|
Hey, how about we talk about new cars, not old cars!
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
No photos, unfortunately, since I was driving - but given all of the talk of new 7-series variants coming down the pipeline, I passed a heavily camouflaged sedan cruising down US60 this morning on the way to work that (thanks to the size and obvious kidney grilles) had to be a BMW 7-Series of some sort. Odd to see it in AZ this time of year since it's not even really hot enough to do any hot-weather testing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
It's also kind of a no-brainer. Base engines in trucks are V6s that would be out of place in all but the largest cars, and V8s are common options, even when the rest of the truck is as close to poverty-spec as is still possible to get. A car with equivalent amenities is going to be some form of econobox with a four cylinder; any car with a V8 these days is not targeted at the "cheapest possible X" market.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Almost as if the V8 engine itself doesn't cost drastically more than an I4, and that the expense is because engine choice is useful price discrimination (i.e. let people who want to or are able to pay more pay more). Have you not noticed that nearly every car on the market, with any engine, below $25,000 new, is front-wheel-drive and thus a terrible candidate for a large, heavy engine? Below that Ram's $24k price point, there are only two cars that I can find where you even have the option of a V8, and that's the Camaro and the Mustang (though you'd need to be at about $30k to get the two extra cylinders). It's not price discrimination, it's that you have to design the car around the engine(s) offered in the car. Aside from a few nutjobs here, perhaps, nobody would actually want a FWD 1UZ-powered Corolla, or LS3-powered Cruze, and the design compromises needed to make it even viable would make the bread-and-butter 4cyl versions considerably worse. Trucks get away with it because nobody really wants a truck that's designed to be as good as it could be around only a V6; fullsizes outsell what's left of the 'small' truck market by a long shot, and calling a modern Tacoma small is a big stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Neat and I'm all for cheap electric cars, but...78MPH top speed? Even when I'm driving alone and not using the HOV lane, at least half of my commute is ±5MPH of that. Sounds like it's only useful for someone whose commute is entirely highway-free.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
rscott posted:Who cares if you're getting passed left and right? I've got a passenger on my commute for three days a week, and you're not going to even get into the HOV lane without getting shot if you're not doing at least 70, and you will get a line of very angry drivers behind you if you're not doing at least 75. If I'm going to spend new car money on a car, it had better be able to handle driving in that speed range at least as well as my 2.5L Ranger, and trust me, that's not much of a bar to set. But, you know, everyone likes puttering along in the right lane and having to constantly speed up / slow down to deal with every single car that is exiting or entering the freeway. Weinertron posted:Is it as hard on electric cars for them to be doing 100% of their maximum speed as it is for conventional cars? I don't see this as a huge problem as long as it can sustain 75mph with no difficulties like an overheating battery occurring. I don't know that it's necessarily 'harder' on them mechanically, but I would expect that 90-mile range to be cut drastically shorter at 70+MPH. I doubt speeds there will be too much higher than other roads, actually. I10 between Phoenix and Tucson is signed 75 most of the way, but very little of the traffic is doing less than 80 - and very little is doing more than 85. It seems to be a speed that American drivers like to settle out at.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It's a smart car, though, so it's not like a lot of people were buying them as bahn-burners anyway. It's a city car first and foremost, and city cars are also the market electric cars make most sense for anyway. Yeah, and by being an electric car, it eliminates what is apparently the worst transmission in the history of transmissions. bull3964 posted:Yet what we need to lower energy use are cars that ARE good at commuting on the highway. It's not like most city dwellers can even think about buying an EV right now since the curb isn't exactly littered with power plugs. Also this. The sheer volume of cars on US60 every day tells me I'm far from the only one who has a commute where the best way to get from A to B is by way of a road signed at 65MPH, and at all but the most congested times of the day, that traffic can be easily doing 75MPH.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
fknlo posted:You can always tell who's from somewhere else here in KC by them being the only one doing 20 over the speed limit. Doing 5-10 over generally has me passing most other people. Oh yeah, the midwest is completely alien to me. You fuckers crack down HARD on speeders; the only times I've driven in KC or Minneapolis, it was bizarre seeing that everyone else was actually keeping very close to the speed limit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
dissss posted:True it can be done. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of it likely being the cheapest fully electric vehicle out there, which means it has the best odds of you being able to recoup the increased purchase price by means of using electricity instead of gasoline, over the life of the car. My problem with it is you're only going to see a significant financial benefit from this car if you drive a ton of miles, and a lot of people who rack up the miles needed to benefit, do so at speeds uncomfortably close to this car's top speed. I don't view the size itself as a positive or a negative here. The small size is of zero direct benefit to me, but the lack of cargo room is also not a negative since I would only be using it to drive to work and back either by myself or with one passenger. If given the choice at the same price point, I'd absolutely pick anything bigger - a Focus EV, for example, or a hypothetical Fiesta (or similarly sized) EV; but you're looking at a roughly $10k bump in sticker price over this thing's projected $25k. Hashal posted:I'm really confused where this conversation is going. So are you guys saying its bad that this car doubled it's acceleration? No, absolutely not; the previous 0-60MPH time would've precluded this thing from even getting onto most freeways without being shot at. This version could at least drive on most, but in an area where freeway commutes come with 70MPH+ speeds, it might get a bit hairy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Good luck suing them, though. Being illegal's never stopped a company from doing whatever they want. Tesla, for instance, basically admits in their annual report that they don't really care about researching state auto and dealer laws until someone calls them on it. To be fair, is anyone (other than the dealers themselves) happy to see the dealer network sticking around?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Sure, but that doesn't make it legally enforceable within the realm of Magnusson-Moss.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
 Gen I LT-1: 255-370hp, 1970-1972  GenII LT1: 260-305hp, 1992-1997  GenV LT1: 450+hp, 2014-  Direct injection, reversed intake/exhaust valve placement (compared to GenIII/IV), AFM even on the LT1 itself, and a variable flow/pressure oil pump. Autoblog posted the presentation here. Oh, and it looks like they're finally getting rid of the A/C-only secondary accessory belt, if the accessory setup in that photo is at all accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:I am pretty sure the first generation Corvette had a solid rear axle, but it didn't have a V8 on launch either. Yep, the C1 had a live axle throughout its run, and didn't get a V8 until 1955. Faerunner posted:What went on with the LT1 between 1973 and 1992? It didn't exist. You had scores of other smallblocks with other RPO codes but none by the name of LT1. GM does like to recycle them now and again, and when it can it's chosen the RPO codes of old hot engines for new hot engines (LS6 springs to mind). Of course, LS9 was the RPO code of the ~250hp SAE Gross 350 in my GMC, so sometimes they just grab whatever hasn't been used for a while 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Could be electric power steering for the C7? But if that's the case, I can't figure out why they stuck all of the accessories on the passenger side only, unless they either needed the driver's side clearance for steering or if they plan on the supercharged version being a front-mount Vortech-style unit rather than the blower sitting on the valley like they do now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Packaging will be tricky, but I'm sure it'd be doable, since it happens all the time in the aftermarket. Yeah, that's right about where the mounts are. This is the main reason many aftermarket turbo kits for modern GM V8s are remote-mount. Also, is that belt grooved on both sides?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
The only real disadvantages here are the increased reciprocating mass of the valvetrain (a DOHC I4 would actually have more rotating valvetrain mass than this, let alone a V6 or V8) and the inability to independently vary intake and exhaust valve timing since both are operated from the same camshaft. You also can't easily do multi-valve setups with pushrods. GM was heavily rumored to have one developed for the LS7, but apparently they were more than happy with the 505hp they got with just one intake and one exhaust. The reciprocating mass can be dealt with rather well if you're willing to spend a bit of money on higher-end materials to reduce the weight, and if you really want this thing to rev north of 7000RPM you will be able to do so with aftermarket valvetrain components. You will turn valvesprings into a consumable at that point, though. It's not like overhead cams instantly equals high RPMs anyway; I don't think a stock Toyota 1UZ or Ford Mod / Coyote engine will rev significantly higher than a GM or Dodge pushrod V8. Yes, the GM / Dodge V8s are considerably higher displacement than a 4.0L 1UZ or 5.0L Coyote, but they fit in the same or smaller area, and the actual displacement is of little concern unless your area still taxes based on that alone. Dr 14 INCH DICK Md posted:Yeah space. Someone post that pic of the ford 302 next to the dohc one out of the Lincoln. Im on my phone right now and cant seem to find it. 
IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:I wonder if the price will stay the same as happened with the C5-C6. I bet there won't be a Z06 the first year and then the Z06 shows up in 2015 with 650hp from a twin-turbo LT1. I bet they let it slip upwards ever so slightly, since when the C6 came out there was no Camaro to slot in beneath it; now, they've got the Camaro SS and ZL1 to go after people who want a RWD GM V8 performance car but don't necessarily want to spend Corvette money. kimbo305 posted:The best reason is engineering inertia. Those compute hour brag numbers would be orders of magnitude higher if they had to design a clean sheet engine. When you have a good thing, tweaking it to death is a fine way to go. Yeah, it seems like most of the work on the bottom end of the engine was in the form of refining existing bolt-ons to the block; the real new hotness here is the heads and everything attached to them. Devyl posted:You didn't hear this from me; but GM has the new LT1 in development with some serious turbocharging going on. That would also explain the accessory placement if they plan on running something else through that space. Otherwise it seems like putting the alternator down low on the driver's side would be best for center-of-gravity concerns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
I think people are smacking them hard for the complaints around MyFord Touch or whatever it's called. It looks good on paper but most people seem to think it sucks rear end. I think we're at a point now where automakers are going to be perpetually behind the 8-ball in terms of in-car entertainment - tablets and smartphones are evolving extremely rapidly, but thanks to the longer lead time of a car, the latest and greatest there is already old before it even hits showroom floors.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
We're in the era of lifetime* transmission fluid and other components, automakers are not in the business of making life easy to keep your car on the road and 'up to date' long term. Unfortunately, with the increasing integration of in-car entertainment, trying to find elegant solutions to problems as simple as the old oval Taurus' center stack seems simple compared to trying to properly integrate an aftermarket head unit into anything modern. *When the transmission dies a horrible death because the fluid wasn't changed in 120k, that's the lifetime.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
The problem with the fuel economy test is it's based on emissions, not actual fuel consumption, and the conditions presented are very easy to game. That test is why the skip-shift exists - GM figured out that if you slap a solenoid on a manual gearbox to force a 1-4 shift under a specific RPM and load condition instead of a 1-2 shift, you'd improve mileage on the test enough to avoid the gas guzzler tax.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What? The skip shift does improve mileage, it's "actual fuel consumption". What does emissions have to do with it? "Not actual fuel consumption" as in they don't directly measure the actual amount of gasoline consumed - they sniff the tailpipe and calculate it. And it improves mileage in a specific test, not necessarily in the real world. I don't mind it, because that solenoid saves the tax and is easy as hell to disable. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Nov 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
My main beef with the system is the test doesn't really represent an actual modern highway drive. Who considers 50mph (plus a multiplier on the results, as far as I know) an actual highway drive? And the test doesn't account for idle time at all, which is why start/stop technology doesn't exist in the US; even though it does improve real-world fuel mileage (since real drivers do end up idling at lights).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
That's a genuinely scary number when you break it down to the per-dealer level. They haven't built a compelling car in a very, very long time; nothing they make is awful, but they also don't make a single vehicle where you can honestly say "yes, this is the best choice in the segment".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:Well there goes any hopes of the Evo coming back. Sigh. To be fair, any hotted-up AWD compact is a hard sell for any company these days; you're taking a fuel economy penalty to have AWD there, and CAFE is going to put the screws to them sooner or later. Honestly, I don't know how Subaru is going to continue with their all-AWD, all the time lineup.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
So apparently GM wants an 8-speed auto in the C7, but doesn't have it ready yet... so they're looking at a short-term deal with Aisin. On one hand, Aisin's autos sure seem to work well enough so I don't really have any complaints there. On the other hand, I feel bad for anyone who buys one of those because it's going to end up being an orphan as far as aftermarket support goes. I don't get why GM doesn't do what it did with the C6 launch. The 6L80E wasn't ready for 2005, so they released the C6 with the 4L60E and upgraded for MY2006. Even though it's a one-year combo, the 4L60E itself has been around for-loving-ever and there's really nothing C6-specific about it, so people who bought '05 autos still have options.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:Ford has tested the absolute hell out of the Ecoboost stuff. I remember reading an article where they intentionally did things like killing the engine with white-hot turbos, running them on contaminated gas, low oil pressure, etc. They also did that line of "EcoBoost torture test" videos. Yeah, they put the same Ecoboost through all kinds of hell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lToZuwbQhLk 165k miles of use, including tons of full-throttle time, and still came back on the dyno with as-new power.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Interesting approach to 'why low compression' - you're basically making the tradeoff of drastically advanced injection timing compared to a high-compression diesel. If it really works out that well in practice, I bet it helps them lower the weight of the engine compared to most diesels since it isn't having to stand up to 16:1+ compression ratios with forced induction on top of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The Miata's pretty bad too. I mean it's not too terrible when you think of it as a Prior to Skyactiv, Mazda was simply down on fuel mileage compared to any comparable make/model. They seem to want to tune every car like it's a rotary - rich as hell. The Midniter posted:It still blows my mind that a turbo I4 these days can hit 250hp with no problem, when an NA V8 from less than 10 years ago in a Mustang made about the same amount of power. More importantly, 250-260hp turbo fours are the realm of common commuter cars now. Even five or six years ago, you only saw that kind of power from a four cylinder in a niche-market hot hatch; now you're seeing them replace six cylinder engines in all kinds of mass-market cars. Of course, the V8 comparison is slightly unfair; a naturally aspirated mod motor has pretty much always been a bad joke. Even when it came out in 1996, it had less power than the outgoing 302, and that was at a time when everyone else was starting to ratchet power levels up consistently instead of declining or holding steady like in the malaise era.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 19:07
|
|
sportscar
|
Cream_Filling posted:I think most other designs don't go that far, and just try to fine-tune the timing of when fuel is injected to limit fuel contact with the valves, juggling timings to make sure that the intake valves are already mostly closed off before fuel enters the chamber. VAG isn't the only one using DI and EGR together - Mazda does it in the turbo MZR. I don't know about 10hp lost but I am expecting to see all kinds of unholy hell when I pop my intake manifold off at around 120k. The bottom end of the engine being 'designed' for it doesn't really hold as an excuse - the head absolutely has to be designed for DI, since that's where the injector sits, and EGR/etc is just engine management. Timing isn't the issue either. The problem isn't that "some fuel comes in contact with the valve", it's that no fuel comes in contact with the back of the intake valve whatsoever. DI has a lot of great benefits but carbon buildup on the intake valve is a problem that needs to be solved to maintain those benefits. Cream_Filling posted:Actually, how doe Seafoam work, exactly? Is it something you add to the fuel, or is it something you introduce directly into the air intake or something? Does it actually work, or is it just a fad? Seafoam is an additive designed to be run in all sorts of ways - it can be added to crankcase oil to help clean out sludge, or to the fuel system to clean it out. However, 'seafoaming a car' almost always means directly introducing it to the intake path of the engine by means of a large vacuum line...usually the brake booster as it's often the largest and easiest to access. Does it work? I've never seen anyone actually pull a carboned-up head to show a before, bolt it back on, seafoam it, and then pull it off to show the difference, so it's hard to say. However, I've seafoamed vehicles twice in relatively quick succession, and the second application always nets less smoke than the first, which makes me think there's something it's blowing out of there. Will it work for carbon buildup on a DI engine? No, not in that manner. The other problem is that when you have carbon building up like that on the intake valve that never sees any solvent for years on end, the carbon itself ends up becoming ridiculously goddamn hard. Cobb has put up their own take on the situation (rehosted at my server) where they actually tested a number of different solvents against each other, including Seafoam. It did dissolve the buildup, but only in a situation where it was allowed to puddle in the intake port for a number of minutes; it wouldn't do a drat thing if it was blowing past it into the combustion chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Which are the first mass market (sub $40k) cars to use GDI? I'm curious what the long-term reliability ends up looking like. Are the high pressure fuel pumps more likely to fail? Do the injectors get beat up? I'm talking about 150k miles and onwards, really long-term stuff where patterns might not be clear yet. If $40k is your limit, and assuming American market, it looks like the earliest contenders might be the 2003 Audi A4, the turbo Solstice/Sky in 2006, the Mazdaspeed6 in 2006 (as well as the MS3 and CX7), and even Isuzu in the 2004 Axiom/Rodeo. Speaking just for the Mazda DISI, the high pressure fuel pumps seem plenty reliable, but they just don't allow for much flow beyond what very light mods require - they get upgraded to support higher fuel flow, not due to failure. Injector seals apparently need to be replaced in higher-powered builds to reduce false knock. Otherwise, the only real DI side effect is the carboned up intake valves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Sockington posted:IOC, speaking of Mazda DISI engines, stopped by the dealer to pick up an oil filter and this was in there. People have been blowing them up since the car came out, practically; there's some thought that the variable cam timing isn't aggressive enough with high throttle at very low RPMs since it seems that the whole purpose of advancing / retarding the cam is to reduce cylinder pressures to livable levels, not to make more peak power. Fucknag posted:Yeah, that's the most effective way to use it. You use a vacuum line to suck it out of the bottle fast enough that the motor's right on the edge of stalling, then shut it off as soon as it's all in, let it sit for like a half hour while you eat some pizza or w/e, then go start it up and drive around as a rolling smog generator. Yeah, but I don't see this as being effective at getting enough in there to actually puddle on the valve. Besides, Corksport's testing showed that it just softened up enough to be scraped out as a goopy mess. I'm going to go the walnut shell route myself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Phy posted:I just got an MS3 and my brother just rolled 100,000 km on his, tell me about the walnut shells, George. (Remove the valves and shell blasting?) Nah, you do it with the head on the engine - it's based on the BMW service procedure for dealing with the same issue on their DI engines. If you make sure a given valve is closed before you work on it, no shell should get past it, but even if it does the shell is softer than the metal so it 'should' get ejected without issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
dissss posted:Can it help with DI carbon issues though? I've been told the only way of dealing with it is a periodic manual clean out. We'll get a look at this when I do mine, it's not like I don't romp on it regularly 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Besides, they offered larger nav screens on the first gen Mazda 3; nobody wanted them.  What were they and where do I get one?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:As an example, here's a news article summarizing the SAE's Tow Ratings practice guidelines: Goddamn.  No wonder the tow ratings are so powertrain dependent; while having the same brakes and chassis, my 4cyl manual Ranger is only rated for 2000lb of trailer weight, while a 4.0 is rated for up to 9500lb with an automatic and 3.55 gears.If I had the 3.45 axle instead of the 3.73, it wouldn't even be rated to tow anything at all! Now that I think about it, I do think the 4.0 trucks get an 8.8" rear end and the 4cyl trucks don't, so there is that...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Can we please shut the hell up about trying to define whether or not a Ridgeline is a truck / SUV / CUV / boat / can opener, and get back to posting about new cars?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Keep in mind they still haven't finalized the power output of the LT1 going into the C7, only that it will be 'at least' 450hp. I get the feeling GM is still putting finishing touches on everything before they submit it all to the SAE certification tests and doesn't want to quote a real number before then. Glad to see that the old GenI 4.3 is finally going away, that engine was an anachronism compared to the rest of the market.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if they did that, it would be a pretty big shot at the other two in terms of the horsepower wars - and there's effectively zero cost difference today to build, say, a LS3 instead of a LQ9 or whatever the current 6.2L Vortec RPO is. I bet it would actually be cheaper to reuse the cam and heads from the LT5 than it would be to develop a separate set for a high-end truck application. Accessory drive would need to be different, but it'd almost certainly be 100% identical to the 5.3L truck accessory drive setup. I wouldn't expect to see a dry-sump oiling system in a truck, but again they could probably just use the 5.3L parts here. The intake manifold is the only component that might need to be custom-made for this 6.2L truck engine; presumably the 5.3L intake might not flow as well as the LT5 piece, but the LT5 intake might not place the throttle body well for the truck's taller engine bay and whatever snorkel / air filter setup the 5.3L uses. Sadi posted:I thought the vortecs were pretty much LS motors minus the aluminum block. Whats the difference now? I personally am pretty stoked for a lot of lightweight compact V8s prime for the swapping once those things get a little older. Not even minus the aluminum block in many applications; and depending on what you want to do (i.e. boost) the iron block can be more desirable as it is stronger. Keep in mind it is a very modern design, so it's got just enough material to get the job done - even the iron block LSx is still a relatively lightweight engine, even compared to a GenI SBC. Xguard86 posted:Drive the nice truck to the ranch Ayup. Only reason my GMC avoided being run into the ground working on the farm is that apparently everyone hated the particular three-on-the-tree setup on it (it was far more fickle than any other they'd had, before or since) so it was given to my mom when it was done with a short 'nice truck' tour of duty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I love driving on a good twisty road, but when I'm just taking the interstate from point A to point B, I would love to be able to turn on the autopilot and do something else. I don't care what car I'm in, I-80 does not deliver driving enjoyment, so why try? No poo poo, I don't get why everyone is arguing against it so hard. I don't see a driverless car that can truly handle any situation in the near future, so it's not like the car will actively prevent you from driving it. The vast majority of my miles are plodding along US60 in a straight line, and the most common road trip I take is I10 between Phoenix and LA which is, guess what, also mostly a straight line. It's boring as gently caress to drive and I would love a car that would let me get it to the freeway and then just hit 'go'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Devyl posted:It starts with the C7 Corvette. Chevy has always been good at trickle-down stuff, so expect a slightly de-tuned version of it in the SS Camaro when it gets refreshed in the next year or two. Yeah, I wouldn't expect the fifth gen Camaro to get a LT1; the only times that GM will make a significant change like that within a given generation is if the refresh isn't happening in the next year, it seems. Last two times around, the '92 third gen Camaro kept the L98 while the '92 Corvette got the LT1, which appeared in the '93 fourth gen Camaro. Then, when the LS1 came out with the C5, the Camaro got it a year later in '98 because there was no replacement platform planned yet. I would wager the LS7 in the Camaro is as much about maximizing use of their hand-built engine line as anything else. If the C5 and C6 introductions are to be believed, the first year for the C7 will be 'base' engine cars only, with the Z06/ZR1 not showing up until at least the second year of production. This leaves a lot of capacity currently used to build LS7s and LS9s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 20:07
|
|