What Is On Your 2007 Wish List For New Products??
12-20-2006 | 06:45 AM
#1
What Is On Your 2007 Wish List For New Products?? Hey All,
I am getting more into the R&D and parts development side of things in the business next year. I am trying to get ideas from folks of what you feel is needed at this time and in the future as far as new products or updating current products. I have the facilities and contacts to do just about anything. It can be anything from a small piece of hardware to a complete system.
Pretty much everything and anything will be considered and it can be for the F-bodies, GTO, Corvettes, Trucks, Hybrids and so on. Doesn't matter if it is engine, suspension, brakes, trans, driveline, fuel system, cooling system, supercharging, turbo packages and parts.We have been working with some of the Pro-Touring folks and the fab work there is innovative and top notch.
So PM, e-mail thevettedr@aol.com or call me at 407-616-2518 with your wants and needs. E-mail is probably the best avenue at this time and try to give at least some detail. I llok forward to your input while we work on our own projects. Thanks and have a great holiday season.
Mike Norris
I am getting more into the R&D and parts development side of things in the business next year. I am trying to get ideas from folks of what you feel is needed at this time and in the future as far as new products or updating current products. I have the facilities and contacts to do just about anything. It can be anything from a small piece of hardware to a complete system.
Pretty much everything and anything will be considered and it can be for the F-bodies, GTO, Corvettes, Trucks, Hybrids and so on. Doesn't matter if it is engine, suspension, brakes, trans, driveline, fuel system, cooling system, supercharging, turbo packages and parts.We have been working with some of the Pro-Touring folks and the fab work there is innovative and top notch.
So PM, e-mail thevettedr@aol.com or call me at 407-616-2518 with your wants and needs. E-mail is probably the best avenue at this time and try to give at least some detail. I llok forward to your input while we work on our own projects. Thanks and have a great holiday season.
Mike Norris
12-21-2006 | 08:14 PM
#2
How about a system to retain the VVT and cylinder deactivation functions of the L92? A 4" stroke shortblock with an L92 that has VVT cam wizardry could make some crazy power.
Or maybe an LS7 or L76 style intake in polymer that will keep up with the head flow?
Hey, you said anything...
Or maybe an LS7 or L76 style intake in polymer that will keep up with the head flow?
Hey, you said anything...
12-22-2006 | 12:11 AM
#3
TECH Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Arlington, TN
BK's got a good idea and I've been thinking the same thing with a little twist.
4 dual pattern cam's
2 for the 243 style head and 2 for the L92 style heads.
The 2 for the 243 style head would be designed for the 5.3L and 6.0L DOD motors (rpo codes LQ4, LS4, LQ6, LH6, etc).
Cam 1 would be in the 21x/21x with roughly 6 degrees increase on the exhaust (stage 1 cam).
This cam would be designed to give a decent increase to the LQ4, and LS4 based 5.3L's without need major adjustments to the tune.
Cam 2 would be in the 22x/22x with roughly 6 degrees increase on the exhaust (stage 2 cam).
This one is the larger brother for the LQ4/LS4 5.3's and would also be a good choice for the LQ6/LH6 6.0's
Cam 3 would be in the 21x/22x with roughly 14 degree's increase on the exhaust and would be the stage 1 for the L76/L92 engines
Cam 4 would be in the 22x/23x with roughly 14 degree's increase on the exhaust and would be the stage 2 for the L76/L92 engines
All 4 cam's would need to have a max lift less then GM's DOD/AFM spec's (as to much lift and the DOD lifters will actually open the valves).
All 4 cam's would need to be able to keep PVT to a minimum when considering the cam phaser (VVT).
Next up get Harland Sharp (Comp, Crane or Jessel) to produce some offset roller tip rockers for the L92 and LS7. The adjustable type in 1.7, 1.75, and 1.8's.
For a DOD L92 that has max lift spec'd by the cam you can get some of the lift back by increasing the rocker arm length. So the cam and rockers would work hand in hand allowing people to put out high end L76/L92's that would retain the DOD capability.
A 3.75" crank for people that want to make unique motors (389 L92 or 400 LS7 engine builds). This might work out well with the retro crowds that want to drop a LS based motor into an older vehicle and keep there old displacement.
This crank could also be used with custom vehicle builders for the upcoming Camaro and GTO's
I listed this in your post over at ls1gto but I'll put it back in hear as well.
Replacement suspension components for the 04/06 GTO, and find out how close those parts would be to the next gen Camaro/GTO suspension designs.
Light weight Chromoly Tubes to help get the fat pig's unsprung weight down.
Right now I'm not sure of the similarities between the previous Opel/Holden suspension design (04-06 GTO) and the next generation Opel/Holden/GM design (08 Camaro/GTO). If the Control arm lengths are the same then the R&D and total production costs could be reduced due to the higher volume of projected sales... bla bla bla.
The cam's and the rockers would probably sell more in the near term.
The 3.75" crank would be low volume compared to the cam's and rockers.
The suspension stuff would probably sell little in 07, unless the Camaro/GTO's start selling in July/Aug time frame. Then light weight suspension components could probably sell more.
Maybe even work out a deal with GM to offer them on factory modified vehicles... something like SLP did for the Fbodies, but better.
---Edit---
I did send the idea's for the cam's over to Holley/Lunati about a month ago, but I haven't heard anything back.
I figure if they were to add those to the voodoo LSx line it would give them 7 cam's to choose from instead of 3.
The idea for the cam's was for a stock head (with a spring upgrade) -vs- a ported head.
The cam's would basicly use the Voodoo style lobe (fast open, slow close) but would work with DOD and VVT in the stock motors.
The LS4 and L76's currently do not have VVT. But if it works out well in the 07 Escalade (which is the test bed) I wouldn't put it past gm to add it onto the 08/09 lineup. If it can increase the low end torque for the motors when in DOD and not cost to much then GM would be stupid not to add it.
Yes DOD cam's 1 and 2 are based off of the 60510 and 60511 voodoo ls1 design (basicly just convert them to dual pattern as the are under the max lift spec's of DOD).
I also listed to Lunati a 232/244 113 LSA using the 60512 as the basic idea (its a 232/238 cam with .609 lift).
But increase the exhaust lobe to work bettere with the L92 and LS7 heads.
Essentially it would keep the 60512's .609" lift with 1.7" rocker's for the L92 heads and would end up being roughly .644" lift in a LS7 due to there 1.8" rockers.
The idea behind that cam is to go along with a massaged exhaust runner in the ls7 or l92 head (should need less duration on the exhaust then a stock head). Something along the lines of what PRC is doing with the L92 head.
Then again I wanted that 232/244 cam, a set of tweaked L92 heads and a 3.75 crank for my L92 based 389.... yeah I want a 389 for my 05 gto
4 dual pattern cam's
2 for the 243 style head and 2 for the L92 style heads.
The 2 for the 243 style head would be designed for the 5.3L and 6.0L DOD motors (rpo codes LQ4, LS4, LQ6, LH6, etc).
Cam 1 would be in the 21x/21x with roughly 6 degrees increase on the exhaust (stage 1 cam).
This cam would be designed to give a decent increase to the LQ4, and LS4 based 5.3L's without need major adjustments to the tune.
Cam 2 would be in the 22x/22x with roughly 6 degrees increase on the exhaust (stage 2 cam).
This one is the larger brother for the LQ4/LS4 5.3's and would also be a good choice for the LQ6/LH6 6.0's
Cam 3 would be in the 21x/22x with roughly 14 degree's increase on the exhaust and would be the stage 1 for the L76/L92 engines
Cam 4 would be in the 22x/23x with roughly 14 degree's increase on the exhaust and would be the stage 2 for the L76/L92 engines
All 4 cam's would need to have a max lift less then GM's DOD/AFM spec's (as to much lift and the DOD lifters will actually open the valves).
All 4 cam's would need to be able to keep PVT to a minimum when considering the cam phaser (VVT).
Next up get Harland Sharp (Comp, Crane or Jessel) to produce some offset roller tip rockers for the L92 and LS7. The adjustable type in 1.7, 1.75, and 1.8's.
For a DOD L92 that has max lift spec'd by the cam you can get some of the lift back by increasing the rocker arm length. So the cam and rockers would work hand in hand allowing people to put out high end L76/L92's that would retain the DOD capability.
A 3.75" crank for people that want to make unique motors (389 L92 or 400 LS7 engine builds). This might work out well with the retro crowds that want to drop a LS based motor into an older vehicle and keep there old displacement.
This crank could also be used with custom vehicle builders for the upcoming Camaro and GTO's
I listed this in your post over at ls1gto but I'll put it back in hear as well.
Replacement suspension components for the 04/06 GTO, and find out how close those parts would be to the next gen Camaro/GTO suspension designs.
Light weight Chromoly Tubes to help get the fat pig's unsprung weight down.
Right now I'm not sure of the similarities between the previous Opel/Holden suspension design (04-06 GTO) and the next generation Opel/Holden/GM design (08 Camaro/GTO). If the Control arm lengths are the same then the R&D and total production costs could be reduced due to the higher volume of projected sales... bla bla bla.
The cam's and the rockers would probably sell more in the near term.
The 3.75" crank would be low volume compared to the cam's and rockers.
The suspension stuff would probably sell little in 07, unless the Camaro/GTO's start selling in July/Aug time frame. Then light weight suspension components could probably sell more.
Maybe even work out a deal with GM to offer them on factory modified vehicles... something like SLP did for the Fbodies, but better.
---Edit---
I did send the idea's for the cam's over to Holley/Lunati about a month ago, but I haven't heard anything back.
I figure if they were to add those to the voodoo LSx line it would give them 7 cam's to choose from instead of 3.
The idea for the cam's was for a stock head (with a spring upgrade) -vs- a ported head.
The cam's would basicly use the Voodoo style lobe (fast open, slow close) but would work with DOD and VVT in the stock motors.
The LS4 and L76's currently do not have VVT. But if it works out well in the 07 Escalade (which is the test bed) I wouldn't put it past gm to add it onto the 08/09 lineup. If it can increase the low end torque for the motors when in DOD and not cost to much then GM would be stupid not to add it.
Yes DOD cam's 1 and 2 are based off of the 60510 and 60511 voodoo ls1 design (basicly just convert them to dual pattern as the are under the max lift spec's of DOD).
I also listed to Lunati a 232/244 113 LSA using the 60512 as the basic idea (its a 232/238 cam with .609 lift).
But increase the exhaust lobe to work bettere with the L92 and LS7 heads.
Essentially it would keep the 60512's .609" lift with 1.7" rocker's for the L92 heads and would end up being roughly .644" lift in a LS7 due to there 1.8" rockers.
The idea behind that cam is to go along with a massaged exhaust runner in the ls7 or l92 head (should need less duration on the exhaust then a stock head). Something along the lines of what PRC is doing with the L92 head.
Then again I wanted that 232/244 cam, a set of tweaked L92 heads and a 3.75 crank for my L92 based 389.... yeah I want a 389 for my 05 gto
Last edited by Bring the Noise; 12-22-2006 at 01:53 AM. Reason: shits and grins
12-22-2006 | 02:05 AM
#4
On The Tree
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
I think that a good business opotunity would be to offer us ALL the parts needed to bolt in a tall deck LSX block.
What I can think of right now is,
Manifold spacers for the tall deck LSX, to reuse our old LSx and L92 head/intakes.
Rotating assemblies for street use, making 454 Cid low deck and 500 cid for tall deck.
Those parts should be budget oriented, those who want to go max effort on the LSX block will find their parts anyhow.
I for one would consider a tall deck 500 Cid for the Tq, not wanting or needing 450+ Rwhp. (truck use)
It could even be a cast rotating assembly, and for sure the pistons if not the crank.
Br//
What I can think of right now is,
Manifold spacers for the tall deck LSX, to reuse our old LSx and L92 head/intakes.
Rotating assemblies for street use, making 454 Cid low deck and 500 cid for tall deck.
Those parts should be budget oriented, those who want to go max effort on the LSX block will find their parts anyhow.
I for one would consider a tall deck 500 Cid for the Tq, not wanting or needing 450+ Rwhp. (truck use)
It could even be a cast rotating assembly, and for sure the pistons if not the crank.
Br//