Sweet mother of god.

 

You're such a tease

 

Do tell....

 

I've heard very little on the subject (though I've heard anything and everything is still on the table). My concern is more with the weight of alpha in general, and what would happen to a car designed to handle yet another 'gobs of power' engine.

 

What is the minimum amount of power a Turbo SIDI 5.3L would put out? 500HP? That puts us back to where we currently are with the 5th gen.

 

Yep, there is alot still in flux.

I've heard of various versions of the GenV smallbock. Both pushrod 2V and DOHC 4v. The 4.9L displacement seems like a fabricated red herring to me. The 5.5 is going to be strictly for racing. That leaves the 5.3 and 6.2. One can ponder at the power output of a GenV, SIDI, DOHC, 6.2 though. It'll be interesting to see if Ford goes forward with it's TT 5.0L program, and it's ramifications for GM.

On the back shelf is the turbo V6. I've heard 425 hp in certified trim. I don't know what will ultimately happen with this one - it's asleep now.

Even if CAFE and emissions hurdles are overcome, I also fear what HUGE power numbers will do to the 6th gen. If in the end, it materializes as an oversized/overmassed car again, in order to accommodate crazy power, my advice would be - don't even bother.

 

What, in your mind, makes a supercharged V8 unrealistic?

 

Well, I suppose anything is possible, but....

1) I'm not aware of any Gen V supercharged programs with production intent.

2) CAFE and future emissions will be large factors.

3) No point in a SC'd V8 unless you're making 550-600+ hp, and I don't think Alpha would be package protected for that.

OTOH, watch what Ford does with the next gen Mustang for GM to follow suit with....

 

Fair enough, but I think that makes them unlikely rather than unrealistic. Also, are you generally aware of such things this far (4-5 years) in advance of the product release?

That's an argument for forced induction, not against. Assuming everything else is comparable, a smaller supercharged (or turbocharged) engine is more efficient than a naturally aspirated engine, not less.

Also, forced induction engines tend to have more low- and mid-range power than NA engines of comparable peak power. That's good for drivability and great for racing.

See my response to your #2; there are a couple of points for you.

I'd sure like to see those tables turned the other way. GM has no business playing catch-up when it comes to powertrains; theirs are the best in the business.

 

If the smallest V8 is 5.3L and the turbo DI combo is good for at least 100HP/L then the smallest V8 will be around 530HP. That type of engine is what the 5th gen was built for. If the top 6th gen engine is ~450HP then it can't be anything other than a turbo V6 (maybe as large as 4.0L) or a 6.2L V8.

 

But it adds a lot of torque, which means a whole lot of components need to be enlarged/strengthened to handle that torque. That adds to weight.

It's really hard to predict the future accurately, but the tea leaves right now point to fuel economy being more important than 11-12 second 1/4 mile times.

 

4-5 years is not that far in advance really. We will have known certain details of the Gen V smallblock roughly that far out by the time it'll be released.

Also, I think forced induction only realizes efficiencies if the displacement is reduced, and I just don't see any low displacement Gen V's on the docket right now. Things could change of course - but then we're dealing in PURE speculation.

I'd like to see GM take the lead on this whole Camaro-Mustang thing too. I've been talking to people within GM about the Camaro for over 20 years now. Trust me, during that whole time, I have found a literal paralysis when it comes to Camaro's decision making independent of what Mustang has already done (past tense). True, they are direct competitors and all, and Mustang watches Camaro super closely as well. But in the end when decision time comes, Mustang seems less afraid to move forward than Camaro does.

That's why I'm looking so forward to the '12 Boss. Maybe I'll get my '15 or '16 (REAL) Z/28 out of it.

 

In Ruess's interview correct me if Im wrong ( dont have time to look up right now ) , didnt he allure to the fact that , while weight will definately be coming down ....hp levels , while not exactly going up , would'nt necessarily be dropping either .

I will say this , I think the chassis is gonna be the more interesting aspect of the 6th gen than anything . I think you will see alot of new processes that allow a smaller , much lighter chassis , that rivals the 5th gen chassis in both strength and cost . I could be wrong , but thats the vibe I get .

 

Without going back to it myself, I think he said power to weight ratios won't be necessarily going down.

 

I've kinda been wondering for a couple years if it would be possible to take the LSx block and chop off about an inch from the deck height, and in turn, shorten the stroke, connecting rods, and pushrods.

That would screw with the holes for the waterpump, but since the heads have to be redesigned to work with Direct Injection, just integrate those holes for the waterpump into the heads.

In theory, shortening the pushrods would make them stronger, and, again in theory, this might allow them to be capable of taking the stress from higher RPM. More theory, if you keep the quantity of air that flows through the valves (same ports, same cam, etc) and you keep the compression ratio the same, then you should be able to make the same horsepower. Of course, when you greatly reduce the engine displacement, then you need to make a few more changes to compensate in the change in combustion chamber size in order to retain the compression ratio...

However, one of the benefits of the reduced deck height is lower hood height. This was an issue with the ZR1...

I've got more to add, but I gotta leave for a little while...