5th Gen Camaro LS3 info from Chevy Hi-Po...READ

[Casull]

Originally Posted by LSxcellent

I very much agree (and FWIW, so does my gf! )

My only complaint is that companies like BMW can make 500hp with 5 liters (in the new M5), whereas it takes GM 7 liters (in the LS7) to achieve the same power... They are either leaving a LOT on the table (~200hp) or they cannot make the most of the displacement they are using. That being said, the LS7 is actually LIGHTER than the S85 even though it has 40% more displacement!

___BMW S85 5-liter V-10___
WEIGHT - 529lbs (240kg)
POWER - 507hp (378kW) @ 7750rpm
TORQUE - 383 ftlb (520Nm) @ 6100rpm

___Corvette LS7 7 Liter V-8___

WEIGHT - 458lbs
POWER - 505 horsepower @ 6200 rpm
TORQUE - 475 lb.-ft. of torque @ 4800 rpm

Interesting comparison...

LSx

Yeah, but look at those torque numbers on the BMW... Horsepower is deceiving. All it is is a function of RPM and torque. Torque is where you "feel" the car, so i would take an engine with massive torque over an engine with far less torque but more HP any day of the week.

As for the weight, that is not at all suprising. You are comparing a V-10 to a V-8.... Displacement only means bigger holes, more cylinders means more parts and thus more weight.

[Rock36]

There are really two ways to make horsepower, torque and rpm. If a car can maintain torque at high rpm then it will make lots of power.

Look how high that BMW has to rev to make peak torque and horsepower. Really that is the only way for a lower displacement engine to make power is make the valve train good enough to handle high rpm. That or put in a blower. I also bet the compression ratio of that 5.0L BMW engine is pretty damn high.

I'm reasonably sure that BMW is also geared low enough because of its 8000 rpm redline that the car will still plant your ass in the seat, even if it doesn't have much torque compared to horsepower.

Remember gearing multiplies torque, so it is possible for a lower torque engine with really low gearing (numerically higher gear) to feel every bit as fast as a higher torque engine with really high gearing (numerically lower gear).

[Rock36]

Originally Posted by BadGoat

GM's thinking with the Chevrolet line in the past has been, reliabilty and longevity. That's what makes me think it will be long shot for S/C verson. I would rather see a bigger displacement N/A motor than F/I. Iv'e always felt like the other brand (Ford) has had to rely on F/I to make their cars fast. I.E. the Cobra. Take the blower off of it what do you have? I guess I'm just to old school. I agree, There is no replacement for displacement!

As far as Ford, I like to play devils advocate with Ford, probably since I own one. But look at my sig and you will see what else I own.

Displacement is Ford's real problem, I agree. However I give them credit for squeezing anywhere from 300-320 bhp and 300-320 ft-lbs of torque from a puny little 281ci engine even when normally aspirated.

To get much beyond that they have had to factory supercharge the motor, but hey at least it is still a V8.

[LSxcellent]

Originally Posted by Casull

Yeah, but look at those torque numbers on the BMW... Horsepower is deceiving. All it is is a function of RPM and torque. Torque is where you "feel" the car, so i would take an engine with massive torque over an engine with far less torque but more HP any day of the week.

As for the weight, that is not at all suprising. You are comparing a V-10 to a V-8.... Displacement only means bigger holes, more cylinders means more parts and thus more weight.

Weeeelll not so fast there... Let's look at this in greater detail:

Your correct, horsepower is (rpm*torque)/5252, so if you increase either engine speed or engine torque at a given speed, you have an increase in power... BUT all things are not equal.

Generating lots of torque requires strong engine internals... remember, torque comes from the force of the expanding gas acting on the piston head, connecting rod, and then acting on the crankshaft. Each of these must be stronger (read: heavier) to support this force... Additionally, the cylinder walls would need to be thicker to support the higher pressures in high displacement engine.

Given this fact, high-torque engines tend to be heavy, and slow (because the heavy engine internals can't spin as fast). This is why I was suprised the LS7 was lighter than the S85... given its large bore I would have expected the internal components to be heavy (making the engine heavy).

Engine torque is also less important than engine power.

Wait... let me explain (this is a pretty detailed look, forgive me if I ramble):

So lets say you have an engine that generates 1000ftlbs of torque, sounds like a lot doesn't it? Now, what if this engine could only spin to 2000rpm? (OK, its steam engine, just laugh and follow along) You would only be making 380 horsepower!

Now, if you have an engine that only makes 100 ftlbs, but can spin to 20,000rpm, you'll make the same power! That's right, 380hp. Some motorcycle engines can do this (I think a turbo Hayabusa has been dynoed at these levels). So you have the same power, but at much lower torque and much higher speed.

So you say you want 10,000 lbft of torque at the rear wheels?

Engine #1 [10,000 (at wheels)]/[1000 (at engine)] = 10:1 Gearbox Ratio

Engine #2 [10,000 (at wheels)]/[100 (at engine)] = 100:1 Gearbox Ratio

Either one of these gearboxes is easily designed and built with modern materials and technology...

Now for the punchline:

The difference in weight in the engines would be HUNDREDs of pounds (since a engine that can generate LOTS of torque would inherently have high cylinder pressures and large forces acting in it)

The difference in gearbox weight? MAYBE a hundred pounds... probably much less. Gears are VERY good at torque multiplication, and so can increase effective torque for relatively little weight.

So what's the downside? Acceleration. If you wanted to accelerate quickly with the first engine, you only have to get the engine up to speed 10 times faster than the wheels are going... which probably is only a couple hundred rpm/sec.

With the second engine, it would be accelerating at 100times the wheel speed, which means perhaps thousands of rpm/second! This means it has to be light, and quick to spin up.

In any case, the summary is that engine power is all that really matters (from a purely academic perspective) since engine torque can be multiplied as needed.

~LSx

[Rock36]

Nice write up there. You said what I said about gearing and torque, but with much better detail.

I think a lot of people downplay how important gearing and rpm limits can be to acceleration.



This is where I learned all I ever needed to learn about torque, gearing, horsepower, as it applies to acceleration.

I recommend reading this article

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

[AFSNightrod]

It's all about volumetric effeciency. I like to think of an engine as a lung. The more air/fuel mixture you can get in, and the more exhaust you can get out the better. Just factor in ignition to make the changeover as complete as possible. The more effecient the engine, the more power you are going to get for that particular displacement. You will never find a 100% effecient engine. You have friction loss to account for.

[Mungo]

Well I'm going to put my last 2 cents worth on this subject, 400+ HP, a good independant rear suspepension ( read the road test reports on the holden commodore VE with the same platform, they say it's awsome) a killer body style, with aftermarket parts both body and engine ( yes Virginia there is a santa clause who will produce a S/C for those who want one). I think GM knows what it will take to keep the customers coming in in droves to buy this car. They're in the business to make money. There are nearly 1000 Camaro clubs in the U.S. and I think GM knows the potential for this car. Remember if it wasn't for the 1 million hits the web sight got when it was first shown it probably would not have been made. Make it YOUR car with what ever engine comes with it. V-6 or LS something. It's what we want C A M A R O !

[Mr. Wyndham]

When you chant the letters in that word...C A M A R O...it sounds better if there is an extra 'A' in the name. C A M A R A O. Try it! really!

[EllwynX]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

When you chant the letters in that word...C A M A R O...it sounds better if there is an extra 'A' in the name. C A M A R A O. Try it! really!

If you say so. LOL

[wirewilly]

Who was that president that said,"A Camaro in every driveway"? Or something like that.

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by shibbychevy15

well i am currently take the time to call every Chevy dealership in the state of WA and OH . so far i have started in WA since that is where i am right now. I received some good info from a sales manager that said he had been at a meeting recently and said the coupe is expected to be on the lots second quarter (aprox. April thru June), and the vert will be after that starting end June begin July. I also heard from another manager that they will start taking orders in November for the Spring. this same guy also told me that the plan is to have 80% V8's and 20% V6's. the V6 option will be the same 3.6L that is in the CTS and he said all V8's that roll out next year will be the LS2, but to expect the LS3 the next year. (sigh a whole year longer ) This guy also kept right on going and told me that GM just retrademarked the name Chevelle !! and he believes that the departing of the Monte that we just may hear rumors or see a new Chevelle . well pitch in what ya think cuz this is will be interesting!! Cheers!!

Regarding percentages, I SERIOUSLY think this guy got his info switched. GM will, IMO, build way more V6's than V8's....because they are easier to sell and more people will be able to afford them.
Question:

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

So I guess there won't be an SS just yet. If this is true, then that kinda sucks. Hmm, where did all this talk of, "the LS2 is dead" come from anyway?

Answer:

Originally Posted by 3whiterag

The LS2 6.0L will be phased out and replaced with the LS3 6.2L. Now the LSA, that is a whole other ballgame !

3Whiterag is our GM Powertrain guy. The only issue...he says it's going out the door, but does not SPECIFY when. Scott Settlemire also stated the LS2 was reaching the end of it's days. I just don't know why they would put the LS2, an engine that hadn't been around all that long IMO, in the Camaro if GM continues to come out w/ more powerful and more fuel efficient engines. Scott also didn't say when the LS2 was headed out. Could it be possible? I guess so...the LS2 in the first year Camaro w/ the LS3 in the second year. BUT...

I see a hell of a lot of people being really pissed off at GM for doing that to them. Sure, they have a choice at waiting a year. But, wouldn't that be GM sealing it's own fate with the Camaro all over again?!?!?! I tell you all here and now...if GM puts the LS2 in the first year Camaro and the LS3 in the second year, I'm waiting. AND...I'm sure that a majority of the buying public will wait as well. I see a whole bunch of V6'ers being sold (this won't be affected by GM w/ the LS2 and LS3). But, no. This would hurt GM, decrease sales (unless they plan on waaaay more V6 sales than V8 sales).

[Rock36]

I think that would be kinda jacked up if the first model year of the 5th gen has an LS2 and then the next has the LS3.

I too would wait for the second year. I'm sure some out there wouldn't, but most performance minded individuals who have been keeping up on the all the information would probably wait too.

[shibbychevy15]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Regarding percentages, I SERIOUSLY think this guy got his info switched. GM will, IMO, build way more V6's than V8's....because they are easier to sell and more people will be able to afford them.).

I think you are right on this, and just after I posted I was wondering if I may have heard him wrong (which is very possible due to poor cell phone coverage at the time).

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Scott also didn't say when the LS2 was headed out. Could it be possible? I guess so...the LS2 in the first year Camaro w/ the LS3 in the second year. I see a hell of a lot of people being really pissed off at GM for doing that to them. Sure, they have a choice at waiting a year. But, wouldn't that be GM sealing it's own fate with the Camaro all over again?!?!?! I tell you all here and now...if GM puts the LS2 in the first year Camaro and the LS3 in the second year, I'm waiting. AND...I'm sure that a majority of the buying public will wait as well. I see a whole bunch of V6'ers being sold (this won't be affected by GM w/ the LS2 and LS3). But, no. This would hurt GM, decrease sales (unless they plan on waaaay more V6 sales than V8 sales).

I completeley agree on this. It pisses me off like crazy we wait forever and then have to wait longer and it sucks!! 3Whiterag works for GM Powertrain, thats awsome!! My dad works for them as well at a transmission plant that I won't mention right now. I believe taht it should be the LS3 for the base V8 and supercharged for the SS or Z28 or whatever else. PLEASE GM GIVE US THE LS3!!!

Cheers!!

[Eisenhower]

I agree, it should be the LS3. So what... does it turn into an LS9 if you put a supercharger on it?