[/QUOTE]

Now this is a "widebody" not a z06 body conversion

Also the new vettes should be able to run e85 and with the right tuner serious power can be made on e85. Poor mans race gas.

 

and here I was hoping for a 9.6 liter............ hee heee

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make, technology improves the breed.

There's no ignoring the fact that smog and lead from gasoline were creating serious problems. If you ever flew into LAX in the 70's and saw the yellow haze and breathed the arcid eye watering choking air you'd know it. If you sat in line for gasoline because OPEC thought oil prices were too cheap you know that something had to done and the Big Three Car makers and the Oil Companies weren't about to change the game. So the nasty old government had to and we're all better for it.

Just like flying, wouldn't it be nice to walk on a plane like we once did, but, sadly, times have changed and we can either live with it or never fly again.

Sure I'd love to have a multi-carb big block bellowing thru open uncatted pipes, but I'd rather drive my L3 with all the conviences.

 

The Soltice GXP guys are now getting over 370 rwhp on pump gas on the ECOTEC 2.0 liter motor now buy changing out the turbo, intercooler, cold air intake, highflow cats and exahust and adding a tune. If you add the GMPP Stage 2 kit with that they are expecting to see 450+ rwhp. Stock they are making 260 crank hp and that is over 2hp per cubic inch!!! With Direct Injection it seems that on a boosted motor you can really crank up the boost without detenation!! Stock they run up to around 18psi and modded they are running over 23psi....... I would think that a boosted, directed injected 5 liter motor could make well over 1000hp...... on pump gas!!

Mark

 

There is more that goes into fuel economy than simple engine design; drag coefficient, gearing, and weight all play important roles in gas mileage. Hence the reason that the LS3 Camaro gets inferior gas mileage as compared to the LS3 Corvette.

My point is that the Ford 5.0 engine doesn't get the mileage of the Corvette's LS3 not because of the engine but because of the car they put it in.

A direct injection 5.5 Liter V8 with variable valve timing in a 7 speed Corvette that weighs 2900 - 3000 lbs and has .27 - .28 Cd would easily beat our current C6 in every way. This technology is available today and if GM can figure out how to build it cheaply then they have another game changing Corvette on their hands. This would not be some sissy Prius with flags on the hood, this car would be a monster!

Not to mention this would also help sell the Corvette to other markets outside the US. Personally I'm tired of US brands (esp sports cars) on the defensive against the imports I say we take the fight to them and this is how we do it. We take the best of big V8 engines and combine it with the best of high tech to create and affordable world beater for the next decade.

So once again I say bring on the 5.5 liter C7 I will be in line to buy it!


Final Thought: It seems that many on hear believe that the Corvette is defined by a huge V8 engine. I disagree. I believe what makes a Corvette a Corvette is that its affordable not necessarily cheap but Joe Everyman can save up and buy one. It needs to have good performance and styling and it needs to be built in the USA. I think as long as the Corvette has these features then its still a Corvette which honors its past without being trapped by it.

 

No way GM will change the camaro SS engine in the first year and GM would also not allow the camaro SS to make more hp than the Corvette EVER so that leads me to believe the new corvette C7 will have 10 percent more hp than the LS3.

Five percent less weight than the C6 and 10 percent more power along with DSG transmission technology...means it'll be the best ette yet..

 

I think we run into some semantics issues here.

I think of the LS3 as a great blend of old and new technologies. I also think the new tech that could be added (like DI) to not only the 5.5 but to the rest of the car is what really counts. It is the whole package that needs to be balanced like the C6 is now.

 

Why do some people believe that technology can solve every problem? There is a reason I can not run a 2 minute mile and no amount of technology or training is going to change that. The problem in the 70's was pollution. No one knew how to build an engine that didn't have noxious fumes as a byproduct of the combustion. But there were no physical laws that prevented those fumes from being contained and converted to other less troublesome gasses. Still it took 20 years for the technology to solve the problem well enough for us to get back to where we were. And it was simple chemistry. Today's problem is far harder. Work = Force x Distance. Work is gasoline. There are a limited number of BTUs in gasoline and less in every alternative fuel proposed (that, in addition to their cost, is why they are alternative). No amount of technology is going to change the chemical make-up of gasoline nor produce a more energetic fuel with the same ease of use. Force = Mass x acceleration. Assuming we want the same acceleration, the only thing we can change to get a quick change in the equation is mass. Yes, there are cars built today that get the same or better acceleration than the C6 and better mileage at the same time. They are light weight go carts. A 1,500 pound Corvette is not what I would call a Corvette.

We have a law on the books now that will force GM to produce a 50mpg Corvette in just a few years if they still want to make a Corvette. The laws of physics say that, if they decide to produce it, it won't be what we think of as a Corvette today. No amount of technology is going to bend those laws just because some people have hope. The only hope is the loopholes in the law that will make the car FAR more expensive and more expensive to operate and far more polluting but at least legal to sell. For example, a 150hp electric motor on each wheel giving a car with excellent traction and 600 hp. I might consider that a Corvette if technology can get it to come in under 5,000 pounds.

 

The fleet (all of the cars GM makes) has to have an average of 35.5 mpg by 2016, which is 5 years from now. Where you get 50 mpg ANYWHERE in that is hard to fathom.

 

Don't dismiss technology as not being able to overcome some of the future concern, especially future development of materials and composites. 20 years ago most intakes on engines were cast in metal, today most are plastic or a composite. The use of aluminum, carbon fiber, polycarbonate, etc. are just starting to come into their own. Expect to see far more use of what years ago was called exotic metals and materials being used in future automobiles. It would not surprise me to see composite engines with ceramic or other bi metal liners in the very near future. As was stated, physics cannot be denied but having the ability to change the value of known aspects of a formula leave the door wide open to future possibilities.

 

Lots of truth to this but cost is a big issue. I really think transmissions and engine operations strategies are going to come first like the CVTs and other trannys in lots of other new cars.

I wish we could hear from the GM guys where they are really going with this engine.

 

Just keep in mind that reducing weight is a very expensive proposition so if the C7 Corvette comes in at a "fighting weight" be prepared to spend plenty of bennies even for the least expensive model.

Look at the of weight reduction that was 1st implemented on the Z and then incorporated into the ZR...aluminum chassis, magnesium roof and engine cradle, carbon fiber body panels, titanium engine components (valves and rods), ceramic brake disks for the ZR....

The cost of "lightweight" adds up very fast and furious...

 

Because the law ALSO rolls all the pickup trucks and SUVs into that same average. Cars will have to do much better to hold up their share of the new average unless GM plans to stop selling trucks and SUVs. If all vehicles contribute their "fair share" then they all have to improve about 60%. When all the other cars have gone up into the 50mpg range so trucks can still be sold, then do you really think the "environmentalists" would understand a high powered sports car that only got 30 mpg on the highway? Or would the Corvette that got ONLY 30mpg on the highway be put in the same class as the Hummer which gets similar mileage to the average as a 30mpg Corvette would be?

 

Ridiculous? Why? Plenty of people think that a two seater street car with 600+ HP (or even 500hp) is "ridiculous" too... should we discourage or disallow the Zr1 and Z06 to be built because some think its ridiculous?

Free Market rules -- If the 'natural course of things' evolves to the point where there is a market for 1000hp blown engine factory Corvettes, then GM should be able to sell them. If there is not enough demand, then GM can decide to quit building them.

That question is for the MARKET to decide, not a bunch of Gov't appointed, taxpayer-funds-fattened EPA bean-counters.

 

WELL, I'm of the opinion that it wasn't the EPA who decided on a 5.5l engine...are you? I was somehow under the impression that the fine folks at GM decided that engine would fit into their GT2 racing scheme and somehow into their future Corvette strategy.

As to your free market comment...it is clear that you have your answer since IN THE FREE MARKET OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS hardly anyone is buying Corvettes, right? Think a 1000hp engine will increase sales?

Well, what is your opinion then of what the Corvette should be? So I ask you seriously, how much power/speed/torque do you need from a Corvette off the factory floor? When is it enough and we could say GM doesn't need to make a larger engine/faster Corvette?

 

By 2016, automakers’ passenger vehicle fleets must achieve a combined average fuel-economy standard of 35.5 mpg—39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks and SUVs—a 40 percent improvement over current standards. The FLEET average...

 

You would be exactly correct on your analysis if you hadn't overlooked one critical variable. You state that their is a finite amount of energy contained in a given volume of gasoline this is true. Then you state that no amount of technology can over come this limitation. Once again this is correct technology can't make gasoline contain more energy.

However the critical point you over looked is efficiency. The typical IC engine operates at around 20% efficiency. Meaning 80% of the energy produced is lost as thermal energy through the radiator, exhaust, and directly from the motor itself. Through better technology this efficiency can be increased. The result is that less fuel can be burned to achieve the same power output because less energy is lost in the process.

Technology is the solution here, whether or not GM has the ability to create such technology is the question.

 

Correct - there is no law on the books that states than any vehicle has to get 50mpg - or any other figure. Just the fleet average. There are also many, many loopholes. Do a google search on "flex fuel CAFE ratings". It's a real eye-opener.

Here is a sample....
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/how-a-suburban

 

FWIW...
Corvette Racing program manager Doug Fehan recently on the 5.5L...

 

And I'm sure a vehicle that is lighter.Someone on this forum pulled up an article regarding Soltice type vehicles being made at Bowling Green.Get ready for a smaller Vette?