6th Gen Camaro Concept
06-28-2012, 10:08 AM
#21
They either need to junk retro, or do it all the way like Dodge did with the Challenger. And for goodness' sake get rid of the chopped roof, high window sill and 20" wheels.
06-28-2012, 10:24 AM
#22
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top 3 reasons why I will not buy a 5th Gen.
1). IRS
2). Windows are too high, and small.
3). It's a really heavy car.
If they made the 6th gen around 3600lbs, increased the window size, but still left the IRS, I would consider buying one.
1). IRS
2). Windows are too high, and small.
3). It's a really heavy car.
If they made the 6th gen around 3600lbs, increased the window size, but still left the IRS, I would consider buying one.
06-28-2012, 10:55 AM
#23
I think I read somewhere it would be a 2016 model year (2015 release) car, but I also think that depends on how many problems they run into adapting with the Alpha platform.
Lighter weight will happen. Next-gen V8 will happen. T-tops will not happen due to crash test standards (unless it weighs as much as a convertible).
Lighter weight will happen. Next-gen V8 will happen. T-tops will not happen due to crash test standards (unless it weighs as much as a convertible).
06-28-2012, 12:29 PM
#24
Dam.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.
06-28-2012, 01:21 PM
#26
Dam.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.
A big bore is going to be an enemy of emissions. And a short stroke hurts streetable torque production. They are also tooled up for 6.2/5.3 production. The only changes needed are Fuel System, heads, and pistons.
06-28-2012, 02:20 PM
#28
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dam.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.
Im just nervous that the new gen motor is not an ls
I hope its a big bore, ls7 heads type engine.
Build the 5.7 350ci but the new version.
Here is my take:
LS7 block aluminum 4.125 bore
4.8 crank 3.268 stroke, 4.8 connecting rods
4.125 flat top pistons. 1.2/1.2/3.0mm rings
LS7 heads, LS7 intake. Dry sump oiling.
rate the motor at 420-450hp.
7000rpm capable from factory.
This motor would more than handle just about anything.
With h/c/i it would make 600+ bhp. And have a high rpm capacity.
I hope gm doesnt jump on the dohc bs. If they do. Im out.
06-28-2012, 03:33 PM
#29
Current ls3/l99 engines are conventional wet sump. But a dry sump would be a excellent upgrade. im just thinking of parts that are in gm's bin and can be adapted or used.
I wonder why they dont use all those parts available.
06-28-2012, 03:50 PM
#30
Everything points to LS architecture, DI, and 6.2/5.3 depending on application.
A big bore is going to be an enemy of emissions.current 6.2L blocks are 4.065 bore, whats another additional .060? Minimal, and opens up literally for gms highest flowing heads ,the ls7. These parts alredy exist and are proven.
And a short stroke hurts streetable torque production. They are also tooled up for 6.2/5.3 production. The only changes needed are Fuel System, heads, and pistons.
not necessarily true. I dd a rcsb pickup truck with stock 4.8/60e. This truck weighs more than 4000,if not 5000lbs. It accelerates very strong, wot, has alot sotp for such low ci 293ci. My truck has 330k miles. It is the most reliable vehicle i have ever owned. The 4.8 loves to run and accelerates very strong believe it or not. it loves to rev high. But i keep it 6000. Im very convinced that the 3.268 crank will make for a powerful motor with a big bore block.
A big bore is going to be an enemy of emissions.current 6.2L blocks are 4.065 bore, whats another additional .060? Minimal, and opens up literally for gms highest flowing heads ,the ls7. These parts alredy exist and are proven.
And a short stroke hurts streetable torque production. They are also tooled up for 6.2/5.3 production. The only changes needed are Fuel System, heads, and pistons.
not necessarily true. I dd a rcsb pickup truck with stock 4.8/60e. This truck weighs more than 4000,if not 5000lbs. It accelerates very strong, wot, has alot sotp for such low ci 293ci. My truck has 330k miles. It is the most reliable vehicle i have ever owned. The 4.8 loves to run and accelerates very strong believe it or not. it loves to rev high. But i keep it 6000. Im very convinced that the 3.268 crank will make for a powerful motor with a big bore block.
06-28-2012, 04:26 PM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM currently uses dry sump on ls7, also ls9 and lsa iirc. So tech and hardware exists at gm.
Current ls3/l99 engines are conventional wet sump. But a dry sump would be a excellent upgrade. im just thinking of parts that are in gm's bin and can be adapted or used.
I wonder why they dont use all those parts available.
Current ls3/l99 engines are conventional wet sump. But a dry sump would be a excellent upgrade. im just thinking of parts that are in gm's bin and can be adapted or used.
I wonder why they dont use all those parts available.
Maybe 1% of SS buyers would notice any difference if that. They would have to track their car at something more than a casual level. Almost no 5th gen buyers are going to do that, especially with the SS when the 1le or zl1 are offered.
Dry sump would be dumb. Added cost weight and complexity with no quantifiable advantage for the overwhelming majority of buyers.
06-28-2012, 04:50 PM
#34
Obviously but never on their mass produced engines. There is no justification for the cost increase our the weight increase for that matter.
Maybe 1% of SS buyers would notice any difference if that. They would have to track their car at something more than a casual level. Almost no 5th gen buyers are going to do that, especially with the SS when the 1le or zl1 are offered.
Dry sump would be dumb. Added cost weight and complexity with no quantifiable advantage for the overwhelming majority of buyers.
Maybe 1% of SS buyers would notice any difference if that. They would have to track their car at something more than a casual level. Almost no 5th gen buyers are going to do that, especially with the SS when the 1le or zl1 are offered.
Dry sump would be dumb. Added cost weight and complexity with no quantifiable advantage for the overwhelming majority of buyers.
06-28-2012, 07:30 PM
#37
06-29-2012, 04:39 AM
#39
Launching!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Illinios
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like one of the previous comments stated...go all out retro or come up with something new.
I think it'd be interesting if they worked the slats on the headlights all the way across the "grill", reworked body lines and just overall size of everything. Might actually resemble a 1st gen...
I think it'd be interesting if they worked the slats on the headlights all the way across the "grill", reworked body lines and just overall size of everything. Might actually resemble a 1st gen...
06-29-2012, 05:39 AM
#40
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
This is how I see it.... GM already did the whole retro 69 Camaro look & it worked. Some may not like it on here but it did good. Highest sales yet. Argue all you want but its about sales. But some of these people keep thinking GM should make it look like the 70-73 style. & that's where I draw the line. You did the retro look now move on with your own style. Can't just keep remaking styles from previous years. What's the point... Mix it up