5thgen69camaro

That very well could be the one I am thinking of. The date of the article is 2008 so the date is around what I was thinking and the exhaust cam is higher which fits. Nice job finding it.


XV8 is a prototype or concept?

Think this may be something on Gen V or is this already implemented?

What goodies are in XV8 or other sources that have not been implemented in production that might become part of Gen V

30thZ286speed

I don't mind if LT1 returns, but if it does return I think it should have 5.7 liters of displacement like it traditionally has in the past.

I really wish the Gen. V V8s will be dresser looking, that won't require a complete plastic engine cover to hide wires, hoses.

jg95z28

LS8 already exists for marine applications, and I believe LS5 may have even been a prototype that was shelved.

LS10 and LS11 simply won't work as it needs to be three and only three characters. (Remember, these are actually RPOs).

Since this is a next generation small block, it really shouldn't be "LS" anyway, as GM will want to distinguish between the new and the most recent generations. Going back to "LT" actually has precedence.

Two character designations don't work either (DZ - '69 Z/28, MO - '67 & 68 Z/28, and MP - '67 Z/28 w/ A.I.R.); further more, as the Gen V smallblock V8 will more than likely first appear in the Corvette, they really shouldn't be using Camaro nomenclature anyway.

Personally I think LT and LS are too confusing to laymen as they are also Chevrolet trim level designations. What about "LD*" (D for direct injected); or "LV*"? (V for Gen "V").

Perhaps "LT" isn't that bad.

HAZ-Matt

The XV8 was more like a concept. It was from way back in '01. It had twin in block cams (yet to be seen), cam phasing (which we have now), Displacement on Demand (renamed to AFM), direct injection (not out quite yet), three valve heads (not in production), twin oil pumps (nope), and integrated air compressor (used for the DI scheme), and an active intake manifold (not on small blocks yet). It also was only 4.3L and had a 75* bank angle. It was also supposedly made to show the potential of a small V8 in platforms that were supposedly limited to V6s.

It wasn't really a prototype for small blocks, but it was somewhat of a testbed for a bunch of technologies that showed up or have been rumored to be on the roadmap. Something of a technology demonstrator.

Chevycobb

It had been mentioned a few times now. Corvette racing has been working close with chevrolet (like with the c6), and to stay competitive they want need DI in their (likely) 5.5L which is the max displacement they are allowed. If DI is not used on the production model, then they can not use it in racing.
They are also working with them on design again, so they have probably seen the real drawings and such. They didn't confirm when asked about that, but they didn't deny it either

Z28x

The last LT1 came out in 1997 and a lot of people are still running and modifing those cars. It just seems like it would get too confusing. I have no problem useing "LT", but why not start out with LT2? Other combos would work fine IMO, LF1, LR1 for example.

99SilverSS

I think LT1 should be laid to rest. If GM wants to go back to LT designations for the Gen V then do another number. But not LT4 or LT5.
Personally I'd go with a new designation LS.. LT.. how about LU1?
Or since this is the Gen V small block go LV1 or LV5. (Not sure if those are used already of if they can be used for engines)

GM has to realize that the rise of message boards like this one the RPO engine codes have almost become part of their marketing. This is something unique to GM. The reason we know about LT-1, LT1 or LS1 and not just another smal black Chevy is becuase they have used the codes to identify the engines to the consumer.

This would be a great opportunity to put some extra thought into the branding of the whole new GM small block V8 that will power Chevy performance cars into the next 100 years.

STOCK1SC

When I mentioned DI and the LS3 in a thread a few days ago everyone was telling me it wasn't going to happen. Hopefully for GM they do it pretty soon.

5thgen69camaro

Very cool! Good info.

Do you think Twin in block cams would be a benefit or just more complexity? Might there be a reason we havent seen it in the LS series?

Awesome!

Z28x

The LS3 (a gen IV V8) isn't going to get DI. The next generation of V8s will though (Gen V).

HAZ-Matt

I don't really know the answer. The biggest benefit is that you could independently change the intake valve timing relative to exhaust valve timing, which is what they did on the concept. But since the intake valve closing point is the single most important event anyway perhaps they felt it didn't make sense from a cost benefit point to bring it into production.

I don't know if the cam-in-cam solution that Viper uses would be any better from cost or complexity standpoint.

Geoff Chadwick

There were a laundry list of issues. First is it would complicate the engine and add more reciprocating mass for only very minimal gains. I've asked whether the losses would fully offset the gains and never got a clear answer.

Also, you'd end up with different valvetrain geometry between your intake and exhaust cams, which for a production engine can be a bit tricky to work with. Not to mention the fact that you'd have things like different rockers for intake versus exhaust, lifters, pushrods, etc. It'd mean a lot of extra work from parts bins to mechanic training to warranties etc. Not a lot of gain for a LOT of work.

Not to mention it'd make the engine physically taller by several inches - in a realm where team corvette is pushing for every millimeter they can get in reducing the height of the hood and lowering the engine it's a major no-no. The small block is very small and for packaging purposes across the board it needs to stay that way.

Just like 3 valves/cylinder. Has potential, but do the gains outweigh the increased losses? Everything I ever heard was that it just wasn't worth it.

STOCK1SC

Well someone was saying a motor of 6.2 liters was getting DI so I assumed the LS3. I'm all for improving the GM powertrain offerings.

Z28x

I can't give you any links because I'd have to search forever to find the sources, but I can summarize what I know for you. Displacements for the Gen V will be 5.3L and 6.2L, the 5.5L version will be for racing only. All will have direct injection. Personally I don't know why they didn't just make the 5.5L the base truck engine. 5.3L is for trucks only, 6.2L will be the base Corvette engine and I've heard it will be the engine for the ATS-V. The 6.2L should be good for over 475HP.

No info yet on what engines would be used for the next Z06 and ZR1. Maybe they will drop the Z06 since the base Vette is so close to 500HP. Now that the GT500 is 650HP I would think that Chevy would try for 700HP in the Corvette ZR1.

Chevycobb

I really wish I got the first part of this answer that Doug Fehan(Program Manager for Corvette Racing) was giving, but he was talking about DI being used in their program and how they do need it and are pushing for it to be done on the C7. I didn't start recording until he was talking about Tadge Juechter(Corvette's chief engineer).
Sorry about the background sounds.
[autostream]http://autostream.com/camaroz28/?page_type=firebirdplayerthumbnail&framepage=2071& transactionid=1321455391-712042351&posted_by=Chevycobb_www.camaroz28.com&yo utube_video_id=7_Hg-z9ZzF8[/autostream]