Part of it is exactly BECAUSE there are things like emissions certification. The LS architecture replaced the SBC because the SBC wouldn't cut it anymore. Likewise the LT replaced (is replacing?) the LS because the LS isn't good enough.novadude wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:40 amHere's something I don't understand....
It takes a lot of money to develop a new engine platform. While modern design tools speed up the process, you still need to do reliability testing, emissions certification, etc. There is also expensive tooling required for a new platform.
If you look at GM in the last 20 years, starting with the first LS, right up to the current LT1, there have been significant changes to the V8 platform. Contrast that with the Gen 1 SBC that hung around for 40 years with only minor tweaks.
Sales volumes are way down compared to the Gen 1 SBC era (1 million Impalas produced in 1965 alone, most with v8 power). How can they justify the expense of producing these new designs? Especially something like this 4.2L v8 for niche applications with low sales volumes? From a business perspective, it's hard to see where the payback is on a project like this.
The rest of it is, if you don't continually improve, you die. Chevy's making the SBC for 40 years, or at least the mentality behind making the same engine for forty years, was a good chunk of what was killing GM in the 70s and later. No innovation, just resting on laurels and then wondering how come people were buying imports instead of a brand new '64 Malibu with box styling.