[SS71SS24]

GM :
Isn't high time that your people dreamt up a new name for this intro? Sounds silly but have a name the car competition. Of course, using the Camaro name will bring some additional sales. Not many, though. Your recent "Trailblazer " moniker has worked so why not try a blend?
You've buried (for the time being) Impala, Caprice, Nova, Chevelle, Monte Carlo, Corvair, Fiero, Firebird, Cutlass on and on. The newer generations have no or very little connection to any GM name other than "Corvette" and "Silverado".
If it ain't a coupe, let the Camaro name go.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by RIPws6

From an engine and stats position I predict GM will follow history pretty close.
The pattern suggests it will likely get a version of the current C8’s LT2 (around 475–495 hp) while the refreshed/next Corvette steps up to the new 6.7L LS6 at 535 hp.
Or at best, we get a lesser tuned LS6 but the last time we shared the lt1, the numbers were too close for some Corvette owners.

I’d be surprised if the LS6 fits under the hood of a front engine Camaro with the high ram intake. Whatever 6.7 fits in the Camaro will not match the LS6 in the C8. The LS6 is designed around the high ram intake and smaller intake ports, but that won’t work with the Camaro.

[hrpiii]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I’d be surprised if the LS6 fits under the hood of a front engine Camaro with the high ram intake. Whatever 6.7 fits in the Camaro will not match the LS6 in the C8. The LS6 is designed around the high ram intake and smaller intake ports, but that won’t work with the Camaro.

Hmmmmm... that won't work with the existing Camaro body or That won't work with the New Camaro Body? I don't think we know what the new Camaro looks like to decide that yet? Or did I miss that in the thread?

[Devstrike]

Originally Posted by hrpiii

Hmmmmm... that won't work with the existing Camaro body or That won't work with the New Camaro Body? I don't think we know what the new Camaro looks like to decide that yet? Or did I miss that in the thread?

You are correct we do not know what it looks like also if GM is doing the next gen Camaro it needs to have a much more performing number than the Mustang 486 hp and possibly match the 550 hp in the Dodge to compete. I have a feeling the 6.7 could be going in or they need to really bump up the LT2 numbers.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

You are correct we do not know what it looks like also if GM is doing the next gen Camaro it needs to have a much more performing number than the Mustang 486 hp and possibly match the 550 hp in the Dodge to compete. I have a feeling the 6.7 could be going in or they need to really bump up the LT2 numbers.

The point of the 6.7 is to meet new emissions standards so the LT2 will be dead. Same with the L87. The trucks will be getting their own version of the LS6.

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

The point of the 6.7 is to meet new emissions standards so the LT2 will be dead. Same with the L87. The trucks will be getting their own version of the LS6.

6.7 is the same bore as a 6.2 but with longer stroke. How would increasing displacement make emissions better?

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by bishopts

6.7 is the same bore as a 6.2 but with longer stroke. How would increasing displacement make emissions better?

The 6.7 is an entire new generation of GM small block. It’s a Gen VI engine, not a Gen V. Some differences include (aside from the displacement)

Dual port and direct injection
Fully forged bottom end
Different intake
13:1 compression
Probably different cam, heads and valve sizes.
Probably a different size throttle body (too lazy to google this and the one above).

It is going to be a neat engine and I am excited about it. I just hope the piston ring end gaps aren’t as tight as the gen V stuff but it most likely will be unfortunately.

[DeuceCam]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I’d be surprised if the LS6 fits under the hood of a front engine Camaro with the high ram intake. Whatever 6.7 fits in the Camaro will not match the LS6 in the C8. The LS6 is designed around the high ram intake and smaller intake ports, but that won’t work with the Camaro.

They should just slap on a dry sump system so they can mount the engine lower and keep that sweet LS6 manifold

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

The 6.7 is an entire new generation of GM small block. It’s a Gen VI engine, not a Gen V. Some differences include (aside from the displacement)

Dual port and direct injection
Fully forged bottom end
Different intake
13:1 compression
Probably different cam, heads and valve sizes.
Probably a different size throttle body (too lazy to google this and the one above).

It is going to be a neat engine and I am excited about it. I just hope the piston ring end gaps aren’t as tight as the gen V stuff but it most likely will be unfortunately.

So the way emissions works is, emissions is a byproduct of burning fuel.
If you increase the amount of air (adding displacement) you have to add fuel. Otherwise you will have an incorrect air to fuel ratio. So more air = more fuel = more emissions.
You can do fun things like turn off half your cylinders to reduce your displacement to reduce emissions. And it might work correctly somtimes.
If you want an LT2 to get better emissions the it can be done. Sacrifice displacement by running an even more aggressive DoD system, and change the tune. It's not rocket science.
If you wanted to turn a LT2 into a 6.7 then just shorter rods and longer throw crank and you do it. Compression ratio will follow it, its just engine math. Peak power rpm will follow cam and intake design. Stroker engines usually make their power sooner in the rpm vs the square counterpart.

If they were trying to meet emissions standards they would have made the engine smaller. not bigger. Now if you said they are trying to stay competitive and one up the last engine in power but needed a new fueling option to achieve the goals. Then i would believe that.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by bishopts

So the way emissions works is, emissions is a byproduct of burning fuel.
If you increase the amount of air (adding displacement) you have to add fuel. Otherwise you will have an incorrect air to fuel ratio. So more air = more fuel = more emissions.
You can do fun things like turn off half your cylinders to reduce your displacement to reduce emissions. And it might work correctly somtimes.
If you want an LT2 to get better emissions the it can be done. Sacrifice displacement by running an even more aggressive DoD system, and change the tune. It's not rocket science.
If you wanted to turn a LT2 into a 6.7 then just shorter rods and longer throw crank and you do it. Compression ratio will follow it, its just engine math. Peak power rpm will follow cam and intake design. Stroker engines usually make their power sooner in the rpm vs the square counterpart.

If they were trying to meet emissions standards they would have made the engine smaller. not bigger. Now if you said they are trying to stay competitive and one up the last engine in power but needed a new fueling option to achieve the goals. Then i would believe that.

Compression is another way to lower emissions I believe. Having dual injection can probably help in that regard as well. Whether that's right or wrong, I can say with 100% certainty that this new motor came out for emissions purposes as new emissions rules are set to go into affect. Maybe I'm using the wrong term in "emissions" and the engine was created to assist hitting fuel economy targets instead. Whichever of the two it is, this engine is coming out to hit those targets.

Displacement alone does not determine emissions efficiency. I'd be willing to bet my life that the current 6.2 liter LT1/2 is a far more efficient and emissions friendly engine than the 5.7 Liter LS1.

GM a few years ago invested 900+ million dollars in developing a new gen VI engine to meet the upcoming more stringent standards. The LT2 already surpassed its competition. This new engine is just icing on the cake. Others have mentioned somewhere in this thread (or another one regarding just this engine) that this engine was specifically developed for the upcoming emissions/fuel economy standards.

Before anyone says it, it does not matter that the current admin rolled back the standards. Manufactures know that the next admin will put the more strict emissions in place + they sell cars in other parts of the world as well.

Again, I may be meaning fuel economy instead of emissions, but you get the point. GM (and everyone else) had to hit these targets. Ford's Gen IV coyote was also developed to hit them, it just happened to come out a little sooner. Curious if that filter that's in the Coyote intakes will be in this engine as well.

[bishopts]

Fuel burning is the core of it all. 14.7 parts air 1 part fuel is total an efficient burn.
Inject fuel into a chamber of air at this ratio, let it mix then ignite it and the only thing left will be hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Move the same concept into an engine, then you have time working against you. You have less time for the air and fuel to mix as the piston is moving faster with every increasing rpm. So then you need to adjust when the fuel is injected and when the spark is ignited to start the burn. And also how long can it burn before the the piston hits the bottom of its travel

LS1 had 24x crank signal to keep track of where in the rotation of the crank was. And port injection that needed to account for travel time of fuel being sprayed through an opening valve. LS2 had a more accurate count to base all needed timing off of since it went to 58x crank count. Still sloppy with is port injection but better. LS3 was a bigger more refined version of the same things as far as efficiency was considered. Still 58x crank. LT1 brought in direct injection. The efficiency benefits of that is now you don't need to worry about how long and when the intake valve is open because the fuel is spraying directly into the cylinder at the most precise time it can be. Also the risk of pre ignited fuel from compression was reduced so higher compression ratios are allowed. And also fuel pressure is significantly higher which reduced the time it takes for the fuel to mix with the air.
So LT1 vs LS1 is no comparison in efficiency.
But LT1 vs LS6 gen6 is going to be an odd one. Since the LS6 has port injection on top of direct injection i can't see it being any better than the LT1 and at best it would be as good in that area. But if they do something like make the crank count 360x, then they can control everything on a much more accurate level. Which would replace rotation predicted algorithms with actual signal references.
I'm interested to see how it all works out.

[bishopts]

I'm also wondering why all of a sudden GM is building engines out of square. The 5.5 is over square and the 6.7 is under square.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Fuel burning is the core of it all. 14.7 parts air 1 part fuel is total an efficient burn.
Inject fuel into a chamber of air at this ratio, let it mix then ignite it and the only thing left will be hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Move the same concept into an engine, then you have time working against you. You have less time for the air and fuel to mix as the piston is moving faster with every increasing rpm. So then you need to adjust when the fuel is injected and when the spark is ignited to start the burn. And also how long can it burn before the the piston hits the bottom of its travel

LS1 had 24x crank signal to keep track of where in the rotation of the crank was. And port injection that needed to account for travel time of fuel being sprayed through an opening valve. LS2 had a more accurate count to base all needed timing off of since it went to 58x crank count. Still sloppy with is port injection but better. LS3 was a bigger more refined version of the same things as far as efficiency was considered. Still 58x crank. LT1 brought in direct injection. The efficiency benefits of that is now you don't need to worry about how long and when the intake valve is open because the fuel is spraying directly into the cylinder at the most precise time it can be. Also the risk of pre ignited fuel from compression was reduced so higher compression ratios are allowed. And also fuel pressure is significantly higher which reduced the time it takes for the fuel to mix with the air.
So LT1 vs LS1 is no comparison in efficiency.
But LT1 vs LS6 gen6 is going to be an odd one. Since the LS6 has port injection on top of direct injection i can't see it being any better than the LT1 and at best it would be as good in that area. But if they do something like make the crank count 360x, then they can control everything on a much more accurate level. Which would replace rotation predicted algorithms with actual signal references.
I'm interested to see how it all works out.

Great points!

Part of the reason for adding port injection is that direct injection at start up generates a lot of hydro-carbons and NOx. Port is less susceptible to NOx. So starting the drive cycle with port injection at low speeds then bringing in DI at higher speeds provides better emissions control.

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Great points!

Part of the reason for adding port injection is that direct injection at start up generates a lot of hydro-carbons and NOx. Port is less susceptible to NOx. So starting the drive cycle with port injection at low speeds then bringing in DI at higher speeds provides better emissions control.

Also Fuel coming in over the intake valve from port injection can pull heat off the valve, which can bring cylinder temps down, which can bring overall combustion temps down to reduce NOx.

Dual fuel has more flexibility. If they were to pair them together but run the port injection off the high pressure fuel pump, it would create a better atomization than traditional port injection. But the tight space it will be limited to could end up with the fuel cutting the metal in the intake port.
You could also run a periodic maintain routine to clean the valves of carbon build-up.
Direction injection has the ability to inject raw fuel into the cat in the exhaust stroke to warm it faster or hotter.
I feel one of the best improvements auto makers could do is make wide band sensors smaller, and have one on each exhaust port. I know no two engines are the same so I'm pretty sure no two cylinders are the same. So if you could more accurately control fueling for individual cylinders, the overall efficiency and performance would be better.