I hope the C7Z isn't turdboed
09-07-2013, 05:49 PM
#21
Le Mans Master
Sure NA is preferable, but how big is the engine going to have to be to get say 600 hp? I haven't heard of any big blocks available for the C7.
A well designed, modern turbo system can get the job done with minimal lag. I drove a Chevy Malibu recently with a 2.0L turbo. I had to actually open the hood to confirm it had a turbo. The only time I could find lag (and I had to look for it) was snap opening the throttle at idle. Even then, it kicked in almost instantly.
Michael
A well designed, modern turbo system can get the job done with minimal lag. I drove a Chevy Malibu recently with a 2.0L turbo. I had to actually open the hood to confirm it had a turbo. The only time I could find lag (and I had to look for it) was snap opening the throttle at idle. Even then, it kicked in almost instantly.
Michael
09-07-2013, 06:21 PM
#22
Sure NA is preferable, but how big is the engine going to have to be to get say 600 hp? I haven't heard of any big blocks available for the C7.
A well designed, modern turbo system can get the job done with minimal lag. I drove a Chevy Malibu recently with a 2.0L turbo. I had to actually open the hood to confirm it had a turbo. The only time I could find lag (and I had to look for it) was snap opening the throttle at idle. Even then, it kicked in almost instantly.
Michael
A well designed, modern turbo system can get the job done with minimal lag. I drove a Chevy Malibu recently with a 2.0L turbo. I had to actually open the hood to confirm it had a turbo. The only time I could find lag (and I had to look for it) was snap opening the throttle at idle. Even then, it kicked in almost instantly.
Michael
A direct injected 7 liter should have no issue making 600 horsepower.
09-07-2013, 06:42 PM
#23
Le Mans Master
09-07-2013, 06:52 PM
#24
V10LEE
Thread Starter
X2..
09-07-2013, 06:55 PM
#25
Le Mans Master
I also hope it is not a Turbo It needs to have Twin Turbo's lol. the Turbo cars are really a great way to gain a lot of HP & with the advancement of turbos and cooling along with computer tunes they have came a long way. I also agree it would be better than the supercharger even though I love my V supercharger. I also would take a NA Z0? so for me I really don't care just get the car built with 600 hp and at or around 3300lbs.
Last edited by DRLC5; 09-07-2013 at 06:57 PM.
09-07-2013, 07:12 PM
#27
Drifting
Also, you have no evidence to support your theory, in fact quite to the contrary. The lt1 has roughly 8% more power then the ls3. Now, granted the lt1 is awfully torque/mpg biased, and the new 7.0 could surely cut loose some more given its tiny epa impact, but lets be generous and say the new 7.0 could make 16% more power. That's still 585hp. The only comparable engines that make 600hp to go by, are the last gen Viper's 8.4, and the C6r-something-or-other street car Katech made a handful of with a 8.2 ls based motor. They took over a liter more to make 600hp. The ls7 was not a thrown together motor, and would take a SERIOUS intake/head to flow 600hp to only 7 liters even with direct injection.
The problem is top end air flow with only 1 valve(and without a variable intake manifold). Forced induction solves that by cramming air in.
But none of that matters honestly, as Keek's "lt4" CAD drawing showed a supercharger. It also showed new wheels, that were seen on the recent camo car sooooo... I'm just sayin.
Last edited by McGirk94LT1; 09-07-2013 at 07:16 PM.
09-07-2013, 07:36 PM
#28
Instructor
N/A is all fine and dandy but a TT would be my desire at the end of the day. Tons of awesome cars are running TT and they aren't limp bastards at the track's look at the 911 Turbo & GTR to name a few. I don't see them blowing up or having these heat issues. Its all in the design and when done correctly they are potent cars and amazing and street, 1/4 mile and tracks. TT cars are setup with the correct compression ratios and piston designs from the factory which allows you to in turn bolt on cheaper mods for very nice performance returns!! 
Hell we have been doing that to the Shelby's, ZR1's, ZL1's for years now with great results at very affordable prices when compared to tearing down a whole N/A engine. I fail to see any negatives to a TT setup from GM so long as they have there hearts and pocket books in the correct places with this Z07 I can foresee a rape machine destroying the competitions dreams and making our dreams a reality!!
Hell we have been doing that to the Shelby's, ZR1's, ZL1's for years now with great results at very affordable prices when compared to tearing down a whole N/A engine. I fail to see any negatives to a TT setup from GM so long as they have there hearts and pocket books in the correct places with this Z07 I can foresee a rape machine destroying the competitions dreams and making our dreams a reality!!
09-07-2013, 07:49 PM
#29
Intermediate
Member Since: Aug 2013
Location: Montana
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's not a contender, but my preference would be for an NA (either 6.2 or 7.0), with concentric cam tech, individual throttle body manifold (like harrop hurricane), and the return of true engineered ram air supercharging.
Concentric cam (cam-in-cam with dual independent phasing) would allow for variable overlap, and allow for retarding IVC at high rpm without the corresponding EVO retard.
The ITBs allow for more cam duration and corresponding overlap, as the exhaust residue gas at low throttle cannot jump up the intake tract into the plenum due to the closed runner TB. Lopey high rpm cams purr like kittens with ITBs.
Ram air could provide high speed (think track) supercharging, and if tuned in combination with cam phasing, overlap control, and ITB runner length, could provide truly outstanding high rpm breathing.
They should also fit wheel position sensors to the shocks (like those used for datalogging) and replace the sway bars with closed-loop hydraulic circuits with MR fluid. With the closed loop, no pump would be necessary (like McLaren uses) and the MR fluid would provide for computer controlled roll damping. A worthwhile addition to 3rd gen MSRC for the hipo car, imo.
Shorter gearing. 1 supercruise gear and more aggressive 6 forward street/track gears.
I have a few more additions, but I'll keep them to myself. For the most part, these, along with the revised widebody styling and bigger rubber, largely represent my dream Z06.
Concentric cam (cam-in-cam with dual independent phasing) would allow for variable overlap, and allow for retarding IVC at high rpm without the corresponding EVO retard.
The ITBs allow for more cam duration and corresponding overlap, as the exhaust residue gas at low throttle cannot jump up the intake tract into the plenum due to the closed runner TB. Lopey high rpm cams purr like kittens with ITBs.
Ram air could provide high speed (think track) supercharging, and if tuned in combination with cam phasing, overlap control, and ITB runner length, could provide truly outstanding high rpm breathing.
They should also fit wheel position sensors to the shocks (like those used for datalogging) and replace the sway bars with closed-loop hydraulic circuits with MR fluid. With the closed loop, no pump would be necessary (like McLaren uses) and the MR fluid would provide for computer controlled roll damping. A worthwhile addition to 3rd gen MSRC for the hipo car, imo.
Shorter gearing. 1 supercruise gear and more aggressive 6 forward street/track gears.
I have a few more additions, but I'll keep them to myself. For the most part, these, along with the revised widebody styling and bigger rubber, largely represent my dream Z06.
09-07-2013, 08:01 PM
#30
As much as I love NA cars, I can't argue with this.
Keeping my mind open, seeing as it might be quite a bit more difficult/expensive to make that fun NA cam power with the GenV motors.
Keeping my mind open, seeing as it might be quite a bit more difficult/expensive to make that fun NA cam power with the GenV motors.
09-07-2013, 08:12 PM
#31
The 458's 4.5 and ls7 are apples to oranges. I don't understand why people haven't realized you can't make a direct correlation with displacement when comparing DOHC and OHV engines.
Also, you have no evidence to support your theory, in fact quite to the contrary. The lt1 has roughly 8% more power then the ls3. Now, granted the lt1 is awfully torque/mpg biased, and the new 7.0 could surely cut loose some more given its tiny epa impact, but lets be generous and say the new 7.0 could make 16% more power. That's still 585hp. The only comparable engines that make 600hp to go by, are the last gen Viper's 8.4, and the C6r-something-or-other street car Katech made a handful of with a 8.2 ls based motor. They took over a liter more to make 600hp. The ls7 was not a thrown together motor, and would take a SERIOUS intake/head to flow 600hp to only 7 liters even with direct injection.
The problem is top end air flow with only 1 valve(and without a variable intake manifold). Forced induction solves that by cramming air in.
But none of that matters honestly, as Keek's "lt4" CAD drawing showed a supercharger. It also showed new wheels, that were seen on the recent camo car sooooo... I'm just sayin.
Also, you have no evidence to support your theory, in fact quite to the contrary. The lt1 has roughly 8% more power then the ls3. Now, granted the lt1 is awfully torque/mpg biased, and the new 7.0 could surely cut loose some more given its tiny epa impact, but lets be generous and say the new 7.0 could make 16% more power. That's still 585hp. The only comparable engines that make 600hp to go by, are the last gen Viper's 8.4, and the C6r-something-or-other street car Katech made a handful of with a 8.2 ls based motor. They took over a liter more to make 600hp. The ls7 was not a thrown together motor, and would take a SERIOUS intake/head to flow 600hp to only 7 liters even with direct injection.
The problem is top end air flow with only 1 valve(and without a variable intake manifold). Forced induction solves that by cramming air in.
But none of that matters honestly, as Keek's "lt4" CAD drawing showed a supercharger. It also showed new wheels, that were seen on the recent camo car sooooo... I'm just sayin.
The biggest factor here is a 2.5 liter displacement difference. The LS7 technology is 9 years old.
We have crate motors that are NA and make over 600 horsepower that use a carburetor and are OHV designs.
You can't tell me that 600hp is a hard goal to reach with technology in a 7 liter engine and do it reliably.
Here's how you do it:
Compression goes to 12:1, direct injection, better head and valve flow, slightly more aggressive cam profile with vvt for proper idle characteristics and high end power, 7500rpm.
That's not even a hard thing to conceptualize or execute for the level of engineering that GM has.
09-07-2013, 08:55 PM
#32
Drifting
I have owned a few turbo cars over the past 30 years, and until about 18 months ago I too was not a really big fan of them for a performance car. But I bought a 2012 BMW 550 with 400 hp/450 lb ft of torque from a twin turbo V8. I also recently drove a friends 2014 Audi S8. They will change your thinking about turbo lag. I still have a love of strong N/A engines as in the Z06 I had. But I would have no problem with a twin turbo Corvette if the engine is as well sorted as the Germans have them. I think the new Cadillac CTS turbo will be a good indicator of GM's turbo capabilities.
I love the power of a N/A engine but I always get a smile on my face when I drive my TT BMW 535. Just add a tune and a few gallons of E85 and the car goes from 260 rwhp to over 400rwhp and 430 rwtq. Oh, and it makes 28-30 mpg at 80 mph. Not bad for a 3 litre 6 banger. Turbos are awesome.
Bring it on.
09-07-2013, 09:02 PM
#33
Le Mans Master
Weight, heat, poor MPG, all for excessive power that doesn't result in faster lap times.
No thanks.
No thanks.
09-07-2013, 10:12 PM
#34
Instructor
09-07-2013, 10:29 PM
#35
Team Owner
09-07-2013, 10:37 PM
#36
Weight, heat, poor MPG, all for excessive power that doesn't result in faster lap times
09-07-2013, 10:50 PM
#37
Le Mans Master
FI engines always need to be running rich and run low compression because of detonation concerns. They suck a lot of fuel compared to equivalent hp NA engines.
The ZR1 is an example of this common occurrence. Even off boost they get worse mpg than a high compression LS7. On boost, well it's going to get a lot worse but then in this case of course your also making more power.
The ZR1 is an example of this common occurrence. Even off boost they get worse mpg than a high compression LS7. On boost, well it's going to get a lot worse but then in this case of course your also making more power.
Last edited by Suns_PSD; 09-07-2013 at 10:53 PM.
09-07-2013, 11:13 PM
#39
Team Owner
FI engines always need to be running rich and run low compression because of detonation concerns. They suck a lot of fuel compared to equivalent hp NA engines.
The ZR1 is an example of this common occurrence. Even off boost they get worse mpg than a high compression LS7. On boost, well it's going to get a lot worse but then in this case of course your also making more power.
The ZR1 is an example of this common occurrence. Even off boost they get worse mpg than a high compression LS7. On boost, well it's going to get a lot worse but then in this case of course your also making more power.
09-07-2013, 11:38 PM
#40
Le Mans Master
GM pulled out all the stops on the last 7 liter engine, including titanium rods and CNC machined ports, and got to 505 at 7000 rpm. Direct injection isn't going to help that much. We only got an extra 24 horsepower on the 6.2L DI engine.
GM does make some tall block LS crate engines of 454 cu. in. displacement that make over 600 horsepower, but those have a lot cam and would never meet emissions as built. Also it is an iron block, so I don't think they would go for that in the Corvette. Chevy also has to keep the fuel economy somewhat in line, too.
Michael