to make a mean Jag V12 than a civilised GMC V12. Also, most Jag cranks and BMW cranks/rods/pistons were quality forged units already. And poop reliability? Where are you getting that idea? I bet I can find more 200+k Jag/BMW V12s than these.
That said, this GMC V12 is freaking awesome.
SlickDizzy wrote:andrave wrote: Yeah from looking at the pictures I figured thats how they work. but I mean as long as the block and crack stay solid it seems like most of the parts people play with would be readily available and for cheap from the local napa or summit. versus jag or bimmer pistons... which... aren't?Um, yeah, no...there's a relatively huge aftermarket for the Jaguar V12. The BMW, not as much. Both are still probably more sane engine choices than the GMC; if a bit more complicated, I'd think it would be a lot easier to make a mean Jag V12 than a civilised GMC V12. Also, most Jag cranks and BMW cranks/rods/pistons were quality forged units already. And poop reliability? Where are you getting that idea? I bet I can find more 200+k Jag/BMW V12s than these. That said, this GMC V12 is freaking awesome.
If I remember correctly, a large percentage of these were used, very reliably, in things like grain elevators. I can bet they lasted longer in this type of application than a Jag or BMW V12. Both of those engines you're comparing it with are a few decades newer, too, so it's not exactly a fair fight when clearly big gas engined over-the-road trucks with these V12s would have plenty of other reasons for not being used too much anymore.
I'm spending too much time thinking about this.
+
=
GM twin-six, neat engine if you can work around its shortcomings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine#702
It produced 250 net SAE horsepower (190 kW). Torque was 585 lb·ft (793 N·m).
tuna55 wrote: If I remember correctly, a large percentage of these were used, very reliably, in things like grain elevators. I can bet they lasted longer in this type of application than a Jag or BMW V12. Both of those engines you're comparing it with are a few decades newer, too, so it's not exactly a fair fight when clearly big gas engined over-the-road trucks with these V12s would have plenty of other reasons for not being used too much anymore.
Absolutely true, but my point was that suggesting a 60- year old grain elevator engine be used in a street rod, with the justification that BMW/Jag engines are hard to find parts for and have poop reliability...it's just not correct.
If you are going for older and odd GM motors, may I suggest the V16 Turbo Diesel? I think they powered WWII tanks and the first A-bodies.
In reply to tuna55:
Hey, nothing faux about my offer, we just weren't going to be able to get me where the truck is or the truck where I am. That said, if it means you would put a V12 in it, I might find some extra motivation somewhere...
I may be changing jobs in the next year or so, and may wind up much closer to you than I am now (think Fayetteville, NC).
In reply to JohnInKansas:
Interesting... we'll have to keep in touch then, you and I.
He wants $3500 for the engine... Not worth anywhere near that IMHO
Otherwise, count me in as a fan, It would be so cool in any kind of rod, Manual trans and ground stomping torque are hard to beat for fun quotient.
As other have said it's two 305 "semi Hemi" V6's I had a 306 V6 in a 62 chevey pick up man that pulled a house down but they did not rev 4000 was red line.
In reply to pinchvalve:
weren't those also 2 stroke diesel?
agreed that at $3500 this is a waste of his time to list it (other than to entertain the peanut gallery here). That engine looks like a lump of turd. If he cleans it up and gets it running, maybe 2/3's of that amount would start to sound reasonable.
that school bus is badass, if you have access to it please do. if not with the twin six then with anything.
btw, I found this curbside classic article about the twin six. It has links to some rod builds using it, and also links to a place selling fully REBUILT ones for $10,900. So much for old long blocks going on ebay for $11k?
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-gmc-twin-six-v12-702-cubes-275-hp-at-2400-rpm-630-ft-lbs-at-1600-rpm/
e_pie wrote: GM twin-six, neat engine if you can work around its shortcomings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine#702 It produced 250 net SAE horsepower (190 kW). Torque was 585 lb·ft (793 N·m).
For firetrucks, the reve limit was raised to 3000 rpm an produced 299 hp and 630 t at 1600-1900 rpm.
They look nice cleaned up in a rod, but really, why bother with 1500 lbs of weight unless you are building a show car (in which case I still say a V12 Jag with a row of injection stacks looks far better).
How about taking a couple of LNF 4 cylinders and hooking them end to end with a CV joint and having a straight 8 that would weigh half that and put out more than double the power?
why bother? just to raise peoples eyebrows when you tell them what it is and that its a factory motor.
In reply to wspohn:
The highest Jag V12 weight number I found was just shy of 800 lbs
You'll need to log in to post.
