dwightlooi

So both camps of oracles -- those predicting that it'll be called a Z06 and those predicting that it'll be called a Z07 -- are correct. Greater than 625 bhp and greater than 635 lb-ft are certainly adequate. One thing that is VERY impressive is that the LT4 makes essentially the same output as the LS9, using a 1.7L blower. For reference, the LS9 is a 2.3L and the detned LSA is a 1.9L. That's a 26% reduction in positive displacement which means that it either runs with 2~3 psi less boost or it runs the blower at a higher speed. The latter is highly unlikely since the LS9 is already at 10.5 psi and external compression blowers like the Eaton TVS gets dramatically inefficient if you ramp it beyond that. The former means that the 6.2 LT4 is getting the same output with less mass flow, less supercharger drag and probably more compression. More practically, it's probably a little of both. The LT4 probably runs at 7~8 psi but with the twisted rotors spinning at speeds close to the LS9 spins it's TVS R2300. If so look for a 1~3 mpg improvement over the LS9. I predict at least15/23 mpg and perhaps as much as 16/25 mpg -- which will be very good for a 600+ hp car. $75~80K isn't bad either if the assertion than the those with a budget for a C6 Z06 can also afford the 7th Gen model. Regardless, the more interesting car from a revenue as well as brand creds standpoint will actually be the Caddy which presumably will feature the same motor. Definitely looking forward to the LT4 powered CTS-V.

What I meant was that people don't buy engines or pay a lot for cars because it has titanium valves. They buy engines and pay for cars because it delivers performance, or looks, or any variety of things, but not how you get to those things. The LS7 is not going to be more desirable than an LSA or LS9 because it has titanium parts. For the most parts, the 580 bhp LSA will the more desirable engine to the high performance Camaro crowd than a 505 bhp LS7 -- titanium or no titanium.

I understand that. But why is the ZL-1 not the 75K car with carbon panels and brakes, whereas the Z/28 is simply the LS7 powered version of the SS at 45~50? Why all the expensive bits on the car with the second tier engine? Regardless of how you cut it, breaking the positioning of the Camaro as a cheaper, less expensive sports coupe than a Corvette, then making the most expensive version of the Camaro have 75 hp less than the 2nd tier car selling for $25K less simply doesn't compute for people open to considering a Camaro, a Corvette or both. LS7 is about ~$3,500 more than a LSA. LSA does not feature titanium heads, dry sump, and other racing related hardware that LS7 or LS9 has. So it is not a second tier engine to a LSA when it comes to the guts. With the above logic (underlined), we can say that ZL1 is simply a supercharger bolted on SS' LS3. And there is no engineering effort because third parties have proved that zeta and LS are capable of handling horsepowers with that bolt on FI. So the basic problem is that it is a "Camaro" and it costs more than a more powerful engine car. Let us compare with the ZL1 shall we? Engine price difference ~$3,500, carbon ceramic brakes ~$10,000, carbon fiber and other modifications ~$5,000. Total ~$18,500. Which is a fair delta from the starting price of $56,000 of the ZL1. And there is going to be an M2, and yet the M235i racing car is going to cost more than a M4 with about 100 hp less. For cars with big engines, there is no need for FI in racing as one less part to worry about for breaking down. Your many a posts have supported that argument to go bigger for fuel economy and horsepower instead of adding a FI. The guts doesn't matter, output does. BTW, the LS7 does not have titanium heads. Nothing does really. The LS7 has titanium intake valves. In the Z06 it also has titanium-alloy exhaust mufflers.

I understand that. But why is the ZL-1 not the 75K car with carbon panels and brakes, whereas the Z/28 is simply the LS7 powered version of the SS at 45~50? Why all the expensive bits on the car with the second tier engine? Regardless of how you cut it, breaking the positioning of the Camaro as a cheaper, less expensive sports coupe than a Corvette, then making the most expensive version of the Camaro have 75 hp less than the 2nd tier car selling for $25K less simply doesn't compute for people open to considering a Camaro, a Corvette or both.

This just doesn't make sense... not because the price isn't justified based on the components that went into the car, but the pricing for the entire package doesn't make sense. (1) The Zeta Camaro is never going to be as light as a Corvette Z06 even when you take 300 lbs out of it. For essentially the same price as a Z06 you are getting a heavier car with less performance -- it just took a lot more expensive parts to get there. (2) The Z/28 label does not traditionally have association to ultra exotics. If anything the ZL-1 should been the car getting the carbon panels, carbon brakes and the $75,000K price tag. At least the it'll fit better with its contemporaries with the supercharged LS engine -- namely the ZR1 and the CTS-V. (3) The Z/28 could have been a LS7 powered version of the SS otherwise comparably equipped and slotted in at about 45~50K between the 37K SS and the 55K ZL-1 (or a 75K ZL-1 with all the carbon stuff). This will make it about about 20K less than a Z06 -- a lighter, faster, car with a Corvette nameplate.

No, every minor should be implanted with a GPS transponder. This allows all vehicles to detect and plot on a screen all minors within 50 ft. It also allows parents to track them on their iPhone and makes Amber Alerts obsolete. Speaking of nanny tech, why don't cars have speed limiters which prevent acceleration past the posted speed limit on any stretch of road? Or, have a system that automatically reports to the DMV the date, time, location and duration at speed anytime a car exceeds 75 mph? Unless the location happens to be a race track you get a ticket in the mail. Tempering with the reporting system or disconnecting it will automatically cause the police to show up at your door and take you to a re-education camp for a live in safety ideology program. You can decline of course, but you'll have to give up your license, give up your right to vote and pay an additional 25% of your income in taxes. The safest society is one where everyone is on probation from cradle to grave!

It is not the government's business to decide what feature(s) a car should have or which consumers should pay for, just like it shouldn't be their business to decide what is covered in your health plan. Think about it for a second, mandated or not a camera and the requisite LCD display to convey the video stream is not free. This means that it may displace other technologies which the consumer may prefer. Let's say it costs $200 to have a backup camera. At the same MSRP for the car it may mean that the manufacturer is forced to drop the common (ultrasonic) proximity sensors. So what if the consumer prefer that over a camera? He no longer have that choice. Similarly, just because something makes driving safer doesn't mean it is the government's job to mandate it. How about mandating that Convertible drivers wear a helmet? Or, that all Motorcycles be sold with a helmet? How about a Halon fire suppression system in every engine bay or self-sealing fuel tanks? Government should stick to national defense, basic infrastructure and law enforcement; stop trying to be a nanny!

Here's the problem with GM... While Caddy has seen a slew of new and attractive products. Chevy has had no hit since the Cruze. The Imp is not going to drive volume. GMT K2 seems luke warm. That's where all the volumes are.

Well, GM, took the long hard road of developing their own. Bankruptcy or not, they could have had an 8-speed in service four years ago if they have simply sourced an Aisin or ZF box. That is what they ended up doing anyway to get the 8-speed into the CTS. But, had they done that across the board the GM transmission group would not have a next generation product and would be redundant in a few years.

Well, given that the "V-Sport" are retailing at previous gen CTS-V prices. The "new" CTS-V and ATS-V are basically your Black Series. There'll be plenty of power to go around with about 460 bhp from the LT1 and over 600 bhp from the LT4 engines. The key is getting the rest of the package right. It took AMG three generations to figure the formula out. The C43, C32 and C55 cars are... well... a C-class with a lot of motor and little else. It isn't until the W204 the they got their act together.

The 2011s are going for about 40K or about 50% their as new value. I guess if you plot depreciation as a straight line you end up with 20~25% after 5~6 years. But, yes, sign me up for a 2011 XJ for $19K in 2015~2016. Make it a long wheelbase 470 bhp V8 Supercharged car too! The new Jaguars are very nicely designed and made though. So, maybe they'll do better than Jaguars historically does.

It is not that customers are "slow" to catch on to used electric vehicles. It is simply that consumers are not complete idiots! Cars like the LEAF would not have sold new to begin with if not for about $12,000 in good taxpayer money going into federal and state subsidies. Without that, a $36,000 LEAF simply makes zero economic sense since you cannot burn $12,000 in gasoline over the life of the battery! Let me put that into perspective... $12,000 in gas @ $3.50 a gallon for Californian ripoff 87 Octane is 3429 gallons of fuel. That, incidentally, will cover 120,000 miles in a conventionally powered small car with an average of 35 mpg. A LEAF is somewhere in the low to mid-20K range new when subsidized by green states and the federal government, who are all too ready to transfer wealth from hardworking taxpayers to tree hugging global warming Coolaid drinkers they favor. At about 5 years, you are looking at about half the new purchase price (which is typical of any car) minus the $8~10K battery replacement which is due soon. $23,000 x 50% - $9,000 = $2,500. Now, granted that the battery is probably usable with less and less range for several years more -- perhaps as much as another five if you don't mind greatly compromised range. But who wants that in a car that is already annoyingly short legged at 38~72 miles range (typical vs official)? I think consumers will be generous to pay 18% of it's as new price for a 5 year old LEAF or similar electric!

LOL... let me put it simply... (1) Two smaller turbos do not spool faster because, while each has lower inertial, each is also getting half the exhaust flow (hence energy) with which to operate the turbine. To make matters worse, smaller centrifugal turbines and compressors are less efficient than bigger ones. (2) GM didn't put two turbos on the LF3 for fun or for bragging rights. They put two on there because they don't really have a better choice. The other alternatives would have been to totally redo the architecture of the LFX engine such that the exhaust exits in the valley of the engine, or ineffciently pipe exhaust from one side to the engine all the way to other. The former is financially uneconomical, the latter is worse in performance and response than using two turbos (they tried it actually with the 3.0 Turbo used in the SRX 2.8L Turbo (LP9). (3) If you want the most efficient turbocharged engine, you'll want to get the exhaust out into the same space and you'll want to use a single turbine that is fed all of it. A good example of that is the N55 3.0L engine in the 535i. It gets to 330 lb-ft from 1200~5000 rpm. If they had gone with two tiny turbos the kind of turbines available would have turbine efficiencies in the mid-60% range and compressor efficiencies in the low 70% range -- about 5~7% and 7~9% behind the larger twin scroll unit. If they had done that, they could never have achieved that kind of performance,

Well, let me give you a real world example... The CTS V-Sport engine (LF3) makes 420 hp @ 5750 rpm and 430 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm. It does so with two turbos and at less boost than the 272 hp / 260 lb-ft ATS 2.0T engine (LTG). Despite the lower boost, lower specific torque (120 lb-ft / liter vs 130 lb-ft / liter) and lower specific output (117 hp/liter vs 136bhp/L), the LF3's peak torque arrives 1800 rpm later. Look at the official power/torque graphs for yourself. I think it is apparent to anyone that boost (hence torque) rises faster (LTG) 2.0T and the torque plateau is wider. Does that show that two smaller turbos spool faster or does it show the reverse?

If you can breathe naturally aspirated air better, you can breathe compressed air better. DOHC 4-valve engines will make more power with a surpercharger or turbocharger than a pushrod 2-valve engine. That is a given. The question becomes more complicated if it pertains to whether the increase in output from DOHC 4-valve heads in forced induction application is worth the extra parasitic drag from the valve train, or the extra bulk & weight from the fat heads. Another thing that one needs to ponder is fuel economy. At cruise, the extra valvetrain drag, engine mass and reduced compression (if force induced) are all there, but the increase in output is not. At cruise you are operating largely off boost and you are choked by the throttle body not how well or how poorly the heads flow air. At cruise, the more cams, the more valves you have the worse your fuel economy becomes (for any given displacement). But then, again, in markets where you pay a displacement tax, legislators may have forced you to choose between paying the government or paying for fuel! It may surprise many, but DOHC designs are actually better for diesels than they are for gasoline engines. The reason is simple. Diesel don't have a throttle body! At cruise, it runs with a wide open throttle (actually there's no throttle plate period) just like it does with the pedal to the floor. So while gasoline engine only benefit from four valve heads and it's freer flowing aspiration when you floor the pedal, diesels benefit from it all the time! Still, the extra drag, bulk and mass stays.

So then TT would be the Trademark of Cadillac and leave the same 3.2 T for chevy? You miss the point of the TT set up. They use two turbo's not for power but more so for less lag as the two turbo's will hold the volume of one large turbo but they will spool much faster for much less lag. The TT has none of that GN lag you used to get and with the VVT adjusting for low end torque what lag you have is not any where as detectable. A single turbo would not move much volume and would have a lot more lag. If you want a detuned Caddy engine you put two smaller Turbo's on it or you just hold down on the boost. In the Cadillac you can afford to make the engine Premium required and run a 3 bar T Map but on the Chevy GM likes to run a Premium Recommended rating that give the owner the option but a little less power. That is one of the widely propagated myths... Vee engines do not employ twin turbos for less lag. In fact, using one turbo would have produced less lag. One larger turbine with twice the flow capacity being fed twice the exhaust volume would spool at the same rate if all else are equal. In reality though, a larger centrifugal turbine or impeller is ALWAYS more efficient than a smaller one. This is immediately apparent when you look at the turbine and compressor graphs of smaller turbos vs larger ones. Hence, a single turbo engine will have better response and better efficiency. Vee type engines use two turbos in a parallel arrangement because it is highly inconvenient and lossy to pipe exhaust from one bank of cylinders to the other. They accept the slight loss in efficiency and response from the twin turbos as necessary compromise. The only alternative is to have reverse flow heads which exhausts into the Vee instead of the flanks. The problem with that is that most turbo engines are derivatives of naturally aspirated counterparts which are not reverse flow. Also, with a reverse flow engine the turbo will be right on top of the engine under the hood. This is sometimes deemed unsightly and has the very practical need for extra shielding to prevent the hood paint from cooking, In 60 degree Vees, the turbo also necessarily ride very high requiring a hood bulge in most cars. Still, certain engines which are designed from the ground up to be turbocharged powerplants (only) have reverse flow heads. BMW's 4.4 Bi-turbo V8 and the GM Duramax 6.6 Diesel comes to mind. The only time two turbos reduce lag is when they are in a sequential arrangement with two unequal size turbos. All the exhasut goes to one initially allowing to spool faster, once the capacity of that turbo is maxed out, the wastegate opens to dump all the flow to a second larger turbo which supports the engine to higher rpms and maximum power. This however is never the case in convential V6 or V8 turbos. You'll need a reverse flow Vee engine or an inline engine to implement a sequential turbo setup, because you need all the exhaust to converge on one turbo first. Even then, it is highly debatable whether the complication and costs are worth it. BMW's Inline-6 3.0 turbo used to use a sequential twin turbo setup, but they went to a single dual scroll turbo and ended up with better response and (more importantly) better emissions. The only other sequential twins in historically had been the Toyota Supra 3rd Gen (2JZ-GTE engine) and the FD RX-7.

With the 6th Generation (TVS 4-lobe) Eaton Superchargers, the rough rule of thumb is 0.1hp per horsepower. In otherwords, it takes about 0.1 horsepower in parasitic drag to drive the blower for every horsepower the engine puts out. We are assuming modest boost levels of about 9~11 psi. A 3.2L engine will probably run the 0.9L or 1.05L blower. A 350 hp 3.2L application will actually burn enough fuel to make about 385 hp, 35 of which is consumed by the supercharger itself. The upsides to supercharging are that:- There is no turbolag at all and the throttle gives the driver a direct connection to the output of the engine, which is preferred in spirited driving. Supercharged engines typically feel and drive like a larger displacement normally aspirated engine. The Supercharger is actually better for emissions because there is no turbine between the exhaust ports and the catalyst to soak up heat and slow catalyst light off in cold starts The supercharger typically packages neatly into the engine Vee and costs less, whereas a turbo setup will typically require two turbos and a bunch of piping to take air to them, from them to IC(s) and finally to the engine. Superchargers also have better reliability and/or require less hardware to make reliable because they do not subject oil to thousands of degrees of heat in the turbine bearing section -- heat which in modern applications typically calls for an electric water circulation pump to keep the turbo cooled after the engine shuts off, mandate more frequent oil change intervals or high temperature synthetics #3 is predorminantly why Audi and Jaguar went with the TVS R1050 blower on the 3.0V6 even while they prefer turbochargers for their inline-4 applications. Onw problem with GM's HF V6es is that they are 60 degree engines. In general, a supercharger is easier to package with a 90 degree engine with a wider valley for the blower to fit in. With 60 deg engines the blower sits high

I dunno, going to 601 horses and 413 lb-ft of torque, are pretty big jumps over the Gallardo’s 552 ponies and 398 lb-ft. 8.9% in power & 3.8% in torque respectively. As I said, very decent, but not enough to really register a big change in performance of the vehicle. Also, numbers that are very easily attained with say a much cheaper powerplant like the upcoming (blown) LT4 Pushrod V8 so nothing particularly exclusive to the "supercar club".

Actually, the weights are about the same, The F150 Crew Cab Medium Bed 4x4 5.0V8 has a curb weight of 5461 lbs. The GMC Sierra 1500 Denali 6.2 V8 is 5370 lbs. That's a 1.7% difference. It's like the difference between a 3500 lbs car and a 3559 lbs car. Essentially negligible -- in the sense that it isn't enough to register as 1 mpg on the any test cycle. The Ford Ecoboost V6 is DI as well and it was in the comparison.

The exterior is pretty enough, and the performance is at least adequate if not a significant upgrade from the Gallardo. The Avantador inspired interior though is a joke. It's a cross between 1980s boom-box fascia and "F-117" gimmickry, and just cheapens the the car.

Good for them... better than using souped up Ford Duratecs or perhaps the Coyote V8...

Probably about 1 no more than 2, remember that on the LT1 in non-AFM mode posts 28 mpg Hwy whereas with it on it posts 30 mpg hwy. On the Camaro it the L99 was worth 1 mpg on the freeway. City numbers were unchanged. With a heavier vehicle with lower fuel economy the effect will be less not more. This is so because in a heavier vehicle, the engine will be operating at higher loads without AFM anyway and the opportunities to use AFM will be less frequent hence the difference will be less pronounced. Also, the same percentage gain in fuel economy works out to less mpg(s).

Yes, but if you look at the 2012 Sierra 4WD with the port injected 5.3L it's 15 (city) / 22 (hwy) mpg...

Uh... just look at the 5.3 Ecotec V8. It's not 5.0, but it;s close. You pick up 2 mpg on both city and highway cycles. GMC Sierra Denali 4WD -- 6.2L Pushrod-16v V8 -- 420 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 460 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm -- 14 mpg (City) / 20 mpg (Hwy) GMC Sierra Denali 4WD -- 5.3L Pushrod-16v V8 -- 355 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 383 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm -- 16 mpg (City) / 22 mpg (Hwy) There is also a negligible difference between the truck tuned Ford 5.0 (360 bhp / 380 lb-ft) and the GM 5.3. Howeverm the GM engine wins the fuel economy battle with 2 mpg (city) / 3 mpg (hwy). GMC Sierra Denali 4WD -- 5.3L Pushrod-16v V8 -- 355 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 383 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm -- 16 mpg (City) / 22 mpg (Hwy) Ford F150 4WD -- 5.0L DOHC-32v V8 -- 360 bhp @ 5500 rpm / 380 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm -- 14 mpg (City) / 19 mpg (Hwy) BTW, here's the Toyota Tundra with it's 5.7L DOHC V8 for comparison; it's worse than all of the above. Heck, even the 4.6L DOHC is worse than all of the above... Toyota Tundra 4WD -- 5.7L DOHC-32v V8 -- 381 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 401 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm -- 13 mpg (City) / 17 mpg (Hwy) Toyota Tundra 4WD -- 4.6L DOHC-32v V8 -- 310 bhp @ 5600 rpm / 327 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm -- 14 mpg (City) / 19 mpg (Hwy)

Well... OK... how about this... and here GM is on the losing side so maybe it'll help you dispel any notion of a bias. Ford Focus 2.0 -- 2.0L DOHC-16v DI I-4 -- 160 bhp @ 6500 rpm / 146 lb-ft @ 4450 rpm -- 6-speed Automatic -- 27 mpg (city) / 38 mog (hwy) Chevy Cruze 1.4T -- 1.4L DOHC-16V Turbo I-4 -- 138 bhp @ 4900 rpm / 148 lb-ft @ 1850 rpm -- 6-speed Automatic -- 26 mpg (city) / 38 mpg (hwy) We are comparing two DOHC engines because there is no contemporary Pushrod I-4 to compare with. But as you can see, going to 1.4L while adding specific output with a turbo did not result in better fuel economy. Highway numbers are the same, city numbers are actually worse. And, I am using the numbers for the traditional 6-spd Auto Focus as opposed to the dual clutch Focus just to keep it fair. BTW, you don't really need a 2.5L pushrod to be in the mix here. There is currently not that big a gap between the specific output of a pushrod engine and the typical DOHC mills you find in mainstream cars. At the same specific output as the LT1 V8 (74.65 bhp/L) a 2.0L pushrod V4 or I4 will be 149 hp and smack in the middle of this contest. Honestly, though, for an Inline-4 you are better off with an SOHC 8v design rather than a pushrod. The main reason for a pushrod design is so that both banks in a Vee configuration can share one camshaft. If you are an inline engine an SOHC configuration will allow you to eliminate the actuated mass from the pushrods, rev a little higher and/or use slightly lower tension valve springs.