Need4Speed

The SoCal area sales rep told me it would be 6.3L.

ivan111

Maybe it will have Variable Valve Timing also........

Ryan Bell

A 383 with 500hp would definitely be sweet.

ivan111

I think the most impressive thing about the C6 Z06 is going to be its handling.....

Handling should be much better than the current Z06 and that is saying a lot.....

Ryan Bell

If they improve handling in a BIG way over the current Z06, I think that's flat-out awesome. I can't wait to see if it's true.

ivan111

I think that one of the handling areas were the C6 Z06 numbers are going to be up is in the SLALOM....

The current Z06 slalom speed is around 67-68 mph i am predicting slalom speeds in the C6 of Z06 over 70 mph......

The R&T slalom speed record holder is the Enzo 73 mph i won't be surprise if the new Z comes close to that.....

bogielake

We just upgraded some equipment at the Bowling Green plant in the ecoat area.

They had to add an extra filter due to an aluminum frame and the extra precipatate from it? From what I saw of the C6 at the autoshow the frame looked the same (steel) as the C5 .

The 06 Z06 may be the one getting the aluminum frame?????




[Modified by bogielake, 9:07 PM 1/23/2004]

veXati0n

insider info that I shouldn't be sharing: extensive testing has been done on 10cyl platform. I doubt it'll make it to production due to a lot of problems, but perhaps it's in the deck.

I Bin Therbefor

Many moons ago, some folks within Chevy had an under the table project going on a V-10. Never officially authorized. Mock up made it to one of the mags. The interesting thing about a V10 is that you can quickly add displacement to an existing V8 by adding 2 more cylinders but not grow the engine so much that it can't fit into the same space as a V8. All other parts except the crank can stay the same. Ford is messing with three V10s that I'm aware of (been in magazines) of 7lt, 6.4lt and 5.7lt. Basically the same deal, new block and crank and a lot of pieces from existing V8s. In case you're wondering, the 6lt V8 comes out to 7.5lt and the 6.4lt V8 comes out to 8lt when you make them into V10s. Be an easy way to make a big displacement Super Vette engine that would fit the C6 basic car.


[Modified by I Bin Therbefor, 1:50 AM 1/25/2004]


[Modified by I Bin Therbefor, 1:51 AM 1/25/2004]


[Modified by I Bin Therbefor, 1:53 AM 1/25/2004]

C52002VETTE

It IS a 6.4 L according to sources at GM that I have talked to. They were the same people that said the C6 would be a 6.0 400/400 a year ago when I last spoke to them.

Jinx

Wasn't the Gen III V10 program of a few years ago targeted at replacing the big block? In the end they decided to update the big block instead, and we got the Vortec 8100.

I wonder if GM Powertrain is at it again with Gen IV.

.Jinx

SWCDuke

The V-10 is not a very good configuration IMO. To achieve even firing it has to have a 72 degree bank angle so it can't be machined on the same transfer line as a V-8, however a 90 degree V can achieve even firing with offset crankpins. Regardless of bank angle the V-10 has primary unbalanced rotating couples because it's basically two inline fives on a common crankshaft; V-8s with cruiform cranks have no unbalanced shaking forces or couples below fourth order.

BTW, Ferrari V-8s have flat cranks. This yields even firing interval/exhaust
pulses on each bank, but a second order horizontal shaking force, greater in magnitude by sqrt(2) than the vertical shaking force that one bank of four-equivalent cylinders would produce.

The only current engine configurations that have all first and second order shaking forces and couples balanced are the I-4 with twin counter-rotating balance shafts running twice crankshaft speed, I-6, H-6, 90 degree V-8 with cruiciform crank, and V-12 regardless of bank angle. Ninety degree V-6s have both first and second order couples, but the first order couple can be balanced with a 1:1 geared counter rotating shaft. A second order couple remains and all 60 degree V-6s have a second order rocking couple.

Duke


[Modified by SWCDuke, 9:51 PM 1/24/2004]

Jinx

Ignorant question: cruciform crank versus flat crank?

Does the GM 3800 90-degree V6 have 15-degree crank offsets to get even firing, or is that the 2800 60-degree V6? I'm sorry, that useless datum just leaped out of my brain.

.Jinx

SWCDuke

Cruciform (sign of the cross) crankshaft has journals spaced at 90 degree intervals. A "flat" V-8 crankshaft has them spaced at 180 degrees so they all lie in the same plane. A Ferrari V-8 crankshaft looks like a four-cylinder crankshaft except for increased rod journal width to accept two rods.

The flat crank yields even firing on each bank, but a horizontal shaking force. The cruiform crank allows all first and second order forces and couples to be balanced, but the bank firing interval is uneven - 0-180-270-90 - or some variation depending on cylinder numbering and firing order schemes. This is why a Ferrari V-8 doesn't sound like a Corvette V-8.

The 3800 90-degree V-6 has offset crank pins for even firing interval, and I believe some versions have a counter-rotating shaft to balance the first order couple. Early versions of this engine back in the sixties to mid-seventies did not have the offset crankpins.

The 2.8/3.1L is a 60 degree V, and the crankshaft has six separate journals disposed at 60 degree intervals, which is the typical crankshaft configuration for all 60 degree V-6 designs. This arrangement yields even firing but has unbalanced second order rocking couples, as do all 90 degree V-6s.

A basic rule of thumb is that a line of cylinders, whether inline or in a V, will have rocking couples if the number of cylinders in the line is an odd number.

Duke

Ryan Bell

Very interesting!

WanganVette

I just want to say thank you for teaching me something new about cars. I haven't learned something that in depth since I first started learning how to build engines.

drew priest

hey Duke,
when your refering to n(th)-order couples (moments?) are you refering to the order of the Diff Eq? I havent gotten that far in the intermediate dynamics class yet so some of what you are saying is going over my head... matter of fact that reminds me I have homework due

if I were to try and model this should I treat the combustion as an impulse(dirac) or sinusoidal to mimic burn time?

also if these unbalanced forces are either only horizontal or vertical in nature in some complex way I dont see how a counter balance would be effective to any great degree cause of the unbalance it causes in another direction

well sorry to hi-jack the thread but this seemed like a good opportunity to learn something

drew

SWCDuke

Engine balance involves just the inertia forces of the rotating and reciprocating components.

The basic equation for the inertia forces of a crank and rod assembly can be expanded with the binomial theorem to an infinite series with first, second, fourth,... even to infinity orders. The magnitude drops off rapidly with order, so only the first and second order terms are considered significant. The "order" refers to the reciprocal of the required number of revolutions to complete the cycle - one for first order and one-half for second order.

Taylor's book has a thorough discussion of engine balance and a table that lists the residuals, if any, for most common engine configurations.

Take, for example a four-cylinder inline four-stroke cycle engine. The resultant is a vertical second order shaking force. This can be balanced by means of two counter-rotating shafts disposed laterally and symmetrically from the crankshaft running at twice engine speed. Because the shafts counter-rotate the horizontal component of the forces due to eccentric masses balance leaving a pure vertical unbalanced force with a period of double engine speed. By proper selection of the unbalanced mass on the shafts, the second order shaking force due to the crank and rods is cancelled.

This scheme was invented and patented in 1914 by an Englishman named Lanchester.

Duke




[Modified by SWCDuke, 10:39 PM 2/8/2004]

Curtis A. Franz

It never got beyond the computer study step. No hardware was built.

pnielsen

Uh... Isn't 6400cc = 6.4 litres and 5967cc = 5.967 litres...

cc = cubic centimetre
one cubic decimetre = 1 litre

Transformation from cubic centimetres to decimetres is achieved by moving the decimal point three steps, hence 1000 cubic centimetres = 1 cubic decimetre = 1 litre