Chevrolet: Corvette News
04-29-2003, 08:34 PM
#41
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks great so far. I'm really excited about this car. I know a big emphasis for this car was on the interior supposedly. I can't wait to see it in person.
At least it's good to know they were testing this car with a 350Z. I always wanted a Vette, but it's a little too $$ for me, so the Z was my second choice
At least it's good to know they were testing this car with a 350Z. I always wanted a Vette, but it's a little too $$ for me, so the Z was my second choice
04-29-2003, 09:34 PM
#42
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Red Nj-s
i like it, but not as much as the current vette. Time will tell though.
WHERE IS THE CAMARO!?!?
i like it, but not as much as the current vette. Time will tell though.
WHERE IS THE CAMARO!?!?
04-29-2003, 09:36 PM
#43
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by cusdaddy
Looks great so far. I'm really excited about this car. I know a big emphasis for this car was on the interior supposedly.
Looks great so far. I'm really excited about this car. I know a big emphasis for this car was on the interior supposedly.
04-30-2003, 12:55 PM
#44
Moderator Alumnus
Hmm...
I don't like it much... Looks like a morphed C5 :-(
I'm missing the excitement of a smoothed out C5.... ugh...
Where did the 4-5 years of development go?
Look way too much like the C5, which I'm not too hot on either.
Now *this* is sexy...
I don't like it much... Looks like a morphed C5 :-(
I'm missing the excitement of a smoothed out C5.... ugh...
Where did the 4-5 years of development go?
Look way too much like the C5, which I'm not too hot on either.
Now *this* is sexy...
04-30-2003, 01:41 PM
#45
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: west of the mississippi
Age: 45
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been some rumors swirling around the GM may stuff a V12 into a future version the C6 and try to compete w/ the Ferrari GT cars. I'll see if I can find a link to some info for you all....highly unlikely? Yep, but fun to chat about none the less.
10-03-2003, 08:20 AM
#50
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
C6 Z06 would have received a new 6.0 liter V8? NOT!
It's even better than that according to MotorTrend.
It will be a 6.3! liter V8. Even more interestingly, it will incorporate a 3 valve per cylinder design. And still OHV/pushrod design of course.
The more amazing part in the story is that it will turn safely all the way to 7000 rpm and although out-of-the-box, fuel cutoff will be soon after that, this engine is certified for 8000 rpm runs with no problem! The engine will make 500 HP at 7K and this figure might be revised by next year (I am guessing upwards).
What's amazing here folks is that GM managed to have their cake and eat it too. Here is why:
In general, we have 2 schools of thought when it comes to engine design. The ones that make good power by reving higher and keeping displacement low (usually DOHC designs) and the ones that keep revs lower and displacement high to also make good power. And we all know about the torue curve differences.
To make a 6.3 liter engine that uses pushrods to rev to 7K rpm reliably, I believe, is impressive. Because I am guessing the advantages of the OHV design will be maintained with this engine. Things like low end grunt, low gas consumption and very high reliability. Oh and dont forget the most important of all. LOW COST.
We know we got the Displacement On Demand functionality incorporated with this 4th Generation small-black GM engine.
So what was missing was high revs. And now we got that too. Comparing the Italian school (hint: Ferrari), where high revs is the name of the game for high HP results (although displacement has been reaching USAmerican levels lately), I believe, GM wins.
Why? Because, the OHV design is so much cheaper, moderately more reliable, uses a lot less gas and makes so much more low end and mid range torque, you cant but call it a winner.
Final note: 6.3 liters from 8 cylinders = 787.5 cc per cylinder. Max power at 7000 rpm.
Comparing that to the 3.6 liters from the Modena = 450 cc per cylinder. Max power at 8500 rpm
Murcielago's V12 at 6.2 liters = 516cc (although comparing a V12 is not a fair comparison - works totally differently - though inertia is inertia). Max power at 7500 rpm.
Many more examples...
Bottom line, it's harder to make large parts move at high speeds and it's even harder to make an OHV design operate at high speeds.
It will be a 6.3! liter V8. Even more interestingly, it will incorporate a 3 valve per cylinder design. And still OHV/pushrod design of course.
The more amazing part in the story is that it will turn safely all the way to 7000 rpm and although out-of-the-box, fuel cutoff will be soon after that, this engine is certified for 8000 rpm runs with no problem! The engine will make 500 HP at 7K and this figure might be revised by next year (I am guessing upwards).
What's amazing here folks is that GM managed to have their cake and eat it too. Here is why:
In general, we have 2 schools of thought when it comes to engine design. The ones that make good power by reving higher and keeping displacement low (usually DOHC designs) and the ones that keep revs lower and displacement high to also make good power. And we all know about the torue curve differences.
To make a 6.3 liter engine that uses pushrods to rev to 7K rpm reliably, I believe, is impressive. Because I am guessing the advantages of the OHV design will be maintained with this engine. Things like low end grunt, low gas consumption and very high reliability. Oh and dont forget the most important of all. LOW COST.
We know we got the Displacement On Demand functionality incorporated with this 4th Generation small-black GM engine.
So what was missing was high revs. And now we got that too. Comparing the Italian school (hint: Ferrari), where high revs is the name of the game for high HP results (although displacement has been reaching USAmerican levels lately), I believe, GM wins.
Why? Because, the OHV design is so much cheaper, moderately more reliable, uses a lot less gas and makes so much more low end and mid range torque, you cant but call it a winner.
Final note: 6.3 liters from 8 cylinders = 787.5 cc per cylinder. Max power at 7000 rpm.
Comparing that to the 3.6 liters from the Modena = 450 cc per cylinder. Max power at 8500 rpm
Murcielago's V12 at 6.2 liters = 516cc (although comparing a V12 is not a fair comparison - works totally differently - though inertia is inertia). Max power at 7500 rpm.
Many more examples...
Bottom line, it's harder to make large parts move at high speeds and it's even harder to make an OHV design operate at high speeds.
10-03-2003, 09:28 AM
#52
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by danny25
well then hopefully long term reliability won't be an issue.
well then hopefully long term reliability won't be an issue.
10-03-2003, 11:08 AM
#53
Suzuka Master
that and the engine overall. Based on what you wrote it looks like a high reving ohv engine for consumer production is new territory. Sometimes that new stuff isn't reliable in the long run. But I love the Vette and hope it's bullet proof.
10-03-2003, 11:25 AM
#54
Disproportionate Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One HUGE additional advantage of OHV over DOHC engines is packaging. They're typically smaller and lighter than their DOHC equivalents; in the case of size, they're usually smaller by a LOT.
10-03-2003, 12:45 PM
#56
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Aquineas
One HUGE additional advantage of OHV over DOHC engines is packaging. They're typically smaller and lighter than their DOHC equivalents; in the case of size, they're usually smaller by a LOT.
One HUGE additional advantage of OHV over DOHC engines is packaging. They're typically smaller and lighter than their DOHC equivalents; in the case of size, they're usually smaller by a LOT.
True. Specifically on height. A lot smaller in that respect due to the fact that all the intricate and numerous parts of a DOHC design make it a tall engine requiring higher center of gravity levels (a big problem for sports cars) and higher hood designs (an annoyance for designers).
10-03-2003, 01:21 PM
#60
Cost Drivers!!!!
hmmmm nice but is this really all that impressive? Old school muscle cars had similar setups with massive displacement and gobs of trq? Tech has evolved quite abit. 
It's cheap, should make for a fun car.....
It's cheap, should make for a fun car.....
10-03-2003, 04:53 PM
#61
The hair says it all
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Age: 37
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
hmmmm nice but is this really all that impressive? Old school muscle cars had similar setups with massive displacement and gobs of trq? Tech has evolved quite abit. It's cheap, should make for a fun car.....
hmmmm nice but is this really all that impressive? Old school muscle cars had similar setups with massive displacement and gobs of trq? Tech has evolved quite abit.
It's cheap, should make for a fun car.....
i wonder if i can throw this in my cl?
10-03-2003, 09:31 PM
#62
TQ > MPG
I just read the article in MT, and I gotta admit I am impressed. GM sure knows how to made a small block pushrod V8. Lets hope that the price tag doesnt reach too far above what the C5 costs. Thats the coolest thing about the Vette is that it is the poor man's supercar.
10-04-2003, 02:47 PM
#63
Moderator Alumnus
IMO...
regardless of whatever engine the stick in there. The pics looked like a face lifted C5... And it took a long time for the C5 to *grow* on me. I like the curves of the old stingrays. I really wish GM would get off the edgy look. And back to sleek.
regardless of whatever engine the stick in there. The pics looked like a face lifted C5... And it took a long time for the C5 to *grow* on me. I like the curves of the old stingrays. I really wish GM would get off the edgy look. And back to sleek.
10-04-2003, 03:19 PM
#64
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Red Nj-s
Which makes me wonder how much it will cost.
Which makes me wonder how much it will cost.
But dont forget that the base cars will also benefit. I would not be surprised if a 380HP V8 CTSxxx would be available for less than what the current 400 HP CTSV costs today.
10-04-2003, 03:20 PM
#65
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
hmmmm nice but is this really all that impressive? Old school muscle cars had similar setups with massive displacement and gobs of trq? Tech has evolved quite abit. It's cheap, should make for a fun car.....
hmmmm nice but is this really all that impressive? Old school muscle cars had similar setups with massive displacement and gobs of trq? Tech has evolved quite abit.
It's cheap, should make for a fun car.....
10-04-2003, 03:21 PM
#66
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Python2121
those cars didn't rev high and got horrible gas mileage and were really bad for envioronment
i wonder if i can throw this in my cl?
those cars didn't rev high and got horrible gas mileage and were really bad for envioronment
i wonder if i can throw this in my cl?
10-04-2003, 03:22 PM
#67
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by jtkz13
I just read the article in MT, and I gotta admit I am impressed. GM sure knows how to made a small block pushrod V8. Lets hope that the price tag doesnt reach too far above what the C5 costs. Thats the coolest thing about the Vette is that it is the poor man's supercar.
I just read the article in MT, and I gotta admit I am impressed. GM sure knows how to made a small block pushrod V8. Lets hope that the price tag doesnt reach too far above what the C5 costs. Thats the coolest thing about the Vette is that it is the poor man's supercar.
True and I am sure GM wont make the mistake to take that aways from the Vette. Every automaker should have learned that lesson by now (we saw it happe in the 90s by cars like the Supra, RX7 and others).
10-04-2003, 05:14 PM
#69
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by jtkz13
Don't forget the 300ZX and 3000GT
Don't forget the 300ZX and 3000GT
They fell under the "others" part.
Another good example is actually the ZR1 Vette.
10-05-2003, 05:10 PM
#70
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally posted by Python2121
those cars didn't rev high and got horrible gas mileage and were really bad for envioronment
i wonder if i can throw this in my cl?
those cars didn't rev high and got horrible gas mileage and were really bad for envioronment
i wonder if i can throw this in my cl?
not more with more but that's just me. Not saying this isn't an achievement but....moreover, this car isn't going to be good for the environment OR get good gas mileage
heh
10-06-2003, 01:09 PM
#72
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: central jerzey
Age: 38
Posts: 5,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
moreover, this car isn't going to be good for the environment OR get good gas mileage heh
moreover, this car isn't going to be good for the environment OR get good gas mileage
heh
10-06-2003, 02:29 PM
#73
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Red Nj-s
How do you figure? The current vette emits no more polution than your CL-S, and it gets the same exact mileage.
How do you figure? The current vette emits no more polution than your CL-S, and it gets the same exact mileage.
10-06-2003, 03:17 PM
#78
Senior Moderator
simply beautiful.
