The space the coil over is empty as it sits right now.
I would think that the use of the leaf spring would have an effect on the suspension, as its a large spring that ties both the left and right sides of the car together, making it a "semi-independant" suspension.
Having a coil over set up could give the car much better handling, at least I would think so.

 

wonder if they could just split it in the middle so the two "halfs" are separate?

 

Magnetic shocks actually trickled up to the ZR1. Entry level Vette's have had it as an option for a least a couple of generations now. In fact Ferrari adopted the technology and I believe used it on the 599 to high acclaim.

 

While the leaf does span from left to right it is bolted twice once toward each side so that once side of the leaf spring behaves independently of the other. If it only bolted once in the center then you could get interference. The Corvette's transverse leaf spring is a great engineering solution. Smaller package, less weight, and it never wears out.

 

They've effectively done this by bolting each side to the outer edge of transaxle crossmember.

You can see it in this pic:


The horizontal grey bar beneath the sway bar is the leaf and you can see where it is bolted down.

Bit easier to see here:

 

Am I the only one who loves the look of the "Stingray" concept?

 

Wait, is there really any appreciable weight and exterior dimension difference between the 5.3, 6.2, and even the 7.0? I was under the impression that they basically are extremely close in overall exterior size and weight.

Unless there is some odd mpg target GM is trying to hit, or if there's a new "small small" block V8 hidden in the future, I don't see any reason to go down in displacement for the V8 pushrod.

 

That has been the case up to now. Could that change for Gen V?


A smaller engine would mean less torque. Even if the engine weighs the same, less torque could mean lighter components elsewhere.

For the last 30 years, the Corvette has come standard with GM's largest passenger car engine. But in the 60s and early 70s, you could get it with a small block or a big block. The small blocks handled better.

 

FWIW, Ferrari's 4.5L direct-injected V8 makes 562hp and 398 lb-ft torque.

If GM is looking at making a 5.3L direct-injected V8, I'm not worried about it having enough torque to make me happy.

 

That's great if it means the final power-to-weight ratio is better than it is now. But if it is nothing more than a better HP/Liter number (something that little high revving 4 cylinders like to brag about.....and even some in the Ford camp when the 4.6 4V came out), then no thanks - it becomes a marketing gimmick. Example...

4.6 4V dude: My DOHC V8 makes more HP per liter than your big ole pushrod V8.

5.7 LS1 dude: Ok, but my big ole pushrod V8 makes more power, is more efficient, is smaller, and is lighter than your DOHC V8, and thus my car is faster, easier to modify, and gets better gas mileage.

4.6 4V dude: So what? My DOHC V8 still makes more HP per liter. Neener neener neener.

Please.....no.

 

God, I hope not. That would just be ugly.

 

You're out of your mind if you think a rear window split will make it to production.

 

Personally, I would like to see about an inch cut off the LSx block's deck. Keep the big bore sizes from the 6.2 and 7L engines, but cut the stroke down. To compensate for the reduced displacement, the combustion chamber size of the heads needs to be reduced. At the same time you get much shorter pushrods and connecting rods. The external width and height of the engine is reduced. Heck, the total weight of the engine would get reduced also. And finally, the intake ports are lengthened and/or the plenum volume gets increased.

All this combined should make a very balanced engine that is capable of turning much more RPM, while still producing very good power numbers.

Destroke and LS7 by 1" and you end up with a 5.3L 500++hp engine that should get an 8000RPM redline. I would bet, combined with VVT and DI, this engine could easily eclipse the 556hp of the LSA while having at least as much torque as the LS3.

With the external dimensions reduced it would be easier to package. The hood could be lower and the frame and could be brought in a bit more.

 

its still one piece tho. i'm thinking two separate pieces might be better.

 

GM Powertrain and Team Corvette just might be some of the best people on the world to be left with that statement. As the "SBC" evolves, it has become more and more rev-happy, but it has never suffered from a lack of torque. DI also improves torque output at lower RPM (as will the variable cam) so I'm not worried that the power:weight and torque:weight numbers will be the same or better.

MPG "targets" have been part of the equation for years now. The weight the mpg carries through the decision process is constantly increasing though.

The C7 development started before the first C6 was in dealer showrooms. It was under scrutiny once the economy tanked last year, but thats it. The other thing to realize is that (honestly) the C6 platform is *extremely* effective and quite cheap. What are the biggest shortcomings of the C6? Handling? Acceleration? Braking? MPG? Styling? Nope. Ride Quality driving around town and the quality of the interior.

But this is team corvette and they wouldnt settle for just improving the interior and ride quality. We're expecting improvements across the board.