Preview of the Gen-6 SS Engine?
With today's chat about an entry-level 5.3L Vette, does this news portend the base engine for the lighter Alpha-based Gen-6 Camaro SS? With a Gen-6 Camaro Z/28 housing the LT1?
http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...#axzz2NXtkOnqh Or, will it be the other way around?! Stay tuned... |
"Base", as in less expensive?
Is there any money to really be saved by building a smaller-displacement version of, technically, the same engine? They'll have many similar parts... I maintain the base Corvette engine and the Camaro V8 will be the same, as it is now, and has been in the past. Easy, smart way to save $$ through economies of scale...and it sounds as though this sub-Stingray Corvette has been debunked by everyone except these sources who are only "familiar with the plans"...:iono: If there's a super Z28 in the gen 6...my crystal ball bets are on it sharing an engine with the future Z06... |
"I would hate to dilute the reputation of the Corvette" is how a lot of owners would feel if the top tier Vette motors made their way into "lesser" cars, like a Z/28.
|
Agree with the Mr... 6th gen SS likely gets the new LT1 but w/ less power than a :stingray:
|
Quote:
[edit] the 90's ZL1 had the LT5, that I know of, only one Camaro was built with that motor. Anyways, it happened a lot more often than not. |
a 5.3L truck motor in a 'Vette. ew...
ok it might not be the actual truck motor, but seeing as GM has only used that 5.3L in trucks and FWD cars it will likely not be very accepted by the 'Vette crowd.. |
With the SS having a 5.3L, it should be cheaper than an LS3 powered camaro, but ill bet it it'll cost at the very least, the same if not more.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^Did some more reading to brush up on my fourth gen history. There were 108 30th anniversary SS's built with an LT4. They were modified by SLP but were a factory option.
|
All this "5.3 truck engine" stuff does NOT translate to a direct drop-in in either the Vette or Camaro.
- Think "car cam, intake, exhaust and a-l-l the other improvements inherent in the Gen-5 SBC", going forward. - Think "327 cu. in." which powered similarly-weighted (to the coming C-7 Vette) C-1/C2/C-3 Vettes right into our conscious "lust zones". - Think roughly "current power-to-weight"...which should equal great performance combined with great mpg, a necessary component to any business case. - Or...would you rather have a hair-dryed V6?! "Cost of manufacture" seldom/never is a guarantee of "selling price". What IS a guarantee is, with mandated systems, necessary fuel economy regulations, and supposed weight decreases inherent in next-Gen vehicles partially due to more expensive high-tech materiale, the only way to keep MSRP under some constraint is to "give" on some things. A 35-3600 lb Gen-6 Camaro SS will NOT "need" 450+ hp. Under 400 will deliver performance a Gen-5 Camaro owner will be able to accept, and retain their perma-grin. Detuning a 6.2 to less than 400 is simply dumb (or directly using the dreaded TRUCK version!) and would not adequately address the mpg situation. A 5.3 will... Or would y'all prefer a V6 SS instead? |
Quote:
|
i heard a few weeks ago about this. i heard the 5.3L engine is less powerful than the Ls3. which is kind of sad...
|
I'm really surprised at the news about a "base" Corvette... My understanding was that they were calling the C7 the Stingray because they wanted everyone to feel like they were getting that "upgraded" model. If they wanted a base then they should have had just a Corvette, and then the Corvette Stingray as an upgraded model. Doesn't make sense and contradicts what they were saying when the C7 was unveiled.
|
I strongly doubt that this will happen.
|
Quote:
|
Y'all talk about the 5.3 like it's a piece of trash but the COPO Camaro only comes with 2 engines, supercharged 5.3 and LS7. Don't forget about the ZL1 engines in the Camaro there were a few of them and I think the L88 427 made it into a few Camaro's also
|
Quote:
|
I think it might not be a bad idea, I mean it's a 327, depending on the internals a nice "smaller" displacement v8 that can rev might be something that hits market that the lt1 may miss.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I never understand why a 3.6 doesn't get near twice the MPG of a 6.2. Hopefully the new Gen will ?
|
I think the 5.3 in the Camaro is the worst idea I have ever heard. A twin turbo V6 would be so much better, let the NA guys have the LT1 and give the FI guys a TT engine. Although Dodge did it successfully with the RT and SRT lineups. I guess it isnt the worse thing afterall but I still prefer a TT to mod the hell out of easily.
|
Quote:
There are 4 cylinder cars that don't get twice the highway mileage of the SS and especially the Vette. Gas mileage doesn't directly correlate to the size of the engine. If you feel it does you have much learning to do my friend. As for the talk of this 5.3...I don't understand some of the comments here. First off let me say that I'm not at all convinced the 5.3 will make its way into the Vette OR Camaro. But lets say it does. Take a look at the Ford 5.0 V8. In truck form, the 2011 model made 360 HP, and that same year it made 412HP in the Mustang. So if Chevy does the same, I don't see why we couldn't have a 375 horse truck version and a 420HP version in the next gen Camaro. It uses much of the same direct injection tech that the current V6 uses, and the LT1 uses, and they both have nice flat wide torque curves....so I'm guessing the 5.3 does as well. I'd love to see the LT1 in the next Camaro, but I have no doubts that a properly factory tuned 5.3 in the ligher next gen Camaro couldn't stomp on the current 6.2 in this gen. |
I'm just niave :-(
Thanks for the Xtra info. |
Cant wait to find out
|
Quote:
|
I am definitely thinking the 5.3L DI would outperform the current LS3 with all the tech it will have in it..stop thinking of it as "only a truck motor" it is completely redesigned and the LT1 has been compared to the LS7, the DI most certainly plays a factor in this and torque rating should not suffer due to lower displacement size!
|
I've got to point out.....I just had chills. Reading through....re-reading out of curiosity....I had this flashback of a 2008 thread.
We were discussing - almost identically as we are right now - how Chevy should put the L76 (361hp) from the then-current G8 GT into the base V8 car, and the LS2 (400hp) into the upper-trim..... Instead, we got an LS3 for "cheap", and an LSA in our upper-V8 trim. :laugh: I'm hoping history repeats itself!! My only problem with this concept of a base model 5.3L is cost...it won't be any cheaper to produce a 5.3L than the LT1...not if we're assuming it uses all the same tech. |
Different times...in '08 we weren't staring 35.5 mpg mandate in the face, and now we are.
400 hp L99/3900 Curb Weight = 9.75 lb/hp 426 hp LS3/3900 Curb Weight = 9.15 lb/hp 375 hp 5.3/3600 Curb Weight = 9.60 lb/hp 385 hp 5.3/3600 Curb Weight = 9.35 lb/hp...and a "sport-tuned" DI 5.3 can readily (and warrantably) make this number. 385 hp 5.3/3500 Curb Weight = 9.09 lb/hp As to cost, a current 4.8 V8 truck motor costs how much less to build than a current 5.3 truck motor? But how much MORE is the 5.3? And a current 6.2 truck engine probably costs only a few bucks more to manufacture, but "retails" for considerably more, "because we can"... As women all over the world will confirm, "size isn't everything"...but it seems that the bigger the engine, the more 'spensive it is. It is known that the 3.6 DOES cost more to make than a (current) 4.8/5.3 BEFORE a turbo or two, yet prices for less...hmmm. And those are the only two ways to get mid/upper 3's, hp-wise, for what needs to be a current-world-sensitive mid-horse Gen-6... IMVHO |
Quote:
There is no way in hell the lighter next gen Camaro will be slower....so no matter what engine they decide to use I'm sure it will perform great. |
The LT1 has been announced as making "450+ hp". A 5.3 = .85 of the 6.2's displacement. Simple (?!) math would say a 5.3 built/tuned similarly to the LT1 "should" make at least 385+...perhaps more...with undoubtedly better mpg. considering the coming trannies that will be available, combined with lighter Curb Weight and improved aero considerations.
|
Remember GM engineers stated that the choice for a 6.2 liter V8 instead of a 5.3 liter V8, was due to cylinder deactivation staying engaged longer with the larger V8 and getting better fuel economy as opposed to the smaller V8 engines that was tested. So, if it's truly the best choice for the Corvette, it must still hold true for Camaro with its higher curb weight.
|
I find it entertaing how alot of guys in here think even the ls 5.3 is a peice of garbage in comparison to the ls3, yeah it might not make as much hp and torque stock but really how many guys keep there engines stock? Dont underestimate its potential. I come from a performance trucks background, theres lots of guys getting retarded amounts of hp and tq reliably from the 5.3 that alot of guys could only dream of getting out of there 6.2's, dont get me wrong saying the 6.2 is an inferior engine because thats not the case, the saying "theres no replacement for displacement" stands true even here. But if anything you guys should be excited about the thoughts/plans/rumours of a LT1 5.3 making its way into the 6th gen camaro, because like the ls5.3 Im sure itll have crazy potential! I know I am excited for it!
|
Unless Ford downsizes the 5.0 (which will likely add direct injection and other small improvements for 2015) to something smaller, I don't see the Camaro SS ending up with a 5.3L engine instead of the 6.2. I'd predict anything with less than the current LS3's 426hp is going to be DOA in the planning room for the 6th-gen SS...unless some kind of low cost "stripper" SS becomes available at a lower price point than the current 1SS, which seems unlikely.
|
Quote:
|
Its going to be difficult for the domestic car makers (or any car manufacturer selling cars in the US) to maintain any number of engines that go against the upcoming fleet average of 35 mpg. For the cars that do not meet the requirement, a company will have to buffer them with the majority of the fleet that can meet or exceed the 35mpg benchmark. This fact will dictate that all engine offerings will need to be more fuel efficient, and as the mpg requirement becomes more stringent (by the next decade), IMO it is almost a certainty that the engines will have to be smaller and more fuel efficient. In a nutshell......the future v8s that are left may be smaller than what's being offered now.
|
Think of this, with direct injection there is no potential for detonation, a diesel engine has no spark plugs, it uses high compression to produce heat high enough to burn diesel fuel. You can throw a match in a bucket of diesel and it will go out. Gas explodes. So a high compression gas engine with direct injection could possibly do away with spark plugs. Superchargers and turbos are the future, and so are Over Head Cam engines GM needs to step it up a notch or 2 and get rid of the dinosaur pushrod engines.
|
Dinosaur pushrod engines? Dear god... Go buy a BMW or get educated... :facepalm:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
(QUOTE) You really have no clue what amazing things gm is accomplishing with the pushrod v8 do you? (A) Yes I do, I was born in 1961, I think I came before the V8.
(QUOTE) With overhead cam engine you have to rev them out to get any performance at all. (A)This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it's the same thing as a cam in block. The cam HAS to turn in conjunction with the crankshaft. The placement and the amount of cams is different, the drive is the same. Just a bit more expensive. (Quote)Go buy a BMW or get educated... :facepalm: (A) Not only foreign cars have OHC I'm, sure there are a few floating around GM, FORD, DODGE already. I need to get educated???? 1 of you is 24 and the other is 26, I was taking apart gas and diesel engines when you were still a lump in your dad's pants. Ok maybe not a dinosaur, I was born before the V8 so I may be considered a dinosaur LOL. The pushrod is a weak link, the lifters are a weak link and the valve train instability probably cause more total engine failures than probably any other failure. The OHC engine lends itself to better valve train stability and higher performance, higher revving engines. OHC design is a bit more expensive. But you spend money anyway to make your engines more powerful. What about the possibility of doing away with spark plugs. Nothing at all was commented on that. People feel the same about carburetors and fuel injection. Some embrace different technology some don't. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.