Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > ZL1 Discussions


Bigwormgraphix


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2016, 09:45 AM   #57
2NASSTY

 
2NASSTY's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 M6 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tarpon Springs, Fl
Posts: 772
As much as we would all like to see a higher stock LT4 number, I think it will be doubtful from GM. The limiting factor may be the smaller pullied 1.7L blower and the heat it generates. The Corvette Guys were left with an inefficient design, that Cadillac improved on, and Chevy probably solved in the new ZL1.

The C7 ZO6 Guys are already Installing an aftermarket blower and intercooler to push past what they've been given.
__________________
15' Ashen Gray Metallic Z/28
14' Crystal Red Tintcoat ZL1 6M, 9.62 at 150.75 MPH
12' Opulent Blue Metallic CTS-V Sedan, 10.690 at 129.60 MPH - SOLD
06' LeMans Blue Metallic Z06, 11.726 at 127.80 MPH Motor - SOLD.
96' Impala SS LTx, 11.397 at 118.10 MPH Motor, 1st stage 10.526 at 127.46 MPH
2NASSTY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 10:42 AM   #58
Heavymetal454
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '69 RS Pro Street
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2NASSTY View Post
As much as we would all like to see a higher stock LT4 number, I think it will be doubtful from GM. The limiting factor may be the smaller pullied 1.7L blower and the heat it generates. The Corvette Guys were left with an inefficient design, that Cadillac improved on, and Chevy probably solved in the new ZL1.

The C7 ZO6 Guys are already Installing an aftermarket blower and intercooler to push past what they've been given.
So what do you attribute that to? GM tests their vehicles before going into production. Do you believe they made compromises in order to produce the car in its current form, did they ignore the heat soak issues believing that it would affect few buyers overall or was it not a concern because they saw it was to be expected and never sought to address it?

Just curious since the claim now is that the ZL1 should be an improvement but does anyone really know that? I think not.
Heavymetal454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 12:14 PM   #59
2NASSTY

 
2NASSTY's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 M6 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tarpon Springs, Fl
Posts: 772
Not sure what you are asking, but if you are referring to heat soak issues in the C7 Z06. There are several threads on Corvette forums and independent tests where the Car Goes into limp mode during heat soak after 1 lap during track days.

The 3rd gen CTSV has the same motor with better cooling in a heavier platform. These new Caddys arent seeing this, but there are a lot less on the Road and not many owners running them on road course track days.

If you look how low the LT4 has to sit in the C7 Z06 and the limited front end cooling compared to the 3rd gen CTSV and new ZL1, those are some of the differences on how GM is solving the heat this small pullied blower makes.
__________________
15' Ashen Gray Metallic Z/28
14' Crystal Red Tintcoat ZL1 6M, 9.62 at 150.75 MPH
12' Opulent Blue Metallic CTS-V Sedan, 10.690 at 129.60 MPH - SOLD
06' LeMans Blue Metallic Z06, 11.726 at 127.80 MPH Motor - SOLD.
96' Impala SS LTx, 11.397 at 118.10 MPH Motor, 1st stage 10.526 at 127.46 MPH
2NASSTY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 12:53 PM   #60
hotlap


 
hotlap's Avatar
 
Drives: 20 1LE 2SS M6 Rally Green
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Franklin WI
Posts: 6,632
We've seen that the 2017 CTS-V and ZL1 will get a taller lid and the Z06 will also get changes. I'm hoping there will be bump in power associated with the "other changes".

Quote:
The 2017 Z06 will receive a new hood with improved cooling vents and some other changes “for additional cooling on the track."

http://www.motor1.com/news/65630/201...-improvements/
__________________

"the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.”
Ronald Reagan -
hotlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 01:24 PM   #61
Heavymetal454
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '69 RS Pro Street
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2NASSTY View Post
Not sure what you are asking, but if you are referring to heat soak issues in the C7 Z06. There are several threads on Corvette forums and independent tests where the Car Goes into limp mode during heat soak after 1 lap during track days.

The 3rd gen CTSV has the same motor with better cooling in a heavier platform. These new Caddys arent seeing this, but there are a lot less on the Road and not many owners running them on road course track days.

If you look how low the LT4 has to sit in the C7 Z06 and the limited front end cooling compared to the 3rd gen CTSV and new ZL1, those are some of the differences on how GM is solving the heat this small pullied blower makes.
So the question is essentially wouldn't GM have anticipated or seen that issue during testing. I would imagine that more people would be tracking their Corvette than say the Geo Metro. I'm sure they wanted to achieve a balance between styling and functionality. They could have made the proposed changes before this became a known issue with consumers. I'm looking forward to this car as many others are as well. I'm just a bit surprised that something like that was put in production knowing that the result is going to become apparent and those folks will voice their concerns which leads to a slightly negative perception. I'm not letting that design choice impact me however since as a DD I feel confidant they have that covered.
Heavymetal454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 01:28 PM   #62
HCT
 
Drives: Charger Hellcat
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by newmoon View Post
HCT.I am curious if you or any other Hellcat A8 owner has tried to launch with the nannies engaged? My 392 was a handful netting me 12:90s with nannies off with them engaged it was 12:40s. I think most assume nannies will slow them down but it was the opposite for me.
They definitely help, for sure. But I think the traction control is simply more effective for the 392 than it is for the Hellcat. I don't know why.
HCT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 02:12 PM   #63
Noob
 
Drives: AUDI 80
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 151
the main problem with chevy´s Z06 is due to its bad eficiency with only 2valves/cyl.
The rest goes through heat and have to be cooled down which gives the next problem in small chassis. And as a top of bad engineering they put on a to small high revving blower which heat up the inlet air more than it should be.
I swear Fords coyote with a 2.9 ltr. whipple would do much better in the Corvette with no overheating and same cooler size.
Noob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 02:26 PM   #64
cvp33
America FVCK Yeah!
 
cvp33's Avatar
 
Drives: 2021 ZL1 1LE A10
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob View Post
the main problem with chevy´s Z06 is due to its bad eficiency with only 2valves/cyl.
The rest goes through heat and have to be cooled down which gives the next problem in small chassis. And as a top of bad engineering they put on a to small high revving blower which heat up the inlet air more than it should be.
I swear Fords coyote with a 2.9 ltr. whipple would do much better in the Corvette with no overheating and same cooler size.
I can understand that position coming from Europe. 2 valves is not an issue. The fact that the Hellcat makes 750hp (not it's advertised 707) is testimony as is the Z06's 650, to the "efficiency" of a 2 valve per cylinder setup. Name another super car that has north of 650hp, isn't a hybrid and doesn't cost north of $200K that doesn't have a gas guzzler tax. I'll save you the Google, it's only the Z06.

EDIT: Only the Porsche 918 for $845,000 can match its track time and lack of gas guzzler. And we all know how Audi made its engines more "efficient".

The issue is over spinning a 1.7L PDB + a low hood and limited front section. Tadge says he and the engineers have it solved for 2017....we'll see.

Last edited by cvp33; 07-24-2016 at 03:51 PM.
cvp33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 03:52 PM   #65
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob View Post
the main problem with chevy´s Z06 is due to its bad eficiency with only 2valves/cyl.
The rest goes through heat and have to be cooled down which gives the next problem in small chassis. And as a top of bad engineering they put on a to small high revving blower which heat up the inlet air more than it should be.
I swear Fords coyote with a 2.9 ltr. whipple would do much better in the Corvette with no overheating and same cooler size.
2 valves per cylinder is only an issue when displacement is limited. If I remember right, LS3 heads flow about as much as Coyote heads, despite having half the valves. The Coyote bore size is very limited, so they have to use smaller valves. The 6.2 liter bore diameter is much larger, so they can run a bigger valve without shrouding issues.
__________________
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 05:20 PM   #66
LS6-M22
Rockcrusher
 
LS6-M22's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 SS 1LE
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Spring Hill FL
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob View Post
the main problem with chevy´s Z06 is due to its bad eficiency with only 2valves/cyl.
The rest goes through heat and have to be cooled down which gives the next problem in small chassis. And as a top of bad engineering they put on a to small high revving blower which heat up the inlet air more than it should be.
I swear Fords coyote with a 2.9 ltr. whipple would do much better in the Corvette with no overheating and same cooler size.
Which would weigh more,take up more space,and go a lot slower
LS6-M22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2016, 09:30 PM   #67
2NASSTY

 
2NASSTY's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 M6 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tarpon Springs, Fl
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavymetal454 View Post
So the question is essentially wouldn't GM have anticipated or seen that issue during testing. I would imagine that more people would be tracking their Corvette than say the Geo Metro. I'm sure they wanted to achieve a balance between styling and functionality. They could have made the proposed changes before this became a known issue with consumers. I'm looking forward to this car as many others are as well. I'm just a bit surprised that something like that was put in production knowing that the result is going to become apparent and those folks will voice their concerns which leads to a slightly negative perception. I'm not letting that design choice impact me however since as a DD I feel confidant they have that covered.
The only people that would truly know this would be the GM Corvette design and powertrain Teams. At the end of the day Vehicle Manufacturers have to sell Cars. Not sure why they went with a smaller pullied blower when the ZR1 larger 2.3L blower and packaging worked so well with similar power numbers in a LSA 7 years earlier.

I truly believe the new ZL1 and current CTSV have solved the overheating issues that are effecting the C7 Z06 when run hard on track days. GM put a heat protect mode in this Vette and also didn't allow it to be reved over 5000 rpm during the break-in period. That tells me they knew they had a problem but still had to build safeguards in the design to protect against excessive warranty claims.

I believe we are going to get the 3rd and best iteration of the LT4 design and packaging inside an outstanding platform. I wouldn't worry about it.
__________________
15' Ashen Gray Metallic Z/28
14' Crystal Red Tintcoat ZL1 6M, 9.62 at 150.75 MPH
12' Opulent Blue Metallic CTS-V Sedan, 10.690 at 129.60 MPH - SOLD
06' LeMans Blue Metallic Z06, 11.726 at 127.80 MPH Motor - SOLD.
96' Impala SS LTx, 11.397 at 118.10 MPH Motor, 1st stage 10.526 at 127.46 MPH
2NASSTY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 12:50 PM   #68
bluHawk141
 
Drives: 2015 Sierra
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Manhattan, IL
Posts: 78
The 1.7 makes more hp/torque under the curve than the 2.3, that's why they went with that blower.
bluHawk141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 03:35 PM   #69
detltu

 
detltu's Avatar
 
Drives: 1992 Z28 1LE; 2015 Zl1
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Madisonville, LA
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noob View Post
the main problem with chevy´s Z06 is due to its bad eficiency with only 2valves/cyl.
The rest goes through heat and have to be cooled down which gives the next problem in small chassis. And as a top of bad engineering they put on a to small high revving blower which heat up the inlet air more than it should be.
I swear Fords coyote with a 2.9 ltr. whipple would do much better in the Corvette with no overheating and same cooler size.
Username checks out.


The heads are not even on the list of problems with the Z06.

The small chassis is one of the positives of the Vette although it doesn't help the cooling issue.

The high revving blower is an issue.

I'm not sure the coyote with S/C would fit without doing some of the things they are doing anyway to fix the heat issues in the Corvette.
__________________
1989 Camaro RS convertible- Sold
1999 Camaro SS - Stolen 2x
1991 Camaro Z28-
1991 Camaro Z28 1LE-
1992 Camaro Z28 1LE- 25th anniversary
2015 Camaro ZL1
detltu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2016, 09:17 AM   #70
Heavymetal454
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '69 RS Pro Street
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 939
I believe we have our answer
Attached Images
 
Heavymetal454 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

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 07:03 PM.


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