Go Back   Corvette Forum > C7 Corvette > C7 General Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C7 General Discussion
General C7 Corvette Discussion not covered in Tech Sponsored by
Kerbeck Corvettes

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-16-2013, 10:19 AM   #41
skank
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Carmel CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam90lx View Post
This would be cool! I feel they need a N/A Beast and one that is FI.
You're right. We already have a huge built-in market for a NA beast in the ZO6 and FI in the ZR1 with the current owners let alone any new buyer converts.
skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:22 AM   #42
Umrswimr
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '05
 
Umrswimr's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2001
Location: Overwhelmed as one would be, placed in my position.... DFW, TX
Send a message via AIM to Umrswimr
Default

Pfft, "As reported by Jalopnik". Who the hell believes the posting of some stupid internet rag anyway??

Umrswimr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:27 AM   #43
skank
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Carmel CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umrswimr View Post
Pfft, "As reported by Jalopnik". Who the hell believes the posting of some stupid internet rag anyway??

They've been pretty right so far on a lot of things!!!!!
skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 01:45 PM   #44
JoesC5
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: Springfield MO
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCM_Crash View Post
I don't think this article is at all right. It would assume that another motor was being built. I don't believe that's the case unless 3 performance trims will be available... again.

The LT1 was obviously designed to ouput more power/torque than it's outputting now. The CAD drawings show a blower on it.

My guess is that - unless there's a 3rd variant they're working - the Z06 will be a blown LT1.
The LT1 has different engine mounts, etc, designed for the AFM application. The older Gen IV engines are not a drop in into the C7.

The next power level will be achieved with a supercharger on a Gen V variant of the LT1.
JoesC5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 01:51 PM   #45
sam90lx
CF Senior Member
 
sam90lx's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2010
Location: Ventura CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoesC5 View Post
The LT1 has different engine mounts, etc, designed for the AFM application. The older Gen IV engines are not a drop in into the C7.

The next power level will be achieved with a supercharger on a Gen V variant of the LT1.
Cmon Joe...we need an NA motor!
sam90lx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 03:05 PM   #46
Mookster
CF Senior Member
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2011
Location: Seattle
Default

Is this really C7 Z06?
http://jalopnik.com/is-this-the-next...-z06-456413379
Mookster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 03:19 PM   #47
sam90lx
CF Senior Member
 
sam90lx's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2010
Location: Ventura CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post
Hope not!
sam90lx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 03:21 PM   #48
99C5JA1
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2003
Location: Ankeny IA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam90lx View Post
Cmon Joe...we need an NA motor!
I'd love to see it, but I doubt we'll get it. The C7 shows plainly the focus on meeting EPA standards. The equation for more HP in an NA application has been the same for a very long time. A larger camshaft for more air and fuel, better heads to move the air and finally a better flowing exhaust to let it out. The larger camshaft causes issues with emissions and, if large enough, driveability. Consumption will be higher even when not driving aggressively because the valve events will require it.

If we do see a bigger displacement LTx, it will probably be a very mild bump over the LS7 for these reasons. There's no magic wand that is going to make a cam capable of supporting 600+hp be civil enough to market to general public. Even if they could get past the emissions issues.

FI doesn't have a lot of these problems. You don't need a large camshaft, just one patterned for boost. Consumption is comparable when not making boost. Hitting your target output isn't all that difficult. I just wish we would see low mounted turbos from an efficiency and weight balance perspective.

So my guess is if we do see a larger LTx motor it will be a very modest increase over the LS7. Probably 520-530hp. More likely we'll probably get a boosted 600-650hp variant. Or if GM decides they like having 3 price points, two boosted variants. Probably a 550-575hp and 650+hp model.
99C5JA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 03:28 PM   #49
sam90lx
CF Senior Member
 
sam90lx's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2010
Location: Ventura CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99C5JA1 View Post
I'd love to see it, but I doubt we'll get it. The C7 shows plainly the focus on meeting EPA standards. The equation for more HP in an NA application has been the same for a very long time. A larger camshaft for more air and fuel, better heads to move the air and finally a better flowing exhaust to let it out. The larger camshaft causes issues with emissions and, if large enough, driveability. Consumption will be higher even when not driving aggressively because the valve events will require it.

If we do see a bigger displacement LTx, it will probably be a very mild bump over the LS7 for these reasons. There's no magic wand that is going to make a cam capable of supporting 600+hp be civil enough to market to general public. Even if they could get past the emissions issues.

FI doesn't have a lot of these problems. You don't need a large camshaft, just one patterned for boost. Consumption is comparable when not making boost. Hitting your target output isn't all that difficult. I just wish we would see low mounted turbos from an efficiency and weight balance perspective.

So my guess is if we do see a larger LTx motor it will be a very modest increase over the LS7. Probably 520-530hp. More likely we'll probably get a boosted 600-650hp variant. Or if GM decides they like having 3 price points, two boosted variants. Probably a 550-575hp and 650+hp model.
I hope you are wrong, there needs to be a 575-600hp NA car that can be tracked without heat soak issues and the extra weight of FI. If they don't build a bunch of them it wont have to meet the cafe BS rules.
sam90lx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 05:47 PM   #50
Hirohawa
CF Senior Member
 
Hirohawa's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2002
Location: Venice, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam90lx View Post
I hope you are wrong, there needs to be a 575-600hp NA car that can be tracked without heat soak issues and the extra weight of FI. If they don't build a bunch of them it wont have to meet the cafe BS rules.
Hirohawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:13 PM   #51
skank
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Carmel CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam90lx View Post
I hope you are wrong, there needs to be a 575-600hp NA car that can be tracked without heat soak issues and the extra weight of FI. If they don't build a bunch of them it wont have to meet the cafe BS rules.
Right On. A 427 LT1 would be perfect!!!
skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:17 PM   #52
MTPZ06
CF Senior Member
 
MTPZ06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2008
Location: San Juan Capistrano CA
@MTPZ06
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mookster View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam90lx View Post
Hope not!
I hope not as well; that's a lot of tailpipe smoke...looks like valve guides are worn out.
MTPZ06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 10:49 PM   #53
SCM_Crash
UIX Engineer to the Max!
Support Corvetteforum!
 
SCM_Crash's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles California
Default

Geezus... More "It has to be xxx HP" comments.
SCM_Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 11:11 PM   #54
sam90lx
CF Senior Member
 
sam90lx's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2010
Location: Ventura CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCM_Crash View Post
Geezus... More "It has to be xxx HP" comments.
Beats the hell out of talking about E85!
sam90lx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 12:35 AM   #55
VETTEMANN
CF Senior Member
 
VETTEMANN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skank View Post
Right On. A 427 LT1 would be perfect!!!
Not a chance.

Track-focused, light-weight, and with a 550HP tuned 6.2L LT1 is more likely. But not introduced as soon as people think.

With the first year of the C7R running the old LS engine until they have more time to develop a new LT-based racing engine, why would GM introduce a new C7Z06 until they could claim it featured a new C7R LT engine from the track? So I doubt will see it at the 2014 NAIAS...

Last edited by VETTEMANN; 07-17-2013 at 12:40 AM.
VETTEMANN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 06:35 AM   #56
99HRDTP
CF Senior Member
 
99HRDTP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Panama City Beach FL
Default

I hope they continue to emulate Porsche with the 911....Stingray=Carrera, ZO6=GT3, and ZR1=Turbo...i.e. multiple variants of the same model built for different purposes and price points.
__________________
Mike

'10 ZR1
'06 ZO6
'06 Cayenne Turbo S
'99 Hardtop
'87 Grand National
'00 Suzuki GSX1300R (Hayabusa) - R.I.P.


99HRDTP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 09:55 AM   #57
OBSSSD
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Dallas / Ft. Worth The Republic of TEXAS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99C5JA1 View Post
I'd love to see it, but I doubt we'll get it. The C7 shows plainly the focus on meeting EPA standards. The equation for more HP in an NA application has been the same for a very long time. A larger camshaft for more air and fuel, better heads to move the air and finally a better flowing exhaust to let it out. The larger camshaft causes issues with emissions and, if large enough, driveability. Consumption will be higher even when not driving aggressively because the valve events will require it.

If we do see a bigger displacement LTx, it will probably be a very mild bump over the LS7 for these reasons. There's no magic wand that is going to make a cam capable of supporting 600+hp be civil enough to market to general public. Even if they could get past the emissions issues.

FI doesn't have a lot of these problems. You don't need a large camshaft, just one patterned for boost. Consumption is comparable when not making boost. Hitting your target output isn't all that difficult. I just wish we would see low mounted turbos from an efficiency and weight balance perspective.

So my guess is if we do see a larger LTx motor it will be a very modest increase over the LS7. Probably 520-530hp. More likely we'll probably get a boosted 600-650hp variant. Or if GM decides they like having 3 price points, two boosted variants. Probably a 550-575hp and 650+hp model.
A ZR1 doesn't get anywhere near the mileage of the LS7 even just cruising at 75 on the highway. If GM made two supercharged variants then no one would buy the more expensive one - because they know they can save $25k buy the cheaper on and just pulley the car down to make the same or more power safely as the far more expensive model. Most people would far prefer an NA car for track use over a blown car too, because it is far easier to go fast in one on most tracks which are tighter with less long straightaways.

And as far as consumption an LS7 with AFM could well reach 27-28MPG on the highway - something not even remotely close to a blown LT1, and it would probably weight no more than the LT1. Since GM cares so much about fuel economy now why would they do this? The only way almost anyone would be motived to buy the more expensive blown variant if there were two is if it was twin turbo, because the car would have near unlimited potential for power.
OBSSSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 10:11 AM   #58
b4i4getit
CF Senior Member
 
b4i4getit's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTPZ06 View Post
I hope not as well; that's a lot of tailpipe smoke...looks like valve guides are worn out.
The same processes and procedures for head machining and assembly are being deployed for the LT1 engine as well. It is very possible that the LT1 could have valve guide issues as well.
b4i4getit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 10:26 AM   #59
skank
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Carmel CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 99HRDTP View Post
I hope they continue to emulate Porsche with the 911....Stingray=Carrera, ZO6=GT3, and ZR1=Turbo...i.e. multiple variants of the same model built for different purposes and price points.
This is exactly what Corvette is doing. Matching up favorably I might add where all three Vettes dominate their P-car counterparts on the track.

Last edited by skank; 07-17-2013 at 10:29 AM.
skank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 01:04 PM   #60
99C5JA1
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2003
Location: Ankeny IA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBSSSD View Post
A ZR1 doesn't get anywhere near the mileage of the LS7 even just cruising at 75 on the highway. If GM made two supercharged variants then no one would buy the more expensive one - because they know they can save $25k buy the cheaper on and just pulley the car down to make the same or more power safely as the far more expensive model. Most people would far prefer an NA car for track use over a blown car too, because it is far easier to go fast in one on most tracks which are tighter with less long straightaways.

And as far as consumption an LS7 with AFM could well reach 27-28MPG on the highway - something not even remotely close to a blown LT1, and it would probably weight no more than the LT1. Since GM cares so much about fuel economy now why would they do this? The only way almost anyone would be motived to buy the more expensive blown variant if there were two is if it was twin turbo, because the car would have near unlimited potential for power.
The ZR1 has greater output and different gearing. As I said I would love to see a high output NA variant, but I doubt it will happen. I don't disagree that a mildly tweaked 7.0L LTx variant would return decent economy. But the 575-600hp figures people keep throwing around will necessitate a much bigger cam. better heads and very efficient exhaust. That will make it much harder to hit the driveability and efficiency targets.

With equal gearing a blown motor will return better efficiency. When it's not making boost, it's essentially a NA motor with a lot smaller cam. Blower motors generally have a more conservative (rich) fuel map, so consumption goes up slightly. But it's not close to what a larger cam in the NA motor would consume. My friends A&A C5 making 720hp gets comparable mileage to my ~500hp LS1 with a H/C combo. It's much easier to drive (almost stock like).

You would probably have more than just output differentiating 2 blown models. But even so, people would still buy the top model. Sure the output wouldn't be enough to justify the cost to a DIY type. But that's always been the case. A Z06 with a blower and the right options would outrun a ZR1, but the audience that goes for the ZR1 wants the warranty and polish that goes along with the factory package.

Again I am not against a high output NA motor. I would love it if they did it. I'm just saying that the FI motor route seems to fit GM's current trend with the C7.
99C5JA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2013, 01:04 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C7 Corvette > C7 General Discussion
Reload this Page 2015 z06??
 
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2015 vs 2016 Z06 BOBSZ06 C7 Z06 Discussion 35 06-08-2014 07:24 PM
2015 c7 z06 David Wallis C7 General Discussion 3 04-28-2014 02:52 PM
2015 Z06 info released bullmarket Northeast 21 01-27-2014 10:56 PM
2015 Z06 unwrapped today FASTFATBOY Autocrossing & Roadracing 2 01-13-2014 11:31 AM
2015 z06 illenema C7 General Discussion 11 12-13-2013 10:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Emails & Password Backup

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2