Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
TireRack
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Camaro Z/28 Forum - Z/28 Specific Topics


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-10-2011, 09:39 AM   #18
10spokess
Wild and Cammed
 
Drives: 2002 Camaro SS
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pasadena, MD
Posts: 756
Man that is just sick nasty man I want one now lol
__________________
10spokess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 03:51 PM   #19
IamJacksCamaro
 
IamJacksCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro LS M6, Fiero, Ford F100
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 638
Can't wait to see it in a Camaro.
IamJacksCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 07:28 PM   #20
truth411

 
Drives: police interceptor
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, tx
Posts: 1,238
Gen V V8s displacement, remain 5.3 and 6.2. Magazine and internet sites assume its 5.5 because its the displacement of the le-man V8. What they fail to realise is that max displacement allowed is 5.5 ltrs, if max displacement allowed was 7.0 then the le-man vette would have a 7.0 V8.
truth411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 07:41 PM   #21
wildpaws

 
wildpaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 1999 Blazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth411 View Post
Gen V V8s displacement, remain 5.3 and 6.2. Magazine and internet sites assume its 5.5 because its the displacement of the le-man V8. What they fail to realise is that max displacement allowed is 5.5 ltrs, if max displacement allowed was 7.0 then the le-man vette would have a 7.0 V8.
I don't think we'll really know what displacements the GenV V8s will be until Chevy/GM officially releases some details. At this point I think that it is all speculation.
Clyde
wildpaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2011, 09:02 PM   #22
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,285
Not that this has anything to do with motor pictured above:
I've heard that some guys who do weekend road racing will put a LS7 in their GTO/Camaro/Corvette then take out the cam and put in a LS1 factory cam and end up with about 470hp and a lower redline.
Since road racing involves a lot of extended high rpm running the valvetrain takes a beating. By leaving the factory LS7 valvesprings, etc. and taking the rpms down by 500+ they get almost bulletproof reliability and still have the 460 torque that the 7.0L motor offers in it's original 505hp guise.

When it comes to ALMS and Grand Am racing the motors in the Corvettes are not that impressive. They are so choked down by the governing body that hp is less than what you can buy off the street.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2011, 11:31 PM   #23
truth411

 
Drives: police interceptor
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, tx
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4z View Post
Not that this has anything to do with motor pictured above:
I've heard that some guys who do weekend road racing will put a LS7 in their GTO/Camaro/Corvette then take out the cam and put in a LS1 factory cam and end up with about 470hp and a lower redline.
Since road racing involves a lot of extended high rpm running the valvetrain takes a beating. By leaving the factory LS7 valvesprings, etc. and taking the rpms down by 500+ they get almost bulletproof reliability and still have the 460 torque that the 7.0L motor offers in it's original 505hp guise.

When it comes to ALMS and Grand Am racing the motors in the Corvettes are not that impressive. They are so choked down by the governing body that hp is less than what you can buy off the street.
The LS7 is already bullet proof as is, way more reliable than the highly strungout italian/German motors and if something do go wrong waaaaaaay cheaper to fix to.
truth411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 01:15 AM   #24
thePill
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '11 Mustang GT Premium
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 1,268
I'm going to attempt to explain this Cam in Cam operation. First, this CiC has nothing in common with VTEC, CiC does not alter the lift at all. VTEC was technically two cams in one, when a certain RPM was reached, a secondary lifter would lock into place on a secondary lobe that had a much higher lift. Honda's VTEC usually dropped its secondaries around 4500rpm, at which a higher lift was used only, duration could be altered depending on the secondary lobe and timing would remain the same.

Cam in Cam (CiC): This setup is made of two cams, a hollow exterior cam (hollow like a OHC's cam) and an internal solid cam. I don't know for sure but, the exterior cam would control all the intake valves and the internal cam would control the exhaust (could be the other way around). The VVT phaser (or the strange casting that surrounds the cam gear and adjust the cam timing) would contain two separate cam phasers for each cam. Probably a large outer phaser for the hollow exterior intake cam and an inner phaser for the small internal exhaust cam. Controlled either electrically or by oil pressure, it would adjust the intake and exhaust separately. You will notice the small pins in the cam itself, these pins would disengage the internal exhaust cam from the exterior cam by pushing the pin outward so that it can operate and adjust independently. The normal operation position of the pin would be "IN" and oil pressure or electronically (doubt it) would force the pin "OUT" so that the internal cam could spin independently from the exterior cam. Maybe oil pressure that is bled from the VVT phaser into the internal cam tube disengages the cam pin (pushes it up), I don't know for sure... I would have to whip up a few more diagrams before I could say for certain if bleed over could produce enough oil pressure to do that.

As the CiC operates independently, and the engine returns to normal operation, the lack of oil pressure inside the internal cam tube would allow the cam pin to return to the :IN" position, locking the cams together again for normal operation.

I hope this explanation is easy to follow...
thePill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 09:53 AM   #25
LOWDOWN
Downright Upright
 
Drives: Daily
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,145
RE: Gen-5 architecture:

The only "sacred cow", here, are the bore centers @ 4.40". Changing those makes retooling/manufacturing much more expen$ive, and instantly obsoletes ALL that the previous Gen SBCs are/were based on.

That is where the limiting factor for "bore" comes in. You cast the blocks with 4.40 centers, and sleeve down from there.

Valve sizes: you don't build a 4.00" bore engine with 2.20"/1.60"+ valves..."shrouding" happens. Take a look at LS1/LS6 engines: smallish bore = smallish valves. Pretty much max'd @ 2.05".

Valve sizes, alone, do NOT correlate to greater revs. In fact, a smaller valve weighs less, and theoretically can be rev'd higher... That's part of the reason that a 4-valve engine revs higher than an equivalent 2-valve.

Port dimensions and shapes are important to high revs. Bottlenecks in the ports restricts your usable rev capabilities... More air in/exhaust out = more power-better emissions, again depending on port design, and combustion chamber shapes. Port velocity is more important than all-out port size.

Raised cam, as seen in the Ilmor/Chev cum Mercedes Indy engine, = shorter pushrods = less valvetrain weight = higher rev capabilities. NASCAR engines utilize flat-tappet cams, much less efficient than rollers, and still achieve 9,000+ rpm for hours on end. Almost impossible to do with current production-based long pushrods...

With DI, optimized bore and stroke per displacement, and optimized cylinder head design, combined with short pushrods and VVT, these engines regardless of displacement will offer power-to-size with emissions AND economy previously only dreamed about...
LOWDOWN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 10:11 AM   #26
PYROLYSIS
Remember the Charleston 9
 
PYROLYSIS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2004 KME PREDATOR, 2014 2SS/RS/1LE
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Summerv1LE SC
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePill View Post
I hope this explanation is easy to follow...
Well, you tried. I really have learned a lot from your thread, it's just that the average enthusiast,(like me), don't have a real understanding of how all of the basic parts of an internal combustion engine work. Some of this stuff is over my head,(for now), but is still a great read. Thanks for sharing. I hope you're just not a really smart Mustang fan trying to throw us all off, cause right now I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
__________________
BRING BACK THE B4C POLICE CAMARO!
2002 V-6 5 speed rally red (current camaro) Also driven:1992 Z-28 305 auto Red w/ black stripes (anniversary), 2001 V-6 auto light pewter metallic,1991 RS V-6 auto Black
PYROLYSIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 11:16 AM   #27
Blizzard
Searching for the truth
 
Blizzard's Avatar
 
Drives: 85 K-10, 13 1LE
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePill View Post
Here is a picture taken of the new Gen V 5.5 liter C6R engine. I am pretty excited because I have not seen the engine at all before this picture. This was taken last month by a GM fan.

I will dig up some stats and what I know so far. Just real quick though, this engine produces 470hp and currently is a 5.5 liter. This is the engine I believe should go into the Z28.
I agree this is the motor we want in the Z28, but sadly I just dont see it making it into the Camaro until 2014 and in the new alpha platform.
__________________
2013 1LE 1SS RS TPW 4/29
Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 01:21 PM   #28
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,285
My CiC kicked in YO!
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 01:52 PM   #29
thePill
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '11 Mustang GT Premium
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Valve sizes: you don't build a 4.00" bore engine with 2.20"/1.60"+ valves..."shrouding" happens. Take a look at LS1/LS6 engines: smallish bore = smallish valves. Pretty much max'd @ 2.05".
Quote:

Valve sizes, alone, do NOT correlate to greater revs. In fact, a smaller valve weighs less, and theoretically can be rev'd higher... That's part of the reason that a 4-valve engine revs higher than an equivalent 2-valve.
With a 4 inch bore, you would still have some room for a 3.80 combined valve radius, it would be tight but it could happen. The LS7 has a 4.125 bore and a combined valve radius of 3.81, as that is a tight squeeze, valve angle could help in that situation. Although larger valves do slow down the valvetrain and limit RPM, there is a substantial trade off here. 2 valve engines are limited by their total valve area by design. Large intake valves are a requirement if high RPM's are desired. Limiting the intake valves size will start a chain reaction of events, all of which are parasitic losses and inefficiency. If an OHV engine wants to breathe above 7000rpm. All the high rise intakes and head design in the world will be stopped dead at the choke point (intake valve). We will have to wait to see this "new combustion design" GM is working on to really say what’s going to happen. This also would solidify my squared bore and stroke option. I would like to see a bore and stroke between 3.80 and 3.90 but this would naturally see the valve size decrease unless major angles were used on the valves (I would like to keep them similar to the LS7).
Quote:
Well, you tried. I really have learned a lot from your thread, it's just that the average enthusiast,(like me), don't have a real understanding of how all of the basic parts of an internal combustion engine work. Some of this stuff is over my head,(for now), but is still a great read. Thanks for sharing. I hope you're just not a really smart Mustang fan trying to throw us all off, cause right now I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The Cam in Cam design is new to me, this is why I naturally pick at the people I know and do quick diagram concepts of operation. I won't sneak around and try to throw Camaro guys off... I am usually very direct but I have to be on my best behavior for awhile so I can gain access to the ZL1 section again. I started this thread as a workshop for me. Sometimes you will see me post something and then correct myself in the very next post. I like to leave the mistakes up so I can go back to my original idea if I can't think any further. I can also link this directly to some of my helpers and they can trace my steps. Anyway, thanks for reading...

Quote:
I agree this is the motor we want in the Z28, but sadly I just don’t see it making it into the Camaro until 2014 and in the new alpha platform.
It depends on where GM is at in development, If the 2012 C7 Corvette is going to be using the Gen V, then it isn't crazy to think that a 2013 Camaro could carry one. I simultaneous release in both the Corvette and the Camaro would tell me that GM is ready to over step the Corvette or at least meet it evenly with their sport coupe entry. This would also let the Camaro fans know that the Camaro is no longer a solid second.

Last edited by thePill; 04-12-2011 at 02:07 PM.
thePill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 02:31 PM   #30
Blizzard
Searching for the truth
 
Blizzard's Avatar
 
Drives: 85 K-10, 13 1LE
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePill View Post
It depends on where GM is at in development, If the 2012 C7 Corvette is going to be using the Gen V, then it isn't crazy to think that a 2013 Camaro could carry one. I simultaneous release in both the Corvette and the Camaro would tell me that GM is ready to over step the Corvette or at least meet it evenly with their sport coupe entry. This would also let the Camaro fans know that the Camaro is no longer a solid second.
Thats if we get the C7 in 2012, but has there been any hint of this? i dont remember any real concepts.
__________________
2013 1LE 1SS RS TPW 4/29
Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 02:38 PM   #31
brandotron
I am the internets.
 
brandotron's Avatar
 
Drives: dangerously
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 12,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by thePill View Post
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]It depends on where GM is at in development, If the 2012 C7 Corvette is going to be using the Gen V, then it isn't crazy to think that a 2013 Camaro could carry one. I simultaneous release in both the Corvette and the Camaro would tell me that GM is ready to over step the Corvette or at least meet it evenly with their sport coupe entry. This would also let the Camaro fans know that the Camaro is no longer a solid second.
And we've seen engine changes mid-generation on the Camaro before. Cool thread. I've been hearing about this forever, but this is the first I've seen of it.
__________________
brandotron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 03:04 PM   #32
Blizzard
Searching for the truth
 
Blizzard's Avatar
 
Drives: 85 K-10, 13 1LE
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 618
Doing some research says we dont see a C7 until 2013 model year so still 2014 model year for Camaro wich most likely means alpha platform to help meet Cafe standards
__________________
2013 1LE 1SS RS TPW 4/29
Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 04:00 PM   #33
LOWDOWN
Downright Upright
 
Drives: Daily
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,145
Your "theory" here is based on all-out rpm/racing...which ISN'T the stated purpose, day-in and day-out of ANY regular production engine...especially with design features and technology necessary for TRUCKS, the overwhelming volume-required use for this architecture.

Cylinder head tech. will be slanted, generally, to TORQUE as opposed to HP...where velocity is most important. Think "small port" vs. "large port"... Small for trucks and "regular" passenger requirements with low- and mid-range usage (generally), large(r) for performance applications. Emissions and fuel economy will be at least as important as all-out rpm/power. And at lower speeds, TORQUE moves the "load". More torque, less pedal...less emissions...less fuel consumption. And THAT'S where VVT (regardless of methods used) will have its every-day applications.

Performance applications? Time the VVT, and design the cylinder heads, accordingly. With 7- and 8-speed trannies for both emissions and CAFE compliance at part-throttle.

BTW, contact LPE or Katech and request 3.8" worth of valves in your 3.98" bore LS1...ain't gonna happen...

...and all other things being equal, which they never are, an over-square engine (bigger bore than stroke) will out-rev an under square one (stroke bigger than bore) every time. Compare the characteristics of a 302 (Z/28) to a 307 long-stroke... Bore makes rpm, stroke makes torque.
LOWDOWN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2011, 04:13 PM   #34
thePill
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '11 Mustang GT Premium
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 1,268
A huge factor here would be the valve sizes, what would be the point of increasing the RPM's of an OHV pushrod engine if the valve sized limited the airflow beyond 7000rpm's. I had a square bore and stroke 5.739 liter (350.17 cubic inch) engine laid out for fun and nostalgia. I went with a 3.81 bore and a 3.84 stroke but that would greatly reduce the size of the valves. The old Chevy 350 had a 4.0 inch bore and a 3.48 inch stroke, it is becoming more obvious that GM will maintain a 4.00 inch bore just to accommodate larger valves. So, for nostalgia’s sake, a Gen V 5.7 liter V8, using the LS7's 4.125 bore (which is likely and would be a good move if you asked me). We could make a 5.7/350 with a 4.125 bore and a 3.27 stroke (5.728 liter/349.53 ci), and could go up to a 3.279 stroke for a maximum 5.744 liter/350.49 liter). That would allow for HUGE valves 2.20i and 1.61e and would be more than enough valve area to allow deep breathing at high RPM. They will probably share the 12 degree valve angle and would help with the valve shrouding. Valve shrouding is usually a problem for OHC's and OHV's that use huge valves. Angling the valves provides more room between the valve and the cylinder wall, angling too much is not good either but most engineers have found a happy medium between cylinder wall shrouding and maintaining a flat valve area.

But... a 5.7 might defeat the whole purpose of having a global block design. GM would typically like to cover a wide range of applications with a global block. I heard before that a 5.3 and a 6.2 would be offered. That would be a very nice range of applications. The 5.3 would be for entry level sports coupes/cars, lightweight trucks and light-medium sedans. The 6.2 would cover the remaining high level sport coupe/cars, medium-heavy trucks and large sedans. Using a 5.7 would be right in the middle of that range. Think about the GT500's 5.4 in the middle of the 5.0 and 6.2. The only thing different about that situation is that the 5.0, 5.4 and 6.2 are two completely different engines, therefore... one of them are about to "terminated" (pun). GM could cover a 5.3, 5.7 and 6.2 and a fraction of the cost in which Ford does it, the DOHC 6.2 is just way to big to be a sports car engine and a 5.4 replacement will be coming very shortly.

So, a 6.2 carries a 4.065 bore and 3.622 stroke (375.98 ci/6.1623 liter) although it would be even closer as far as valve size though. If we could use the LS7's 4.125 bore to achieve a 6.2, we could use a 3.513 (375.51ci/6.154 liters) to 3.522 (376.47ci/6.170 liter). That would give us enough room for the large valves that would be optimal for high RPM deep breathing. Just some free writing here...
thePill is offline   Reply With Quote
 
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pfadt Race Engineering releases new Camaro V8 Engine Mounts PfadtRacing Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 43 06-07-2011 01:09 PM
81 Z28 Feneder vents on a 5th gen. THUMPER20X Cosmetics and Lighting Modification Discussions 4 03-10-2010 04:35 PM
The BEST Break for a new car. "very long" Darin Morgan General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 346 02-04-2010 07:49 PM
5TH GEN CAMARO IROC Z28 06stalliongt Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics 21 11-13-2009 10:04 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.