ZO6 Lite?
11-05-2009, 05:35 PM
#41
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I guess nobody here understands you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Plain and simple, stop expecting the power of the next C7 to match or exceed that of the C6. I don't recall the 78 Vette being anywhere near as fast as the 69. Lets face it, we're going to have to take a small hit in performance if you want your Vette to continue it's production. Any time there's a crisis, these are the luxuries you should expect to give up.
Honestly, I don't see the big deal. A Twin Turbo V6 could produce 450HP no problem with small twin-scroll turbos so there's be virtually no lag. I understand the driving dynamics are different between NA and Turbo, but you gotta give some to get some. My Turbo Solstice gets 40+MPG with a 2.0L and relatively small twin-scroll turbo while still producing 130HP per liter and only a tiny bit of lag. A twin turbo 6 can do so much more, especially with GM pulling out all the stops for the Vette like they always do. They went dirt cheap on the Kappas and they still managed to do well in emissions, mileage and power.
Nissan has a twin turbo 3.8L V6 that makes 480HP. I'm sure GM can do better than that.
I don't think now is the time to be stubborn about having a V8. I'd prefer a V8 too, but not if it means the demise of the Corvette.
Plain and simple, stop expecting the power of the next C7 to match or exceed that of the C6. I don't recall the 78 Vette being anywhere near as fast as the 69. Lets face it, we're going to have to take a small hit in performance if you want your Vette to continue it's production. Any time there's a crisis, these are the luxuries you should expect to give up.
Honestly, I don't see the big deal. A Twin Turbo V6 could produce 450HP no problem with small twin-scroll turbos so there's be virtually no lag. I understand the driving dynamics are different between NA and Turbo, but you gotta give some to get some. My Turbo Solstice gets 40+MPG with a 2.0L and relatively small twin-scroll turbo while still producing 130HP per liter and only a tiny bit of lag. A twin turbo 6 can do so much more, especially with GM pulling out all the stops for the Vette like they always do. They went dirt cheap on the Kappas and they still managed to do well in emissions, mileage and power.
Nissan has a twin turbo 3.8L V6 that makes 480HP. I'm sure GM can do better than that.
I don't think now is the time to be stubborn about having a V8. I'd prefer a V8 too, but not if it means the demise of the Corvette.
Last edited by SCM_Crash; 11-05-2009 at 05:37 PM.
11-05-2009, 06:45 PM
#42
Safety Car
On Autoline, when Reuss (one of the GM VP's) was interviewed last week, several panelists keep saying that the C7 would be smaller. He did not support any of their conjecture on this point (though he did say agree with some of their ideas when they talked about weight reduction). He specifically said that there would be weight reduction in the area of "part joining," going on to say that as parts join another part, they can be tapered and thus reduce currently part weights. Based on what he said and did not say, I am thinking their will be further weight reduction, perhaps by making the car maybe a couple of inches smaller; however, due to packaging, even it were shorter by a couple of inches, the improvements in packing/space utilization will not lead to a smaller interior cabin (remember Americans, including Corvette owners are, on the average, growing. Back to the weight issue, what weighs less than SMC (sheet molded compound which is what current body panels are made of -- in spite of most folks calling them "fiberglass), and also costs about the same as SMC? No, not carbon fiber which while great, strong and weighs less but cost more than SMC, but how about GM introducing kevlar fibers as an integral component of the body panels. Think that kevlar fibers are much less in weight than the glass fibers used in the current SMC panels. Kevlar costs about the same as SMC; strength, however is much greater, while weight is less! This change and the possible aluminum chassis that the Z uses (and weighs 131 pounds less than the steel chassis in the regular coupe, 'vert and grand sport), and you have another major weight reduction possibility.
Also agreeing with those above who are predicting a 5.5 liter (333 cubic inch motor). However, again due to enhancments, could be about the same or more lesser horsepower, yet still give somewhat better fuel economy (say 30 MPG on the highway for the base model), due to direct fuel injection and other mpg efficiences GM is currently working on.
I can't wait for the C7!!!! Two years, 10 months, and we will all know what it will be.
Also agreeing with those above who are predicting a 5.5 liter (333 cubic inch motor). However, again due to enhancments, could be about the same or more lesser horsepower, yet still give somewhat better fuel economy (say 30 MPG on the highway for the base model), due to direct fuel injection and other mpg efficiences GM is currently working on.
I can't wait for the C7!!!! Two years, 10 months, and we will all know what it will be.
11-05-2009, 08:48 PM
#43
Drifting
Thread Starter
So I guess what youre saying is we can expect the next vette performance wise in the 4.5-5.0 to 60 range-13.0 1/4 mi? Well, i guess the aftermarket will be busy for sure!!
11-05-2009, 11:37 PM
#44
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: North Dallas 40 TX
Posts: 6,450
Received 4,373 Likes
on
2,065 Posts
Some of us understand it is possible to have you cake and eat it too. When the latest Porsche engine came out with direct injection, it got better mileage and more power. GM only has to get to a FLEET mileage. Not every car has to get that number. The only mileage that matters is the results on the government tests and how it is calculated for the fleet standards. They get extra-credit for alternative fuels. The calculation for the FLEET average is different than for the window sticker.
But lets stick with the window sticker. The Highway mileage of the much vaunted Soltice GXP is 28MPG with 2.0L and 260HP, and it already has direct Injection. Its lesser 2.4L NA brother gets 25MPG and 173HP without direct injection. This is one mpg less than the base Corvette without direct injection. So much for the need to go to tiny engines to get good fuel mileage. With Direct Injection the base Corvette would likely get mileage on par with or exceeding the Solstice GXP will having 170 likely plus more horsepower. Tell me again why I want to go to a smaller turbo engine?
The TT6 that gets 485HP gets what kind of mileage? 21 MPG hwy in the EPA test. So ~20% less than the Corvette.
Many believe that the facts support that we do not have to give up the V8 to avoid the demise of the Corvette.
Oh and while the 1978 Corvette had less power than the 1969 small block, the 1999 and the 2009 had substantially more horspower, got twice the mileage and a fraction of the emissions of the 1969.
But lets stick with the window sticker. The Highway mileage of the much vaunted Soltice GXP is 28MPG with 2.0L and 260HP, and it already has direct Injection. Its lesser 2.4L NA brother gets 25MPG and 173HP without direct injection. This is one mpg less than the base Corvette without direct injection. So much for the need to go to tiny engines to get good fuel mileage. With Direct Injection the base Corvette would likely get mileage on par with or exceeding the Solstice GXP will having 170 likely plus more horsepower. Tell me again why I want to go to a smaller turbo engine?
The TT6 that gets 485HP gets what kind of mileage? 21 MPG hwy in the EPA test. So ~20% less than the Corvette.
Many believe that the facts support that we do not have to give up the V8 to avoid the demise of the Corvette.
Oh and while the 1978 Corvette had less power than the 1969 small block, the 1999 and the 2009 had substantially more horspower, got twice the mileage and a fraction of the emissions of the 1969.
Last edited by Racer X; 11-05-2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason: Pressed enter accidentally
11-06-2009, 12:02 AM
#45
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
The latest 5.3 was the Truck V8. LM7 was a 4.8 and 5.3L block. Only difference between the two were their rotating assemblies.
GM has a LOT of new technologies they can use. A 5.3L V8 would be perfectly OK if they use the right technology in the right way.
Firstly, they should be looking at some of the major accomplishments that other manufacturers had and try to integrate those technologies. Ford built a 2.3L engine that was made mostly out of plastic and made over 300HP. The entire motor weighed around 150Lbs wet! (Check it out here) This was in the 80s! Nissan builds a motor that doesn't require throttle bodies. The intake and throttle are managed by a system called "Variable Valve Event Lift" which is just a solenoid that adds/subtracts lift from the intake valves dynamically. Ferrari removed the use of cams all-together in their race cars by using actuators and switching to a 54V system. The only thing the engine powers besides the wheels is the alternator. Thus reducing power consumption, parasitic loss, and increasing the fuel economy.
Secondly, GM already has the technology for variable timing and variable displacement. They need to combine these technologies into one super efficient engine/electronics package:
5.3L V8
Variable Timing
Variable Displacement
Variable Lift/Duration
Plastic/Light-weight Block Components
Electronic Power Steering Assist (I still don't like steer by wire)
Electronic Water Pump
Carbon Fiber body parts
Carbon Fiber shafts and driveline parts
Carbon Fiber/Aluminum Alloy Frames
Etc....
They can do it, and it's going to cost a lot of money for development and tooling, but it's not to say it's impossible. This is something they should have been doing years ago to start with.
GM has a LOT of new technologies they can use. A 5.3L V8 would be perfectly OK if they use the right technology in the right way.
Firstly, they should be looking at some of the major accomplishments that other manufacturers had and try to integrate those technologies. Ford built a 2.3L engine that was made mostly out of plastic and made over 300HP. The entire motor weighed around 150Lbs wet! (Check it out here) This was in the 80s! Nissan builds a motor that doesn't require throttle bodies. The intake and throttle are managed by a system called "Variable Valve Event Lift" which is just a solenoid that adds/subtracts lift from the intake valves dynamically. Ferrari removed the use of cams all-together in their race cars by using actuators and switching to a 54V system. The only thing the engine powers besides the wheels is the alternator. Thus reducing power consumption, parasitic loss, and increasing the fuel economy.
Secondly, GM already has the technology for variable timing and variable displacement. They need to combine these technologies into one super efficient engine/electronics package:
5.3L V8
Variable Timing
Variable Displacement
Variable Lift/Duration
Plastic/Light-weight Block Components
Electronic Power Steering Assist (I still don't like steer by wire)
Electronic Water Pump
Carbon Fiber body parts
Carbon Fiber shafts and driveline parts
Carbon Fiber/Aluminum Alloy Frames
Etc....
They can do it, and it's going to cost a lot of money for development and tooling, but it's not to say it's impossible. This is something they should have been doing years ago to start with.
Some of us understand it is possible to have you cake and eat it too. When the latest Porsche engine came out with direct injection, it got better mileage and more power. GM only has to get to a FLEET mileage. Not every car has to get that number. The only mileage that matters is the results on the government tests and how it is calculated for the fleet standards. They get extra-credit for alternative fuels. The calculation for the FLEET average is different than for the window sticker.
But lets stick with the window sticker. The Highway mileage of the much vaunted Soltice GXP is 28MPG with 2.0L and 260HP, and it already has direct Injection. Its lesser 2.4L NA brother gets 25MPG and 173HP without direct injection. This is one mpg less than the base Corvette without direct injection. So much for the need to go to tiny engines to get good fuel mileage. With Direct Injection the base Corvette would likely get mileage on par with or exceeding the Solstice GXP will having 170 likely plus more horsepower. Tell me again why I want to go to a smaller turbo engine?
The TT6 that gets 485HP gets what kind of mileage? 21 MPG hwy in the EPA test. So ~20% less than the Corvette.
Many believe that the facts support that we do not have to give up the V8 to avoid the demise of the Corvette.
Oh and while the 1978 Corvette had less power than the 1969 small block, the 1999 and the 2009 had substantially more horspower, got twice the mileage and a fraction of the emissions of the 1969.
But lets stick with the window sticker. The Highway mileage of the much vaunted Soltice GXP is 28MPG with 2.0L and 260HP, and it already has direct Injection. Its lesser 2.4L NA brother gets 25MPG and 173HP without direct injection. This is one mpg less than the base Corvette without direct injection. So much for the need to go to tiny engines to get good fuel mileage. With Direct Injection the base Corvette would likely get mileage on par with or exceeding the Solstice GXP will having 170 likely plus more horsepower. Tell me again why I want to go to a smaller turbo engine?
The TT6 that gets 485HP gets what kind of mileage? 21 MPG hwy in the EPA test. So ~20% less than the Corvette.
Many believe that the facts support that we do not have to give up the V8 to avoid the demise of the Corvette.
Oh and while the 1978 Corvette had less power than the 1969 small block, the 1999 and the 2009 had substantially more horspower, got twice the mileage and a fraction of the emissions of the 1969.
I definitely believe two things:
A) That greater gas mileage can be achieved with a V8 using the right technologies and that it's not an obligation to go a V6 or hybrid system or anything on that level. As far as I understand, GM is talking about a new type of 5.3L V8 for the C7 and I'm crossing my fingers that is what they go with.
B) That Nissan motors have NEVER achieved good economy on their performance cars (I have one as a matter of fact) and I feel that IF GM were to ever put together a TTV6, they could do it far better than Nissan and achieve better economy in doing so.
It always depends on your driving habits, of course, how good your economy is on a turbo car. When I was driving the Solstice daily, I was averaging about 25MPG on the streets and 39MPG on the freeway. Going to Phoenix from Los Angeles, I averaged 42MPG until I got into a very hot area where it dropped to nearly 38MPG.
And no, I don't care to get into one of these long dragged on conversations with you again, racer.
Last edited by SCM_Crash; 11-06-2009 at 12:05 AM.
11-29-2009, 01:49 PM
#47
Intermediate
Member Since: Mar 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heres a short list of what i think could be incorporated with minimum expense to gm and the abilty to increase performance with the c7
MOTOR/DRIVETRAIN
1. direct injection (dual injectors) im sure it can be done
2. base low psi vvt 5.7 liter S/C'd shorter stroke higher rpm maybe 7200 rpm push rod
a. Zo6 6.2 S/C
b. 7.0 LSX gm block S/C'd (i know a dream but....)
3. D.O.D
4. a hybrid 8 sp auto zf tranny (rated at 738 lb ft) with a hybrid motor like the s400 merc cheap to incorporate ...and a 6sp 6060
BODY
1. under body belly pan to reduce cd of drag and a smaller frontal area
2. weight reduction if possible
3. evolution of the c6 with elements of c3 with emphasis on lower cd
INTERIOR
1. cts componets (dash)...if you can do it on a caddy a c6 shoudnt be a prob
2. better seats
3. nosie cancellation speakers (gimmiky but should help with interior noise)
all of these methods are available at GM and already somwhere in the lineup at the moment all it would take is some creative shuffling/managment and we could have a KILLER c7 that would make a 911 turbo look stupid and be kept under 55k
MOTOR/DRIVETRAIN
1. direct injection (dual injectors) im sure it can be done
2. base low psi vvt 5.7 liter S/C'd shorter stroke higher rpm maybe 7200 rpm push rod
a. Zo6 6.2 S/C
b. 7.0 LSX gm block S/C'd (i know a dream but....)
3. D.O.D
4. a hybrid 8 sp auto zf tranny (rated at 738 lb ft) with a hybrid motor like the s400 merc cheap to incorporate ...and a 6sp 6060
BODY
1. under body belly pan to reduce cd of drag and a smaller frontal area
2. weight reduction if possible
3. evolution of the c6 with elements of c3 with emphasis on lower cd
INTERIOR
1. cts componets (dash)...if you can do it on a caddy a c6 shoudnt be a prob
2. better seats
3. nosie cancellation speakers (gimmiky but should help with interior noise)
all of these methods are available at GM and already somwhere in the lineup at the moment all it would take is some creative shuffling/managment and we could have a KILLER c7 that would make a 911 turbo look stupid and be kept under 55k
11-29-2009, 09:51 PM
#48
Le Mans Master
Minimum expense??
Direct injection is more expensive, and requires noise management.
A supercharger is more expensive -- the current base car doesn't have one.
Displacement-on-demand requires noise and vibration management.
An 8-speed high-torque transmission is big, heavy, and expensive. Beyond the primary cost of the transmission, there's the cost of engineering the extra space and getting extra weight reduction elsewhere.
The C6 underbody is already very efficient aerodynamically, there's not much more to be gained.
Weight reduction is not cheap, especially not with two generations of low-hanging fruit (C5 and C6) already picked.
CTS components -- it's not done on a Caddy at a Chevy price, you know.
Better seats -- much-needed, but still more cost.
Noise cancellation? Yeah, that'll be cheap to engineer, with road noise coming from multiple points and two passengers.
Kept under 55k? Funniest thing I've read all weekend.
Direct injection is more expensive, and requires noise management.
A supercharger is more expensive -- the current base car doesn't have one.
Displacement-on-demand requires noise and vibration management.
An 8-speed high-torque transmission is big, heavy, and expensive. Beyond the primary cost of the transmission, there's the cost of engineering the extra space and getting extra weight reduction elsewhere.
The C6 underbody is already very efficient aerodynamically, there's not much more to be gained.
Weight reduction is not cheap, especially not with two generations of low-hanging fruit (C5 and C6) already picked.
CTS components -- it's not done on a Caddy at a Chevy price, you know.
Better seats -- much-needed, but still more cost.
Noise cancellation? Yeah, that'll be cheap to engineer, with road noise coming from multiple points and two passengers.
Kept under 55k? Funniest thing I've read all weekend.
11-30-2009, 12:16 AM
#49
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I say they just go back to building C5's and this time use the LS3 with a TR6060. Problem solved. Economical, easy to build, hardly any retooling necessary, etc etc etc.
Result:
Cheaper to make, lighter, economical, and - IMO - better looking.
Result:
Cheaper to make, lighter, economical, and - IMO - better looking.
11-30-2009, 12:56 AM
#50
Intermediate
Member Since: Mar 2005
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
welllll mr JINX
DI is needed you gotta improve your engines sometime buddy (and its not like they wont incorporate it across the lineup)....unless ofcourse you think its dumb to make better motors
bottom line DI= more power less fuel
lets see they can supercharge a damn cobalt and ford can do the 40k cobra and gt500 (both with four cam SC'de v8s)!!!!
but the small added cost would be too much in chevys halo car? hmm
got me to thinking i mean why did they ever get rid of the chevette??
DOD well they got people on payroll they can make it work if not its not a deal breaker
underbody...ive been under my c6 and ther is room for improvement period
weight reduction im not asking for 500 lbs a few here and ther wheels smaller green house hell they get paid to think and they should come up with solutions
heres your tranny and you can put them in other cars that lowers costs buddy.... quanity its how walmart works
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...elops_8sp.html
dash and other things well they can put it in a 40k caddy they can in a 50k vette
heres the jist of it
JINX thats the same thinking that got GM screwed.
The bailout wasnt funny was it??
if GM refuses to forge ahead then it can expect slower sales..how long was the chrome and fake wood peddlers thinking they could pass that on as competative to the buyers and get away with it?
GM must make better products inside and out
i hate to think if some people inside the corvette team thought
who the F**K would buy a 70k or a 100k corvette!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the corvette makes a pretty penny for GM
the corvette bases under 49k add 6-7 k to its price and cut into its profit margin a bit you have a world class car with no excuses
what i find funny is thinking it cant be done
**** anyone one GM reading this ???
DI is needed you gotta improve your engines sometime buddy (and its not like they wont incorporate it across the lineup)....unless ofcourse you think its dumb to make better motors
bottom line DI= more power less fuel
lets see they can supercharge a damn cobalt and ford can do the 40k cobra and gt500 (both with four cam SC'de v8s)!!!!
but the small added cost would be too much in chevys halo car? hmm
got me to thinking i mean why did they ever get rid of the chevette??
DOD well they got people on payroll they can make it work if not its not a deal breaker
underbody...ive been under my c6 and ther is room for improvement period
weight reduction im not asking for 500 lbs a few here and ther wheels smaller green house hell they get paid to think and they should come up with solutions
heres your tranny and you can put them in other cars that lowers costs buddy.... quanity its how walmart works
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...elops_8sp.html
dash and other things well they can put it in a 40k caddy they can in a 50k vette
heres the jist of it
JINX thats the same thinking that got GM screwed.
The bailout wasnt funny was it??
if GM refuses to forge ahead then it can expect slower sales..how long was the chrome and fake wood peddlers thinking they could pass that on as competative to the buyers and get away with it?
GM must make better products inside and out
i hate to think if some people inside the corvette team thought
who the F**K would buy a 70k or a 100k corvette!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the corvette makes a pretty penny for GM
the corvette bases under 49k add 6-7 k to its price and cut into its profit margin a bit you have a world class car with no excuses
what i find funny is thinking it cant be done
**** anyone one GM reading this ???
11-30-2009, 08:32 AM
#51
Le Mans Master
The car I would like to drive would be a 450 hp 5.3-5.7 V8 with a red line of 8000rpm all snuggly fit into a chassis similar to the Solstice coupe. Fitted with a 6 speed tranny, I just can't see how this wouldn't be the drive of a lifetime. But that's just me.
11-30-2009, 09:05 AM
#52
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I have a Solstice GXP. It's cramped as hell... The car NEEDS to be larger than the Kappas. I'm not big at all. 5'7" @ 150Lbs. I've been on carnival rides with more room.
11-30-2009, 11:44 PM
#53
Le Mans Master
I test drove a Saturn Sky when they first came out, sat in a Solstice. It seemed that as far as the cockpit configuration wasn't ridiculous. I'm 5'8" and about 140. But, yeah, in that exact chassis I couldn't see doing a plug change without an engine hoist. But I was just saying that something like I described would be fun to drive. But you're right, it wouldn't leave much room for the larger framed enthusiast.
12-07-2009, 07:53 AM
#54
Intermediate
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Bagram
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that I keep hearing is the possibility of a diesel twin turbo Vette with tons of torque... I know is a European friendly idea, but I'm not wild about it... A V-6 version, turbo or not, would be terrible IMO...
12-07-2009, 07:55 AM
#55
Intermediate
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Bagram
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont see them going backwards... The new C6 is a much better car overall... better built, better performance... especially when you take the Zo6 into consideration... again, IMO.
12-07-2009, 08:11 PM
#56
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
The C6 does have a better build quality and some better features, but I think it's an apples and oranges comparison. Much of the stuff on a C6Z could be put on a C5Z to even out the performance between the two. The real comparison is in the engine. IMO, a lot of the stuff in the C6 was fluff. The Z06 should be a back-to-basics car. Extremely lightweight, performance minded. IMO, there's no reason to have GPS, or a premium sound system in a race car. It's nice but unneeded. There's no reason to have electric seats, and some of the other creature comforts. Some things that make the car heavy are really just not needed...
If you took an LS3 with a hot cam and a TR6060 and put it in the C5Z, you'd have an outstanding track car. IMO, it'd be the best of both worlds.
12-08-2009, 04:28 PM
#57
Pro
The day Chevy makes a Corvette with a V6 is the day I sell my car. That might sound shallow but here's why. That's one of the biggest downfalls with the mustang. When they made it the 'every man' car by making a v6 and even worse a 4 cylinder in the fox body, it was all down hill from there. one could argue saying the cobra and blah blah but at the end of the day you have a car that everyone else has and it really takes the niceness out of the car. but that's just me.
Imagine people who just got 69/70 vettes in the year 1973...
I guess if you were looking to make money you might get higher value for it, but I would keep my car knowing the new ones suck ***..
12-08-2009, 04:44 PM
#58
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I agree. I wouldn't sell just because the next generation wasn't up to my expectations. Look at people with 70's Malibus, they didn't sell them just because the new Malibu is limp like a sock.
12-08-2009, 05:09 PM
#59
Le Mans Master
Gentlemen, ladies...GM has finally come to it's senses. At last, the real true performance C7 prototype with the most advanced suspension has been introduced...the new C7 Corvette F55, with AWD and an advanced twin turbo 327 V8 developing 555hp, this new, aluminum-framed, Kevlar bodied Corvette is the replacement for the aged Z06.
