Yet another direction for the Z28 possibility?
07-29-2009, 02:37 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Miami, FL, US
Posts: 1,512
Just to clarify, any "Z/28 or 1LE type" package IMO, should be a complete and comprehensive package bundled under the Z/28 brand name.
And what I was saying was, however Ford markets their Track Pack and upcoming 5.0L combo, it would be nice if Camaro could have something to compete with it. Because, currently it doesn't.
And what I was saying was, however Ford markets their Track Pack and upcoming 5.0L combo, it would be nice if Camaro could have something to compete with it. Because, currently it doesn't.
Within those lines you can still have the opportunity open to create a monster as a Z/28.
07-29-2009, 02:47 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
If they go that route... the Track Pack Camaro should be under the 1LE name but instead of being a manual windows, radio and A/C delete and that sort of thing.. make sure it's a very nice suspension setup that matches if not beats the Mustangs track pack.
Within those lines you can still have the opportunity open to create a monster as a Z/28.
Within those lines you can still have the opportunity open to create a monster as a Z/28.
07-29-2009, 02:51 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle of Kansas
Posts: 2,688
07-29-2009, 11:28 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
That would be nice, and I agree. But I don't think very much weight loss will be possible on the current car.
The Track Pack has won most subjective comparisons with the SS, in large measure, because of it's more direct steering and less understeer. If I were developing a Z/28 package, those would certainly be two issues I'd address first. But as has been mentioned, physics is physics, and masking Camaro's 300 pound difference with chassis tuning won't be easy.
The Track Pack has won most subjective comparisons with the SS, in large measure, because of it's more direct steering and less understeer. If I were developing a Z/28 package, those would certainly be two issues I'd address first. But as has been mentioned, physics is physics, and masking Camaro's 300 pound difference with chassis tuning won't be easy.
At any rate, with the Corvette GS we have seen an LS3 with dry sump oiling... perhaps that could make its way into a Z28.
07-30-2009, 03:43 AM
#36
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
I am sure there is really VERY LITTLE detuning on the LS3. The differences in the exhaust and intake tracts are enough to make up that 10hp difference.
Since the chassis was designed to handle the LSA, why not throw it in?
I wonder which costs more to GM, the LS7 or the LSA?
Since the chassis was designed to handle the LSA, why not throw it in?
I wonder which costs more to GM, the LS7 or the LSA?
07-30-2009, 07:23 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 4,482
I am sure there is really VERY LITTLE detuning on the LS3. The differences in the exhaust and intake tracts are enough to make up that 10hp difference.
Since the chassis was designed to handle the LSA, why not throw it in?
I wonder which costs more to GM, the LS7 or the LSA?
Since the chassis was designed to handle the LSA, why not throw it in?
I wonder which costs more to GM, the LS7 or the LSA?
07-30-2009, 02:49 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
The GS (and Z06) get the dry sump because of the lateral G they are capable of pulling. Not sure if that would apply to the 5th gen. If not, just extra weight and cost.
07-30-2009, 09:20 PM
#41
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
I think it would be awesome if the Z/28 were the first to get a DI LSx, but for some reason I bet the Vette will get that honor.
A DI 6.2L would be a very adequate replacement engine for the big LS7 in the Z06. Then the GS could get a DI 6.0L and the base Vette could get a DI 5.3L.
A DI 6.2L would be a very adequate replacement engine for the big LS7 in the Z06. Then the GS could get a DI 6.0L and the base Vette could get a DI 5.3L.
07-30-2009, 10:42 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
And as for the last point, there are a lot of things that get added to performance variants to market them that aren't necessary or even beneficial for performance (eg C/D brake rotors).
07-31-2009, 06:58 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 4,482
I think it would be awesome if the Z/28 were the first to get a DI LSx, but for some reason I bet the Vette will get that honor.
A DI 6.2L would be a very adequate replacement engine for the big LS7 in the Z06. Then the GS could get a DI 6.0L and the base Vette could get a DI 5.3L.
A DI 6.2L would be a very adequate replacement engine for the big LS7 in the Z06. Then the GS could get a DI 6.0L and the base Vette could get a DI 5.3L.
07-31-2009, 09:21 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
07-31-2009, 09:21 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
I was thinking that too. I was going to add something about the marketing value or rather the bragging rights of a "dry sump" to my post, but didn't.