475HP 7L 3760lb Z/28 $36K - How do we get there?
#16
I agree with most everything Guy has posted (so far ), but a few thoughts on weight and the comment of "We need to take the time to actually check things out before using them as an example." which I assume was directed towards me.
I wasn't using the C6 Z06 as an example.
My post was obviosly mis-read as I was talking weight reduction on the C5 Z06. Even though it didn't have the magnesium engine cradle and aluminum frame (both started with C6 Z06), it still managed to come in at 3,118 lbs compared to 3,246 lbs for the "base" Vette.
True, the weight spread isn't as dramatic on the C6 Z06 (i've read anywhere from only 37 lbs to 50 lbs) even though it has the magnesiun eng cradle and aluminum frame. Why? Don't know for sure .....but like I said, I wasn't using the C6 as an example.
I wasn't using the C6 Z06 as an example.
My post was obviosly mis-read as I was talking weight reduction on the C5 Z06. Even though it didn't have the magnesium engine cradle and aluminum frame (both started with C6 Z06), it still managed to come in at 3,118 lbs compared to 3,246 lbs for the "base" Vette.
True, the weight spread isn't as dramatic on the C6 Z06 (i've read anywhere from only 37 lbs to 50 lbs) even though it has the magnesiun eng cradle and aluminum frame. Why? Don't know for sure .....but like I said, I wasn't using the C6 as an example.
#17
If I'm wrong, please tell me otherwise, but I can't see ONLY a cam swap (no heads, no exhaust etc) giving that much of an increase and still be emissions legal.
The LG site has what they call a "G6XE or “Executive Cam”" which they claim will "maintain stock drivability and idle" but doesn't say anything about emissions legal.
The LG site has what they call a "G6XE or “Executive Cam”" which they claim will "maintain stock drivability and idle" but doesn't say anything about emissions legal.
#19
Shaving 100lbs wouldn't be a problem. I lifted the following from a previous post of mine:
".......but they could take SOME of the weight off for basically free the same way they did with the C5 Z06: No CD changer, power antenna, fog lights, sound deadener in rear, telescoping steering column, "sport" (pwrd lumbar) seats, passenger seat motor, No jack or spare (like all C5's), "run-flat" tires (instead use "regular" tires and included a bottle of stop leak & compressor), tire pressure sensors, and anything else I may have left off. On top of that ditch the seat warmers and whatever else they determine is "unimportant" without going overboard by getting rid of what the MAJORITY of the public expect in cars nowadays (A/C, Pwr Window & Locks, etc).
They could take it even further the same they did on the C5 Z06 "relatively" cheaply by using: titanium exhaust, thinner windshield, and on the '04 Comm. Ed. Z06 a carbon fiber hood (do the same to Camaro's trunk)."
But.....as far as making significantly more power (50hp+) without being blown? Come on guys, get real .....if it was really that easy to make a "cheap LS7", don't you think GM would have done it already? Do you really think that adding an extra 53hp to the current LS3 is just a matter of throwing a bigger cam in it? The EPA would love that .
".......but they could take SOME of the weight off for basically free the same way they did with the C5 Z06: No CD changer, power antenna, fog lights, sound deadener in rear, telescoping steering column, "sport" (pwrd lumbar) seats, passenger seat motor, No jack or spare (like all C5's), "run-flat" tires (instead use "regular" tires and included a bottle of stop leak & compressor), tire pressure sensors, and anything else I may have left off. On top of that ditch the seat warmers and whatever else they determine is "unimportant" without going overboard by getting rid of what the MAJORITY of the public expect in cars nowadays (A/C, Pwr Window & Locks, etc).
They could take it even further the same they did on the C5 Z06 "relatively" cheaply by using: titanium exhaust, thinner windshield, and on the '04 Comm. Ed. Z06 a carbon fiber hood (do the same to Camaro's trunk)."
But.....as far as making significantly more power (50hp+) without being blown? Come on guys, get real .....if it was really that easy to make a "cheap LS7", don't you think GM would have done it already? Do you really think that adding an extra 53hp to the current LS3 is just a matter of throwing a bigger cam in it? The EPA would love that .
The LS7 is 7 liters aka 427ci. The LS3 is 6.2L. That's where your cheap and easy 53 hp comes from.
I do like the titanium exhaust idea. What's that worth 15lbs for another $1K bucks?
#20
Not sure how much more expensive it was, but by going titanium aft of the cats saved 18lbs.
Here's some info from 2001 on it: http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2001/exhaust.htm
Here's some info from 2001 on it: http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2001/exhaust.htm
#21
But.....as far as making significantly more power (50hp+) without being blown? Come on guys, get real .....if it was really that easy to make a "cheap LS7", don't you think GM would have done it already? Do you really think that adding an extra 53hp to the current LS3 is just a matter of throwing a bigger cam in it? The EPA would love that .
I suppose you could replace the magnesium parts on the LS7, the sodium filled valves, the extensive use of titanium, loose the dry sump lube system. You'd still have an expensive block (it isn't the same block as any other LS engine), and you'd spend alot of time and money re-engineering pretty much the entire engine since you'd have to replace, test, and certify all those exotic parts (even the pistons are completely different (shorter as well as smaller) than that on the regular LS engines.
A non starter for use on such a relatively small number of vehicles.
That's why GM created the supercharged LSa engine.
Many people have a hard time accepting the notion that if something could be done it would be. That covers everything from a "lightweight" Camaro to "budget" LS7s. GM may be overly conservative, but if there was a way GM could make ANY car lighter and pass the same rigourous guidelines, of all things GM screws up on, that is one thing they would do 100% religiously. GM will spend money to take off weight & make things lighter duty to take off weight. But that has to be balenced with current and future safety requirements as well as product liability and being durable enough to stand up to the abuse a performance Camaro owner will or might likely subject their car to.
If you want the Camaro to lose weight, then the only practical and realistic way to do that is to start thinking about the next Camaro with less power & without a V8 engine option. That way, the body and driveline components can be made lighter and they in turn will make the car substantially lighter.
Thinking you're going to get a 475-500+ horsepower rear drive, IRS, safety standard passing Chevrolet Camaro that isn't the size of a Solstice or doesn't have a top end governed to 155 at a weight notably less than what we ended up in the price ballpark that we ended up with with isn't realistic.
.... and there are people who still have issue with the price increase.
The LS7 is simply a sleeved LS block with external plumbing to go dry sump and special crankshank with a longer snout to drive it. There are plenty of guys(no pun intended) running wet sump LS7 blocks with an LS2 oil pump and pan and standard LS2 cranks, rods and aftermarket pistons.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=986036
There is nothing that precludes GM from building an easy 475hp assembly line LS7 without the ported heads and the fancy Ti valvetrain and rods for the same price as an LS3.
You may want to keep believing that GM hasn't done it because they can't. But the actual reason is that it wasn't part of the plan. The Z/28 was going to be a fat overweight SCed beast to go toe-to-toe with the Shelby GT500. And probably because they wanted to to keep the 7.0 exclusive to the Z06.
Well guess what? Plans change. I bet they didn't plan on their stock price going to $8 either.
Last edited by BigBlueCruiser; 10-06-2008 at 10:19 PM.
#22
I agree with most everything Guy has posted (so far ), but a few thoughts on weight and the comment of "We need to take the time to actually check things out before using them as an example." which I assume was directed towards me.
I wasn't using the C6 Z06 as an example.
My post was obviosly mis-read as I was talking weight reduction on the C5 Z06. Even though it didn't have the magnesium engine cradle and aluminum frame (both started with C6 Z06), it still managed to come in at 3,118 lbs compared to 3,246 lbs for the "base" Vette.
True, the weight spread isn't as dramatic on the C6 Z06 (i've read anywhere from only 37 lbs to 50 lbs) even though it has the magnesiun eng cradle and aluminum frame. Why? Don't know for sure .....but like I said, I wasn't using the C6 as an example.
I wasn't using the C6 Z06 as an example.
My post was obviosly mis-read as I was talking weight reduction on the C5 Z06. Even though it didn't have the magnesium engine cradle and aluminum frame (both started with C6 Z06), it still managed to come in at 3,118 lbs compared to 3,246 lbs for the "base" Vette.
True, the weight spread isn't as dramatic on the C6 Z06 (i've read anywhere from only 37 lbs to 50 lbs) even though it has the magnesiun eng cradle and aluminum frame. Why? Don't know for sure .....but like I said, I wasn't using the C6 as an example.
However, I will direct the C5 weight issue your way.
You are using the wrong "base" Corvette.
The C5 Z06 weighed 3115. The Corvette hardtop it was based on was 3153. Again, the weight savings on the Z06 was a scant 38 pounds.
You mistakenly used the Corvette hatchback as the jumpoff point for the Z06. The hatchback was about 100 pounds heavier than the Corvette coupe. Perfectly understandable.... most people have already forgotten that the C5 Corvette was offered in a hardtop.
Like the C6 Z06, emphasis was on keeping weight down to make up for the added weight of higher performance hardware.
The C5 Z06 had thinner glass, lighter rims, fixed anntenna, less soundproofing, and that titanium exhaust. This made way for the addition of underside body panels to improve airflow, the active suspension system, and the upgraded transmission.
What I posted on the C6 Z06 also holds true for the C5 version. It all ties in with the idea many have that the Z06 is this wundercar of weight savings. It isn't.
Alot of expense went into saving a small amount of weight to make up for heavier performance hardware. The car was going to retail for some serious cash over the regular Corvette anyway.
Those thinking there's some magic way to make a lightweight, highpowered Camaro those 4 words still apply......There's no free rides.
The LS7 is simply a sleeved LS block with external plumbing to go dry sump and special crankshank with a longer snout to drive it. There are plenty of guys(no pun intended) running wet sump LS7 blocks with an LS2 oil pump and pan and standard LS2 cranks, rods and aftermarket pistons.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=986036
There is nothing that precludes GM from building an easy 475hp assembly line LS7 without the ported heads and the fancy Ti valvetrain and rods for the same price as an LS3.
You may want to keep believing that GM hasn't done it because they can't. But the actual reason is that it wasn't part of the plan. The Z/28 was going to be a fat overweight SCed beast to go toe-to-toe with the Shelby GT500. And probably because they wanted to to keep the 7.0 exclusive to the Z06.
Well guess what? Plans change. I bet they didn't plan on their stock price going to $8 either.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=986036
There is nothing that precludes GM from building an easy 475hp assembly line LS7 without the ported heads and the fancy Ti valvetrain and rods for the same price as an LS3.
You may want to keep believing that GM hasn't done it because they can't. But the actual reason is that it wasn't part of the plan. The Z/28 was going to be a fat overweight SCed beast to go toe-to-toe with the Shelby GT500. And probably because they wanted to to keep the 7.0 exclusive to the Z06.
Well guess what? Plans change. I bet they didn't plan on their stock price going to $8 either.
First, GM looks at things as: "What's the cheapest, highest volume way to go where we can cheat the fuel economy tests?".
Because of that, I don't believe there was some dark conspiracy to not produce a "cheap" LS7 because they want to keep it exclusive to Corvette. I know that GM at least looked into an LS7 Camaro & decided against it (which I suspect will be in that Camaro book headed to press soon). But for cost, durability, EPA testing cycles, and power output, GM decided that a supercharged LSa was a superior choice.
But there's a big, huge, massive, glairing, 800-pound-gorilla-in-the-room, obvious point I feel you may have completely missed in all this:
The LS7 puts out 505 horsepower and 475 lbs/ft of torque.
The LSa puts out 556 horsepower and 550 lbs/ft of torque.
I suspect that alone puts any notion of this latest Corvette conspiracy to rest.
If not, then these might:
The LSa is cheaper to produce than the LS7.
The LSa offered inhuman power output next to a comparatively detuned, "mass produced" LS7.
The LSa can be programed to bypass the supercharger at key times during the EPA test cycle and the CAFE rating tests.
Also, the LS3 already has 436 horsepower in the Corvette and easily has factory capability in excess of 450 if they chose to up the power.
No dark conspiracy.
No "Corvette protecting".
Just a decision that gave the most powerful engine possible with the best fuel economy possible at the lowest cost possible.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for GM's plans to change and make a "cheap" LS7. It simply is not going to happen. Power and fuel economy boosting direct injection is far more likely the next step.
Last edited by guionM; 10-07-2008 at 01:52 PM.
#24
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the LG cam, but if it's anything like the other popular LS* cams, you wouldn't want to cruise in 6th gear at 1000 rpm on the LG cam -- it would bog. The stock cam handles that just fine. Differences like that improve the EPA highway rating of the car, because it allows the car to perform the test in 6th instead of 5th.
Long story short, an aggressive cam like that isn't up to GM's requirements, but it is very much possible to attain those power levels in a cam-only LS3.
You may want to keep believing that GM hasn't done it because they can't. But the actual reason is that it wasn't part of the plan. The Z/28 was going to be a fat overweight SCed beast to go toe-to-toe with the Shelby GT500. And probably because they wanted to to keep the 7.0 exclusive to the Z06.
I see your point, but keep in mind that for every model year where the C5 Z06 was available, there was no such thing as a non-Z06 fixed-roof coupe. This basically means that the Z06 gets to include the fixed roof as a weight-saving measure as compared to its non-Z06 siblings.
#26
Why not simply use that in a theoretical Z/28?
#27
Going back to the original subject of the post, as is being made clear once again, there is no free rides, no magic pixie dust, no miracle material or wundermetal that's going to miraculously both cut meaningful weight and handle additional horsepower and torque while at the same time keeping costs compatable with a standard SS. If there was, it would have been done.
The Camaro SS weighs 3860 w/ manual. The LS3 is capable of power excess of 450 horsepower. The whole package costs just under $30,000.
My advice is buy yourself a Camaro SS, run it with no more than a half tank of gas (savings about 100 pounds) and wait till the warranty runs out and tweak your engine (450-480 hp) and buy yourself a set of Z28 emblems and stick on your car. You may then send me $6,000. You don't even need a 7L engine, and GM doesn't need to waste money making one.
There.... you have your 475HP, 3760lb, $36,000 Z28.
#28
You want 475-480hp AND good torque AND good fuel economy?
Take the tricks used on the LSa and apply them to a 5.3L engine. (Be sure to keep AFM functioning and maybe add in variable cam timing.)
Or for a more efficient engine, take the tricks used on the LS9 and apply them on a 4.8L engine to get just over 500hp. If you don't want to spin it over 6000RPM (but with a stroke of only 3.28" I don't see why not), then integrate SIDI into the package.
Either engine should get greatly improved fuel economy numbers while off boost and would still have the ***** to get a heavy Camaro (or maybe even a truck?) going.
We already know that GM has already planned to use a supercharged V8 in the Camaro and in the trucks. Show me one problem with reducing the displacement of the engine underneath that blower?
Last edited by AdioSS; 10-08-2008 at 05:32 PM.
#29
You could do that but then of course not many could afford that car now could they? This is essentially what GM did to some extent with the ZR1 and 115k it is a pretty expensive car. Since all versions of the Camaro have to be afordable and competitive with the Mustang and Challanger it does not seem likely that GM would follow your example.
#30