[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

It's got just 14 more HP and weighs more than the engine it replaces in the corvette. In what way are you sure it will help the Camaro?

More efficiency + flatter torqueband = good stuff. The greatness of this engine is in the details....many of which we still don't know, like the real SAE hp numbers. It could be 451...it could be 465...

Do we have a comparable weight of the LS3? I don't know if both numbers (or either of them, alone) were wet/dry, dressed, or not.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

It's got just 14 more HP and weighs more than the engine it replaces in the corvette. In what way are you sure it will help the Camaro?

50 more lbs of torque in the lower rpms will help a lot.

But I don't think we will see this engine in the 5th generation anyways. In the lighter 6th gen, even the current engines would be great. This new LT1 would make them incredible.

[dgformula2k]

I don't know why people are assuming the 450hp/450tq are the final figures. GM hasn't released the final output numbers yet. They are just saying the gen 5 will have at least that amount. Kind of like when they said the ZL1's LSA would have at least 550 hp, it ended up having more than that.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

More efficiency + flatter torqueband = good stuff. The greatness of this engine is in the details....many of which we still don't know, like the real SAE hp numbers. It could be 451...it could be 465...

Do we have a comparable weight of the LS3? I don't know if both numbers (or either of them, alone) were wet/dry, dressed, or not.

The one article said the new LT1 was heavier, but not by how much. It could be 1 pound, it could be 50 pounds. It makes me nervous that they don't say how much.

The thing that concerns me is they are putting way too much effort into DOD which surely adds cost and complexity possibly also at a cost in performance. Who needs to pay extra to have their Corvette be heavier and more expensive and have a peculiar quality while driving? It would be like promoting that they put a bud vase on the Silverado HD dashboard... nobody asked for it and nobody (essentially) wants it.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

...he greatness of this engine is in the details....many of which we still don't know,...

Interesting statement...if this is the case, how do you know that the 'greatness' is in the details that you don't know?

[NASTY99Z28]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

It's got just 14 more HP and weighs more than the engine it replaces in the corvette. In what way are you sure it will help the Camaro?

What about the 400hp c6 beating a 405hp c5? More to it then peak numbers you know that plus your assuming that these are the final numbers. I think 450/450 might be the numbers when it hits the camaro and 475/475 in the base model vette.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

The one article said the new LT1 was heavier, but not by how much. It could be 1 pound, it could be 50 pounds. It makes me nervous that they don't say how much.

The thing that concerns me is they are putting way too much effort into DOD which surely adds cost and complexity possibly also at a cost in performance. Who needs to pay extra to have their Corvette be heavier and more expensive and have a peculiar quality while driving? It would be like promoting that they put a bud vase on the Silverado HD dashboard... nobody asked for it and nobody (essentially) wants it.

When i read your post i just dont see the logic.. Theres more to a vehicles weight than just the motor, we already know there makeing the corvette lighter. Its obvious there giving us low ball figures like they usually do, like the did with the Zl1, G8 Gxp, ZR1 etc... Making the base vette faster, lighter and more fuel efficient is a win, win, win. So your right people shouldnt have to ask for it, they shoud expect it for the vehicle to remain competitive moving foward in todays market. Also the vette SHOULD move upmarket with the ZL1 in town. You might get the nick name captain false after that post lol... Just kidding bro.

[Number 3]

So if the 2012 Grand Sport runs a 4.1 0 - 60 (Per recent Motor Trend article) with 436 HP and 428 lb-ft of torque what do you think it takes to run a sub 4.0 second 0 - 60. Only 14 HP and 22 lb-ft of torque?

I think there is a lot more to this story and we won't see what's behind the curtain until GM wants us to see it.

So what does 450 PLUS mean? Don't know.

How far below 4.0? Don't know.

How much more than 26? Don't know.

But GM will continue to tease (some might say taunt) us until January and that much I do know.

[GaBoy25]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So if the 2012 Grand Sport runs a 4.1 0 - 60 (Per recent Motor Trend article) with 436 HP and 428 lb-ft of torque what do you think it takes to run a sub 4.0 second 0 - 60. Only 14 HP and 22 lb-ft of torque?

I think there is a lot more to this story and we won't see what's behind the curtain until GM wants us to see it.

So what does 450 PLUS mean? Don't know.

How far below 4.0? Don't know.

How much more than 26? Don't know.

But GM will continue to tease (some might say taunt) us until January and that much I do know.

A big roger that

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28

What about the 400hp c6 beating a 405hp c5? More to it then peak numbers you know that plus your assuming that these are the final numbers. I think 450/450 might be the numbers when it hits the camaro and 475/475 in the base model vette.

You can't compare HP numbers if you're going to change the rest of the car. The C6 is faster with less HP because it is a different car.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by truth411

When i read your post i just dont see the logic.. Theres more to a vehicles weight than just the motor, we already know there makeing the corvette lighter. Its obvious there giving us low ball figures like they usually do, like the did with the Zl1, G8 Gxp, ZR1 etc... Making the base vette faster, lighter and more fuel efficient is a win, win, win. So your right people shouldnt have to ask for it, they shoud expect it for the vehicle to remain competitive moving foward in todays market. Also the vette SHOULD move upmarket with the ZL1 in town. You might get the nick name captain false after that post lol... Just kidding bro.

What's so hard to understand about the illogic of putting cylinder deactivation on the engine used in a top model performance car? It adds weight and complexity and makes the car drive and sound odd and makes the car perform less and cost more.

If anything, I should be "Captain Obvious" on this one...

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So if the 2012 Grand Sport runs a 4.1 0 - 60 (Per recent Motor Trend article) with 436 HP and 428 lb-ft of torque what do you think it takes to run a sub 4.0 second 0 - 60. Only 14 HP and 22 lb-ft of torque?

I think there is a lot more to this story and we won't see what's behind the curtain until GM wants us to see it.

So what does 450 PLUS mean? Don't know.

How far below 4.0? Don't know.

How much more than 26? Don't know.

But GM will continue to tease (some might say taunt) us until January and that much I do know.

That's one area I will agree with you. GM got burned by leaking out or at least making it obvious what the ZL1 was going to be, giving Ford the parameters needed for the new GT500. Perhaps they have set the bar low on purpose so they can surprise everyone.

They also have a tendency of purposely crippling the initial released model of their new cars so that they can gradually "improve" them as the model ages and get people to upgrade. So, the first one out of the gate may be handicapped.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

What's so hard to understand about the illogic of putting cylinder deactivation on the engine used in a top model performance car? It adds weight and complexity and makes the car drive and sound odd and makes the car perform less and cost more.

If anything, I should be "Captain Obvious" on this one...

CAFE is still a b*tch, even for top end performance cars.

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

That's one area I will agree with you. GM got burned by leaking out or at least making it obvious what the ZL1 was going to be, giving Ford the parameters needed for the new GT500. Perhaps they have set the bar low on purpose so they can surprise everyone.

They also have a tendency of purposely crippling the initial released model of their new cars so that they can gradually "improve" them as the model ages and get people to upgrade. So, the first one out of the gate may be handicapped.

Just one?:(

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

The one article said the new LT1 was heavier, but not by how much. It could be 1 pound, it could be 50 pounds. It makes me nervous that they don't say how much.
Like No. 3 said - less info means more guessing...and with just under a year till production/sales...that's their best protection against immediate competition.

nobody asked for it and nobody (essentially) wants it.

Careful here....if it's good...it will be hailed. And even if it isn't...efficiency is the name of the game, for better or worse. This technology is a heavy-hitter and GM would be more foolish to ignore it, than use it.

Remember - they fully intended to use AFM this on the C6. But they weren't happy with the way it performed...I very much doubt they've lowered their standards.

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

What's so hard to understand about the illogic of putting cylinder deactivation on the engine used in a top model performance car? It adds weight and complexity and makes the car drive and sound odd and makes the car perform less and cost more.

If anything, I should be "Captain Obvious" on this one...

It sounds like this is an "improved edition"...I've always felt, personally, that AFM was a fantastic technology...just very young and unrefined. I'm holding out hope that this new generation of engines will change the current reputation.

As far as weight and complexity, it's interesting you brought this up. There was an article where they asked that exact question. A powertrain development engineer stated that they considered many option/variants, etc...and that the results in efficiency/performance of the added features of the engine far outweighed any loss attributed to weight.