No problem....sorry if it came out as bashing. Not my intent, but you lurk around here for very long and you will learn a lot!

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

I don't think it would be much cheaper either. I just feel that if the 5.3 becomes the "standard" V8 we can expect it to perform very well and have peak power numbers much better than the truck version.

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.

Thank you you made my point perfectly.

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:

Dinosaur pushrod engine? you really have no clue what amazing things gm is accomplishing with the pushrod v8 do you? With overhead cam engine you have to rev them out to get any performance at all. Overhead cam engines are actually an older design then a pushrod v8.

Couldnt have said it better

(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.

Sure, they are capable of much higher revs, but what's the point? LS small blocks are already revving to 6500 to 7000 RPM reliably in stock form. Going beyond that to the stratospheric RPM levels that would absolutely necessitate OHC is not practical, and produces driveability problems for daily driver road cars. An engine that runs really well at 8000-9000 RPM is going to be a pig in the RPM range street engines spend the vast majority of their time in.

And what makes a pushrod engine inherently less reliable. I could give you a long list of engines from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, current and historical, that are damn near bullet proof.

Exactly how would you do it? Gas and diesel have unique characteristics that make each not suitable to running like the other. Direct injection engines still have to deal with the potential of detonation. They can just run a little higher compression ratio without it happening. Both fuel and air are in the cylinder during the compression stroke. The timing is still determined by a spark plug, unlike a diesel, where only air is in the cylinder during compression, and the injection of the fuel is the timing. Setting up a gas engine to detonate at precisely the right time every time regardless of variables like temperature, load, fuel quality, etc, would be about impossible.

Alternatively, running gas off detonation by timing it like a diesel would have problems, too. Gasoline requires a fairly narrow fuel/air ratio range, while diesel does not. Hence, a diesel runs without a throttle, providing the necessary heat and pressure to run off detonation even at an idle. I think a throttled gas engine idling or under a very light load (basically with a lot of vacuum) would have a difficult time producing enough compression to cause detonation.

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.

Interesting discussion!

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.

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........

: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:

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...

Yes the push rod engine is a newer design then a ohc, also the v8 came long before 1961 when buddy was born lol