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

[Mr. Wyndham]

I somehow doubt the next generation Corvette will resemble anything close to a "ricer".

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by LimaCharlie

I don't necessarily think this is GM trying to "appeal to a wide arrange of customers". A smaller, turbocharged V8 is a result of the stricter CAFE mileage requirements in the future. I don't think this is a bad thing though. The smaller V8 will probably make equal or more power than the LS3. It could be alot worse......imagine a V6 powered Corvette.
As for the 6th gen Camaro engine, I personally think the most powerful engine will be a twin turbo V6. I seem to remember reading an article about the Alpha platform being designed to use a V6. If the 6th gen will be based on the Alpha, the death of the V8 Camaro might be soon.

a gtr?

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by O2BQIK

Really? How do you figure this logic is anything other than "because you say so?" You didn't make any reason for your argument other than personal preference and opinion: you said you don't like the sound of turbos. Good reasoning.

Turbochargers are more efficient than superchargers; they aren't driven by engine power. GM has made some killer turbo muscle cars before: the '89 Turbo T/A, and the Buick Grand National, for example.

some people amaze me with there logic but I think its just people set In there ways.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by LimaCharlie

I don't necessarily think this is GM trying to "appeal to a wide arrange of customers". A smaller, turbocharged V8 is a result of the stricter CAFE mileage requirements in the future. I don't think this is a bad thing though. The smaller V8 will probably make equal or more power than the LS3. It could be alot worse......imagine a V6 powered Corvette.
As for the 6th gen Camaro engine, I personally think the most powerful engine will be a twin turbo V6. I seem to remember reading an article about the Alpha platform being designed to use a V6. If the 6th gen will be based on the Alpha, the death of the V8 Camaro might be soon.

Zeta is designed to use V6's too ... or don't LS & LT Camaros count?

[assasinator]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Unless they change to a different architecture for that small V8 (which is unlikely, since they're pushing to consolidate their V8 lines not diverge them), its gunna weigh more than a large displacement pushrod V8. No matter the displacement on current production small blocks, the bore spacing is 4.4" and the deck height is 9.025" (IIRC). Overhead cams add weight. Turbos & intercoolers add weight. Building a small engine for forced induction (so stuff doesn't break) adds weight.

Where is the weight savings going to come from? Boring a smaller hole into the block? Wouldn't that end up adding (a little) weight too? Could go with a shorter stroke, but conversely that leads to longer connecting rods ... again, adding (a little) weight. The higher RPMs, plus forced induction mean that internals would have to be incredibly strong. Not that they can't do it but unless they've discovered unobtanium strength = weight.

I see this as little more than a fishing trip by the Corvette team and it sounds like they got a few, hook line and sinker.

they can outsource the low volume small V8 if they need to. it isnt the first time for that.-

look at the physical size of the ford(yamaha) 3.4 liter V8 in the 96 SHO.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by assasinator

they can outsource the low volume small V8 if they need to. it isnt the first time for that.-

look at the physical size of the ford(yamaha) 3.4 liter V8 in the 96 SHO.

Sure they could. But I don't know of any V8 architecture thats used in a production car that is substantially lighter than whats used by GM for its small blocks. A lot of the small displacement DOHC V8's from Europe or Japan that are designed specifically to be light still only weigh about as much as an LS3, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. Figure in order to be of any benefit, the complete engine would probably need to undercut a small block by about 75 lbs. Afterall, if you merely save 10 lbs its not really worth the trouble going and building a super high tech engine, is it? Turbocharging it will probably add 75 lbs in and of itself. So that makes for ~150 lbs this alleged 3.0L would have to save off a typical small block, putting it in the range of 275 lbs in NA trim (350 once boosted).

Anyway, this engine won't be as physically small as you'd think. Figure for a 3L, 10k rpm V8 you'd probably be looking at something with a bore of around 3.3" and a stroke of around 2.7". That gives it a rev-friendly oversquare design. Now, since its forced induction you'd probably going to want cylinder walls of around 0.3", making bore spacing ~3.6". Deck height would need to be in the neighbourhood of 7.5" but all the space you gain there is immediately lost by going with overhead cams. In the end, you'd have something that is just as tall & just as wide as a small block, but around 3" shorter in length. So cutting the displacement in half doesn't really make the overall engine size much smaller, especially when you switch from OHV to DOHC (a change that also adds weight btw).

They could do crazy things like go with a non-90 degree V angle (like in that 3.4L you mentioned) which could save a few pounds, but not much more than a few. To get significant savings they'd pretty much have to continue on as if it were an F1 engine, that would defineatly save weight. But F1 engines aren't meant to last for thousands upon thousands of miles. They're also somewhat expensive ...


One other thing ... why would they go to the trouble of building a 'lightweight' V8, when they could just start with a V6 if the final engine is supposed to be 3.0L? I mean, if the goal is to save weight, why not use an engine configuration thats simply lighter rather than handicapping yourself with a V8. Better yet, go down to a ~2.5L 4 banger. Turbocharge it & wind it out to 10 grand and you can still make that 400 hp, but now you've actually managed to save weight in a fairly cost effective manner.

[FastEddie]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Sure they could. But I don't know of any V8 architecture thats used in a production car that is substantially lighter than whats used by GM for its small blocks. A lot of the small displacement DOHC V8's from Europe or Japan that are designed specifically to be light still only weigh about as much as an LS3, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. Figure in order to be of any benefit, the complete engine would probably need to undercut a small block by about 75 lbs. Afterall, if you merely save 10 lbs its not really worth the trouble going and building a super high tech engine, is it? Turbocharging it will probably add 75 lbs in and of itself. So that makes for ~150 lbs this alleged 3.0L would have to save off a typical small block, putting it in the range of 275 lbs in NA trim (350 once boosted).

Anyway, this engine won't be as physically small as you'd think. Figure for a 3L, 10k rpm V8 you'd probably be looking at something with a bore of around 3.3" and a stroke of around 2.7". That gives it a rev-friendly oversquare design. Now, since its forced induction you'd probably going to want cylinder walls of around 0.3", making bore spacing ~3.6". Deck height would need to be in the neighbourhood of 7.5" but all the space you gain there is immediately lost by going with overhead cams. In the end, you'd have something that is just as tall & just as wide as a small block, but around 3" shorter in length. So cutting the displacement in half doesn't really make the overall engine size much smaller, especially when you switch from OHV to DOHC (a change that also adds weight btw).

They could do crazy things like go with a non-90 degree V angle (like in that 3.4L you mentioned) which could save a few pounds, but not much more than a few. To get significant savings they'd pretty much have to continue on as if it were an F1 engine, that would defineatly save weight. But F1 engines aren't meant to last for thousands upon thousands of miles. They're also somewhat expensive ...


One other thing ... why would they go to the trouble of building a 'lightweight' V8, when they could just start with a V6 if the final engine is supposed to be 3.0L? I mean, if the goal is to save weight, why not use an engine configuration thats simply lighter rather than handicapping yourself with a V8. Better yet, go down to a ~2.5L 4 banger. Turbocharge it & wind it out to 10 grand and you can still make that 400 hp, but now you've actually managed to save weight in a fairly cost effective manner.

4 BANGER VETTE! IF I DIDNT RECOGNIZE SARCASM ID HAVE ASKED YOU TO STEP OUTSIDE

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by FastEddie

4 BANGER VETTE! IF I DIDNT RECOGNIZE SARCASM ID HAVE ASKED YOU TO STEP OUTSIDE

Is it any more blasphemous than a putting a tiny little 3.0L V8 under the hood?

[FastEddie]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Is it any more blasphemous than a putting a tiny little 3.0L V8 under the hood?

That's a loaded question. Like who would you rather hang out with: A straight guy wearing cripplingly tight hotpants (3.0L- V8), or a Midget cowboy firing 2 pistols in the air (TT 4- banger).
I am sure they both have their merits and strengths. But one thing is for sure- They'd both make the Vette look gay, and they can't roll with me.

[ZED SLED]

Any chance I could get one with a 3-speed on the column?

[scottyvegas]

Originally Posted by FastEddie

That's a loaded question. Like who would you rather hang out with: A straight guy wearing cripplingly tight hotpants (3.0L- V8), or a Midget cowboy firing 2 pistols in the air (TT 4- banger).
I am sure they both have their merits and strengths. But one thing is for sure- They'd both make the Vette look gay, and they can't roll with me.

that is some funny sh$t.

[KarFan]

This ugly rumor aside. Performance cars will need to examine several ways in the future to get more effecient. However the Vette due to it's light weight already gets acceptable gas mileage with no shortage of LS3 power. I'd expect that improve into the Gen V powered C7.

[FastEddie]

I think Chevy is doing a wonderful job in appealing to a broader demographic. I have learned from my past mistakes and realize that others should at least have the option. I just hope it doesn't "muddle the mission statement". If there is one mutt in the pack it will hurt the other's pedigree. I talk crap now, but once I see ANY Vette- I'm softer than Grandma's cookies... So.....

Walk softly Chevrolet for you tread on our dreams...

[syr74]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Is it any more blasphemous than a putting a tiny little 3.0L V8 under the hood?

Yes, great American V-8's, and with hot rod history no less, have existed at smaller displacements than that. In fact, Zora Arkus-Duntov himself had a hand in making one of those small V-8's even meaner.