Report: Next Chevy Corvette to offer small-displacement turbo V8

[Dalefj]

Personally I think GM should follow Lamborghini's strategy. In the past few years Lamborghini has been all about maximum power and top speed just increasing BHP numbers and ignoring weight (a formula which winds you up with a 3900 LB car with the most horses in the field getting beat by its competitors in reviews because it had so much more weight.) But now Lamborghini's newest model doesnt have an engine thats any bigger. But by lightening their new car and making a more efficient (in terms of BHP/L) engine they created a master piece.

Now Apply this to GM
We all know and love the 3.6L engine in the LT, so for the new model either
A. Slap on twin snails (as ford did with the eco boost F150, which worked quite well) vualah horsepower, lighter and more efficient (both MPG and BHP/L)
B. Keep the same fromula as the V6 as far as valvetrain and direct injection go, and slap on two more cylinders

This would allow the engines to be smaller helping both weight and fuel economy as well as handling and acceleration.

As far as weight reduction goes, I have always been a fan of the idea of a carbon fiber roof but it would seem to be a more viable option to use more aluminum in the construction of the car and trim down the chassis to make it less bulky while adding on strut tower bars, braces etc to help lower weight without sacrificing stiffness.

It just pains me to see a review where the camaro (SS, LT, and now convertible, see latest road and track) would have crushed the blue oval boys if not for extra weight. Just look at the challenger because of its large size and stunning curb weight stock car for stock car it simply cant keep up with the mustang or camaro.

[beowulf80]

How has no one mentioned a TT on a large displacement engine? 6.2L + turbo FTW. Clearly it is not a base model, so give people the choice to spend the money. This would turn what is shaping up to be a solid competion between the ZL1 and the Shelby GT500 into an outright smokefest.

Oh, and to be a picky engineer: Adding a turbo does nothing to the displacement, nor the volume of air in an engine. What is happening is an increase in the mass of the air in the cylinders. At the same air/fuel ratio, this allows a greater mass of fuel to be put into the same displacement. Effectively, this raises the power per liter delivered by the engine. A more technical term for this is a change in BMEP, or Brake Mean Effective Pressure. Using terms like effective displacement, while good-spirited, just muddy the waters. For your viewing pleasure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Bond

That Solstice shoulda had a V8!
There's a crew modifying them... outfitting 'em with LS-3s, LS-7s, LS-As, etc...

Great design... a real American roadster... but a four cylinder??
I never respected it because of that.

I believe that with a GMPP tune, those little 4 bangers will keep up with an SS

Originally Posted by cam fan

there was a concept jag that somehow put a fuel efficient jet engine in....

The jet engine itself wasn't terribly efficient. The hybrid powertrain on the otherhand, was

Originally Posted by wbt

Why? Technology exists today to make that so. Those who cannot adapt to change will be removed by those that can.

What technology can double the fuel economy of an SUV that is capable of hauling 8 people, their stuff, and several thousand pounds worth of trailer?

Originally Posted by O2BQIK

Blah.

I'm cool with a smaller, higher-revving turbo V8. But it needs to put out more than 400 HP if it's going to rev THAT high. Because you're going to be waiting ALL DAY to get that engine into the power band. If it makes 400 HP peak and revs max at 10K, let's assume it hits peak HP at 8K RPM. That would mean it makes only 262.6 ft/lbs of torque. Perhaps good for a race car where you'll be driving it between 7-10K the whole time, but on a street car? Not for me.

Needs more power.

That assumes it would make peak torque at its peak hp, which it wouldn't. And it would probably hit its peak hp at 10k if thats where its redline is. Beyond 7k, rpms are usually the driving force behind hp, not torque. With twin turbos, they could place their torque peak wherever they like. I would bet that a 400 hp engine as described would probably have around 300 ft-lbs of torque availible fairly low, then slowly tapering off

Originally Posted by Inferno2SS

I think it makes sense to offer more options. Obviously that type of engine isnt going into the ZR1 but why not give consumers additional choices? It might open up an additional segment of users for them.

Because if the goal is 400 hp, a ~5.3L NA next gen small block should do a better job for a lot less money

Originally Posted by JEP

If you want to predict what GM will do with the Corvette, all you have to do is go back to when Corvette got back in to racing with the C5.

Those engineers fed back to headquarters what things needed to be done for the C6.
They will do the same thing again, IMO.

The Corvette Racing team in the ALMS currently runs a 5.5L engine and they are constantly developing that engine to win races.

This engine will most likely be the 'base' engine for future Vettes.
Bank it.

Except that the displcement will change, and it will feature direct injection, and feature a whole bunch of other changes

Originally Posted by Dalefj

Personally I think GM should follow Lamborghini's strategy. In the past few years Lamborghini has been all about maximum power and top speed just increasing BHP numbers and ignoring weight (a formula which winds you up with a 3900 LB car with the most horses in the field getting beat by its competitors in reviews because it had so much more weight.) But now Lamborghini's newest model doesnt have an engine thats any bigger. But by lightening their new car and making a more efficient (in terms of BHP/L) engine they created a master piece.

Now Apply this to GM
We all know and love the 3.6L engine in the LT, so for the new model either
A. Slap on twin snails (as ford did with the eco boost F150, which worked quite well) vualah horsepower, lighter and more efficient (both MPG and BHP/L)
B. Keep the same fromula as the V6 as far as valvetrain and direct injection go, and slap on two more cylinders

This would allow the engines to be smaller helping both weight and fuel economy as well as handling and acceleration.

As far as weight reduction goes, I have always been a fan of the idea of a carbon fiber roof but it would seem to be a more viable option to use more aluminum in the construction of the car and trim down the chassis to make it less bulky while adding on strut tower bars, braces etc to help lower weight without sacrificing stiffness.

It just pains me to see a review where the camaro (SS, LT, and now convertible, see latest road and track) would have crushed the blue oval boys if not for extra weight. Just look at the challenger because of its large size and stunning curb weight stock car for stock car it simply cant keep up with the mustang or camaro.

This thread is about Corvettes, not Camaros ...

[rykeith]

Originally Posted by kbui

Just because technology exists, it doesn't mean that the government should incrementally F'king around with the private sectors and screw up the economy with these idiotic standards/regulations. I owned SUVs (family of 6), Trucks (working trucks), performance cars (fun toys) because I want them and need them. It doesn't mean I won't buy a high mpg cars for commuting (just bought a Cruze). I don't need no stinking government to run all of these social experiments, by setting standards and regulations, to steer me toward a direction they want me to go.

[b4z]

I can telly you right now GM is not going to put an engine that spins to 10,000 rpms in a car that the public can buy and has a warranty.
Maybe 8000rpms and possibly 8500 rpms, but not 10,000.
Too many potential issues with valvesprings, etc.
I do hope that the motor is oversquare,meaning a larger bore than stroke.
Larger bore motors like to rev. Long stroke motors are torquier down low.

[Ironheadspearo]

personally I wish they would revisit the split window, I believe it would be a good look and they would only benefit by having it

[Brianskeet]

Originally Posted by kbui

Just because technology exists, it doesn't mean that the government should incrementally F'king around with the private sectors and screw up the economy with these idiotic standards/regulations. I owned SUVs (family of 6), Trucks (working trucks), performance cars (fun toys) because I want them and need them. It doesn't mean I won't buy a high mpg cars for commuting (just bought a Cruze). I don't need no stinking government to run all of these social experiments, by setting standards and regulations, to steer me toward a direction they want me to go.

HIP HIP HOORAY! Three cheers for the man from Texas! This Tennessee boy agrees 100%. I'll take my freedom with a double shot of liberty on the side please.

[john2000car]

Originally Posted by knowitman

Have you read the comments of that article? GM needs to advertise their technology because I had to close the window because the user comments were so false.

People were referring to corvettes as having large heavy iron blocks. Others saying that they are gas guzzlers even though their EPA estimates are higher than the direct competition. Someone even commented that it was about time GM change the engine since they've been using the same one since the 50s. Others stated that corvettes handle like, and I quote, "bricks." So many fanboys that don't know anything about even the corvettes since the C5 generation.

One guy was talking about how he will stick with his S2000 because it can hit 155 mph, gets good gas mileage, and still runs even though it was 11 years old unlike any 11 year old GM product. I know it's not the fasted car by any means, but I have a one owner 1995 Z28 sitting in my driveway that hits 155 mph, has the same gas mileage rating as an S2000 (with more power and torque), and it is a 16 year old car that runs the same as it did from the dealer lot and will still chirp a brand new set of tires when shifting into 2nd gear.

Hey, Louisville from across the river.
I haven't yet read the posting, but from your take, I agree with you that it seems they may be talking without owning a Vette. Either that or they are just blowing smoke. My 2008 base Vette (M6 6.2L) is one sweet driving and performance car (not yet modified). I call my 2010 Camaro my baby, but I really love my Vette. It is hard to decide which to drive, so I just take turns when I go out.

My Vette handles and rides like a dream and is comfortable at either lower or higher speeds. And when I call on it with the throttle, it sure doesn't ask any questions.

A couple of times, probably one of those unknowing souls have challenged, I have yet to get out of 2nd gear before it is already over with (with me looking back at the poor soul in my rear view mirror).
Most recently, I was behind a rightly proud new Mustang owner and couldn't resist showing him the error of his ways when he got on it. lol
Again, I only had to get from 1st to 2nd after his head start.

Still keeping it safe!
My real dream cars would be a ZR1 and then the upcoming new ZL1.
That SLP ZL1 sure looks sweet with around 750hp.

[Fleet1]

Corvette will have a turbo engine and so will Camaro in the near future.

[changprice]

i will go for the lite weight turbo V8

[BATMANs]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Crap, now I have to save up for a 'vette. I wonder what moniker will have the turbo 8 if it actually happens. I have doubts about the details, but if it's really a 3.0l turbo 8 that revs to 10k I'm already sold. Slap a bigger turbo on that bad boy and you're good to go spank everything else out there. Plus it will sound unreal.

+1

[zora2mac8]

wowww now just an AWD system and itll be complete

[Mr. Wyndham]

3.0L???

That came outta nowhere....

Interesting....the only thing I can say is I hope it keeps that traditional SBC growl. I don't want to hear a Corvette whining like a Ferrari...


EDIT: Rumor had it the ZR1 was supposed to be Twin-turbocharged...but early prototypes experienced..."thermal events", according to Bob Lutz. So the twin-turbo concept isn't too far-fetched...

[knowitman]

Originally Posted by Dalefj

Now Apply this to GM
We all know and love the 3.6L engine in the LT, so for the new model either
A. Slap on twin snails (as ford did with the eco boost F150, which worked quite well) vualah horsepower, lighter and more efficient (both MPG and BHP/L)
B. Keep the same fromula as the V6 as far as valvetrain and direct injection go, and slap on two more cylinders

This would allow the engines to be smaller helping both weight and fuel economy as well as handling and acceleration.

I'm not sure how much lighter in weight the LLT would be then the current LS3. The LLT weighs between 361lbs and 428 lbs depending on the application, and the LS3 weights 403 lbs. By the time you consider the extra parts and piping required for twin turbos, you are almost certainly higher than the LS3 in weight. Most of this weight comes from the use of DOHC vs OHV configurations.