Z06 has another embarassing moment.

[oilpsi2high]

Originally Posted By: ryansride2017

Is there a link I am missing?? There was no information presented that stated it was a core engine problem. Could have been a fuel pump, alternator or a hundred other parts.

Most likely the oil filter.

 

[bdcardinal]

Dumb question, did the LS7 have failures like this when it first came out? I don't remember any personally. Call me weird, but I would rather have a big cubic inch naturally aspirated engine versus a forced induction one. Even Corvette Racing runs a N/A engine which if I remember correctly is a 5.5L LS.

 

[Kruse]

That's why this car costs $101,000 and change. Because they will have to replace the engine a few times...under warranty.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Dumb question, did the LS7 have failures like this when it first came out? I don't remember any personally. Call me weird, but I would rather have a big cubic inch naturally aspirated engine versus a forced induction one. Even Corvette Racing runs a N/A engine which if I remember correctly is a 5.5L LS.

Don't recall any. GM small blocks are usually pretty bomb proof.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack

I wonder how many of these Corvette drivers/testers can drive this car anywhere near its limit and how many of these people purposely abuse the engine with the attitude that it's not mine or maybe they just don't know any better. When an engine makes this much power it's easy to mess things up. I'll bet that most of these problems are driver induced. How many people just think they can handle a car like this? At Willow race car driver Randy Pobst put in a lap time with the Corvette that no one could even approach and he never went over the rev limit. Several other drivers in the same car went over the rev limit and even hit the limiter and came no where near Randy's lap time. They also finished their lap times with the brakes and tires smoking hot and the engine on the verge of boiling over, something not ever seen at the finish of Randy's laps. Randy did not slide around and one passenger remarked that he could not believe how smooth and gentle Randy was with his inputs as they sailed around the track, flowing from one turn to another.

Unless the Z06 has some crazy tuning you can't rev a modern engine up enough to hurt it. Short of shifting it into 2nd at 120 of course, but you can't fix boneheads.

 

[SilverSnake]

Originally Posted By: mattwithcats

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/12/2015...only-891-miles/

Thanks for the link. Now it makes sense. A couple of understandable issues at play here. 1. The Z06 requires the first oil change at 500 miles. I am willing to bet that was not done. The sealant used to prevent leaks in the engine contaminates the oil quickly which is why a 500 mile change is required. 2. C7 Corvettes have a very specific break in procedure. No competitive/track driving is allowed until the car has 1,500 miles. Obviously, this was ignored as well. So, you turn a perfectly good car over to A-hole journalists who could care less about the manual and only want to get the story. What do you expect? My C7 is performing flawlessly. Of course it is being broken in properly.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: SilverSnake

Originally Posted By: mattwithcats

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/12/2015...only-891-miles/

Thanks for the link. Now it makes sense. A couple of understandable issues at play here. 1. The Z06 requires the first oil change at 500 miles. I am willing to bet that was not done. The sealant used to prevent leaks in the engine contaminates the oil quickly which is why a 500 mile change is required. 2. C7 Corvettes have a very specific break in procedure. No competitive/track driving is allowed until the car has 1,500 miles. Obviously, this was ignored as well. So, you turn a perfectly good car over to A-hole journalists who could care less about the manual and only want to get the story. What do you expect? My C7 is performing flawlessly. Of course it is being broken in properly.

Seems a bit strange GM wouldn't do atleast the 1500 mile stint first, before handing it over to be thrashed? I think traditionally the vette is supposed to be a relatively KISS car with a low hp/l 1950's tech engine that you could leave in in N with a brick on the gas pedal for break in. Now GM have it wound up pretty tight and its not quite so rugged and everyone isn't used to that.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Call me weird, but I would rather have a big cubic inch naturally aspirated engine versus a forced induction one. Even Corvette Racing runs a N/A engine which if I remember correctly is a 5.5L LS.

That is also because they HAVE TO run a NA engine according to the rules/boost multiplication factors (as well as the reliability of a NA power plant). And if you are "weird" for preferring a NA system, then I am gonzo, as I would ONLY road race a non-boosted power plant.

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

That is also because they HAVE TO run a NA engine according to the rules/boost multiplication factors (as well as the reliability of a NA power plant). And if you are "weird" for preferring a NA system, then I am gonzo, as I would ONLY road race a non-boosted power plant.

O I know about the rules and all, but if GM really really believed the LT whatever it is in the Z06 is that bulletproof they would be demanding a rules change to prove it.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Dumb question, did the LS7 have failures like this when it first came out? I don't remember any personally. Call me weird, but I would rather have a big cubic inch naturally aspirated engine versus a forced induction one. Even Corvette Racing runs a N/A engine which if I remember correctly is a 5.5L LS.

Don't recall any. GM small blocks are usually pretty bomb proof.

LS7 Rocker Arms There were some, guy I raced with lost his due to a rocker arm failure, covered under warranty.

 

[spackard]

Shouldn't the onboard computer be telling/tattling about RPM abuse nowadays?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: spackard

Shouldn't the onboard computer be telling/tattling about RPM abuse nowadays?

It would indeed, and it was not a factor. As stated earlier, unless you really blow it with downshifting you simply cannot hurt modern engines as the rev limiter is set plenty low to protect things...

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Dumb question, did the LS7 have failures like this when it first came out? I don't remember any personally. Call me weird, but I would rather have a big cubic inch naturally aspirated engine versus a forced induction one. Even Corvette Racing runs a N/A engine which if I remember correctly is a 5.5L LS.

Yes, the LS7 has had valvetrain problems over the years.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan

Originally Posted By: SilverSnake

Originally Posted By: mattwithcats

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/12/2015...only-891-miles/

Thanks for the link. Now it makes sense. A couple of understandable issues at play here. 1. The Z06 requires the first oil change at 500 miles. I am willing to bet that was not done. The sealant used to prevent leaks in the engine contaminates the oil quickly which is why a 500 mile change is required. 2. C7 Corvettes have a very specific break in procedure. No competitive/track driving is allowed until the car has 1,500 miles. Obviously, this was ignored as well. So, you turn a perfectly good car over to A-hole journalists who could care less about the manual and only want to get the story. What do you expect? My C7 is performing flawlessly. Of course it is being broken in properly.

Seems a bit strange GM wouldn't do atleast the 1500 mile stint first, before handing it over to be thrashed? I think traditionally the vette is supposed to be a relatively KISS car with a low hp/l 1950's tech engine that you could leave in in N with a brick on the gas pedal for break in. Now GM have it wound up pretty tight and its not quite so rugged and everyone isn't used to that.

"Low hp/l 50's tech engine?" Chevy was building 6000+ rpm small blocks for years, starting with the 283's with the Duntov cam, and progressing through the 375-HP 327, the original 302 Z28, and culminating with the 370-HP 350 LT1. Then the Clean Air Act of 1970 ended the fun for about 20 years.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

That is also because they HAVE TO run a NA engine according to the rules/boost multiplication factors (as well as the reliability of a NA power plant). And if you are "weird" for preferring a NA system, then I am gonzo, as I would ONLY road race a non-boosted power plant.

O I know about the rules and all, but if GM really really believed the LT whatever it is in the Z06 is that bulletproof they would be demanding a rules change to prove it.

It would be pointless to try to race the supercharged small block. The FIA puts restrictors on all the race cars now to limit them to 600HP or thereabouts. The Z06 makes more power off the production line than the race 5.5's.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Dumb question, did the LS7 have failures like this when it first came out? I don't remember any personally. Call me weird, but I would rather have a big cubic inch naturally aspirated engine versus a forced induction one. Even Corvette Racing runs a N/A engine which if I remember correctly is a 5.5L LS.

Don't recall any. GM small blocks are usually pretty bomb proof.

LS7 Rocker Arms There were some, guy I raced with lost his due to a rocker arm failure, covered under warranty.

So basically it call comes down to racing break's [censored]. Big surprise!

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

That is also because they HAVE TO run a NA engine according to the rules/boost multiplication factors (as well as the reliability of a NA power plant). And if you are "weird" for preferring a NA system, then I am gonzo, as I would ONLY road race a non-boosted power plant.

O I know about the rules and all, but if GM really really believed the LT whatever it is in the Z06 is that bulletproof they would be demanding a rules change to prove it.

It would be pointless to try to race the supercharged small block. The FIA puts restrictors on all the race cars now to limit them to 600HP or thereabouts. The Z06 makes more power off the production line than the race 5.5's.

O I know. But even for a production car, I would much rather have a 427ci LS engine over a supercharged one, especially on something that will see track duty. I was at a few SVTOA track days when the Terminators were still new and cars going into limp mode were common while the N/A Cobras and Cobra Rs were lapping all day long.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal

Originally Posted By: dailydriver

That is also because they HAVE TO run a NA engine according to the rules/boost multiplication factors (as well as the reliability of a NA power plant). And if you are "weird" for preferring a NA system, then I am gonzo, as I would ONLY road race a non-boosted power plant.

O I know about the rules and all, but if GM really really believed the LT whatever it is in the Z06 is that bulletproof they would be demanding a rules change to prove it.

It would be pointless to try to race the supercharged small block. The FIA puts restrictors on all the race cars now to limit them to 600HP or thereabouts. The Z06 makes more power off the production line than the race 5.5's.

As far as I know, the FIA would NEVER allow ANYONE to race an > 5.0 (or whatever displacement works out to their top limit) liter engine with boost on it, regardless of how much inlet restriction, since it would violate their displacement x boost multiplication factors, and be WAY OVER their ultimate limits. As most on here know the FIA even requires inlet restrictors on the NA 5.5 in the current and last C7Rs/C6Rs.