Well, first of all, I will say that my speculation that the LS3 was
a 3V engine was wrong. GM really surprised me. The 3V stuff has
been around since 2001. A GM Powertrain engineer told me that
the 3 in LS3 was because it was a 3V design. There was also the
old SAE Automotive Engineering article on the 3V engines, the
Ward's Automotive article, and the article last month from
Automotive engineering about the VVT 3V engine GM is working
on. Maybe money is so tight at GM that some of these programs
just get pushed into the future. At least now, the LS3 and LS7
share very similar heads.

I had also hoped that maybe they would move the aluminum
frame across the lineup. Doing that probably would have been
a major blow to the Z06. The steel frame for 2008 isn't a big
surprise but I would have liked an aluminum frame.

So, maybe the 3V and aluminum frame will wait for C7 so that it
can be a major debut. GM needs to get move aggressive about
moving these engines to DI. Energy and CO2 issues are just going
to get worse with time.

OK, so where is there power waiting to be unleashed in the LS3?
To you folks in Bowling Green today, ask the Corvette team what
we can do to the LS3 without voiding the warranty.

 

It seems to me that the move to the LS3 is about reducing the number of engines GM produces. A nice engine no doubt but just a place holder to mark time until GM gets ready to make some substantive changes.

Some people have commented that they feel DOD is something that should not be present on a vette. I strongly disagree and think this feature should be on all V8s. I also think that flexfuel compatibility is essential as well to insure that it will be possible to obtain fuel for the engine well into the future.

I remember GM and other makers blindly pumping out performance cars that needed 100+ octane leaded premium almost up to the very day such fuel began to disappear from availability.

We may learn more about the engine in days to come but the basic shape of the remainder of the C6 run engine wise seems to be coming into view. That is, basically no new technology in the engine and no new fuel capabilities. If this is the case I think GM is installing engines of the past in the C6 and not showing us the future. They may be saving that for the C7.

My '05 is looking better and better AND like it's just about the same as the new '08 minus some leather trim and an exhaust cut out. As I look at all the cash/payments it would take to move to an '08 I am thinking of breaking my lifelong avoidance of mods.....

Let's see....new brakes ( so many good choices there from forum suppliers ), Z51 sway bar, some intake and tune work, some of those really nice aftermarket ( forum supplier ) interior leather upgrades, and voila my '05 is as fast and smells as much of leather as a new LT4 '08. AND......no payments ....it's paid for!

One thing is for sure....it looks the same from the outside.

 

Several good points above.

But in your case, where you folks are paying $3.599 a gallon for premium, I can certainly see where you are coming from.

Yes, I agree that GM is going to need to put their thinking caps on and give us some newer alternatives as far as what we can run these cars on. While still giving us the performance that we crave in the Corvette.

DOD might be the way to go, I don't know enough about it to form a stong opinion one way or the other however. But people such as yourself and I believe Shopdog who have some familiarity with it, give it high marks.

Yeah, I am not seeing enough in the '08 for me to upgrade to it. Once you pay for one of these cars, and own it free and clear, if you are fiscally responsible, you generally are not in much of a hurry to do it again unless there is something there which really knocks your socks off. I am not seeing that.

Now the C7 promises to be major upgrade and I know myself, for me, it will be a must have. I may not buy the first year, like I did with the '05 but likely the second.

Theres talk of a 2010 release for the C7. Thats about 36 months, maybe more.

But for some reason OregonC6, I see these changes to the '08 C6 as an indicator that the C6 is nearing the end of its run. And I am predicting that end will come sooner rather than later.

There are some eerie similarities here to what happened as the C4 was winding down.

 

When they can design the aluminum frame with the structural integrity needed for the removable roof panel....I'll be for it.

What can you do to the LS3 without voiding the warranty? Nothing...just like with the LS2. IMO that's fair. GM spends millions engineering, designing and building a car....they warrant their product. If I subsequently alter the car from GM's design specs, I certainly wouldn't expect GM to continue providing warranty service on the engine or related components.

Since I'm one of those who feel a DOD engine should not be in a Corvette, I feel compelled to respond. While I respect your opinion that 'the DOD engine should be on all V8s' (including Corvette) I strongly feel this 'forward thinking' is a step backwards for any high performance car.

DOD technology would be a radical departure for Corvette and an ill-suited technology for a "high performance" car. I want performance as the determining criteria for a major engine design change in the Corvette. Make no mistake, DOD technology is not about higher horsepower or increased performance….it's a 'concession' to Governmental CAFE requirements and appeasing the 'Greens' of the World (IMO even the impetus for the LS3 was GM’s cost-cutting measures, not to develop a better, higher performance engine for the Corvette). Maybe you’re ‘good’ with degrading the performance attributes of Corvette….I’m not.

I understand the realities car manufacturer's have to deal with...economic considerations, compliance with ever-tightening Governmental regulations, trying to appeal to the mass market, etc. I know it's a balancing act...compromises must be made. The handwriting may be on the wall with respect to DOD technology but IMO the fact remains....implementation of DOD technology in a Corvette will signify the primary focus on performance has been lost. GM will likely do wonders with this technology but my point is it should not be in a high performance car in the first place.

While I like many of the creature comforts found in the Corvette, I did not purchase a high performance Corvette with any concerns about fuel efficiency and mileage. I feel over-taxed and over-regulated (by the Government) right now. While DOD technology may be acceptable for other cars, I hate to see Corvette racing down the road to compromise and concession.

BTW, I'm totally shocked to see your stance against modifications may be changing.

 

About the only exterior difference you'd be able to tell an 08 from the rest of them are the new [fugly] split spoke rims, and maybe the butterflies in the tailpipe for the optional exhaust. That's not including the new paint colors.

 

Breathing for the new 6.2L engine is accomplished via new, high-flow cylinder heads. They’re based on the large port/large valve design found on the LS7 engine and other GM L92 engines, with larger-capacity, straighter intake ports. The design optimizes intake flow to the combustion chamber and the exhaust ports are also designed for better flow.

Me wonders if we've got a brand new cylinder head on the LS3...
If this is a new/better casting than the L76/L92 casting , mods on the LS3 will prove awesome...

 

What part of the removable roof or the "creature comforts" are geared toward performance? How do EMT tires enhance performance over similarly priced non-Runflats? Mag ride doesn't seem to perform as well as the Z51 around a track, so should they pull the F55 off the option list? Now, I realize that some of these are options, options you may not choose. However, there is no evidence that AFM does ANYTHING besides enhance gas milage on the highway. There is NOTHING to indicate that there is ANY degredation to performance.

What, exactly, is the problem with a feature that doesn't hurt performance, but helps reduce the TCO of a car?

To me, the Corvette is an EXCELLENT balance of performance and comfort. I like open top motoring, even though I KNOW it hinders performance. I like A/C even though I know it hinders performance. I wouldn't mind getting 35mpg on the highway (on the way to a track event where I am likely to get 6mpg.)

If you want a car where EVERY aspect of the car's design is geared toward performance you should forget Corvette and get an Ariel Atom.

 

So far every test of DOD I've read says it is an "invisible" technology. If it wasn't for the RPM gauge the testers wouldn't even know when DOD was turning on and off.

Assuming it will be even more invisible by the time it comes on Corvette why would you be against it? You're in 6th cruising down the road DOD is on, you down shift of press the accelerator pedal and DOD is instantly off and you're on your way, what's the big deal?

 

i was also hoping for DOD. why not? it only helps. They could at least make it in a way that you can turn it on and off in the DIC so if you were going to the track and skeptical it would hurt your performance.

 

Like I said before, in my SS Impala I can hear the change in the exhaust when it starts hitting on every other cylinder. I can't imagine this with headers, B&B's, Corsa's. I think a lot of people would be put off by it.

 

you can feel the fly by wire delay now and the dod to the mix

 

Now that we know about the 2008, lets start talking up the suspected/speculated changes for 2009. Maybe we need to wait until the 2008's can be delivered.

 

You can???!!!!

 

Several of us were wondering where you were coming from with your 3V comments. The added monkey motion of a 3V valve train didn't make any sense to me when you raised the possibility, and it still doesn't. It was pretty well established over a year ago that the LS3 was going to be a slightly tweaked L92. That's what I've been saying (and lots of others were saying too). The only disappointment for me is the lack of AFM on the Corvette version.

Even though I'd like to see a much lighter Corvette, I'm not a fan of the aluminum frame. Unlike steel, aluminum has no fatigue limit. That means every aluminum frame will fatigue crack sooner or later. IMHO structural aluminum is fine on aircraft, which must go through rigorous inspections and maintenance on a regular basis. But a car, which encounters much higher shock loads driving down the road than even an acrobatic fighter plane encounters in flight, does not get that sort of rigorous and regular inspection, nor does its owner want to have to budget for routine frame repairs or replacement. Give me a properly designed steel part any day.

I outlined what I'd like to see in a C7 the other day, and it doesn't include 3V engines or aluminum frames. Here's a repeat of that post.

The C7 will be hybrid electric with main power supplied by a battery electric system. The main drive will be via 4 60 hp electric wheel motors. An auxiliary gas turbine capable of burning virtually any vegetable oil will extend range by partially recharging the batteries as you drive. That'll let you go up to 300 km before needing to stop to let the batteries fully recharge. The battery pack will be advanced lithium-ion based, and will be capable of being fully recharged in 45 minutes. Top speed will be limited to 130 kph, but 0-100 kph time will be under 2.7 seconds.

The C7 will use a lightweight polymer chassis and will be smaller and lighter than the current C6 (1000 kg fully loaded). The tires will be special low rolling resistance tires that don't need to be inflated, IE similar to the experimental Michelin tires that use cantilever polymer struts instead of air chambers. These "never flat" tires will be designed to last the life of the car.

The C7 will be available in 8 colors, with these colors integrally blended into the body panel polymer. In other words, the car will never need painting, refinishing, or waxing. (Mattel has had this technology for decades.) The interior will, in Corvette tradition, continue to be cheap, with poor fit and finish.

Now that was posted a bit tongue in cheek, but the technology is available to make it a reality. GM just has to have the ***** to build it.

 

You can??? I don't think so. Are you sure it's not just in your head? If there is a lag, try taking it to a service dep't and see if you have something faulty...

 

DOD


But i bet the tuners can get rid of it

 

There have been pictures of actual 3V truck engines floating around
as well as much discussion. This has been going on since 2001. Here
are a few of the readily available references to the 3V engines.

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-111-9-26.pdf (page 32-33)
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-115-4-22.pdf (page 32)
http://media.gm.com/division/2004_pr...OHV_3valve.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_108875676
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505589.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505591.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6668546.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6962134.pdf

While the LS3 is 2V, 3V designs are quite real and viable.

A GM Powertrain engineer told me in December 2005 that the 3 in LS3 was
because it was a 3V design. This was at PowerGen International 2005 in
Las Vegas. Unless you are an insider or have the confidence of one,
nothing is well established until GM makes the announcement.

 

Truck engines I can believe, but high revving performance engines are a different matter. More reciprocating mass, and angular displacements from straight line force vectors makes the whole 3 valve lashup sort of Rube Goldberg.

 

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-111-9-26.pdf (page 32-33)

”The three-valve design adds complexity but uses the type
of components with which GM is very familiar, so reliability
shouldn’t be a problem,” said Frederick Rozario, Development
Engineer, Advanced Powertrain at GM. “And while the added
mass in the valvetrain might seem to be an obstacle to high
rpm operation, the Corvette engine will rev to 7000 rpm with a
30% margin of safety. It can go to 8000 rpm safely,” he added. A
special jig will hold the parts together so the whole valve actuation
assembly can be installed as a unit on the head."

 

And we'd need a special tool (jig) to work on it too. It just keeps getting better and better. Not!