Smaller engine size talk is crazy to me
02-13-2011, 12:31 PM
#41
Get Some!
Keep up with cars...Obama Motors (as you guys like to call it) announces 550hp Camaro to do battle with the 525hp Mustang.
http://www.examiner.com/auto-review-...est-camaro-yet
http://www.examiner.com/auto-review-...est-camaro-yet
02-13-2011, 02:26 PM
#42
Le Mans Master
Second, the fact remains that the price of gas has a large effect on what carmakers offer and what people buy and is a significant reason why "some" cars even exist. Remember when the $4-$5 gas REALLY changed what a large portion of car market wanted...that wasn't government regulation or restriction, it was the free market speaking.
02-13-2011, 03:16 PM
#43
Melting Slicks
First off, that isn't what he asked...he was concerned about the crazy talk people like you want to spread around about a 6 banger Corvette.
Second, the fact remains that the price of gas has a large effect on what carmakers offer and what people buy and is a significant reason why "some" cars even exist. Remember when the $4-$5 gas REALLY changed what a large portion of car market wanted...that wasn't government regulation or restriction, it was the free market speaking.
Second, the fact remains that the price of gas has a large effect on what carmakers offer and what people buy and is a significant reason why "some" cars even exist. Remember when the $4-$5 gas REALLY changed what a large portion of car market wanted...that wasn't government regulation or restriction, it was the free market speaking.
02-13-2011, 03:17 PM
#44
Le Mans Master
Actually, I want to make sure folks understand that I'm not trying to sell anyone that I like CAFE. It is a flawed and often times needless guideline that is very full of loopholes. I just don't think it is the evil deal many make it out to be.
Last edited by vettedoogie; 02-13-2011 at 03:26 PM.
02-13-2011, 09:36 PM
#45
Race Director
I really think we wouldn't be getting anywhere near the good mpg we are getting now with the C6 if it weren't for the 6 spd transmissions. I think the C7 will have an even more efficient tranny in concert with the whatever new engine comes along. Just a guess of course.
02-14-2011, 09:30 AM
#46
Le Mans Master
Starting this year with 2011 models, the federal government’s fuel-economy standards, which have sat frozen for years, are going to get a big-time thaw—the biggest change since the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law was created in 1975.
The average fuel economy for cars must improve from the current 27.5 mpg, where it has been since 1990, to 37.8 mpg by 2016. The truck standard has to rise from 23.5 mpg to 28.8.
This means cars must improve by 37 percent, trucks by 23 percent. Combined, cars and trucks in 2016 should average 34.1 mpg, up 35 percent from the current 25.3 mpg—a jump of 5.1 percent per year.
Just as they do today, the rules will allow automakers to average their fuel economy across a number of models. A guzzler that doesn’t meet the standard can be “canceled out” by one or more vehicles that better the mpg standard. However, the government’s 2016 fuel-economy numbers of 37.8 mpg and 28.8 mpg are projections because, unlike today, when every car and truck fleet must meet the same mandated average, the future requirements will be instead based on the size of each vehicle in a manufacturer’s fleet.
For 2016, expected car-fleet CAFE requirements will range from a low of 34.7 mpg for Jaguar/Land Rover (now owned by Tata) to a high of 40.8 mpg for Suzuki due to the small size of its cars.
Government analysts expect that the incremental costs of better mileage will boost the price of an average 2016 model by $926 (over a 2011 model).
The average fuel economy for cars must improve from the current 27.5 mpg, where it has been since 1990, to 37.8 mpg by 2016. The truck standard has to rise from 23.5 mpg to 28.8.
This means cars must improve by 37 percent, trucks by 23 percent. Combined, cars and trucks in 2016 should average 34.1 mpg, up 35 percent from the current 25.3 mpg—a jump of 5.1 percent per year.
Just as they do today, the rules will allow automakers to average their fuel economy across a number of models. A guzzler that doesn’t meet the standard can be “canceled out” by one or more vehicles that better the mpg standard. However, the government’s 2016 fuel-economy numbers of 37.8 mpg and 28.8 mpg are projections because, unlike today, when every car and truck fleet must meet the same mandated average, the future requirements will be instead based on the size of each vehicle in a manufacturer’s fleet.
For 2016, expected car-fleet CAFE requirements will range from a low of 34.7 mpg for Jaguar/Land Rover (now owned by Tata) to a high of 40.8 mpg for Suzuki due to the small size of its cars.
Government analysts expect that the incremental costs of better mileage will boost the price of an average 2016 model by $926 (over a 2011 model).
Also:
But after wading through some 1500 pages of documents, we can say that this overhaul of CAFE was carefully considered, involved extensive input from automakers,...
02-14-2011, 10:03 AM
#47
Le Mans Master
The biggest problem with CAFE is it's regulations are all determined by politicians with zero technical knowledge at all. Plus, like a bunch of cult followers they think "technology" can solve everything. Well, it can solve a lot of problems, but, there are laws of physics that those bozos just don't understand.
As to the issue of a 5.5 liter engine the fact is for Corvette to remain competitive it HAS to have more HP.
I have a feeling that GM is also working on a dual clutch auto tranny too and probably more than 6 spds. What I fear is them putting in cylinder de-activation which really is one IMO bad idea for Corvettes.
As to the issue of a 5.5 liter engine the fact is for Corvette to remain competitive it HAS to have more HP. I have a feeling that GM is also working on a dual clutch auto tranny too and probably more than 6 spds. What I fear is them putting in cylinder de-activation which really is one IMO bad idea for Corvettes.
02-14-2011, 10:20 AM
#49
Get Some!
Hay cowboy you need to go back and read my post before making accusations you can't back up, got it?
Last edited by LTC Z06; 02-14-2011 at 10:25 AM.
02-14-2011, 10:29 AM
#50
Get Some!
02-14-2011, 12:47 PM
#51
Le Mans Master
Go ahead, ignore the OP's quotes...
Post #1
Post #33
Post #1
Why the hell would the C7 have to have a smaller engine, or an engine with less power?? Now I know there has been talk of the 5.5 liter, but I am talking of something like a V6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vettedoogie
Keep up with cars...Obama Motors (as you guys like to call it) announces 550hp Camaro to do battle with the 525hp Mustang.
http://www.examiner.com/auto-review-...est-camaro-yet
Thank you Vettedoggie. That was the whole point of my post, which some obviously didn't get.
Originally Posted by vettedoogie
Keep up with cars...Obama Motors (as you guys like to call it) announces 550hp Camaro to do battle with the 525hp Mustang.
http://www.examiner.com/auto-review-...est-camaro-yet
Thank you Vettedoggie. That was the whole point of my post, which some obviously didn't get.
02-14-2011, 03:14 PM
#52
Melting Slicks
Going off on another tangent, but back to the OP...
IMHO the best engine ever produced for the Vette (compared against contemporary rivals) was the 327 (5.3L) in it's top 360 or 375HP FI form (gross HP, of course). It had solid lifters, revved easily, was much lighter than the big-blocks that replaced it at the top of the food chain, etc.
Now fast forward to 2015 or so. An LS-derived direct injection, push rod 5.3L with modern technology can easily achieve 400-450 net HP. Direct injection allows higher compression ratios, as is seen in some engines today. The 11.0:1 of the LS7 could be just the starting point. The ability to rev beyond 7000 RPM will aid HP, but torque would probably suffer a little.
If the engineers stick with that target, the drivetrain components can be made somewhat lighter (no need to have the big half shafts that support 500-600 HP in Z06/ZR1 models), a dual clutch 8-speed tranny can replace both the current transmissions and achieve better fuel economy with no loss of performance (wider gear spreads), and you have a car that should be quite desirable. The lower gears could also offset some of the lost torque.
I personally don't fear this as much as the fear I had over emissions standards in the 70s (fears that were borne out by the lousy cars produced at that time - anyone remember 165 HP Corvettes?)
IMHO the best engine ever produced for the Vette (compared against contemporary rivals) was the 327 (5.3L) in it's top 360 or 375HP FI form (gross HP, of course). It had solid lifters, revved easily, was much lighter than the big-blocks that replaced it at the top of the food chain, etc.
Now fast forward to 2015 or so. An LS-derived direct injection, push rod 5.3L with modern technology can easily achieve 400-450 net HP. Direct injection allows higher compression ratios, as is seen in some engines today. The 11.0:1 of the LS7 could be just the starting point. The ability to rev beyond 7000 RPM will aid HP, but torque would probably suffer a little.
If the engineers stick with that target, the drivetrain components can be made somewhat lighter (no need to have the big half shafts that support 500-600 HP in Z06/ZR1 models), a dual clutch 8-speed tranny can replace both the current transmissions and achieve better fuel economy with no loss of performance (wider gear spreads), and you have a car that should be quite desirable. The lower gears could also offset some of the lost torque.
I personally don't fear this as much as the fear I had over emissions standards in the 70s (fears that were borne out by the lousy cars produced at that time - anyone remember 165 HP Corvettes?)
02-14-2011, 03:52 PM
#53
Team Owner
Going off on another tangent, but back to the OP...
IMHO the best engine ever produced for the Vette (compared against contemporary rivals) was the 327 (5.3L) in it's top 360 or 375HP FI form (gross HP, of course). It had solid lifters, revved easily, was much lighter than the big-blocks that replaced it at the top of the food chain, etc.
Now fast forward to 2015 or so. An LS-derived direct injection, push rod 5.3L with modern technology can easily achieve 400-450 net HP. Direct injection allows higher compression ratios, as is seen in some engines today. The 11.0:1 of the LS7 could be just the starting point. The ability to rev beyond 7000 RPM will aid HP, but torque would probably suffer a little.
If the engineers stick with that target, the drivetrain components can be made somewhat lighter (no need to have the big half shafts that support 500-600 HP in Z06/ZR1 models), a dual clutch 8-speed tranny can replace both the current transmissions and achieve better fuel economy with no loss of performance (wider gear spreads), and you have a car that should be quite desirable. The lower gears could also offset some of the lost torque.
I personally don't fear this as much as the fear I had over emissions standards in the 70s (fears that were borne out by the lousy cars produced at that time - anyone remember 165 HP Corvettes?)
IMHO the best engine ever produced for the Vette (compared against contemporary rivals) was the 327 (5.3L) in it's top 360 or 375HP FI form (gross HP, of course). It had solid lifters, revved easily, was much lighter than the big-blocks that replaced it at the top of the food chain, etc.
Now fast forward to 2015 or so. An LS-derived direct injection, push rod 5.3L with modern technology can easily achieve 400-450 net HP. Direct injection allows higher compression ratios, as is seen in some engines today. The 11.0:1 of the LS7 could be just the starting point. The ability to rev beyond 7000 RPM will aid HP, but torque would probably suffer a little.
If the engineers stick with that target, the drivetrain components can be made somewhat lighter (no need to have the big half shafts that support 500-600 HP in Z06/ZR1 models), a dual clutch 8-speed tranny can replace both the current transmissions and achieve better fuel economy with no loss of performance (wider gear spreads), and you have a car that should be quite desirable. The lower gears could also offset some of the lost torque.
I personally don't fear this as much as the fear I had over emissions standards in the 70s (fears that were borne out by the lousy cars produced at that time - anyone remember 165 HP Corvettes?)
02-14-2011, 03:56 PM
#54
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,085
Received 8,927 Likes
on
5,332 Posts
Its because the current engines dont produce as much power per liter as other newer engines like the 5.0 mustang. Moving towards a direct injected, DOHC setup would give the same power with about 10-15% less displacement and 10-15% better fuel economy and less weight.
I think its a good idea for the base/GS models.
I think its a good idea for the base/GS models.
Bill
02-14-2011, 05:30 PM
#55
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Mooresville (Race City USA) NC
Posts: 4,681
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
GM's Corvette is way behind the times with their current engines. Just look at HP per cubic inch of Ford Mustang engines versus Corvette engines; Ford is way ahead, and they did it on their own without a government bailout. Gasoline direct injection technology is now fully developed, and provides not only greater horsepower, but greater fuel economy and lower pollution as well; so it is win, win, win technology. Variable displacement technology is also fully developed and being used on other Chevrolet engines already. It provides the power of a large engine but the fuel economy and pollution of a smaller engine. Again it is win, win, win technology. Don't even go talk about incremental costs; fact is with the revolution in the Arab world and our lackies being thrown out, OPEC will have the price of gasoline at least double of what it is now in a couple of years, so their people can at least earn more than their current $2.00 a day. Hybrids and all-electrics are the wave of the future. 90% of locomotives were steam powered in 1945, less than ten years later 90% were diesel powered, and many of these were built by GM. If anyone intends to sell an internal combustion engine driven sports car in a couple of years it better be a heck of a lot more efficient than today's Vette. I know I have a reputation as a "G/S basher" already, so I might as well point out that in order to be competitive future Corvetts will have to be everything a G/S is not. Lighter rather than heavier. Have a lower rather than a higher coefficient of drag. Have a smaller rather than a larger frontal area. Have narrower tires with lower rolling resistance rather than wider, higher rolling resistance tires, plus have tires that last three times as long and which are safe to use at temperatures below 50 degrees F. to make the world a better, safer place. So instead of paying 12% more for fat-*** styling, C7 buyers will hopefully be purchasing a more economical, less polluting car, aligned with the times, and which will perform at least as well as the current C6.
02-14-2011, 06:30 PM
#56
Drifting
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
DOHC motors are fine, I've owned many of them - but there is no doubt they are far moe complicated and more expensive to build, repair and replace... Which is what makes the LS motors such a gem.
02-14-2011, 06:49 PM
#57
Burning Brakes
Back the original point on a smaller engine. who cares if its smaller, cubic inches do not automatically equate to more HP. I think a lot of folks forget what happened back in the 70's and have completely lost sight of the fact the SMALL BLOCK 427 currently sitting in the Z06 will absolutely annihilate the original BIG BLOCK 427 of the past. The six cylinders in the Mustang and Camaro's are putting out more HP than the factory 400 C.I. that used to be in the Tans AM's and Firebird, put out more HP than the 455 that were in some of the Buick, Oldsmobile's, and Pontiac's. I am not even going to talk about the 350, 351, 360, 383, 390, 403, 400 small block etc. New technologies and improved fuel management has changed everything. We now have the LS9 putting out over 600 hp and its still a small block from the factory. I just don't get this, like everyone would be upset if you ended up with a 450 hp 5.5 liter engine that gave you at least 26 miles to the gallon. Torque may be off a little but it the car is lighter nothing changes. I guess if that happens with the new C7, life as we know it would just stop......
How about newer bigger engines with the newer technology?
02-14-2011, 06:54 PM
#58
Burning Brakes
Probably because it makes a particular car that one likes look good somehow. Maybe it is an "easy" way of figuring out which engine is "better" (now there is a loaded word). My 2Cents.
02-14-2011, 06:58 PM
#59
Burning Brakes
GM's Corvette is way behind the times with their current engines. Just look at HP per cubic inch of Ford Mustang engines versus Corvette engines; Ford is way ahead, and they did it on their own without a government bailout. Gasoline direct injection technology is now fully developed, and provides not only greater horsepower, but greater fuel economy and lower pollution as well; so it is win, win, win technology. Variable displacement technology is also fully developed and being used on other Chevrolet engines already. It provides the power of a large engine but the fuel economy and pollution of a smaller engine. Again it is win, win, win technology. Don't even go talk about incremental costs; fact is with the revolution in the Arab world and our lackies being thrown out, OPEC will have the price of gasoline at least double of what it is now in a couple of years, so their people can at least earn more than their current $2.00 a day. Hybrids and all-electrics are the wave of the future. 90% of locomotives were steam powered in 1945, less than ten years later 90% were diesel powered, and many of these were built by GM. If anyone intends to sell an internal combustion engine driven sports car in a couple of years it better be a heck of a lot more efficient than today's Vette. I know I have a reputation as a "G/S basher" already, so I might as well point out that in order to be competitive future Corvetts will have to be everything a G/S is not. Lighter rather than heavier. Have a lower rather than a higher coefficient of drag. Have a smaller rather than a larger frontal area. Have narrower tires with lower rolling resistance rather than wider, higher rolling resistance tires, plus have tires that last three times as long and which are safe to use at temperatures below 50 degrees F. to make the world a better, safer place. So instead of paying 12% more for fat-*** styling, C7 buyers will hopefully be purchasing a more economical, less polluting car, aligned with the times, and which will perform at least as well as the current C6.
Seems like the trade off here is to add complexity on the Ford engine parts of your post.
I think the great thing is that the LSx engines are considered "dinosaurs" by many that don't understand the tech that is in them. They feel the same way about the truck-like leaf springs (har har) on the car.
02-14-2011, 07:01 PM
#60
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Mooresville (Race City USA) NC
Posts: 4,681
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Ford uses a DOHC design, you can't compare the 5.0L DOHC Ford to a 6.2L OHV Chevy (LS3) using just the displacement. You have to actually look up the physical engine (packaging dimensions) and more importantly weight.
I bet what you find is that the 5.0 and the LS3 are about the same in size and weight (although the DOHC more of the size will be up/down as opposed to left/right). Given that the 5.0L has DI and the LS3 doesn't that would worry me as a 5.0L owner as you've got nothing "left in your pocket" to make more power.
BTW LRR (Low Rolling Resistance) Tires are a fad. LRR Tires are good on hybrids, but not on performance cars. An LRR tire by definition gives up some friction properties and stopping distance for better fuel economy. If you look at physics you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you have higher fuel economy tires or better grip and stopping distance. That's just life.
I bet what you find is that the 5.0 and the LS3 are about the same in size and weight (although the DOHC more of the size will be up/down as opposed to left/right). Given that the 5.0L has DI and the LS3 doesn't that would worry me as a 5.0L owner as you've got nothing "left in your pocket" to make more power.
BTW LRR (Low Rolling Resistance) Tires are a fad. LRR Tires are good on hybrids, but not on performance cars. An LRR tire by definition gives up some friction properties and stopping distance for better fuel economy. If you look at physics you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you have higher fuel economy tires or better grip and stopping distance. That's just life.
Last edited by laconiajack; 02-14-2011 at 07:38 PM.