Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-17-2013, 02:42 PM   #26
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by redleader View Post
I'm just niave :-(
Thanks for the Xtra info.
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!
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 03:13 PM   #27
Mikes SS

 
Mikes SS's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 CGM 2SS/RS 6M
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 942
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!
Mikes SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 03:21 PM   #28
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
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. 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.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 03:57 PM   #29
LOWDOWN
Account Suspended
 
Drives: Daily
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,162
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

Last edited by LOWDOWN; 03-17-2013 at 04:11 PM.
LOWDOWN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 06:49 PM   #30
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
..
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.
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.
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 07:41 PM   #31
LOWDOWN
Account Suspended
 
Drives: Daily
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,162
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.
LOWDOWN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 10:30 PM   #32
RLHMARINES
1st Civ. Div.
 
RLHMARINES's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 ZL1 Black, aka "Big SexZ"
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Savannah, Ga
Posts: 1,125
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.
__________________
Swift....Silent....Deadly
RLHMARINES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 12:55 AM   #33
ChevyCowboy
Lining Up!
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1SS, Summit white, M6,
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick Canada
Posts: 105
Send a message via MSN to ChevyCowboy
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!
__________________
11 Camaro 1SS - Summit White - Black Stripes - 6.2 - M6 - Hurst Short Throw Shifter - Sun Roof - Rally Sport - Dynatech LT - ORY - Night Fury Cam - 1LE Sway Bars -
ChevyCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 01:10 AM   #34
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
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.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 07:57 AM   #35
CAP'N B
Cajun Mariner
 
CAP'N B's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 Camaro SS/RS RJT 99 Silverado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Real Cajun, LA.
Posts: 485
Send a message via Yahoo to CAP'N B
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Are you serious?

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.
Thank you you made my point perfectly.
__________________
'10 Camaro 2SS/RS Red Jewel L99/A6
CAP'N B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 08:09 AM   #36
lbls1

 
lbls1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 Camaro SS SOM; 2009 Malibu LT
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 1,820
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.
__________________
'02 CAMARO SS SOM; 5.7L LS1/FLS6B
'08 TBSS AWD Black Granite Metallic
'09 Malibu LT Dark Gray Metallic

'14 CAMARO ZL1 Blue Ray Metallic
lbls1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 08:24 AM   #37
CAP'N B
Cajun Mariner
 
CAP'N B's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 Camaro SS/RS RJT 99 Silverado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Real Cajun, LA.
Posts: 485
Send a message via Yahoo to CAP'N B
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.
__________________
'10 Camaro 2SS/RS Red Jewel L99/A6
CAP'N B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:42 AM   #38
meissen
Founder - Michigan FBody
 
meissen's Avatar
 
Drives: 1994 Camaro LT1, 2014 Camaro 1LT
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chesterfield Twp, MI
Posts: 2,528
Dinosaur pushrod engines? Dear god... Go buy a BMW or get educated...
__________________
2014 Camaro 1LT M6 - "Cherry Bomb" - Cold Air Inductions CAI, VMAX Ported Throttle Body, MGW Short Throw Shifter
1994 Camaro LT1 A4 - "Red Alert" - v6-to-LT1 Swapped Cruiser; Cammed, Stalled, Enjoyed

meissen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:54 AM   #39
ChevyCowboy
Lining Up!
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1SS, Summit white, M6,
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick Canada
Posts: 105
Send a message via MSN to ChevyCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B View Post
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 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meissen View Post
Dinosaur pushrod engines? Dear god... Go buy a BMW or get educated...
Couldnt have said it better
__________________
11 Camaro 1SS - Summit White - Black Stripes - 6.2 - M6 - Hurst Short Throw Shifter - Sun Roof - Rally Sport - Dynatech LT - ORY - Night Fury Cam - 1LE Sway Bars -
ChevyCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 11:34 AM   #40
CAP'N B
Cajun Mariner
 
CAP'N B's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 Camaro SS/RS RJT 99 Silverado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Real Cajun, LA.
Posts: 485
Send a message via Yahoo to CAP'N B
(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... (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.
__________________
'10 Camaro 2SS/RS Red Jewel L99/A6

Last edited by CAP'N B; 03-18-2013 at 12:21 PM.
CAP'N B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 02:50 PM   #41
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B View Post
What about the possibility of doing away with spark plugs. Nothing at all was commented on that.
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.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 03:21 PM   #42
CAP'N B
Cajun Mariner
 
CAP'N B's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 Camaro SS/RS RJT 99 Silverado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Real Cajun, LA.
Posts: 485
Send a message via Yahoo to CAP'N B
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
__________________
'10 Camaro 2SS/RS Red Jewel L99/A6
CAP'N B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 03:30 PM   #43
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B View Post
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.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 03:43 PM   #44
CAP'N B
Cajun Mariner
 
CAP'N B's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 Camaro SS/RS RJT 99 Silverado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Real Cajun, LA.
Posts: 485
Send a message via Yahoo to CAP'N B
Interesting discussion!
__________________
'10 Camaro 2SS/RS Red Jewel L99/A6
CAP'N B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 05:59 PM   #45
WHAMMO

 
WHAMMO's Avatar
 
Drives: LS2 Fbody
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by toehead93 View Post
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. Unless that 5.3 is a high rev mofo with same hp as a LS3.
__________________
4th Gen SS/LS2 SB/LS3 heads/N20
WHAMMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 06:43 PM   #46
mr02Z/28
 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 687
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........
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 08:18 PM   #47
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAP'N B View Post
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.


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.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:51 PM   #48
Michael2000
 
Drives: .
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOWDOWN View Post
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
Michael2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 01:00 PM   #49
LOWDOWN
Account Suspended
 
Drives: Daily
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post
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...



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...

Last edited by LOWDOWN; 03-19-2013 at 01:43 PM.
LOWDOWN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 03:39 PM   #50
ChevyCowboy
Lining Up!
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1SS, Summit white, M6,
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick Canada
Posts: 105
Send a message via MSN to ChevyCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post


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.
Yes the push rod engine is a newer design then a ohc, also the v8 came long before 1961 when buddy was born lol
__________________
11 Camaro 1SS - Summit White - Black Stripes - 6.2 - M6 - Hurst Short Throw Shifter - Sun Roof - Rally Sport - Dynatech LT - ORY - Night Fury Cam - 1LE Sway Bars -
ChevyCowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.