Roadfrog

As I have read, I believe the new C6 engine is a little over 360 CI in displacement. Given the current 5.7 liter makes 405 HP in the ZO6, I would think the new higher displacement engine is not working as hard. Any comments?

Just an opinion here but I don't think GM finished the job by a long shot on the new engine. This is the year 2004, and push rod engines are becoming stone age technology.

I've owned two other seriously fast cars, both with variable valve timing, and the torque curves on both engines seemed straight up and nearly linear. It isn't hard to make a Viper killer. GM just doesn't want to (or can't) spend the money on a modern world class engine. Either that, or they're holding back purposely.

It wasn't THAT long ago that the old Grand National (Winston Cup) engines were where some stock cars are today for HP. Fortunately, the average age of Vette purchasers are in the 50's. Can you see putting a 400 HP car in the hands of some high school kids now running ricers? Thank goodness my ZO6 isn't affordable to most! Just another free opinion. :auto:

Scissors

GM has to worry about two things:

1. Durability

2. People who bitch

The LS2 is under rated, given what we know about it. But if GM prints its real output, then people will bitch over the next few years because they're not increasing it. By leaving it low, they can increase it in a year or three and minimize the complaints. It's just good marketing.

jimman

:iagree:

WhiteDiamond

In general, American auto makers seem less inclined to produce a "killer" V8 than those across the Atlantic. I agree with Scissors in that the LS2 is underatted. I don't think we should beat the General up yet, though, as we don't have any real numbers on what this new C6 is capable of. If the price is mid 40K, the motor is at least up to the numbers released, then we should have another Vette capable of running with much more expensive alloys and composites in a very attractive and almost bargain like price.

Todd

Roadfrog

1. There's plenty of evidence on this forum that GM doesn't worry about people that bitch.

2. I can assure you first hand that any publicly owned company's first priorities now are the return to their stockholders and complying with the Sarbanes Oxley Act. If you think complying with this new act from big brother doesn't have the first priority in driving top level decisions in public companies, check it out. Federal prison is now in the equation.

3. If you think GM will raise the rating without changing the engine (correct me if I'm reading you wrong) then car people just aren't that naive. :cheers:

night feeder

:iagree:

SWCDuke

GMPT had to use expensive premium parts such as light weight hollow stem valves (which cost about four times as much as conventional valves) to work with the more aggressive cam on LS6, which drove up the cost of LS6. LS2 has a displacement of 364 CID versus 347 for LS1. Do the math and figure out which one has the greater specific output. Since LS2 is a "base" engine, its cost had to be kept in line with LS1, and that's what it should be compared to, not LS6.

LS6 is part of a higher priced premium model. LS7 will get the premium parts treatment with higher displacement and specific output, but it will definitely cost more to build and to the consumer than a LS2 coupe.

Once again, Corvette pushrod engines produce more power and greater torque bandwidth per pound of engine mass and cubic foot of package volume than almost any other available automotive engine regardless of architecture or price. They are more fuel efficient, and they are cheaper to build, which keeps Corvette prices low relative to vehicles with comparable performance.

In a street engine it's peak torque, torque bandwidth, and specific peak power output per unit mass/package volume/production cost/specific fuel consumption that is the best solution, and that's why Corvettes have big aluminum pushrod V8s.

The day they put a costly, heavy, bulky, gas guzzling, dinky little four-cam V8 in the Corvette is the day that half their customer base will walk away because the performance will drop.

If you think pushrod engines are such "stone age technology", why did you get rid of your "two other seriously fast cars" and buy a ZO6?

BTW, torque curves do not go "straight up". If they are relatively flat, then the power curve is nearly a linear function of RPM. These are key attributes of Corvette engines - very high and flat torque curves that yield very linear power curves, which are the best kind. If you've ever driven a F355 or F360, which don't even feel alive until at least 3500 revs, you come to appreciate a Corvette engine's admirable attributes including EPA mileage ratings of 19/28 versus F360's 11/16.

HELP! Scissors, I forgot to breathe. ;)

Duke

Scissors

We have an inordinate number of extremists. GM cares when it's a significant number of people who bitch because then the bottom line is affected.

But most car purchasers, even of the Corvette, aren't "car people." Plus, GM has done it before. To wit: the LS1 in the F-bodies vs. the LS1 in the C5. Actual rating was within 10 HP of each other, advertised HP had a spread of 45.

jschindler

It's hard for me to believe that anyone would bitch about an engine that will take a fully loaded (with most luxury amenities) car to a 1/4 of mid 12's at 115 - 116 (which it will surely do), still be able to get around 30 mpg on the freeway, and have a torque curve that is unequaled in high performance engines. I'll challenge you to name another car that can equal or exceed this COMBINATION of qualites, at any price, from any mfr.

Roadfrog

***If you think pushrod engines are such "stone age technology", why did you get rid of your "two other seriously fast cars" and buy a ZO6?***

Nice write-up Duke. Good thinking but for the part about getting personal as in your above quote. I didn't do it with you. I will answer it though. In the past 5 years, I've owned an E46 M and a new Porsche 911 briefly which I hated due to handling and the dealer it practically had to go to. I got rid of it quick. If you think they aren't seriously fast, you have not tracked them. Corvettes aren't the only fast cars out there. Why did I get rid of them? I had tracked the Bimmer enough to believe that I felt some serious $ was going to be spent on it soon and I just plain got bored with it. The 911 just takes too long to get used to the handling, at least for me.

Why did I get a ZO6? Because Chevy finally came out with a car that is even faster the the two above. How long it will last, who knows? I'm obviously not brand loyal.

Didn't say a "dinky" V8. The Ford Cobra engine (heaven forbid) isn't dinky but it does put out decent power for it's displacement to a very heavy car.

Oops, I did mention other brands, flame away.


[Modified by Roadfrog, 2:46 PM 1/13/2004]


[Modified by Roadfrog, 2:53 PM 1/13/2004]

Roadfrog

It's a matter of expectations. I don't manage the business I'm responsible for based on what it's doing but on what it has the potential to do. But you are right, what's in the current Vette is fun to drive. :cheers:

Roadfrog

Roadfrog,

I can't believe you owned not one but two of those slow, expensive, dinky, snobby, European cars. You must spend a lot of time on a lily pad. Only real men (and women) drive a Corvette.

Thought I would just go ahead and flame myself to save a lot of people some time. :D :D :D

jschindler

I certainly understand your point. Now, I have to admit something that I'm less and less proud of over the years, but I actually have a degree in marketing (almost 30 years ago now!). And I understand that from a marketing standpoint, they want to sell every one they can make at full list, and they also know that the life cycle of a generation of cars (C6) is long enough that they may need to have room for improvement.

Roadfrog

If you can sell at full list only half the time, I'll hire you in a second! :cheers:

SWCDuke

I don't think that question was "getting personal", but - whatever... your post certainly left it begging for an answer.

The Ford four-cam V-8 is a good example that supports my argument. Let me define "dinky" as less than 4.5L, so the Cobra engine is above that cut, however, to approach the level of power of the naturally aspirated LS6 it requires a supercharger, which makes the engine much heavier and bulkier than a LS6 and a near gas guzzler to boot. It's power peak and rev limit are the same as LS6, so the higher rev potential of the DOHC layout is not being exploited and amounts to little more than gratuitous technology.

The new Ford GT has a 5.4L version of this engine that requires a supercharger to achieve 500 HP. The new LS7 is expected to deliver close to this peak output without a supercharger in a package that is maybe slightly heavier and bulkier than LS2 due to the 3V heads, but it will still end up lighter, more fuel efficient, and in a smaller package volume than any other engine of comparable average output across the entire rev range.

Duke





[Modified by SWCDuke, 4:53 PM 1/13/2004]

Tom73

The overall package is the key. The DOHC V8 engines are taller, wider, and heaver than the Chevy LS1/LS2. The OHV engines can be kept compact and easier to fit into a small package. A DOHC V8 would require a wider engine compartment and a taller hood (unless they went with a dry sump system to lower the engine). This adds weight. The added weight of the engine plus the added weight of the larger front section of the car. Read where Chevy said that for every pound added to the engine added two pounds to the car.

Also should not be comparing the LS2 to the LS6. LS2 is the base engine so compare it to the 350hp LS1. So it is up 50hp. The LS6 should be compared to the upcoming "BlueDevil" and its estimated hp of 500+. What we now have is a base model that runs with the Z06. Not bad if you ask me :D

tom...

SWCDuke

One of the key enablers of C5's airy cockpit is the low cowl that was afforded by the compact LS-series V8. The cowl of C5 was lowered 3" relative to C4, and the C6 cowl is probably about the same height as C5.

Sitting in a C5 can almost trick you into believing you are seated in a mid-engine car. It's just tough to imagine that such a large displacement engine could fit in the front end because of the lack of visual bulk.

An equivalent displacement DOHC engine would require the cowl to be raised back to at least C4 levels, if not higher, and you're back to sitting in a hole. (It is not my intent to offend C4 onwners with the above statement. I just don't like sitting low in a high-cowled car.).

Duke

need-for-speed

Tom, don't forget that the 500 HP Z06 and 600+ HP Blue Devil are 2 different cars :cheers:

As for the original post, I'm trying not to make this personal ..... it's tough .....but the people who pine for 4 valve per cylinder engines, overhead cams, 4 wheel steering, and yes, even AWD, are most often the type of people who have never turned a wrench, don't know the difference between a roller cam and a flat tappet cam. They don't usually race their cars (o.k. roadfrog raced his) . They spend their days bench racing and driving their 5 year old Honda Accord. :lol: Maybe roadfrog doesn't fit into that category but many on his "side of the aisle" do.

And to J. Schindler's comments, don't feel bad about the Marketing Degree. At least you guys graduate w/ fewer ulcers and more hair than we Engineering majors.

jschindler

Actually I wanted to be an engineer, but wan't smart enough. To this day I can't figure your how to multiply A X B then divide by C. I always thought math should involve numbers.... :jester

RGGregory

Quote:

And to J. Schindler's comments, don't feel bad about the Marketing Degree. At least you guys graduate w/ fewer ulcers and more hair than we Engineering majors
-----------
Amen to that, Brother. :D