For all of us CORVETTE lovers out there

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Wasn't there a ZR-1 in the 90's that was a dohc?

Yup. Engine was built by Mercury Marine. Made something like 360HP?

 

[dailydriver]

^^^It probably fit under the C4's hood/fender line OK because it was a good deal higher than either the following C5's, or current C6's. It also was a fold-forward type 'clamshell' front clip (vs. an actual hood on the latter models) which also helped with width, AND height clearance. BTW; the last iteration of this LT5 powerplant was rated at 405 HP from the factory.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

^^^It probably fit under the C4's hood/fender line OK because it was a good deal higher than either the following C5's, or current C6's. It also was a fold-forward type 'clamshell' front clip (vs. an actual hood on the latter models) which also helped with width, AND height clearance. BTW; the last iteration of this powerplant was rated at 405 HP from the factory.

Hey, and it wasn't 6.2L either LMAO!

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

Maybe once all of us late '60s big block torque loving 'boomers' are dead and gone, GM will build that DOHC/4+ valve per cylinder, mid engined (to fit the former with NO problems), AWD ride that all of the gamer/ricer generation desires and needs so badly. The problem is that most of them are sooooo brainwashed into ONLY buying foreign nameplates anyway (JDM, YO!!), so why bother?

*sigh* How old are you? I'm 38. I grew up in NYC. I lusted after Chevelle's, Firebirds, Buick GSX's, and owned an '81 Pontiac Grand Prix when I was 19. Loved that car. When i was 22, I wound up buying an '82 Chevy Monte Carlo, and wound up with the biggest pile of animal feces of a car, it made me quite sad, and poor, before I finally just junked it to get on with my life. Bought a '92 Buick Park Avenue Ultra with the supercharged V-6, and loved the engine, liked the car, but it fell apart all around me. Then I switched over to Nissan Altima, and aside from one front rotor like liked to warp every 15k miles, it was problem free. Bought a '98 Porsche Boxster, and decided I really like small, light weight sports cars. Traded both of those in for the '11 Mazda RX-8 I currently have, because it blends the best of both the Altima and the Porsche, with the fuel economy of a Maserati Gran Turismo, but without the power. Love this car. So, where's my light weight, medium powered, high quality American SPORTS <------ car so I can buy it? I don't want a 4k pound muscle car. It needs to be smaller and lighter than the Corvette, and doesn't need to have 400+ hp to get me to buy it. Also, notice that the Altima, Porsche, and Mazda aren't AWD Turbo cars, YO!!! As for a mid engined Corvette, I remember the CERV III prototype back in the day. Didn't one prototype have the Turbo V-6 either from the GNX, or the GMC trucks, and AWD? Then someone ripped out the turbo 6, and dumped in the DOHC ZR-1 engine in it, because they didn't want fat bald guys to kill them at the auto show for not having a V-8 in a Corvette prototype. They canned the mid engined car, because they screwed up bad enough on the Pontiac Fiero design, and went back to a normal front engine rear drive design to make their fanbase happy. Funny though, I would think in todays age of mid and rear mounted cars, GM could make something that could attract people like me. They just don't want to. BC.

 

[dailydriver]

^^^^ **DOUBLE SIGH** Not that it's ANY of your business, but I'm near 60. Just how "light" does something have to be to satisfy your (and the other import ONLY "fanbases'") needs?? NO ONE is going to build a sub-2000 lb. car which will satisfy the CURRENT NHTSA/DOT requirements without using 100% aerospace/exotic materials, for less than $200K minimum. (Save for your beloved current Toy-engined Elise, which seems to be able to do it for ~$50k-$75K, IF one can fit into it.) BTW; I may not have all of my hair, but I am FAR FROM "fat", and NO gold chains either. Unless you are a Cat. 2 or better competitive cyclist, or top triathlete, I am probably not any less 'fit' than you are currently. Old(er) certainly does NOT have to = fat.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Wasn't there a ZR-1 in the 90's that was a dohc?

Yup. Engine was built by Mercury Marine. Made something like 360HP?

1990-1992 LT5 engine in the ZR1 made 375hp. 1993-1995 made 405hp.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Wasn't there a ZR-1 in the 90's that was a dohc?

Yup. Engine was built by Mercury Marine. Made something like 360HP?

1990-1992 LT5 engine in the ZR1 made 375hp. 1993-1995 made 405hp.

375! That was the number I was thinking of. Didn't realize they increased the output later on. Thanks

 

[Mr Nice]

Old, bald, gold chain wearing fat guys accurately describes the Corvette crowd.

 

[ARB1977]

Too much money for my blood.

 

[whip]

GM just can't win. If they come out with new technology, they're criticized for making frivolous tech that no body wants. If they continue to develop an older technology, people complain that they're behind the times. The Vette is an incredible car for the money. It performs on the level of Porsche and Ferrari, cars that cost a lot more. The new Viper is going to start at $100,000, and go up.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Originally Posted By: GMBoy

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Wasn't there a ZR-1 in the 90's that was a dohc?

Yup. Engine was built by Mercury Marine. Made something like 360HP?

1990-1992 LT5 engine in the ZR1 made 375hp. 1993-1995 made 405hp.

375! That was the number I was thinking of. Didn't realize they increased the output later on. Thanks

Just so you don't think it was the 4 valve motor. The 405 hp is a two valver.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette

Old, bald, gold chain wearing fat guys accurately describes the Corvette crowd.

Agreed that the majority of the owners are indeed older, but many of us who are neither fat or bald love the car, too! Seriously, as a former owner of a few Vettes I definitely enjoyed them. They have character and are cheap to repair and pretty reliable track toys. Very simple mods made them quite competitive on the road course and the strip, even against cars costing twice as much!

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette

Old, bald, gold chain wearing fat guys accurately describes the Corvette crowd.

I am not in that category and I don't see that as being true. I see young and old, fit and fat, male and females dring vettes.... However it is a common thought amongst many jealous people. Many makes/models have negative stereo types attached to them. The Harley riders, crotch rocket riders, the Prius drivers, BMW people, SUV drivers and so on...it is really just haters hating.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

Just so you don't think it was the 4 valve motor. The 405 hp is a two valver.

The ZR1 engine sported an all aluminum block and cylinder heads, DOHC (Dual Overhead Cams), and 32 valves (4 per cylinder)....all versions (375hp 1990-92 and 405hp 1993-1995).

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Wasn't there a ZR-1 in the 90's that was a dohc?

Yup. Engine was built by Mercury Marine. Made something like 360HP?

Initially 385, then 405. Oops, 375 was right for the initial output of the LT5. It was the LS6 in the C5 Z06 that started at 385, then went to 405. How about that, you pushrod haters! The OHV 5.7L LS6 made the same power as the DOHC 5.7L LT5, and was smaller, lighter, got better fuel economy, and was much more durable and easy to work on.

 

[Klutch9]

So, 72.6 hp/liter is "technologically advanced?" The GDI and VVT, along with cylinder deactivation is cool, but those power numbers really should be better IMO. I am curious, however, to see a cutaway of an OHV engine with GDI

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette

Old, bald, gold chain wearing fat guys accurately describes the Corvette crowd.

I am old and bald, but don't own any gold chains. When I bought the car in 1991, I was young and balding, and was looking for a good-handling, reliable, cost-effective track car. Over the years, the 'vette has passed many more Porsche's and BMW's than have passed it. When I started tracking the car in '91, there were not many Corvette's showing up at track days, and the predominant numbers were with Porsche. Now, Corvette's are the predominant car, and Porsche's are #2 with the track-day crowd. Mustang's are just dead meat.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Klutch9

So, 72.6 hp/liter is "technologically advanced?" The GDI and VVT, along with cylinder deactivation is cool, but those power numbers really should be better IMO. I am curious, however, to see a cutaway of an OHV engine with GDI

Yes, 72.6 HP/liter is technologically advanced, when it is being achieved with the relatively mild cam timings that GM is using in the engine. There is a lot more to engine technology than just specific output. NASCAR Nextel-Cup race engines make ~140 HP/liter, and they are not as technologically advanced as the new LT1.

 

[Trav]

Quote:

So, 72.6 hp/liter is "technologically advanced?"

That sounds low. 20 yrs ago a 1 ltr 998cc bike engine made 145HP right out of the box. That's double. This engine sounds like its being held back deliberately.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Trav

Quote:

So, 72.6 hp/liter is "technologically advanced?"

That sounds low. 20 yrs ago a 1 ltr 998cc bike engine made 145HP right out of the box. That's double. This engine sounds like its being held back deliberately.

You can't compare a bike engine to a car engine...car engines don't turn 12 grand and that's where bike engines get all their power...