I have a feeling GM is going to keep making pushrod v8's until the eventual death of the internal combustion engine.
Thanks for the comment as it was the impetus for me to expand my engine knowledge today!
I no longer hold that view. GM's pushrod V8s are considerably smaller than their competition, and lightweight relative to their displacement, for which there is famously no replacement.
Forced Induction has made its way tho. Not all, but a lot of modern turbo engines are great in all three aspects of reliability, performance, and efficiency.
I can see turbo'ed PHEV being the solution to heavy-duty use cases one day. Pretty stoked for the Ramcharger.
The examples you gave show that turbos are nice additions to a specific displacement size.
Op said turbos are a replacement for displacement. My example is there to show him they are not.
There have been sooooo many SBCs shat out into the world in industrial applications that even if GM stops making them someone will keep making them. You can't make a compatible single replacement because you'll break a ton of applications. You can't make a ton of different replacements because that's not economical. Only makes sense to keep making them.
Definitely, and the old carborated beasts just work and can be fixed with minimal tools and ran off of just a few wires.
I've been enjoying watching a coworker resurrect his M715 Military Truck (basically a government J-Series truck from Kaiser/Jeep) with a fresh blueprint SBC and a mix mash of GM and aftermarket drive train parts.
It may be the least efficient truck I've ever ridden in, but it can reliably pull tree stumps out of the ground.
They were, at least.
Massive recall on the 6.2L versions of their V8 engines right now.
https://www.lemonfirm.com/blog/gm-6-2l-engine-recall-what-tr...
Meanwhile Toyota[1] is recalling blown up turbo v6s left and right (for problems that you can't just dump different oil in to solve) because they didn't invest in keeping a big v8 on the cutting like GM did and they didn't invest in making small turbo stuff last long like Ford did.
[1]Mentioned not because they have unique problems but because who if not a Toyota fanboy makes a comment like yours
3.0 Duramax says hold my beer (for the readers not familiar, it has a wet belt driving the oil pump and it's mounted in the back making proactive replacement prohibitively expensive).
My jaded take is that they're sticking with the wet belt on what's generally a europoor economy car engine in order to force planned obsolecense.
Would putting an aftermarket oil pump in these modern engines protect them or is it a deeper design issue?
They spec the thinnest stuff they can get away with to add .0001mpg. Multiply that by all the Chevy 1500s GM makes or F150s Ford makes and you see the draw.
Sometimes it turns out that the thinnest stuff they can get away with just not quite thick enough at the margins or in transient conditions. And of course they stretch out the oil change interval to reduce on-paper TCO as well which doesn't help.
You can mitigate this with thicker oil (what GM did for the recall) by can go too far and create other oiling issues because thick oil drains back slower and going to some super high spec 0-W-<whatever> Euro oil may cause other problems related to soot and sludge so there's no silver bullet.
The "safe" advice most people give out is to use whatever the <nation with no emissions or fuel economy rules> version of your owners manual says to use for oil.
And if you have a high strung turbo engine you ought to take your oil change intervals seriously.