C7 ZO6 to be unveiled at Detroit Auto Show
12-10-2013, 05:35 PM
#21
I agree with silvea. That's what made the Z06 so awesome in my eye. The brute force of the 7000rpm 427.. Hell. I'd like to see more cubes.. Like a 4.13x4.10 bore/stroke deal. Very doable. And with the addition of DI it shouldnt have too much trouble with emissions.
12-11-2013, 04:01 PM
#26
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as what engine it gets. It would be a slap in the face to take away the 7.0 and give us a 6.2. I don't care the power it makes with a supercharger. What made the Z06 special was its brute force as a NA car. I don't see where emissions would slow them down. They used a 7.0 for the last few years I fail to see where they would have to stop using them.
It wilp alsi make ot into more models, where as the 7.0 is a unique engine to the last z06.
12-11-2013, 04:46 PM
#27
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
12-11-2013, 06:54 PM
#28
Douchebag On The Tree
It's not about what we think would be the best engine either. There are a million things to have in mind when building such a highly valued car, the flagship of the flagship, if you will.
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
Honestly if anything, its most likely a combo of emmisions and cost to make the 7.0 such a high revver that are axeing the engine. The jury is still out if they even do a ZR1 model too, so this may be the top dog for the next 8-10 years.
12-11-2013, 11:07 PM
#30
It's not about what we think would be the best engine either. There are a million things to have in mind when building such a highly valued car, the flagship of the flagship, if you will.
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
12-12-2013, 06:28 AM
#31
I have been hearing for quite some time that gm does not want to produce another 427 na motor. Its costly and with newer emissions standards its more effective for them to go another route. I
think this lt4 with a supercharger will be just as much fun with more down low torque than the ls7. I'm thinking somewhere in the 600hp range with 580 ft lbs of torque. The zr1 will hopefully follow with more power and perhaps twin turbos or something
think this lt4 with a supercharger will be just as much fun with more down low torque than the ls7. I'm thinking somewhere in the 600hp range with 580 ft lbs of torque. The zr1 will hopefully follow with more power and perhaps twin turbos or something
12-12-2013, 07:20 AM
#33
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you've never driven a car with a roots blower.....they hit like a MF at low rpms, there isn't anything similar in terms of sheer grunt down low, I doubt the current 7.0 even comes close to that feel.
12-12-2013, 12:37 PM
#35
It's not about what we think would be the best engine either. There are a million things to have in mind when building such a highly valued car, the flagship of the flagship, if you will.
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
Maybe they decided to use a smaller and lighter engine to help the overall balance of the car??? Maybe they're concerned about rising costs associated with the larger drivetrain??? Who knows what they're really do, or the exact reasons? All I know is that they've consistently produced a better than before model and that's impressive. Maybe they'll lean toward what the rest of the world(save Dodge) has, OHC for their top tier performance cars. At this point, DI, etc. is a great idea.
This arargumentis flawed by the fact tthey all share the same external dimensions exceptone wwouldn'thave the added weight of a heat pump on top of it..
12-12-2013, 12:51 PM
#36
Banned
iTrader: (1)
!["MAC"'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%237f3b59' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Chevy ever go OHC? Why fix something that's not broke? Chevy wins a lot of pro racing series with the motors they have (OHV) so to change it up would be dumb. Im sure they could start using flex fuel to help reduce emissions in the Vette before they completely start using totally different motors.
12-12-2013, 08:15 PM
#37
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, although this engine weighs less than a DI 7.0 would...too many extra bits that go along with S/C-ing. I really hope they stay OHV as well. I like them holding onto the "dinosaur" design and still being more than competetive.
Honestly if anything, its most likely a combo of emmisions and cost to make the 7.0 such a high revver that are axeing the engine. The jury is still out if they even do a ZR1 model too, so this may be the top dog for the next 8-10 years.
Honestly if anything, its most likely a combo of emmisions and cost to make the 7.0 such a high revver that are axeing the engine. The jury is still out if they even do a ZR1 model too, so this may be the top dog for the next 8-10 years.
OHC? Please, no. They are really good at OHV, no reason to do OHC. Not saying GM can't make a good OHC (Atlas I6 in the GMT360 family for example, it's practically bulletproof), but I see little reason to move to OHC when they do such a great job with OHV. OHC is bigger and more expensive to do cam swaps lol.
They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that. 
Why would Chevy ever go OHC? Why fix something that's not broke? Chevy wins a lot of pro racing series with the motors they have (OHV) so to change it up would be dumb. Im sure they could start using flex fuel to help reduce emissions in the Vette before they completely start using totally different motors.
In the automotive engineering world, it's not about fixing what is or isn't broken, ever. It's about getting better, period. GM has plenty enough in its arsenal to move on from OHC engines and has already done so in most vehicle categories anyway. Seems they're wasting money by producing multiple types of engines instead of having a forward focus on the cleaner burning engines available.
12-12-2013, 08:56 PM
#38
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you...
Yeah, well being good at it doesn't mean they can't do better. They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that.
Nope. Don't see where it looked like I was saying anything like that.
Flex fuel has been normal fare for nearly the entire country for years already. It's highly debatable whether or not that makes for cleaner burning fuel, but it certainly lowers economy.
In the automotive engineering world, it's not about fixing what is or isn't broken, ever. It's about getting better, period. GM has plenty enough in its arsenal to move on from OHC engines and has already done so in most vehicle categories anyway. Seems they're wasting money by producing multiple types of engines instead of having a forward focus on the cleaner burning engines available.
Yeah, well being good at it doesn't mean they can't do better.
They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that. Nope. Don't see where it looked like I was saying anything like that.
Flex fuel has been normal fare for nearly the entire country for years already. It's highly debatable whether or not that makes for cleaner burning fuel, but it certainly lowers economy.
In the automotive engineering world, it's not about fixing what is or isn't broken, ever. It's about getting better, period. GM has plenty enough in its arsenal to move on from OHC engines and has already done so in most vehicle categories anyway. Seems they're wasting money by producing multiple types of engines instead of having a forward focus on the cleaner burning engines available.
12-12-2013, 09:54 PM
#39
Yeah, well being good at it doesn't mean they can't do better. They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that.
They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that. Whether the valve is opened via an overhead cam or via pushrod and rocker doubtfully makes any difference in of itself in how the fuel is burned because in the end, the valve is being opened at X rate for Y amount of time. Not saying that each doesn't have their pros and cons. I don't get why OHC would be considered "forward" thinking either <shrug>
12-13-2013, 05:14 AM
#40
Thank you...
Yeah, well being good at it doesn't mean they can't do better. They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that.
Nope. Don't see where it looked like I was saying anything like that.
Flex fuel has been normal fare for nearly the entire country for years already. It's highly debatable whether or not that makes for cleaner burning fuel, but it certainly lowers economy.
In the automotive engineering world, it's not about fixing what is or isn't broken, ever. It's about getting better, period. GM has plenty enough in its arsenal to move on from OHC engines and has already done so in most vehicle categories anyway. Seems they're wasting money by producing multiple types of engines instead of having a forward focus on the cleaner burning engines available.
Yeah, well being good at it doesn't mean they can't do better.
They already know all too well how to make a cleaner burning engine and emissions standards aren't likely to get easier for the next 20-40yrs. And OHC can be made to burn cleaner, smoother, more quietly and with more longevity along with fewer moving parts... or at least they claim that. Nope. Don't see where it looked like I was saying anything like that.
Flex fuel has been normal fare for nearly the entire country for years already. It's highly debatable whether or not that makes for cleaner burning fuel, but it certainly lowers economy.
In the automotive engineering world, it's not about fixing what is or isn't broken, ever. It's about getting better, period. GM has plenty enough in its arsenal to move on from OHC engines and has already done so in most vehicle categories anyway. Seems they're wasting money by producing multiple types of engines instead of having a forward focus on the cleaner burning engines available.
Production costs from their OHC engines to OHV engines have no bearing on each other. Do you think the 5.0 from ford and its 3.5 ecoboost or its 2.0 I-4 share the same development budget? No way. The tooling for the engines are very different as well as the place they're made and their applications. Its a very apples to oranges comparison to say "well if this company produced all ohc engines it could cut production costs" simply because the only things the engine have in common is a cam or two on top of the heads.
Also as far as cleaner burning the lt1 and its 5.3 counterpart has lower emissions than the 5.0/6.2 granted the lt1 is a DI motor but arguing one is cleaner than the other as you stated can be disputed seeing as there's no clear testing to compare ohv to ohc, in fact ls motors usually got better mpg's than their comparable ford or dodge counterparts.
I dont want to sound like I'm swinging for GM as ford has done some awesome things recently with their small cars and the mustang. However saying it may be a wise move to move onto OHC for the future is incorrect imo. They've been not only keeping up but routinely setting the bar in emissions and performance with their dirty burning, outdated pushrod motors
lol even when everyone has the same attitude that they cant possibly make an OHV motor meet the new standards