Smaller engine size talk is crazy to me
02-12-2011, 12:02 AM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Smaller engine size talk is crazy to me
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.
Look at the car show vehicles. A 550 hp Camaro, TWO 500+ hp Mustangs, a 465 hp Charger and even a 429 hp HYUNDAI. This is not to mention the 550hp Cadillac, which gives GS Vette performance in a car cheaper than the Z06, which we would have to buy if we wanted that kind of HP.
But when it comes to Corvette all you hear (and I know at this point it is just hearsay) is smaller, lesser and best of all CAFE. CAFE? Who cares about that??? I didn't buy a Vette to be concerned with the gas milage.
Does anyone else wonder what is going on here? I thought the Vette was supposed to be the best bang for the buck performance car bargain?
Look at the car show vehicles. A 550 hp Camaro, TWO 500+ hp Mustangs, a 465 hp Charger and even a 429 hp HYUNDAI. This is not to mention the 550hp Cadillac, which gives GS Vette performance in a car cheaper than the Z06, which we would have to buy if we wanted that kind of HP.
But when it comes to Corvette all you hear (and I know at this point it is just hearsay) is smaller, lesser and best of all CAFE. CAFE? Who cares about that??? I didn't buy a Vette to be concerned with the gas milage.
Does anyone else wonder what is going on here? I thought the Vette was supposed to be the best bang for the buck performance car bargain?
02-12-2011, 12:15 AM
#2
Melting Slicks
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.
02-12-2011, 12:30 AM
#3
Le Mans Master
Lots of "Chicken Littles" around here trying to stir the pot is all. They don't understand CAFE and just want to be politically negative. If it were up to some around here, there wouldn't be any GM at all and their Corvettes would suddenly become collectors items.
Here is a great article about CAFE and how involved the automakers were in writing it up...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ndards-feature
Here is a great article about CAFE and how involved the automakers were in writing it up...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ndards-feature
Last edited by vettedoogie; 02-12-2011 at 12:35 AM.
02-12-2011, 01:22 AM
#4
Le Mans Master
Latest article's show current driveline's to carry into the C7 line for a few year's, then start to drop in displacement going to D.I. after that for better fuel milage. Don't think size will drop to much though, as part of the Vette formula, and big low rpm torque really come's through in hilly terrian. My Vette actually log's better fuel milage on such road's than my other car's, so doubt GM will stray very far.
02-12-2011, 01:54 AM
#5
Good Gals Drive It Hard
IMHO... With "some" things, size does not matter. Look at what the 6 cylinder Porsche can do, or a Nissan GTR. As for the C7, it would be foolish to mess with the long standing history of a V8 in the Vette. Simply make a modern engine, turbo or supercharged, equal or better power to the current engine, and lower the weight / dimensions a bit of the Vette.
02-12-2011, 02:15 AM
#6
Le Mans Master
Well, be intersting to see where this goes, as the Porsche's and GTR's curb weight's aren't showing much promise. Last time checking, supercharger's and intercooler's aren't exactly saving at the scale's, so curious what the General come's up with.
02-12-2011, 07:40 AM
#7
Le Mans Master
Just for a moment, let's try to think like an engineer tasked with meeting the 2016 CAFE requirement. You've got a car that gets 26mpg highway with the current standard. That is WAY below what it has to be. Mileage is affected by weight, engine displacement, frontal area, and a thousand other things. It is not significantly affected by the length of the wheelbase. If anything, assuming you can keep the weight down, increasing the wheelbase increases mileage. Yet the law says increasing the wheelbase keeping other things constant decreases the mileage requirement. In engineering terms we call that a loophole big enough to drive a Mac truck through.
Now let's study a little history. What happened the last time we made such a drastic change in the fuel economy requirement. Back in the olden days a large number of station wagons were produced every year. They carried the kids and groceries and every housewife wanted one. Then the law said fuel consumption had to improve dramatically and the station wagon wasn't going to be able to do it. But there was a loophole. At that time trucks were mostly used for deliveries and on farms. To keep from killing the economy, trucks were excluded from the requirement. Chrysler engineers were the first to realize they could drive a Mac truck through that loophole and they created the "minivan". It met the demand for a grocery kid hauler and avoided the fuel police because it was large enough to be called a truck. This lead to today's plethora of SUVs and pickups that are less efficient than a well designed station wagon would have been.
Some call it the law of unintended consequences but they aren't that hard to predict if, instead of burying your head in the sand and hoping for utopia, you think like a capitalist who is interested in making money. 10 years from now, unless the law changes again, cars and trucks will have much smaller engines, be much lighter weight, be a lot lower, somewhat narrower, and much longer. It is much easier and less expensive to add 12 inches to the wheelbase than it is to design and certify a new direct injection engine. It is a lot easier to lower the height by 4 inches and narrow the track by 3 than to get Corvette lover's to by an electric hybrid. But the last thing you want to do to make money is produce a car that gets less than 35mpg highway because it will be a pariah that will get a lot of bad press and, as an engineer tasked with designing a car that sells AND meets the legal requirements, your boss will fire you.
Read some history. This is 1970. There are higher HP cars coming out every year. The demand for HP is insatiable. But where are you in 1975?
Now let's study a little history. What happened the last time we made such a drastic change in the fuel economy requirement. Back in the olden days a large number of station wagons were produced every year. They carried the kids and groceries and every housewife wanted one. Then the law said fuel consumption had to improve dramatically and the station wagon wasn't going to be able to do it. But there was a loophole. At that time trucks were mostly used for deliveries and on farms. To keep from killing the economy, trucks were excluded from the requirement. Chrysler engineers were the first to realize they could drive a Mac truck through that loophole and they created the "minivan". It met the demand for a grocery kid hauler and avoided the fuel police because it was large enough to be called a truck. This lead to today's plethora of SUVs and pickups that are less efficient than a well designed station wagon would have been.
Some call it the law of unintended consequences but they aren't that hard to predict if, instead of burying your head in the sand and hoping for utopia, you think like a capitalist who is interested in making money. 10 years from now, unless the law changes again, cars and trucks will have much smaller engines, be much lighter weight, be a lot lower, somewhat narrower, and much longer. It is much easier and less expensive to add 12 inches to the wheelbase than it is to design and certify a new direct injection engine. It is a lot easier to lower the height by 4 inches and narrow the track by 3 than to get Corvette lover's to by an electric hybrid. But the last thing you want to do to make money is produce a car that gets less than 35mpg highway because it will be a pariah that will get a lot of bad press and, as an engineer tasked with designing a car that sells AND meets the legal requirements, your boss will fire you.
Read some history. This is 1970. There are higher HP cars coming out every year. The demand for HP is insatiable. But where are you in 1975?
02-12-2011, 08:05 AM
#8
Safety Car
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Tarpon Springs FL
Posts: 4,446
Received 308 Likes
on
198 Posts
FL Events Coordinator
Just for a moment, let's try to think like an engineer tasked with meeting the 2016 CAFE requirement. You've got a car that gets 26mpg highway with the current standard. That is WAY below what it has to be. Mileage is affected by weight, engine displacement, frontal area, and a thousand other things. It is not significantly affected by the length of the wheelbase. If anything, assuming you can keep the weight down, increasing the wheelbase increases mileage. Yet the law says increasing the wheelbase keeping other things constant decreases the mileage requirement. In engineering terms we call that a loophole big enough to drive a Mac truck through.
Now let's study a little history. What happened the last time we made such a drastic change in the fuel economy requirement. Back in the olden days a large number of station wagons were produced every year. They carried the kids and groceries and every housewife wanted one. Then the law said fuel consumption had to improve dramatically and the station wagon wasn't going to be able to do it. But there was a loophole. At that time trucks were mostly used for deliveries and on farms. To keep from killing the economy, trucks were excluded from the requirement. Chrysler engineers were the first to realize they could drive a Mac truck through that loophole and they created the "minivan". It met the demand for a grocery kid hauler and avoided the fuel police because it was large enough to be called a truck. This lead to today's plethora of SUVs and pickups that are less efficient than a well designed station wagon would have been.
Some call it the law of unintended consequences but they aren't that hard to predict if, instead of burying your head in the sand and hoping for utopia, you think like a capitalist who is interested in making money. 10 years from now, unless the law changes again, cars and trucks will have much smaller engines, be much lighter weight, be a lot lower, somewhat narrower, and much longer. It is much easier and less expensive to add 12 inches to the wheelbase than it is to design and certify a new direct injection engine. It is a lot easier to lower the height by 4 inches and narrow the track by 3 than to get Corvette lover's to by an electric hybrid. But the last thing you want to do to make money is produce a car that gets less than 35mpg highway because it will be a pariah that will get a lot of bad press and, as an engineer tasked with designing a car that sells AND meets the legal requirements, your boss will fire you.
Read some history. This is 1970. There are higher HP cars coming out every year. The demand for HP is insatiable. But where are you in 1975?
Now let's study a little history. What happened the last time we made such a drastic change in the fuel economy requirement. Back in the olden days a large number of station wagons were produced every year. They carried the kids and groceries and every housewife wanted one. Then the law said fuel consumption had to improve dramatically and the station wagon wasn't going to be able to do it. But there was a loophole. At that time trucks were mostly used for deliveries and on farms. To keep from killing the economy, trucks were excluded from the requirement. Chrysler engineers were the first to realize they could drive a Mac truck through that loophole and they created the "minivan". It met the demand for a grocery kid hauler and avoided the fuel police because it was large enough to be called a truck. This lead to today's plethora of SUVs and pickups that are less efficient than a well designed station wagon would have been.
Some call it the law of unintended consequences but they aren't that hard to predict if, instead of burying your head in the sand and hoping for utopia, you think like a capitalist who is interested in making money. 10 years from now, unless the law changes again, cars and trucks will have much smaller engines, be much lighter weight, be a lot lower, somewhat narrower, and much longer. It is much easier and less expensive to add 12 inches to the wheelbase than it is to design and certify a new direct injection engine. It is a lot easier to lower the height by 4 inches and narrow the track by 3 than to get Corvette lover's to by an electric hybrid. But the last thing you want to do to make money is produce a car that gets less than 35mpg highway because it will be a pariah that will get a lot of bad press and, as an engineer tasked with designing a car that sells AND meets the legal requirements, your boss will fire you.
Read some history. This is 1970. There are higher HP cars coming out every year. The demand for HP is insatiable. But where are you in 1975?
02-12-2011, 08:18 AM
#9
Race Director
Lots of "Chicken Littles" around here trying to stir the pot is all. They don't understand CAFE and just want to be politically negative. If it were up to some around here, there wouldn't be any GM at all and their Corvettes would suddenly become collectors items.
Here is a great article about CAFE and how involved the automakers were in writing it up...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ndards-feature
Here is a great article about CAFE and how involved the automakers were in writing it up...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ndards-feature
02-12-2011, 08:19 AM
#10
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Wilkes-Barre Pa
Posts: 5,860
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes
on
32 Posts
As long as there is enough demand I don't see declines in performance coming any time soon unless the government forces it. Even with the CAFE standards corvettes are such a small percentage of the cars produced they shouldn't have much of an effect.
02-12-2011, 08:25 AM
#11
Le Mans Master
Some call it the law of unintended consequences but they aren't that hard to predict if, instead of burying your head in the sand and hoping for utopia, you think like a capitalist who is interested in making money. 10 years from now, unless the law changes again, cars and trucks will have much smaller engines, be much lighter weight, be a lot lower, somewhat narrower, and much longer. It is much easier and less expensive to add 12 inches to the wheelbase than it is to design and certify a new direct injection engine. It is a lot easier to lower the height by 4 inches and narrow the track by 3 than to get Corvette lover's to by an electric hybrid. But the last thing you want to do to make money is produce a car that gets less than 35mpg highway because it will be a pariah that will get a lot of bad press and, as an engineer tasked with designing a car that sells AND meets the legal requirements, your boss will fire you.
Read some history. This is 1970. There are higher HP cars coming out every year. The demand for HP is insatiable. But where are you in 1975?
Read some history. This is 1970. There are higher HP cars coming out every year. The demand for HP is insatiable. But where are you in 1975?
02-12-2011, 08:36 AM
#12
Team Owner
GM will put DI engines in the vette.
02-12-2011, 09:24 AM
#13
Le Mans Master
Latest article's show current driveline's to carry into the C7 line for a few year's, then start to drop in displacement going to D.I. after that for better fuel milage. Don't think size will drop to much though, as part of the Vette formula, and big low rpm torque really come's through in hilly terrian. My Vette actually log's better fuel milage on such road's than my other car's, so doubt GM will stray very far.
02-12-2011, 09:28 AM
#14
Le Mans Master
That just proves you don't do engineering where you have to meet a set of constraints. Why don't YOU read the article. The law says (and the article goes into great detail) that you can reduce the efficiency requirement of the law by making the car cover more area. You can't make it wider without creating more frontal area reducing mileage but you can certainly easily make it longer. If new engines were so inexpensive, why don't we see one every year? Why is the LS3 just a slight tweak to the LS2 which is a tweak to the LS1? For all practical purposes, GM has been using one version or another of the same V8 engine in most of their vehicles since 1997. If direct injection gives such great mileage and is so easy to do, why hasn't it been done in all cars for the past 85 years since it was first tried? Surely there is a market for cars that get more power AND better mileage? Why haven't they been built in numbers before? You can't just wave a magic wand and do anything you imagine. Sometimes there are constraints on what can be done and what can't and a good engineer has to balance physical and political laws with economics.
02-12-2011, 09:35 AM
#15
Team Owner
Lots of "Chicken Littles" around here trying to stir the pot is all. They don't understand CAFE and just want to be politically negative. If it were up to some around here, there wouldn't be any GM at all and their Corvettes would suddenly become collectors items.
Here is a great article about CAFE and how involved the automakers were in writing it up...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ndards-feature
Here is a great article about CAFE and how involved the automakers were in writing it up...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ndards-feature
Over reacting is a forum past time. Believe what makes you sleep better at night and just let the rest humor you.
02-12-2011, 09:39 AM
#16
Team Owner
That just proves you don't do engineering where you have to meet a set of constraints. Why don't YOU read the article. The law says (and the article goes into great detail) that you can reduce the efficiency requirement of the law by making the car cover more area. You can't make it wider without creating more frontal area reducing mileage but you can certainly easily make it longer. If new engines were so inexpensive, why don't we see one every year? Why is the LS3 just a slight tweak to the LS2 which is a tweak to the LS1? For all practical purposes, GM has been using one version or another of the same V8 engine in most of their vehicles since 1997. If direct injection gives such great mileage and is so easy to do, why hasn't it been done in all cars for the past 85 years since it was first tried? Surely there is a market for cars that get more power AND better mileage? Why haven't they been built in numbers before? You can't just wave a magic wand and do anything you imagine. Sometimes there are constraints on what can be done and what can't and a good engineer has to balance physical and political laws with economics.
The Toyota Avalon (and other models) has the exact same engine without DI, has about 30 less horsepower and gets basically the same fuel economy. The engine already exists and is fully certified in the Lexus models, so why don't they put it in the Toyota? Feel free to answer that question and you have the answer to your statement above.
02-12-2011, 09:49 AM
#17
Le Mans Master
CORRECT!!!! Not marketing but cost. Same reason GM doesn't get rid of the LS3 and sell only LS9s. Marketing a base C6 with the LS9 shouldn't be a problem. Wouldn't you want one if cost wasn't an issue? But for GM a DI engine isn't only about cost to build, it is also about cost to design and certify. Toyota has invested in the R&D but GM hasn't. GM is betting on displacement on demand and variable valve timing with the Gen IV engine.
02-12-2011, 10:12 AM
#18
Le Mans Master
I like the LS3, LS7, and LS9 without the DoD or DI. I think they are very well evolved.
I think what might end up happening is the same thing that happened to Ford when they went from the 7.3L Diesel to the 6.0. Sure, it kicked *** on paper, but they had a ton of problems and I never met anyone who had a fleet of F250's or who worked the pipe-line, or anything like that would touch one with a 10 foot pole back when I sold them.
I think what might end up happening is the same thing that happened to Ford when they went from the 7.3L Diesel to the 6.0. Sure, it kicked *** on paper, but they had a ton of problems and I never met anyone who had a fleet of F250's or who worked the pipe-line, or anything like that would touch one with a 10 foot pole back when I sold them.
02-12-2011, 10:41 AM
#20
Le Mans Master
That just proves you don't do engineering where you have to meet a set of constraints. Why don't YOU read the article. The law says (and the article goes into great detail) that you can reduce the efficiency requirement of the law by making the car cover more area. You can't make it wider without creating more frontal area reducing mileage but you can certainly easily make it longer. If new engines were so inexpensive, why don't we see one every year? Why is the LS3 just a slight tweak to the LS2 which is a tweak to the LS1? For all practical purposes, GM has been using one version or another of the same V8 engine in most of their vehicles since 1997. If direct injection gives such great mileage and is so easy to do, why hasn't it been done in all cars for the past 85 years since it was first tried? Surely there is a market for cars that get more power AND better mileage? Why haven't they been built in numbers before? You can't just wave a magic wand and do anything you imagine. Sometimes there are constraints on what can be done and what can't and a good engineer has to balance physical and political laws with economics.
If Ford can do DI and other engine technologies, I think GM can handle it. They've been working on it for a while now...
GM Reveals Small-Block V-8 with Direct Injection - wardsauto.com
By Mike Sutton
Aug. 29, 2007
MILFORD, MI – Although General Motors Corp. is dividing its resources to cover all fronts of advanced powertrain development, the future of the auto maker’s foundation OHV small-block V-8 architecture appears secure with the advent of direct-injection gasoline (DIG) technology.
Among the various exhibits of engineering bravado on display at the auto maker’s proving grounds here, including two-mode hybrid-electric drivetrains, ultra-clean turbodiesels and homogeneous charge compression ignition flex-fuel engines, a seemingly untouched Cadillac Escalade stands out.
Emblazoned with giant E85 banners down its flanks, there is little to indicate the industry’s first OHV V-8 with DIG fueling lurks beneath the SUV’s pearl white hood.
The experimental engine is based on GM’s current all-aluminum Gen IV 6.2L V-8 (L92) found in the Escalade, GMC Yukon Denali and Hummer H2. Depending on the application, the powerplant, which sports port fuel injection, variable valve timing (VVT) and dual-cam phasing, is rated between 380-403 hp in stock form.
However, with a little tweaking to accommodate the auto industry’s latest fuel-injection hardware, the prototype V-8 is producing “well north of 450 hp (on gasoline),” says Dave Sczomak, development engineer-GM Powertrain Advanced Engineering.
Running the engine on E85 ethanol allows for even more power to be coaxed from the big V-8, he adds, noting the 85%/15% ethanol/gasoline mix generally carries a race fuel-like 106 octane rating.
Cruising the web of test roads onsite, the Escalade motors along smoothly with a characteristic large-displacement V-8 burble. However, mashing the gas from a standstill produces a wave of power that propels the big truck at a noticeably more rapid pace than the production version.
Along with the substantial increase in horsepower, DIG also contributes to about a 10% increase in low-end torque, Sczomak says. In addition, fuel economy is moderately improved (3-6%), as are cold-start emissions of hydrocarbons.
To accommodate the DIG fueling system, GM redesigned the L92 cylinder heads, rearranging the intake ports to make room for the eight high-pressure injectors that squirt fuel directly into the side of the combustion chamber at 2,250 psi (155 bar).
New dished pistons – similar to a diesel’s – were installed for added clearance of the injectors. They also contribute to a greater compression ratio (11.5:1 vs. 10.5:1), which can be employed because of the high-octane composition of E85 and the knock-reducing cooling effect of introducing fuel directly into the cylinder.
A modified engine controller manages the engine’s operation, while VVT and Active Fuel Management cylinder deactivation contribute to efficiency and refinement.
The development sounds like a no-brainer for improving nearly every aspect of the near-60-year-old small block’s performance.
However, Tom Stephens, group vice president-GM Powertrain and Quality, notes introducing a production DIG small block would “require the next-generation architecture” of the engine, or Gen V.
This primarily is due to the huge volumes of V-8 engines GM produces, Sczomak says, noting a radical change in cylinder-head design, for example, becomes a monumental undertaking when taking into account GM’s annual build of more than 1 million small block V-8s.
Fortunately, timing is on the auto maker’s side. The recent introduction of the ’08 Corvette’s 430-hp LS3 V-8, along with the release later this year of the ’08 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid’s 6.0L V-8, represent the last editions of the Gen IV engine family, Stephens says.
All subsequent introductions will be of the Gen V architecture and could have DIG fueling integrated from the ground up, especially considering the refinement of the current test engine’s operation. The greater specific output provided by DIG also would allow for greater engine downsizing, thereby improving fuel economy even further.
“GM would want to introduce this (DIG) on a high-profile vehicle, such as the new (Chevrolet) Camaro or (rear-wheel-drive) Impala,” Global Insight analyst John Wolkonowicz says, referring to the auto maker’s plans for new volume models based on its global RWD platform developed by GM Holden Ltd. in Australia.
The new Camaro, which originally was shown at the 2005 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, is expected to appear later next year as an ’09 model, with the all-new RWD Impala taking form sometime early in the next decade. Revisions for future generations of the Corvette and Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra pickups are expected in the same timeframe, Wolkonowicz says.
By capitalizing on areas of significant improvement that remain untapped in its core engine lineup, while simultaneously amping up the arrival of its new hybrid-electric vehicles, clean diesels and hydrogen fuel cells, GM clearly is betting on an ever-fracturing market for advanced powertrains.
As a result, the iconic grumble of the small-block V-8 appears poised to remain a fixture of the automotive landscape for the foreseeable future.
By Mike Sutton
Aug. 29, 2007
MILFORD, MI – Although General Motors Corp. is dividing its resources to cover all fronts of advanced powertrain development, the future of the auto maker’s foundation OHV small-block V-8 architecture appears secure with the advent of direct-injection gasoline (DIG) technology.
Among the various exhibits of engineering bravado on display at the auto maker’s proving grounds here, including two-mode hybrid-electric drivetrains, ultra-clean turbodiesels and homogeneous charge compression ignition flex-fuel engines, a seemingly untouched Cadillac Escalade stands out.
Emblazoned with giant E85 banners down its flanks, there is little to indicate the industry’s first OHV V-8 with DIG fueling lurks beneath the SUV’s pearl white hood.
The experimental engine is based on GM’s current all-aluminum Gen IV 6.2L V-8 (L92) found in the Escalade, GMC Yukon Denali and Hummer H2. Depending on the application, the powerplant, which sports port fuel injection, variable valve timing (VVT) and dual-cam phasing, is rated between 380-403 hp in stock form.
However, with a little tweaking to accommodate the auto industry’s latest fuel-injection hardware, the prototype V-8 is producing “well north of 450 hp (on gasoline),” says Dave Sczomak, development engineer-GM Powertrain Advanced Engineering.
Running the engine on E85 ethanol allows for even more power to be coaxed from the big V-8, he adds, noting the 85%/15% ethanol/gasoline mix generally carries a race fuel-like 106 octane rating.
Cruising the web of test roads onsite, the Escalade motors along smoothly with a characteristic large-displacement V-8 burble. However, mashing the gas from a standstill produces a wave of power that propels the big truck at a noticeably more rapid pace than the production version.
Along with the substantial increase in horsepower, DIG also contributes to about a 10% increase in low-end torque, Sczomak says. In addition, fuel economy is moderately improved (3-6%), as are cold-start emissions of hydrocarbons.
To accommodate the DIG fueling system, GM redesigned the L92 cylinder heads, rearranging the intake ports to make room for the eight high-pressure injectors that squirt fuel directly into the side of the combustion chamber at 2,250 psi (155 bar).
New dished pistons – similar to a diesel’s – were installed for added clearance of the injectors. They also contribute to a greater compression ratio (11.5:1 vs. 10.5:1), which can be employed because of the high-octane composition of E85 and the knock-reducing cooling effect of introducing fuel directly into the cylinder.
A modified engine controller manages the engine’s operation, while VVT and Active Fuel Management cylinder deactivation contribute to efficiency and refinement.
The development sounds like a no-brainer for improving nearly every aspect of the near-60-year-old small block’s performance.
However, Tom Stephens, group vice president-GM Powertrain and Quality, notes introducing a production DIG small block would “require the next-generation architecture” of the engine, or Gen V.
This primarily is due to the huge volumes of V-8 engines GM produces, Sczomak says, noting a radical change in cylinder-head design, for example, becomes a monumental undertaking when taking into account GM’s annual build of more than 1 million small block V-8s.
Fortunately, timing is on the auto maker’s side. The recent introduction of the ’08 Corvette’s 430-hp LS3 V-8, along with the release later this year of the ’08 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid’s 6.0L V-8, represent the last editions of the Gen IV engine family, Stephens says.
All subsequent introductions will be of the Gen V architecture and could have DIG fueling integrated from the ground up, especially considering the refinement of the current test engine’s operation. The greater specific output provided by DIG also would allow for greater engine downsizing, thereby improving fuel economy even further.
“GM would want to introduce this (DIG) on a high-profile vehicle, such as the new (Chevrolet) Camaro or (rear-wheel-drive) Impala,” Global Insight analyst John Wolkonowicz says, referring to the auto maker’s plans for new volume models based on its global RWD platform developed by GM Holden Ltd. in Australia.
The new Camaro, which originally was shown at the 2005 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, is expected to appear later next year as an ’09 model, with the all-new RWD Impala taking form sometime early in the next decade. Revisions for future generations of the Corvette and Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra pickups are expected in the same timeframe, Wolkonowicz says.
By capitalizing on areas of significant improvement that remain untapped in its core engine lineup, while simultaneously amping up the arrival of its new hybrid-electric vehicles, clean diesels and hydrogen fuel cells, GM clearly is betting on an ever-fracturing market for advanced powertrains.
As a result, the iconic grumble of the small-block V-8 appears poised to remain a fixture of the automotive landscape for the foreseeable future.