Would you be mad if the next z06 was supercharged?
 

If the z06 doesn't come naturally aspirated, would it effect your buying decision? Same motor, just blown vs a new big motor.

How about supercharged=ZR1. :rock:We don't even know what the performance model will consist of....

I like your actual question much better than the thread title. Not buying it should NOT equate with getting "mad" at GM, although that seems to be the unfortunate situation with several who post in CF.

I would rather it be NA

I have a C6 Z06 and I also have a supercharged Mercedes as a DD. While I love the LS7(but not it's valves), I would have absolutely no problem with the next Z06(or ever it's called) being a LT1 with a blower on top. Actually, that's what I believe the next hi-po version of the C7 will be; a stock LT1 with a blower on top at around 580-600 HP.

Yeah not mad per se, just turned off by it. To me the z06 should be N/A

Shhhhhhhhh...... Some of us do. :)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PSo6tzSZF2...s400/shhhh.jpg

:hide::yesnod:

Are you kidding?

There are people on here who'll be mad if the windshield is made of glass.

Haha, fair enough.

True dat. :lol:

This.

Whatever weighs less!

It's pretty well known that while 2014's hot Corvette is the Z51, next years top model will have the supercharged LT4 version of the LT1. The only real mystery is what will it be called? It will fill the Z06's spot in the lineup but traditionally a Z06 has been a light and efficient track focused model. The LT4 car will be a fantastic car -but- with all the good stuff of the Z51 plus supercharger, intercooler, big wheels, tires, and brakes it will be heavier than a base Stingray. Even all CF body panels won't get it down to the weight of a base car. So the name Z06 would not be appropriate. And ZR1 should be reserved for the rumored big buck supercar model being considered in a few years. So here's hoping that they can come up with a great new name for this fantastic but not light 2015 model...maybe L88? Maybe in a few years when sales get slow they could do a NA CF body low-content model like the new Camaro Z/28. THAT would be the one to call Z06.



.

No.........................

My understanding from the Z06 section is that all Z06 motors will eventually blow. :D

yes. I think ZR1 should be a turbo for better power and efficiency.

I have always had NA rides. I bought a 2012 CTS V Supercharged and love it. Very easy to mod the first 100hp. I will buy the next Hi Po Stingray no matter what it is powered with.

Mad no, but it should be NA if possible. Some people seem to expect the Z06 to get only a modest increase in power to around 550, but there no way it's going to be that low. All of the Z's competitors are around 570 - 600 +. I'll bet my last dollar it's at least 600. Will GM do a NA motor with that much power? It should be relatively easy considering the displacement. There needs to be some differentiation between the Z06 and ZR1. Supercharging both will be too much of the same.

How can I be mad seeing those 750+whp bolt-on ZR1s? Imagine the potential of a supercharged LT4 LT5 LT9 or whatever?!

if by mad you mean would I want to buy one, then yes.

I'd prefer N/A, Centrifical Supercharged(I know, it isn't going to happen), or turbos over a PD blower.

it would make the decision to stay with the Z51 that much easier.

:iagree:

I wouldn't be too upset if that was the case. I'd rather they still call it 'ZR1' if it's going to be supercharged (or turbocharged which is also a possibility) but either name will do. :yesnod:

Keep in mind that C4 ZR1 was NA. :D ;)

Centri's Rule!:yesnod:

:hide: yes but we can't talk about that :thumbs: We can only sit back and watch the speculation ;);)

The Z06 has been the "track" car like the new Z28 Camaro. Naturally Aspirated tends do be the better track solution if for no other reason than a blower (or turbos) add weight were you don't want it. N/A also tends to have a more linear throttle response and less heat soaking issues for the track.

In my opinion, better to have a N/A Z06 and leave the forced induction for the ZR1 model.

I'm only going to be upset if I decide I want one & cannot afford it. :rofl:

:iagree:

I'd rather see a higher displacement NA Z and a FI ZR.

But as noted above, C4 ZR was NA. The C3 ZR was NA as well. But it would seem to draw a Z and ZR too close together (too similar) if they offered both and both were FI. Who knows, maybe they don't plan to offer both.

Holy Crapola - you know more than all the Tadges combined :eek:

I think the way gov regulation is going, I think the future of a bigger NA engine is limited. IMO it would make more sense for GM to do FI, seeing as if regulation changes they don't have to go back to the drawing board.

This may be the case. I'm not sure what a 575HP NA car will do to GM's CAFE numbers. The super cars of the world just buy CAFE credits for the few cars they make.

It would be disappointing if there wasn't a performance model that's n/a. Either way, I wouldn't be able to afford it anyways lol

:iagree::iagree:

Aho knows at this point which way Team Corvette will go. I'm not digging several things with the C7 Platform already - the design of the rear and that the car is heavier with an Aluminum frame and CF bothers me as those are ways the C6Z06 stayed so light.

A supercharger will just add additional weight that no Z06 buyer wants.

I'd prefer the Z06 to be naturally aspirated.

If it was to be FI, I think the PD blower is by far the best because it has zero lag and the flattest torque curve (compared to cetrifugal S/C or Turbos).

The issue with the FI is the added weight and complexity.

-T

Maybe, maybe not. They could be using the TTV6 as a model. It seems there is alot of technology put into that motor that could very easily transport into the Corvette's LT1.

It would be odd to me at first but in the end it really would not matter. I think whatever they make will be more than cabable of carrying the torch.

What size engine would get the supercharger??? The 400 or the 427??? :toetap:

I'm not sure if it had been done before but could you imagine the technical challenges for enabling active fuel management/cyclinder deactivation, 4cyclinder mode running a super charger? At that point, I'm not sure if running 8cyclinder non-super charged would be more efficient than running 4cyc super charged. Someone will have to do a test on this! Or take out 4 cyclinder mode completely. Performance or not, I would still love to save gas.

Maybe if the engine was going to serve out its life on an engine dyno somewhere...but the problem is, it has to fit into the car and haul itself around. Packaging the turbos, inter-cooler, all the extra plumbing, etc., as well as dealing with the added radiant heat and the poorer, non-linear power response, all conspire against this "gee-whiz" solution. A TTV6 might fit, but a TTV8 is a much tougher proposition.



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.



My vote for a C7 "Z06" engine is a NA, larger-displacement version of the LT1. If it had all the same technology as the LT1, it would be nearly as good on gas while retaining the so-desirable "right now" power response of the LS7...and very minimal additional weight (mainly from the heavier crank).

Here is my take on this. I have come from a 2003 Mustang Cobra (Supercharged) and a 2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 (supercharged). My move to the LS7 Z06 was because of my admiration of the vehicle in N/A form. My previous builds have all been boosted. This build, I want to be a N/A car with H/C/I. I realize that the car will probably not be the faster out there but I feel I can use the power I make N/A in a much better way on the street then I did with my previous cars. I don't think I will be upset if the next Z06 will be boosted.

It would just mean that the LS7 Z06 would be that much more exclusive.

:yesnod:
#1 Defining Post of the C7 Era! :lol:


.

Ideally I want to keep the Z06 N/A but not at the expense of losing hp and reliability.

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.

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.

I think this is pretty much it. With BHO pushing down the "green" path, I don't see how GM is going to go with big displacement. If they are going to invest the money to build out the platform, they are going to do it once and something they won't have to redesign.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/18/c...-cts-w-videos/

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.

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.

It wouldn't work. The power imbalance between cylinders would have the motor constantly fighting itself.

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.

There will be people mad if it don't have fat tires and fender flares!

Me.:mad:

Glass for a windshield really make a car look "dated".

Balance...the rotating mass would be way out of balance with two different size bores. Great concept though. :cheers:

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! :rofl:

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. :thumbs:

:rofl: For sure!!

I just worry about the road course background a z06 has. Arent superchargers generally a no no for a track car

Yeah, but you're the kind of person who brings a Viper avatar to a Corvette enthusiast forum, so.....

Generally they are, due to Cooling issues and added weight. ZR1's seem to do okay though so I'm not concerned if FI becomes more and more common. :cheers:

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.

I agree but what would she cost?

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. :lol: