Obviously you are just looking to bait me... but I will answer none the less. When the C5 was first released in 1996, the technology and specs for its chassis were arguably among the best in the world, including many super high dollar exotic cars. However, now, 7 years later, the C5's rigidity specs are still very nice, but now world-class like they used to be. There are high-end cars left and right that make the C5 look like a wet noodle.

 

406, 427 and 454 ci have all been stroked out of the traditional sbc, so I'm guessing a 406 ci LS block isn't out of the question.

Pretty f-ing cool, when you consider the next gen Camaro SS/Z28/Whatever will most likely get the same powerplant.

 

You don't know me very well, I don't bait folks. Just interested in your statement. Which high end cars are we talking about that make the C5 look like a "wet noodle"?

The Z06 with '04 shocks turned a sub 8 minuted lap at the 'ring, with a 200 pound passenger. On street tires and showroom power levels it's good results.

Tech certainly moves along, no doubt about it. I'm just interested in your statement and what your points of reference are.

Cars have gotten stiffer in some degree.

When it comes to wheel to pavement control the latest from GM is arguably ground breaking.
I have my opinions regarding the costs involved with magnetic shocks, but from a tech standpoint and software controls that can be applied, I haven't seen anything roughly close, even in F-1.

Please take no offense, just trying to understand your frame of reference.

 

As far as I've seen, Corvette is still out doing cars that cost many thousands more in handling, construction quality, and performance.

Which cars are we talking about that make Corvette "nothing special"?

 

I agree. I just wish they'd do something about that cheap looking interior. That'd be my only gripe with the c5. Everything else is top-notch.

 

Go look under an XLR

And I had an idea abut the "402" statement. What's the bore on the 6.0L truck engine? 101.6mm (4.00") right? What if they built a "square" engine with the same bore as the stroke. That would give 402cid It would also give lots more torque to battle the Viper

 

Several of the newer offerings from Mercedes and BMW put the C5 to shame speaking strictly of chassis rigidity. The Z06's overall chassis prowess (including wheels, tires, suspension, etc) is still even in 2004 nothing short of amazing for sure. And the magnetically dampened shocks that are now available on the C5 are even more incredible- and if GM can give them a greater range of motion I'd bet they could become even more potent than what the Z06 offers while still offering the highway comfort of the base C5. Definitely very cool stuff and I'm honestly excited to see this technology, as I never was too keep on previous forms of variable shock actuation (too slow, too unreliable, too little range of variable settings).

What I'm speaking of is the actual frame itself. And the C5 is still nice. What I'm getting at is the fact that looking at the C4 to the C5, the C5 was an entire world apart from the C4 and anything else available in 1996 for twice the price. My initial post was just wondering if, since 8 years has gone by and the C5's chassis is starting to become a bit more taken for granted, if GM will stir up the water again, or just focus on the other design elements of the car for now.

 

I haven't seen Hz numbers on the Merc or BMWs you refer to but maybe you can send me to a good source. I'm more interested in vehicle rigidity than individual part stiffness alone, but vehicles are a sum of their parts.

We have to see what your opinion might be of the C6 Z06 and whether notions of GM sitting on their larrels has any validity.

I do see your suggestion that C5 is possibly "taken for granted". I think that comes with number of C5s out there. Improvements have been done through production, particularly with Z06. One really must drive a Z06 to see where things have come with C5 since 1997.

Lets touch on this again, perhaps, after C6 is released, then once again when the C6 Z06 arrives.

 

Fact: C4 chassis was not that great. In fact, it was not far superior to the C3 chassis, which traces its roots to 1963. My 1993 with the roof panel off felt similar to my 1966 convertible, in terms of chassis rigidity (yes, I know, it's the buttometer, but I don't have any chassis measuring tools, and I admit it.)

Fact: Hz, torsional rigidity, deflection, etc. numbers will be tweaked for best case by every manufacturer, and (in some cases) may not be the best indicator of reality. This is the reality of MARKETING.

Fact: most magazine writers are good for little more than regurgitating the pap that the marketers shove down their throats over a game of golf, a free trip to Germany, or after-dinner drinks. Many of them probably can't tell you the fundamental difference between a Corvette and a unit-bodied Accord.

Fact: C6 is not yet released. We don't know what chassis refinements they will be. Let's see what Chevy does. Hopefully, the additional horsepower will not be the only enhancement we see.

 

I just don't see GM going for a larger displacement SBC motor. I can't see them having a bored and stroked motor, even to 382 or 406 ci. Now power I can easily see th base C6 being 375-390hp and the Z06 450hp. I'd be really really suprised if GM doesn't do this and tried to go hp crazy. When they really havent made any mention of this desire nor any clues to its potential.

I think quite a few people here are getting HP crazy and the wish list keeps getting longer.

Like I said before a 450hp Z06 with a curb weight under 3000lb's will have the power to weight ratio to gun down a Viper. And be a more refined and better balanced sports car. While the reg C6 will share in the weight watchers program and probably drop 100-150 lb's. SO while the advertised HP numbers won't be as impressive as they could be the performance will be much improved!

 

With displacement on demand they have the ability to make an engine that is very large meet the emmisions and fuel economy ratings of a much smaller engine. I don't see a reason NOT to go big with this technology.

 

We shall see. I think you will find the LS2 being a larger displacement SBC.

I think you will find the Z06 will sport a larger cube motor, even still. We shall see.

Power to weight, right you are. Consider more power and less weight, there's a concept.

The lighter a car is, the easier, <read less expensive to execute impressively > it is to stop or get going.
Changing direction is also "easier".

 

I don't see C6 coming in under 400 hp, they wouldn't come in under a Mustang, top dog or not, no way.

 

they already do coem in under
350 base c5
390 cobra stang

 

Hello.....we're talking about C6. I and Chevrolet are well aware that C5 is below the Cobra, that's why I think the C6 will top it. The guy up in Traverse has already said 405 or so hp.