Would you be mad if the next z06 was supercharged?
05-06-2013, 01:57 PM
#41
Melting Slicks
05-06-2013, 02:25 PM
#43
We know GM could do another large displacement motor with over 500hp The question is will they? The direction of the LT1 shows that GM is taking the upcoming Government regulations quite seriously. Which makes it seem less likely this would be a direction they would take.
Personally I hope we see turbo's on the LT1. The torque of the motor makes the low end torque offered by a roots style supercharger unnecessary. The turbo's could be mounted low in the chassis to help with the center of gravity and would be more efficient. This setup would probably weigh less as well.
Personally I hope we see turbo's on the LT1. The torque of the motor makes the low end torque offered by a roots style supercharger unnecessary. The turbo's could be mounted low in the chassis to help with the center of gravity and would be more efficient. This setup would probably weigh less as well.
05-06-2013, 02:39 PM
#44
Team Owner
I've owned a Z06 (tracked) and now a CTS-V (soon to be tracked) and while the jury is out all I can say is both cars pull like freight trains. I must say the V with the A6 is a completely different animal the the manual Z that I actually like better.
And on the subj I hope the next Z has an A7 option. Let the games begin.
And on the subj I hope the next Z has an A7 option. Let the games begin.
05-06-2013, 02:44 PM
#45
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Dec 2009
Location: Tysons Corner, VA
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
23 Posts
We know GM could do another large displacement motor with over 500hp The question is will they? The direction of the LT1 shows that GM is taking the upcoming Government regulations quite seriously. Which makes it seem less likely this would be a direction they would take.
Personally I hope we see turbo's on the LT1. The torque of the motor makes the low end torque offered by a roots style supercharger unnecessary. The turbo's could be mounted low in the chassis to help with the center of gravity and would be more efficient. This setup would probably weigh less as well.
Personally I hope we see turbo's on the LT1. The torque of the motor makes the low end torque offered by a roots style supercharger unnecessary. The turbo's could be mounted low in the chassis to help with the center of gravity and would be more efficient. This setup would probably weigh less as well.
05-06-2013, 03:16 PM
#46
Le Mans Master
Such as? If the "technology" you're referring to is more cams and valves, then be aware of the weight and bulk that they would add to the engine...possibly eliminating it from use in an already-tight engine bay. Pretty much everything else in the TTV6 is already in the LT1.
Read the press release section. There really isn't anything that I could see on this V6 that isn't already in the LT1, except of course for two additional cylinders. But the technology I speak of is in the waste gates, throttle body, cooling, packaging etc. They wouldn't have to change the base architecture of the LT1 to do it.
I'm just saying that they're already rolling out tt technology into production DI engines. This may very well be coming to the V8. If it produces more power, more efficiently, in a more compact package, with the same durability and reliability as a roots type supercharger, why would they not do it? But, yes, those are alot of "ifs", I understand that.
It's just with the regulatory conditions being what they are, I speculate that the days of "bigger cubes" are riding off into the sunset. But the only ones that know for sure aren't talking about it.
05-06-2013, 04:53 PM
#47
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: North Dallas 40 TX
Posts: 6,449
Received 4,373 Likes
on
2,065 Posts
Maybe they could have the best of both world's a really duel displacement engine. Half the cylinders with the bore of the 6.2 and half with the bore of the 7l motor when it engages AFM it runs on the small bores. Of course there must be a sound engineering reason that every manufacturer uses the same bore for all cylinders. 
With limited output, they could do a 7L DI engine with no AFM. Then they could lose some weight and increase the cam size.
With limited output, they could do a 7L DI engine with no AFM. Then they could lose some weight and increase the cam size.
05-06-2013, 05:28 PM
#48
Maybe they could have the best of both world's a really duel displacement engine. Half the cylinders with the bore of the 6.2 and half with the bore of the 7l motor when it engages AFM it runs on the small bores. Of course there must be a sound engineering reason that every manufacturer uses the same bore for all cylinders.
With limited output, they could do a 7L DI engine with no AFM. Then they could lose some weight and increase the cam size.
With limited output, they could do a 7L DI engine with no AFM. Then they could lose some weight and increase the cam size.
The problem is even if you just added DI to a 7.0L LTx variant you would likely not be able to make large gains and hit your efficiency targets. GM hasn't revealed what it's goals are. Looking at what other motors gain from DI, adding it to the LS7 would net a motor with about 30 more HP and a couple more miles per gallon. That mileage gain probably wouldn't push the efficiency where it needs to be. AFM could be an answer, but AFM may limit the LS7 cam's aggressiveness and push down power. Which would negate some of the power you just gained with DI (and likely disappoint some of your customers) It would certainly keep you from using the aggressive cams we see being used to push the big numbers we see from NA LSx motors (the LT1 is an LSx variant). Which is why the idea of 600hp NA motor seems so at odds with the direction they went with the LT1. Even with DI, you aren't going to hit 550+hp NA without a fuel efficiency hit over the current LS7. Trying to hit a 575+ target would only be more problematic.
A twin turbo LT1 with a cam designed for FI could have roughly the same efficiency as a normal LT1 when not under boost. So like it or not it makes the most logical sense based on GM's current direction.
Who knows, they may decide to pay any penalties and make an NA monster for us. I don't find it very likely though.
05-06-2013, 05:39 PM
#49
Melting Slicks
05-06-2013, 05:55 PM
#51
Safety Car
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Anaheim Hills, Ca
Posts: 4,254
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Maybe they could have the best of both world's a really duel displacement engine. Half the cylinders with the bore of the 6.2 and half with the bore of the 7l motor when it engages AFM it runs on the small bores. Of course there must be a sound engineering reason that every manufacturer uses the same bore for all cylinders.
With limited output, they could do a 7L DI engine with no AFM. Then they could lose some weight and increase the cam size.
With limited output, they could do a 7L DI engine with no AFM. Then they could lose some weight and increase the cam size.
05-06-2013, 06:21 PM
#52
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: North Dallas 40 TX
Posts: 6,449
Received 4,373 Likes
on
2,065 Posts
It would be better to just take the hit to mileage of no AFM and really limit production to limit the EPA impact. Or just have normal AFM on the 7L engine and run it longer in V4 in eco mode. Maybe until you get to 25% throttle. Then it would seem like you are going into warp mode!
05-06-2013, 06:43 PM
#53
Burning Brakes
If it's a Forced Inductions, all the better for Mod'ing after the new car feeling wears off a bit. I would prefer it to be Twin Turbo versus Supercharged FWIW.
05-06-2013, 07:30 PM
#54
Safety Car
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Anaheim Hills, Ca
Posts: 4,254
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Not all 4 on one side, but more like two V4 with interlaced pistons. I figure there would be some strange combination so the rotating mass would still be in balance. Now it may have terrible NVH or horrible exhaust note.
It would be better to just take the hit to mileage of no AFM and really limit production to limit the EPA impact. Or just have normal AFM on the 7L engine and run it longer in V4 in eco mode. Maybe until you get to 25% throttle. Then it would seem like you are going into warp mode!
It would be better to just take the hit to mileage of no AFM and really limit production to limit the EPA impact. Or just have normal AFM on the 7L engine and run it longer in V4 in eco mode. Maybe until you get to 25% throttle. Then it would seem like you are going into warp mode!
For sure!!
05-07-2013, 12:51 AM
#55
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
No, won't affect my buying decision. I bought a C6Z06 to go fast, if the C7Z06 is faster, then mission accomplished....
If it's a Forced Inductions, all the better for Mod'ing after the new car feeling wears off a bit. I would prefer it to be Twin Turbo versus Supercharged FWIW.
If it's a Forced Inductions, all the better for Mod'ing after the new car feeling wears off a bit. I would prefer it to be Twin Turbo versus Supercharged FWIW.
05-07-2013, 12:57 AM
#56
05-07-2013, 05:14 AM
#57
Burning Brakes
05-07-2013, 08:08 AM
#58
A Z06 needs to be naturally aspirated, light weight & raw. Similar to a GT3RS. I would hope a C7 Z06 uses lighter materials, thin glass, titanium exhaust, etc. and have a larger displacement version of the LT1. Instant response and a broad power band.
05-07-2013, 10:01 AM
#59
Le Mans Master
I agree but what would she cost?
05-07-2013, 10:08 AM
#60
I wouldn't. If it's making more than the LSA(580hp) I doubt anyone else will either. Or maybe they'll still complain about it making less than the GT500 like the idiots from 4-5 months ago. 
