And on the positive side, turbo engines (much like the LNF) can be programmed now with variable boost depending on conditions, gears, etc in order to make components last longer. The sword is double edged there. The one thing is certain - the boosted boys are more expensive.

Ding! Increase MPG and keep power to weight ratios. Except Corvette, which as always, gets a little more slack. That's the direction as I've heard it.

Yes. Case in point, at Cummins while one team was working on developing the technical improvements for 2007 emissions back in 2006 another team had already started designing the new 2010 engines - 4 years out. Now, with 2010 launch a month away, 2013 diesel emissions (which will still use the same engine and only use different controls) is already well defined and hard at work.

There are already GenV engines in cars right now. We can guarantee that. Not production ready, but we're pretty close. Once we get to production intent, you just need a year to durability test the **** out of them and get parts networks in order.

It is speculated the 5.3L pushrod might hit 425hp. The 6.2L could hit 490hp.

There are boosted GenV's that have been developed, but what specs and outputs I don't know. Production intent? Good for GM to have just in case Mustang ups the Ante!

And I hope Alpha is not packaged for it. Personally, if I could have my dream, I'd take a DOHC 5.3L with a 6spd manual. But as much as we know about boosted GenV's, we know less about the DOHC variants.

 

Is it confirmed that the 6th Gen will be Alpha platform car? I hope not.

Bring back the Nova name and build a light weight Alpha car.

 

Confirmed? I don't think so, not yet, although I get the impression that they're running with it internally for now.

From what I've heard, Camaro would be on an upsized Alpha called "Alpha Plus," which offers little to no weight savings over the current Zeta II. The benefits are more in development costs, since Camaro is currently alone on Zeta, whereas it will have some platform mates on Alpha.

 

if anybody cares, I will finish some of my thinking from earlier...

If you took the components that are part of the LS7, then reduced the stroke from 4" to 3" (and then either reduce the deck height, or increase connecting rod length by half an inch to compensate) you would lower the static compression ratio from 11:1 down to 8.5:1. Now, we've got a 5.3L (320.7cid), big bore/short stroke, but due to the reduced compression, horsepower drops from 505 down to closer to 450 at a slightly higher RPM. Of course, you also give up about 100ft-lbs (well, it might not be that bad since you can also increase runner length by about a half inch.) Then again, if you alter the combustion chamber to maintain the 11:1CR, then you'll have a nearly 8,000 RPM capable, hydraulic roller, pushrod engine that shouldn't have any trouble putting out 480hp &400ft-lbs. Personally, I think that would be a hell of an engine for a Z28...

We also have the perfect starting point for a forced induction engine that keeps the hood height down to a reasonable level for a sports car.

 

AdioSS, thats a lot of thinking, and maybe we could see soemthng like that...but sounds like a costly engine to make.
If it cant be built in 3-4 different displacements, then it might work out.

Alpha Plus sounds like it could be much like GM's "FM" platform. 370Z is the only non-Infiniti to have it, and its totally different then anything from Infiniti.
And if it can accomodate the ATS and CTS, then lets hope it also has the ability to make a CUV type car (Think X3/FX/Q5), and maybe some other cool vehicles.

 

Not exactly a prestige name. I think Chevelle is the only name Chevy has left that has more positive than negative left in it.

 

Personally, that would be a huge disappointment and failure. And I don't think that's where it's going.

Not too long ago you said that your friend saw a 6th gen styling proposal next to a 5th gen and said that they seemed about the same size. That prompted me to question some of my sources on it - and they reaffirmed that the next car is indeed smaller.

We'll see....

 

No more costly than a hand built engine that uses forged pistons, Titanium rods, valves, and a supercharger. Those 7.4" long skinny metal tubes we all love, are some of the biggest hold-backs when it comes to RPM. The LS1 raised the deck height which made the pushrods longer than those in the old SBC.

Another of those changes included moving the threads for the head bolts down from the deck to deeper in the block.

 

How much smaller could it get without sacraficing interior space?

 

I think quite abit.

 

Charlie...this is GM we are talking about. For some reason, they can greatly reduce interior size when compared to cars with even smaller wheel bases and other dimensions.
Just look at the CTS compared to the 5 or E class...interior space is a huge difference.

 

No arguments there, Al. GM needs to improve the way they package cars. I've sat in the smaller 3 series coupe, A5, Genesis coupe, G35/37 coupe, Mustang and they all seem roomier to me than the Camaro. Hell, even the 1 coupe seems not much, if at all, smaller.

 

My G8 has plenty of room. When I'm a passenger in a coworker's Audi S4, there's not any elbow room, but there's lots of space in the G8. The Camaro should have the same amount of elbow space as the G8, whereas I think I'd be knocking elbows in a 1 coupe.

 

I agree, the G8 is plenty roomy. My point was directed at Al's question of if I thought the Camaro could shrink externally and still no lose interior space.

 

Yeah. I'm just thinking that if they make it narrower, that would be noticeable in the interior. I kind of like a wide cockpit, but I guess I'd be willing to give that up if it made the car lighter.