Why does the new 2014 Z28 get factory Tri-Y headers and not the C7?
03-30-2013, 05:40 PM
#43
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,267
Received 5,458 Likes
on
2,274 Posts
03-30-2013, 06:22 PM
#47
Le Mans Master
And your point being??? They had to design new manifolds from scratch for the LT1 anyway....the Tri-Y is simply not an all-out racing manifold design, it broadens the torque and HP curve across the board (a very broad band). For my two cents, this was likely an opportunity for another 10 HP/10 TQ over the current log design so why not!
Michael
03-30-2013, 07:25 PM
#48
Le Mans Master
03-31-2013, 12:55 AM
#52
Le Mans Master
Michael
03-31-2013, 01:05 AM
#53
Safety Car
While this thread is still open I'll post a little exhaust manifold trivia:
.
Cast iron manifolds are a LT1 tradition. Every LT1 has had them, 70-72, 92-96*, and now 2014.
The much improved 300hp 1992 LT1 with cast iron manifolds replaced the 250hp 1991 L98 which had tubular manifolds. Is history repeating itself?
We don't like the weight of cast iron, but a casting does allow development of optimum shapes to enhance flow whereas with tubes you're restricted to a constant diameter or a step to a different size tube.
For the all-purpose 2014 Stingray, cast should do just fine. A little over 9 months from now we'll be checking out the manifolds on the REAL performance model's LT4 coming for 2015.
*including the 96 LT4
.
.
Cast iron manifolds are a LT1 tradition. Every LT1 has had them, 70-72, 92-96*, and now 2014.
The much improved 300hp 1992 LT1 with cast iron manifolds replaced the 250hp 1991 L98 which had tubular manifolds. Is history repeating itself?
We don't like the weight of cast iron, but a casting does allow development of optimum shapes to enhance flow whereas with tubes you're restricted to a constant diameter or a step to a different size tube.
For the all-purpose 2014 Stingray, cast should do just fine. A little over 9 months from now we'll be checking out the manifolds on the REAL performance model's LT4 coming for 2015.
*including the 96 LT4
.
Last edited by ZL-1; 03-31-2013 at 02:30 AM.
03-31-2013, 01:22 AM
#54
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,267
Received 5,458 Likes
on
2,274 Posts
What manifolds does the LS3 have?
03-31-2013, 02:28 AM
#56
Safety Car
Thanks, I stand corrected on the LS. I'll go back and correct that.
03-31-2013, 06:29 AM
#57
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
For now on, I'm just going to comment about how your ignorance never ceases to amaze me each time I reply to something you say. It seems fitting and I still have YET to see you post anything positive about GM or the C7. So many opinionated posts in a forum you obviously don't belong in since you obviously hate every last thing about the C7 and will probably never buy one.
03-31-2013, 07:17 AM
#58
Team Owner
03-31-2013, 07:48 AM
#59
Le Mans Master
With the short runners and with a early merge the exhaust manifold for the LT1 appears very torque minded. Therefore, and in my opinion for the purpose the LT1 is to serve, its' pipes are well thought out.
On the other hand the LS7 pipes are designed for higher RPM range and maximum heat extraction.
With its additional torque already present, and the high revving horsepower characteristics of the LS7, along with its critical need to get heat away from the exhaust valves, it's pipes seem well planned.
On the other hand the LS7 pipes are designed for higher RPM range and maximum heat extraction.
With its additional torque already present, and the high revving horsepower characteristics of the LS7, along with its critical need to get heat away from the exhaust valves, it's pipes seem well planned.
03-31-2013, 02:10 PM
#60
Instructor
Member Since: Dec 2010
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah. How stupid. And they didn't put the LS6 in the 2005 C6. That was dumb too. After all, the LS6 made more power. And it was really dumb that the LT5 didn't become the standard engine in the 1996 Corvettes.
Because you know very little about the LT1, which makes me wonder why you say that GM should have used the top N/A motor they had in a previous generation Corvette instead of a far more efficient (and likely better, more durable) engine.
For now on, I'm just going to comment about how your ignorance never ceases to amaze me each time I reply to something you say. It seems fitting and I still have YET to see you post anything positive about GM or the C7. So many opinionated posts in a forum you obviously don't belong in since you obviously hate every last thing about the C7 and will probably never buy one.
Because you know very little about the LT1, which makes me wonder why you say that GM should have used the top N/A motor they had in a previous generation Corvette instead of a far more efficient (and likely better, more durable) engine.
For now on, I'm just going to comment about how your ignorance never ceases to amaze me each time I reply to something you say. It seems fitting and I still have YET to see you post anything positive about GM or the C7. So many opinionated posts in a forum you obviously don't belong in since you obviously hate every last thing about the C7 and will probably never buy one.
