For the life of me I can't get my head around the idea of developing another crankshaft, piston, and possibly connecting rod to drop DOWN to 5.5L and making achieving more horsepower .7L more difficult.

 

It's all about weight. And the vette,Soon to be camaro, are looking to shed some lbs. any weight lost is good weight. Especially over the front end.

 

The problem with that train of thought is that displacement is measured by the size of the cylinder volume. So in theory, a larger displacement means more mass has been removed from the block. Sure the pistons are larger, however they are not the entire depth (height) of the cylinder in which they travel.

So in theory, with everything else being equal, a 6.2L V8 weighs less than a 5.5L V8.

 

For real! I think a Ford 4.6 actually weighed more than a 6.2 and was physically larger as well. Hopefully this 5.5 is just BS and not factual.

 

well see...... there must be alot of bs believers.....there has to be some reason for all the talk....

 

Its based upon the fact that GM had to build a 5.5L version for the Corvette for meeting the class requirements in one road racing series.

There is no "production minimum" rule that requires them to build a 5.5L version for production purposes, which is the only reason the 5.0L (302 cid) V8 was created for Trans Am racing way back in 1967.

Its pure speculation at this point. While I am an advocate for building smaller, more efficient, and higher revving V8s... I believe it would have to be an entirely new engine designed as such from the ground up. The next Gen DI V8 will not be that engine.

 

Like I said, the class of racing that the c6r is in, is NOT prototype racing. It is production based racing. This is why there is speculation on the next motor being a 5.5 motor.

 

Man I'd hate to see how you guys feel about the Cadillac ats-v being a v6tt. And being that the ats is supposedly the gen 6 camaro platform........

 

So was TransAm. The production displacement rule was removed in 1970, and the Z-28 grew to 5.7L all the while the class was still limited to 5.0L maximum.

And its just that, speculation. There's nothing in the rule book that says that GM needs to have a production engine with the same displacement today. Otherwise, they would be required to already have one to be allowed to race.

An interesting footnote: While the production Z-28s displaced 302 cid, the race versions were typically bored oversized to 305 cid, because that allowed for the maximum displacement allowed of 5.0L. The reason for 302 cid was strictly because Vince Piggins had suggested using the 327/350 block combined with a hardened version of the 283 crank to get closer to the maximum allowed displacement for the class. It was purely a cost issue to run the same bore (and block) as the 327/350 V8. Had he not sold this idea to Pete Estes, then GM would gone ahead with their original plans to use a high performance version of the 283 cid V8 in the Z-28.

More speculation!

 

Whoa! Stop the presses. They said maybe 6.0 DI........

6.2/6.0/5.5........

 

A couple dozen ounces of crankshaft bob weight??

 

Wow. Man do you guys hate change. Who knows the reason why the 5.5. But in a few months, I'll resurrect this thread......

 

Hopefully, the 5.5 will be a legitimately smaller, lighter-weight powerplant, and hopefully the 6th gen will be a MUCH smaller and MUCH MUCH lighter-weight car.

I'm all for 6+ liters (LS2 RX-7 ), but I'd MUCH rather see the next Camaro be below 3400 lb. than above 6 liters...

 

I'm just using good ole sound logic.

Heck, why stop there at ~330ci... go on down to 262!!

Unless it's the Gen 5 SBC... then it's a whole different conversation...

 

who knows, maybe the 5.5 their working on was the best power output as a di. or maybe its higher reving. or maybe it handles boost better......maybe its cheaper...maybe theyve been working on it for years....maybe thats why....but i guess when you get too be too old...you dont like change....or speculation..you just want the facts told to you strait.....i get it....lifes short...shorter for some.