Last Word on the new Camaro... :(

HA HA! You clicked this link because you thought the sad face meant no 2008 Camaro! As Lex Luthor (2006 version) would say;

WRONG!!!! :mad:

Anyhoo...

Here is how it will be;

2008 Camaro = 3.5 V6, 215HP
2008 Camaro Z-28 = 5.3 V8 305HP
2008 Camaro SS = 6.2 V8 410HP

For doubters, think about it for a second, Chevy is famous for different models, engines, etc... for each market segment.

The V6 satisfies the "economy market” with several editions, body kits, etc...

The Z-28 will satisfy the "GearHead"crowd. Basically, 90% of the peeps that frequent this board.

The SS, the KING of all F*** KINGS!!!! The Corvettes "kissin' cousin'",the "Cobra/Bullit/Mach1/Boss/ Ford Suckinator KILLER!!!" for under $40k

:confused: :rolleyes: :think: :irk:

I just couldn't come up with any words better than what I'm expecting others to post. LOL

:tired:.........so the 5.3 is going to gain 2 hp...........you know, I don't buy it.


BTW..... Z28 > SS *Runs for cover*

Not that I know anymore than anyone else around here, so this is probably pointless, but...

I can't imagine they'll release a mid-level v-8 with less HP than the current Mustang GT. I realize that HP isn't eveything, but here's why:

A)Powertrain is what GM does, they're dominant at it. Too many motor choices with better power than 305, shoot the LS1 could top that.

B)It's going to be a little more expensive than the Stang (IRS), and they'll have a hard time attracting buyers if it is perceived as weaker.

C)You don't walk into a bazooka war with a pop-gun. Simply doesn't make sense to me.

But as said above what do I know. Jack-Shmizz.

uhmm........

....


no.

I guess the post above ends this one :thumb:

http://images.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif

I seem to be feeling like I'm using this smilie too much these days in this forum

uhmm........

....


no.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
uhmm........

....


no.

:Owned:

uhmm........

....


no.Ha Ha! Is the SS engine maybe in the ballpark? Please hurry and get this thing built, my wife is starting to talk about minivans!:cry:

Since you're fan of Lex Luthor, here's another quote, paraphrased to fit the occasion.....:D


Everybody has their faults, yours just happens to be FACTS:p

Is the SS engine maybe in the ballpark?

You're likely in the ballpark on that one, but that's probably purely an accident on your part.

Yeah, no sh1t...

I'm not a Ford fanboy, but your not going to be "killing" many Cobra's with just 410hp either. Most of them on the road now are modded to hell and back. And if you mean the new Shelby Cobra; your just insane.

Now give me an LS9 and we can play. :D

uhmm........

....


no.


when scott speaks, you should listen!

He just pwn3d you dude..

game, set, match!
-steve

You're likely in the ballpark on that one, but that's probably purely an accident on your part.

:lol:

You're likely in the ballpark on that one, but that's probably purely an accident on your part.
The models are out of order aren't they?

The models are out of order aren't they?


:D

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

:D

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.
Schweeet.

Here is how it will be

Yup, you sure told us!!! :lol:

I would be pretty surprised if the 5th-gen Z28 had a smaller, less-powerful engine than the 4th-gen Z28. I think that was your first mistake.

Whatever, The Fbodfather has spoken. Can we close this thread? ;)

#1) Why use the 3.5L when they have a 3.9L that cost the same to build?
#2) Tahoe 5.3L = 320HP, why would the Camaro get 15HP less? If anything I'd expect the Camaro with its non-truck tune to put out 20HP+ more than the Tahoe.

Anyone ever think that they may go back to what once was for motors in the 60's? A nice 6 cylinder for the base. A HO 5.0 302 ci for the Z28 and the all out 396 for the SS?
Makes sense and the blocks are already there.
My 2 cents

It'd be "cool" to have the original bore sizes, but it'd be silly of GM to restrict themselves to such things just for nostalgia, especially since they seem to be against a full-on "retro" approach to the car.

They'd have a hard time claiming that it isn't retro if there was an SS 396 on the market. ;)

A HO 5.0 302 ci for the Z28 and the all out 396 for the SS?
Makes sense and the blocks are already there.
My 2 cents
And what does GM use this 5.0 302 and 396 in BTW?

How about the 5.3 for the Z28 destroked just like they did in 67 - 69.
The Z06 427 destroked for the 396. Not to hard to do and the hardware is on the shelf. On my 68 RS Z/28 I had did not have the original block so I made my own 302. Just a thought and I think it would be cool. Probably not going to happen though.

How about the 5.3 for the Z28 destroked just like they did in 67 - 69.
The Z06 427 destroked for the 396. Not to hard to do and the hardware is on the shelf. On my 68 RS Z/28 I had did not have the original block so I made my own 302. Just a thought and I think it would be cool. Probably not going to happen though.
The 5.3 a 325 has a different bore and stroke than the original 327, which is what I believe you were reffering to. The stroke is the same for the 5.3, old 5.7, and new 6.0, the 6.2 uses a larger bore and stroke and the 7.0 L 427 LS7 is totally different in bore, stroke, and build process! A destroked LS7 is NOT going to rev any faster than it currently does all that would do is increase the cost of the design and engineering and lower the power output, and why would we want to do that.

When you made your '302' what block did you start with and what stroke did you put into it? I am just curious if you made a 302, 305, 327, or 334. I was under the impression that there weren't to many of the 283 stroke length cranks made. Also did you use a large or small journal block? Also how did you find a crossram and did it cost you an arm and a leg?

If I remember correctly since I did it in 1984. We started with a 1962 Vette 283 block and put in a 327 crank. I do not know the specific specs of what they were though as far as bore and stroke. They guy that helped me do it and all the machine work was the one that did it. I do know that we took the block 40 over. I also had a dual quad set up from a 62 Vette on it with 2.02 heads. It dyno'd at about 425 hp at the crank and about 360hp at the rear tires. Had a 3.73 posi in it with a 4 speed rock crusher in it. That is all I can remember off the top of my head unless I can dig up the specs from the machine work on the motor.

If I remember correctly since I did it in 1984. We started with a 1962 Vette 283 block and put in a 327 crank. I do not know the specific specs of what they were though as far as bore and stroke. They guy that helped me do it and all the machine work was the one that did it. I do know that we took the block 40 over. I also had a dual quad set up from a 62 Vette on it with 2.02 heads. It dyno'd at about 425 hp at the crank and about 360hp at the rear tires. Had a 3.73 posi in it with a 4 speed rock crusher in it. That is all I can remember off the top of my head unless I can dig up the specs from the machine work on the motor.
If I remember correctly a 302 was a 350 small journal block, which was shared with the 327, with the 283 crank.

Just checked it out To get the 302 engine Chevy took a 283 crank and put it in a 327 block.
from http://www.chevy-camaro.com/faq/chevy-camaro-faq-Z28.shtm
It also says that 67 was small journal and 68-69 were large journal blocks.

Also by boring it .40 over it is no longer a 302. And to bring it up to spec you would need the crossram intake which is just a cool peice of hardware, though likely you won't find one for cheap.

How about the 5.3 for the Z28 destroked just like they did in 67 - 69.
The Z06 427 destroked for the 396. Not to hard to do and the hardware is on the shelf.
Put down whatever it is you're smoking son. :D

Keep in mind, the whole reason the Z/28 had only 302 cid back in 1967-9 was because of the SCCA 5.0l restriction for Trans Am. The spirit of the Z/28 has always been a "road racer for the street." In other words, it should be what the Z06 is to the Corvette. ;)

Also keep in mind the base SS originally came with a 350, the 396 was an option. Besides by the time the Camaro returns, the LS7 won't be the top hardware on the shelf anymore. So why limit ourselves to today's technology on tomorrow's Camaro?

It also says that 67 was small journal and 68-69 were large journal blocks.

Actually 68's were small journal as well. The larger journal 302's were mid year 1968, but mainly for the 1969 models.

The actual trans am blocks were typically bored .15 over to get the maximum displacement possible within the SCCA 5.0l limit restriction.

uhmm........

....


no.


Care to fill in the parts he got wrong? ;)

uhmm........

....


no.


LOL, Thats what I think

Actually 68's were small journal as well. The larger journal 302's were mid year 1968, but mainly for the 1969 models.

The actual trans am blocks were typically bored .15 over to get the maximum displacement possible within the SCCA 5.0l limit restriction.

At the same time the 302's started out with a 327/350 block and a 283 crank, not a 283 block and a 327 crank.

The 302, 327 and the 350 had the same bore(I think 4") while the 283's bore was smaller.

Actually, I clicked on this topic just because I read all the new ones no matter how crazy they might be.

At the same time the 302's started out with a 327/350 block and a 283 crank, not a 283 block and a 327 crank.

The 302, 327 and the 350 had the same bore(I think 4") while the 283's bore was smaller.
Thank you but we have already covered that.

At the same time the 302's started out with a 327/350 block and a 283 crank, not a 283 block and a 327 crank.

The 302, 327 and the 350 had the same bore(I think 4") while the 283's bore was smaller.
Well if you want to be technically correct...;)

302, 327 and 350 used the same block and bore. The 302 had a hardened version of the 283 crank, however it was a 302 specific piece and never available on a 283. :D

You're likely in the ballpark on that one, but that's probably purely an accident on your part.Hey dumbass I wasn't the guy that started this thread and listed the engines, I was mearly asking Fbodfather if the guy that started this thread was in the ballpark with the SS engine. Go e-thug on someone else.

Ease up, buddy. No need to start calling names.

After I read the first few responses and started scratching my head, I reread my post and realized I made a typo...

:death:

Should have been 410 for the Z or whatever they will call the "entry level" V8 and 500+ for the top of the line V8.

Also, an observation; My "facts" were questioned several times just on the first page. Never once did I write about this being actual specs or having inside information as so many others here purport on a daily basis.

So it was meant as a "parody", if you will, of other posts I have read.

Just thought I would clear that up. :)

Another quick observation is that there seems to be quite a few "arguments" about actual model designations, engine specs, etc. I understand there are some here that may have friends or family that work at Chevrolet but anyone that has worked in a corporate environment before can tell you that when it comes to these types of decisions, no one really knows until it actually gets put down on job aides, work orders, greenlight docs, etc... so, why argue?

I just feel like pulling a Rodney King, 'Can't we all just get along?" We obviously all love the Camaro and are stoked it is coming back, the only peeps we should be arguing with are the Mustang and rice owners :)

Never once did I write about this being actual specs or having inside information as so many others here purport on a daily basis.


That's interesting, since you used words like "Here is how it will be", "for the doubters", and titled the thread "Last Word on the new Camaro"....sure sounded like you thought you were "in the know"....

I'm just saying, if you're a newbie and you're going to post such things in this forum, don't be surprised to get a :rolleyes: , at the very least. Heck, PacerX chews up newbies and spits them out with a machine gun flair. :lol:

That's interesting, since you used words like "Here is how it will be", "for the doubters", and titled the thread "Last Word on the new Camaro"....sure sounded like you thought you were "in the know"....

I'm just saying, if you're a newbie and you're going to post such things in this forum, don't be surprised to get a :rolleyes: , at the very least. Heck, PacerX chews up newbies and spits them out with a machine gun flair. :lol:

I am new here, yes, so I fully expect to be ripped into, especially with this as my first post, it's all good in the hood. :thumb:

I was providing a testbed to show how insane some peeps can get about all this, but hey, I think you guys have enough of those threads here so, I will stray away from that from now on, mmkkk? :bow:

Also, an observation; My "facts" were questioned several times just on the first page. Never once did I write about this being actual specs or having inside information as so many others here purport on a daily basis.

Well as long as we're throwing around "facts"... the Z/28 will be TOP DOG. :D



I can't believe this silly thread is still going... :p

Well if you want to be technically correct...;)

302, 327 and 350 used the same block and bore. The 302 had a hardened version of the 283 crank, however it was a 302 specific piece and never available on a 283. :D

Thats pretty cool. I didnt know that. Thanks!

Another quick observation is that there seems to be quite a few "arguments" about actual model designations, engine specs, etc. I understand there are some here that may have friends or family that work at Chevrolet but anyone that has worked in a corporate environment before can tell you that when it comes to these types of decisions, no one really knows until it actually gets put down on job aides, work orders, greenlight docs, etc... so, why argue?

I just feel like pulling a Rodney King, 'Can't we all just get along?" We obviously all love the Camaro and are stoked it is coming back, the only peeps we should be arguing with are the Mustang and rice owners :)

skoldpadda This is Fbodfather in this link.

http://videos.camaroz28.com/recentvideos/2/9bafca9d-7054-4e39-b5a3-7e0b97a57b9a.htm

So when you tell us how its going to be and he answers your thread with this

uhmm........

....


no.

It means something. Welcome to tha board! :D