7.0 or 6.2 S/C

If you had your choice--would the top engine Camaro be--the 7.0 or 6.2 S/C?

I'd take the 7.0--aka 427. It has heritage and cache. I mean Ford has to S/C there V8s to get them to go----Gm has never had to!:D Why start now?

Add VVT and DI to the 427--get the costs down and drop her in, GM!! Yeah I know it's not gonna happen :(

I voted for the supercharged 6.2. Today's superchargers are far more liveable in real world conditions, and the LS7 is reported to be DOA by the time Camaro returns. :D

7.0/427 FTW N/A All The Way!

6.2 supercharged baby, which would mean forged internals from the factory which is a good thing

I would definitely take the supercharged engine. A pulley swap and tune will lead to some very nice results.:)

Size matters ;).

Do you want 6.2 on viagra, or 7.0 going strong, all natural? :cool:

Ok, but seriously, I like the ring that 427 c.i. has to it :yes:. And I don't care if "the LS7 is dead after '08" or whatever. Just because a 3-letter designation is done, doesn't mean that displacement can't be used again :rolleyes:. How many designations did the 350 SBC have over it's life?! :confused: Way too many to list!

Give us an LS7 derivative ... not "THE" LS7 ... just the same long block. The dry sump system can go ... a traditional oil pan will suffice :thumb:. It has all the same outer dimensions as an LS1/2/6, so there's no issue FITTING it in the car. And if it's MASS produced vs. limited build like the current C6Z, then the cost shouldn't be much more (unless they stick with the titanium internals, which again, could be substituted for cost purposes, if necessary).

That's my $.02 :cool:.

I tend to come fromt he school of "pure displacement over force fed air"; however, if the numbers that people are speculating do turn out to be true with the 6.2, then 600+HP would be hard to argue with regardless of how you get the result. Odds are if i were to buy either option (which I have no intentions of doing anyway) I wouldn't mod either of them anyway, so I would prefer the option with the highest initial HP.

Personally, I would like to put 625HP on the cowl instead of 427ci. :D :bow:

Well the 7 litre is nice but if I can have similar power form a cheaper motor and make a simple pulley swap to add another 50-100hp I'll take the 6.2 supercharged, can't do that with a naturally aspirated engine without a lot of money. Plus the 7 liter is already running really high compression so no aftermarket supercharger without changing pistons.

Give us an LS7 derivative ... not "THE" LS7 ... just the same long block. The dry sump system can go ... a traditional oil pan will suffice :thumb:. It has all the same outer dimensions as an LS1/2/6, so there's no issue FITTING it in the car. And if it's MASS produced vs. limited build like the current C6Z, then the cost shouldn't be much more (unless they stick with the titanium internals, which again, could be substituted for cost purposes, if necessary).

That's my $.02 :cool:.If they could mass produce the now handbuilt LS7 minus the dry sump system that would be a different story altogether. However as they are moving towards the S/C 6.2L motor for the Vette, having a similar motor that can be massed produced alongside it will go along way to reduce production costs.

427

I feel like the debate over S/C 6.2 vs. N/A 7.0 is fairly easy to solve. Do a quick search of these boards and find out what kind of respect the 04 Mustang Cobra gets. That thing puts out over 550 RWHP with a tune, exhaust, and simple bolt-ons. You never even have to change the cams or heads. That's from a 4.6 OHC motor.

Our motor has about 95 more cubic inches, and is a platform that has made more HP per CI than Ford motors since about 1955. Okay, okay, I exaggerate... but you get the point. We definitely whoop ass HP per CI on the modular NA 4.6/5.4.

If we get a blown small block from the factory, we could seriously be looking at 700 Rear Wheel Horse Power for the cost of the car plus about $2500 to $3000, and that's if you pay someone to install the exhaust.

How many of us would like to buy a car, spend less than 10% of the purchase price in mods, and be able to absolutely destroy almost anything on the road? There isn't a Mustang out there that's anywhere near stock that could compete with that, not even their "Terminator".

Hell, most Ferrari's, Porsche Turbo's and SL65's would have trouble competing with that.

6.2 supercharged baby, which would mean forged internals from the factory which is a good thing

and a rear that would hold it together

i'd have to say the 6.2, i like the idea of adding lots of horsepower cheaply, considering the price we will pay for the car in the first place

How about a 2.2 VTEC Turbo instead? :shrug:

How about a 2.2 VTEC Turbo instead? :shrug:
You think you're so cool, don't you?? :rolleyes:

How about a Type-R sticker while you're at it?!??!

:dead:

:p

You think you're so cool, don't you?? :rolleyes:

How about a Type-R sticker while you're at it?!??!

:dead:

:p
Yes, I was kidding. Nothing w/ VTEC on it will ever park in my garage.

Yes, I was kidding. Nothing w/ VTEC on it will ever park in my garage.

Yea same here, but Ecotec on the other hand.......

Anyway back on topic. I say go blower all the way. Not only for the ability of a pulley swap (litteraly 5 mins and 100 dollars equals 50 more whp) but also for the sound.

I mean a V8 sounds incredible, but install a CAI on a supercharged engine and have that blower whine like a jet turbine. It sounds out of this world and barely any other cars on the road have that sound.

Yes, I was kidding. Nothing w/ VTEC on it will ever park in my garage.
Oh good ... we'll call off the hit-men!!! :D :lol:

Pulley up FTW! SC all the way.

too bad there is next to zero chance of hearing of supercharged 427s...

8000rpm 3 valve 302 for the Z/28.......

Yes, I was kidding. Nothing w/ VTEC on it will ever park in my garage.
The 6.2 has VVT . The 6.2 in the Escalade already has it.

The 6.2 has VVT . The 6.2 in the Escalade already has it.

I don't think he was referring to VVT...

Although i do like VVt and think they should incorporate it into the new motors.

Variable Valve Timing is what VTEC is..

Variable Valve Timing is what VTEC is..

True, but isn't the acronym "VTEC" proprietary to Honda? Therefore, isn't he saying there will never be a Honda parked in his garage?

Yep, just like saying he won't have a DSM/Mitsu if he said MIVEC.

Variable Valve Timing is what VTEC is..

VVT and VTEC are not the same thing.

VVT provides very little increase in peak power compared to VTEC.

Size matters ;).

Do you want 6.2 on viagra, or 7.0 going strong, all natural? :cool:



How girthy are the 6.2 and the 7.0 :eek: - that's all that counts

I voted for the S/C 6.2, because boost is cool.

yeah supercharge it :mad: corvette is doing it so why not

6.2 S/C All the way!!! Just like the Mustang cobra all it would take is a few hundred dollars to add another 100rwhp once you already have the platform.

VVT and VTEC are not the same thing.

VVT provides very little increase in peak power compared to VTEC.

you're right, I think I had stayed up too late when I posted that...

I am seriously surprised that the 427 is not more popular :confused:

540 Ls Bbc!!!

Nothing like being sucked back into the seat by a fat mid-ranged supercharged motor!..except maybe an old Big Block car...pulley swapping for 40+ hp is easier too.

N/A for me

I am seriously surprised that the 427 is not more popular :confused:

IMO, it is not that the 427 is not popular. That is one bad motor in its own right, but if I had to choose which motor to put into my Camaro I would choose the 6.2 S/C just because it has more horsepower and would probably be cheaper.

I love the 427, but if I can get a cheaper motor with more HP, then bring it! :thumb: :metal:

I have always taken pride that Chevy managed with out forced induction. Plus, if it's already got a super then where do we go from there?

Variable Valve Timing is what VTEC is..

VVT and VTEC are not the same thing.

VVT provides very little increase in peak power compared to VTEC.

you're right, I think I had stayed up too late when I posted that...
Nice back-pedal!! ;) :p

VVT and VTEC aren't even close?! (unless there's something about VVT that I've missed? :confused: ). VTEC actually provides more valve lift above a given RPM (by use of a separate, taller cam lobe). VVT is just that - variable valve TIMING - timing and lift are two totally different, uh, "variables" ;).

I feel like the debate over S/C 6.2 vs. N/A 7.0 is fairly easy to solve. Do a quick search of these boards and find out what kind of respect the 04 Mustang Cobra gets. That thing puts out over 550 RWHP with a tune, exhaust, and simple bolt-ons. You never even have to change the cams or heads. That's from a 4.6 OHC motor.

Our motor has about 95 more cubic inches, and is a platform that has made more HP per CI than Ford motors since about 1955. Okay, okay, I exaggerate... but you get the point. We definitely whoop ass HP per CI on the modular NA 4.6/5.4.

If we get a blown small block from the factory, we could seriously be looking at 700 Rear Wheel Horse Power for the cost of the car plus about $2500 to $3000, and that's if you pay someone to install the exhaust.

How many of us would like to buy a car, spend less than 10% of the purchase price in mods, and be able to absolutely destroy almost anything on the road? There isn't a Mustang out there that's anywhere near stock that could compete with that, not even their "Terminator".

Hell, most Ferrari's, Porsche Turbo's and SL65's would have trouble competing with that.


Couldn't have said it any better!

I have always taken pride that Chevy managed with out forced induction. Plus, if it's already got a super then where do we go from there?

Where do we go from there? If the 6.2s/c provides the ~630-640 HP it is rumored to supply, and with a simple pulley swap you can get that number ~700HP... what in the heck more do you need to do? I guess if you are the kind of person who is gunning for 1000HP, then the 6.2 will simply not work, but 700HP!?!?

If the 6.2 has forged internals, 6.2SC all the way. If they cheap out and go minimum-strength on it, and we end up with beefy, but cast parts, 7.0. That is all.

Where do we go from there? If the 6.2s/c provides the ~630-640 HP it is rumored to supply, and with a simple pulley swap you can get that number ~700HP... what in the heck more do you need to do?
:bow:

i've always loved the sound of a supercharged engine :)

well, there's nothing like the sound of a well built 427...and no replacement for displacement as the saying goes...i'll have to go for the 427 :)

well, there's nothing like the sound of a well built 427...

Or the sucking sound coming from your bank account building that 427 for boost. :D

yeah, but I think its worth it...gotta love the 427 in all its modern incarnations...

Whichever one makes more power.

Nice back-pedal!! ;) :p

VVT and VTEC aren't even close?! (unless there's something about VVT that I've missed? :confused: ). VTEC actually provides more valve lift above a given RPM (by use of a separate, taller cam lobe). VVT is just that - variable valve TIMING - timing and lift are two totally different, uh, "variables" ;).

I am familiar with VTEC. Like I said, I was up too late from working a long shift the night before and couldn't sleep...

Personally, I'd prefer that the Camaro gets a toned down 7.0L without the exotic internals and with traditional oiling. Maybe a milder camshaft to lower RPM. The heads and intake can stay though :) That should still be able to make well over 450hp with similar torque numbers.

My reasons are simple.
First, that means at least 100 pounds off the nose compared to an intercooled supercharged package.
Second, a less cluttered and more easily accessable engine compartment.
Third, the same engine would have a greater chance of making it into the vehicle that I am waiting on. The next generation RWD Impala SS! Plus, it would be another great addition to the truck line :)

427 isn't even going to be produced by the time the Camaro comes out not to mention the motor is more expensive to manufacture than the suprcharged 6.2 would be. 427 would also be more expensive to get more power out of. 6.2 would just be a pulley swap for an extra 40-50 hp.

s/c with a blower all the way. There is nothing like the acceleration and sound of a blower (jet turbine as I recall). And the new s/c that they are using for the Corvette is amazing. It's a big jump in technology. I don't know all the details, and don't think it's appropriate to share, but the technology drastically increases the efficiency of the blower (which means more net hp).

As for VVT vs VTEC. VTEC as mentioned before, is able to make a change between 2 cam lobes allowing it to vary lift, duration, and timing (intake and exhaust cam open/close events relative to eachother and piston position). VTEC is Honda's name for a technology developed by Eaton, Nissan also uses it but they call it something different. VVT like what is on the new Ford engines and the new Chevy small blocks is only variable timing which is more a emission/driveability thing. It allows them to run a higher performance cam for top end performance with out sacrificing the emissions and driveability at low rpm and part throttle.

I meant 6.2L with a blower,
not s/c with a blower

427 isn't even going to be produced by the time the Camaro comes out not to mention the motor is more expensive to manufacture than the suprcharged 6.2 would be. 427 would also be more expensive to get more power out of. 6.2 would just be a pulley swap for an extra 40-50 hp.
Switching to Powdered Metal rods, steel valves, conventional oiling, and a truck camshaft would solve the cost issue. The castings are already there from the LS7. It would cost no more to build than any other Gen3/4 V8. It would cost much less than adding a supercharger, plus the additional pulleys, intercooler plumbing, and cooling needed. Oh yeah, don't forget the stronger forged rods and pistons that everybody is hoping for. It all adds up.

And who really knows what could be out there in 2 more years from now?

well, there's nothing like the sound of a well built 427...and no replacement for displacement as the saying goes...i'll have to go for the 427 :)But it isn't a "real" 427, it's an LS7. Its a LSx based small block just like the 6.0L LS2. In theory if you hook up the same exhaust on an LS2 and and LS7, they really shouldn't sound any different.

Switching to Powdered Metal rods, steel valves, conventional oiling, and a truck camshaft would solve the cost issue. The castings are already there from the LS7. It would cost no more to build than any other Gen3/4 V8. It would cost much less than adding a supercharger, plus the additional pulleys, intercooler plumbing, and cooling needed. Oh yeah, don't forget the stronger forged rods and pistons that everybody is hoping for. It all adds up.

And who really knows what could be out there in 2 more years from now?
I don't see them doing that for an engine to just go in the Camaro and then pay the high price to certify the engine again, I just don't see that engine as even being an option really. 6.2 would still be cheaper and have more of an aftermarket, this isn't BMW or Mercedes, GM doesn't have a lot of money to be throwing around right now. 6.2 just makes more financial sense. The blower might not even be an option, might just get the regular 6.2 with a "ram air";) and badges to differentiate it from the regular Z28 or whatever the standard V8 is gonna be called.

Switching to Powdered Metal rods, steel valves, conventional oiling, and a truck camshaft would solve the cost issue. The castings are already there from the LS7. It would cost no more to build than any other Gen3/4 V8. It would cost much less than adding a supercharger, plus the additional pulleys, intercooler plumbing, and cooling needed. Oh yeah, don't forget the stronger forged rods and pistons that everybody is hoping for. It all adds up.

And who really knows what could be out there in 2 more years from now?

The LS3 is a reduced cost (I know it's less displacement) version of the LS7. LS3 is using L92 heads which were one of the early designs for the LS7.
The LS7 barely holds together with the high end components that it has.
Putting a blower on a 6.2L isn't going to be cheap, but trying to match the performance numbers with just displacment would cost even more. The LS7 is maxed out, so it would take new block machining on the LSX block, new heads to match the new bores, plus new high end valves, pistons, rods, bearings, etc. (the dry sump might be more to drop the engine lower for better cg, compared to the performance gains) to hold together at the high rpm, because I know you don't want a 5000-5500 rpm redline.

427 isn't even going to be produced by the time the Camaro comes out not to mention the motor is more expensive to manufacture than the suprcharged 6.2 would be.

Switching to Powdered Metal rods, steel valves, conventional oiling, and a truck camshaft would solve the cost issue. The castings are already there from the LS7. It would cost no more to build than any other Gen3/4 V8. It would cost much less than adding a supercharger, plus the additional pulleys, intercooler plumbing, and cooling needed. Oh yeah, don't forget the stronger forged rods and pistons that everybody is hoping for. It all adds up.

... 6.2 would still be cheaper ...
How on EARTH would a SUPERCHARGED 6.2 be "cheaper"?!?!?!?!?!? :irk: :confused: Factor in everything AdioSS said (which I agree fully) and tell me again how the 6.2 would be cheaper??!?? :think: :shrug:

A slightly larger piston or crank is still closer in price to another run-of-the-mill piston or crank, than a supercharger, all of its supporting components, and the forged internals required to stand the abuse!!

Have you not priced out blowers lately?? They usually seem to retail around ~$5000!!! So knock off the mark-up, their true "COST" is probably still around ~$500 - 1000 (I'm totally guessing here!) but I can guarantee you they cost a helluva lot more than the larger pistons and crank required for a 7.0L vs. 6.2L :rolleyes:.

How on EARTH would a SUPERCHARGED 6.2 be "cheaper"?!?!?!?!?!? :irk: :confused: Factor in everything AdioSS said (which I agree fully) and tell me again how the 6.2 would be cheaper??!?? :think: :shrug:

A slightly larger piston or crank is still closer in price to another run-of-the-mill piston or crank, than a supercharger, all of its supporting components, and the forged internals required to stand the abuse!!

Have you not priced out blowers lately?? They usually seem to retail around ~$5000!!! So knock off the mark-up, their true "COST" is probably still around ~$500 - 1000 (I'm totally guessing here!) but I can guarantee you they cost a helluva lot more than the larger pistons and crank required for a 7.0L vs. 6.2L :rolleyes:.Have you priced the 427 lately? They ain't cheap. GM isn't paying $5k for any blower and they have used blowers on the 3.8 for years and they weren't exactly priced like a BMW. Even with all the extra parts that come with a supercharger it will still be cheaper to produce than the 427 which is hand built.

How on EARTH would a SUPERCHARGED 6.2 be "cheaper"?!?!?!?!?!? :irk: :confused: Factor in everything AdioSS said (which I agree fully) and tell me again how the 6.2 would be cheaper??!?? :think: :shrug:
A slightly larger piston or crank is still closer in price to another run-of-the-mill piston or crank, than a supercharger, all of its supporting components, and the forged internals required to stand the abuse!!

Have you not priced out blowers lately?? They usually seem to retail around ~$5000!!! So knock off the mark-up, their true "COST" is probably still around ~$500 - 1000 (I'm totally guessing here!) but I can guarantee you they cost a helluva lot more than the larger pistons and crank required for a 7.0L vs. 6.2L :rolleyes:.

Your point is well taken.
The 600-650hp LS9 (6.2L with s/c) will be more expensive then the 505hp LS7. But you get 100-150hp more, so that should be expected.
So if that is our discussion, you are correct.

If our discussion is LS9 vs a naturally aspirated LS(something) then I believe the s/c option would be cheaper. Your point of "A slightly larger piston or crank is still closer in price to another run-of-the-mill piston or crank, than a supercharger" is a bit misleading, as I don't know any run-of-the-mill pistons and cranks that survive 600+hp. Plus bearings, plus you need the drysump, plus block machining, plus new cylinder head. Anyways, it's going to be more expensive then LS7.
Yes the LS3 will need it's bottom end upgraded, but it won't have to rev as high to meet the performance targets compared to a naturally aspirated engine.

What other 600+hp engines with big torque are there that don't use forced induction. None, there's a reason. Ferrari, Lambo, Zonda, whoever may ahve the power, but not the torque to match. Bottom line, getting 600+hp with high torque with all motor is too expensive.

Supercharger is the way to go!!!

Have you priced the 427 lately? They ain't cheap. GM isn't paying $5k for any blower and they have used blowers on the 3.8 for years and they weren't exactly priced like a BMW. Even with all the extra parts that come with a supercharger it will still be cheaper to produce than the 427 which is hand built.
A couple things:

1) I didn't say that a supercharger cost GM ~$5000 ..... like I said, that's RETAIL, while their true COST is probably less than ~$1000.

2) the LS7 is hand built. But was the LS6? No. The LS2? No. The LS1?? No!! Just because they hand built the LS7, does not mean that a "427" LSx-series engine has to be hand built!! :irk:

3) the reason the LS7 costs ~$12,xxx is because A) it's hand built, B) it has a dry sump system, C) it has titanium rods, springs, retainers, blah, blah, blah, and D) because it's from the Z06 Corvette, so they ASK $12,000 and people will PAY IT!!!

Do you think a standard "427" c.i. engine would COST GM any more money to build (mass production, like the LS1/2/6's) just because it has bigger pistons and a bigger crank?? :rolleyes: I mean really. How much more does a slightly bigger piston cost?? And once they've got the PARTS, the assembly is EXACTLY THE SAME.

HOWEVER, a supercharged motor (I don't care if it's on a 4.8L or a 7.0L) will cost more. The blower has a given cost. It will require (unless they want people to blow up their engines) forged crank/rods/pistons. You don't think the hard parts alone won't cost more??? :confused: That, and now there's an extra few steps involved in assembling the motor that the NA motor does NOT have.

Fine, if they mass produce a S/C 6.2L, the COST will be wide-spread, and since it's in a vehicle that has a larger/broader market than the "elite" Z06, they will price it accordingly. The end result to "us" may be less, but the ACTUAL cost to "them" will be more. They just mark-up the LS7 because they can :rolleyes:.

How on EARTH would a SUPERCHARGED 6.2 be "cheaper"?!?!?!?!?!? :irk: :confused: Factor in everything AdioSS said (which I agree fully) and tell me again how the 6.2 would be cheaper??!?? :think: :shrug:

A slightly larger piston or crank is still closer in price to another run-of-the-mill piston or crank, than a supercharger, all of its supporting components, and the forged internals required to stand the abuse!!

Have you not priced out blowers lately?? They usually seem to retail around ~$5000!!! So knock off the mark-up, their true "COST" is probably still around ~$500 - 1000 (I'm totally guessing here!) but I can guarantee you they cost a helluva lot more than the larger pistons and crank required for a 7.0L vs. 6.2L :rolleyes:.


An LS7 retails for around $13,719 and an LS2 retails for around $6,500. That is a difference of about $7,200. Even the most expensive supercharger for an LS2 is "only" $5,000. Most of them are actually around $4,000. That is still about $2,200 cheaper for the LS2 and s/c than an LS7...

The 6.2L s/c would be cheaper than an LS7. The only way they would produce a 427 that *might* be cheaper than a 6.2 s/c option would be to get rid of the titanium connecting rods, the dry-sum oil system, and the other exotic components, but that would decrease the HP thus making the 6.2L s/c even more appealing...

EDIT: I started this post before you had posted the above reply Pete.....

LS7 didn't have titanium components because they felt like it. They need those components to survive the rpm that is required to hit 505hp.
What materials would be required to hit 600-650hp. Rods, valve, and retainers are just the beginning.
They would need variable valvetrain (variable lift, duration - not just phasing), variable intake (continuously variable runners, maybe plenum too), high compression ultra light pistons, etc.


For 600+hp and high torque, it's still supercharger

For 600+hp and high torque, it's still supercharger
Hey, maybe so :shrug:. Although I didn't know the 5th-gen was going to be getting a ~600 HP engine, so I'm still "assuming" we're getting something around ~450 HP, in which case there's no NEED for a s/c (since it's proven they can do up to 505 HP NA, with a 5-year / 100k warranty ;)).

The next corvette engine is the LS3 which is a 6.2L naturally aspirated V8 which should be make in the 450hp range.
GM is also developing LS9, which (rumor has it) is a 6.2L s/c V8 that will make between 600-650hp.
That's why I was saying for LS7 numbers, they can make it naturally aspirated. LS7 is on the ragged edge durability wise though, so hopefully the new LSX block will be better.
But if they want 600+hp then it will be tough to due it with all motor, and keep the cost down.

I don't see them doing that for an engine to just go in the Camaro and then pay the high price to certify the engine again, I just don't see that engine as even being an option really. 6.2 would still be cheaper and have more of an aftermarket, this isn't BMW or Mercedes, GM doesn't have a lot of money to be throwing around right now. 6.2 just makes more financial sense. The blower might not even be an option, might just get the regular 6.2 with a "ram air";) and badges to differentiate it from the regular Z28 or whatever the standard V8 is gonna be called.

Who said it would have to be just for the Camaro? I betcha that 427 powered Impala SS's and Silverado SS's would outsell Camaro SS by a long shot!

The LS7 uses the same rod specs, other than the material, as the LS2. That would allow use of the same hypereutectic piston as the LS7. The heads, rockers, springs, etc are already in production, nothing new to design. They could pull out the old 2002 LS6 204/218 12565308 cam and throw it in to get .582/.573" lift with the 1.8 rockers. The crankshaft is forged, but so would the crank from the supercharged motor, so no difference there other than it is already in production. I estimate output would be 475hp/450tq with a 6300RPM redline. Maybe for the Silverado SS put the LS2's smaller 200/203 cam in with a longer runner intake to make a solid 450hp/450tq with a 5800RPM redline.

GM has a BUNCH of parts already available to make awesome engines. No doubt whatever they do come up with will be world class!

And if ANYBODY thinks that GM will produce 600hp Camaros, then please check yourself into the nearest loony bin...

Who said it would have to be just for the Camaro? I betcha that 427 powered Impala SS's and Silverado SS's would outsell Camaro SS by a long shot!

The LS7 uses the same rod specs, other than the material, as the LS2. That would allow use of the same hypereutectic piston as the LS7. The heads, rockers, springs, etc are already in production, nothing new to design. They could pull out the old 2002 LS6 204/218 12565308 cam and throw it in to get .582/.573" lift with the 1.8 rockers. The crankshaft is forged, but so would the crank from the supercharged motor, so no difference there other than it is already in production. I estimate output would be 475hp/450tq with a 6300RPM redline. Maybe for the Silverado SS put the LS2's smaller 200/203 cam in with a longer runner intake to make a solid 450hp/450tq with a 5800RPM redline.

GM has a BUNCH of parts already available to make awesome engines. No doubt whatever they do come up with will be world class!And every different cam in this engine would have to be certified which is highly expensive, they will stick with one cam most likely.The 427 isn't gonna happen in the Camaro and probably neither will the supercharger. Like I said we'll probably get a NA 6.2 with a ram air package and stickers for the special edition. I'd be happy if either motor actually made it they both have advantages and disadvantages, 427 lightweight better handling, harder and more expensive to modify (already at the limits), S/C 6.2 more weight worse handling, better ability to mod cheaply. The S/C 6.2 is still my preference just based on easy/ cheap modification. Heck just look at the Cobra's, they are still pulling premiums on 3 year old cars.

And if ANYBODY thinks that GM will produce 600hp Camaros, then please check yourself into the nearest loony bin...

I never said the LS9 was going in the Camaro.
But GM is supposibly (I understand that info is only as accurate as the source) working on a LS8 (a s/c something, 6.0L or 6.2L) that will have less power then then LS9.

GT500 has 500hp today, so I would think GM will produce something to compete, and 450 hp is not enough.

My bet is L76 will be the Z28 motor, and LS8 will be the SS.

GT500 has 500hp today, so I would think GM will produce something to compete, and 450 hp is not enough.



450HP will work if the car weighs 3550 lbs :cool:

I know, it is not going to happen :(

... 427 lightweight better handling, harder and more expensive to modify (already at the limits), S/C 6.2 more weight worse handling, better ability to mod cheaply.
I'm not trying to start a pi$$ing contest here, really I'm not ;) ...

... but how do you figure the current LS7 is already at its limits?? :think: Check out over on the 'Vette boards ... I think with headers, free flowing intake and a tune, guys are getting closer to ~500 at the wheels vs. the stock ~450 - 460 RWHP. The factory camshaft is a "baby" for a 7.0L ... it may be good for a ~5.7L or 6.0L, but for the shear displacement of the LS7, and the heads on it, it can handle way more camshaft. Sorry, I don't have "specifics" (haven't read around there lately) but I wouldn't hesitate to say ~600 HP from the engine alone is quite feasible ..... well, as an example, think of the '02 GMMG "ZL-1" Camaros! They used a 427 LSx engine, and made 600 HP / 575 TQ! :thumb:

I agree that simply changing a pulley and netting ~600+ HP is "easy". But I think AdioSS and I are on the same page here ..... there are logical benefits to using a 427 based engine (does not have to be "LS7") that they could use across the board in more vehicles than just the Camaro, AND it would carry a certain "heritage factor" with it that a 6.2L does not have. AND it would still perform damn well! :yes:

But hey, different strokes for different folks, right? :cz28:

I agree that simply changing a pulley and netting ~600+ HP is "easy". But I think AdioSS and I are on the same page here ..... there are logical benefits to using a 427 based engine (does not have to be "LS7") that they could use across the board in more vehicles than just the Camaro, AND it would carry a certain "heritage factor" with it that a 6.2L does not have. AND it would still perform damn well! :yes:"Heritage factor"? How do you figure? While there were limited numbers of 427 Camaros, they weren't the kind of cars most Camaro buyers purchased. The most common "performance" Camaro of its day was the SS-350. Besides, where is the "heritage" when the original 427 Camaros were big blocks? If you're really concerned about heritage, then you should be asking for a N/A 5.7L. :D With gas prices headed back north of $3/g (I just paid $2.999 for unleaded last night) fuel economy is going to figure into the equation as much as performance.

I can see your arguments for a "big" small block (by your I mean all of you pro 7.0L supporters), in fact I used to be in the same camp. However the s/c 6.2L has so much more performance potential. Think about it. The 6.2L would be factory tuned to run on a supercharger. A pulley swap, and some reprogramming and tuning and you're at 600 hp. And a 6.2L could also be "bored and stroked" to 7.0L and taken to the next level. This gives you a low cost approach to "extra" performance all the way up to big performance gains by major engine work. (Big bucks.)

On the other hand to reach the same level with a N/A 7.0L, you're going to have to add a supercharger to a car that didn't come with one from the factory. This might need some custom fabrication, or at least paying $$$ for a one-off kit designed just for the Camaro. As 7.0L is getting close to the limit of how big you can take an LS block, the same approach to increasing the displacement of the 6.2L won't net you much (and it would roughly cost you the same $). Besides, do we really want a cheaper mass produced version of the current LS7?

The s/c 6.2L clearly has much more performance potential. Just ask your wives and girlfriends... size doesn't really matter. ;)

I'm not trying to start a pi$$ing contest here, really I'm not ;) ...

... but how do you figure the current LS7 is already at its limits?? :think: Check out over on the 'Vette boards ... I think with headers, free flowing intake and a tune, guys are getting closer to ~500 at the wheels vs. the stock ~450 - 460 RWHP. The factory camshaft is a "baby" for a 7.0L ... it may be good for a ~5.7L or 6.0L, but for the shear displacement of the LS7, and the heads on it, it can handle way more camshaft. Sorry, I don't have "specifics" (haven't read around there lately) but I wouldn't hesitate to say ~600 HP from the engine alone is quite feasible ..... well, as an example, think of the '02 GMMG "ZL-1" Camaros! They used a 427 LSx engine, and made 600 HP / 575 TQ! :thumb:

I agree that simply changing a pulley and netting ~600+ HP is "easy". But I think AdioSS and I are on the same page here ..... there are logical benefits to using a 427 based engine (does not have to be "LS7") that they could use across the board in more vehicles than just the Camaro, AND it would carry a certain "heritage factor" with it that a 6.2L does not have. AND it would still perform damn well! :yes:

But hey, different strokes for different folks, right? :cz28:Too bad we can't have both then you can debate it while a $500 modded S/C 6.2 is leaving your 7.0 in the dust. :D

Capn Pete,

Certainly I'm treating this as a discussion between intelligent individuals. I confident that I don't know everything, nor does anyone else on this site.

Maybe a different perspective on some of your points:
- I didn't mean that the LS7 wasn't capable of producing more power, however from the information that I have received it is at the limit for durability. That may not matter to everyone, but if we are talking about powertrains from the factory, it does. If the LS7 was the best option to up the performance of the Corvette (or whatever car), they wouldn't be doing the LS9. The are not stopping the LS7 for the same reason they stopped the LS6. The LS6 stopped because they jumped generations in their v8's, where as the LS7 (especially it's cyl. head) is the basis for the new LS3 (the LS3 is using L92 heads, which were an early iteration of the now LS7 head). They are using a s/c powertrain to increase performance because they can not get the performance they want in the new corvette and meet durability.

- As for the ZL-1 Camaros, I don't believe that was a factory option or came with a factory warrenty, or passed emissions (but I could be wrong). If the engine doesn't pass emissions then all bets are off. You can dump more fuel, you can add more cam, and totally lose low speed/part throttle driveability if the upgrade to ZL-1 was aftermarket. That might not be a good example because emissions and driveability are very important for any powertrain leaving the factory.

- As for packaging in other vehicles, if they can package the s/c in the corvette, it will fit in anything. The roof line on a corvette makes it almost impossible to package a s/c and intercooler without the intercooler technology that Cadillac uses on the STS-V and XLR-V. So a s/c v8 will package in all their other vehicles as well (impala, camaro, corvette, truck, suv, etc), just as easy as 427. The intercooler and lines don't take up that much space because they are water lines, not the air hoses that turbo often use.

If you want 600hp with torque (say 575 from your example), from the factory, the s/c 6.2L V8 is the only way it's going to happen. If you talk about more then 7.0L (aka Viper), then of course you can get there. But I was assuming we were stopping at 427.

Just my thoughts

- As for the ZL-1 Camaros, I don't believe that was a factory option or came with a factory warrenty, or passed emissions (but I could be wrong). If the engine doesn't pass emissions then all bets are off. You can dump more fuel, you can add more cam, and totally lose low speed/part throttle driveability if the upgrade to ZL-1 was aftermarket. That might not be a good example because emissions and driveability are very important for any powertrain leaving the factory.


Here is a good article (http://www.holisticpage.com/camaro/camaros/copo.htm)about the COPO Camaros. Below is a quote about the factory 427's...

"By the end of 1967 it was clear that Yenko couldn't keep up with the demand for 427 Camaros, so he approached Chevrolet about the possibility of getting factory equipped 427 Camaros. Chevy was hesitant about this at first, but the people in the Special Projects Division were eager to give it a shot. According to Jim Mattison, who worked in the division at the time, the result was that Chevy agreed to supply factory equipped 427 Camaros to Yenko in 1968 on the condition that he keep it a secret. Don Yenko agreed, and until recently it was thought that all 68 of the 1968 Yenko Camaros had dealer installed engines, just like the 67's, but they were actually factory installed. At the end of the 68 model year the cars had proved to be both reliable and desireable. This led to the birth of two special options for 1969, COPO 9561 and COPO 9737."

Valid,

I have to retract an earlier statment. I found out that 2002 ZL-1 Camaros were available from the factory with warrenty at the 600hp mark. But how much did they cost. Is double the regular Camaro about right? And I don't think it was street legal (offroad use only), which means it didn't pass emission, pass-by noise, etc.

I don't think we can compare the performance of a engine in the late sixties to that of one today. We may have more technology and understanding for optimizing the engine, but the car companies of today have to meet emissions standards that were inconceivable, and driveability standards that were impossible in the sixties.

Take a yenko to an emissions lab today (not going to happen). You can't drive a real Yenko on pump gas, and it still doesn't meet emissions. There's a reason why when emissions standards came into effect the hp of the big 3's motors dropped so much. Pull out spark, remove valve overlap, reduce valve lift, add restriction in the exhaust due to cats, reduce fuel consumption, change to unleaded fuel, which forces reduced compression. All the technology that we now have is just getting us back to even with the new emissions standards that need to be met.

All the technology that we now have is just getting us back to even with the new emissions standards that need to be met.

I'd disagree with that. I'm willing to bet that we make more power per cube on less gas than we did in 1969. I'd put a GMMG ZL-1 against a COPO or "real" ZL-1 any day.

A 1969 427 Camaro would probably run right with a 2002 427 Camaro on the strip (maybe even beat it), but you wouldn't have 2 more gears, A/C, power windows, decent stereo, or leather seats for the drive home. A 2009 427 would probably destroy a COPO at the strip with the A/C on.

Not to mention the fact that the ZL-1 was pretty stout stuff in 1969, but would you care to guess what GM could do with an aluminum big block today? The modern equivalent of the 427 would probably be the 502. it ain't the biggest, or the most radical, but it's crate big block. How much horse do you think one of those bad boys puts out when built right and equipped with all the modern goodies?

I love the '69- don't get me wrong- but do you really think that we are just now coming even with 1969? We've been pulling similar performance from smaller motors in heavier platforms with more creature features for years, and the gap is only going to get wider.

understood,

however I don't understand how we can compare straight up an engine designed in the sixties to an engine design today.
If my facts are correct, and the ZL-1 that was produced in 2002 is sold for "off road use only", then it still doesn't meet emissions, which means they can do things to get more power out of the motor.
If we really want to get specific, the performance test procedures have even changed. Today engines are tested with full accessory drives, in the sixties it was just crank and water pump.

Can anyone confirm or deny that the ZL-1 was 50 state legal.

Why is it that no one is making the kind of numbers we are taking about 600hp and 575 lb-ft in a 50 state legal car with less then 7.0L, without forced induction, and at the price range we are talking about. Because it would be too expensive. Not impossible, but too expensive - which if I remember correctly what started this tangent in the first place.

Too bad we can't have both then you can debate it while a $500 modded S/C 6.2 is leaving your 7.0 in the dust. :D
Hey, I'll admit ... swapping a pulley is damn easy, and considering the power gains from doing so, it's obviously a good option if you want to crank up the factory HP and start making BIG #'s like ~600 + :thumb:.

Why is it that no one is making the kind of numbers we are taking about 600hp and 575 lb-ft in a 50 state legal car with less then 7.0L, without forced induction, and at the price range we are talking about. Because it would be too expensive. Not impossible, but too expensive - which if I remember correctly what started this tangent in the first place.
Hey, you're probably right ;). Happy?? :D

I guess my original thought/perspective was if GM is building a ~450 HP - 500 HP car, and not considering extreme future mods by the owner (like they did with 3rd/4th-gens and the 7.5" 10-bolt :rolleyes: ).

But since ~450 is getting so, uh, "easy" to hit, and if ~600 HP is the next step, well hey, I guess we move onto bigger and better things?? (s/c)?? :shrug: ;)

Ha ha, you may now laugh and point at me for losing!! :p

Having a different perspective is hardly losing.
I work for a company that does a lot of work with s/c's so I may be biased, but from a cost perspective for that performance they can't be beat from the factory, IMHO.

In a very arrogant way maybe I am satisfied, but from your sarcasm I doubt your opinion has changed. So we are still in the same position we were 2 days ago.
In stead of focusing on you liking displacement and me liking s/c's, maybe we should switch to the common ground of us both liking hp, torque, small block v8's, and camaros.

Have a good one

Not many people saying a lot about fuel milage, a supercharger effectively increases displacement when needed and runs leaner when not boosting. I know DOD helps, but you can't change bore or stroke sizes, so some waste will still exsist.
Look at all the S/c 3800's out there, no clutter, not much more weight than an intake...and we've all seen big numbers put down by blown LSx motors!
10 second S/C LSx cars are getting pretty common.
Then there's the sleeper factor...

Not many people saying a lot about fuel milage, a supercharger effectively increases displacement when needed and runs leaner when not boosting. I know DOD helps, but you can't change bore or stroke sizes, so some waste will still exsist.
Look at all the S/c 3800's out there, no clutter, not much more weight than an intake...and we've all seen big numbers put down by blown LSx motors!
10 second S/C LSx cars are getting pretty common.
Then there's the sleeper factor...

Depending on the blower type, that may be true. But don't forget that a blower uses power to run, so you can't base that on displacment.
I don't know what chevy does, but they get great mileage with the small block (per EPA) considering their displacement.

As for sleeper factor - whether you have displacement or s/c, once you blip the throttle you aren't a sleeper anymore

Depending on the blower type, that may be true. But don't forget that a blower uses power to run, so you can't base that on displacment.
I don't know what chevy does, but they get great mileage with the small block (per EPA) considering their displacement.

As for sleeper factor - whether you have displacement or s/c, once you blip the throttle you aren't a sleeper anymoreModern superchargers hardly draw any hp while cruising down the highway. Any car that had either engine wouldn't have a stealth factor to begin with.

a traditional sump 427 IMO would be badass in an SS version. high teens city and mid high 20's highway MPG...:cool:

Who wants to buy a brand new camaro and have to bore, stroke and resleeve the block just to get to that cubic inch. With the 427 you get complete driveablity and dont have to butcher the car to make it fast.

I would like to see SS LS3, SS LS7 just like in the olden day SS350 and a SS396. They should have two different engine options like the 60's.

Who wants to buy a brand new camaro and have to bore, stroke and resleeve the block just to get to that cubic inch. With the 427 you get complete driveablity and dont have to butcher the car to make it fast.

Or you could just change a pulley. :D

I would like to see SS LS3, SS LS7 just like in the olden day SS350 and a SS396. They should have two different engine options like the 60's.
:bow: :cz28:















[/cloud nine :(]

Or you could just change a pulley. :D

It would be just as easy to add a little laughing gas...

I was also hoping for something that wont be a lead sled. Those S/C cars are friggin HEAVY (Cobra) like 38-3900.

Big cubic inch engine in a muscle car...talk about bringing back the old school! Add that to todays technology..man I hope they put the 427 in..

The new GT500 is heavy b/c it has an iron block V8. If GM makes an aluminum V-8 it will be much lighter than the GT500.

The main reason for the GT500 being so heavy was that they never designed the car to have 500 hp to begin with. They added something like 300 lbs to the chassis so it would be strong enough to withstand the power that motor makes. It has really nothing to do with the fact its got a blower on it. If GM is doing their homework like they appear to be then we will have a car with more power and less weight than its competitor.

It would be just as easy to add a little laughing gas...

I was also hoping for something that wont be a lead sled. Those S/C cars are friggin HEAVY (Cobra) like 38-3900.

Big cubic inch engine in a muscle car...talk about bringing back the old school! Add that to todays technology..man I hope they put the 427 in..
Adding nitrous to an engine with almost an 11:1 compression ration isn't gonna be a great option. The 03 and 04 Cobra's are street terrors regardless of weight. The GT500 is too limited to realy be a street terror, I'll probably never see one since most will be sitting in some lawyer or doctors garage for 30 years. The big cubic inch is great but the SC will be making more torque. I'm still gonna take whichever one they offer unless we're getting into Vette money!

Adding nitrous to an engine with almost an 11:1 compression ration isn't gonna be a great option.

Actually, when set up correctly, nitrous is the best option in terms of forced induction on a high compression engine. Nitrous cools combustion chamber temperatures which helps prevent the pinging/knocking you can experience with a higher compression engine.

And what makes you think having a blower making more boost is better for an engine? Think about how much a blower pumps the compression up. For example: 4.06 bore 3.62 stroke with 9:1 static CR under 15 psi boost will create a running (boosted) CR of 10.69:1 at 60% volumetric efficiency. Youre already getting into race gas at that point. The most I see happening on 93 octane pump gas is 9.5 psi.

Now say a 427 at 10.5-11:1 CR with a 150 shot of nitrous on 93 octane pump gas with proper plugs IMO would make more HP and torque. Nitrous makes good gains in torque especially.

Blowers generate a lot of heat, nitrous (as previously stated) cools the combustion chamber.

If you really think weight doesnt play a major role in how fast a car makes it down the track youre nuts!

Of course this is all theoretical..:D

427 all the way!

And what makes you think having a blower making more boost is better for an engine? Think about how much a blower pumps the compression up. For example: 4.06 bore 3.62 stroke with 9:1 static CR under 15 psi boost will create a running (boosted) CR of 10.69:1 at 60% volumetric efficiency. Youre already getting into race gas at that point. The most I see happening on 93 octane pump gas is 9.5 psi.

Now say a 427 at 10.5-11:1 CR with a 150 shot of nitrous on 93 octane pump gas with proper plugs IMO would make more HP and torque. Nitrous makes good gains in torque especially.

Blowers generate a lot of heat, nitrous (as previously stated) cools the combustion chamber.

If you really think weight doesnt play a major role in how fast a car makes it down the track youre nuts!

Of course this is all theoretical..:D


A boost friendly factory motor will be more likely in the 8.5:1 compresion range. Our Ford counterparts safely run well into the upper 500 hp on premium fuel with no problems (this is at the wheels by the way.)
Good luck running a 150 shot on 11:1 hypereutectic pistons for very long. Besides you would see alot more gains from an FI motor with only a 75 shot than you would an N/A motor with a 150 shot. Once again on the 03/04 Cobra's I have seen guys gain almost 140 ft/lbs of troque at the wheels with just a 100 shot.
From reading these posts I just don't see a valid argument for having a 427 over a S/C 6.2. The 6.2 is easier to mod and those mods will produce significantly better numbers than any N/A motor. The only downside is that it will add weight to the front of the car (but were talking 50-60 lbs over the 427 max!)
The main argument for the 427 seems to be that it just sounds cooler to say. Once the top dog Camaro comes out and we start to see some power numbers then I'm sure that this will be a dead issue.:D

The main reason for the GT500 being so heavy was that they never designed the car to have 500 hp to begin with. They added something like 300 lbs to the chassis so it would be strong enough to withstand the power that motor makes. It has really nothing to do with the fact its got a blower on it.


The GT500 coupe is what, 400lbs heavier than a regular GT?

Bigger brakes, wheels, and tires = more weight
32V heads = more weight
Iron block instead of aluminum = more weight
A blower weighs WAY more than a plastic intake manifold
Plus the GT500 has all the options. Leather seats, Mach 1000 or whatever stereo they have in it

They didn't just 'add 300lbs to the chassis'. What do you think they did, just randomly welded steel bars all over?

To say the S197 chassis "wasn't designed to handle 500 HP" is a bit rediculous. In development of the new Mustang I'm sure they had a pretty good idea what the next Cobra (GT500) would be packing. This isn't some 30 year old chassis masquerading as the latest and greatest ('03-'04 Cobra), it was just done 2 years ago.

The GT500 is as heavy as it is for a variety of reasons, but a lot of which is because of the massive motor and supercharger. There is no question about that. Some estimates put the GT500 weight distribution at 58/42. You do the math.

Some estimates put the GT500 weight distribution at 58/42. You do the math.
58% fat.
42% not quite as fat.

;)

The new mustang chassis that was introduced in 2005 had to be beefed up in 07 for the GT500, and because of the GT500 all Mustang chassis benefited from the beefing up with extra welds and bracing. Ford said this in several articles so the chassis had to be improved from the original 05 design so I guess it's safe to say the S197 chassis "wasn't designed for 500 hp" if it had to be strenghtened.

The new mustang chassis that was introduced in 2005 had to be beefed up in 07 for the GT500, and because of the GT500 all Mustang chassis benefited from the beefing up with extra welds and bracing. Ford said this in several articles so the chassis had to be improved from the original 05 design so I guess it's safe to say the S197 chassis "wasn't designed for 500 hp" if it had to be strenghtened.

If this is true, it's a glimpse at why Ford is pretty clueless these days. If you're designing a brand new chassis for the Mustang, how could you not anticipate the higher horsepower levels the next top car would have? Especially since you already knew your old Cobra could make near 500 HP with a pulley and tune? :rolleyes:

For this reason, I remain unconvinced. If all the Mustangs benefitted with extra bracing after the GT500 was introduced, why did the curb weights of Mustang V6 and GT remain unchanged from 2005-2007? :think:

EDIT: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=115578

Ford lists the GT500's curb weight at 3,920 pounds in coupe form and 4,040 pounds for the convertible. That's about 400 pounds more than the equivalent Mustang GT. Much of that bulk comes from the drivetrain, which is about 350 pounds heavier than the GT's.

both Shelby models (as well as all 2007 and later base Mustangs) benefit from chassis upgrades in the firewall, transmission tunnel and frame rails.

Whatever the "chassis upgrades" are, it doesn't seem that curb weights on the base and GT Mustangs are up any notable amount.

I'd guess it was for improvement not necessity....

If this is true, it's a glimpse at why Ford is pretty clueless these days. If you're designing a brand new chassis for the Mustang, how could you not anticipate the higher horsepower levels the next top car would have? Especially since you already knew your old Cobra could make near 500 HP with a pulley and tune? :rolleyes:

For this reason, I remain unconvinced. If all the Mustangs benefitted with extra bracing after the GT500 was introduced, why did the curb weights of Mustang V6 and GT remain unchanged from 2005-2007? :think:

EDIT: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=115578





Whatever the "chassis upgrades" are, it doesn't seem that curb weights on the base and GT Mustangs are up any notable amount.
I'm just telling you what was done to all 07 chassis, you can believe it or not. I doubt Ford cared enough to add the extra weight the extra welds and bracing added to the weight of the car to the specs. I know when I worked at BMW whenever we had a car that was picked for testing we welded the hell out of that thing compared to the normal everyday car.

I doubt Ford cared enough to add the extra weight the extra welds and bracing added to the weight of the car to the specs.

The only way to know for sure is to put identically equipped 2005 and 2007 GTs on the scales at a track or something.

At any rate, the prevailing point in all this is that the stouter supercharged motor does weigh more than the N/A motor. So all that extra power potential does come with a penalty.

There's no doubt those 32v quad cam heads of Ford's make the package more cumbersome than the GM small block, but still.....extra weight is extra weight.

The only way to know for sure is to put identically equipped 2005 and 2007 GTs on the scales at a track or something.

At any rate, the prevailing point in all this is that the stouter supercharged motor does weigh more than the N/A motor. So all that extra power potential does come with a penalty.

There's no doubt those 32v quad cam heads of Ford's make the package more cumbersome than the GM small block, but still.....extra weight is extra weight.The ford engine is very heavy to begin with, it has an heavy iron block, it has heavier brakes, beefier drivetrain, this stuff adds up but tell me how many vette owners get nervous when an 03-04 Cobra pulls up compared to an 01 Cobra. Everyone knows the 03-04 Cobras are packing power even if they are heavy they still have a street rep not many cars have even the vette. The new Camaro isn't gonna be light, if you want a lightweight NA car maybe you should be looking at the Corvette. I want a torque monster, I could care less about auto xing, I like to go fast in a straight line with an occasional curve or two thrown in, Ford proved you can build a heavy car that can decently handle, I'm not too worried about the General. I doubt we will get the SC option anyway, it will probably just be a N/A LS3 with a slightly higher rating for the top model. I'm not holding my breath.

tell me how many vette owners get nervous when an 03-04 Cobra pulls up compared to an 01 Cobra.

I'm sure a few do, but it has as much to do with the fact that the supercharged Cobra puts out at least 70 HP more than the NA one. We're talking about all things being equal, motors with identical horsepower from the factory, which would you choose.

The new Camaro isn't gonna be light, if you want a lightweight NA car maybe you should be looking at the Corvette.

Telling people what they should buy seems to be a reoccuring theme around here (when another person's view doesn't fit in with what they want to see, of course). I'm not asking for the world, I'd just like to see a 3500-3600 pound coupe with a simple, big power, NA small block. I fear that a supercharged beast will up that number considerably.

I want a torque monster, I could care less about auto xing, I like to go fast in a straight line with an occasional curve or two thrown in

Gee, is this the point where I tell you that "maybe you should be looking at bolting a supercharger onto the next Camaro" because I think there's a little more to the driving experience than going straight? ;) Ford did what they could to the GT500 to make it a more competant handler, but most reviews I have read on the car still do not praise it for its handling prowess. There's only so much you can do with a near 60/40 weight distribution and 2 tons of steel.

To say the S197 chassis "wasn't designed to handle 500 HP" is a bit rediculous. In development of the new Mustang I'm sure they had a pretty good idea what the next Cobra (GT500) would be packing. This isn't some 30 year old chassis masquerading as the latest and greatest ('03-'04 Cobra), it was just done 2 years ago.

The GT500 is as heavy as it is for a variety of reasons, but a lot of which is because of the massive motor and supercharger. There is no question about that. Some estimates put the GT500 weight distribution at 58/42. You do the math.

Rediculous? :rolleyes: Stock1SC has got it right. Do a little searching around on any of the popular Mustang boards and you'll see.

Rediculous? :rolleyes: Stock1SC has got it right. Do a little searching around on any of the popular Mustang boards and you'll see.

As I pointed out with that quote from the article, the majority of the GT500's weight does not come from added structure but from added drivetrain weight. I believe that's the point here.

The GT500 chassis may have been "beefed up" to handle the power, but it isn't like Ford designed the car from the start to only handle the 300 horse 4.6 and then said "oh, crap, wait, we forgot we were going to do special editions! Now we're gonna have to add 300+ pounds of bracing!" :lol:

As I pointed out with that quote from the article, the majority of the GT500's weight does not come from added structure but from added drivetrain weight. I believe that's the point here.

The GT500 chassis may have been "beefed up" to handle the power, but it isn't like Ford designed the car from the start to only handle the 300 horse 4.6 and then said "oh, crap, wait, we forgot we were going to do special editions! Now we're gonna have to add 300+ pounds of bracing!" :lol:
Well designing a chassis to handle a V6 or a 300hp V8 is a lot different than designing one to handle 500hp and almost the same in torque. Then you have to make it able to meet warranty requirements for 36k miles. My SRT4 can make 500 hp with the right turbo setup but my chassis couldn't handle it without a lot of work, same for the mustang. All that power and torque take a lot of heavy duty parts to keep the car from breaking and they aren't light either. I never said the bracing added 300 lb's but it did add some weight. Not my fault Ford used an iron block, doesn't mean it's law of the land for S/C use. I'm pretty sure Chevy isn't going to put a heavy ass iron block boat anchor in it's pride and joy supercar Vette. Do you think they would use a different block for the Camaro? I don't.

No, I said that, well in a way. I apologize for the way I word things. When I type things out I am thinking about 2 pages ahead already and sometimes alot of information gets left out by the time it gets to my fingers. Basically what I was trying to convey was what Stock1SC is saying. Sorry for the misleading previous posts.
On a side note there is no need for any smart-ass comments.

Well designing a chassis to handle a V6 or a 300hp V8 is a lot different than designing one to handle 500hp and almost the same in torque. Then you have to make it able to meet warranty requirements for 36k miles. My SRT4 can make 500 hp with the right turbo setup but my chassis couldn't handle it without a lot of work, same for the mustang. All that power and torque take a lot of heavy duty parts to keep the car from breaking and they aren't light either.

I don't disagree with any of this. What I am saying is that Ford had to have made some provisions in the development of the S197 to handle 500+ HP. How and where they were going to add some of that extra bracing was part of it. If they hadn't even thought about bigger power in the Mustang back in 2005, they were either A) incredibly short-sighted or B) incredibly stupid. I wouldn't think either is the case.

I'm pretty sure Chevy isn't going to put a heavy ass iron block boat anchor in it's pride and joy supercar Vette. Do you think they would use a different block for the Camaro? I don't.

Well, Ford did set the precident. The Ford GT got an aluminum block while the GT500 got the iron block. Iron is most likely cheaper to make stout under boost. Cost being little object on the Ford GT or "super" Corvette, you can build a better aluminum block. If you're going to keep this "super" Camaro's cost down, while making the block less likely to rip apart, perhaps they do use an iron cast. I don't know. :shrug:

Ford can barely keep the lights on at the headquarters right now so nothing they do surprises me. GM isn't as cheap in its powerplants. They might be in financial trouble also but not nearly as dire as Ford is at the moment. GM just posted a profit today for the first time in 2 or 3 years I think.

Ford can barely keep the lights on at the headquarters right now so nothing they do surprises me. GM isn't as cheap in its powerplants. They might be in financial trouble also but not nearly as dire as Ford is at the moment. GM just posted a profit today for the first time in 2 or 3 years I think.

Cost would get passed on to the buyer no matter what. GM isn't just going to give you an exotic motor at a steal of a price because they're a little healthier than Ford. Seriously.

I also think it's unfair to say Ford does engines "cheaper". In fact, you could argue that it's GM with the pushrod small block architecture that is doing it cheaper. But I'm not going to complain about the power or the small block's characteristics. :)

I also think it's unfair to say Ford does engines "cheaper". In fact, you could argue that it's GM with the pushrod small block architecture that is doing it cheaper. But I'm not going to complain about the power or the small block's characteristics. :)
Cheaper? Maybe ;).

Smarter? Definitely!!! :yes:

Argue S/C vs. NA all day long ... GM has still been blowing Ford out of the water with their LSx series engines :cool:. The ONLY exception is the '03/'04 Cobra, which has stood its own quite well. But just look across the board at the success of the Gen-III/IV engines, from the C5's/C6's, through the F-bodies, and even in the trucks ... they're a phenominal package, delivering great power AND fuel economy, and so WHAT if they're "cheap" ... GM has done us all a huge "favor" by keeping the design SIMPLE yet EFFECTIVE :thumb:.

And all this comes back to .....

..... While there are good arguments for a supercharger, I'd still rather a have a nice, torquey 427 under the hood of my Camaro ;). Power-to-weight ratio will be enough to satisfy me, and give a supercharged 6.2 a run for its money :cool:.

Back on topic for a second...

It sounds like (if you believe HOT ROD) the top dog Z28 will get a 550hp version of the supercharged 6.2L.

550hp sounds good to me, no matter how you slice it. :D

Come on 540 BB lsx 650+ na hp

Back on topic for a second...

It sounds like (if you believe HOT ROD) the top dog Z28 will get a 550hp version of the supercharged 6.2L.

550hp sounds good to me, no matter how you slice it. :DThat would be awesome, just don't think it will ever happen or would be priced more than a base vette.

That would be awesome, just don't think it will ever happen or would be priced more than a base vette.

I disagree. While it may be priced north of $35K, such a Camaro will draw from a different crowd than the base Vette. It'll more than likely be purchased by a male enthusiast, over 40, who prefers a 2+2 coupe over a 2-seat sports car.

A similar Corvette buyer who wants performance, is going to have the Z06 and possibly Blue Devil (Z07, Z06R, SS... whatever they call it) to choose from. So a 550hp Camaro that easily outweighs even the base Corvette won't be much of a threat.

I disagree. While it may be priced north of $35K, such a Camaro will draw from a different crowd than the base Vette. It'll more than likely be purchased by a male enthusiast, over 40, who prefers a 2+2 coupe over a 2-seat sports car.

A similar Corvette buyer who wants performance, is going to have the Z06 and possibly Blue Devil (Z07, Z06R, SS... whatever they call it) to choose from. So a 550hp Camaro that easily outweighs even the base Corvette won't be much of a threat. I just can't see Chevy making a Camaro that costs more then a Corvette. Ford doesn't have that issue with pricing because the GT500 is already their top car, the Ford GT was just a limited run that's over now so there is no heirarchy like there is with the Corvette and Camaro. Has there ever been a factory Camaro that cost more than a factory Vette?

I just can't see Chevy making a Camaro that costs more then a Corvette. Ford doesn't have that issue with pricing because the GT500 is already their top car, the Ford GT was just a limited run that's over now so there is no heirarchy like there is with the Corvette and Camaro. Has there ever been a factory Camaro that cost more than a factory Vette?I'm not positive but I believe the COPO Camaros were more than the "base" Corvette.

a fully loaded SLP SS convertible cost more than a FRC when they were available.

My main thing is if Im going to shell out the dollars for the car, I want the better foundation. If GM decides to put a 427 with the LS7 style heads (which are the best heads GM has ever built- 330CFM factory) its the way to go. What car can run with the new Z06 factory?

GM has always made their muscle cars N/A (F-Body, Vette), other than the couple turbo versions of the trans am, which were not that impressive.

S/C engines do not make that much torque. Of all types of power adders, they make the least amount. Nitrous and turbo make the most. I know of several Cobra owners that dont put down near the amount of torque that they should.(ex 723hp and 485 lb ft) If the new camaro follows suit of the older models, the car will be in the 35-3600 lb range. A heavy car moves easier with more torque. Bigger motor=more TQ. I would hope to keep a heavy car light as possible. I also want something that I can hop in, beat and bang on it whenever I please, and be able to put the miles on it. A blower motor wont have that longevity. The Grand National is an example of a FI motor that once people started putting moderate to hard miles on, failed.

Pricing of a S/C model will be a lot more than a larger CI N/A model. Look at the '03 cobra and mustang GT. The "premium" GT priced at 25500, where the Cobra rang in at 35085. Thats damn near 10 grand more just for a blower. Think of all the R&D that Ford had to do to make the S/C work. The extra weight of the blower. (Ford claims Cobra at 3665 lbs, but my buddies '03 weighs a little more than 3700 without him in it). GM already has something that works, and does so in convincing fashion. Its that much less money for something that is already in production.

Far as adding a pulley...Ill be willing to wager that if one would take the 427 (as discussed above LS7 style) and add a nitrous kit there wouldnt be a comparison.

6.2=smaller motor, less torque, no where near the cylinder head.

7.0=all the good stuff. A lot more potential.

The new camaro is styled after the classic muscle that got it started. The muscle car has always been about muscle. I want a body builder under the hood, not a teenager wearing a weight suit.;)

^ ^ ^ cool, I'm not alone in the world!!! :D :thumb: :cz28:

i voted blower because look at the 03 04 cobras two things and they have 500 at the wheels so why not if gm is gonna built a motor for boost then let them and we can love the benifits we'll have are camaros with our blown 6.2 and theyll have there blow 4.6 and well be like whos the leader of the pack now bitch i think the 6.2 all around is definitly worth it for the easy horsepower gains

I dunno...

My wife had a '97 Grand Prix GTP ('97-'03 style)with a supercharged 3.8L V6. The pistons couldn't handle much more boost for long, the tranny gave out at 300 hp, etc etc. Lots of guys with chipped pistons. Not to mention the terrible fuel economy.

You ask for a supercharged V8 but what if the tranny is only good for 50 hp over what it comes with? What if the pistons aren't made to handle much more boost?

Everyone is comparing it to the 03 Cobras but what guarantee do we have that GM will really make a bullet proof bottom end like Ford did?

Rather than taking a chance at getting a half ass bottom end, I'd rather have the 7.0L V8 and save a 100 lbs or whatever it is that the supercharger and intercooler will weigh in at.

My main thing is if Im going to shell out the dollars for the car, I want the better foundation. If GM decides to put a 427 with the LS7 style heads (which are the best heads GM has ever built- 330CFM factory) its the way to go. What car can run with the new Z06 factory?

GM has always made their muscle cars N/A (F-Body, Vette), other than the couple turbo versions of the trans am, which were not that impressive.

S/C engines do not make that much torque. Of all types of power adders, they make the least amount. Nitrous and turbo make the most. I know of several Cobra owners that dont put down near the amount of torque that they should.(ex 723hp and 485 lb ft) If the new camaro follows suit of the older models, the car will be in the 35-3600 lb range. A heavy car moves easier with more torque. Bigger motor=more TQ. I would hope to keep a heavy car light as possible. I also want something that I can hop in, beat and bang on it whenever I please, and be able to put the miles on it. A blower motor wont have that longevity. The Grand National is an example of a FI motor that once people started putting moderate to hard miles on, failed.

Pricing of a S/C model will be a lot more than a larger CI N/A model. Look at the '03 cobra and mustang GT. The "premium" GT priced at 25500, where the Cobra rang in at 35085. Thats damn near 10 grand more just for a blower. Think of all the R&D that Ford had to do to make the S/C work. The extra weight of the blower. (Ford claims Cobra at 3665 lbs, but my buddies '03 weighs a little more than 3700 without him in it). GM already has something that works, and does so in convincing fashion. Its that much less money for something that is already in production.

Far as adding a pulley...Ill be willing to wager that if one would take the 427 (as discussed above LS7 style) and add a nitrous kit there wouldnt be a comparison.

6.2=smaller motor, less torque, no where near the cylinder head.

7.0=all the good stuff. A lot more potential.

The new camaro is styled after the classic muscle that got it started. The muscle car has always been about muscle. I want a body builder under the hood, not a teenager wearing a weight suit.;)

Man, I don't know where to begin with this.

First off, of my circle of "gearhead" friends I am one of maybe 3 who is into F-bodies. The rest are all 03/04 Cobra owners. None of these cars has that big of a difference between hp and torque. The majority of them dyno somewhere around 530 hp/ 510 torque to the wheels. There a couple with either KB or Whipple blowers that dyno 630hp/ 630 tq at the wheels. The largest gap any of my friends have or had was my buddy with an F1-A Procharger. He put down 680 hp/ 590 tq. So I don't quite think that you can say that superchargers don't produce torque.

Second, I don't believe that the GN has failed. I had an uncle who ran mid 11's with his. He went on to put over 100k miles on that car. I still see many GN's and TR's at the track.

Third, most of my friends Cobras weighed somewhere in the 3500-3600 lbs range without them in it but it wasn't just because of the blower. I've participated in many blower swaps and the blower, aftercooler, pump, associated hardware, hoses, etc. at the most weighed 60 lbs. You got to remember that they also added the IRS, bigger brakes, larger sway bars, etc.

Finally, I would say that a nitrous equipped 427 would hang with a S/C 6.2. But lets look at the cost and longetivity of these two motors. You could get a pulley and a tune and have it installed in 30 minutes for a total cost of $500. Or you could buy a nitrous kit which is roughly $600 for a economical base kit. Then you would need to add all the safety features (purge, FPSS, etc.) for another $350. Then its going to take at least a couple of hours to install and in the end is only going to make as much power as the pulley and a tune. Not to mention the fact you will have to refill your bottle every now and then at $45 a pop. Not very economical. Also the cylinder pressures of a nitrous motor is just as bad as a FI motor. So there is no increased longetivity using one over the other.

On a side note I was wondering why the 6.2 isn't going to get great flowing heads? Why does the 7.0 have more potential? If you are going to go FI (whether it is nitrous/blower/turbo) then the sky's the limit right? It doesn't matter what size engine you have you just keep "turning the knob up".

Everyone is comparing it to the 03 Cobras but what guarantee do we have that GM will really make a bullet proof bottom end like Ford did?



If they didn't it would be one of the biggest blunders that this company has ever made. Since there is an FI motor in the works for the Vette I guess we'll find out.

Why does everyone mention nitrous on the 427, isn't nitrous a temporary boost? A pulley doesn't have to be refilled for $50 or however much it costs and when Johnny Law pulls you over and sees a shiny nitrous bottle your getting a ticket, he can't see my pulley. As for torque the supercharged motor would make more torque over the entire rpm than a NA 427 would. Comparing a 3.8 S/C motor which was never intended to be in anything other than midsize cars to a S/C motor built specifically for all out performance is a bit of a stretch. I would love to have a turbo 6.2 but with emissions and production costs I don't think it's gonna happen. It would be nice if they could make a 427 Z28 and a S/C 6.2 SS, then we could all be happy.

If they didn't it would be one of the biggest blunders that this company has ever made. Since there is an FI motor in the works for the Vette I guess we'll find out.


Won't be the first time.

LT1: Opti crap and weak rear end
LS1: Piston slap and weak rear end
LS3: Weak bottom end or rear end?

Won't be the first time.

LT1: Opti crap and weak rear end
LS1: Piston slap and weak rear end
LS3: Weak bottom end or rear end?I'll give you the Opti-Spark and weak rear ends but as for piston slap I think that was made out to be something it wasn't, everyone bitched about it but they were still laying down low 13 second stock passes. LS1 was a fantastic engine which still demands respect( how many other cars can boast a big V8 and almost 30 mpg). Any massed produced part is prone to having issues. The 427 isn't gonna be around much longer anyway to worry about. I'm more worried about the IRS than the engine!

Gotta agree with the both of you on this one. What kind of internals did the Sostice GXP or Cobalt get? Were they forged or hyperjunk? I think those two motors will give us an insight to what will go in the S/C 6.2. Also has the CTS-V/GTO crowd worked the kinks out of the IRS? I know there are aftermarket parts for the GM IRS but I don't know how well they work.
I think I would be more apt to settle for a weak rear than an internally weak engine. I'd rather not settle at all but I'm kinda used to buying rearend upgrades. lol. It's also alot easier to replace a halfshaft than it is to replace a melted piston.

Boy there sure are a lot of misconceptions coming from the anti-blower crowd. :lol:

Man, I don't know where to begin with this.

First off, of my circle of "gearhead" friends I am one of maybe 3 who is into F-bodies. The rest are all 03/04 Cobra owners. None of these cars has that big of a difference between hp and torque. The majority of them dyno somewhere around 530 hp/ 510 torque to the wheels. There a couple with either KB or Whipple blowers that dyno 630hp/ 630 tq at the wheels. The largest gap any of my friends have or had was my buddy with an F1-A Procharger. He put down 680 hp/ 590 tq. So I don't quite think that you can say that superchargers don't produce torque.

Second, I don't believe that the GN has failed. I had an uncle who ran mid 11's with his. He went on to put over 100k miles on that car. I still see many GN's and TR's at the track.

Third, most of my friends Cobras weighed somewhere in the 3500-3600 lbs range without them in it but it wasn't just because of the blower. I've participated in many blower swaps and the blower, aftercooler, pump, associated hardware, hoses, etc. at the most weighed 60 lbs. You got to remember that they also added the IRS, bigger brakes, larger sway bars, etc.

Finally, I would say that a nitrous equipped 427 would hang with a S/C 6.2. But lets look at the cost and longetivity of these two motors. You could get a pulley and a tune and have it installed in 30 minutes for a total cost of $500. Or you could buy a nitrous kit which is roughly $600 for a economical base kit. Then you would need to add all the safety features (purge, FPSS, etc.) for another $350. Then its going to take at least a couple of hours to install and in the end is only going to make as much power as the pulley and a tune. Not to mention the fact you will have to refill your bottle every now and then at $45 a pop. Not very economical. Also the cylinder pressures of a nitrous motor is just as bad as a FI motor. So there is no increased longetivity using one over the other.

On a side note I was wondering why the 6.2 isn't going to get great flowing heads? Why does the 7.0 have more potential? If you are going to go FI (whether it is nitrous/blower/turbo) then the sky's the limit right? It doesn't matter what size engine you have you just keep "turning the knob up".

It is up to GM as to what quality of cylinder head they use on any given cubic inch motor, not me. However, I don't see the likelihood of GM using their best cylinder heads on just any motor, especially their base model v8, supercharged or not!!! The power adder would help compensate for the lesser flowing heads, and I don't think it would be practical for GM to produce a motor with LS7 heads and a super charger, therefore out performing it's top dog - the z06 (in a camaro platform) That would be kind of stupid on their part, don't you think??? Back to the basic argument, would it be more preferred to have a supercharged 6.2L with standard LS2 heads,or the n/a 427 cubic inch "LS7" motor, if still available.

I have seen first hand what power adders can do for any car. For example, Warren's 95 z28 with a 355 cubic inch motor: It made 400hp and 395 ft/lb N/A at the wheels. With a single plate nitrous kit it makes an 650 hp and an outlandish 887 ft/lb of torque "at the wheels." How does that compare to your circle of friends and their cobras, or even your car itself??? Do any of them have 8-second quarter mile potential at 3400 lbs. If so, please do tell!!!! We know first hand what power adders can do for smaller v8 engines. You're preaching to the choir! However, consider what it could do with a 427 cubic inch motor and cylinder heads at the level of the LS7. Even JW himself will defend my position on preferring the larger cubic inch motor N/A over the smaller motor with a super charger. "Any moron can install a super charger or nitrous kit after market." It is a little too much trouble to take a brand new motor and completely rebuild it, including re-sleeving the block and buying another set of cylinder heads to achieve this 427 cubic inch combo.

Lets start with the best foundation and build from the ground up. If you want to play with the big dogs, bring the pit bull and leave your poodle at home with your hair dryer!!! By the way, I'm not turning anyones knob, and the sky is only the limit when you learn how to fly!!!;)
http://www.totalengineairflow.com/rides/clips/warren3.jpg

It is up to GM as to what quality of cylinder head they use on any given cubic inch motor, not me. However, I don't see the likelihood of GM using their best cylinder heads on just any motor, especially their base model v8, supercharged or not!!! The power adder would help compensate for the lesser flowing heads, and I don't think it would be practical for GM to produce a motor with LS7 heads and a super charger, therefore out performing it's top dog - the z06 (in a camaro platform) That would be kind of stupid on their part, don't you think??? Back to the basic argument, would it be more preferred to have a supercharged 6.2L with standard LS2 heads,or the n/a 427 cubic inch "LS7" motor, if still available.

I have seen first hand what power adders can do for any car. For example, Warren's 95 z28 with a 355 cubic inch motor: It made 400hp and 395 ft/lb N/A at the wheels. With a single plate nitrous kit it makes an 650 hp and an outlandish 887 ft/lb of torque "at the wheels." How does that compare to your circle of friends and their cobras, or even your car itself??? Do any of them have 8-second quarter mile potential at 3400 lbs. If so, please do tell!!!! We know first hand what power adders can do for smaller v8 engines. You're preaching to the choir! However, consider what it could do with a 427 cubic inch motor and cylinder heads at the level of the LS7. Even JW himself will defend my position on preferring the larger cubic inch motor N/A over the smaller motor with a super charger. "Any moron can install a super charger or nitrous kit after market." It is a little too much trouble to take a brand new motor and completely rebuild it, including re-sleeving the block and buying another set of cylinder heads to achieve this 427 cubic inch combo.

Lets start with the best foundation and build from the ground up. If you want to play with the big dogs, bring the pit bull and leave your poodle at home with your hair dryer!!! By the way, I'm not turning anyones knob, and the sky is only the limit when you learn how to fly!!!;)


Your post is a little confusing. First you talk about your buddies N20-fed Z and then you go on to say that "any moron can install a super charger or nitrous kit after market". Then you go on to ask me if any of "my friends or myself" has 8 second potential with our cars. If you are still referring to your friends car it is neither big cubic inch nor N/A. Very impressive but doesn't quite meet the requirements for your argument. As a matter of fact I don't know of any modern 427 cars that have run in the 8's N/A. There is a couple of guys here (St. Louis) that run mid to high 9's N/A and that's about it.
You also keep talking like there is no way that GM would put good flowing heads on an FI motor. I just don't see the reasoning behind this. With cam, pulley, and tune selection the difference in hp between the Corvette and the Camaro could be rather large. This would also let GM use the same block, internals, etc. for both cars which would keep costs down. We'll just have to wait and see.
When it comes down to the debate of small CI w/ FI vs. large CI N/A in the end they have the same potential (for the average joe. Once you get to a certain point then the FI route is the only availabe option.) However it is much more cost effective to make x amount of horsepower with the FI motor than it is with the N/A motor. I have seen it first hand with myself owning a N/A LT1 and watching just how little my friends spend to get the power they want.
Oh, and for the record, the best that any of my friends or myself has run was a 9.56 @ 144. This was with a full weight car (a/c, stereo, etc.) I'll give you a hint: it wasn't me. lol.

7.0 N/A.. Less parts and less weight.

i voted blower because look at the 03 04 cobras two things and they have 500 at the wheels

This is greatly exaggerated. You are gonna need more than a smaller pulley and a tune to nail 500 rwhp. A pulley, decent exhaust setup, CAI, and tune usually net around 450 at the wheels, which is still quite a bit. If you wanna hit the 500 mark at the wheels in a Terminator, you are gonna need to have the blower ported, full exhaust, injectors and fuel pump to keep it safe, and that may be it, but I may be forgetting something. Although it is still a great deal for 500rwhp, all this stuff does add up.


If the blown 6.2 comes with the burden of an iron block, I would rather see the 427. The 5th gen is probably going to weigh enough as it isl. No need for more of it, especially on the nose of the car. The car is going to have an IRS out back. Why deal with all the added weight and complexity (assuming that this IRS won't have any wheelhop or longevity issues) of having one by adding even more weight to the car and taking away from it's handling potential.

That is mostly true concerning the 03/04 Cobras. The fuel pump is still good with those mods. It's once you go aftermarket blower/ N2O that you start needing the BAP or twin Focus pumps. However all of that still doesn't cost as much as a good H/C package plus install. Thats what I think is the main selling point of an FI motor. Cheap and easy to mod plus its relatively easy to install the parts.
Now I am a little concerned about the car having an iron block regardless if its FI or N/A. That's were you get most of the extra weight in the nose of the Terminators. The complete blower package itself weighs maybe 60 lbs but isn't the iron block more than 100 lbs heaveir than its aluminum counterpart?
Since its pretty safe to say (not 100% yet) that the top Camaro is getting an FI motor you mentioned something that has me a little concerned. I know that the Terminator Cobra's fuel system was pretty much maxed out with the mods that are mentioned above. I just hope GM doesn't install a fuel system that runs at 80% of its capacity when the car is still on the showroom floor.

Lets Hope that the GENERAL offers either motor at this point.

I am sure they will have at least 3 engine options for sure...including a V6.

If we get 6.2 S/C or 427 ci We should thanks the TOP DOGS of GM for giving us a REAL GIFT.

I just pray they have this engine option in 2009 and not make me buy 2010:confused:

Your post is a little confusing. First you talk about your buddies N20-fed Z and then you go on to say that "any moron can install a super charger or nitrous kit after market". Then you go on to ask me if any of "my friends or myself" has 8 second potential with our cars. If you are still referring to your friends car it is neither big cubic inch nor N/A. Very impressive but doesn't quite meet the requirements for your argument. As a matter of fact I don't know of any modern 427 cars that have run in the 8's N/A. There is a couple of guys here (St. Louis) that run mid to high 9's N/A and that's about it.
You also keep talking like there is no way that GM would put good flowing heads on an FI motor. I just don't see the reasoning behind this. With cam, pulley, and tune selection the difference in hp between the Corvette and the Camaro could be rather large. This would also let GM use the same block, internals, etc. for both cars which would keep costs down. We'll just have to wait and see.
When it comes down to the debate of small CI w/ FI vs. large CI N/A in the end they have the same potential (for the average joe. Once you get to a certain point then the FI route is the only availabe option.) However it is much more cost effective to make x amount of horsepower with the FI motor than it is with the N/A motor. I have seen it first hand with myself owning a N/A LT1 and watching just how little my friends spend to get the power they want.
Oh, and for the record, the best that any of my friends or myself has run was a 9.56 @ 144. This was with a full weight car (a/c, stereo, etc.) I'll give you a hint: it wasn't me. lol.

Reason I brought my buddies car into the discussion is for a comparison of Torque gains with nitrous. Now imagine: same setup as the white car, but on a 427 cubic inch motor with LS7 (or equivalent) heads. Do you really think that dollar for dollar a S/C smaller inch motor is going to even come close to being able to touch it? Im still confused as to how you think something with a smaller inch motor will make as much torque as a larger motor...

(BTW, the white car at 5.87 (1/8) is damn close to running 8's (1/4), still has factory GM fuel injection (no DFI) still has factory crank.)

And to re-iterate about the cylinder heads...IMO theres no way GM puts the "LS7" heads on a s/c platform which would make it out perform their top dog the z06! Theres going to be some sacrifice there. IMO power adder would warrant the absence of the good cylinder heads.

I dont see how youre comparing a LT1 to your friends application. (Im guessing cobras?) Thats a completely unfair comparison. Maybe if it was apples to apples (LT1 with heads and a S/C and nitrous for example) How much more was the cobra than your car to begin with..

Im sure that your buddies are spending a lot more money than your giving them credit for. I know how much it costs to change superchargers, buy tuning programs, add ice boxes, nitrous etc. to cobras. Theyre not cheap to mod. and usually take TWO power adders to make impressive numbers.

This is greatly exaggerated. You are gonna need more than a smaller pulley and a tune to nail 500 rwhp. A pulley, decent exhaust setup, CAI, and tune usually net around 450 at the wheels, which is still quite a bit. If you wanna hit the 500 mark at the wheels in a Terminator, you are gonna need to have the blower ported, full exhaust, injectors and fuel pump to keep it safe, and that may be it, but I may be forgetting something. Although it is still a great deal for 500rwhp, all this stuff does add up.

EXACTLY. add that to a car that already is at the 36K mark MSRP...

I voted 427, but a SC'ed 6.2 is pretty word, too.

Reason I brought my buddies car into the discussion is for a comparison of Torque gains with nitrous. Now imagine: same setup as the white car, but on a 427 cubic inch motor with LS7 (or equivalent) heads. Do you really think that dollar for dollar a S/C smaller inch motor is going to even come close to being able to touch it? Im still confused as to how you think something with a smaller inch motor will make as much torque as a larger motor...

(BTW, the white car at 5.87 (1/8) is damn close to running 8's (1/4), still has factory GM fuel injection (no DFI) still has factory crank.)

And to re-iterate about the cylinder heads...IMO theres no way GM puts the "LS7" heads on a s/c platform which would make it out perform their top dog the z06! Theres going to be some sacrifice there. IMO power adder would warrant the absence of the good cylinder heads.

I dont see how youre comparing a LT1 to your friends application. (Im guessing cobras?) Thats a completely unfair comparison. Maybe if it was apples to apples (LT1 with heads and a S/C and nitrous for example) How much more was the cobra than your car to begin with..

Im sure that your buddies are spending a lot more money than your giving them credit for. I know how much it costs to change superchargers, buy tuning programs, add ice boxes, nitrous etc. to cobras. Theyre not cheap to mod. and usually take TWO power adders to make impressive numbers.



EXACTLY. add that to a car that already is at the 36K mark MSRP...


I guess you never thought about the power you would make if you added spray to the FI 6.2? And yes, dollar for dollar, a smaller CI FI motor WILL make as much power as the larger CI N/A engine. I don't know where you are coming from with this? Let's say you have a 500 hp 427 and a 500 hp S/C 6.2 motor and you put a 150 shot on both of them. You are saying that the N/A motor is going to produce more power? God, I hope not. I can get some dynographs of a S/C engine before and after nitrous. If you want I will post them and we can go from there.
And your argument for GM not putting a good head on the new engine is flawed anyway. You're comparing an engine that will be out in 2-3 years to the modern Z06. The top dog Corvette will have a S/C 6.2 by then so there will be no "stepping on the toes" of the Camaro's big brother.
Finally, I don't remember 650/650 with one power adder (KB car) as being unimpressive. Face it. The 427 is going away and a multitude of FI 6.2 motors are on the way.

Give me more displacment, I'll provide the boost myself.

I had my car dynoed last night and saw a couple of dyno sheets that should shed some light on this nitrous debacle. There is a local guy that owns both a C6 Z06 and a GT500. His GT500 with a pulley (total 12 lbs of boost), tune, and longtubes dynoed 595 hp and 610 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. They also had just installed a wet kit on the Z06 and with a 150 shot it dynoed 576 and 610. So for roughly the same price in parts and labor these two cars dynoed almost identical numbers. So for the sake of arguments yes the smaller FI motor can make as much power as the larger motor with spray, dollar for dollar.
Now its time to go add spray to that FI motor.

what that ever really a question? that a smaller forced induction motor can make the same power as a larger nitrous motor? Geez, you'd think that IHRAmight've figured that out when they allow nitrous motors to be considerably larger than forced induction motors. And even then FI powered cars must be several hundred pounds heavier to race in the same class.

what that ever really a question? that a smaller forced induction motor can make the same power as a larger nitrous motor? Geez, you'd think that IHRAmight've figured that out when they allow nitrous motors to be considerably larger than forced induction motors. And even then FI powered cars must be several hundred pounds heavier to race in the same class.

Not really. Twisted wedge wanted to make that argument and its sorta spiraled out of control from there. My original answer to the question was that I believe that the FI 6.2 will be more economical to mod even thought it will give up roughly 60 lbs to the 427 and therefore a better choice for the top dog Camaro. Then I got caught up in this nitrous tangent and I apologize for that.

I really dig the 7.0 liter V8, but given the architecture and its limited modability, I'd say 6.2 S/C, you got tons of room to grow plus once you've gone through all the big engine mods (stroker, cam, heads, exhaust, etc) even more power is just a bigger blower and pulley set away.

Our motor has about 95 more cubic inches, and is a platform that has made more HP per CI than Ford motors since about 1955. Okay, okay, I exaggerate... but you get the point. We definitely whoop ass HP per CI on the modular NA 4.6/5.4.

5.0 2v 225hp = 45.91 hp/liter (GT)

5.0 2v 245hp = 50 hp/liter (5.0 Cobra)

4.6 2v 260hp = 56.52 (2v GT)

4.6 3v 300hp = 65.22 hp/liter (regular GT - however I suspect this might be a bit underated)

4.6 4v 320hp = 65.22 hp/liter (last n/a cobra V8)

4.6 3v 320hp = 69.56 hp/liter (Shelby GT, Hertz GT, FRPP perf packs)

5.4 4v 390hp = 72.22 hp/liter (R model Cobra)


5.0 2v 225hp = 45 hp/liter (last 305 IIRC)

5.7 2v 245hp = 42.98 hp/liter (mullett special)

5.7 2v 275hp = 48.25 hp/liter (cried the day that motor came out and GT still only had 225hp)

5.7 2v ???hp = ??????? - I can't remeber all the Firehawk mutations, seems to me the very forst had 350hp - if somebody can jog my memory here???

5.7 2v 350hp = 61.40 hp/liter (Seems to me this is around the actual output in the F4)

5.7 4v 425hp = 74.56 hp/liter (LT5 motor IIRC)

6.0 2v 400hp = 66.67 hp/liter (GTO)

7.0 2v 505hp = 72.14 hp/liter (maybe more I dunno???)


Okay, there we go, except for the 350hp 5.7 (the concensus being that there is no difference between the F4 and C5 Motor) those are all factory powerplants. Only back in the 2v mod days and 5.0 liter days could GM lay claim to besting Ford at hp/liter. --->edit<--- almost forgot about the LT5, so one time in 27 years). In total power and torque (the only thing that matters unless you live, breathe, sleep VTEC) GM has smoked Ford and that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no replacement for displacement.

Only honda owners brag about hp per liter, I could care less about that. Just give me a decent amount of hp and even more tq and I'm happy. Beside GM already has a 2.0 turbo that puts out 100hp per liter which is the highest output per liter of any GM engine. Would you want it in a 3700lb Camaro? I wouldn't. Now if I could have a turbo 6 then we might have something.

You forgot the 03/04 Cobra 4.6L 4v 400hp = 86.96 hp/L

And the GT500/GT 5.4L 4v 505hp = 93.51 hp/L.

I know they aren't N/A but its till a factory motor and from the looks of it a pretty solid argument for wanting one in the new Camaro.

Was just going for the N/A stuff, I had thought about adding S/C'd engines but I think that would've invalidated the comparison.

I wonder how an average HP/Liter comparison would work out? Would probably be more telling since peak numbers are really misleading. Maybe thats how they should rate engines in the business, by average hp/average torque.

Was just going for the N/A stuff, I had thought about adding S/C'd engines but I think that would've invalidated the comparison.

I wonder how an average HP/Liter comparison would work out? Would probably be more telling since peak numbers are really misleading. Maybe thats how they should rate engines in the business, by average hp/average torque.

You didn't include the LS6

5.7L 2v 405hp = 71.05 Hp/Liter

That is right up their with the NA 4v 5.4 Cobra motor, which was actually rated at 385hp, not 390.

lol, forgot about that one, and I was just at the track last week with some friends and a guy trailered a Z06 there. It had a horrible time hooking up, but ther guy was still knocking down 12's

what do you people mean the 7.0L is going to be phased out?Where did you read this?

what do you people mean the 7.0L is going to be phased out?Where did you read this?

that rumor has been floating around for about a year, along with the "bluedevil" Corvette rumors.

that rumor has been floating around for about a year, along with the "bluedevil" Corvette rumors.
That and the fact that leaked documents showing GM projected engines for the Corvette Z06 don't include an LS7 beyond 2008 MY. :D

That and the fact that leaked documents showing GM projected engines for the Corvette Z06 don't include an LS7 beyond 2008 MY. :D

things change gm has changed there minds recently with other things.

the ls7 is an expensive motor and has to be hand built from my understanding. although i don't know what would have to go into a production supercharged 6.2 s/c engine.

i also though there was a press release saying there would only be 3000 of these corvettes made? and at over 650 hp and the 430 hp base engine that leave a lot of room for a 505 hp motor i think. Pluse there will be a huge difference in price. 44000 the 650 version was estimated to cost 100,000 so i see there being room for a smaller engine. will it be an ls7 or something else i dont know but i see it possible they decide to keep it

i think it would be a mistake to remove that 7L. its there... its done... make it production if its too expensive.. teh car is a money maker as the image hsa gone up thanks to it and its marvelous engine.

My guess would be that the parts for the LS7 would be a lot more expensive than the SC LS3 too. The LS3 will be available in other vehicles as well so that would keep costs down a bit.

I'm torn as both motors would be awesome, but I voted for the 6.2 S/C. I have a KB car now, dip into the throttle and hold on baby. Plus, the streetability is very livable.

N/A for me thanks!

After seeing the ZR1, 620hp, S/C 6.2L is confirmed as what I want..

I have to say that I would want the 6.2 S/C. Reason for this is quite a few. First, the guts of the baby would be forged, which would be able to withstand way more boost than the factory can put at it. Second, today's forced air equipment is very streetable. For example, my 03 KB Cobra has a 4.6 S/C. It came rated from the factory with 390 hp. After using some aftermarket parts and a KB blower, she now puts down a streetable 650 to the tires on 91 oct. So, my theory would be, if the 4.6 can do this, I couldn't imagine what the 6.2 would do with some aftermarket parts, different blower and a good tune. Scary 900+ at the tires???
84 Z28-sold
91 RS-sold
98 SS-sold
03 KB Cobra-still haulin' the mail
09 Camaro-Can't wait, 6.2 S/C please

I've always been a N/A type so I say bring on the 'cubes!! :)