Jump to content
ToniCipriani

Larger Engines in the Corvette?

Recommended Posts

Can anything bigger than a V8 be fit into the Corvette platform? I was thinking an XLR or Corvette beyond the Blue Devil, with something like a V12 or V16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything is pretty much possible. I've seen Buick 455 & Chevy 454 V8s in Metropolitans. But I believe it's safe to say Chevrolet will never put any more cylinders than 8 in a Corvette (or any other Chevrolet, for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They did say the XV12 could fit in the Corvette, not that they would put it in the Corvette. But why doesnt the XLR-v get that engine instead of the SC 4.4? Are they just waiting until the Blue Devil is out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought they were going to produce it. There were some articles about GMs new performance engine plant, which builds the Z06 engine. I beleive they said they could make the XV12 and LS7 there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet the 8.1 big block would fit into the XLR. The N* is as wide as the BBC, but I don't know about height. It would be fun to try with a wrecked XLR. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LS9: 554 cubic inch (9 liter) V8. 730HP, 700 trq. :D Or how about a mini V12 for Cadillac? a 4.0 liter V12 perhaps? If Mazda can have a 1.8 liter V6 and Ferrari can have a 2.0 liter V12 then why not a 4.0 liter or even 3.5 liter V12 for Caddy? Back in the days of the MX3 GS V6 I read a few articles about the future miniaturezation of engines in the upcoming late 90s... A 2.9 liter V8 pushrod Kappa Camaro that gets 40mpg and keeps up with a BMW 330? YES please. Then we could have a 3.0 liter "Northstar II" V8 for small Cadillacs. Or how about a 3.0 liter pushrod V12 Pontiac Banschee? :wub: Edited by Sixty8panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or how about a 3.0 liter pushrod V12 Pontiac Banschee? :wub:

[post="21256"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Yeahhh... instead of having a little ~300hp OHV 6500rpm V12 (given 242 ft/lb @6500) , lets go with a ~350hp DOHC 8500rpm V12 (given 220ft/lb @ 8500rpm). Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's there to not understand? :huh:

MT and R&T, among other rags said in the early 90s how the Mazda MX3 GS was going to be a trend setter. I drove one for a long time and to this day it's one of the few FWD cars I'd possibly buy again. Great concept: a destroked 2.5 liter V6 (1.8liter) in a car the size of a Honda CRX. Add to that the 5-speed and you've got a great little pocket rocket.


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Edited by Sixty8panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeahhh... instead of having a little ~300hp OHV 6500rpm V12 (given 242 ft/lb @6500) , lets go with a ~350hp DOHC 8500rpm V12 (given 220ft/lb @ 8500rpm).

[post="21285"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Doesn't DOHC make the thing bigger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't DOHC make the thing bigger?

[post="21318"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not displacement but it does increase physical size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not displacement but it does increase physical size.

[post="21322"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Yes that's what I mean. Originally fit but after conversion to DOHC it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's what I mean. Originally fit but after conversion to DOHC it won't.

[post="21324"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah when you try to make an OHV motor into an OHC it just ends up HUGE. I have a 3.4 DOHC and my wife's Malibu has the 3.1 OHV. Let me tell you the OHC is Giant compared to the OHV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the hood is too short to fit the V12 under the hood of the XLR. Also MT talked about GM having to make the hood longer in order to fit the V12, but I don't know if there's any truth in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOHC makes it a bit taller. and im still sure it would fit. OTHERWISE, you could use superlight valvetrain materials and drive the cost up a lot more to attain those revvs. id be thrilled if they made a cheap-o little sporty engine. like a destroked 3.9L- maybe displace 2.5L and revv to about 8000... make about... uhhh 200hp. Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't DOHC make the thing bigger?

[post="21318"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Don't forget HEAVIER. FOUR cams instead of one and double the valves and all related components. Pushrods kick ass. Simplicity, cost reduction, lower maintenance and weight savings are wonderful benefits. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget HEAVIER. FOUR cams instead of one and double the valves and all related components. Pushrods kick ass. Simplicity, cost reduction, lower maintenance and weight savings are wonderful benefits.  :)

[post="21726"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Yes, but not in small sporting applications, where high redlines rule the day, the added weight and size is offset by higher output attained by higher revvs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but not in small sporting applications, where high redlines rule the day, the added weight and size is offset by higher output attained by higher revvs.

[post="22183"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Why destroke something to have to rev the piss outta it to make any power? Leave it at its current bore and stroke and make the same power with less stress. In this case the larger displacement motor is a better fit because they would have the same exterior size.

BTW 2.5L x 8000 rpm=20,000
3.9 x 5100 rpm=20,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I hear, you guys are going the wrong direction. I'm hearing 2008 will bring a 6.2l supercharged 'vette to the showrooms. Why the 6.2l? The 7.0's cyl. walls are too thin to support the boost. Anybody with anything more current?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I hear, you guys are going the wrong direction.  I'm hearing 2008 will bring a 6.2l supercharged 'vette to the showrooms.  Why the 6.2l?  The 7.0's cyl. walls are too thin to support the boost.  Anybody with anything more current?

[post="22495"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Yes there will be a LS9 that will have thicker cylinder walls and use the same MAG SC as the caddie CTS-V uses.
I doubt you'll see larger engine in fact GM will move to Displacement On Demand (DOD) which the LS2 was already designed to accept the DOD parts which will give more power and better fuel mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which will give more power and better fuel mileage.


[sarcasm]Yeah, that engine could really use improvements on both of those fronts[/sarcasm]
:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool, gotta stay ahead of the competition. :) Pushrods RULE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larger Engines in the Corvette?


WHY ?

something like a V12 or V16.


WHY ?

DOHC


WHY ?

(September 30, 2005) -- While 2005 Rolex 24 At Daytona overall winners Max Angelelli and Wayne Taylor look to wrap-up their first Grand American Rolex Sports Car Series Daytona Prototype championship in next weekend’s VIR 400, the duo already has its eye on 2006. Before heading to Virginia International Raceway next weekend, the No. 10 SunTrust Pontiac Riley co-drivers will put their machine through testing paces at Daytona International Speedway.


Posted Image

competition is from engines built by Lexus, BMW, Porsche, Ford

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why destroke something to have to rev the piss outta it to make any power?  Leave it at its current bore and stroke and make the same power with less stress.  In this case the larger displacement motor is a better fit because they would have the same exterior size.

BTW 2.5L x 8000 rpm=20,000
3.9 x 5100 rpm=20,000

[post="22226"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Less stress? Someone earlier figured out that say a 7.0L V8 running at 6000rpm has much more stress than some lil I4 2.0L DOHC engine at 8000rpm.

But that is aside the point. the point is a DOHC engine is better suited for higher output than a Pushrod engine. This aint a truck engine, it doesnt need mass quantities of torque, its just a high revving engine. Are you guys saying you wouldnt have smile plastered on your face pushing 8500rpms in a sports car? (provided the exhaust tone was perfect of course) Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less stress? Someone earlier figured out that say a 7.0L V8 running at 6000rpm has much more stress than some lil I4 2.0L DOHC engine at 8000rpm.

But that is aside the point. the point is a DOHC engine is better suited for higher output than a Pushrod engine. This aint a truck engine, it doesnt need mass quantities of torque, its just a high revving engine. Are you guys saying you wouldnt have  smile plastered on your face pushing 8500rpms in a sports car? (provided the exhaust tone was perfect of course)

[post="22781"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


History has never proved this. Why ignore all the results ?

Are you guys saying you wouldnt have  smile plastered on your face pushing 8500rpms in a sports car?

especially on the day one recieves the bill for timing gear replacement

LS engines give huge smile at all times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less stress? Someone earlier figured out that say a 7.0L V8 running at 6000rpm has much more stress than some lil I4 2.0L DOHC engine at 8000rpm.

But that is aside the point. the point is a DOHC engine is better suited for higher output than a Pushrod engine. This aint a truck engine, it doesnt need mass quantities of torque, its just a high revving engine. Are you guys saying you wouldnt have  smile plastered on your face pushing 8500rpms in a sports car? (provided the exhaust tone was perfect of course)

[post="22781"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

On a race car that doesn't see any street time? Sure I would love to have a huge redline and roaring exhaust note. On the street? No give me a long broad torque curve that is faster and gets better fuel economy EVERY day of the week, one of the reason's that I will eventually replace my 3.4 DOHC Monte with a 3.4 or 3.8 OHV V6 W body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw two new Impalas on the lot at the Chevy dealer in Woodland, CA the other day.. One was a black SS with oyster/grey leather, but it had the woodgrain dash rather than the chrome-ish finish that I thought was SS-specific. So here's my question; Can you order any Impala with either chrome or wood finishes on the dash? Also, the other car on the lot was a dark grey "3LT" that stickered out at over $28K, and had the 3.9 V8; I thought that the 3.9 could only be ordered in the LTZ; so, whats the difference between a "3LT" and an LTZ? Seems as if there are too many Impala models being offered and it's going to be confusing... Edited by 62impala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
man i considered myself a pushrod guy but you guys are fanatics... fact is i got a pushrod, its somewhat reliable, power output isnt bad for its age... revvs are nothing (like 4500 redline- im guessing... theres no tach) but whatever, it gets the job done. but one thing i would like to point out is the new Civic's base engine. and to compare it to the ECOTEC 2.2L (as GM tunes most of their engines to be torquey regardless of valvetrain configuration) Honda 1.8L I4 140hp@6300rpm 128torque@4300rpm 6800 redline 30/38 ECOTEC 2.2L 145hp @ 5,600rpm 155 torque @ 4,000rpm 6,500 redline 25/34 and for good measure 2.2L OHV I4 (1999) 115hp @ 5000rpm 135 torque @ 3600rpm 24/34 2.3l DOHC I4 (1991) 180hp @ 6200rpm 160 torque @ 5200rpm 23/33 Now then, which one would you choose? the pathetic OHV engine? the torquey Ecotec? or the fuel efficient Civic? a civic and a cobalt would be very close in a race, as it ultimately ends up being HP as the deciding factor unless you are playing stoplight king... but even then, the civic revvs quicker, hitting higher hp faster than the cobalt. now i ask you, what happened? why was GM building more powerful I4s in 1991 than now? OK... 3.6L VVT V6 (HF) 255hp @ 6200rpm 252 torque @ 3100rpm 17/27 (CTS 5M) 3.9L VVT V6 (HV) 240hp @ 6000rpm 241 torque @ 2800rpm 18/26 (4spd?) Once again, comparison of GMs most advanced V6s in its HF and HV classes. The DOHC engine comes out on top of this one, torque delivery is likely greater across the board than the 3.9L (im just guessing, i havent seen a torque curve for the 3.6) Horsepower is greater at roughly the same rpm, the DOHC engine is LESS SRESSED in generating its power! the whole point to a destroked engine is to increase redline, and make it revv faster. this DOES NOT MEAN its undriveable, mated to a manual its just fine, take the years of Integras as your proof of that. and just for fun.... 3.5L VVT V6 (2005) 211hp @ 5800rpm 214 torque @ 4000rpm 3.4L DOHC V6 (1991) 210hp 215 torque Uhhmmm yeah.... 14 years later and they finally equal it? lame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man i considered myself a pushrod guy but you guys are fanatics... fact is i got a pushrod, its somewhat reliable, power output isnt bad for its age... revvs are nothing (like 4500 redline- im guessing... theres no tach) but whatever, it gets the job done.

but one thing i would like to point out is the new Civic's base engine.

and to compare it to the ECOTEC 2.2L (as GM tunes most of their engines to be torquey regardless of valvetrain configuration)

Honda 1.8L I4

140hp@6300rpm
128torque@4300rpm
6800 redline
30/38

ECOTEC 2.2L

145hp @ 5,600rpm
155 torque @ 4,000rpm
6,500 redline
25/34

and for good measure

2.2L OHV I4 (1999)

115hp @ 5000rpm
135 torque @ 3600rpm
24/34

2.3l DOHC I4 (1991)

180hp @ 6200rpm
160 torque @ 5200rpm
23/33

Now then, which one would you choose? the pathetic OHV engine? the torquey Ecotec? or the fuel efficient Civic? a civic and a cobalt would be very close in a race, as it ultimately ends up being HP as the deciding factor unless you are playing stoplight king... but even then, the civic revvs quicker, hitting higher hp faster than the cobalt. now i ask you, what happened? why was GM building more powerful I4s in 1991 than now?

OK...

3.6L VVT V6 (HF)

255hp @ 6200rpm
252 torque @ 3100rpm

17/27 (CTS 5M)

3.9L VVT V6 (HV)

240hp @ 6000rpm
241 torque @ 2800rpm

18/26 (4spd?)

Once again, comparison of GMs most advanced V6s in its HF and HV classes. The DOHC engine comes out on top of this one, torque delivery is likely greater across the board than the 3.9L (im just guessing, i havent seen a torque curve for the 3.6) Horsepower is greater at roughly the same rpm, the DOHC engine is LESS SRESSED in generating its power!

the whole point to a destroked engine is to increase redline, and make it revv faster. this DOES NOT MEAN its undriveable, mated to a manual its just fine, take the years of Integras as your proof of that.

and just for fun....

3.5L VVT V6 (2005)

211hp @ 5800rpm
214 torque @ 4000rpm

3.4L DOHC V6 (1991)

210hp
215 torque

Uhhmmm yeah.... 14 years later and they finally equal it? lame

[post="23695"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Do you know how much cheaper the 3.5 VVT is compared to the 3.4 DOHC? Have you seen the size of the 3.4 DOHC compared to a 60° pushrod? I didn't think so. The new 60°s are nothing to sneeze at.

Also when comparin the new Civics motor to the Ecotec I think if you compared it to a 1.8L version of the Ecotec you would see that the Ecotec makes more torque at a lower RPM AND it would get the same gas mileage. Also I would think, in a car that weighs the same, it would be as fast or faster.

Just because a car revs higher doesn't make it faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a car revs higher doesn't make it faster.

[post="23709"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


just because a car makes more torque doesnt make it faster either.

and i dont care if the 3.4L cost a lot to make and was a POS.... the point is that GM has been playing catchup to their OWN ENGINE for 14 years!

and that 2.3L I4 (Quad 4 or whatever) that makes 180hp and gets only slightly worse gas mileage than the ECOTEC? honestly what is going on? It seems that aside from the GM V8's all other engines have just been trying to get back to early 90s power levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just because a car makes more torque doesnt make it faster either.

and i dont care if the 3.4L cost a lot to make and was a POS.... the point is that GM has been playing catchup to their OWN ENGINE for 14 years!

and that 2.3L I4 (Quad 4 or whatever) that makes 180hp and gets only slightly worse gas mileage than the ECOTEC? honestly what is going on? It seems that aside from the GM V8's all other engines have just been trying to get back to early 90s power levels.

[post="23884"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't think the 3.6 is behind the 3.4 DOHC do you?

So then they aren't playing catch up.

You just want to belive that they are playing catch up so you reason that they are by comparing the top motor from years ago to the base motor now.

Way to go. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arent those Quad 4 specs for the HO engine ? Also must remember emission specs are most likely stricter but I know nothing about that. Actually it says alot that GM has put the OHV engines up to what OHC engines used to be at. At one point in time no one would have ever believed it could be done. Hondas been highly advanced in engine development for along time. Its to bad GM is behind them but they are. Im not going to loose sleep over it. SC 2 litre Cobalt is doing well on the track against the competition so something must be alright. The new 3.5 is around where the 3.5 Intrigue shortstar engine was though I think it lacks some torque. We like our OHV engines and want to see them live on. It is to bad real savings cant be seen in initial cost when new. I sure save lots on the used cars though. I dont see all these big high redl.ines everyone boasts for the Jap engines anyhow. 6000 is enough and few engines ever see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<_< you guys arent getting the point. i dont care if they were top technology then, 15 years from then BASE ENGINES should exceed those specs. i made a reference to the HO Quad4 because well... its more powerful than the 2.4L ECOTEC (the top I4) At no point did i ever say the 3.5L was a bad engine, all i am saying is that with all the advances in technology the fact that they have only gotten this far is somewhat sad. the HF engines are a testimony to GM V6 design, especially when the 3.6L hits 300hp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those Quad4s were horrible in terms of NVH. They sounded bad and were rough. I'll take the drop in power for the refinement of the EcoTec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All i am saying is that GM has proven time and time again that the 60* V6 block (AKA the origional 2.8L) is capable of amazing feats yet they NEVER ACT ON IT, that 3.4L.... origionally made upwards of 300hp, but they had no transmission that could handle that kind of power so it was detuned to 210... and thats 1991. people have gotten the destitute 2.8L V6 (origionally rated at 110hp) upwards of 200hp NA (transmissions usually give out past this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that some GM engines from that time were overrated. I think it'd be interesting to test them under the new SAE rules.

The Quad4 is rough engine, although I love how it sounds. Much better than the vacuum sweeper that is the Ecotec 2.2L. It's the best sounding 4cyl, imo. It is interesting that the power levels are higher than today's engines. The regular Quad4 had 155hp and something like 150lbft of torque and had just as good fuel mileage (everything depending on the year). The HO is better with 180hp and 160lbft of torque with almost as good mileage (again, all depends on year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that some GM engines from that time were overrated. I think it'd be interesting to test them under the new SAE rules.

The Quad4 is rough engine, although I love how it sounds. Much better than the vacuum sweeper that is the Ecotec 2.2L. It's the best sounding 4cyl, imo. It is interesting that the power levels are higher than today's engines. The regular Quad4 had 155hp and something like 150lbft of torque and had just as good fuel mileage (everything depending on the year). The HO is better with 180hp and 160lbft of torque with almost as good mileage (again, all depends on year).

[post="24757"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


im just wondering why GM ditched it instead of refining it? if they had stuck with it they wouldnt be lagging in the sporty I4 engines (not supercharged)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im just wondering why GM ditched it instead of refining it? if they had stuck with it they wouldnt be lagging in the sporty I4 engines (not supercharged)

[post="25466"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


The last attempt to refine these engines was the 2.4L Twin Cam LD9. They were better engines, but refinement was nowhere near the ECOTECs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...