2017 Z28

The LT5 hasnt been used since the mid 90s. At that time it doubled the price of the vette it was put into. GM is too in love with the pushrod, and its fanbase would probably just call a DOHC V8 a ford type motor, which would be bad for sales.

>>15039171
GM renewed the Lt5 name 2 years ago alongside the Lt1 and LT4 trademarks.

>>15039197
What are they using it in? I didn't know they revived the nameplate. Is it actually a DOHC motor?

File: 5464353243.jpg (133KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x375px

When did we go from "LT" (1980s) to "LS" (late 90s to mid 2010s) to "LT" again? (present)

>>15039171
>GM is too in love with the pushrod

At least they are letting Cadillac Develop their own DOHC V8. the way they have Cadillac operating now (making their own platforms and engines) they could very well be their own separate company making their own decisions (although i doubt GM would give them enough freedom to make a truly exotic super-car that's faster than the vette) one can dream.

>>15039197
>Lt5 name 2 years ago

Oh shit nigga.. They could be saving THAT one for the Mid-engine'd Zora ZR1 which they could go all-out making it one expensive trim like they did the C4 ZR1.

>>15039157

fug.. that shit looks good famalam

>>15039208
Went and answered my own question. The revival is speculation for the revival of the ZR-1 vette. GM currently does not use the LT5 in anything, but they used its bones to create the northstar engine line way back when. Seeing GM make a DOHC V8 AND put it in one of their performance oriented cars would be something to see. Especially after Barra said that the smallblock V8 isn't going away anytime soon

File: 3776082_49.jpg (100KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 550x413px

>>15039208
no one knows if it will be DOHC.
i mean chevy has Vtec like systems for their i4s.
and a bunch of DOHC v6s
it's not out of the question.

>>15039215
Really Cadillac is the only division pushing GM into the future of motors. The pushrod is a very stable motor, but OHC will eventually phase it out. I will say that GM makes the best pushrod motor on the planet today.

>>15039222
You have a good point. I would be disappointed in GM if they revived the name and then pissed it away

>>15039157
A 7 litre LT series, pretty much an updated, direct injection LS7. Call it the LT7.

>>15039218
For some reason, unlike Ferd and Mowpur, ugliness is positively correlated with performance with GM

>>15039222
>>15039229
Also, I find it highly hippocritical that GM shits on ford DOHC V8s and then turns and uses DOHC on every damn motor except for their V8.

>>15039157
Slower than the gt350

>>15039256
Mean looking is sometimes ugly looking. Its not a bad thing at all.

>>15039171
What if they made the next gen LT5 a double cam, pushrod, 4 valve engine? GM has fooled around with multivalve pushrod engines before.

>>15039197
Could be just keeping the nameplate. Mopar has renewed Barracuda and several other Plymouth names, doesn't mean they'll produce them.

>>15039215
>although i doubt GM would give them enough freedom to make a truly exotic super-car that's faster than the vette
Not faster, but I'd anticipate a XLR on the Corvette platform any day now.

>>15039229
>The pushrod is a very stable motor, but OHC will eventually phase it out.
It's been well over a century now, and OHC still hasn't phased out OHV.

File: government motors gm.jpg (21KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x300px

>>15039258
>GM shits on Ford for using Aluminum on truck bodies
>they already use aluminum body panels on their trucks
>they're planning on using aluminum bodied panels in the future
Pretty par for course for GM tbqhwyf

>>15039259
Look dude, I'm a mustang fag. Ive got 2 of the damn things. You cannot say that before they even have a chance to fire back. Lets not be one minded fags about everything

>>15039157
LT1 with a flat plane crank and 12:1 compression, engine code LT5. 555hp output.

>>15039157
The fuck is up with that trippy paintjob?

File: camo_4_1412086642_615x238.jpg (68KB, 615x238px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 615x238px

>>15039284
>what is car camouflage

>>15039268
One: a multivalve pushrod would have a TON more rotational weight than a DOHC motor. That and the fact that the reason GM loves the single cam pushrod is the ability to generate low end torque. The DOHC fails at this (without variable valve timing) because it cant get enough air in at low rpm to create a reasonable amount of power. This is why newer DOHC motors can generate lower end torque and maintain their high end HP. So in using a multi cam pushrod with 3 or 4 valves, the motor would have greater rotational weight and wouldnt generate as much low end torque as a single cam pushrod motor. It would be counter productive. The DOHC (as long as computers continue to advance) will kill the pushrod. Without computers, the pushrod will always win

>>15039282
you can make 550Hp from a stock LS3 with a big ass cam.
i feel like a 180 degree crank Lt1 would make at least 600hp.

>>15039306
It wouldn't make 600 from the factory, because of warranties and such. It'd make a smidge more power than the Voodoo though, just like the LT1 makes more power than the Coyote.

>>15039269
Mah nigga

>>15039308
Why couldnt it? Have you forgotten about the GT500 and the Hellcat? Sure they have superchargers, but they have factory warranties. If you have faith in your product a warranty is never an issue.

>>15039301
>multivalve pushrod would have a TON more rotational weight than a DOHC motor.
But not that much more than a comparable single cam pushrod motor.
>single cam pushrod is the ability to generate low end torque
This has nothing to do with valvetrain but with head flow, cam selection and bore:stroke ratio.
>The DOHC fails at this because it cant get enough air in at low rpm to create a reasonable amount of power.
This has nothing to with the cam layout, but the fact DOHC heads have big ports, and therfore slower air velocity at low RPM. This is better counter with a vraiable intake than it is with variable cams.
>So in using a multi cam pushrod with 4 valves, the motor wouldnt generate as much low end torque as a single cam pushrod motor.
You remove the oil pressure off one intake lifter, port volume effectively halves, port velocity increases, BAM, torque. Can't do that on a DOHC unit.
>The DOHC (as long as computers continue to advance) will kill the pushrod. Without computers, the pushrod will always win
You understimate the advances computers can make on pushrod engines. Cam-in-cam will allow independant cam phasing, cilinder deactivation on pushrod engines is easier, and we aren't even going into what combining Fiat's Multiair with Dodge's excellently flowing Hemi would make: full cam variation, easy multivalve setups, easy DOD, and a massive cam for top end power like you wouldn't believe.

Pushrods and OHC engines will both continue to be competetive with each other untill the ICE dies.

File: 573450ef45ae7693428631.gif (4MB, 660x322px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 660x322px

>>15039268
>It's been well over a century now, and OHC still hasn't phased out OHV.

Couldn't believe some of GM's RIVALS in IMSA were actually complaining about the C7Rs pushrods giving it a unfair-advantage and suggesting that it should be penalized.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/02/corvette-racings-competition-complains-about-its-pushrod-engine-design/#ixzz48Qv9qRTM

>“I sit on several FIA engine councils and it always comes up from our competitors. Whether it’s Porsche, Ferrari, or Aston Martin, they’re always complaining about what they perceive of as the advantages the two-valve engine has [over] their [designs], and want the two-valve engine penalized, said Fehan. “To that I say, ‘go back to the road car—if the two-valve engine is that much better for racing you ought to put it in your car.’ To which they have no answer.”

maybe a 454 or possibly some upgraded LT branded version of the ls7

File: 1459145946343.jpg (86KB, 491x414px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 491x414px

>>15039331
fucking wrecked
10/10 ign

>>15039331
>Cam-in-cam will allow independant cam phasing

Are there any engines using this?

File: dodge-viper-camincam.jpg (15KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x250px

>>15039353
the Viper uses a 2 piece cam
BUT they were only able to get the exhaust side 2 work.
if you could get both 2 work, you could adjust LCA and timing.

File: 1453008737200.gif (1MB, 400x254px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x254px

>>15039358
$1 was deposited into your bank account.
Ford thanks you for shilling.

>>15039353
Viper. I suspect once Dodge releases the 4th genHemi, it'll have cam-in-cam to cobmat the semihemi's notorious emissions problems.

Then aain, who cares. Hemis are for nitromethane anyways, which has negligeable emmissions iirc.

>>15039331
I may be underestimating the advances in pushrod tech.
I still dont see where gaining rotational weight is a good thing. Less rotational weight is better obviously, but with adding in another cam to drive pushrods would increase rotational weight greatly. Plus the fact that using pushrods creates a middle man in getting lift to the valves. OHC is more efficient due to the fact that its straight from the cam fingers to the valves. If I have a DOHC motor it has 4 cams and no pushrods. If I have a dual cam pushrod motor it has (I'm basing this off of 4 cams, which may not be needed) 4 cams AND 4 sets of pushrods. I do think GM would go to 2 cams and 2 sets of pushrods first. This still would double the rotational weight and still have a middle man situation between the cam and the lifters. I don't think that this is a viable solution to a growing issue.

>>15039371
I honestly don't think the fake hemi will be around for much longer.
The fatcat just barely passes smog,

>>15039373
You can lift 2 valves with a single pushrod BTW.
Duramax is that way.

So basically 1 cam and 16 pushrods moving 32 valves

>>15039338
Kinda like how GM killed off Fords SOHC 429 in NASCAR in the late 60s and early 70s?>>15039343
Wrecked? You obviously don't know a good argument when you see one. In a good argument one side argues and then the other side argues. If the arguers are smart they see the others side and then argues based on that.
>>15039358
They will fire back and it will continue a good type of rivalry between the Ford and GM. This rivalry creates the better cars of tomorrow

>>15039377
I was at a carshow one time and a new charger had HEMI DNA as a specialized plate. At the award ceremony he won a prize and I said that it wasnt even a real HEMI, and he heard. He death glares me at every car show now.

>>15039380
Have you seen a single cam motor cam shaft? they are squeezed in there as it is. The motor would have to be stretched to achieve that off of a single cam and if not stretched the cam fingers would have to be a lot smaller.

>>15039401
Oh fuck ya
Boomers get all triggered if you insult the new fake Hemis

>>15039373
>but with adding in another cam to drive pushrods would increase rotational weight greatly
It wouldn't, because you're adding a higher cam, and shortening your pushrods. Yes, you're adding rotational inertia with that second cam, but you're effectively shortening your pushrods (and making them smaller, because you'll reduce individual valve size), which reduces inertia. The pushrods are the main source of inertia, going up and down, not the cams, which rotate.

>If I have a dual cam pushrod motor it has (I'm basing this off of 4 cams, which may not be needed) 4 cams AND 4 sets of pushrods.
A dual cam pushrod motor would have an intake and an exhaust cam, to easily phase them, not 4 cams.

>>15039377
It's not the semihemi's fault per se, the basic design is just showing it's age.

>>15039380
Honda did that too with the CX500, but on a modern engine you'd want two cams for that cam phasing.

>>15039388
>Kinda like how GM killed off Fords SOHC 429 in NASCAR in the late 60s and early 70s?
Get your conspiracy theories right: Mopar, SOHC 427, and late 60's. And the problem NASCAR had with the Cammer was that Ford never had any intention to actually homologate the design. Chrysler had just taken a massive leap forward with the Hemi, and NASCAR created homologation rules so that one make wouldn't dominate the series just like that - unless they built enough real life cars for that. Then Ford thought they could skirt those rules, designed the SOHC, and never stuck it into any road cars. If they'd just homologated it like they did with the Boss 429, Chrysler would've later homologated a 4 valve Hemi. Too bad they didn't.

>>15039412
The only problem I have with them is that Chrysler would sell them as HEMI motors. They are not HEMI motors and its only a marketing ploy to get dumb MOPAR fans to buy them. HEMI comes from the HEMIspherical heads they used when they created the motor. Overall they make decent power and are known to be reliable (the new "HEMI" that is)

File: Screenshot_2016-05-12-03-07-56-1.png (663KB, 900x849px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 900x849px

>>15039406
Dude, I said 16 pushrods not 32

File: Knipsel.jpg (36KB, 300x275px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x275px

>>15039421
They do have semi-hemispherical heads, which is the closest thing you'll get to a modern Hemi with emmissions standard nowadays.

>>15039423
>>15039406

>>15039415
I didn't think of shorter pushrods. Not totally a believer yet, but I can see the plausibility in that.
2 cams would be plenty in that setup.

My conspiracy theory is just that, a theory. And your probably right, that motor probably cost a fuckton to build in the late 60s and nobody would have been able to afford a car with that motor anyhow. I do understand that rules are made to keep things fair and competitive.

>>15039423
So two intake pushrods and two exhaust pushrods per valve?

>>15039436
Ok that is still not a HEMI. That would be a SEMI-HEMI. I get that its close enough, I'm just breaking your balls.

>>15039450
No, one pushrod (right) per two valves (left).

>>15039459
I was looking at that way wrong!
Yes I see it now.
It could work in a big way for GM, but thats technically my most hated motor of all time..... THE 3 VALVE 4.6 and its dumbass bretheren!!

File: Knipsel.jpg (217KB, 750x1030px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 750x1030px

>>15039444
>that motor probably cost a fuckton to build in the late 60s and nobody would have been able to afford a car with that motor anyhow.
Ford could've theoreticall sold them as a loss leader (and in GT40 road cars), but it'd require building 500 engines, and I don't know if they even made that many originally. Aside from consumers not being able to afford them, I doubt Ford would've been able to crank out that many of them in the first place. They sold the leftover units for about 3400 USD a piece - about as much as an entire brand new midsized car with a decent V8.

Then there's the fallout for NASCAR. I don't think they banned the engine outright, but Ford just couldn't follow through with the homologation. What would've happened if Ford did manage to homologate the Cammer? Mopar and GM would've struck back with multivalve setups, escalating NASCAR's cost massively. Despite the awesome homolgation specials that would've meant, it could have destroyed the sport.

>>15039491
Well with the homologation rule that means the motor is banned. Can you imagine NASCAR if the cammer had made it? How fast would they be, would it have led to a group B type of disaster? And while I may have over exaggerated the price, it was still very steep for the times

>>15039301
4v heads are inherently better at making low end torque than 2vs. large displacement engines are inherently better at making torque everywhere compared to small displacement engines.
GM V8 engines make heaps of torque simply through displacement.
>>15039331
>You remove the oil pressure off one intake lifter, port volume effectively halves, port velocity increases, BAM, torque. Can't do that on a DOHC unit.
you can do that and heaps of other things with DOHC

File: HSV-GEN-F2-GTS-Exterior-3-lg.jpg (316KB, 1340x670px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1340x670px

Supercharged LSA. Straya cunt

>>15039523
>Can you imagine NASCAR if the cammer had made it?
It would've been awesome.
>How fast would they be, would it have led to a group B type of disaster?
Yes, if not worse. Worse safety measures, higher average speeds, more power - the stage woulve been set to make Group B look tame. Speed would've easily exceeded 200mph with the aerocars.

>>15039527
>GM V8 engines make heaps of torque simply through cam selection based on a self-imposed RPM limit
ftfy

>>15039577
>Supercharged LSA
As opposed to any other LSA genius?

>>15039577
>LSA
>when they've got the LT4
Nope.

>>15039527
I agree, GM uses displacement in place of efficiency to make torque and they do it well enough to make up some of their lost efficiency.
>>15039583
Man, if only. NASCAR might be exciting nowadays. Are you also upset that you cant go buy a V8 fusion thats RWD?

>>15039229
You're being a little overly-optimistic there bud.
The advances made to pushrod engines in the past couple of years are, frankly, insane. Variable valve timing on a single cam V8 engine? It's madness.
I have a 2013 Silverado 5.3 with active cylinder deactivation, and I average 22mpg highway in a 5,300lb truck.
The 2014+ silverados are doing even MORE with the 5.3.

But the main reason Pushrods won't be phased out by OHC engines is the performance benefits they have over them. People talk all the time about how OHC engines have better performance per liter, can get better fuel economy, and a lot of other things that, in the making of a fast car, are either irrelevant or unimportant.

But with a pushrod engine, you get a lower center of gravity in the engine. You can mount them lower, and further back more easily than a OHC. They are mechanically simpler, with less moving parts, making them both cheaper, and far more importantly, LIGHTER than an OHC engine.

A quick comparison would be the BMW S85B50, against a Chevrolet LS7. While both make right at 500HP, the BMW is only turning out 384 Ft/Lbs of Torque, and weighs 529lbs Dry, to the LS7s 470 Ft/Lbs of Torque, weighing 454lbs.

The performance for price and weight is becoming a force to truly be reckoned with. And bear in mind, the LS7 has no VVT.

>>15039527
>You remove the oil pressure off one intake lifter, port volume effectively halves, port velocity increases, BAM, torque. Can't do that on a DOHC unit.
>you can do that and heaps of other things with DOHC

This.
honda even has a better technique where they slightly open one valve while the other opens fully to create better swirl in the cylinder.
I can see the value in the packaging of an OHV engine but from a technical standpoint they will always be slightly less 'efficient' then OHC. as manufacturers hunt down more and more small efficiencies the gap will widen.

>>15039604
Of course so does Chrysler. I'm really not trying to be mean about anything I've said here. Better motor tech FTW. If that means that GM has to beat on Ford and that Chrysler (Fiat) has to beat on GM, then so be it. The mustang ruled from 05 to 09 (not that it should have) because the only competition was from a AUS mondero or wtf its called in the form of a GTO. I know the Charger came back in 06, but it was a land whale and should have been a 2 door like its original older brother.

>>15039624
>should have been a 2 door like its original older brother.
That's what the Challenger is for.

>>15039583
>thinking the cam selection is about rpm limits and not emissions

>>15039608
Yes but for more than 10 years other manufacturers had VVT and pushrods had to use Cylinder deactivation, which is more efficent yet causes more friction that reduces its greater effect. Yes the split cam tech FINALLY gives the single cam VVT, but how much further can it be pushed? In the end I see a single cam motor which is split inbetween each set of intake and exhaust fingers. That is 8 splits. That is 8 mechanical failing points. I may be VERY WRONG in all of this. I cannot predict the future at all. All I can do is think in terms of what I know, which in the end may not be much at all

>>15039650
Challenger was a 2 Door model as well. The charger should be 2 door. That is final, and all dodge did by making it 4 Door was make it ugly and heavy.

>>15039673
At that point, they'd have two 2-door models, instead of a much wider range provided by one 2-door and one 4-door.

>>15039612
You mean the gap where it takes 1.2 liters to make 20 more HP?

>>15039678
I get that dodge needed a 4 door, but making the charger a 4 door was dumb. It should have been the Dart, and then the dart compact should have been the coronet. They did not do themselves justice by making the charger the 4 door

>>15039688
Then it should've been a Coronet in the first place. Coronets where bigger than Darts, after all.

>>15039689
Ok, that sounds good. I know that the dart and coronet were similar, but did not know which was larger

>>15039666
Man I'm checking those trips, but those 8 points of mechanical failure are a pittance when you really think about exactl how much shit moves in an engine. In DOHC V8 engines, you have four camshafts each opening 8 valves each, totaling in 32 valves.
Though it would be expensive to do, if Chevrolet were to do in the new cam-in-cam engines as they did with the LS7, which is to say, making the valvetrain out of Forged steel or even forged titanium, it would likely not suffer any more mechanical wear than any other engine.

Remember, wear comes from a combination of heat, and metal on metal contact. So long as the camshafts are in an oil bath, at a proper temperature, there shouldn't be any metal on metal contact.

And, since the camshaft is located in the bottom of the block, it doesn't have to fight gravity quite as hard in order to do that.

But you're absolutely right man. Only time will tell, and honestly, I'll be happy no matter what so long as I can go fast.

>>15039775
You sir are a man after my own heart. I do not give a fuck as long as motors become better, faster, and stronger. Thats what defines motors and motor sport. We all compete to become better and that in the end makes better motors. I will cry crocodile tears when oil becomes no more.

>>15039878
Damn right.
I have had people I know try and tell me that Electic cars are the future. I told them that may be, but I'll be burning dinosaurs until it's no longer an option.

And when they say I'm crazy, and they ask me why, they don't understand my reason, even though it's so simple.

Electric cars are all the same, all monotonous, cookie cuttered soulless hunks of steel. I don't give a damn how fast a P85 can go.

It can't SING. When I put my foot down, it won't roar out a rage filled symphony, powered by explosions and metal, climbing steadily in volume and pitch, screaming towards a glorious redline.

I love every motor, OHV, SOHC, DOHC, it doesn't matter, so long as it can pin my ass to my seat, throw my stomach in the trunk, and SING TO ME.

>>15039157
Didn't take long for it to crash at the 'Ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kur-PgsZJxw

>>15039917
You I like. An argument that didnt end with "go fuck yourself fag" is even rarer than people I like.
>>15039932
A cars ability can be directly related to the driver, and the drivers ability can be directly related to the car. Don't hate, because if you remember correctly the GT350 crashed on the same course.

>>15039917
>>15039989 (Me)
The song a motor sings is an unmatched one. The higher the revs, the more beautiful. The more stressed the motor, the more beautiful. We made cars with transportation in mind first. Shortly after that first car moved us forward, there was the phrase "Wanna race?"

>>15039989
That's something I've never understood about this site. We're all here because we like cars. And even if we don't all like the same cars for the same reasons, that doesn't change the fact that we all share this hobby. It just doesn't make sense to me to disregard someone's opinion just because it differs from my own.
Diversity is the reason we have so many cool cars to argue over. It's why we aren't all riding a bus.

And that poor Camaro...Wonder what caused the loss of control? Slip of concentration, or a mechanical oversight? Maybe driver got too aggressive...

>>15040015
Many more factors can contribute than just those. Shit probably got wild and out of control. Humans make mistakes in both control and design. That crash will lead to a better driver or better design, or maybe even both. I can't wait to see the shootout between ford and chevy. Id like to see chrysler throw in too, but fiat has a firm grip on their balls nowadays.

>>15040029
FYI, Im a Ford fag. I do support Chevy in their ongoing fight to beat Ford. Thats what makes really good fords afterall. Same goes the other way too.

>>15039157

Doesn't sound supercharged to me

A high revving NA engine with the LT5 nameplate would be pretty awesome

>>15040037
It's gonna be a warmed over 6.2, if they even bother to get more juice out of it. The fancy aero and brakes are the excuse they'll use to call it a Z/28.

*Cough* Corvette Gran Sport..

>>15040047
I think the z28 needs to come on strong. That's what sells lower end camaros. As Shelby said about mustangs. "1000hp mustangs won't sell well, but they will sell a lot of v6 mustangs"

>>15040047
Plus the fact that the current Z28 is sort of a GM engineering marvel. They cant just throw some nice brakes on it and expect people to call it the best yet. The suspension on the current Z28 is what separates it from the ZL1, and it needs to keep that edge going into the future. Sure a supercharger probably isnt the way the Z28 will go, but then again the raw horsepower isnt what the Z28 is about. Its a handling machine, so much to the fact that I know a guy that parked his Z28 in the corner of his shop (with a dip to one side) and the stiff suspension raised his driver side tire off the ground so much that he had to tow it out of the dip.

>>15040074
Well I certainly hope they don't just make this a badge engineering exercise because yeah... the 2014 and 2015 Z's were amazing.

*disclaimer* I own a 2015 Z/28.

I'll be kinda sad if this thing has a monster N/A motor to best my Ls7. But I'll get over it. And maybe buy the new one too.

>>15040035
Well shit...Despite it being Government Motors, I'm still a Chevy fan. Good luck to ya. You're gonna need it.

>>15040074
This.
The engine shouldn't be the talking point on this car.
This is an Alpha-Chassis Camaro that is being built specifically for the express purpose of being a track car.
Pushrod suspension is likely guaranteed, brake rotors like larger than the wheels on your car are, brembo calipers are undoubtably going to be an option, and the entire system is being tuned, retuned, and retuned again to make it the best handling car it can possibly be. We're talking about something that is going to go through corners like an actual racecar here.

Notice in the video, before the crash, how flat and stable that body is through the corners, how late the test driver is braking. THAT is what I'm excited about.

>>15040119
I do not think that GM would be that silly. Why make their flagship performer a total flop? And you shouldnt worry about your vette. Even the top Z28 will only match what your base level vette will do around a track. There is a reason the vette is the best bang for your buck.
>>15040133
I don't need your luck, but I will take it in good faith
While I know you don't believe that the engine should be the talking point of the car, It should be one of the talking points. No good car had only a good engine, or suspension, or transmission, or even a rear end. Its a harmony of all of these (chassis included) that made a great car great. The Z28 uses all of these elements, as does the GT350. Neither of these cars are great because of one single aspect and that rings true for all higher performance cars out there today. You certainly don't hear mcclarion only touting their motor. They have plenty to say about the rest of the car as well. Oh and if I may, Cadillac owned the alpha chassis first. Bunch of copiers GM is! Ha!

http://www.motor1.com/news/62695/ouch-new-chevy-camaro-z-28-crashes-at-the-nurburgring/

>>15040133
Also link me to the z28 vid. I haven't seen it.

>>15040175
You said it before I asked. You're quick mate

>>15040176
>>15040133 (me)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upsm4Lf0LNQ
Here ya go bud.

And you're right about the parts all working in harmony. Though as a subsidiary of GM, caddy has to share. Chevy had to share the LT4, as well, to be fair.

>>15040181
>http://www.motor1.com/news/62695/ouch-new-chevy-camaro-z-28-crashes-at-the-nurburgring/
Im watching this right now and no LS type of motor ever sounded like that. Down low its kind of similar to the 5.0 mustangs of late. Maybe it is DOHC

>>15040193
Also notice in the vid how his rear brakes locked up before the fronts did. They have to be working out the kinks.

>>15040193
>>15040198
Well Chevrolet did renew the name plate for their LT5 motor, so maybe. It's got a hell of a growl

And yeah, I see it too. He tapped the brakes to slow for a corner and the rear seized up, then the front seized when he lost traction.

>>15040203
The reason I grew towards ford is because of the gains they got from the DOHC. If Chevy brings it with the new LT5, I'm onboard. Plus I'm not against owning the 16 camaro. It is faster than the 16 mustang.

>>15040215
Also, I do give credit to ford for growing the DOHC V8, GM did it starting in 90 with the LT5. With pretty decent results as well. Unfortunately the high price shooed GM away and ford got to reign in all of the glory for DOHC V8 setups

>>15040215
Yeah, but as a DD, the mustang is a way better choice. More creature comforts in the Mustang. Ever sit inside of a 5th or 6th gen Camaro? You can't see a fucking thing. I swear to god when I drove one the first time, I thought I was about to be run over every time I saw a flash in the mirrors.

Of course, before that all of my vehicles had been trucks or SUV's with a long sight line and large sight radius.

>>15040225
I've driven a 15 gt and its sight lines weren't much different than my own 94 mustangs. Back window was clear but jacked sort of to the sky and the door windows allowed full view. I wish mustangs had better quarter windows tho

>>15040239
I actually bothered to measure it once. A little under two feet tall, the side windows on the new Camaro's. Front glass is obstructed by a too tall instrument cluster, and the rear is absolutely tiny.

File: side-view.jpg (88KB, 717x478px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 717x478px

>>15040258
I mean, look at this dude's head in relation to the window.

>>15040262
Wow the mustang quarter windows go on for miles compared to that. I'm not a tall guy but the guy that owns the one I drove is close to 6ft and he isnt even near that close to the roof line in it

>>15040286
That's the compromise Chevrolet made.
You can't see a damn thing, but it can do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEGHZnoBoHA

That's an unmodified one, tested before they went to town on the mother fucker and wound up with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAB5pztLP3w

>>15040308
The 16 is decently fast. And that motor sound is one only the ls motor makes. It makes me wonder just what the 17 z28 is packing

>>15040133
Pushrod suspension? Yeah right. There's no room for that on the Alpha platform.

Let's just hope on an LT version of the LS7.

>>15040393
GM keeps the pushrods in the engine
THE ONLY PLACE THEY SHOULD BE

>>15040193
>>15040203
I doubt it'll be a DOHC motor, and it still sounds like a crossplane V8 with a good exhaust. Definitely not turbo, no supercharge whine to be heard, so I'm thinking it's naturally aspirated. It's no wonder it sounds different from an LS, the new LT engines all have different valve setups, and direct injection of course. It's probably just that: an LT, probably a highly tuned naturally aspirated one.

>>15040411
>implying pushrod engine + pushrod suspension isn't godtier

MY SIDES

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2016-chevrolet-camaro-z28-crashes-nürburgring

>>15040446
You're pretty late to the party man.

>>15040595
That's pretty common among Ford fanboys.

File: 1383773216131.jpg (464KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1920x1080px

>>15039215
>When did we go from "LT" (1980s) to "LS" (late 90s to mid 2010s) to "LT" again? (present)
When the C7 Corvette was released.

>>15040661
Those C1's and C2's were such pretty cars...My father had a C2 327 Stingray with the Teak wheel, the original luggage rack and roof panel rack, A/C, and he had added power steering to it.

Lost it in a divorce...Prettiest car I have ever seen. Most beautiful blue you can imagine.
I've got a pic of him with it somewhere in the house, if anyone cares and wants to see it, I'll go find it and scan it in.

>>15039358
>valvetrain determines exhaust note

>>15039608
>drinking the pushrod koolaid

OHC motorcycle engines are more powerful and lighter than OHV motorcycle engines

a complete sportsbike weights almost as much as an LS engine alone, thats why motorcycle based v8 are still smaller and lighter than OHV engines

you are just delusional

File: 1460219073179.jpg (137KB, 1171x540px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1171x540px

>>15040962

File: tumblr_njl1cyXHPR1qk65n6o4_1280[1].jpg (399KB, 700x560px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 700x560px

>>15041053
>facts are bait

>>15040446
why are american cars so shit?

just stick to your straight roads kek

>>15041103
>a complete sportsbike weights almost as much as an LS engine alone

this is objectively false

>>15041280
Not the person you're replying to but according to a quick google search an LS7 weighs around 430lbs. My 1990 Yamaha FZR 600 weighs just under 400lbs.

>>15041053
>soul purpose

>>15040183
The rear-tyres are blockading first.
This is a no-go and in Germany even against the law for a car. The front-tyres have to blockade always at first.
Looks like there is a wrong adjustment or really some equipment of the braking-system failed.

>>15041280
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ninja_ZX-12R
http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=129304

you could build a 4 liter v12 out of a motorcycle engine, and it would still be lighter than an LS

OHV being lighter is a meme, the amount of mass sued in the rotating assemly and quality of the metal used the block and head is much more important

>>15041545
V10 bike engine.
So 3.0L?
That not viable for a mass produced car.

>>15041645
thats pretty much irrelevant

>>15039259
Doubt it, can a gt350 even break 12s? It was running 12.4 last time I checked. It's slow given its output

>>15039457
That's LITERALLY what he said.

File: 2017-chevrolet-corvette-grand-sport-mo-design-embargoed-1480x551-01(1).jpg (254KB, 1480x551px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1480x551px

Will the Z/28 be faster than the GS?

>>15041522
hence the testing

>>15042336

I think it will be.
The Camaro team seems to do better than the boomer vette team

>>15042656
It seems Team Vette has all their eggs in the ZR1 basket.

File: camarolol.jpg (216KB, 1000x447px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1000x447px

>>15039157

and off to the junkyard it goes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO9LhLorwL0

File: 2017-Tesla-Model-S[1].jpg (240KB, 1507x920px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1507x920px

>>15039157

Gasoline burner. Don't care anymore.

>>15043041

that's what happen when GM try "sport"...

>>15041280
I have a 600ish cc sport bike that weighs less than it, so you are objectively false.

>>15043041
JUST

Still can't turn

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a29140/the-2017-camaro-z-28-prototype-just-crashed-on-the-nurburgring/

:^)

>>15043402
>brake bias failure
>LOLCANTTURN
Get your shilling right.

>>15040677
Scan foo

Any word on what engine the Z has?

>>15039157
>dat aero

File: LOL CANT TURN.jpg (68KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 980x490px

>>15050316
didn't really help

>>15041778
2016 SS runs low 12 so this should be a beast

File: slowmaro4.jpg (93KB, 630x575px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 630x575px

>>15050849
>low 2s
>still slower than an m2

>>15050857
>a much more expensive and less reliable car is slightly faster

>>15050874
>much more expensive
try 5k

>less reliable
lol GM recalls

>>15050885
>BMW is more reliable than a smallblock-powered Chevy
>unironically believing this

File: 1447108635787.png (2MB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1920px

>>15050906
the camaro doesnt have a small block chevy, dumbass

>LT engines
>reliable
pick 1

>>15050932
It's still based on the old SBC.
>LT engines unreliable
>posts defective test car
>meanwhile, no reports of Camaros or NA Vettes overheating

>>15050951
>this delusion

lol

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/09/car-and-driver-suffers-engine-failure-in-long-term-2014-corvette/

they explode after 8k miles

8000 kek

>>15050951
> defective test car
Then explain all the other test cars along with customer cars

>>15039301
You literally have no idea what you are talking about. I pray that other anons who may be seeking knowledge will disregard this post.

The key to this is your statement that, for whatever reason, DOHC has issues with air flow at low rpm. Can you tell me why, specifically, an engine (heads) that can handle high flow would have trouble at low rpm? Or why the cam actuation method has anything to do with that?