1991Z07

You are completely CLUELESS about our economy...

WE, as a country, simply CANNOT AFFORD to send a VERY large chunk of our Gross National Product (read this as hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars) to the middle east for oil in perpetuity. In case you have NOT noticed it lately...they don't really like us over there.

We need to get serious with low emissions, high mileage vehicles. I don't believe ALL of weird Al's theories, but I think the truth lies somewhere in-between the far left and far right of the global warming argument. And doing NOTHING isn't the answer. The status quo won't cut it anymore.

Renewable fuels needs to be our focus as an economy...other nations saw the writing on the wall in the 70's and actually DID something about it. I believe that Venezuela (or one of the other South American countries) uses ethanol for nearly all of their domestic automobile fuel. And many don't know this, but Diesel actually designed his engine to run on peanut oil...a renewable resource.

Unless you are the next super genius of the world...explain to us how you are going to get better emissions AND more mileage with a big-cube motor? (8 liters...you are delusional )

Back in the mid-80's, GM was racing the Corvette GTP cars with twin-turbo V6's...to the tune of 1000+ HP. A V6 is not necessarily the death-knell of the Corvette. It will be (another) evolution of the brand. A V6 with turbo's (or supercharger) can well exceed the power (and torque) output of a V8, and still have better emissions and higher fuel mileage.

GM's plan, according to the last that I read, is to just massage the C6 chassis/body and continue on. The C8 will be the next big evolution of the Corvette line. And seeing that plan, it is entirely possible for them to roll out 2 different generations of Corvettes between now and 2016.

All you naysayers about mid-engine and AWD need to wake up. They (GM) CAN'T get more horsepower to stick with a RWD platform. And, in case anyone hasn't been watching the Speed World Challenge this year, the AWD Volvo's and GT-R's have spanked the Corvette's in the first 2 rounds of the season...I wonder how that could happen? It might be that they can put ALL their power down sooner out of the corners? That they have a better balance between power and physical grip?

The world is changing...like it or not. Change with it, or be left behind.

ZR1Gerhardt

A V6 is certainly a high possibility. Remember they are looking to make future Corvettes sports cars the whole world wants to buy. As long as it has the performance they will make it.

goatts

Obama now owns GM. How stupid is that? Obama doesn't care what we want. He's going to try and make us drive what he wants just like with everything else he's doing.

ChrisLT1conv

On the gas mileage part I would speculate that GM might consider dispacement on demand technology for the vette like they are already using on the Northstar engine in cadillacs. I have driven a D'elegance with it and it works wonders. From north georgia to Detroit I got 29.7-MPG In that luxo boat. In the city it would average 22.5-MPG. Not bad at all for a battleship with somewheres around 300hp. As for oil - yes it is going to run out one day but all of this stuff about the world is out of oil is total BS. Does anyone else remember the National Geographic special issue back in about 1980 where they said all of the worlds oil would be gone in the year 2000? Funny, I still buy oil pumped from the ground here in 2010. The middle east might or might not be running out of oil but we have plenty under our on ground and oceans if we would pump it. IMHO this oil shortage stuff is the same bs fostered over on americans in the 1970's and early 1980's.

Donn Malwick

Don't get caught up in HP numbers-Torque is king & what moves you so 425HP with 350 or less torque will get left in the dust by C5s until top end & who does that now with the cops everywhere?
A MID-ENGINE V6 JUST IS NOT A VETTE- looks like my C6 or a new C7 (if motor is still V8 with better HP & torque than LS3 will be my last Vette!

02MillenniumVette

If it was called a "ZR1 with a LS7 by GM" then it would be called a ZR1, not the Z06 Carbon LE.

Racer X

It was Brazil. They use sugar cane as opposed to Corn. It is a much more efficient process to produce ethanol, but they both suck. Also Brazil is moving away from ethanol as they get more of their own oil resources.

Please name the turbo 6 with more than 500 HP sports car that gets better mileage than the Z06? Which 425+ hp turbo 6 Sports car gets better mileage than the Base Vette?

You mention supercharging for better mileage, it just is not fuel efficient. The drag of the supercharger takes horsepower. So you have to produce say 550 to get 500 at the drive shaft.

I can't believe that you would mention AWD in the same post after all the whining about global warming and fuel efficiency. It adds ugly amounts of weight and driveline drag, both of which adversely impact fuel mileage. Were you serious in your statements?

I can see you engineering knowledge is about as well honed as your knowledge of finance and economics. You clearly do not understand how we use oil. Cars are not the majority. As the price rises we shift what we can to others sources of energy. In addition cars like the Corvette are produced and driven at such a small percentage of the total automotive population as to be negligible. You would save far more fuel by being more efficient in planning your trips, and that costs nothing.

I would suggest if you were that concerned about global warming and fuel efficiency, you would not drive a Corvette, but a diesel Smart Car, if they imported them.

P.S. the Corvette is already a mid-engine car.

SSphantom

You can thank Bush for creating more debt in 8 years, than all of our other presidents COMBINED!

Have you heard the saying "you can't shine a turd?"

Bush hands Obama the worst economic situation America has experienced since the depression, and you actually mean what you said or is that a joke?

Everybody is finding alternatives to V8s, not just America.

However, the good news is that GM is not getting rid of V8s. There is a big difference between finding alternatives to V8s and getting rid of V8s.

Despite all of the hype, show me one shred of evidence stating that GM, or government for that matter, is getting rid of V8s. As a matter of fact, I'd like for anyone to show me a lick of evidence to support this.

GM has plenty of plans to use V8s going forward, and it's not a secret so I don't know why people are freaking out.

But hypothetically speaking, if GM did drop it for a TT V6, what other true sports car with a V8 would you or could you buy at the same price point?

Yeah, I can't think of one either.

I Bin Therbefor

Just reporting what I heard.

goatts

Yes, Bush overspent and Obama is taking it to the next level and beyond. You sound like Obama. Bush's fault. Bush's fault. How do you know GM will continue to make V8's or if they'll still be in business in 5 yrs? GM will do whatever Lord Obama tells them to do (think little econoboxes). Obama will target high perf cars at some point. Remember I said that.

Why has Obama taken over half of what was the private sector? Do you want him and Axlerod telling you what to drive, what to eat, how much money you can make and how to wipe your butt? That's where we're heading, transformation of the country into his twisted vision of what he thinks it should be. Is this that he promised during his campaign? Is that what you want?

As for the economic collapse that you blame on Bush. Go back and read Greenspan's testimony last week. He's pretty blunt and on target. Last time I checked the Federal Government was supposed to be working for us, not ruling over every aspect of our lives.

Derrick Reynolds

Using sugar cane makes for a less complicated process, but the dog still has the same fleas. Even the best yeasts can't ferment an ethanol/water mixture that is greater than about 25% ethanol, so even with cane, you have to distill the alcohol out of the solution to get a usable fuel. Presently, they (and we) burn fossil fuels to perform the distillation, so ethanol WITH PRESENT TECHNOLOGY, is not the answer, and never will be. Someone needs to figure out a way to get the ethanol out of the solution without burning a tanker full of oil before ethanol will do anything good for our environment or economy.

That said, there are two good reasons to invest in power sources that are not based on fossil fuels (wind, solar, nuclear), 1. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and its associated negative impact on our trade deficit, and 2. The oil WILL run out someday.

1991Z07

I don't agree. With sugar cane based ethanol, the ratio is 1:13 (gal. fossil fuels/gal. ethanol) for the production...in Brazil they use the leftover cane and burn it to reduce this ratio even further. Some of this is the fuel needed to harvest and transport the cane from the fields to the distillery...the rest is processing.

Our best bet is switchgrass in the US. It grows everywhere down south. It can be harvested 3-4x a year and they can get a 1:8 ratio from it. Converting the harvesting equipment over to ethanol would reduce the fossil fuel side of the equation even more.

And another point is that the "fossil fuels" are not necessarily all oil based. Most of the distilleries use natural gas, and they use coal for the electricity. They are "fossil fuels" but you have to be careful and not lump them all in together.

But you are 100% correct...the oil won't last forever.

SSphantom

I don't want to get off topic, because this thread isn't supposed to be about politics, but saying Bush simply "overspent" is funny. Remember, you blamed Obama first. We could go on and on about this so I'll stop before the thread gets locked.

Let's just leave politics out of it. Enjoy your Corvette instead of worrying what might happen.

Life is about more than V8s.

HarryWild

From my Road and Track Magazines; all supercars are heading towards twin turbo design V6s instead of V12, V10, V8s. It more fuel efficient because it is lighter and you can get more horsepower and torque. I think you will like the new engine beginning in 2014. If you are a unbeliever; some Formula Ones are using the twin turbos already.

mustclime

Power to weight ratio is what matters, get plastic pig down to 2700lbs and 350 hp will be more than enough. You will also not need overly large tires or brakes. All the high wear stuff will last longer and not cost as much to replace. Smaller is better, let the guys that need to compensate for small thingies drive Comaros.

Racer X

This is not entirely true. The faster you go the more the absolute horsepower matters. As does aerodynamics.

The Lotus elise is a very good example. I had one 180 HP 2000 pounds with the sports package with R compound tires 0-60 in 4 seconds. Comparable to my 385HP 3100 lb. 2001 Z06. However, by the qtr mile mark the Elise would be far in the rear view mirror. i realize that the power to weight ratio of the Z06 was better. My point is that they were close at the 0-60. A Ariel Atom in one engine configuration has a power to weight ratio to the Zr1, but the qtr mile and top speed are a lot different.

I would like the car to be lighter. It would handle better with smaller wheels and tires. I have yet to see a compelling fact based reason to drop the naturally aspirated OHV V8.


Still waiting on the mass produced turbo 6 with 500+ HP that gets better fuel economy than the Vette.

1991Z07

The Jaguar XJ200 from '92-'94...http://www.ben-tullett.com/caraudio/jaguar-xj220.html

In it's day, the fastest street-legal production car at 542 HP/27 mpg hwy. with a top speed of 217 MPH which was stunning back in the early 90's...and still is.

And here's a little article on what some in the Buick community are working on...http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...ock/index.html

And 112 octane is about what you get from ethanol...don't have any fuel mileage from this particular build because it was bound for a sand-rail chassis.

There are not many TT V6's out there...the V8's are easier to get 500+ HP out of. Of the current 500+ HP cars on the market...none are V6's. Only one has ever been there http://www.houstoncars.org/500-hp-club and that is the Jag.

But it doesn't mean it isn't feasible...just that no manufacturers are doing so right now. The article in Hot Rod shows what is possible with a V6...no longer are they a high HP/low torque solution. Over 600 lb./ft. isn't any laughing matter. And don't let that $35k price tag for this TT V6 get your panties in a wad...mass production on GM's scale would bring that figure WAYYYY down, probably by 1/2 (less than a LS9 but a little more than an LS7).

Racer X

This llink shows the Fuel mileage of the XJ220 at 13 MPG. http://www.exoticcarsite.com/pages/jaguar_xj220-1.htm


You site is using Imperial galons the HWy milage equates to 22.4 MPG
the city milage equates to 13.4 MPG Both use a UK driving cycle which is not the same as ours. Either way, less than the Z06.

Another source say at a steady 56 mph it got 26.9 MPG versus IIRC the 28 or 29 of the Z06 on the US HWy cycle which includes accelerating to speed. Many have reported 30+ MPG at this kind of speed.

The Buick is not production and has no fuel mileage specs. On the ethanol the milage would really suck.

My point is that people are saying go to a turbo 6 it will run faster, jump higher, get better gas mileage, and cure baldness. There has been no factual evidence to support this.

if it was easy, cost effective and better it would have been done. It is not.

Others extol the virtues of the DOHC as highly advanced adn wonderful as compared to the OHV tractor engine in the Vette. Yet no one is giving examples in production cars that have the vanted DOHC that gets the same horsepowe, fuel mileage, weight, cost and compact configuration needed to fit in the Corvette engine bay. If it was easy, cost effective, and fuel efficient, it would have been done. it hasn't.

The LS3/LS7 is a highly advanced weight/space/fue/costl efficient engine package. People keep denying this without producing factual evidence of a better package. Hp per liter is meaningless unless you are building to a displacement restricted design criteria due to arbitrary taxes or racing rules. The rest is meaningless from a practical production engineering process. From a marketing to the ignorant masses perspective all the smoke and mirror, and shiny whirling bits do matter. They just do not impress me, and are not why I buy a sports car.


You are right just because know one builds 500+ HP turbo 6 that gets better mileage than the LS7 doesn't mean they can't. I eagerly awaiting that advancement in mass produced auto market.

Of course, when they do, GM will add direct injection and raise the bar by 10-15% on both HP and fuel efficiency.

1991Z07

Exactly...along with displacement-on-demand...though how that works on a forced-induction engine is yet to be seen.

I don't agree with you on the site specs though...it appears everything is in US units. Otherwise all the specs would be read as metric equivalents. And they also list the torque wrong...somehow I'm SURE they got more than 75 lb. ft. ...they left a 4 out of it...should read 475 lb.ft.

Jag also did all that with a 4-valve head design...just like Lotus did with the ZR1 in the same time period.

And all this when my '91 was lucky to get 27 MPG with its anemic 245 (or so) HP from a 5.7 liter engine.

Not knocking the LS-series engines at all. They are great...but they will need to be changed to keep up with the rest of the world. VVT is needed for fuel efficiency and emissions...VERY hard (and WAY complicated) to do with an in-block camshaft. Even if YOU don't subscribe to the hp/liter argument, to sell this car in Europe and get by the road and sales tax issues with owning a big-cube American car is a real uphill battle. That Hot Rod mag engine...265 CI is a 4.34 liter engine. That could fly under the radar in Europe...but 7 liters certainly can't.

All I know is...change is coming. If you like it or don't, the Dems are going to push for more efficient greener vehicles that don't depend on foreign oil. I don't like Obama...but to be truthful we as a country should have gone this route after the 70's oil embargo. We'd be 40 years ahead of where we are now. We'd have cars & trucks running on peanut oil and domestic ethanol and electricity. We'd be out of the Middle East and let them kill each other off. Our economy wouldn't be shelling out huge % of GNP to the Arabs. We'd be using oil for the "other" things it gives us, not the 1 MILLION+ gallons PER DAY for gasoline to run our cars.

I'm already planting switchgrass on our ranch to get it established so we can harvest it for ethanol production. The cows can still eat it, but we can get so much more out of it than that. Federal grants are coming to help companies that want to do R&D in these areas, and I'm glad for it. Sure, there is plenty of oil

It is in places I don't want to be. It is under the ocean in places that are cost prohibitive to get at. And in the end...it is a FINITE resource that will be used up eventually.

Just think where California would be today if the oil companies hadn't cut the legs out from under the electric cars in the mid-90's. Ever see the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" It wakes you up and makes you mad...LA wouldn't have a smog problem now. We'd be MUCH further along on electric vehicles and alternative fuels.

I'm no environmentalist...I'd rather shoot them first and ask questions later. I'm more of a centrist...but we, as a species, need to take care of this planet...it's the only one we have that will support our lifeforms. Nature will balance the scales if we tip it too far, it's happened in the distant past. Ice ages, killing off life...it will happen again. The question is do we want to accelerate it or not?

But I digress...more efficient, smaller engines are coming...for everyone. They might not have the power we have been used to. The cars will (likely) get smaller and lighter. Hybrids might be where they start out for the Corvette...electric motors with instant torque. Weight like a PIG...unless they figure out another battery storage method.

But big changes ARE coming...

Racer X

My point is that many of te things that people are suggesting the the Corvette HAS to do, don't have to be done. Further some are counter productive to producing a more fuel effiicient car. DOHC does not make for more a more fuel efficient engine. More RPMs do not make for a more fuel effiicient engine. Supercharging does not make a car more fuel efficient. Turbocharging might. Fuel efficiency is about brake specific horsepower per pound of fuel and the size, weight and friction of the engine. DOHCs are high friction. High rpm's are high friction,

Could they make a Covette that was 25% lighter, 10% more aero dynamic, 10% less rolling resistance, and V6 that is the LSx with 2 cylinders to make it more compact and lighter. Yes they could. the hard part would be the 25% lighter. Just cutting off 2 cyliners would allow the car to be 4inches shorter and the engine maybe 10% lighter. As you reduce the weight, yu can reduce the size of brakes and other components. Lower HP and torque (especially torque) the transmission can weight less, Drive shafts, axles, differentials can all weigh less. One thing we could do is reduce the size of the tires and wheels, width and diameter, weight all while improving handling, when inconjuction with the overall weight. Think of an Elise about 20% more volume and weight but better aero (the Elise is a pig there).

The real problem with a V6 versus a V8 is NVH. Maybe going to a 3/4 scale V8 is a better answer. I don't mean just reducing bore and stroke to get 3/4 the displacement. That would improve fuel efficiency at a steady speed very little, and would weigh nearly the same. It helps in that you are producing less horsepower to accelerate. You could accomplish the same by just using less throttle with the larger displacement engine. One would need to reduce all dimensions, bore, bore spacing, stroke, deck height. Simple solutions like reducing bore or stroke or both lead to sub-optimal results.

I look to new technology being implemented to reduce friction losses in the engine and drive train.

I thnk htat at least the automatic Corvettes could implement a very mild hybrid like that in the truck.

Heck even going to a flex fuel solution would get them some mileage for the EPA ratings to count towards the high mileage ratings needed, even if no one ever uses the capability.