2015 z06??
#22
Melting Slicks
I don't think this article is at all right. It would assume that another motor was being built. I don't believe that's the case unless 3 performance trims will be available... again.
The LT1 was obviously designed to ouput more power/torque than it's outputting now. The CAD drawings show a blower on it.
My guess is that - unless there's a 3rd variant they're working - the Z06 will be a blown LT1.
The LT1 was obviously designed to ouput more power/torque than it's outputting now. The CAD drawings show a blower on it.
My guess is that - unless there's a 3rd variant they're working - the Z06 will be a blown LT1.
#23
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I have no idea what the engine code will be for the next performance motor. We have a crazy amount of codes to go with. Some think LT4, some LT5 and some L88.
#24
Le Mans Master
Scm, what basis do you even have for that statement? How does FI make such perfect sense due to DI, vs NA? Do a 427 with AFM, flex fuel capable, more rubber, more brakes, more aero...the end. The z06 vs ZR1 on some tracks, is almost a dead heat driver race...gobs of torque means less exit speed, less predictability, etc. stay NA, big compression, e85 capable...the end.
#25
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Scm, what basis do you even have for that statement? How does FI make such perfect sense due to DI, vs NA? Do a 427 with AFM, flex fuel capable, more rubber, more brakes, more aero...the end. The z06 vs ZR1 on some tracks, is almost a dead heat driver race...gobs of torque means less exit speed, less predictability, etc. stay NA, big compression, e85 capable...the end.
With direct injection, the boost can be higher while the compression doesn't have to be lower. Meaning, the compression can stay at 11.5:1 (or even higher) while still boosting, which will save in additional fuel economy. The LS9's low compression made it suffer from crappy economy.
Considering that GM's goal here is to increase economy, a 7.0L doesn't make sense (even with AFM) if they could do the same thing with a 6.2L and still have AFM.
Am I wrong?
#26
Le Mans Master
You went way out on a thin limb with that post...lol.
Its simple...do to the LS7 what you do to the LS3...DI, redesigned heads, AFM, etc, except add e85 option. Same recipe, same result... big torque, na power delivery, etc.
With STINGRAY they strived to increase fuel econ, with z06 its not going to have to hit the marks stingray did. Z06 is low production vs stingray coupe/vert. I think youre overcomplicating what needs to happen.
Its simple...do to the LS7 what you do to the LS3...DI, redesigned heads, AFM, etc, except add e85 option. Same recipe, same result... big torque, na power delivery, etc.
With STINGRAY they strived to increase fuel econ, with z06 its not going to have to hit the marks stingray did. Z06 is low production vs stingray coupe/vert. I think youre overcomplicating what needs to happen.
#27
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
You went way out on a thin limb with that post...lol.
Its simple...do to the LS7 what you do to the LS3...DI, redesigned heads, AFM, etc, except add e85 option. Same recipe, same result... big torque, na power delivery, etc.
With STINGRAY they strived to increase fuel econ, with z06 its not going to have to hit the marks stingray did. Z06 is low production vs stingray coupe/vert. I think youre overcomplicating what needs to happen.
Its simple...do to the LS7 what you do to the LS3...DI, redesigned heads, AFM, etc, except add e85 option. Same recipe, same result... big torque, na power delivery, etc.
With STINGRAY they strived to increase fuel econ, with z06 its not going to have to hit the marks stingray did. Z06 is low production vs stingray coupe/vert. I think youre overcomplicating what needs to happen.
If the next Z06 is priced low enough, it may not be as low volume as you'd expect. And if the fuel economy sucks enough, it can be detrimental to GM's fleet average.
I wouldn't call that going out on a limb at all.
Besides, if the LT1 is already designed and capable of making 600-700 HP with just a blower, why would they design another motor just for added static displacement?
#29
In manufacturing, profit is all about volume and last time I checked GM was still in the business of making money.
I'm glad we had a limited production 427 hand built engine in my driving years, but to think they won't go with a now proven s/c package on the base engine is probably fooling yourself.
It seems like a lot of extra cost and packaging to add parts like superchargers/intercoolers, but I'm sure those costs are recouped ten fold compared to castings/tooling/machining of an entire engine line. I never figured out how they were able to swing it before, especially once the CTS-V, ZR1, ZL1, etc proved that people were very happy with the technology and were willing to pay for it.
When the Z06 fell to sub 1,000 units per year, I can't imagine what the allocated casting/tooling/machining costs looked like.
Jay
I'm glad we had a limited production 427 hand built engine in my driving years, but to think they won't go with a now proven s/c package on the base engine is probably fooling yourself.
It seems like a lot of extra cost and packaging to add parts like superchargers/intercoolers, but I'm sure those costs are recouped ten fold compared to castings/tooling/machining of an entire engine line. I never figured out how they were able to swing it before, especially once the CTS-V, ZR1, ZL1, etc proved that people were very happy with the technology and were willing to pay for it.
When the Z06 fell to sub 1,000 units per year, I can't imagine what the allocated casting/tooling/machining costs looked like.
Jay
#30
Le Mans Master
There is potential truth in all these statements.
For one, I believe a 427 version of the LT1 would result much the same, in that it'll yield a little better mpg.
As far as sales of the Z06, I think the biggest issue wasn't the car, nor the price, it was the fact the economy was tanked out. The reason the GS sold so well, is simply the fact you have a bunch of old guys who want big looks and will never use the performance of the Z06. They want the show and not the go...plain and simple.
From a marketing perspective, there was no harm in selling GS in the later production years, as it simply stimulated sales for a high pricetag, slightly pumped up base model. With a new C7 now though, a higher performance variation is in demand, the economy has SELF recovered to a small extent...enough that there is a small amount of buyer confidence.
I'm ready for the Z06...I'm a buyer...and I'm opened to whatever they do to it. The fact is, it's going to be an SRT *** kicker, so I'm ready to own it. Supercharge it, naturally aspirate it, make it 6.0 liters, 7.0 liters, 5.0 liters...I don't give a sh*t. Show me the numbers...the nurburgring numbers, the VIR numbers...not the marketing hp, fender badge numbers.
For one, I believe a 427 version of the LT1 would result much the same, in that it'll yield a little better mpg.
As far as sales of the Z06, I think the biggest issue wasn't the car, nor the price, it was the fact the economy was tanked out. The reason the GS sold so well, is simply the fact you have a bunch of old guys who want big looks and will never use the performance of the Z06. They want the show and not the go...plain and simple.
From a marketing perspective, there was no harm in selling GS in the later production years, as it simply stimulated sales for a high pricetag, slightly pumped up base model. With a new C7 now though, a higher performance variation is in demand, the economy has SELF recovered to a small extent...enough that there is a small amount of buyer confidence.
I'm ready for the Z06...I'm a buyer...and I'm opened to whatever they do to it. The fact is, it's going to be an SRT *** kicker, so I'm ready to own it. Supercharge it, naturally aspirate it, make it 6.0 liters, 7.0 liters, 5.0 liters...I don't give a sh*t. Show me the numbers...the nurburgring numbers, the VIR numbers...not the marketing hp, fender badge numbers.
#31
Instructor
It would seem to be an easy upgrade to put the LS7 crank and rods on the LT1? The extra displacement and revs in addition to unlocking the full ECM potential should get the C7Z where it needs to be on power. I have always been wary of the small block 427 with the thin cylinders walls - certainly well proven at 505 hp but how far can it be pushed?
I will say that 416 sounds crummy compared to 427...:-)
Apologies in advance if this has already been debunked.
I will say that 416 sounds crummy compared to 427...:-)
Apologies in advance if this has already been debunked.
#32
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
If so, then I'm sure it'd be fine. But if people are complaining about the standard Vette having a marginal increase in HP, a marginal increase in power for the hi-po Vette would cause riots. (so to speak)
#33
Melting Slicks
You're assuming that GM would tune the 7.0L version the same way they tuned the 6.2L version. The standard Vette increased power about 25HP. Would that be OK for the Z06 to be 530-540HP?
If so, then I'm sure it'd be fine. But if people are complaining about the standard Vette having a marginal increase in HP, a marginal increase in power for the hi-po Vette would cause riots. (so to speak)
If so, then I'm sure it'd be fine. But if people are complaining about the standard Vette having a marginal increase in HP, a marginal increase in power for the hi-po Vette would cause riots. (so to speak)
#34
Melting Slicks
The Engine Build Option move to Bowling Green is very telling also. I can see it now !!!! A 427 version of the LT1 called the L88. And the supercharged version of the LT1 called the LT5. Both were trademarked and both would be a natural to be built by owners at the new Engine Build location in the BG facility. That would be a brilliant move !!!!
http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2013/...bowling-green/
http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2013/...bowling-green/
#35
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
I just don't see it. It's more production cost. It's more R&D.
I think to keep down costs of the car, they're going to have just one hi-po trim and it will use the LT1 as a 6.2L...
Of course, people like "Bigg Guns" on Tech say that there are 3 motors. He was right about somethings and wrong about others. Hit and miss doesn't convince me.
I think to keep down costs of the car, they're going to have just one hi-po trim and it will use the LT1 as a 6.2L...
Of course, people like "Bigg Guns" on Tech say that there are 3 motors. He was right about somethings and wrong about others. Hit and miss doesn't convince me.
#36
Melting Slicks
I just don't see it. It's more production cost. It's more R&D.
I think to keep down costs of the car, they're going to have just one hi-po trim and it will use the LT1 as a 6.2L...
Of course, people like "Bigg Guns" on Tech say that there are 3 motors. He was right about somethings and wrong about others. Hit and miss doesn't convince me.
I think to keep down costs of the car, they're going to have just one hi-po trim and it will use the LT1 as a 6.2L...
Of course, people like "Bigg Guns" on Tech say that there are 3 motors. He was right about somethings and wrong about others. Hit and miss doesn't convince me.
#37
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Well, I hope there is. Although, I sincerely hope they don't have 30 different Corvettes again. Keep it simple: Standard, Z51, Z06, and maybe a ZR1. No need to have a billion different trims and performance packages.
#39
Le Mans Master
The Engine Build Option move to Bowling Green is very telling also. I can see it now !!!! A 427 version of the LT1 called the L88. And the supercharged version of the LT1 called the LT5. Both were trademarked and both would be a natural to be built by owners at the new Engine Build location in the BG facility. That would be a brilliant move !!!!
http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2013/...bowling-green/
http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2013/...bowling-green/
#40
Drifting
Because when the motor isn't under boost, the displacement is lower (increasing efficiency). When power is demanded, boosting increases displacement providing the amount of power required without sacrificing displacement. Thus, the other 95% of the time you're not in boost, you're saving on fuel.
With direct injection, the boost can be higher while the compression doesn't have to be lower. Meaning, the compression can stay at 11.5:1 (or even higher) while still boosting, which will save in additional fuel economy. The LS9's low compression made it suffer from crappy economy.
Considering that GM's goal here is to increase economy, a 7.0L doesn't make sense (even with AFM) if they could do the same thing with a 6.2L and still have AFM.
Am I wrong?
With direct injection, the boost can be higher while the compression doesn't have to be lower. Meaning, the compression can stay at 11.5:1 (or even higher) while still boosting, which will save in additional fuel economy. The LS9's low compression made it suffer from crappy economy.
Considering that GM's goal here is to increase economy, a 7.0L doesn't make sense (even with AFM) if they could do the same thing with a 6.2L and still have AFM.
Am I wrong?