Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: Is This The 2014 Corvette's Rear End?

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    December 24, 2012

    January 13, 2013 is the date that Chevrolet will reveal to the world the new seventh-generation Corvette. But some leaked images could give us some hints as to what the rear end and interior look like.

    The images are allegedly from a user manual. The Corvette Fourm's member who posted these images cannot vouch for their authenticity, but the images seem to match up with past rumors.

    Starting with the rear end, the images show the new Corvette sharing some design cues from the 2009 Stingray concept. The images also reveal a set of quad tailpipes and uniquely styled taillights.

    Heading inside, the images reveal a new center stack with a large screen, paddle shifters, and a track telematics system that will display lap times, a small GPS map of the track with the car’s position, G forces, gear selection, and 0-60 times.

    We'll see if the images are the real deal or not when the 13th rolls around in a few weeks.

    Source: Corvette Fourm via AutoGuide

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    The proper way to offer an alternative here is to create a smaller RWD sportscar with a turbo 4. The overall envelope of Corvette has no room for a forced-solution V6 version.

    But a "mini-vette" could accomplish everything those wishing for this want, in a far more competent way.

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Some people compensate with piston counts while others are more secure in pure power results.

    In this day and age proper performance can be found in 4-6-8-10-12 cylinders. The only thing the smaller 4 hurt in is sound.

    Even the Great Enzo Ferrari also did well with 4 and 6 cylinder engines.

    A mini Vette is a waste of time. How many limited segment 2 seaters does a volume value leader division need?

    As I see it the more options available on the Vette the larger segment of the buying public it can reach. They have already shown this with the ZR1 as few of the present Vette buyers can afford this but I am sure it has picked up buyers that normally would have never bought a Vette.

    Edited by hyperv6
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If a mini-vette is a waste of time, then a V6 in the actual Vette is a larger one.

    A small sportscar could do a better job of being less-expensive, lighter, and more affordable. If that can't be justified, then a bastardized Corvette surely can't. The larger car could never achieve the same results as a purpose-built smaller car could.

    Round peg/square hole is never a very good answer.

    Edited by Camino LS6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

    If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

    One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Agreed on all counts, however, TTV6 gives an option for those who want it and to reduce bad press against the car. As much as I want the core DNA of Corvette not to change, it needs volume from turkies (people) who think the car is inferior because of not having a "high-tech" engine. The car needs to cater the core Corvette customers, and new breed for its survival.

    Not a diehard Corvette fan, but I'm not aware of "bad press" due to the current engine. Any negative commentary WRT having an IBC withers immediately in the face of its performance, so those are NOT remotely potential Corvette buyers, just stone-throwers; their minds are not going to be changed. Also not aware that the Corevtte's 'survival' in in question.

    There was a LOT more weight to bad press for the Corvette in the late '70s, when it had 180 HP and couldn't get out of its own way. Today it's nothing but semantics.

    Corvette survival is in question, if not for C7 certainly for the C8. One reason I know it is in question is because the base price of the car has gone up by $7,000 since the C6 came out. Z-06 has jumped by $11,000. The volume is about fourth of what it was in 2007. GM has to make money somewhere.

    I would personally see it as an affordable sports car that could beat cars four times its price, which an American dreamed of owning rather than a competitor to European snob mobiles where cost of heated optional seats is $1,000. And if it takes to get cold turkeys as customers for its survival, then so be it so as long there is still a hardcore DNA existing in this vehicle .

    The proper way to offer an alternative here is to create a smaller RWD sportscar with a turbo 4. The overall envelope of Corvette has no room for a forced-solution V6 version.

    But a "mini-vette" could accomplish everything those wishing for this want, in a far more competent way.

    That is the best option. By having a cheaper and smaller platform mate for the Vette, you have economy of scales. But if the status quo stays for the Vette, we may not see the C8 and that worries me as a Vette fan the most. I will go a step further, if you do not like the TTV6 option then let Cadillac have a try again on the car and use TTV6 with similar power as the LT1 for base engine - give it a GT characteristics rather than a track machine ability to compete with SL head on. Have a TTV8 as the other engine V series and you have a pricier version to cover the Vette.

    One more thing I forgot in the car - I would not mind seeing a diesel V8 Corvette that shows GM has balls and can think outside the box.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    But a "mini-vette" could accomplish everything those wishing for this want, in a far more competent way.

    That is the best option. By having a cheaper and smaller platform mate for the Vette, you have economy of scales. But if the status quo stays for the Vette, we may not see the C8 and that worries me as a Vette fan the most. I will go a step further, if you do not like the TTV6 option then let Cadillac have a try again on the car and use TTV6 with similar power as the LT1 for base engine - give it a GT characteristics rather than a track machine ability to compete with SL head on. Have a TTV8 as the other engine V series and you have a pricier version to cover the Vette.

    One more thing I forgot in the car - I would not mind seeing a diesel V8 Corvette that shows GM has balls and can think outside the box.

    Now, these two ideas have merit!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I expect the TT V6 to play a major role in the new Alpha Camaro. They will build the engines image there and I expect in the ATS V.

    The last thing GM needs is another 2 seat car when they have not even got the Malibu right.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What the hell does Malibu have to do with anything?

    And, all I did was note a more logical way to achieve what some imagine to be beneficial about this hypothetical V6 Corvette. And a way that would better achieve those ends.

    I think you know it is a superior approach.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As I roll all of this around in my head, it is becoming clear to me that a small RWD sportscar really makes a lot of sense for Chevy. Today, Chevy has Corvette and Camaro and that's it for performance. There is nothing in the lineup which has anything to offer to young, less well heeled enthusiasts. That, and the fact that Corvette and Camaro buyers want the V8 despite a competent V6 in the Camaro, Chevy looks like a one-trick pony. Corvette and Camaro have their identity tied up with the V8 in an inextricable way, and attempts to create enthusiasm for lesser engines in these two cars while expecting to draw in younger enthusiasts really are doomed from the start. The cars just aren't suited for it.

    But a car designed to do this job from the start wouldn't carry any of that baggage. It could be designed without any intention to use more than a hot 4cyl. turbo, the price could be kept well-below both "C" cars, the fuel economy would be dramatically higher, and the car would be very tossable and fun to drive. That is a formua for attracting young buyers which would actually work.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So adding another low volume V6 sports car would be a good idea when they have other high volume cash flow generating models that needs fixed? Yep that is logical. There are bigger fish to fry at Chevy before we worry about how to do a seperate V6 sports car.

    If Chevy already had all their ducks in a row yes it would be a good idea but I think you can agree Chevy and GM has more important things on their to do list for now.

    Logical Idea in a perfect world yes, realistic for GM to do now no.

    Like it or not the Vette people are avoiding the V6 as long as they can but even they know they will have to look at alturnitives in the future. The fact is there is not a sports car company out there this side of the million dollar cars that is not looking at all the options.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    So adding another low volume V6 sports car would be a good idea when they have other high volume cash flow generating models that needs fixed? Yep that is logical. There are bigger fish to fry at Chevy before we worry about how to do a seperate V6 sports car.

    If Chevy already had all their ducks in a row yes it would be a good idea but I think you can agree Chevy and GM has more important things on their to do list for now.

    Logical Idea in a perfect world yes, realistic for GM to do now no.

    Like it or not the Vette people are avoiding the V6 as long as they can but even they know they will have to look at alturnitives in the future. The fact is there is not a sports car company out there this side of the million dollar cars that is not looking at all the options.

    Three points:

    1) My position is an alternative to the foolish idea to mess with Corvette. What the timing might be, or where it would fit into the priority list for GM isn't something I have addressed.

    2) I have never subscribed to the idea that GM is so inept that they can't develop cars simultaneously - in fact I see that as nonsense.

    3) Done properly, this could be a volume product.

    Some touching up of the front end and this could definitely fit the bill.

    Chevrolet-CODE130RS-Concept01-medium.jpg

    Yes, yes it would.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As I roll all of this around in my head, it is becoming clear to me that a small RWD sportscar really makes a lot of sense for Chevy. Today, Chevy has Corvette and Camaro and that's it for performance. There is nothing in the lineup which has anything to offer to young, less well heeled enthusiasts. That, and the fact that Corvette and Camaro buyers want the V8 despite a competent V6 in the Camaro, Chevy looks like a one-trick pony. Corvette and Camaro have their identity tied up with the V8 in an inextricable way, and attempts to create enthusiasm for lesser engines in these two cars while expecting to draw in younger enthusiasts really are doomed from the start. The cars just aren't suited for it.

    But a car designed to do this job from the start wouldn't carry any of that baggage. It could be designed without any intention to use more than a hot 4cyl. turbo, the price could be kept well-below both "C" cars, the fuel economy would be dramatically higher, and the car would be very tossable and fun to drive. That is a formua for attracting young buyers which would actually work.

    Basically a BRZ competitor. Yes, GM does not have anything in its stable, but that Code 130 suddenly becomes worthy. Yes two turbos 1.6 and 2.0 with 200 and 300 hp, respectively should suffice. Camaro can take over at that point.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The new Camaro will be this car as the Alpha based car will see the Turbo 4, V6 [poss TT] and V8. The Camaro will evolve as the market is changing as we have seen with other makes like the BRZ and where the Mustang already is heading.

    The Camaro as it is now will be the last of the large heavy so called pony cars. The ATS performance is only a hint at where the Camaro will start.

    I really think we all have seen the last of the R130. While some loved it just as many also hated it. I feel they were testing the waters and it just was not embraced enough to carry it over as the Camaro.

    Imagine if they did carry it over like this with a Mustang looking like an Aston or Jag. Not good.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    coupe

    RWD

    =no sales. niche model. maybe 15-20k units, and cannibalize camaro sales too. Chevy needs to fix their malibu line, the equinox line soon, and needs a small crossover. they need to make those products top notch.

    chevy would do best to downsize the camaro a bit, keep the base car priced right, make it habitable inside, and make it right with the times. build on the equity they have of the camaro line. i would go so far to say that AWD should be an option on a small percentage of camaros.

    chevy already has the camaro and corvette and soon the SS. Gearheads and RWD fans don't need much else.

    There really is little demand for cheap chevy versions of BRZ's, 240sx's, 1 series.

    I expect the TT V6 to play a major role in the new Alpha Camaro. They will build the engines image there and I expect in the ATS V.

    The last thing GM needs is another 2 seat car when they have not even got the Malibu right.

    EXACTLY. They need to knock the Malibu out of the park, preferably with an all new chassis and platform. GM has never demostrated that they can build a top in class car in the best selling segment in the US.

    Edited by regfootball
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Some people compensate with piston counts while others are more secure in pure power results.

    In this day and age proper performance can be found in 4-6-8-10-12 cylinders. The only thing the smaller 4 hurt in is sound.

    Even the Great Enzo Ferrari also did well with 4 and 6 cylinder engines.

    A mini Vette is a waste of time. How many limited segment 2 seaters does a volume value leader division need?

    As I see it the more options available on the Vette the larger segment of the buying public it can reach. They have already shown this with the ZR1 as few of the present Vette buyers can afford this but I am sure it has picked up buyers that normally would have never bought a Vette.

    the solstice was a mini vette. look at how many hundred thousand that sold.

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    the solstice was a mini vette. look at how many hundred thousand that sold.

    Irrelevant. First, it came as a convertible only, not coupe, yet it sold close to 20,000 units a year, second only 1,350 coupes were made before GM killed Pontiac.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    coupe

    RWD

    =no sales. niche model. maybe 15-20k units, and cannibalize camaro sales too. Chevy needs to fix their malibu line, the equinox line soon, and needs a small crossover. they need to make those products top notch.

    Camaro is on target to sell 85,000 models. Not all of those 15-20k units of this small car will be Camaro cannibalization. Assuming only 50% of those, you still have Camaro selling ~75,000 units per annum. When Camaro goes on alpha you are looking at good platform sharing with ATS, CTS and a possible Buick anyways. So yes there is a room for a smaller two seater car with 4cylinder and turbos only to compete directly with BRZ, Miata and now S2000. Camaro because of its very history and heritage is not a competitor for all those.

    That market as a whole is worth about 100,000 cars annually, (if you include 370Z and Genesis), 20% market share is not bad. Plus this needs to be a global car, not US only car. There is not one GM car fitting that bill.

    Linear processing - get Malibu right then - needs to stop as GM has capability to parallel process and produce gem of a products. Malibu's team failed, push them to fix it, while others work on getting different cars out, how difficult is that?

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The new Camaro will be this car as the Alpha based car will see the Turbo 4, V6 [poss TT] and V8. The Camaro will evolve as the market is changing as we have seen with other makes like the BRZ and where the Mustang already is heading.

    The Camaro as it is now will be the last of the large heavy so called pony cars. The ATS performance is only a hint at where the Camaro will start.

    I really think we all have seen the last of the R130. While some loved it just as many also hated it. I feel they were testing the waters and it just was not embraced enough to carry it over as the Camaro.

    Imagine if they did carry it over like this with a Mustang looking like an Aston or Jag. Not good.

    How much is Camaro going to shrink? 24 inches in length, 11 inches in wheelbase, and 6 inches in width? Because then and then only it will be a BRZ competitor. Given it is on alpha, you are looking at a footprint similar to ATS, which means shrinking by 8, 3 and 4 inches in those dimensions, respectively. That still leaves room for a small, fun, tossable vehicle beneath the Camaro.

    And you may call it huge, but the car is within 2 to 3 inches of its nearest competitor Mustang. And unless Mustang goes extremely tiny, I do not see Camaro going as small as the ATS. I expect it to be saving weight without too much sacrifice in the footprint.

    • Agree 2
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I do not have the exact measuments but it should be inbetween the ATS an new CTS. It also will lose 475-600 pounds depending on the model and engine used.

    Just losing the Zeta will lose a lot of weight but either way I would like to think of the Camaro being just a little shorter and norrow. I just hope they can package the interior better than the ATS. For some reason they lose space on the inside vs the BMW and a smaller trunk too.

    The Camaro should be shorter narrower than the present CTS coupe but will be wider than the ATS.

    As for volume 2 seaters as explained by a GM marketing manager. He stated most have a 5-7 year life. Sales plunge and it is difficult to keep them alive with out a lot of investment that is difficult to secure on a low volume line. If Pontiac had not died the Solstice was not for much longer anyways. The only lower cost two seaters of any volume in this country to live long lives were the Vette and Miata. The Vette pretty much get a free pass because it is a Icon like a Harley. Even then sales are dangerously low last year and this year. Hard to make a buisness case even for an Icon if it has a hard time selling just over 10,000 units. In otherwords the C7 could not come soon enough.

    The Miata is a case of good marketing and global sales. They change special trims often and colors not unlike what GM has been doing with the Camaro too.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    coupe

    RWD

    =no sales. niche model. maybe 15-20k units, and cannibalize camaro sales too. Chevy needs to fix their malibu line, the equinox line soon, and needs a small crossover. they need to make those products top notch.

    chevy would do best to downsize the camaro a bit, keep the base car priced right, make it habitable inside, and make it right with the times. build on the equity they have of the camaro line. i would go so far to say that AWD should be an option on a small percentage of camaros.

    chevy already has the camaro and corvette and soon the SS. Gearheads and RWD fans don't need much else.

    There really is little demand for cheap chevy versions of BRZ's, 240sx's, 1 series.

    I expect the TT V6 to play a major role in the new Alpha Camaro. They will build the engines image there and I expect in the ATS V.

    The last thing GM needs is another 2 seat car when they have not even got the Malibu right.

    EXACTLY. They need to knock the Malibu out of the park, preferably with an all new chassis and platform. GM has never demostrated that they can build a top in class car in the best selling segment in the US.

    My whole point is they did at one time show they were class leading in the classes that count years ago with the Caprice, Chevelle and Nova but have yet to repeat that in the years since.

    GM still needs to get their Sh*t together and make a rock solid line up with the Cruze, Malibu and Impala. Once they do that they can play with the odd bits they have always been good at.

    Right now the Spark, Sonic and Cruze are near or class leaders. All they need to do is update the Cruze as it already is getting. Fix the Malibu and then market the Impala properly. I think they have a chance to get the house in order but they do not need to be distracted by other low volume issues right now. GM should be able to do more than one thing right at a time but of late has yet to prove it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have a hard time seeing why GM needs a 2800 pound coupe as an cheap corvette alternative. The c7 will only be a couple hundred pounds more. Anything like a code red basically eats into the exact same people Chevy would have looking at base camaros. Just make a cheap base corvette to bring in new buyers to keep corvette healthy for the future. Make the next camaro affordable too.

    Next camaro should basically be packaged like a 3 series coupe in size and room and weight. Camaro needs to lose pounds Ina huge way.

    To suggest it be between an alpha ats and cts would be about right.

    I hope gm doesn't get super obsessed with coupes again. They really don't sell. Camaro sells because it was off the market for 7 years and the design is unforgettable.

    I will say this, a code red Chevy might be as good a business case as a cruze coupe may be, and would be dynamically more fun, but it would be way too narrowly focused due to its RWD. BMW can't hardly sell 1 series coupes in great numbers and partially because there is a 3 series coupe. I sure hope they don't try a Buick alpha coupe. A regal coupe is maybe the only other coupes gm could justify building and I don't even think that would sell. Before any other coupes besides the ATS, GM would be far better off importing the Astra 3 door. 3 door Astra would resonate more with young buyers than practically anything else gm would build off alpha in 2 door form.

    Edited by regfootball
    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't think the 130 is dead yet. It wouldn't be making the auto show rounds again this year if it were. It probably has more than a few supporters in GM's upper management. Either it ends up growing slightly in size and mass and morphs into the next Camaro, or it stays as is (save for a '14 Impala front end) and becomes Chevy's entry RWD funmobile. A car like the 130 would do really well overseas, where gas taxes and displacement taxes would limit the Camaro's market penetration. It'd be pretty easy to throw a lion on the grill and send a few to Australia as the Torana.

    • Agree 2
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't think the 130 is dead yet. It wouldn't be making the auto show rounds again this year if it were. It probably has more than a few supporters in GM's upper management. Either it ends up growing slightly in size and mass and morphs into the next Camaro, or it stays as is (save for a '14 Impala front end) and becomes Chevy's entry RWD funmobile. A car like the 130 would do really well overseas, where gas taxes and displacement taxes would limit the Camaro's market penetration. It'd be pretty easy to throw a lion on the grill and send a few to Australia as the Torana.

    This is the sort of thinking I hope is still alive at GM.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    z and Camino, I am not sure how to invite ppl to join a Facebook page, but there is one I belong to in reference to the Code130RS. You're welcome to join I'm sure.

    I love the shoebox look of the Code, it is pure Chevrolet... from '55, to '64-'65 Chevelle, '66-'67 Nova, H-body Monza coupe, and on to the '78-'81 Malibu coupe, it is essential Chevrolet... but it is NOT a Camaro. The Code 130RS could be produced in coupe, sedan, shooting brake or even ute, while remaining a 4-cylinder only model. This is NOT a Camaro, it has possibilities beyond what a Camaro can be, and I view it as a fantastic opportunity to come to market with something only Chevy could do, trading on heritage, yet opening up to a whole new generation.

    Camaro should remain a bit larger, with V6 and V8 engines. A Camaro can only be a coupe or convertible. And that is a great thing.

    Code has no such restriction.

    Edited by ocnblu
    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The issue with the 130 is it is either a love hate kind of car. The repsonse to it has been very divided at best.

    The issue I have with the car is not the parts of it's styling as each one is nice but put them together and they just do not look like they all belong on the same car. A old 67 Nova had more flow to it.

    While I am not in favor of two Apha Coupes in the Chevy line up there is one thing to consider. Now the Camaro will be shared with the ATS and CTS line they can now afford to sell fewer Camaro's. There will be no need to try to push 100,000 units to keep the line viable. With this in mind we could keep the Camaro a V8 and TT V6 car and do a second Alpa car as a NA V6 and 4 cylinder car. Lets face it GM has always had issues pushing a V6 car even with 325 HP.

    Too bad the public is so brain washed that they can not drive RWD in the snow as a small RWD Malibu would be a cool thing. Too many will avoid it as they have been convinced RWD does not work in the snow. AWD would help sell this but would also push the price into Buicks area too.

    One thing to consider is if they were to do another Apha coupe for Chevy I would expect a sedan too. Too many lost sales just with a coupe. Love em all you like but they are still a limited sale vehicle.

    I saw a rare CTS coupe yesterday and told the wife it is a same they so not sell more of them than they do as it is a very striking car. I just hope they do something as stylish for the ATS or new CTS at some point.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Point is, there's room for new possibilities here (as Hyper just pointed out).

    Variants are cool because they can make the same nameplate appeal to many tastes and needs.

    While I think the demand for AWD is a bit overstated around here, Alpha has the capacity to offer it. In fact, that capacity should probably be there for most architectures going forward. That said, it shouldn't be a mandatory feature.

    As for the 130R specifically,. the design has done nothing but grow on me since I first saw it. Even so, I'd love to see if Alpha can go even smaller (if only with a concept) to get a notion of its flexibility limits. A swoopy body in the Corvette roadster tradition would be great to see. The idea that Alpha can morph itself from something like a Kappa at one end of the spectrum to a Sigma sized entry at the other is fascinating - I'd like to see it demonstrated. A 130R-derived lineup of variants sounds quite good to me, I am a huge advocate of multiple configurations from a single nameplate/platform.

    Edited by Camino LS6
    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think the Code 130 is a great looking car as is, I would take one in a heartbeat as long as I was comfortable driving it. I'm so used to full size cars I even felt cramped in a last gen Grand Prix rental a few years back. But getting back to the Code, I think it's a great relief to see a classic three box design on a car again in this age of "4 door coupes" and everything with sweeping rooflines ending nearly at the edge of the deck lid.

    • Agree 1
    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

    If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

    One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

    The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

    If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

    One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

    The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

    When the LSx V8s can best that, it doesn't look too impressive.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

    If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

    One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

    The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

    When the LSx V8s can best that, it doesn't look too impressive.

    The LSx V8s are in full size AWD sedans? Did I miss a press release?

    • Agree 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

    If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

    One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

    The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

    Some have a lot to learn on these engines and to understand they are only at the take off point of where they can go vs the V8 is nearing the point were it has it's limits with present technology.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Snide remarks aside, the truth is that V6s don't offer much (if any) fuel economy gain over V8s.

    That's the point.

    They are no solution.

    and as I've pointed out... you are wrong about the fuel economy.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Show me.

    Show me in cars/trucks that also offer a V8.

    Then, take a look at cars that offer a 4 and a V6.

    If a hot 4 is offered, the V6 starts to look pointless.

    If a V6 can't offer at least 5MPG over the same vehicle with an 8, what good is it really?

    Sorry, but I just see V6s as overlap offerings.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    From owners manuall of the 3.5l ecoboost V6:

    "Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer."

    Most people aren't taking into account the significant hidden costs associated with turbocharged engines in general. Though they can run on regular, premium is required to achieve the manufacturer's performance and econony specs. in the case of the f-150, if you're not willing to pay the extra money at the pump, you degrade the ecoboost's performance such that the v8 becomes a better option - same performance, the same (or better) economy, and lower costs to operate and maintain.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm not talking about Turbo-4 v. N/A V6... that's a big duh. And as such, I question why you think the same theory doesn't apply to Turbo-V6 v. N/A V8.

    Ford F-150 4x4:

    Ecoboost V6 - 16 City / 21 Highway

    5.0 V8 - 14 City / 19 Highway

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm not talking about Turbo-4 v. N/A V6... that's a big duh. And as such, I question why you think the same theory doesn't apply to Turbo-V6 v. N/A V8.

    Ford F-150 4x4:

    Ecoboost V6 - 16 City / 21 Highway

    5.0 V8 - 14 City / 19 Highway

    Because I see 2MPG under ideal conditions as a wash.

    No real benefit.

    Look, I get that most cars are engineered for V6s. What I question is if that makes sense moving forward. In almost any case, there is a 4 or an 8 that arguably makes more sense for the application. I don't think that a V6 should be immediately eliminated from production, but I see logic in phasing it out of future designs.

    300hp 4 cyl? There isn't anything like that in production currently AFAIK. Sounds like it would be dreadful...loud, vibrating, short shelf life.

    Ask Hyper about his 290HP four.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There was a time when a V6 out-powered a 4 dramatically while besting V8 economy significantly. Now, however, the 4 encroaches via power output while the V8 encroaches via economy. I just don't see much room for the V6 going forward.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    V6s are generally smoother and quieter than a 4, so I see that as an advantage.

    Which is why I'd make them Cadillac/Buick exclusives - they don't belong at Chevy.

    That, and Buick's tradition of Turbo V6s, along with the "clamor" for DOHC engines at Cadillac.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'd do the breakdown this way:

    Chevy: N/A aspirated and turbo 4s and eights with a good, solid N/A V6 where justified (trucks/Camaro/Impala)

    Buick: N/A and turbo 4s and 6s

    Cadillac: all high-end configurations available

    GMC: same as Chevy, with maybe a special Turbo V6 offered

    I see this as a more logical distribution of powerplants and a strengthening of brand identity.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Camino sorry if you took that as a snide remark it was not directed at you only but it was a blanket statment on many who really have not lived with a modern Turbo engine. I used to think the same way till I owned and lived with one and now I understand what is possible now. In the past you would have to put my cold dead body behind a 4 cylinder turbo and today I love it. Things have changed that much.

    Ok lets address some comments here. 300 HP in the Eco is not an issue. The only think that limits my Turbo is the 315 FT-LBS the 4 speed tranny can handle. There on many people today running this combo with pushing up to near 400 HP and no issues. If you take a look at what GM recomends power wise on the LNF Turbo they only recomend changes to the rods and pistons at 400 HP. Many of the parts are well suited for much much more power in stock form.

    Second it is no louder than stock and durability is covered under the GM 5 year 100,000 mile warranty. I know of many that have gone well into the 6 figures with no issues.

    As for Fuel the stock settings are Premium Recomended not Required. This is no different than my 3800 SC Seried III. The only difference you notive is the loss of about 20-30 HP and lower boost. Note MPG in my Turbo or SC engines were the same no matter what.

    As for viberation? Why would it viberate any more at 300 HP? This statment shows a lack of understanding of how far these engines have come.

    The think to note it while I know some V8 applications can get higher Highway MPG the do taper off fast around town and if driven anything but easy they do use much more fuel.

    Noted with my Eco Turbo that driven hard daily it will return 23-24 City MPG in winter and 25-26 MPG City. Yes this is includes launches where I see boost levels at or near 23 PSI. So this is not some hypermile trick.

    Also note the GM Turbo Upgrade I installed moved me from 250 HP to 290 HP and added 1-2 MPG City and Highway. This was not only confirmed with other owners but I also confirmed it with Bill Duncan the GM driveline engineer who developed the Upgrade kit. He and his staff are already at work with similar kits for the present Turbo engines on the market and this time they have better transmissions and more RWD vheicles for them. Note the Solstice with my kit would do 340 FT-LBS.

    The kit is only a change in two MAP sensors and a Computer flash. I paid $300 for the increase and install to bump up my performance.

    As for the added cost? On average it may cost me $1 to $2 max a week more since the kit make the engine Premium Required. Note I only used Premium anyways. At least this way I could chose what fuel and how much pefromance.

    As of now I agree with a FWD the 300 HP give or take a little is about right just due to the lack of traction. The FWD unloads the front end with the weight transfer and it can be a challange to hook up the tires. I have even has tire spin at 50-55 MPH. in dry and 60 MPH in damp conditions. Note this was with Pilots that were not the best grip anyways. But it is fun just punch the gas at 35 and let the tires rip. Thank God for Launch control on this vehicle. The only flaw with my vehicle is the FWD and the lack of traction. The torque steer is pretty well under control on even grip surfaces.

    Note my Vehicle is not any lightweight either at 3200 pounds. 14 flat in the 1/4 is easy and if you can get traction 13's are possible. Some of the guys with stacked tuning are in the 12's and high 11's with slicks.

    One key to all of this is the DI. The one trick everyone needs to learn with DI is how to get the MPG. This trick should work with the V8 too. The key is off gas time. The engine if it has larger amounts of low end torque will help get the car up to speed faster and you off the gas pedal. If you are coasting the fuel is cut off all together. This was explained to me by BIll Duncan of GM. He said even if you put it in neutral you will not cut the fuel off but left in drive it will shut the fuel down and this is where we pick up a lot of miles. It is something GM learned while doing the Turbo engines.

    As for MPG today any company that can pick up 1-2 MPG with more than good power will sell their left nut for it. Lets face it they are building 3 cylinders because they want to. MPG is hard and expensive to come buy and each MPG gain cost more and more per ever MPG you step up. Things are tough now and will only get worse as the average goes higher. As the average get higher you will be able to buy the powerful V8 cars but you had better have a full wallet. There will not be many and they will not be cheap.

    I see the Turbo V6 now as only a start of what they can do. Not all of it will be massive power but it will also be used for low torque bands to get the feel and the cars moving and then let the lesser power keep them rolling. GM already showing us this with the new 1.6 Turbo.

    The only real down side to all of this is more parts that could go bad but today most of these parts are being built to levels that they need to be. GM learned a hard lesson with the non water cooled and cheap turbo T types they did in the past that never lived more than 35,000 miles.

    Note too the Turbo V6 will be like the V8 and will be limited to only a handful of vehicles. It will never be a wide use engine. The Turbo 4 will make up 70% of the market at some point and we also will see an increase of the 3 cylinders over time. The V8 is as big now as it will ever be again. So if you got em smoke em.

    This is not a GM move but a market wide move as they are all moving in this direction.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • Community Hive Community Hive

    Community Hive allows you to follow your favorite communities all in one place.

    Follow on Community Hive
  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Plastic cladding = off road.  Instead of killing the Sonata, they should just put plastic body cladding down the side and raise the price by $10k and call it the Sonata HD Overlander X.  Instant hit.
    • Considering a planet with 8 Billion and he sold almost 2 million cars, then he is covering .025% of the population compared to other auto companies. I think 2024 going into 2025 we will see other auto companies top Tesla. You and I are two peas in a pod as I also was up on a hill watching the implosion and thinking what a waste as it was a great building. I love the Kingdome and hate the new stadium.  Agree it was surreal to see the ship hit the support pillar and the whole building just collapse. Be interesting to see what replaces it as today bridges built like that are not allowed due to the exact nature of how it collapsed.  Yes, Tesla is a love or hate and the minimalist approach is not for everyone. I honestly have to agree with the comment @smk4565 I believe made that the touch screen only will be the future of cheap autos and switches and buttons will be the higher end autos. Interesting times we live in for sure.
    • Decent upgrade to the aging 2024 model. Nice to see they are reducing costs of the curved screen in the EVs by pushing it out across the Hyundai Family and into Kia. The one thing I do not like is all the Chrome. 🤢 🤮
    • Today at the New York International Auto Show, Hyundai unveiled an update to its little truck, the Hyundai Santa Cruz. The refresh to the exterior is relatively mild, though it features a more menacing grille with bolder verticle lines.  Updated running lights and new wheel designs add to the fresher look. Inside, there is a new steering wheel, infotainment system, and instrument panel. on upper trims, an optional panoramic curved display houses dual 12.3-inch displays for driver and entertainment. The plenty-capable powertrains carry over with either a 191-horsepower direct injected 2.5-liter 4-cylinder or a turbo-charged version of of the same engine with 281 horsepower.  The transmission for the entry-level engine is a traditional 8-speed automatic, while the turbo-charged model gets an 8-speed dual-clutch transmission. Santa Cruzes with the turbo engine gain a new tow mode for enhanced towing control.  Both powertrains are towing capable with a 3,500 lb rating for the entry engine and a stout 5,000 lb rating for the turbo models when equipped with all-wheel drive. New for 2025 is an XRT trim geared even more towards outdoor adventure. It features a trim-specific front fascia and grille, special 18-inch wheels with all-terrain tires, an increased approach angle, front tow hooks, and surround-view monitoring.    The 2025 Hyundai Santa Cruz goes on sale this summer. View full article
    • Regarding Tesla - it's either love or hate with these vehicles.  A college friend I'll be seeing when in SoCal next month has 2 of them, and I'll probably be riding in both of them - one is his sleeker S model and I forgot which the other one (that his wife drives) is.  In certain places, people have a lot of disposable income and having a Tesla goes with the landscape. Minimalist(ic) isn't necessarily bad.  We all remember the adage "less is more."  I'll vouch that the workmanship of the interior is good and I can also vouch that the overall look (including the centered everything on one display) is ugly.  I will say that EV motors are supposed to last a long time but the battery replacement is very expensive and the range is currently not that optimal. I did not like the model Y I had for less than 1 day.  Also, its exterior is mostly ugly.  That's my opinion. This isn't a discussion I want to get into.  I would much prefer a more user-friendly EV ... and not just yet. - - - - - What I was randomly going to say: I'm not sure whether I'm in shock or still feeling surreal as to what happened in Baltimore.  At first, I thought a ship just hit something on a bridge.  Then I saw the footage and that's the surreal part ... the domino-like collapse of the entire structure and the size of the ship.  I remember having to figure out the forces of either tension or compression on each member of a truss-like structure when I was in school.   A group of us sat there for about 3 or 4 hours one night - with some Mountain Dew - to work that out. I don't believe I've been on that bridge since it's on the outer beltway, but it's numbered as part of the U.S. interstate system.  From looking at the map, it is the major bridge on the entrance to/exit from Baltimore Harbor.  I hope they find the 6 individuals who were working on it fixing potholes in the middle of the night who fell down with the bridge.  The ship giving a mayday is what allowed them to shut down both approaches to the bridge just in time.   The weird thing is that it happened on March 26.  IIRC, the deliberate (domino-like) implosion of the reinforced concrete Kingdome in Seattle happened on March 26, 2000 (no rain that day) and people were sitting on slopes overlooking downtown to see that happen.  But that's how it is with planned implosions.  I went there that morning and have photos of the Kingdome's last day somewhere. https://www.seahawks.com/video/kingdome-implosion-hd It was indeed March 26, 2000.  I was one of the few who liked the Kingdome.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings