Next Vette to be turboed?

[absintheisfun]

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/next-corvette-will-be-powered-by-small--high-revving-turbo-v-8.html

Interesting...I really want to see what it will look like. I know it will not be like the concept, but I'm dying to see it!

[srh3trinity]

Just read that. 3.0 Liter V8 that revs to 10K?? Wonder how much that little powerplant will weigh.

[Mr. Anderson]

Out of the tradition of naturally aspirated V8's, I don't like it. But since they will also still have those V8's AND the turbo small V8 would be in addition to it, I love the idea. 10,000 rpm would sound very very nice wound out!!!

[Six_Shooter]

It's about time GM started getting with the times and wean out the bigger is better V8 mentality.

I'd rather see a 3.0L V6 instead of a V8, simply because retaining the V8 configuration feels like it is still using the more/bigger is better mentality.

[trapin]

I know a little about this (obviously) but couldn't comment until it was out in the press.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/next-corvette-will-be-powered-by-small--high-revving-turbo-v-8.html

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. What do you think of this new direction?

[Trevon]

Terrible. An awful thing to do, I agree with all the comments. I would love to have a 'vette with the LS7 but this idea sounds gross. If people want a car with performance relative to the supercar companies they describe in they article they will go buy one, not a brand new setup from an AMERICAN car company. Even if it has the same motor as a comparable European supercar theres no way they would stay together on a track (stock vs. stock). There is plenty availability for European cars here in America if people want them, why get an American car thats trying to be European? I was happy to see the "muscle cars" coming back but this makes it look like it will be ending soon. Haha I can't even express the disgust I have if they go through with it.

[YancyJohns]

I believe GM has lost focus again, LS motors are hotter than ever right now and to move toward a 3 liter v8 turbo to go after a younger generation is the wrong direction. People like myself left GM in 90' to buy BMW and Audio because GM had very little to offer in the road handling department, quality of build, luxury interior and I hate to say it, but a 4 door for the kids. GM is on par with both company's now w/ the CTS-V and the Corvette but needs to bring back the some form of the G8 for a performance budget 4 door. The Corvette is on top right now, Why would they change?

[Happyfunballs]

"There will be several different types of engines offered for the C7, including a more classic, big-block OHV V-8 designed to appeal to traditionalists."

If I were to purchase a C7, I'd get the big block.

[Vicinity]

I like the option of the engine, but I don't want to see it in the Corvette. Corvette has always been about a big displacement naturally aspirated V8 (exception noted for ZR1).

Oh, and it better come in a small (LSx-like) package.

[Six_Shooter]

Already posted.... https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?80244-Next-Vette-to-be-turboed

Here's what I posted in that thread:

It's about time GM started getting with the times and wean out the bigger is better V8 mentality.

I'd rather see a 3.0L V6 instead of a V8, simply because retaining the V8 configuration feels like it is still using the more/bigger is better mentality.

[parsonsj]

I'm open to the idea, but my first thought was that this feels like 1971, when the LS6 offering lost 200 hp, and American car companies started that long slide that didn't stop until the 1984 C4 came out. In 20 years, I think we'll look back on the C6's LS7 as the ultimate Corvette engine.

[John Wright]

What's wrong with a LS motor in these things?....gobs of HP when you want it and 30MPG or better on the highway to boot and very civil to drive around town...what's not to like about that?

[novaderrik]

I like the option of the engine, but I don't want to see it in the Corvette. Corvette has always been about a big displacement naturally aspirated V8 (exception noted for ZR1).

Oh, and it better come in a small (LSx-like) package.

the first Corvettes had inline 6 cylinders, don't forget about the 1 year only Cease Fire 305 that was put in Corvettes sold in California..

regarding this particular engine- nope, don't do it. it totally changes what the Corvette has become. the current Vette uses big primitive cam in block OHV V8 engines that do everything better than anything anyone else makes- power, durability, driveability, mileage.
put the little baby turbo V8 in something else.

[NOPANTS-68]

Yeah I don't think this is gonna get it. Comparing a Corvette to products from Porsche and Lamborghini is a stupid move. People buy a Corvette because it is a stand alone product and distinctly American. It's about instant torque, the sound, and bold styling to me. The Z06 offered a world class performance car for $72K that could play in the big boy arena and still offer great mileage and an affordable service plan. Ever see the invoice on a Gallardo 10k service? Yikes.

Going the route of a TT 3.0 does represent change and embracing technology, but that powerplant doesn't sceam Corvette to me. I would bet it's gonna cost a bunch more money to build and package over a 6.2L LS3. I can't see it representing much of a weight advantage either with all of the oiling, intercooling, and plumbing systems over an all aluminum lsx either. Makes me wonder if GM has been pressured by some sort of "green agenda" plan to drop displacements on it's speed cars. I'll agree with Parsons in that history will show the LS7 as an awesome powerplant for this chassis.

[moreHP]

Certainly not what I was expecting. I had read the rumors of a smaller V8 and maybe having a turbo but I would have never guessed such a small engine. To be honest, it doesnt sound very corvette-ish. I like the traditional V8 with lots of low end grunt like they have now. It sounds like they will still offer the LS engine but I had to laugh at the article mentioning a big block!

[Mr.VENGEANCE]

welp... at least you aint hearing about them doing a 4 door anymore..

and JUST as the young world has caught on to LS motors in there stuff(swapping into everything.. bmw, 240sx, radio flyers.. etc)

they want to go and switch it...

[parsonsj]

Not that anyone cares, but my plan for the C7 would have been to:
1. Retain the 427 LS7 engine architecture and fix the edges. There are reports of failure during high-g left turns, bump the power up, raise the redline, etc. Add a valet setting.
2. Re-do the interior. Fix the F-in seats! Offer premium stereo, phone/car/house integration, track restraint systems, etc.
3. Restyle the exterior. Make the car shorter, narrower, and lighter. Perhaps pay homage to the Stringray of the late 60s.
4. Add spring/shock/brake options. Bring some of the ZR1 stuff back to the Z06. Send the ZR1 to Corvette Heaven.
5. Upgrade the paddle shift automatic to a crisper feel. Continue the excellent work on electronic driving control, but with over-rides.
6. Make the car turn-in quicker (the Z06's sluggish response to driver input makes me crazy!).
7. Integrate a 180 degree exhaust setup. Then it'll sound like the exotic sports car that it is.

But that's just me. :)

[John Wright]

rWPnidhsAms

remember this?

[trapin]

2. Re-do the interior. Fix the F-in seats! Offer premium stereo, phone/car/house integration, track restraint systems, etc.
Meanwhile, expect the interior to be much more modern than the current car’s, which GM’s global design chief Ed Welburn admits “is a disappointment.” The styling boss, a long-time Corvette fan himself, says he is personally overseeing the development of the C7 interior and promises it will be “absolutely world-class.”

Knowing Ed, I don't doubt him. He'll bring it.

[John Wright]

zHAT-_dQ3B4&NR

another concept...

[trapin]

I agree with some of your sentiments regarding the small displacement/high revving V8 but the fact that they are still going to make an LSX powerplant available I think renders that concern irrelevant.

If you don't want the small V8...don't get it. Simple as that.

[406 Q-ship]

I think it goes against the hertiage of the Corvette. Even a 400 hp 3.0 liter at 9500 to 10k RPM with a TT still will make like 80 lbs/ft at 2000 rpm, that is the problem with a high performance Honda, no torque. I could see a 5.0 liter TT in the Corvette but not a tiny 3.0 liter that needs to be spun to the moon to make HP. I drove the 1989 ZR-1 (actually a GM prototype for the 1990 with 405 hp) and the Guldstrand GS80 with the Traco 372, the Traco had torque and was a ball to drive, the ZR-1 was lazy until it got to 3500 RPM. Build torque and HP will take care of itself. Horsepower is an advertising number, torque is what moves you.

[Vicinity]

the first Corvettes had inline 6 cylinders, don't forget about the 1 year only Cease Fire 305 that was put in Corvettes sold in California..

regarding this particular engine- nope, don't do it. it totally changes what the Corvette has become. the current Vette uses big primitive cam in block OHV V8 engines that do everything better than anything anyone else makes- power, durability, driveability, mileage.
put the little baby turbo V8 in something else.

Yes, I know. I was generalizing, just as if I said "It's an American tradition for a Corvette to come out every year since 1953". Obviously incorrect, but you get the point.

[Mkelcy]

I like the idea IF they also put the C7 on a serious diet.

I wouldn't consider buying a Corvette as they are now. My "affordable" sports car of choice currently is a Porsche Cayman S - a mid-engine, intrinsically good handling car, great chassis stiffness, relatively light weight, and on and on.

If the C7 were a much lighter, hopefully mid-engine, better built car with better materials and a serious cockpit – I’d be very interested in it. The only bad part of the report is that they'll still be offering the LSx engine - which means that the entire car will have to be compromised to accommodate it and may well put the kibosh on a mid-engine configuration.

[John Wright]

http://www.ecarspec.com/1716/2013-chevrolet-corvette-c7-concept-car/


https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[evostilo]

You Guys aren't gonna like it but its true!

Im 26 and got into this pro touring because of LSX swaps, The younger GEN wants modern power and interiors, brakes ect... and i think that a few years from know ill be swaping my LSX in my 68camaro for a more modern faster, lighter more fule friendly turbo V8.

Lets not forget that corvetts came to be beacuse GM wanted a Euro inspired sports car. Lets just hope it still keeps some american stlying.

[Steven]

no no no, this is not good

[trapin]

You Guys aren't gonna like it but its true!

Im 26 and got into this pro touring because of LSX swaps, The younger GEN wants modern power and interiors, brakes ect... and i think that a few years from know ill be swaping my LSX in my 68camaro for a more modern faster, lighter more fule friendly turbo V8.

Lets not forget that corvetts came to be beacuse GM wanted a Euro inspired sports car. Lets just hope it still keeps some american stlying.
This quote from the article speaks along those lines.....

"....several well-placed sources have given TheDetroitBureau.com a good sense of what’s to come. The small V-8 underscores what one of those insiders says is the desire to “target a very different sort of buyer for the next Corvette. Let’s face it, the current customer is getting old.” But without making significant changes, that source acknowledged, younger sports car fans will continue to be “conquested” by more modern, high-tech imports."

I agree completely. You can deny it till your blue in the face but what you can't deny is that for the Corvette to survive it MUST evolve. It can't just continue being what it is forever.

[John Wright]

Well, I do see alot of old people driving Vettes...LOL......mid-lifers out to re-capture their youth, or maybe finally have their house paid off and can finally swing the Vette payments.

[gordonquixote]

I was just watching youtube videos of Z06s spanking Ferraris/Lambos yesterday and thinking about how sweet the LS motor is. To each their own...I would definitely like to hear a sound clip of a 10,000 rpm chevy SB though!

[dropped72ss]

If u want a european car Buy one!!!! Don't DESTROY one of the last american musclecars!

[Vicinity]

I was just watching youtube videos of Z06s spanking Ferraris/Lambos yesterday and thinking about how sweet the LS motor is. To each their own...I would definitely like to hear a sound clip of a 10,000 rpm chevy SB though!

That's just the thing, this engine will not be a Chevy small block.

[Damn True]

Remember when people complained about the announcement of the "new" LS-x format engine? I do. How's that turn out?

[Off Duty]

Out of the tradition of naturally aspirated V8's, I don't like it. But since they will also still have those V8's AND the turbo small V8 would be in addition to it, I love the idea. 10,000 rpm would sound very very nice wound out!!!

Yeah, now they can sound like the ricers or eurocars they seem to despise so much:rotfl:

[dontlifttoshift]

. Let’s face it, the current customer is getting old.” But without making significant changes, that source acknowledged, younger sports car fans will continue to be “conquested” by more modern, high-tech imports."

.

I have been hearing this forever about street rods, that they are getting older and the hobby will no longer exist.....ever see many young dudes at the yacht club?

yes the corvette has to evolve but it does not have to make a drastic departure from its basic architecture to do so. I think we all agree that the C5 is light years ahead of the C4 and from what I see the C6 is better yet, so keep refining. There has never been a revolution at Porsche but they have managed to evolve a beetle (basically) into the world class cars they are today by just picking at it a little at a time.

FWIW the bigger tires go in back, the motor goes in the front, that's just the way it should be.

[Vicinity]

I have been hearing this forever about street rods, that they are getting older and the hobby will no longer exist.....ever see many young dudes at the yacht club?

yes the corvette has to evolve but it does not have to make a drastic departure from its basic architecture to do so. I think we all agree that the C5 is light years ahead of the C4 and from what I see the C6 is better yet, so keep refining. There has never been a revolution at Porsche but they have managed to evolve a beetle (basically) into the world class cars they are today by just picking at it a little at a time.

FWIW the bigger tires go in back, the motor goes in the front, that's just the way it should be.

Motor should go in the middle. I really want a mid-engined car.

[Derek69SS]

Sounds cool if the car also gets smaller... little engine in big car sounds like a bad idea to me.

Get it down to the size and weight of a Lotus Exige, and I'd embrace a small engine to go with it...

[Mkelcy]

yes the corvette has to evolve but it does not have to make a drastic departure from its basic architecture to do so. I think we all agree that the C5 is light years ahead of the C4 and from what I see the C6 is better yet, so keep refining. There has never been a revolution at Porsche but they have managed to evolve a beetle (basically) into the world class cars they are today by just picking at it a little at a time.

Actually, there has been a revolution at Porsche and they are struggling to deal with it. The rear egnine 911 is their bread and butter, top of the line car - what people think of when they think Porsche.

Fortunately or unfortunately for Porsche, they developed the Cayman - which is simply a better design with intrinsically better handling based on the mid engine architecture. Porsche, so far, has handicapped the Cayman in terms of horsepower to keep the 911 at the top of the heap. But they also recognize that serious sports car buyers know that the Cayman is the sports car platform for Porsche's future.

[Damn True]

Sounds cool if the car also gets smaller... little engine in big car sounds like a bad idea to me.

Get it down to the size and weight of a Lotus Exige, and I'd embrace a small engine to go with it...

I'm with you on the necessity of reducing the size/weight of the Vette. But I think Lotus as a template is too far in the other direction. Ever been in an Exige? I freakin love the things, but they are super super tiny. The average vette customer would not be keen on the interior dimensions of a car that small.

[dontlifttoshift]

Motor should go in the middle. I really want a mid-engined car.

Build one! Corvair is a good start....

Actually, there has been a revolution at Porsche and they are struggling to deal with it. The rear egnine 911 is their bread and butter, top of the line car - what people think of when they think Porsche.

Fortunately or unfortunately for Porsche, they developed the Cayman - which is simply a better design with intrinsically better handling based on the mid engine architecture. Porsche, so far, has handicapped the Cayman in terms of horsepower to keep the 911 at the top of the heap. But they also recognize that serious sports car buyers know that the Cayman is the sports car
platform for Porsche's future.

fair enough, but we agree that the 911 is pretty damn decent. Porsche didn't throw away the 911 and replace it, they did a different car.

[trapin]

No such thing as a small block Chevy anymore, and there never will be again. LSX is a GM Powertrain engine, this new one will probably be the same.

As far as getting the weight down, the Corvette ZO6 is 3175lbs and the Ferrari 360 is 3185lbs. The Porsche 911 Turbo comes in at a hefty 3461lbs. Don't believe me? Google it. Sounds like the ZO6 is one of the lighter sports cars in the industry already. If you want it below 3 bills then you're talking V6. .....and nobody wants to go there, do they?

[parsonsj]

One day I want to own a mid-engine car. I even toyed with the idea of building a Factory Five GTM. If GM makes a mid-engine Corvette, I'd be all over it.

[ArtosDracon]

I'm 25, homeowner, making decent money. I'm your target demographic for these, and I'd rather have an LS7. Nuff Said.

[Vegas69]

I don't mind the option to spread out the demographics a little and give us a more economical option. If they make it look exotic, lambo, ferrari, etc, they may be in some trouble. Most of the corvette owners are still over the hill and I think it misses the mark. Exotic guys buy them for two reasons. They can, and they think their **** don't stink. They would never buy a corvette that is on every other corner. Old red necks in Iowa still want a corvette with v8 power.

I'm sure GM has done their homework and they want to appeal to a larger audience. How the large cut of the pie feels about attracting the other sliver is yet to be seen. Of course, with gas at 4 bucks a gallon.....

[novaderrik]

why does this have to be a Corvette? use the same concept and sell it as a Cadillac while keeping the Vette more or less what it is.

[Six_Shooter]

Because the car market is evolving. Big engines, that make between 300 and 400 HP get less than 25 MPG are way less desirable than a smaller engine (turbo usually), that makes 300 to 400 HP and gets 30+ MPG.

Most cars, even the performance/sports cars don't need an N/A engine that makes anywhere near 300 HP, they need less than 100 HP most of the time, and only short bursts of power, and people are starting to realize just how great small displacement forced induction engine are to get both power and economy.

As I said earlier I'd rather see a turbo 3.0L V6 that makes 400 HP, than a V8 that makes the same power.

[Off Duty]

I'm 25, homeowner, making decent money. I'm your target demographic for these, and I'd rather have an LS7. Nuff Said.

Not really. That's just what "you" want.
One opinion doesn't really determine what the target demographic wants.
To really understand the demographics, they're going to have to do studies. Studies cost $$$ and add to the cost of the car.


Because the car market is evolving. Big engines, that make between 300 and 400 HP get less than 25 MPG are way less desirable than a smaller engine (turbo usually), that makes 300 to 400 HP and gets 30+ MPG.

Most cars, even the performance/sports cars don't need an N/A engine that makes anywhere near 300 HP, they need less than 100 HP most of the time, and only short bursts of power, and people are starting to realize just how great small displacement forced induction engine are to get both power and economy.

As I said earlier I'd rather see a turbo 3.0L V6 that makes 400 HP, than a V8 that makes the same power.

HP is HP and torque is torque, regardless of the number of cylinders and how it's made.
Most of what I've seen, read and heard over my many years associated with the Corvette crowd, is a my ****'s bigger than yours attitude when discussing engines, and ANY discussion of any motor with less than 8 cylinders is considered taboo!

There's also the argument that the same V8 with the same turbo/supercharger, will make more hp/tq easier, and on and on, ad nauseum.

One day we'll realize, that you don't need a huge C.I., 8-10 cyl, NA engine to make 3-400 hp.
I hate to say it, but the ricer crowd figured that out long ago.

There's a lot that can and probably should be done to the Corvette to make it more marketable to a larger segment of the population.
In many cases, unless the buyer has a large expendable income, most of the market share is going to the older crowd first.
They have on the average, more expendable cash, no children to haul around, etc etc.
The younger crown, doesn't necessarily have the $$$ since they're usually just starting their careers, and somewhere in there, marriage and kids usually come along.
A 2 seater becomes a luxury or a toy, that most budding families simply can't justify, especially in this economy and that of the foreseeable future.

Obviously this is a general statement and as the above member stated, its not always the case. He's young and has the $$$$.

Finally, with fuel prices rising and with fuel availability inevitably becoming more of an issue, something will eventually have to change.
We as humans tend to resist change, yet usually acclimate to it once it's here:)

[absintheisfun]

Guys, no offense meant by this because we are all car guys but why not wait and see it before you destroy it. I always had a "no Replacement for displacement" mantality. I was kind of excited to hear about it and glad to see that GM is looking to embrace different technologies.

Of the people that are upset by this move, how many of you have actually bought a vette? Not a C3 or older and rebuilt them....How many have actually gone to a lot and purchased a brand new one? I think that you might find that the thoughts and desires of the enthusiast and the thoughts and desires of the buyer differ. As much as you might not like to hear it, I'm sure GM is building these for the buyer, not the enthusiast and I'm very sure that they have done their research on what the customer wants....which is why they are going to still offer the traditional powerplants. The TT small V8 is just one of the options avail.

The reality is that the Government and tree huggers are making it increasingly difficult to create a powerful beast of a vehicle. Everyone has to come up with something to follow the law and still cater to power hungry customers.

As for me I am intrigued. I'm excited to see that the Corvette is going to stick around

[moreHP]

They have to keep it a V8 simply because a V6 sounds weak even if it isnt...if that makes sense. The exhaust note of a V6 doesnt exactly scream power even if its twin turboed. If the Corvette lost its V8 rumble, I think every generation would be disapointed.

[Ron.in.SoCal]

"The reality is that the Government and tree huggers are making it increasingly difficult to create a powerful beast of a vehicle. Everyone has to come up with something to follow the law and still cater to power hungry customers."

I agree w this statement. During the car bail out power grab that's all I kept hearing. And don't get me started on who put GM in harms way to begin with.

[ace_xp2]

It's too bad they don't appear to be keeping the lsx architecture for the new one. A,short stroke (maybe even flat plane?) crank, and some kind of dohc conversion would've been pretty sweet for parts to swap.

[Six_Shooter]

Using a V6 instead of a V8 can add to the efficiency. With a V6, there is usually less rotating and reciprocating mass, along with less frictional losses, when compared to same or similar displacement V8s.

[WS6]

You can thank the new CAFE regulations for this move.

Why does everyone think American cars are heavy? I hear this time and time again from people talking about American sports cars. Tony already posted on it but the Vette and Viper are some of the lightest supercars made that you might actually see on the road. Don't compare these cars to a Zonda or CCr. That's a BS comparison. Look at Porsches, Ferrari's, and Lambos ie the cars being passed by both the Vette and Viper on the race track. You'll find that the "fat" American cars weight no more if not less that the sleak and trim European models.

True also brought up a point that was made back in the 90s. Many people bemoaned Chevy's obviously backwards thinking in keeping a traditional pushrod OHV engine design in their new supposedly world class vette. Why weren't they doing like Ford and stepping into the new millennium and going with an OHC design? You know those world class engines that are physically huge, unfriendly to being modified unless unnaturally aspirated, hard to work on, and expensive as hell to do anything with engines. How did that work out for the nay sayers?

Variety is the spice of life. If we were being forced to accept the turbo engine as the only option, I'd be disappointed. Personally, I can't wait to see on in person and hope it turns out very well for GM. I expect it to sound weird compared to a "normal" vette but I have never heard anyone say they would not drive a Viper because the exhaust note is weird(for those that haven't heard them, they really do sound weird, lol).

Make it fast, make it compete on the world stage, and make it a quality product so I can have something to continue to slap Euroweenies around with and I'll support it and be happy it wears an American badge. That's all I ask.

[Vicinity]

Using a V6 instead of a V8 can add to the efficiency. With a V6, there is usually less rotating and reciprocating mass, along with less frictional losses, when compared to same or similar displacement V8s.

When you hear the word "Corvette", what do you think?

Because my mind isn't within 100 miles of the term "V6".

[WS6]

Oh and my vette of choice is the high revving gut less down low solid cam LT1 from 69-72. I'll take one of those over a BB vette any day. They stayed on the bumper of BB vettes during a drag race and walked away from them on a road circuit. Sweet sounding motors especially as they approach 7k.

[Six_Shooter]

When you hear the word "Corvette", what do you think?

Because my mind isn't within 100 miles of the term "V6".

When I hear "Corvette", I think of an ugly over rated sports car. FWIW, I do like the '50s and mid '60s 'Vettes, but mostly from style view, not anything to do with their power plants.

GM should have stuck with the LT5 for a few more years, that's about the only V8 that I would actually desire to own. Imagine how advanced the GM performance offerings would be by now if they had. There likely wouldn't have been an LSx.

Put a turbo V6 in a Corvette and I'll applaud GM, for doing it, and not allowing themselves to remain in the "more is better mentality." Times are changing and there are much more efficient ways to make power than lots of cylinders.

[Chad-1stGen]

I only have one concern. The cost. Mid engine designs cost money. High tech high revving turbo motors cost money...

[WS6]

GM should have stuck with the LT5 for a few more years, that's about the only V8 that I would actually desire to own. Imagine how advanced the GM performance offerings would be by now if they had. There likely wouldn't have been an LSx.



While you're entitled to your own opinion, that's a rather ignorant statement. The LS1 was in development while the LT5 existed and was being refined. What do you think is so much better about the LT5 than say the LS7? The LSx based engines are rather remarkable on many fronts from weight, to physical size, to economics, to versatility, and not to mention shear efficiency. Who else has made an NA motor with 505 horse power, a 7k rpm redline, dry sump oiling, and that gets 26 mpg all while being affordable and passing strict emissions compliance as well as noise compliances? All this while being massed produced. The LT5 can hardly claim mass production as it was built by Mercury Marine and not in house by GM. The LT5 is also physically large and heavy. Personally, I'm impressed with both engines and am glad GM has built them all.

[Off Duty]

They have to keep it a V8 simply because a V6 sounds weak even if it isnt...if that makes sense. The exhaust note of a V6 doesnt exactly scream power even if its twin turboed. If the Corvette lost its V8 rumble, I think every generation would be disapointed.

It's thinking like this that continues to stymie the performance industry.
Basing a vehicles ability, performance or power on it's "sound" is ludicrous.

While I'll admit that I don't care for the goofy "rumble" of the V6 4th gen Camaro's, that's mostly an exhaust design issues and can be remedied.

But based on the premise your mention, Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Formula1 cars, etc., should be totally lame;).


You can thank the new CAFE regulations for this move.
Amen! :(


I expect it to sound weird compared to a "normal" vette but I have never heard anyone say they would not drive a Viper because the exhaust note is weird(for those that haven't heard them, they really do sound weird, lol).

Exactly!
Vipers have an interesting sound to them. But they're still quick as hell:)


Make it fast, make it compete on the world stage, and make it a quality product so I can have something to continue to slap Euroweenies around with and I'll support it and be happy it wears an American badge. That's all I ask
Amen brother!


When you hear the word "Corvette", what do you think?
Because my mind isn't within 100 miles of the term "V6".

Right off the bat...retirees;)
After hanging around the "vette" crowd for many many years, I've actually adopted a more jaundiced attitude toward them.
When someone mentions the newer vettes, I generally think of people that are willing and/or able, to plunk down gobs of cash for "status."
Pompous, arrogant types that would rather talk about waxes and floor mats, and bolt on's, than real performance.
the type that would have looked down their noses at the Camaro owner as a group of mullet wearing trailer dwellers, and poo poo vipers and euro muscle, simply because it's not GM.

Now I realize that this is a very generalized statement and not true of a lot of vette owners, but after my last stint, well, that's kind of where it goes for me now:(

And when I see one on the road, unless there's something that really makes it stand out, it just doesn't excite me anymore:(
I'd rather see a 60's 70' Super Bee, Mustang, a Rat or hot rod, or a 60-70's model Camaro, impala, Biscayne, you get the idea, than another vette.

The ZR1 isn't distinct enough to be separated from the others at a glance, and the Z06's are everywhere.
The GS has assumed the look and most of the feel of the Z06 and they're popping up everywhere too...except the track (lol).


When I hear "Corvette", I think of an ugly over rated sports car. FWIW, I do like the '50s and mid '60s 'Vettes, but mostly from style view, not anything to do with their power plants.

I think "mundane" unless the owner has done something to make it stand out.


GM should have stuck with the LT5 for a few more years, that's about the only V8 that I would actually desire to own. Imagine how advanced the GM performance offerings would be by now if they had. There likely wouldn't have been an LSx.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that assessment?
The LT5 was quite the engine for it's time; however, hard to work on and expensive to repair.
I think the LS was a normal and good progression for GM.


Put a turbo V6 in a Corvette and I'll applaud GM, for doing it, and not allowing themselves to remain in the "more is better mentality." Times are changing and there are much more efficient ways to make power than lots of cylinders.

As long as it has the balls to back up the nameplate, I'm in.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind a high revving twin turbo'd V6 in a lightweight vette platform:)

Imagine this, quiet at normal operation, and when you stand on it, the scream of an F1 racer at full tilt!!
A blur and tail lights......yeah, that'd work for me:)

[Vicinity]

I only have one concern. The cost. Mid engine designs cost money. High tech high revving turbo motors cost money...

FWIW, the LS7 isn't what I'd consider cheap.

[novaderrik]

When I hear "Corvette", I think of an ugly over rated sports car. FWIW, I do like the '50s and mid '60s 'Vettes, but mostly from style view, not anything to do with their power plants.

GM should have stuck with the LT5 for a few more years, that's about the only V8 that I would actually desire to own. Imagine how advanced the GM performance offerings would be by now if they had. There likely wouldn't have been an LSx.

Put a turbo V6 in a Corvette and I'll applaud GM, for doing it, and not allowing themselves to remain in the "more is better mentality." Times are changing and there are much more efficient ways to make power than lots of cylinders.

one of my uncles has an early 90's ZR1.. he's thrown about $10k at the engine to make it faster at Doug Rippie Motorsports. after all that, it dynoed at 405hp at the wheels and he had stock Z06 Vettes blowing past him on the long straight at Brainerd last summer. he says it gets 15mpg on a good day. he had to pay almost $1000 for some tubing or something that controls the secondary butterflies in the intake manifold- that was just for parts, he put them in himself. his oil changes are rather expensive- 12 quarts of good synthetic oil costs about as much as a tank of gas.. yeah, the LT5 sure was an awesome engine- it gives you not even close to supercar performance with supercar maintenence and upgrade costs.

he wants to sell it for whatever he can get for it and get a stock Z06, which he will then drop off at DRM for some work.

[Six_Shooter]

Hmmm...

I've been doing some research, and at the time the LT5 was the most powerful engine that GM produced in the 5.7L displacement. When comparing 5.7L engines across the board, including the newer LSx in the 5.7L displacement (LS1), the LT5 still had more HP and torque.

Now compare that to the Nissan 5.6L VK56DE, which is a current offering from Nissan in their Titan trucks and the rated HP is over 400 HP. To get this kind of power out of an LS engine GM had to go to a displacement of 7.0L (LS7). Imagine what kind of power the the Nissan engine could produce if increased to 7.0L or even the LT5!

The Toyota 3UR-FE which is a 5.7L DOHC produces 381 HP and over 400 ft/lbs of torque.

Take a look at the Northstar, it's only 4.6L and produces about 300 HP and about the same in torque.

The point here is to show that the LT5 really was, and still is, a great engine producing similar power output 20+ years ago, to what current same design similar displacement engines, albeit from other manufactures are producing today. Imagine what GM really could have done if they kept developing the LT5, instead of going with the cheaper to produce LSx?

Lets look at V6 DOHC engines.

The 3.4 DOHC that was produced in the mid '90s and based on the 60 degree V6 design, was said to be "de-tuned" for production to produce 210 HP from '91 to '93 and then increased to 215 HP in '94 to '97. That's more power than the pushrod V8s at the time, especially when looking at overall efficiency in HP/liter. ;)

Looking at the Shortstar, a 3.5L DOHC V6, produces 215 HP and 234 ft/lbs.

The LLT from the 2011 Camaro produces over 300 HP and just shy of 300 Ft/lbs of torque, from 3.6L. Though this engine does use Direct Injection which does help create more power through higher efficiency of fuel transfer into the cylinder and better atomization, but shows the direction of things to come. In the same Camaro an increase in displacement to of 2.6L by going to the L99 the power only goes up by about 10 HP, jump to the LS3, and the same displacement (6.2L) produces a mere 122 HP more.

The DOHC is just a superior flowing design that makes for a much more efficient engine. Yes complexity is higher and cost is generally high because of that, but that's to be expected, when trying to gain efficiency.


http://www.zr1netregistry.com/ZR1_specs.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LT_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
http://www.thirdgen.org/1992-chevy-camaro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VK_engine
http://www.quickstreettrucks.com/showthread.php?192-Nissan-Titan-VK56DE-Engine-Specs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_UR_engine#5.7-liter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kapk5p7HEo <- LT5 video from Motor Week in the early '90s
http://www.zr1specialist.com/HAT%20Web/presentations/Upgrade%20Paths1b.pdf Some recipes for getting plenty of power out of the LT5 with the limited aftermarket support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine#LQ1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series#LX5_.28Shortstar.29
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/wiki.php?title=LLT+engine+specifications

I have to say thanks for making me do this research, I'm now re-thinking the engine that I will be swapping into my Datsun, I'm now considering a DOHC (again). :)

[ace_xp2]

Last I checked, the Zr1 was a 600 pound engine. Whereas the ls1, with everything, even the wiring harness and pcm, comes in around 480.
Adding a hundred twenty pounds to the car for and extra thirty horsepower is a pretty tough sell.
LT5 weight (assuming it's full dressed):
http://www.35pickup.com/mulligan/weight.txt
LS1 fully dressed (can't find the original thread):
http://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php?p=2594964&postcount=18

[novaderrik]

Hmmm...

I've been doing some research, and at the time the LT5 was the most powerful engine that GM produced in the 5.7L displacement. When comparing 5.7L engines across the board, including the newer LSx in the 5.7L displacement (LS1), the LT5 still had more HP and torque.

Now compare that to the Nissan 5.6L VK56DE, which is a current offering from Nissan in their Titan trucks and the rated HP is over 400 HP. To get this kind of power out of an LS engine GM had to go to a displacement of 7.0L (LS7). Imagine what kind of power the the Nissan engine could produce if increased to 7.0L or even the LT5!

The Toyota 3UR-FE which is a 5.7L DOHC produces 381 HP and over 400 ft/lbs of torque.

Take a look at the Northstar, it's only 4.6L and produces about 300 HP and about the same in torque.

The point here is to show that the LT5 really was, and still is, a great engine producing similar power output 20+ years ago, to what current same design similar displacement engines, albeit from other manufactures are producing today. Imagine what GM really could have done if they kept developing the LT5, instead of going with the cheaper to produce LSx?

Lets look at V6 DOHC engines.

The 3.4 DOHC that was produced in the mid '90s and based on the 60 degree V6 design, was said to be "de-tuned" for production to produce 210 HP from '91 to '93 and then increased to 215 HP in '94 to '97. That's more power than the pushrod V8s at the time, especially when looking at overall efficiency in HP/liter. ;)

Looking at the Shortstar, a 3.5L DOHC V6, produces 215 HP and 234 ft/lbs.

The LLT from the 2011 Camaro produces over 300 HP and just shy of 300 Ft/lbs of torque, from 3.6L. Though this engine does use Direct Injection which does help create more power through higher efficiency of fuel transfer into the cylinder and better atomization, but shows the direction of things to come. In the same Camaro an increase in displacement to of 2.6L by going to the L99 the power only goes up by about 10 HP, jump to the LS3, and the same displacement (6.2L) produces a mere 122 HP more.

The DOHC is just a superior flowing design that makes for a much more efficient engine. Yes complexity is higher and cost is generally high because of that, but that's to be expected, when trying to gain efficiency.


http://www.zr1netregistry.com/ZR1_specs.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LT_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
http://www.thirdgen.org/1992-chevy-camaro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VK_engine
http://www.quickstreettrucks.com/showthread.php?192-Nissan-Titan-VK56DE-Engine-Specs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_UR_engine#5.7-liter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kapk5p7HEo <- LT5 video from Motor Week in the early '90s
http://www.zr1specialist.com/HAT%20Web/presentations/Upgrade%20Paths1b.pdf Some recipes for getting plenty of power out of the LT5 with the limited aftermarket support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine#LQ1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series#LX5_.28Shortstar.29
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/wiki.php?title=LLT+engine+specifications

I have to say thanks for making me do this research, I'm now re-thinking the engine that I will be swapping into my Datsun, I'm now considering a DOHC (again). :)

if you drove and raced numbers or if the "cool" look of a DOHC engine helped offset the extra complexity and mass in any way, then you'd be onto something.. ask any 3.4 Lumina or Monte Carlo, LT5 Corvette, or Cadillac Northstar/Olds Aurora owner what they think of their awesome engines after simple things like alternator or timing chains/belts go out.

[Six_Shooter]

I know a lot of 3.4 DOHC owners who love their engines, yes the alternator is in a poor location, but that has been said for many other engines as well.

I also know of many people who like their N*s.

You'll find people on both sides of the like or dislike fence for anything.

As for the weight comparison, there's also the more complex aluminum intake vs the composite LS1 intake to add to the weight, not just the more complex valve train. As a comparison to a more concurrent engine to the LS1, the Northstar, which yes has less displacement, but makes about 300 HP weighs 413 lbs ready to run.

As a weight comparison to a similar displacement DOHC the 5.6L Titan engine, it weighs 530 lbs. I use this engine to show that a similar engine can be made much lighter, as more development is made. I'm sure GM could get a similar engine to the LT5 to be much lighter than it was back in the early '90s, along with even more efficiency.

There's a reason why more and more engines are being made with DOHC than OHV. ;)

I can't wait for the day when the Corvette either has a small displacement DOHC, less than 8 cylinders (again) or an all electric drivetrain. :D

http://grannys.tripod.com/enginescadillac.html
http://www.quickstreettrucks.com/showthread.php?192-Nissan-Titan-VK56DE-Engine-Specs
http://www.xceedspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46288&page=1

[79-TA]

Because the car market is evolving. Big engines, that make between 300 and 400 HP get less than 25 MPG are way less desirable than a smaller engine (turbo usually), that makes 300 to 400 HP and gets 30+ MPG.

Most cars, even the performance/sports cars don't need an N/A engine that makes anywhere near 300 HP, they need less than 100 HP most of the time, and only short bursts of power, and people are starting to realize just how great small displacement forced induction engine are to get both power and economy.

As I said earlier I'd rather see a turbo 3.0L V6 that makes 400 HP, than a V8 that makes the same power.


Please, do show me this 400 hp car that gets an EPA rated 30 mpg. Corvettes can hit those numbers on the highway, so I'm not seeing what's so braggable here . . .



When I hear "Corvette", I think of an ugly over rated sports car. FWIW, I do like the '50s and mid '60s 'Vettes, but mostly from style view, not anything to do with their power plants.

GM should have stuck with the LT5 for a few more years, that's about the only V8 that I would actually desire to own. Imagine how advanced the GM performance offerings would be by now if they had. There likely wouldn't have been an LSx.

Put a turbo V6 in a Corvette and I'll applaud GM, for doing it, and not allowing themselves to remain in the "more is better mentality." Times are changing and there are much more efficient ways to make power than lots of cylinders.

. . . says the guy who owns a Z . . .

Anyway, you complain about a more is better attitude while at the same time promoting more valves, more cams, more complexity, and more weight. DOHC is not inherently high tech nor that new. It's been around since the 20's or before!




Hmmm...

I've been doing some research, and at the time the LT5 was the most powerful engine that GM produced in the 5.7L displacement. When comparing 5.7L engines across the board, including the newer LSx in the 5.7L displacement (LS1), the LT5 still had more HP and torque.


Come on, LS6! The LS6 was also better on gas while producing the same power with a better torque curve.

You conveniently skipped over every version of the LS2 and LS3 to make a more dramatic point with the LS7.




Now compare that to the Nissan 5.6L VK56DE, which is a current offering from Nissan in their Titan trucks and the rated HP is over 400 HP. To get this kind of power out of an LS engine GM had to go to a displacement of 7.0L (LS7). Imagine what kind of power the the Nissan engine could produce if increased to 7.0L or even the LT5!

The Toyota 3UR-FE which is a 5.7L DOHC produces 381 HP and over 400 ft/lbs of torque.

Take a look at the Northstar, it's only 4.6L and produces about 300 HP and about the same in torque.

The point here is to show that the LT5 really was, and still is, a great engine producing similar power output 20+ years ago, to what current same design similar displacement engines, albeit from other manufactures are producing today. Imagine what GM really could have done if they kept developing the LT5, instead of going with the cheaper to produce LSx?


Your argument seems to have no understanding of the laws of scaling or diminishing returns. Did you ever wonder why an ant can lift so much more than its own bodyweight? It's not because its design is so superior to any larger animal, it's because of its scale. Smaller things have better strength and power to weight ratios. You can't just scale up an engine or displacement and get proportional results.


Anyway, in a performance application the bottom line is (average) power per amount of weight. Here, try on an "advanced" dohc Miata engine next to an LS.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[novaderrik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yKb6iSWc0k

this is why a Corvette should never get a small engine that revs to the moon- he hit 180+ mph on the front straight on the 'Ring and was barely over 6000 rpm. and it just sounds s-w-e-e-t.
let the Ferrari and Lambo guys have their shrieking high rpm engines, but keep a proper low revving big displacement V8 under the hood of a Corvette.

[WS6]

Six, you're absolutely correct that the LT5 is a fantastic motor and that many other options are out there that produce similar or better results and are arguably more efficient than current offerings. My point was that while the LSx engines appear on paper to be nothing special or exotic nothing could be further from the truth. They meet and exceed so many requirements needed in a mass production part. They are fantastic engines wrapped in a simple design and they compete and win on the world stage against "more advanced" designs. Look into all the advancements they made on an "out dated" design and it should make you question is the design really out dated or did people simply give up on it? How many years of producing in mass scale this simple engine that gets better and better with ever new design will it take for people to accept that they have not reached the pinnacle of that design and that they shouldn't write it off as not being advanced?

And please don't start this efficiency per liter or horsepower per liter argument. It holds absolutely no weight in the real world.

One question I do have though is in your research, did you find any flow numbers for the LT5 heads? Yes, it is easier to fill a cylinder within a finite span of time more completely with multiple valves but I'm just curious to know how the 4 valve LT5 head compares to the 2 valve LSx head. I'm betting the numbers would be surprising for both engines.

[EFI69Cam]

Hmmm...

I've been doing some research, and at the time the LT5 was the most powerful engine that GM produced in the 5.7L displacement. When comparing 5.7L engines across the board, including the newer LSx in the 5.7L displacement (LS1), the LT5 still had more HP and torque.

Now compare that to the Nissan 5.6L VK56DE, which is a current offering from Nissan in their Titan trucks and the rated HP is over 400 HP. To get this kind of power out of an LS engine GM had to go to a displacement of 7.0L (LS7). Imagine what kind of power the the Nissan engine could produce if increased to 7.0L or even the LT5!

The Toyota 3UR-FE which is a 5.7L DOHC produces 381 HP and over 400 ft/lbs of torque.

Take a look at the Northstar, it's only 4.6L and produces about 300 HP and about the same in torque.

The point here is to show that the LT5 really was, and still is, a great engine producing similar power output 20+ years ago, to what current same design similar displacement engines, albeit from other manufactures are producing today. Imagine what GM really could have done if they kept developing the LT5, instead of going with the cheaper to produce LSx?

Lets look at V6 DOHC engines.

The 3.4 DOHC that was produced in the mid '90s and based on the 60 degree V6 design, was said to be "de-tuned" for production to produce 210 HP from '91 to '93 and then increased to 215 HP in '94 to '97. That's more power than the pushrod V8s at the time, especially when looking at overall efficiency in HP/liter. ;)

Looking at the Shortstar, a 3.5L DOHC V6, produces 215 HP and 234 ft/lbs.

The LLT from the 2011 Camaro produces over 300 HP and just shy of 300 Ft/lbs of torque, from 3.6L. Though this engine does use Direct Injection which does help create more power through higher efficiency of fuel transfer into the cylinder and better atomization, but shows the direction of things to come. In the same Camaro an increase in displacement to of 2.6L by going to the L99 the power only goes up by about 10 HP, jump to the LS3, and the same displacement (6.2L) produces a mere 122 HP more.

The DOHC is just a superior flowing design that makes for a much more efficient engine. Yes complexity is higher and cost is generally high because of that, but that's to be expected, when trying to gain efficiency.


http://www.zr1netregistry.com/ZR1_specs.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LT_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
http://www.thirdgen.org/1992-chevy-camaro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VK_engine
http://www.quickstreettrucks.com/showthread.php?192-Nissan-Titan-VK56DE-Engine-Specs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_UR_engine#5.7-liter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kapk5p7HEo <- LT5 video from Motor Week in the early '90s
http://www.zr1specialist.com/HAT%20Web/presentations/Upgrade%20Paths1b.pdf Some recipes for getting plenty of power out of the LT5 with the limited aftermarket support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_60-Degree_V6_engine#LQ1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_engine_series#LX5_.28Shortstar.29
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/wiki.php?title=LLT+engine+specifications

I have to say thanks for making me do this research, I'm now re-thinking the engine that I will be swapping into my Datsun, I'm now considering a DOHC (again). :)


from here http://www.nissanusa.com/titan/specifications-king-cab.html

the nissan 5.6 is rated
VK56DE – Endurance 5.6-liter DOHC 32-valve V8 engine
317 hp @ 5,200 rpm
385 lb-ft of torque @ 3,400 rpm


I don't see 400HP? Is that modded?

On the Chevy site http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado-1500/features-specs/

the vortec 4.8 liter is making 302HP. It has .8 liters less displacement and only 15HP less.

Seems to me that the 16 extra valves, 3 additional cams and associated timing chains/belts is not doing all that much for the Nissan.

That being said there's a guy in my neigborhood driving a Titan with aftermarket exhaust. That truck sounds good.

[andrewb70]

All this arguing about displacement, numbers, HP, blah..blah..blah...Who cares! A V6 engine sounds like a$$. It's that simple. GM would be nuts to install it in the "polish the brand" product. A showcase vehicle that represents the pinocle of performance for the brand needs to sounds right. Vipers have a unique sound, as do many of the European exotics, as does the Corvette. GM is out of their mind if they don't keep a V8 in the Corvette.

Andrew

[novaderrik]

All this arguing about displacement, numbers, HP, blah..blah..blah...Who cares! A V6 engine sounds like a$$. It's that simple. GM would be nuts to install it in the "polish the brand" product. A showcase vehicle that represents the pinocle of performance for the brand needs to sounds right. Vipers have a unique sound, as do many of the European exotics, as does the Corvette. GM is out of their mind if they don't keep a V8 in the Corvette.

Andrew

you should go back and read the article.. they are looking at a 3 liter V8 (vee-eight) with turbos that revs to 10,000 rpm.

[Six_Shooter]

LOL...

So what does my owning a Z have to do with anything? In my car's current state is only a stepping stone to where it will be, the engine is definitely getting swapped in the future, along with the suspension to more modern and better designs.

I love how people say "Argue your point, but don't use the one point in the argument that makes my point invalid." HP/unit of displacement does have merit in showing efficiency.

Even GM is seeing the merit of DOHC, in the lesser displacement/cylinder engines they are using the DOHC design, and getting very impressive numbers, as high or higher than much larger engines of years past. Other manufacturers are seeing this as well.

I never said more parts in an engine equals better, I'm saying the increased flow into and out of the cylinder, by the multi-valve design that happens to be most commonly DOHC shows an efficiency improvement, I don't know what is so hard to see about that, or why there is such resistance. I had at one time looked at adapting a 4 valve per cylinder head to a pushrod block, and using cantilevers to actuate the valves, but the pushrods would have been passing through the intake runners that would almost negate the benefits. Similar to this idea: http://www.araoengineering.com/Chevy/chevysmb.htm They also make 32V LSx heads. ;) http://araoengineering.com/LSX.htm

The benefit of OHC vs pushrod multi-valve is the fact the pushrod doesn't interfere with intake (or exhaust a-la F-1 lol) port shape, design or spacing. Using the cam in block pushrod design still limits where the intake ports can be, and the shapes they can be. There could also be less frictional losses, due to a more directly actuating design. While there are more cams in a DOHC design, the combination of rotating and reciprocating mass is usually found to have less power loss with the direct actuation (D)OHC design, as compared to a convention cam in block pushrod design.

In the last week or so, I've been researching engines for another project I'm involved with and a DOHC small displacement engine is definitely what is going in it. Great efficiency and power in stock form, of the engine I'm leaning towards, and more than enough power for the project with a turbo added.

My bad about the 400 HP rating of the VK56DE, I looked at the VK56VD, which is a similar design, but direct injected. I have seen reference to the VK56DE making plenty more around 600 HP in "race trim," but I'm not sure how far from stock that is.

While I'm sure there is still more efficiency to be found in a pushrod, cam in block design, I don't see any huge leaps and bounds in it's future, without going to multi-valve.

In reality, getting away from internal combustion engines would be the best way to find more efficient ways to propel ourselves, but I bet people will scoff even more at that.

I skipped over the LS2 and LS3 because they were not 5.7L engines, I was comparing same or similar displacement. Both the LS2 and LS3 are larger engines and would only serve to validate my point even more about efficiency. A Pushrod 2V per cylinder design seems to need more displacement to make the same power, Hmm, is that not what I've been saying all along?

It seems that people have been trying to add (D)OHC to the SBC for years, longer than I had recalled. I remember someone offereing DOHC heads for the SBC back in the late '80s, it could have been Schubeck, but thought it was Eagle. I haven't been able to find a picture that has eagle on it though.

Moser looks to have offered a conversion for the SBC in '71: http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/54pontiac/ChevyEngines.html

And some other ideas from another thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/87334-ohc-heads-for-small-block-chevy/

In this hotrod article it touches on adapting (D)OHC heads to OHV engines: http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1103_how_to_hot_rod_any_engine/exotic_cylinder_heads.html

If the OHC/multivalve design wasn't a step forward, why do people work on and develop them? ;)

Next topic... Direct Injection vs conventional injector placement? HAHAhaha.....

[79-TA]

What does owning a Z have to do with it? You were talking about ugly and overrated sports cars, remember? LOL

Good job on missing the point. Power per weight and volume of the entire engine, not just the displacement, is the point of sticking with conventional OHV in most cases.

You still didn't respond to the LS6 point.

You say you didn't mention the LS2 and LS3 for being larger, but still mentioned the LS7? Like I said before, you skipped over the 2 and 3 to make a more dramatic point with the LS7.

Yes, you are falling blindly into a a more is better attitude. HP/liter is not the only measure of efficiency nor does that translate into, say, good fuel mileage. More displacement can be designed into an OHV engine the same size as a dohc engine of the same size or weight, so it does not need to flow as well or rev as high. Neither is inherently better, just different. Get off your high horse of "HP/litre." Try thinking in terms of HP/lbm or maybe volume of the entire engine. I do not have any problem with dohc. I do, however, have a problem with blind tech snobbery.

You act like dohc is a natural step forward. That is purely ignorant, especially given how old the technology is. Does dohc flow more air? Yes. Can it produce more hp per liter as a result? Yes. So it's totally better, right? Well, make sure it fits in your car . . . and then see what displacement ohv engine you could also fit in your car that could make the same power at a more reliable and lower rpm.

In the case of many old V8 cars, they have plenty of space under the hood given that the might have even been offered with a big block. So it's then not surprising to see dohc conversions.

[Ash]

I can't see one negative to this. Unless they are crazy, GM will surely use twin Variable Valve Turbo's, a technology scarce in use, but has enormous potential; Coupled with Direct injection and Variable Valve Timing, which is a given, this is gonna be a world class engine America can put on it's mantle. Porsche is the first to put it on a mainstream gasoline production vehicle, with it's current 911 6 cylinders. We would be the first to do so in a production gasoline V8, Improving on the current OHV V8 in fuel-economy, response, emissions, and possibly packaging.

OHV or OHC? What about Chrystlers Camshaft-within-a-camshaft (http://www.thehemi.com/news.php?id=20080211-1) technology on the Vipers "pushrod" cam-in-block V10? There are more flavors that chocolate and Vanilla.

As far as the exhaust note, and for that matter, the subtle outcry on a yet-to-be-mentioned twin turbo V6...A perfect example of Automotive partisanship, a bottleneck to progression; something I feel hinders the car hobby on a great many levels. Even if it is a low displacement V8, or turns out to be a V6, or a five cylinder for that matter....So what. If it surpasses the current engine in all but the "American" marquee number of cylinders, or historically high displacement, it's still a bad idea? I think it's the fear of losing our automotive identity, the threat of phasing out the big, loud, rebellious V8 in the car that represents us as a nation that garners disapproval. Displacement and number of cylinders should be a non issue as long as the thing dominates in performance and is a blast to drive. Remember, the Corvette is what debuted the LS-1...and look how many non-performance models (a vast supply of junkyard donors) it's architecture found it's way into; how it's impacted our community for the better.

With this hobby/lifestyle/livelihood...Those that oppose progress will be left behind to their current devices, like so many others that did not adapt. The flexibility and sheer number of options we now have at our disposal is staggering compared to 15 or so years ago... all because the domestic manufacturers implemented innovative technology into their cars. carburetion to E.F.I., Mechanical to Electronically operated transmissions, Roots superchargers to today's twin scroll duel ball bearing turbo's, etc, etc. Hell, ODB-II used to be looked at as a hindrance. All these innovations were fought tooth and nail, and thus the aftermarket was slow to adapt. ultimately embraced by the gear-head community, evidenced by this very forum and the immense quality of the builds.

I'm not hating on the aforementioned technology, it still has it's rightful place in the hobby. But pound for pound, it can never match the reliability and efficiency it's modern counterpart can offer. Just like our high displacement V8's won't match tomorrows performance engines.