Rumorpile: A More Affordable Corvette In The Works?

What strikes me right off is the semantics of relegating "Corvette", which hereto has been top shelf... now the same singular name may well come to mean 'the cheap vette'. I believe it would be smarter to leave the Stingray name to a singular trim, and give a different "Zxx" moniker to the entry-level vette. IE; it's still a Corvette, rather than getting everyone used to the fact that everything is getting jumbled. Z01 & Z02 were used with the Monza Spyder packages, don't know if it either would register well with the purists... but something along those lines. You get me, Camino?

But I agree with Camino's suggestion RE line item build possibilities. With a singular plant, this would be easier than with any other multi-plant line.

What's going to really help with the discussion is some idea of pricing tiers.

I have no issue with the 5.3, as long as it gets a unique tune.

What strikes me right off is the semantics of relegating "Corvette", which hereto has been top shelf... now the same singular name may well come to mean 'the cheap vette'. I believe it would be smarter to leave the Stingray name to a singular trim, and give a different "Zxx" moniker to the entry-level vette. IE; it's still a Corvette, rather than getting everyone used to the fact that everything is getting jumbled. Z01 & Z02 were used with the Monza Spyder packages, don't know if it either would register well with the purists... but something along those lines. You get me, Camino?

But I agree with Camino's suggestion RE line item build possibilities. With a singular plant, this would be easier than with any other multi-plant line.

What's going to really help with the discussion is some idea of pricing tiers.

I have no issue with the 5.3, as long as it gets a unique tune.

Pretty much how I'm seeing things. My suggestion was to use the SCCA-prep code from the Solstice (ZoK).

And I guess I ought to say this at this point in the discussion.

I'm fine with a 400HP 5.3 as long as it costs thousands less.

Not sure how dramatic GM can be with the pricing here, but I'd hope to be shocked at how low they can go.

EDIT: The things is, as Dwight pointed out earlier in the thread, GM won't be saving any money by using the 5.3. So how this happens, I have no clue.

If the whole point is to intentionally field an "inferior" engine so the LT1 can shine, the 5.3 is a horrible idea. The cheaper and better idea will be to simply de-content the LT1 and keep the engine's core components. It's cheaper that way and you'll still get the "inferior" engine you are looking for.

• Eliminate VVT
• Eliminate AFM
• Eliminate the variable muffler system
• Switch to a 15% "mild" Atkinson Grind on the camshaft for better fuel economy and lower output*
• DI is retained to keep the architecture, pistons, injection and fuel system common
• 385 bhp @ 6000 rpm
• 385 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm

*A 15% Atkinson Grind closes the intake valves 15% into the compression stroke reducing the effective displacement by ~15% (to 5.2L). It also consequently made the power stroke virtually 15% longer than the compression stroke increasing energy recovery from fuel burned with each ignited mixture. Generally speaking such an engine will be more fuel efficient than a "true" 5.2L V8 and just about every single parallel hybrid uses an Atkinson cammed engine instead of a smaller displacement engine.

Just a thought, but what if the 5.3 they are talking about is based on the LT-1 and might be a new truck engine?

Perhaps the LS-based 5.3 isn't in the game anymore?

EDIT: Or might it be intended for an ATS V, or other Alpha (Camaro) ?

GM often puts a new powerplant in an old bodystyle, but I don't remember them ever doing the reverse.

I expect if they go to the bother the 5.3 would not be a truck engine just the same size. Who knows it may be a different engine all together since we really have little to no info on this car to really know.

Second it would have DI and VVT because it will need it for better MPG and emissions. It gives GM the flexibility to not just make more power but a better running efficent engine. I expect nearly all GM engines will have these features no matter the cylinder count or price in the next couple years.

As for old engines in new bodies they have done it many times. one of the greatest mistakes was the cross fire in the 1984 C4.

Not when they had a new engine in the same platform like they do now.

And the Crossfire debuted just a few years prior to the C-4, so it was rather new at the time - lousy, but new.

No, the more I think about this the more I think this is a new LT 5.3 .

Not when they had a new engine in the same platform like they do now.

And the Crossfire debuted just a few years prior to the C-4, so it was rather new at the time - lousy, but new.

No, the more I think about this the more I think this is a new LT 5.3 .

The Crossfire 350 was only used in a 1982 Vette and killed in the second year of use. Lousy is a understatement as the engine never got old.

It will be a new engine in the Vette if they choose to do this as they would not take it backwards. I am shocked they used the LS3 in the SS as it was.

Cross-fire injection was used in 82 and 84. In 85 they switched to TPI.

Chevy aslo carried over the 62 engines in the 63, and the 67 engines in 68.

Yeah, I am not hung up on the 5.3 displacement and assuming it's a "truck" engine. After all, 5.3 was a Corvette displacement long before it became used in trucks

Time to market a "Corvette 327" I think.

Crossfire was also used in Camaro.

Crossfire was also used in Camaro.

Only on a 305 in the Z and TA for 2 years if you want to keep splitting hairs.

When you come down to it the Vette has always used a truck engine in the basic scheme of thing. The Chevy V8 has just been so versatile that it has been used for nearly everything and just tuned for each application. It is a truck engine as much as it is a sedan engine or a race engine. The engine is what ever you want to make it.

Besides since the LT and LS engines came along I stopped calling them Small Blocks since they really are new engines that just share a few measurements and nothing else.

No argument with that.

To me, it is only a truck engine because it happens to be used in trucks, not because of any inherent quality.

No argument with that.

To me, it is only a truck engine because it happens to be used in trucks, not because of any inherent quality.

Any LS or LT is a Truck engine or a Camaro engine or a Corvette engine. Just the tune and not so much the size matters.

The size in this case only matter as a marketing tool as you do not want to offer the ZR1 engine in the base car anymore than you want the Stingray engine in this car. You have to give incentive to move the customer up and in performance cars the key to moving buyers up is the engine. How fast you want to go is connected to how much you want to spend.

I think they could hit the 400 Mark easily with a lesser engine and that is more than enough to make many happy on the roads and streets in a Corvette. We must remember that many people buy the Vette to be seen in not so much drive 180 MPH. I would be shocked of half the C6 cars have ever seen 150 MPH.

The only point of disagreement I have with any of that is the limiting of the 5.3 to the entry-level car and the 6.2 to the Stingray.

I think they'd sell more Vettes if they opened that up to both models having the option of either engine.

I see it as most important that the Stingray have the 5.3 option for those you mention who merely want the status of the car. I think they'd sell more units that way.

I also believe that it would be the best way to offset the cost of certification for the 5.3.

If the whole point is to intentionally field an "inferior" engine so the LT1 can shine, the 5.3 is a horrible idea. The cheaper and better idea will be to simply de-content the LT1 and keep the engine's core components. It's cheaper that way and you'll still get the "inferior" engine you are looking for.

• Eliminate VVT
• Eliminate AFM
• Eliminate the variable muffler system
• Switch to a 15% "mild" Atkinson Grind on the camshaft for better fuel economy and lower output*
• DI is retained to keep the architecture, pistons, injection and fuel system common
• 385 bhp @ 6000 rpm
• 385 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm

*A 15% Atkinson Grind closes the intake valves 15% into the compression stroke reducing the effective displacement by ~15% (to 5.2L). It also consequently made the power stroke virtually 15% longer than the compression stroke increasing energy recovery from fuel burned with each ignited mixture. Generally speaking such an engine will be more fuel efficient than a "true" 5.2L V8 and just about every single parallel hybrid uses an Atkinson cammed engine instead of a smaller displacement engine.

So then you propose the following if I am reading your response right:

Entry Level - 6.2L De-Contented V8

Mid Level - 6.2L standard V8

High Level - 6.2L Supercharged V8

Could there be room for a 2nd mid level V8 that does not have supercharging or turbo charging but is just Performance tuned/tweaked and this way you have one standard block for the whole family?

Who knows, by 2020 the base Corvette engine may be a 300hp 2.0 Turbo 4....maybe the crazy British guy that was on here a few years ago wasn't so crazy...

The only point of disagreement I have with any of that is the limiting of the 5.3 to the entry-level car and the 6.2 to the Stingray.

I think they'd sell more Vettes if they opened that up to both models having the option of either engine.

I see it as most important that the Stingray have the 5.3 option for those you mention who merely want the status of the car. I think they'd sell more units that way.

I also believe that it would be the best way to offset the cost of certification for the 5.3.

Offering the 5.3 would not be a real popular Stingray option. It would be like offering a V6 in the SS Camaro. the posers generally take what ever is given for the level of trim they can afford. They are worried about radios and the like vs. engines.

Offering the 6.2 in the base car would only hurt sales of the Stingray.

As for certification how much would it cost? Would or could the same be used in a Holden too to off set cost. Even a Camaro? I really do not expect over the life of the cost would be much. The cam and programming will be the only real hardware change from the other 5.3 engines. To be honest they could even get away with the same engine in the trucks if they had too. Few people would notice or care. Entry level people are just affording a Vette not buying options.

Note too the 5.3 used could find it's way into a Colorado or even some kind of short bed full size performance truck. Even the coming Camaro Alpha could use it in a SS model and leave the more powerful engine to a higher model. The higher performance Camaro's will not be cheap as we move forward.

Who knows, by 2020 the base Corvette engine may be a 300hp 2.0 Turbo 4....maybe the crazy British guy that was on here a few years ago wasn't so crazy...

I am afraid that the future will shock many here. While we may not get a 4 cylinder Vette that soon there will be some major changes coming in the next 20 years and many will not be happy.

CAFE is bad enough but the laws for emissions will drive many larger engines from the market. Just the Volume they put out in emissions will kill them. It could even hurt some of the smaller turbo engines.

I foresee the government going for the displacement tax and many states going for miles driven tax. With plug in cars and higher MPG cars they are losing money to waste. The POTUS can do a lot more damage in the next couple years with no fear of reelection in respects to the EPA and what he may let them do. With no over site they are a very dangerous group to auto enthusiast.

I hope I am wrong but it is not looking good now and much will be difficult to overturn.