CAMARO6
Page 4 of 7 123 4 567
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

CAMARO6 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)
-   2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155)
-   -   Preview of the Gen-6 SS Engine? (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283040)

fielderLS3 03-18-2013 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B (Post 6301434)
Maybe I got the concept wrong, as far as I know direct injection is fuel that is injected directly into the cylinder, not the intake port, therefore there is no fuel in the incoming air charge until the injector sprays it into the cylinder. The same way a cam sensor tells the coils when to fire so it could tell the injector when to fire causing the heated by compression air charge to explode. We already use a throttle sensor and electronics to control the air/fuel ratio, the only thing a diesel has different than a gas engine is a governor. Diesels do have throttles. LOL
Direct injection does directly spray the fuel into the cylinder, but if I understand it correctly, it injects it during the intake stroke, so an air/fuel mixture is still there during the compression stroke. The evaporation of some of the fuel right in the cylinder cools it, allowing for a somewhat higher compression ratio without detonation. The timing is still determined by a spark. With a diesel, only air is compressed for the compression stroke (at least most of it) with the timing of ignition determined by injecting the fuel at exactly the right moment.

And yes, some newer diesels may have "throttles" but the purpose and workings is different (mainly for emissions...also having a way to close off the intake in the rare event of a runaway, too). They are still not "throttled" in the same sense that a gas engine is, and it is not strictly necessary to have one for a diesel to work. A diesel's air/fuel ratio range is large, with power determined more by how much fuel is put in alone (up to an upper limit depending on the available quantity of air), where with gas, the fuel has to be carefully metered to stay fairly close to its 14.7 ratio, so power is more strictly controlled by the amount of air allowed in, as that more closely determines how much fuel can be mixed in.

CAP'N B 03-18-2013 03:43 PM
Interesting discussion!

WHAMMO 03-18-2013 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toehead93 (Post 6296457)
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.
I totally agree with you. That would completly kill the Camaro sales. Sorry but I dont believe it gonna happen. If its happening, I'll be done with GM and get a 5.0 or a Challenger 5.7. :emoticon1: Unless that 5.3 is a high rev mofo with same hp as a LS3.

mr02Z/28 03-18-2013 06:43 PM
I would be happy with a H.O. 5.3L in the range of 390-410HP if the 6th Gen weighed in at around 3300-3400lbs........

Mr. Wyndham 03-18-2013 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B (Post 6299887)
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.
:facepalm:

Isn't the pushrod engine a newer design than the OHC?

I challenge you to put GM's dinosaur pushrod against anything else on the market in terms of weight, power, and efficiency.

There's a reason they're not pulling away from the tried-and-true design. :thumb:

Michael2000 03-18-2013 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOWDOWN (Post 6298227)
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.
It doesn't quite work that way. Horsepower is more determined by the bore size. Larger bores = larger valves = more air flow = more horsepower. Shorter strokes = higher rpm = more horsepower. Unfortunately, the 5.3L engine is just a 6.2L with a smaller bore.

Michael

LOWDOWN 03-19-2013 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 (Post 6303295)
It doesn't quite work that way. Horsepower is more determined by the bore size. Larger bores = larger valves = more air flow = more horsepower. Shorter strokes = higher rpm = more horsepower. Unfortunately, the 5.3L engine is just a 6.2L with a smaller bore.

Michael
...and fewer pumping losses...

:biggrin:

BTW, a 3.99" bore and the 4.8's 3.268" stroke has you @ 5.3L...and that dimension easily supports 2.05/1.59 valves...with a greater redline than the longer-stroke 6.2. And VVT "adjusts" the torque...

ChevyCowboy 03-19-2013 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham (Post 6302763)
:facepalm:

Isn't the pushrod engine a newer design than the OHC?

I challenge you to put GM's dinosaur pushrod against anything else on the market in terms of weight, power, and efficiency.

There's a reason they're not pulling away from the tried-and-true design. :thumb:
Yes the push rod engine is a newer design then a ohc, also the v8 came long before 1961 when buddy was born lol

revychevy 03-19-2013 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B (Post 6300596)
(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.
Cool story bro, but Cadillac had a production V8 in 1914. They weren't even the first. Rolls Royce and Renault did it before in small quantities. You are not older than the V8 engine.

WHAMMO 03-19-2013 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 (Post 6302237)
I would be happy with a H.O. 5.3L in the range of 390-410HP if the 6th Gen weighed in at around 3300-3400lbs........
I would not be happy with that, because the Ford Coyote pumps out 420hp with 5.0liter...

FINALLYSATISFIED 03-20-2013 12:47 AM
Out of all that I got owners of the Corvette are generally 40 years old or higher. Guess ill be getting a C8 when my time comes.

NASTY99Z28 03-20-2013 04:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHAMMO (Post 6308284)
I would not be happy with that, because the Ford Coyote pumps out 420hp with 5.0liter...
Yes but that's the only v8 they offer as where this would be the base v8 option sorta like the 305 of the 3rd gens and the 6.2 would be the 350 and make a lot more power then the 5.0.(atleast for now) I think a 1ss with a 5.3 and more mpg friendly gears at a lower cost would help sales and then allow the 2ss to be offered with the big boy 6.2 at a higher cost and better gearing.

LOWDOWN 03-20-2013 09:34 AM
Something to keep in mind when comparing Coyotes to other critters is the physical size of Ford's OHC V8s...much larger in width and height than the SBC. Weighs more, too.

So now you run into packaging issues. More boiler room required. Cowl height and frontal area issues. And don't forget a Lincoln 4-dr is supposed to share the next-Gen Stang chassis, too. If so, Lincoln will have input as to body-chassis structure and specs, just as Cadillac has with the Alpha derivatives.

There's an opportunity for GM to create a Gen-6 Camaro that, for once in a long-long time, is the same size or even smaller/lighter than the next-Gen Stang...and the physical size of the SBC plays a part in that overall physicality.

Mikes SS 03-20-2013 10:10 AM
I think a 1ss with a 5.3 and more mpg friendly gears at a lower cost would help sales and then allow the 2ss to be offered with the big boy 6.2 at a higher cost and better gearing.[/QUOTE]

yep, this has been part of my point..if they can get those HP ratings out of a smaller displaced engine, they can get better MPG's with it and in turn, keep the super high, even supercharged beasts in the line-up. But Honestly with less rotating mass, the 5.3L will rev quicker, will have comparable power and the 6th gen will weigh less thus making an awesome track car..with good MPG's LOL


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Page 4 of 7 123 4 567
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.