3 Z06ZR1

Can we get a translation of this post please? One thing about the 5.3 vs the lt1.
There is no catch can to talk about. Not needed it has a better PCV system
Then it has 383 pounds of tq. Then your worried about the 3.15 means you have the Auto then complain about the 5.3

DAFFYDRUNK

I'd take a C7 with the TT motor they put in the Caddys. Similar power to the LT1 and prolly an ecm flash away from LS7 power. Has to have boat loads of torque assuming it's anything like the Ford ecoboost V6. Prolly wouldn't fit in a C7 without a hood mod though.

SRQStingray

I think there is no substitute for a V8, but have noticed the rise of twin turbo V6s. I suspect a twin turbo V6 will appear in a Camaro or Corvette within the next 5 years. As it is, the one in the Cadillac ATS is pretty impressive.

C7Joy

Still pretty impressed with the 6.2 myself!

CriticalmassGT

Probably. DOHC engines have been around since at least the 50's. I believe the Spyder that James Dean drove was DOHC. So it's not new technology. Just easier to manage now than it was then.

Also probably one of the lesser talked about reasons why so many exotics are mid-engined.

Right. It also cost them more money to produce that many variations. Having fewer engines to build, and using them across more of their product line, saves $$$.

Fixed.

Fixed.

They said the 10 speed auto won't fit in the Corvette's current configuration. It would have to go mid-engined to make it fit.

So only the Camaro and Mustang will be getting it as far as those three go.

Ford screwed themselves with the Thunderbird. It was widely believed to be Ford's answer to the Corvette when in fact they built it to be a cruiser, not a performer.

DAFFYDRUNK

Won't fit this model year. Just like they said there wasn't any 8 speed that would fit in the C7 for 14.

JoesC5

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 1955 Thunderbird was pure genius on Ford's part.

You had better check the sales of the 1955, the 1956 and the 1957 Thunderbirds compared to the 55, 56, & 57 Corvettes.

Then Ford was very smart when the came out with the 1958 Squarebird. Sales of the Thunderbird really exploded, while the Corvette's sales were dismal.

The Thunderbird was a tremendous seller(and that's what counts). It wasn't until 1970 that Chevrolet came out with a comparable car, the Monte Carlo.

Of course, today Ford doesn't have a Thunderbird, or a two seater sports car for the masses, but they do have a true supercar, the GT, that Chevrolet doesn't have.

Higgs Boson

The 2002-2005 Thunderbird was sure amazing!

Also, the Ford GT is an awesome car but producing a super low volume car for 2 years doesn't really qualify as "having" a true supercar, as in it doesn't have the market to make them every year. The new one will be expensive, awesome, and I'd bet also produced for a couple years...."homologation or just because we can?"

GM "could" produce a supercar but they seem to be more business minded and cannot justify it just for the marketing highlights like Ford, especially when the Corvette can cover that performance segment, sort of like Ford does with the Mustang from V6 to GT350R, so does the Vette go from GT350R to supercar figures (but not paint quality, lol).

It would be interesting to know if Ford profits from the GT program, the old one or the new one with the higher price.

mschuyler

You are absolutely correct on your first two paragraphs. T-Bird sales were way ahead of the Vette. Reading from a graph from Dave McLellan's "Corvette from the Inside," the 55 Vette sales were less than a thousand; T-Birds were about 17,000. For 56 Vette sales were less than 4,000; T-Birds were still at 17,000. For 57 Vette sales were up to 6,000 T-Bird sales were about 15,000.

In 58 the second generation 4 seater T-Bird sales were 37,892 as Corvette was still less than 10,000. Corvette finally achieved over 38,000 in 1969, which was a long model year. Realistically sales were about 18,000, which is what they did in 1970.

But the thing was, when Ford stopped the 2-seater, Corvette no longer had any American competition. Meanwhile Ford turned the T-Bird into a bloated monster. They didn't return to the two seater until 2002, but sales were so bad they cancelled it after three years.

So yes, the T-Bird was initially more successful, but Ford abdicated and left the Corvette as the only game in town. And it still is.

Curahee

Try a Miata.

drs

I agree with your assessment. But to be viable it would need to be less expensive. And it damn sure better look remarkably different. Can you imagine the hand wringing and bed wetting on CF as owners complain that no one can tell that their car is the "more powerful and more expensive version".

Bill Dearborn

Not being able to see the difference is the best way. You really want a sleeper. You want something that nobody knows is a track monster until it shows it through its performance. Too many people can cheaply duplicate badges, spoilers, etc. They can't duplicate performance without some dollars and some Cajones. I look at people who want differentiators to show how powerful their cars are similar to the way I look at kids with their ricers and their fart can exhausts.

I used to have a 1971 LS6 Coupe. The LS6 was a 454 producing 425 Gross HP and was the highest HP car produced in 1971. In the mid to late 80s my daughter's boyfriend had a 1969 Roadster 4 speed with the base engine. It had been his father's car and they used it to go to the beach and on dates. His friend had a 1971 Pontiac Gran Prix and the two would do a stop light Gran Prix now and then with one or the other winning.

One day I was sitting at a traffic light when the friend pulled up in the lane next to me. He was gunning the engine and indicating he wanted to race. When the light turned green I started slowly and let him take off and get a couple car lengths lead before pushing the throttle down about half way. The 71 downshifted back down to low gear and I shot past him and just kept pulling away without even pushing the car. He was racing me but I was just driving and leaving him in the dust. The next day he questioned me about the difference and I told him that not all Corvettes are equal then took him to the garage and popped the hood where this huge engine compartment filling 454 was sitting. Then I took him for a ride where I put my foot to the floor and scared the crap out of him. Again that was the mid to late 80s when performance had been forgotten and an 86 Vette only had 230 net HP which was about 100 net HP less than the LS6.

He had never seen or heard of a BB Corvette before then. Other than the Big Block Hood and the 454 numbers on the side of the hood there was no indicator that this thing was a sledge hammer ready to crush the opposition.

Bill

mpuzach

The C3's BB hood and 427 / 454 badging weren't exactly subtle, at least not to a Corvette person. To this day, whenever I see a '65-67 C2 or 68-72 C3 my first instinct is to check the hood.

mschuyler

The thing is, putting ANY new engine in the Vette would be expensive. The government alone would see to that. And every time GM polls its customers, they all say they want more power--not less. GM would have to be absolutely convinced a smaller engine would sell, and according to the polls, it won't. It certainly wouldn't sell enough more cars to justify the cost and they'd also take it on the chin from the automotive press, who would not be kind.

So this leaves GM in the situation of creating a market they don't have, namely the Vette enthusiast who wants the performance of a Miata. And the odds are against them. In David MacClellan's book, "Corvette from the Inside" (Chief Engineer for the 3,4,and 5) he discusses meetings in which a GM executive asked him if he could "put a 6 cylinder in the Vette." He said he knew the question was serious and did not want to be flip in his answer, so he made up some engineering-speak on the fly. He related how the idea was simply appalling to him and everyone else on the Vette program. They thought it was sacrilege, and insofar as they knew the customer base, thought there would be a tremendous backlash if they did.

So you've got some serious internal opposition to the idea from the start and no evidence whatsoever that anyone is interested in a Corvette-lite. You can make fun of people who think obeying traffic laws is the right thing to do all you want, but there's no indication that those people want a car with reduced performance either.

So you really don't have a business case here, or, perhaps more accurately, a business case for this idea has never been done and when the idea has been floated in the past, it has always been shot down.

LIStingray

If GM really wants to offer a second normally aspirated engine, they should develop a 6.0L flat plane crank V8 putting out 550 hp and 475 ft-lbs of torque with an 8,000 rpm redline that sounds as bad-*** as the Mustang GT350R.

cv67

Excellent idea but then wed have to endure 5 more daily threads about what oil is best knowing they dont drive it anyway.

Bunk

What? Why? 6.2 is an awesome engine, it can achieve 30+ mpg if that's what you want. 5.3? no no no

3 Z06ZR1

No I have 2 Zo6's I don't own a C7 the 6.2 was not enough go. You should try reading the post before you comment.

mschuyler

Yes, we know that, but the overall purpose of your post was to suggest a smaller engine for the Corvette, and one reason you cited was better gas mileage. The purpose of your post was not to promote the Z06 or that you have two of them. I think you can see that after several pages, the reaction has been almost universal disapproval to the idea or your reasoning for it. In other words, your idea has been rejected.

One idea that was brought up several times, including the poster you attempt to criticize, was that if you really desired better MPG and a smaller engine, you might want to consider a different car altogether. That is a perfectly legitimate reply.

PMorganRacing

Interesting thread, figured the front page would think so too...
https://www.corvetteforum.com/articl...e-good-reason/