backtop


Print 163 comment(s) - last by Proxicon.. on Oct 30 at 4:37 PM

The C7 Corvette will use a host of advanced technologies to boost power, fuel efficiency

The next generation of "America's Sports Car" will be officially unveiled on January 13, 2013 (although we're sure there will be leaks well before then). General Motors will no doubt make the vehicle lighter, faster, and provide it with a much-needed boost in interior fit/finish and materials quality.
 
But while we won't get a look at the finalized exterior of the C7 Corvette until January, GM is already spilling the beans on the heart of the vehicle: the new LT1 V8. Like most Corvettes that came before it (we'll leave out the DOHC ZR-1 from two decades ago), the C7 Corvette uses an OHV small block engine. But the LT1 is no ordinary OHV engine; it's been pumped full of the latest technological advances to boost power and fuel efficiency.

 
The LT1 makes use of direct injection, Active Fuel Management (AFM), and continuously variable valve timing. AFM is probably the most interesting addition to such a high performance vehicle like the Corvette. In this application, the 6.2-liter V8 fires up all cylinders when the driver is going crazy on the accelerator pedal. However, if the driver is gingerly driving around town or on the highway, the engine in effect shuts off half of the cylinders and operates as a 3.1-liter V4.

 
AFM will be critical in helping the base model Corvette achieve at least 26 mpg on the highway, which is a lofty number for such a performance-oriented machine.
 
When all is said and done, the new LT1 is good for 450hp and 450 lb-ft of torque. It will also allow the base Corvette to rocket to 60 mph in under four seconds.

 
“Our objective for the development of the all-new LT1 was to raise the bar for performance car engines,” said Mary Barra, SVP, global product development. “We feel that we have achieved that by delivering a true technological masterpiece that seamlessly integrates a suite of advanced technologies that can only be found on a handful of engines in the world.
 
With GM going "balls to the wall" on even the entry-level Corvette, we can't wait to see what they have in store for the Z06 and ZR1 models.

Sources: GM [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wut??
By messele on 10/25/2012 3:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Why on earth do Americans even bother spouting rhetoric about their agricultural primitive engineering that is almost exactly the same as it was in the 50's.

450bhp from 6.2 litres returning 26mpg? Pathetic, and that fuel economy is based on the engine firing on half the cylinders. And you guys are proud of that junk.

My boys are building 550bhp 5.0 litre V8 engines that return 28mpg (yes, US Gallons, not proper Imperial Gallons) without having to cut cylinders.

GM are boasting that this engine will give a sub 4s 0-60 time? Absolute crap. For a start you cannot possibly quote that figure against the engine alone, only once it's been installed in a vehicle, and American sportscars are renowned as being trucks so how does that one work?

Finally, what's all this crap about OHV engines being better in any way than OHC engines? Keep telling yourselves that boys, in the meantime European and Japanese manufacturers will continue to export to the USA. Including all of your decent racing engines, while you keep telling yourselves that "the old way is the best way" for the sake of tradition.




RE: Wut??
By freedom4556 on 10/25/2012 4:39:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My boys


Who?

quote:
American sports cars are renowned as being trucks


Says who? The 'vette and Viper are the only two we make. Pony and muscle cars don't count.

quote:
Including all of your decent racing engines


WHAT? NASCAR uses a pushrod, carbureted (until just recently) V8 based on a 340 cu in MOPAR V8 from the 60s. They make 800hp on average and aren't even blown.


RE: Wut??
By messele on 10/25/2012 4:59:08 PM , Rating: 3
The engine I quoted is found in the Jaguar XKR. Any disputing that 21st century tech makes 1950's tech look a bit...agricultural?

The rest of the world says American cars are trucks, that's why the grand total of exports is about 6 every year.

Not talking about NASCAR, which by the way develop around 45% of the horsepower that they should do for a normally aspirated engine. I'm talking about your decent, efficient racing engines. The rest of the world is talking the language of 350bhp/litre these days, not engines designed for pulling ploughs.


RE: Wut??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 5:02:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not talking about NASCAR, which by the way develop around 45% of the horsepower that they should do for a normally aspirated engine.


That's because of the rules, not technology. As I recall Formula 1 cars produce much less power than they used to, because of rules with safety in mind.

I love the kind of crap people come up with to bash America. Can't we just talk about cars without nationalism creeping into the discussion?


RE: Wut??
By messele on 10/25/2012 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 3
All categories of motorsport have rules. F1 engines have reduced in capacity, but are still continuously improving every single year in terms of specific output and now produce 50% more power from 2.4 litres than they got from 3.5 litres 20 years ago. That is engineering progress. Using carburettors that chuck out 25% unburnt hydrocarbons well into the 21st century is idiotic.

It's pretty difficult not to let nationalism creep in when partisan Americans have the blinkers on and coo and gasp over their ridiculously out-dated gas-guzzling tanks when the rest of the world, who cannot afford to waste 20 times their fair share of the world's energy resources, had to get their shit together decades ago. This is why Japan beat the crap out of Detroit in the 1970's (aside from build quality, reliability and other factors).

The fact that America as a nation stubbornly denies all compelling scientific evidence of global warming (should be called global climate chaos after this past few years) speaks volumes for their attitude to advancing automotive technology. Too many JR Ewings. Too many megalomaniacs with something to lose.

Bury your car industry and the ass-hats that run it. Turn your attention to shit you are good at, like computers and cheerleader porn.


RE: Wut??
By freedom4556 on 10/25/2012 5:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
who cannot afford to waste 20 times their fair share of the world's energy resources

Gas demand is on the decline here in the states.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=751...
quote:
Using carburettors that chuck out 25% unburnt hydrocarbons
You just make this stuff up don't you?
quote:
Too many JR Ewings.
Texas != the whole USA. And even Texans don't really look like that.


RE: Wut??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 6:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
I should've known this thread was too civil. I guess it's only a matter of time before the crackpots show up.

quote:
The fact that America as a nation stubbornly denies all compelling scientific evidence of global warming (should be called global climate chaos after this past few years) speaks volumes for their attitude to advancing automotive technology.
Site a reference stating that the present Corvette (nevermind the upcoming one because data isn't available yet) generates X amount more emissions than an equivalent European sports car. I'll temporarily ignore the fact that US automotive emissions regulations are more stringent than the EU's.


RE: Wut??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 6:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah just stupid cultural bias. Especially considering how the mass majority of gas guzzling "exotic" cars are made abroad. Hey Spuke remind me, but how fuel efficient is Ferrari again? lol. And we all know Jaguars and BMW's are total non-polluters and gas sippers.

Also remind me, but what country just made the single largest contribution and advancement in electric car technology that's ever been done ever??


RE: Wut??
By Alexvrb on 10/25/2012 11:10:09 PM , Rating: 3
What do you mean "before the crackpots show up"? He's at the very top, his name is messele. He thinks that having pushrods automatically makes your engine inferior - he simply ignores the great power output, good efficiency, low weight, and smaller packaging. He also thinks that displacement is somehow a measure of efficiency. I don't normally hear that particular nonsensical garbage from anyone but ricers.

Basically, he's about as crackpot as it gets.


RE: Wut??
By Spuke on 10/26/2012 12:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Er. I said he was a crackpot.


RE: Wut??
By Boingo Twang on 10/29/2012 4:50:02 PM , Rating: 3
It's not hard to figure this one out. Chevy's focus groups demanded a traditional normally aspirated push rod V-8 engine. Not some supposed fancy, schmancy Euro or Asian technallagee that would have resulted in a world class car and an engine with a lighter weight and higher specific output.

An overhead cam/supercharged engine would have been too tall to fit in a wedge shaped front engine Corvette. A mid engined car would have disgusted the throwback traditionalists. So there you have it, a good relatively economical car designed by their traditional customer base but once again not a world class sports car. The bad part is that the higher performance versions will still be hampered by the basic package demanded by the penny pinching throwbacks who are still trying to live back in their glory years. The Chevy engineers will make it work pretty well with what they have to work with though.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121025/AUTO01...


RE: Wut??
By KCjoker on 10/25/2012 6:30:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you are ignorant.


RE: Wut??
By Boingo Twang on 10/29/2012 4:59:03 PM , Rating: 1
Good comeback for the American Team!


RE: Wut??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 6:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Okay I cannot have a serious debate with someone who just blindly hates my country and everyone who lives in it. We're here to talk about an engine, and you're making it seem like a war crime and a travesty has taken place.

I'm as critical as anyone here about our domestic automakers. Hell I've stated many times that if I were in charge, GM and Chrysler might not be here today. They wouldn't have got a bailout.

But you know what? They might be jackasses, sure, but they are OUR jackasses. And last time I checked, the rest of the world buys plenty of our vehicles too.

So hey, where do you live? Just curious so next time you discuss something, I can blindside you with a nationalistic attack for no good reason.


RE: Wut??
By Boingo Twang on 10/29/2012 5:03:24 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, I haven't been here much but I see that you're still a complete j@ck@ss trying to masquerade as some kind of patriot. Some things will never change. :-)


RE: Wut??
By freedom4556 on 10/25/2012 5:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not talking about NASCAR, which by the way develop around 45% of the horsepower that they should do for a normally aspirated engine.

This is old hat and also just plain not true.
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/co...


RE: Wut??
By freedom4556 on 10/25/2012 5:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not talking about NASCAR, which by the way develop around 45% of the horsepower that they should do for a normally aspirated engine.

This is old hat and also just plain not true.
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/co...


RE: Wut??
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2012 6:20:51 PM , Rating: 3
Real world highway fuel economy on the Corvette is around 30 mpg. I have two friends with one. Both have built motors and get at least 30 mpg on the highway if not a little more.


RE: Wut??
By dubldwn on 10/25/2012 6:25:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
550bhp 5.0 litre V8 engines that return 28mpg

C'mon man that xkr is supercharged, it doesn't get 28mpg, and again, it's twice as expensive. Sure is pretty, though. The 'Vette's supercharged 6.2 does 638bhp@6500 and 604lb-ft@3800, with similar fuel efficiency to your Jag, although it does cost little more. I'm surprised you chose the 'Vette as your target because that's a pretty easy car to defend...outside the interior.


RE: Wut??
By Keeir on 10/25/2012 8:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
It sure wouldn't.

According to Jaguarusa.com, the XKR-S goes 0-60 in 4.2 seconds and gets 22 EPA MPG HWY. It also costs a cool 125,000+

XKR-S might be an overall more enjoyable car to own... but its engine in the application doesn't beat the old Corvette LS engines in the old Corvettes body in any really objective measurement.


RE: Wut??
By iamkyle on 10/25/2012 9:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My boys are building 550bhp 5.0 litre V8 engines that return 28mpg (yes, US Gallons, not proper Imperial Gallons) without having to cut cylinders


Still waiting for the explanation on this one...


RE: Wut??
By Proxicon on 10/30/2012 4:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Y SO MAD BRAH!?

Your "boys" are building a 550bhp engine? Yea, well it isn't built yet so whats the point? Your post sounds like you are angry or something? Get a grip man, its just a car. A chevy at that. You comparing a Bugatti to a chevy or what? To say its crap is just stupid. You sound ignorant.


INB4......
By robertisaar on 10/24/2012 9:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
somebody bitching about it being OHV and not the "perfection" that is DOHC.

guess what? it works. it has worked for many years before and will work for many years still.




RE: INB4......
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2012 11:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
I actually thought they would be going to a DOHC engine. I didn't care either way if they did though.


RE: INB4......
By Hendrix248 on 10/25/2012 12:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
GM tried to make a DOHC V8. It was called the NorthStar and it sucked. Sucked might be a little harsh, but they weren't as good as the OHV. Since GM ditched NorthStar I don't think they will be making a DOHC V8 for a long time.


RE: INB4......
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2012 5:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
Uh the Northstar was awesome. 300 HP from a 4.4L engine? And over 400 on a supercharged version. It was just expensive and the vehicles it was in didn't sell well. GM absolutely can make a DOHC V8. The LT5 made 400 HP from 5.7L long before the LS6 came around. Again, expensive.


RE: INB4......
By Alexvrb on 10/25/2012 11:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
The LT-5 wasn't a GM engine. Look it up. It was also ultra expensive. That's why they killed it. The LT/LS and even Northstar engines are far more economical.

The Northstar was so-so. It was a pretty smooth running motor, when it wasn't broken (first gens were terribad). They especially loved to pop head gaskets and loosen up head bolts, there were TSBs and special repair procedures. They were rather large in terms of packaging, and were not very torquey. The naturally aspirated Northstar is 4.6L and only the HO vin "9" variant generates 300HP. Most Northstars sold produced 275HP (vin "Y"). They also aren't as easy to work on, both repairs and serious performance upgrades.

I can't believe you brought up displacement-to-power - did you turn Ricer all of a sudden? Displacement : Power is almost worthless. It doesn't determine final power or efficiency. There's a reason they ditched Northstar, there's a reason Vettes never used them, and there's a reason the CTS-V favored LS engines even over a supercharged Northstar. They aren't as durable/reliable as the LS motors, and fuel efficiency isn't so great either.

It wasn't horrible, but the LS motors were/are better. The new LT is no exception.


RE: INB4......
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2012 8:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't trying to make a horsepower to displacement comparison. Just showing that 12 years before we got the LS6 producing 400 hp from a 5.7L we had it from a 5.7L V8 utilizing dual overhead cams.

And no DOHC motor is as easy to work on as a SOHC version. It's more complex in its very nature. Easy of work and maintenance is also controlled by things like the general size of the engine bay. My GTO was incredibly easy to work on while my dad's 02 Trans Am is a pain in the butt because 1/3 of the motor is tucked under the cowl.


RE: INB4......
By Alexvrb on 10/26/2012 7:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean any offense, Fit, and I normally agree with you. But what you're doing IS making a comparison based on horsepower-to-displacement. That makes it seem like you're seeking to validate messele's baseless "it's old trash tech" argument. On top of that, the LT-5 was an exotic (for the time), ultra expensive, custom low-volume engine. Comparing it to high volume engines isn't fair to begin with.

But my primary point was that you shouldn't directly compare displacement across different engine designs. If you put two different engines in two otherwise identical cars, and one gets better mileage while generating the same power (or better power at the same mileage), who cares what its displacement is or whether it uses pushrods?

GM has experience with high tech DOHC motors, including designs using DI, VVT, turbos, even HCCI. Yet they still use pushrod V8s in some cases, because they do have some advantages, and their latest pushrod motors are excellent and modern designs. The naturally aspirated 3.6L in the Camaro now generates 323HP bone stock, which is a cool figure, but I still wouldn't compare liters to say an OHV V8, or a turbocharged L4.

If you fall into that kind of trap, you might as well convert over to turbo'd rotary now. :P


RE: INB4......
By inperfectdarkness on 10/25/2012 9:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
what planet are you from? the northstar was the shiz-nett. there's a reason it was one of their principle racing engines.

personally, i don't like pushrod engines because i'd like a bit more RPM band. if i want a lower band and more torque, i'd be using diesel.


RE: INB4......
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2012 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 3
6500-7000 rpm isn't enough of an RPM band?

Sure small four bangers can rev to 11k on the high end for street cars but show me one of those in stock form (or even simple modifications) that can hang with a Vette. Sure you throw enough money at it it will. But that goes with any car.


RE: INB4......
By Alexvrb on 10/25/2012 11:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that these motors don't NEED high RPMs. They don't need to scream to 9000 RPMs to make power. They've got an excellent power band, generating tons of low-end torque AND great horsepower at very usable RPMs.


RE: INB4......
By Alexvrb on 10/25/2012 11:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
For those checking up on C7 info online, it was known some time ago that it was going to remain OHV, for a number of reasons. Remember, this new LT design is going to be the basis for multiple engines, and the design improvements carry over to truck variants.

DI was strongly suspected, and was confirmed a few months ago. I look forward to seeing what kind of higher-output setups they build for Z-06 and ZR-1 models.


RE: INB4......
By lagomorpha on 10/25/2012 8:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
If OHV is so great for minimizing engine weight and maximizing fuel efficiency while maintaining performance, one has to wonder why GM hasn't cut the technology down to a 2-3L horizontally opposed 4 cylinder. It'd be nearly as simple as an old VW Beetle engine (only 4 camlobes because in H engines each lobe can work cylinders on both sides) and with the weight savings they wouldn't need to resort to expensive materials to improve fuel economy.

Oh well, guess for compact cars DOHC is here to stay.


RE: INB4......
By freedom4556 on 10/25/2012 3:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
horizontally opposed 4 cylinder


Engine width is why. All compacts are front-wheel drive these days. You still need room for the wheels to turn. That was part of the problem with the Northstar. You should see the engine bay on one of the FWD Cadillacs that had one, you could play football on that hood.


RE: INB4......
By lagomorpha on 10/25/2012 10:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Still be less wide than a DOHC H4 like a Subaru. I suppose you could even do an OHV I4 without adding any complexity.


C7 Corvette
By hood6558 on 10/24/2012 10:56:17 PM , Rating: 3
I imagine that with aftermarket cams and exhaust and tuning software it'll be more like 650 hp & 650 ft/lbs and still drivable on the street. Corvettes just keep getting sweeter. Too bad only rich people can afford them. And it's not just the ridiculous sticker price, it's the upkeep - have you priced a set of 335/25ZR20 'Vette tires lately? Me neither, but I'm sure a set of them will require that you take out a 3rd mortgage on your house. Each smoky burnout will cost you more than you paid for your first car. But it's worth it, if you don't mind hemorrhaging cash, and it's The American Way! Seriously, I wish I still worked at a Chevy dealer, so I could "test drive" each new model like I used to. Back in my day, the ZR1 would only go about 190 with a good tailwind. The new models routinely break 200+. And now it's gonna get good gas mileage? Sweeeeet!




RE: C7 Corvette
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2012 11:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
While you have to be financially stable, you certainly do not have to be rich to own one.


RE: C7 Corvette
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 12:47:04 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. You can get very nice, used C6's under $40k.


RE: C7 Corvette
By Jeffk464 on 10/25/2012 2:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
According to edmunds your should pay $45,617 for a brand new base level 2012. But you would be crazy to buy a current gen with the next gen just around the corner.


RE: C7 Corvette
By kingmotley on 10/25/2012 11:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
You definately don't need to be rich to own a corvette. And the 335/25ZR20's are ~$600, which isn't the stock size on the C6, stock tires are ~$450.


26MPG?
By BenSkywalker on 10/25/2012 9:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AFM will be critical in helping the base model Corvette achieve at least 26 mpg on the highway, which is a lofty number for such a performance-oriented machine.


Why are you so sure that AFM will be a complete failure? They won't eek out even a 4% increase in fuel economy?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32370.shtm...

Vette already gets 26MPG highway.

For the record for the little pups, swept area of the pistons ranks as one of the dumbest measurements for efficiency you could come up with. Fuel consumption, physical dimensions of the engine, engine weight, bhp, much better guidelines.




RE: 26MPG?
By jRaskell on 10/25/2012 10:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the record for the little pups, swept area of the pistons ranks as one of the dumbest measurements for efficiency you could come up with. Fuel consumption, physical dimensions of the engine, engine weight, bhp, much better guidelines.


Quoted for emphasis. It's good to see that there are still some people out there with a clue.


RE: 26MPG?
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Amen to this again. Power per liter is a useless metric. It tells us nothing, but boy do people love to quote it.

It's only useful in one respect, and considering where, it makes sense. From the same geniuses who brought their people the MS browser ballot screen, guilty until proven innocent CE regulations, and other socialist policies, comes the tax per liter of engine. So in Europe, a 2.0L car that gets 10mpg gets taxed a third of what a 6.0L car that gets 30mpg would. How stupid is that?


RE: 26MPG?
By messele on 10/25/2012 3:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
Because they are not, they are taxed on CO2 emissions. Yes the Italians taxed anything over 2 Litres in the 70's but that was 30+ years ago now. Things have moved on, unlike American automotive engineering.


RE: 26MPG?
By Spuke on 10/26/2012 1:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
BZZZTTTT!!! Yes, CO2 emissions are taxed in the EU but many countries there STILL place extra taxes on displacement.


We already have an LT-1
By inperfectdarkness on 10/25/2012 9:29:55 AM , Rating: 3
...it's been out for 20+ years. WTF would they name the new one after the 3rd gen SBC family, rather than sticking to the LS nomenclature of the 4th gen?




RE: We already have an LT-1
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 10:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not certain either, as the new nomenclature came as a bit of a shock to me.

However, GM does have history doing this. The LS series wasn't the first time GM used that for engines either. it was also used in the 60's-70's IIRC. But using a designator that wasn't retired that long ago is a little baffling. LT1 was used up until 1997. Only 15 years retired.


Pocket rockets coffins
By omgwtf8888 on 10/25/2012 12:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
I hate when i hear people taking stock cars and boasting about the massive hps they have pushed the engine to without any note to having increased braking or suspension. Too many kids watch these fast and furious movies and think that's awesome. They funnel all their money into the engine and then wrap the car around a pole because it couldn't stop or couldn't hold a turn. In the movies they go through numerous cars and the ones they really race have all of the components upgraded. A kid in my neighborhood built a MR-2, and i just had this very same conversation with him and the next week he was dead. Came around a corner at light speed and went airborn into a pole. I love fast cars, but once you exceed the engineered engine design specs you really need to take a look at the full package.




RE: Pocket rockets coffins
By Jeffk464 on 10/25/2012 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not safe, also GM and other manufacturers also have to look at the long term reliability of their product. If they produced high HP but flaky engines they wouldn't have a very good reputation.


This is stupid
By DT_Reader on 10/29/2012 3:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
I worked at Oldsmobile when they where shopping this around in the 1970s. Olds looked at it and gave it a pass. If you run the numbers, you have 100% of the friction but only 50% of the power, and in the end it doesn't add up.

Cadillac bit on it (the V8/6/4) and it sucked eggs. Ran rough as could be on 6 (which is probably why Chevy is just doing 8 or 4), and transitions are problematic - bursts of unburned hydrocarbons when the cylinders are fired back up after being shut down.

I'm betting it won't be long before there's an aftermarket chip that keeps the engine on all 8 full-time.




New?
By djc208 on 10/30/2012 6:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
Last I checked the current HEMI's already have most of the same tech (other than the direct injection), and produce similar power/displacement levels.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/SRT-V8.html




No, sorry.
By BillyBatson on 10/24/2012 10:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
If it is not a 1960's Stingray it isn't a corvette worth buying. Sorry.




really??
By GulWestfale on 10/24/12, Rating: -1
RE: really??
By fourpobs on 10/24/2012 10:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, OHV has been around for a long time.

But seriously, do some research on this particular engine before you hone in on one particular metric by which to judge it.

For example, in terms of power density by size and weight, this is a viable, exciting engine.

Automobile engineering is not that simple.


RE: really??
By GulWestfale on 10/24/2012 10:45:06 PM , Rating: 1
it's a GM truck engine with different software and a hotter cams, like corvette engines have always been... how very exciting. is it still going to have leaf springs as well?


RE: really??
By GulWestfale on 10/24/2012 10:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
oh and 0-60 in under THREE seconds with 450hp? i don't think so.


RE: really??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/24/2012 10:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Under four seconds, that was my typo.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/24/2012 10:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
The source article says 0-60 under FOUR seconds not three. Where did the 3 come from?

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.htm...

I used to be a Corvette hater too but for the money, it really is a fantastic performer. I just hate the interior though. Hopefully that will finally get changed on the C7. I agree though, if only for marketing purposes, I wish they would at least change out the rear suspension. I can deal with the OHV engine only because it's really lightweight and compact.


RE: really??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/24/2012 10:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
The interior has always been a letdown with the Corvette (I know, I know, performance FIRST). They said that the C5 would have a much better interior -- we got a Cavalier-level interior. They said that the C6 would have a much better interior -- we got a Cobalt-level interior.

A few years into the C6's design cycle, they spruced things up a bit by slapping leather over the dash and console, but it still looks like ass IMHO.

I really hope that the C7 brings a world class interior to go with its world class performance.


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 1:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really hope that the C7 brings a world class interior to go with its world class performance.


Depends if you would pay a world class price for one. Sacrifices must be made to have a world class performer for $50k less than the other guys, the interior is one of them.


RE: really??
By Samus on 10/25/2012 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
Corvette is still one of the best sports cars in its class in terms of performance, applications and reliability.

I know the GT-R has a lot of hearts, but in terms of simple reliability, the GT-R can't be driven daily like a vette' or a stang'.

It's exciting Toyota is back in the game with the "AE86", but I think they had the perfect balance with the Supra in terms of luxury, performance, reliability and price. Unfortunately it wasn't profitable (I don't know how, but that is their official stance.) Their new sports car just isn't going to appeal to the same market the Corvette does, and if it is to be profitable, that is the market they need to go after. Something between the AE86 and the LFA, please?

The RX7 is also a great, practical sports car, often underestimated and forgotten in the pack. The Renesis has proven a reliable rotary engine with an incredible sound, great performance (250hp, 10k rpm, very light weight) and good fuel economy. The suicide doors also make it practical if you have children (or even a baby in a carseat) and it has a class-leading crash test sheet on the NCAP, no doubt because of the reinforced door pilars and large amount of disposable underhood area for crumple zones with the engine being 1300cc.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 11:57:26 AM , Rating: 3
You mean RX8 (250 hp) and I don't consider 16/23 good fuel economy. That's pickup truck territory and since when are rotary engines known for good fuel economy. That's the exact OPPOSITE of what every rotary owner and every mag review says. And practical? Really? LOL!


RE: really??
By dubldwn on 10/25/2012 12:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the real appeal to those is it's one of the best handling cars I've driven - and the revs are a hoot. If they want to continue with the rotary thing they need a 1.6L w/DI like yesterday (and maybe a lower price)


RE: really??
By Samus on 10/27/2012 1:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, todays equivilent production model of the RX7 is an RX8, so I stand corrected, but thats like correcting me referring to an MX5 as a Miata.

Rotary engines are entirely fuel efficient, the problem is people (including the EPA) drive them hard. Sports cars in general has artificially low fuel economy ratings because of the way they are tested and calibrated for emissions. But ok, we'll just go with the EPA's rating (which is 30% lower than the Eurocycle test) which still puts it in average sports vehicle territory.

Obviously anywhere above 6000rpm (where torque is made, unfortunately) the engine, like any engine at that RPM, uses a LOT of fuel. Each 'cylinder' has TWO injectors but one is completely idle until 6000rpm. Driven daily, they do get 350+ miles per tank (17gal) mixed normal driving as reported on the rotory forum by hundreds of owners: thats 25mpg.

And the car is the most practical sports car you can buy, even more than a Mustang. It seats four comfortable (something no other sports coupe can do) and it has four doors and LATCH for child seats, also something NO OTHER TWO DOOR COUPE HAS.

Having children and sports cars, believe me, I've researched this, and the only reason I don't have an RX8 is because the wife caps me at five vehicles because we don't have room for more than 5 cars in the garage and I'm not selling my classic Mercury Capri, my work truck, my autocross vehicles: SVT Focus FWD class and Mazda MX5 RWD class, or my motorcycle.


RE: really??
By Alexvrb on 10/28/2012 9:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
All vehicles test better on the EuroLawlcycle, even after adjusting for US vs Imperial gallons. It's as bad as CAFE measurement methods, at least. That's because starting in 2008 the EPA uses revised, more accurate testing methodology. EPA results are now much more indicative of the results you'll actually get in real-world driving conditions on non-empty roads.

Look at the EPA results for a Prius vs Euro numbers. Night and day. The EPA doesn't "drive them hard". They test all vehicles the same. They drive the RX-8 like they drive a Mustang or Corvette. Mazda rotaries get poor fuel economy, and they don't produce great power either. THAT is why RX is often low on the totem pole. Handling is one of its strong points, and you say it's good if you have kids. I think a 4-door sedan would be better, especially if you have a couple of kids and pick stuff up from the store at the same time. But hey... I guess the RX is a compromise in that case.

It's actually pretty popular on RX-7 to rip out the rotary and drop in a (thankfully fairly compact due to OHV design) small block Chevy. Especially nice are LS swaps. They're more reliable and its easier to get gobs of power. For budget swaps I've even heard guys advocating using the less expensive truck small blocks, such as the 4.8L. They're heavier but the bottom end is good for a lot of power on the cheap. If they weren't so huge, Ford's 4.6L modular could also be used.


RE: really??
By Apone on 10/25/2012 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know the GT-R has a lot of hearts, but in terms of simple reliability, the GT-R can't be driven daily like a vette' or a stang


You do realize the Nissan Skyline GT-R's DNA comes from the fact that Nissan originally designed it to be both a high performance sports car while retaining the comfort and civility of a daily commuter car.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Renesis has proven a reliable rotary engine with an incredible sound, great performance (250hp, 10k rpm, very light weight) and good fuel economy.


What?

You make it sound like it's a good thing that the engine has to rev to 10,000 rpm in order to make 250 hp. (Also, they had to revise the horsepower claims since it never made 250 hp. It's 238 hp.) A more practical engine would produce more power than that at a much lower RPM. They had to rev it that high because it produces a meager 165 lbs of torque.

Also, it gets terrible fuel economy.

The 238 HP RX-8 gets:
16 City, 18 Combined, 22 Highway.

The 430 HP Corvette gets:
16 City, 19 Combined, 26 Highway


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 3:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
All things being equal, the only reason I would pick a GTR over the 'Vette is because all wheel drive cars are inherently easier to jackass around in and drive in confidence. They've done an amazing job at tuning the Corvette to be drivable considering the massive amount of torque that, at any moment, can shred the rear tires. But I think it would just scare me too much to drive every day.

I'm used to driving and racing "cheater cars" like me and my friends Impreza. So the GTR would make me feel right at home, just bigger and more powerful. With the Corvette I would always be one wrong move away from disaster :P


RE: really??
By lesbaer45 on 10/25/2012 1:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
So, if we follow your theory line, then the C7 will get a Cruze-level interior?

<sigh> So close, yet still with the cheezy interior.


RE: really??
By EricMartello on 10/25/2012 3:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you think the Corvette's interior was bad, you obviously never sat in a previous-gen Viper. The new SRT Viper (not Dodge anymore) aims to undo the noisy, spartan Dodge-like interior with something more inline with a car of that price point.

The Corvette's interior has always been nice for a Chevy but compare it to something like an Audi its shortcomings are quite apparent. I think they will be stepping things up so that the new Viper doesn't outshine the C7 too much in terms of comfort and fit & finish.


RE: really??
By corduroygt on 10/24/2012 11:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever driven something with a LS series engine?
I'll give you that the driving characteristics are a bit coarse, but in the objective metrics of: weight per hp, overall dimensions/hp, fuel efficiency per hp, they are unmatched. I have not seen a performance NA engine beat the LS series in fuel efficiency per hp.


RE: really??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/24/2012 10:50:28 PM , Rating: 5
Why does it matter if it gets results? Name me a comparable sports car with that kind of power that puts out fuel economy numbers like the Vette!

It doesn't matter if an engine uses large displacement, turbos, a supercharger, OHC, or OHV to reach it's goal. All that matters are the results.

And have you seen how small and compact an OHV engine is compared to an DOHC?


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/24/2012 10:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
Right on the money Brandon. This is what finally sold me on the Vette. It performs.


RE: really??
By ballist1x on 10/25/2012 7:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does it matter if it gets results? Name me a comparable sports car with that kind of power that puts out fuel economy numbers like the Vette!


Nissan GTR? And its probably heavier than the corvette...put the v6TT into a lighter car and im pretty sure it would be even more economical.

Id always worry that the extra load on just 4 cylinders will wear these bores more than the other 4, unless it can alternate which ones get de activated on a rotational basis?


RE: really??
By jRaskell on 10/25/2012 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Nissan GTR?


I wouldn't consider a vehicle that costs almost twice as much money comparable.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
The V6TT in the Skyline is a very large and heavy engine. You can buy one from Nissan for about $30,000.

The GTR's 3.8L VR38DETT weighs 608 lbs, while the Corvette Z06's 7 liter LS7 weighs 458 lbs.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 9:09:43 AM , Rating: 1
My 91 MR2 Turbo puts down about that at the crank, and makes 27-28 mpg when just cruising on the hwy...

The motor is stock, the rest... well.... obviously not. Car has 222k on it.

There, I named one.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 12:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing a stock car to modded one? Why?


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 9:09:43 AM , Rating: 1
My 91 MR2 Turbo puts down about that at the crank, and makes 27-28 mpg when just cruising on the hwy...

The motor is stock, the rest... well.... obviously not. Car has 222k on it.

There, I named one.


RE: really??
By ballist1x on 10/25/2012 9:33:02 AM , Rating: 3
Your MR2 puts out 450bhp at the crank on a stock engine?

My Rev 3 Turbo puts out 240bhp at the crank stock from the factory, and Rev1/2 put out less about 225...


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 9:45:00 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sure there's some turbo piping EXTERNAL to the engine that he coyly forgot to mention.

And whoopty do. You can't compare stock cars to modified ones. He's crowing about it, but to be quite honest, he shouldn't be talking too much when one of my Vette's is running 1081rwhp at latest dyno. You know, that old antiquated engine technology.


RE: really??
By ballist1x on 10/25/2012 10:14:16 AM , Rating: 3
Of course, even if the block is std (which is either going to die horribly one day soon), there will be numerous other mods to make it this bhp.

Mine has Apexi Hayabusa Exhaust, Apexi Air filter, Blitz SDBC etc etc and sure i can has 300bhp @ 1.2bar boost..but that is stock turbo.

TO get near 450 your looking at a big turbo plus a lot of other stuff...

Of course 2.0 can get to 450bhp-500BHP, check out JGTC SUPRA running 3S-GTE.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
Do you consider the GT30 a "big" turbo?


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. You don't really need a massive turbo for 450 at the CRANK on a 2.0L.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 10:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
I DID mention that ONLY the engine was stock.

The car itself has quite a few mods to make that power. It runs a standalone ecu as well. With a proper tune, there's no reason it's going to die anytime soon. Hell, I've been beating this motor for the past 6 years and 40K miles. Still perfect compression.

I find that this is the perfect range for a streetable car. I don't track the car, mainly because I refuse to hack it up to add a roll cage. But driving around, I'd be hard pressed to try and use more power than what it makes now. That would probably go for any car as well.

I could have made a dyno queen, but I'd rather enjoy the car as well. :)

And you can absolutely compare in this case. I spent FAR less on this car than the new Vette will cost. The motor is still stock and makes the MPG's and power being compared.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 10:41:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And you can absolutely compare in this case. I spent FAR less on this car than the new Vette will cost. The motor is still stock and makes the MPG's and power being compared.

No you can't compare. It's only useful if you compare to your criteria and definition.

For under $5k, I can build quite a fast Honda Civic. Something that would embarrass many other cars on the road in strait line performance. But at the end of the day, it'll still be a $2k POS Civic with some mods. You never get your mod cost back.

So while your car was much cheaper, it'll also sell for much less. There will be a LOT more retained value with the stock car. And the stock car has full warranty. Of course it's going to cost more. Apples to Oranges.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 10:48:01 AM , Rating: 1
Value is something completely off topic. He asked for a car than can make the power and MPG's. I gave him that. He didn't mention anything about retained value or whatever.

While you're on the topic though. The car is in almost showroom condition. It was appraised at 13k... which is just under what I have invested in it.

But, again, it's not the point of this. It makes the MPG's and the power. That's all I was trying to say. Not trying to discredit the Vette at all.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 11:51:31 AM , Rating: 1
I appreciate where you're coming from. I really do.

But I think the topic was available factory cars that come close to the Corvette. I'm not discrediting your MPG claims, but I've also recorded 30MPG over a long trip in a modded Corvette. But the official EPA numbers are quite a bit less, and there's no way my modded car is getting better than factory numbers. I'm fairly confident if you actually had it testing under the EPA guidelines, it would be quite less than you suspect.

Put quite simply, you either believe all auto manufacturers with tons of engineers on staff are idiots or not. If so, then why not look at what EasyC has done to his car and replicate that. No need for all this in depth engineering.

Or, your car doesn't meet all the latest safety standards, doesn't meet the reliability standards, the ability to operate in vastly different weather conditions, and of course meets all the latest EPA guidelines for fuel and emissions either.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 12:05:17 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think they are idiots at all, but there's a lot more that goes into what a final production car is than JUST the capability of the engineers. If the engineers went all out on every car, then we'd have a lot of high HP cars on our hands. In fact, a "fuzzy" target of the car is usually decided before it even reaches the engineers hands.

I CAN tell you that the MR2 turbo motor in general is pretty stout, even at double the stock output. A lot of people have made high numbers on stock internals. I'm at the high edge of that range and probably wouldn't go much higher without cracking the block open.

In the end it's more about the tuning than the power. My turbo is good to 500+whp but I'm very conservative in tuning. I'd rather give up 30whp if it means less risk to blowing something.


RE: really??
By ballist1x on 10/25/2012 12:20:55 PM , Rating: 3
yes but then you could say that a vette with standalone, no cats, no noise reduction, breathing mods etc will have 500bhp or more - then your 450bhp engine isnt the same and will break down most likely before the vette does.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 1:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
How many vettes are pushing more than double their factory power above 200k miles?

Not trying to be a smartass, it's a legitimate question since you're referencing reliability.


RE: really??
By cknobman on 10/25/2012 10:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
How about a Ford Shelby GT500??

It gets 24 MPG on the highway with about 200 more horsepower. It may not be as good of a track performer but it is a drag monster.

Plus its interior blows away an freaking Mattel inspired Corvette!


RE: really??
By Apone on 10/25/2012 12:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It doesn't matter if an engine uses large displacement, turbos, a supercharger, OHC, or OHV to reach it's goal. All that matters are the results. And have you seen how small and compact an OHV engine is compared to an DOHC?


It does matter Brandon. I have the highest respect for the Corvette but I think OHV has been hurting GM these past few years as OHV is obsolete technology. So now GM is mixing in advanced technologies like variable valve timing and direct injection with 1960's pushrods; Honestly I think they can really make Nissan, Audi, and Ford nervous if this next-gen LS1 had DOHC which could easily give it 500+hp + 500 lb.ft of torque along with 26+ MPG since SOHC/DOHC allows for healthier engine breathing and creative manipulation of the valves' timing.


RE: really??
By Jeffk464 on 10/25/2012 1:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
I heard GM stuck with OHV so they could have a lower engine profile resulting in a lower hood profile. You have to admit the lower and shorter hood and larger rear end for the rear transmission does a lot to make it look like an expensive euro mid engine car. The current vette has the look of a super car with a low price and decent reliability, not to shabby. If I were in the market for a sports car it would be top of my list.


RE: really??
By messele on 10/25/2012 3:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Done properly OHC engines do not make the engine any taller. The Vee angle, engine stroke and oil sump configuration have a much bigger influence.

They are OHV out of reasons of tradition only. If NASCAR Ned cannot fathom how is engine works he has no reason to be American. Camshafts make Ned herp and derp.


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2012 11:03:45 PM , Rating: 1
What the hell are you talking about? While yes there are truck versions of the LS series engines, the Corvette versions always came first. To imply that the Corvette merely gets hotter versions of a truck motor is asinine.

And leaf springs? In what world? Have you ever even been underneath a Vette? I have. As well as other IRS GM vehicles. There is nothing close to a leaf spring.


RE: really??
By messele on 10/25/2012 5:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
All Corvettes have leaf springs. Jesus I'm not even American and I know that.

Crawl under at 90 degrees to how you crawled under last time and look from another perspective...


RE: really??
By Runiteshark on 10/24/2012 11:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Are you retarded? It is not a leaf spring like a truck, its a transverse leaf spring setup like a sway bar.

Jesus christ, haters don't even know what they're hating on.


RE: really??
By OutOfTouch on 10/25/2012 12:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
what's wrong with leaf springs? If the C6 ZR1 can run faster on the Nuremberg ring than 99% of other cars, who cares? Besides by some replacement "fancy" components and then by leaf springs then tell me which one you'd rather do.


RE: really??
By lane42 on 10/24/2012 10:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
0-60 in under 3 seconds, i find that hard to beleave.


RE: really??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/24/2012 10:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
That was a typo, my fault. It should be "under four seconds"


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/24/2012 10:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
This engine is lighter than the turbo 4 in my Solstice. It's no joke. Also, those advanced features aren't for getting more power, you can get 450 hp out of the present engine EASILY with bolt on mods (present engine makes 430 hp...450 is not much of a stretch), it's for fuel economy improvements. I find it odd they're only shooting for 26 mpg as the current car already gets that on the hwy (EPA rating).


RE: really??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/24/2012 11:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
26 is just a given. They're shooting for more. I wouldn't be surprised if it's rated at 28 to 29 highway with cylinder deactivation.

More power, better fuel economy? Win Win! :)


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/24/2012 11:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More power, better fuel economy? Win Win! :)
Hell yeah!


RE: really??
By Flunk on 10/24/2012 10:58:43 PM , Rating: 1
Does anyone else think that they should have used a turbocharged V6 instead? 6.2L V8s are old news. GM has also been selling V8s with cylinder deactivation since the 2006 Impala SS so this is not only old news, it's rather silly.


RE: really??
By donxvi on 10/24/2012 11:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
No.


RE: really??
By Jeffk464 on 10/25/2012 1:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
definitely no, not in a vette. If GM wants to make a V6 sports car they should play around with the camaro. Ford is going smaller and lighter on the next gen mustang, Camaro could do the same.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/24/2012 11:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't sell with a turbo V6 honestly. Even the V8 haters I know think the Vette should always have a V8. You could get away with it on the Mustang but not on the Vette. I LOVE turbo's personally, but a turbo V6 Vette? Nope!


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2012 11:08:39 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and they were waiting until they could get the lag from the other cylinders reactivating reduced to an acceptable level before putting it in the Corvette. They didn't want it limiting the rev ability of the motor.

And while I'm not against a twin turbo V6 engine, there is no way GM would make that the flagship engine. The Corvette always as been and always should be a V8, front engine, RWD vehicle.


RE: really??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/24/2012 11:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Amen! There are some things purists just won't stand for.

The Viper will always have a V10
The Corvette will always have a V8
The 911 will always be powered by a rear-mounted flat-6.

I'm actually surprised, however, that the EcoBoost V6 has been so popular with the F-150... much moreso than the V8. That one was a shocker.


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2012 11:18:27 PM , Rating: 1
Its 1 mpg better difference has resonated hard with the high gas prices. It is a great motor though. Just heavy.


RE: really??
By Flunk on 10/24/2012 11:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me, the time will come. Look at the new choices for the Mustang, they're going to offer a turbo 4. Change is the only constant.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 12:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said, you can get away with it on the Mustang mainly because it was already done before. With the exception of the earliest Vettes, it's always been a V8 and it should remain so. Like Brandon said above in so many words...some cars should remain pure.


RE: really??
By Mint on 10/25/2012 6:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just 1MPG. I'm not a truck guy, but some quick googling tells me that the Ecoboost V6 has much better performance than the 5.0L V8, especially when towing.


RE: really??
By danjw1 on 10/25/2012 11:23:22 AM , Rating: 3
That is because gas prices are over $4 in some places. And, maybe, just maybe, people are actually starting to think that it might be important to USE LESS GASOLINE!!!


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2012 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
So the solution is buying a truck that gets 22 mpg vs 21 (Ecoboost vs 5.0L)?


RE: really??
By Jeffk464 on 10/25/2012 2:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
Nope the truth is a lot of people are just avoiding poor mileage vehicles. Cars like the Ford Focus are selling really well where 10 years ago they were pretty much overlooked. When people are buying their Accords and Camry's they are opting for the 4 over the 6 in bigger numbers. I remember back in the 80's and early 90's people just didn't care about mileage much when they chose a car.


RE: really??
By inperfectdarkness on 10/25/2012 9:35:33 AM , Rating: 2
um. no. you should go re-read the specs on the c1 before jumping on the "always a v8" bandwagon.

if the mk iv supra can be regarded as a world-class car (and on a year for year basis has MUCH higher resale than corvette) than there's absolutely no reason an inline 6 (or any 6) couldn't be considered.

purists keep hating. just like the haters who don't want to see a v6 ecoboost in the mustang because it would knock the stuffing out of the GT's 5.0 with very, very little in the way of modding.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 9:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
The Turbo V6 in the Supra was very good. But it was just on par with the V8 in terms of power, and fuel economy was slightly worse.

Overall, it's a push. With new technology, certainly something to consider. I'll give you that.

But now consider that the engine cost much more, was physically larger with higher deck (much harder to package in the low hoodline of the Corvette), was heavier by over 200lbs (including the weight of the turbos and plumbing), and more complicated.

In other words, one has to wonder what Toyota was thinking. And in the end, where is the Supra now? Oh right, Toyota didn't make any money and cancelled it.

Finally, modifications shouldn't enter the discussion when talking about stock cars. Yes, the Turbo V6 can be modified, but so can the V8.


RE: really??
By Anonymous Blowhard on 10/25/2012 11:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Turbo V6 in the Supra


I6, you blasphemer.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 11:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
You got me. Good catch.


RE: really??
By inperfectdarkness on 10/26/2012 1:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
1. the 90's import "jap supercars" all died off because of the same bigoted ethnocentrism that caused the dodge stealth to get pulled as the 1991 indy pace car.

2. there's a big difference between iron-block and aluminum block.

3. all cars can be modified. those designed for forced induction from the factory will require a LOT less time and expense to make any given % of power gain over stock. compare a 3rd gen mustang gt to a 1g eclipse (both from the same model year). in order to get any decent bonus power out of the 5.0L, you'll need intake, exhaust and headers. and that's for a small-to-moderate hp boost. meanwhile, the dsm can slap in a bigger turbo and gain 50% additional horsepower with virtually the same cost. and both come stock from the factory with 200hp. to even think about putting forced induction on the 5.0L, you'd need to lower the compression--requiring an entire lower-end rebuild.

4. i favor v6tt above everything else for a variety of reasons. engines designed for forced induction are almost always cheaper to mod. v6's also tend to be the most versatilly mounted engines--they're roughly square--so either longitudinal or transverse work (i4's are longer).

5. "complexity" is a cop-out excuse. there's a lot of bigotry in america regarding forced induction. it's as though the country is ran by rednecks who think that turbochargers are "Voodoo witchcraft" and the mysticism thereof is too difficult to comprehend.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/26/2012 12:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Which 5.0L are you taking about? The new one can be ordered with a Ford Racing supercharger that's 50 state smog legal (yes CA too) AND doesn't void your warranty. There's two options, the 525 hp one and the 600 hp one. The 600 hp one does not get the smog cert nor the warranty deal. It also doesn't come with tuning. The 525 hp supercharger doesn't require any engine work other than an ECU reflash and can only be done by Ford dealers. New 5.0L is pretty awesome engine and takes to mods fairly well.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 12:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if the mk iv supra can be regarded as a world-class car (and on a year for year basis has MUCH higher resale than corvette) than there's absolutely no reason an inline 6 (or any 6) couldn't be considered.


The problem is that inline 6's are very large and heavy. The 2JZ-GTE in a Supra TT is bigger and weighs just as much as a 7.0L V8 from a Z06 Corvette.... and it gets worse fuel economy.


RE: really??
By Jeffk464 on 10/25/2012 2:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
You all realize that the transition from iron block to aluminum block engines happened between these models right. An aluminum block V8 will probably weigh significantly less than an iron block 6.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
But inline 6's are heavy in general since the block is so long and harder to make rigid.

Nissan's L28 (Cast iron 2.8L I6) was 428 lbs while their VG30 (cast iron 3.0L V6) was 390 lbs.

BMW's aluminum N55 (315 HP 3.0 L inline 6) is 430 lbs. Compare this to GM's aluminum LFX (323 HP 3.6L V6) at 370 lbs.


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 12:58:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Does anyone else think that they should have used a turbocharged V6 instead?


No. Then it wouldn't be a Corvette.

You haters are annoying in your ignorance. You keep focusing on HP numbers and ignoring the insane low end torque and fuel economy.


RE: really??
By kingmotley on 10/25/2012 11:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
Erm, cadillac had it in 1981.


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/24/2012 11:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
There's this thing called a flat torque curve. And oh my is it fun.


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/12, Rating: 0
RE: really??
By PoikilothermicX on 10/25/2012 3:30:17 AM , Rating: 3
Name a car that puts out the power of a Corvette (400+) and gets 20+ MPG. Top Gear or someone else did a test where they put 1 Gallon of fuel into a Vette, Aston, Lambo, R8, 458, XKR, and maybe one or 2 others - I believe there was a GTR as well - then drove the hell out of them for 1 gallon. The Vette embarrassed them all. Like the guy above said the former LS6 was lighter than the Ecotec turbo. It's within 50lbs of a Renesis Wankel that was used in the RX8.

Look at the comparisons of the SHO and the G8. The V8 got better mileage than the turbo 6. Look at the real world mileage people are getting in their Ecoboost 150s. It's nothing to get excited about.

Given that GM has been running 5.5L engines producing the same numbers as this release it wouldn't be very surprising to see this engine a few simple tweaks away from some insane numbers. Very excited to see what is in store for the C7 Z06 and Z28 Camaro.


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2012 5:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well a 5.5L will likely make its way into the Camaro and trucks. As well as the G8, I mean Monaro, I mean Caprice.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 9:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's actually Commodore, not Monaro.

The Pontiac GTO was a Holden Monaro. The G8s were Commodores.


RE: really??
By inperfectdarkness on 10/25/2012 9:46:15 AM , Rating: 1
450hp all motor? you mean like TVR was doing 10 years ago?

you mean like hyundai is doing with the Tau V8?

don't get me wrong, it's a nice piece of work, but impressive? not like it would have been 10 years ago.

personally, v6tt's are where it's at, imho. a decent dohc v6 with ~4L displacement can be massaged to put down 600-700hp on pump gas. and that's not even pushing it hard. hell, my 3.5L 16g build will be putting down more at the wheels than a c6 zr1--and that's also on pump gas. (600awhp vs. 631 chp) and a nice flat torque curve to boot.

again, if you want fire & forget with decently high hp, the corvette is great. i just don't consider the powerplant to be an awe inspiring creation. and don't be surprised if someone in a brz with a medium sized turbo blows past your beloved corvette like it's idling. it's a MUCH lighter platform.


RE: really??
By jRaskell on 10/25/2012 10:00:31 AM , Rating: 3
Comparing aftermarket modded motors to factory motors is, to be totally blunt, completely asinine. Apply those same aftermarket standards to that Corvette engine and it'll more than hold it's own against all contenders.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 10:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and don't be surprised if someone in a brz with a medium sized turbo blows past your beloved corvette like it's idling. it's a MUCH lighter platform.

Perhaps when you get past the 1000rwhp level, you can come back and play with us big boys in our "heavy" Corvettes. When you start running 8's all day at the track on pump gas, then come see me. And yes, it's not just for track.

Until then, don't be overconfident. Sure, your modded car can beat many stock Corvettes.....but not all lining up next to you will be stock. Just as you can mod, so can the next guy. :)


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
Oh boy, someone's flashing the e-peen.

1000whp would be great, just be careful giving it gas around a corner. By track, I assume you also mean a drag strip *laughs*. There are more types of tracks you know.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 10:50:49 AM , Rating: 3
You know what happens when you assume. I'll guarantee you I have more track time then you. Watkins Glen was a few weeks ago, and I even spent the coin to ship my ZR1 over to Germany last year.

Like you weren't flashing your e-peen as well. Now you feel a bit short that you didn't measure up. LOL.

Just as you can mod your car up to ZR1 standards, there are those of us who can mod our cars up from there. But modded cars can't be compared to stock, as much as some people would like to.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 11:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
I certainly was no flashing my e-peen. I said I COULD have built a dyno queen, but I didn't because I would rather drive the car alot.

Do people read anymore?

The difference between me modding my car to ZR1 standards and actually buying a ZR1.... is that I have thousands and thousands of dollars laying around to do other things... like travelling, concerts, skydiving, etc.... instead of sitting behind a computer and bragging about how awesome my 1000whp corvette is in a straight line LOL. Let me know when you hit 222k ... even at stock power levels.

It's obvious you're a clear domestic fan. Good for you! I am not. Doesn't mean I lose respect for the Vette. It's one of the few TRUE American sports cars left.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 11:41:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do people read anymore?

Funny you say that, and then type this.

quote:
I said I COULD have built a dyno queen, but I didn't because I would rather drive the car alot.

You're trying to infer that my car is a dyno queen, when in fact I stated quite a bit that I race a lot. Yes, I do primarily race Corvettes. But I've also had Porsche, Lotus and even a Ferrari. And every single car I race also gets street duty.

Now with that said, I also have several Corvettes, not just one. Currently have a C6 ZR1, Z06, GS, and two C5s and a Z51 for the wife. I also have a few other ponies in the stable.

But I did mistake you for the OP that I originally posted to, where he indicated that he could mod his car up to ZR1 levels. My comment back was so what, because us ZR1 guys can mod past that.

quote:
The difference between me modding my car to ZR1 standards and actually buying a ZR1.... is that I have thousands and thousands of dollars laying around to do other things... like travelling, concerts, skydiving, etc.... instead of sitting behind a computer and bragging about how awesome my 1000whp corvette is in a straight line LOL.

And that's the difference between you and me. Yes, there once was a time when I had to go the budget route as well. And I respect that, seriously I do. But life has been quite good and now I can afford some ridiculous things.

Not to continue with the domestic analogy, but at one time I looked at Camaros and Corvettes and wondered why the Corvette cost twice as much for only a few hp difference. Then I drove one and understood. So you can mod any car up to some levels, but it may not ever be the same. Sometimes it's those intangibles that matter. I've raced with someone who pushed almost 900hp out of a Focus. My stock (at the time) ZR1 ran circles around him, and by midday his engine block was in pieces and the track flagged.

My original point was always that you can't compare stock to modded cars. Yes, you might get similar performance on paper, but real world is different. As for gloating a bit about it, let's face it, I'm a pretty happy guy. Who wouldn't.


RE: really??
By EasyC on 10/25/2012 11:50:19 AM , Rating: 2
This post by itself made me realize you're actually an established guy and not some young domestic fanboy. I agree, and tip my cap.

I could afford much nicer cars and such, but I grew up dirt poor and it's hard to break that mentality.

900hp out of a focus makes me laugh. Reminds me of when I used to track regularly. I think out of the dozens of times I was at the track, it always seemed like some ridiculously done econocar or DSM exploded in some fashion.


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/25/2012 12:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, and I'll also apologize if I came off a bit snarky as well. The internet is loaded with tons of keyboard warriors who talk big and have never even tracked a car. You sometimes get a bit defensive and lose civility.

I appreciate all racers, and lots of different cars. Most good weather weekends you'll find me in a HPDE or dragstrip. Some of the best friends I have I met there, and we all share a passion of cars, even if our cars are all different.

Except Ferrari owners. I hate to stereotype, but man are most stuck up douches. They only start to talk after I tell them about my old Ferrari.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 12:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could afford much nicer cars and such, but I grew up dirt poor and it's hard to break that mentality.
God do I understand this.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
personally, v6tt's are where it's at, imho. a decent dohc v6 with ~4L displacement can be massaged to put down 600-700hp on pump gas. and that's not even pushing it hard.


I'd have to disagree with you. I love my 300ZXTT, but it's a real pain to work on. The engine is huge and very heavy since it has a cast iron block, DOHC, and twin turbos and all the associated piping. It also gets relatively poor fuel economy.


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 3:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
So just wondering, but how does it feel to be an idiot who knows nothing about cars?

That TVR built "10 years ago" wouldn't have passed our safety, emissions, and other standards. It's a LOT harder to make something like the Corvette today, than that TVR 10 years ago.

Also I'm not sure why people feel that because cars "10 years ago" had similar power levels, the Corvette is some kind of embarrassment? That same engine in the ZR1 pushes over 600hp, you know that right? Oh let me guess, that's not impressive either because "10 years ago" exotic super cars costing 5 times more than the Corvette had that power.

How about some perspective? 10 years ago the McLaren F1, a supercar in every sense, "only" got 600hp out of a 6 liter V12. While costing about a million dollars.

At about a tenth of the cost of one, the 2012 ZR1 BEAT the McLaren's laptime on the 'Ring.

So yeah, how about that 10 years ago?

quote:
i just don't consider the powerplant to be an awe inspiring creation.


But throwing twin turbos on a V6 is?? There are twin turbo Corvettes you know. They put out over 1,000 HP on that same 'lame power-plant'.

It just seems like you're beating a hater for the sake of it.


RE: really??
By messele on 10/25/2012 3:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At about a tenth of the cost of one, the 2012 ZR1 BEAT the McLaren's laptime on the 'Ring.


Firstly all the fastest Viper and Corvette times were set on racing slicks, which are always a massive advantage.

Secondly the fastest Corvetta time around the Nordschelife is 7:19 (on those slicks), the McLaren F1 has completed a lap in 7:11

Best not be quoting any more "facts".


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 5:17:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Firstly all the fastest Viper and Corvette times were set on racing slicks, which are always a massive advantage.


???

And the freaking 240MPH million dollar F1 didn't have kick ass tires on it? Wtf, nigga please!

quote:
Secondly the fastest Corvetta time around the Nordschelife is 7:19 (on those slicks), the McLaren F1 has completed a lap in 7:11


Okay my source said otherwise. However considering the massive cost difference, the fact that the Corvette came within .8 seconds of the McLaren F1 doesn't make my point? On what planet!

Context, use it. It helps.


RE: really??
By messele on 10/25/2012 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Context? Hows this for context.

The McLaren F1 is not a Formula 1 car you clown. It's a three-seater road car that McLaren built in the early 90's.

It lapped the Nordschliefe in street-legal configuration. The Corvettes and Vipers did not.

...finally, the difference between 7:19 and 7:11 is not 0.8 seconds. You do realise how long this circuit is by the fact that it cannot be lapped in 7 seconds right? Come to think of it you don't actually know what the Nordschliefe is at all do you?


RE: really??
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 5:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the hell did I say it was an F1 car? If I said "F1" it was short for the McLaren F1!

quote:
...finally, the difference between 7:19 and 7:11 is not 0.8 seconds.


Grats! You called me out for an obvious typo/mistake that I was then unable to correct with an edit! You cracked the case there Inspector!

Sorry but I've made my point. The Corvette easily holds it's own against "10 year old" supercars, especially considering it's price. That was my only point, all this other crap is just static.


RE: really??
By Spuke on 10/25/2012 6:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The McLaren F1 is not a Formula 1 car you clown. It's a three-seater road car that McLaren built in the early 90's.
LOL! McLaren F1 is the name of the car. Rec didn't say it was an F1 car...clown.

Google isn't just for watching Youtube videos dude...use it to search for information sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1


RE: really??
By theapparition on 10/28/2012 11:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firstly all the fastest Viper and Corvette times were set on racing slicks, which are always a massive advantage.

I don't know where you got your information, but that is complete BS.

No, it's worse because you are perpetuating a LIE. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The ZR1 and ACR Viper times were done on stock factory tires. They weren't racing slicks and they weren't R compound either.

Grow up and argue the facts.


RE: really??
By twhittet on 10/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: really??
By ZimZum on 10/25/2012 5:58:19 AM , Rating: 3
The C6 ZR1 posted the 9th fasted lap time of any production car ever to be tested around the Nurburgring. Thats Faster than any Ferrari or Lambo thats been tested. Most of the cars ahead of it were either purpose built race cars (Radical SR8) or Go Karts (Donkervoort). Not too shabby for outdated technology to be able to smoke all but a handful of Euro Supercars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nürburgring_N...



RE: really??
By darkhawk1980 on 10/25/2012 7:14:44 AM , Rating: 3
I think you're a bit deluded. 'Smoked' is not what anyone should be calling that time.
I also might add that while not persay a 'production' car, the Shelby GT350 still smokes the ZR1, and STILL manages to cost $40k less even after modifications. That really isn't talking much value in comparison.....

But keep thinking that. It's great watching deluded Chevy fans.

*grabs popcorn*


RE: really??
By FITCamaro on 10/25/2012 9:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
How do you figure it smokes the ZR-1? Searching for times on the Nurburgring came up empty. The 2013 GT350 maxes out at 625 hp. It "might" be able to beat it in a drag race with a solid axle vs. the Vette's IRS. But on the road course? No.


RE: really??
By ZimZum on 10/25/2012 9:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a chevy fan. I just get annoyed when people crap on U.S. cars out of habit without looking at the facts. The ZR1 wipes the floor with the exotics costing upwards of a million dollars (so does the Viper) on the most demanding road coarse in the world while costing a fraction as much.


RE: really??
By messele on 10/25/2012 5:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
The times were set on slicks, which make a staggering difference and, sadly, invalidate your claims.

Post up some times on road tyres and we'll see how that pans out...


RE: really??
By KFZ on 10/26/2012 10:16:05 AM , Rating: 2
The ZR1 was tested as it would be sold, on road legal tires. Sorry if the rubber it laid down makes a poor cream for your bottom, but it is a valid production model test and your rejection is null and void.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 11:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the LS series engines are very advanced. Don't get fooled by the armchair engineer nonsense that you see on the internet by fanboys who don't understand what they're talking about.

The LS engines have a fantastic powerband, smooth power delivery, produce their peak horsepower at a practical RPM, are compact, are lightweight, and get very good fuel economy for the power they produce.

Many people are surprised by how small and light the engines are. They hear "6.2 liters" and think it's some giant, heavy engine. The engine is smaller and lighter than many V6s. The reason is that it has an aluminum block and it uses pushrods, which makes the heads much smaller than overhead cams.

People often put them in Datsun 240Zs. It's physically smaller and about the same weight as the 2.4L inline 6.


RE: really??
By Sivar on 10/25/2012 12:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is advanced.

1) DOHC engines produce more power per liter, but liters do not matter. What matters is actual size and weight of the engine. If a Corvette engine's displacement is 100L at the same size and weight as a 2L DOHC engine, it doesn't matter because it's the same size and weight.

2) DOHC engines can achieve higher RPMs than push-rod engines, but it doesn't matter. Horsepower and torque matter. If a Corvette engine can achieve 450HP at a lower RPM than a DOHC engine, nobody that has a clue cares how fast it is spinning. If you believe meaningless metrics like RPM are more important than actual results, get a rotary engine. Those can achieve insanely high RPMs.


RE: really??
By 91TTZ on 10/25/2012 5:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you believe meaningless metrics like RPM are more important than actual results, get a rotary engine. Those can achieve insanely high RPMs.


I totally agree. And even the high RPMs is a bit bogus, since the rotor only spins at 1/3 the crankshaft RPM. So at "9,000" rpm, the rotor is really spinning at 3,000 rpm.


RE: really??
By KCjoker on 10/25/2012 6:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
They could make it far more advanced but then like other exotics the price would be a lot higher.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki