: Next Gen V *might* have a small turbocharged engine



Caddy Wagon
06-02-11, 11:31 PM
The V series is mentioned in this article:

Next Corvette Will Be Powered by Small, High-Revving Turbo V-8

“We have to target a very different sort of buyer.”

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/next-corvette-will-be-powered-by-small--high-revving-turbo-v-8.html

GMX322V S/C
06-03-11, 12:20 AM
~10,000 RPM? That would indeed be world-class if they can warrantee it for 100,000 miles an sell it at a volume price point. Even though it may be undersquare with turbocharging, with only 3 liters of displacement, the V is going to have to go on a serious diet and pick up more gears (a "world-class" DCT would be nice). Cost of ownership is undoubtedly going to go up...

Fireverm
06-03-11, 12:55 AM
I'm glad I scooped mine up now if that ends up being true.

baabootoo
06-03-11, 01:00 AM
Yeah, maybe like Mercedes did and dropped to "only" a 5.5, with twin turbos! That would be sweet also!!!!

JFJr
06-03-11, 12:15 PM
WTF! I can't imagine what kind of buyer would want a 3.0 liter V8 in a Corvette or "V," no matter how many blowers are affixed. The way most people would drive them would negate any presumed increase in fuel economy over our very efficient pushrod LSx V8's. Lack of durability and reduced torque won't get it in the American market. I can't see a 3,000# CTS-V in the future, given all the luxury features that are expected. Besides, don't Ferrari and Lamborgini use V8's or V12's with 4.5+ liters in their street cars?

Jud

M5eater
06-03-11, 12:26 PM
Besides, don't Ferrari and Lamborgini use V8's or V12's with 4.5+ liters in their street cars?

Jud
are you comparing $250,000-$500,000 cars to $50-70,000 cars? I hope not.
Additionally, Lamborgini use V10's in the Gallardo's, and a V12 in the discontinued Mercilago. GM is not the only manufacturer to go smaller, BMW has already stepped up to that plate, so has Audi.


The way most people would drive them would negate any presumed increase in fuel economy over our very efficient pushrod LSx V8's.
Everyone that buy's a vette is not a boy-racer, in the same way that everyone that buy's a civic does not rice the F&F out of it. The way most people drive them, is @ 60mph, with an auto, maybe going to work or the grocery store, trying to get 30mpg because gas is $4/gallon.

concorso
06-03-11, 01:16 PM
are you comparing $250,000-$500,000 cars to $50-70,000 cars? I hope not.
Additionally, Lamborgini use V10's in the Gallardo's, and a V12 in the discontinued Mercilago. GM is not the only manufacturer to go smaller, BMW has already stepped up to that plate, so has Audi.The BMW engine you refer to is 4.4L, not 3.0. And it doesnt rev anywhere near 10,000 rpm. GM going smaller would be 5L. The next CTS wont be any lighter then 4000 lbs, most likely closer to 4500 lbs. You really think GM will release a turbo 3L V8 making 650 hp and enough tq to move a 4500 beast while hitting 10k rpm and still staying affordable?

ChicagoV
06-03-11, 01:29 PM
I have to agree- as far as I am aware, there are zero car engines out there that rev to 10,000. Most of the turbo or supercharged engines rev lower than their similarly sized counterparts to begin with. See examples of M3 and GT3. I would expect some tricks to improve fuel economy, but I'll believe a radical departure when I see it. Did you guys read the comments to the article that Caddy Wagon posted? The vette guys were going bonkers over the prospect.

SleepTight
06-03-11, 01:39 PM
The BMW engine you refer to is 4.4L, not 3.0. And it doesnt rev anywhere near 10,000 rpm. GM going smaller would be 5L. The next CTS wont be any lighter then 4000 lbs, most likely closer to 4500 lbs. You really think GM will release a turbo 3L V8 making 650 hp and enough tq to move a 4500 beast while hitting 10k rpm and still staying affordable?

I believe M5eater is referring to BMW's move from the 5.0 L V10 S85 in the E60 M5 to the twin-turbo 4.4 L V8 S63 in the upcoming F10 M5.

I for one would welcome a 10,000 rpm overhead cam 3.0 L V8 in the next gen CTS-V. I take it as a given that GM will have no choice but to make the engine affordable if it wants to hold on to its present market position as the "sleeper value" of the super sports car/super sedan category.

thebigjimsho
06-03-11, 01:50 PM
The V series is mentioned in this article:

Next Corvette Will Be Powered by Small, High-Revving Turbo V-8

“We have to target a very different sort of buyer.”

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/next-corvette-will-be-powered-by-small--high-revving-turbo-v-8.html
So, from this article, you feel it's such a slam dunk that you titled this thread as though it's a sure thing?

1. We have a S/C V8, in part, because our 4200 lb cars need TORQUE to move around.

2. It's been almost a given that GM has been working on a 5.5 liter, direct injected motor for the C7.

A 10,000 rpm 3 liter TT V8 sounds so unattainable in a mass production vehicle at this point. It makes no sense. This would be a weak April Fools joke...

M5eater
06-03-11, 01:51 PM
The BMW engine you refer to is 4.4L, not 3.0. And it doesnt rev anywhere near 10,000 rpm. GM going smaller would be 5L. The next CTS wont be any lighter then 4000 lbs, most likely closer to 4500 lbs. You really think GM will release a turbo 3L V8 making 650 hp and enough tq to move a 4500 beast while hitting 10k rpm and still staying affordable?

I never said anything about what I thought of the engine in the article. I said that GM would not be the first to downsize to a smaller engine.

I think the shear powertrain design(note I didn't say engine design) required for a 3L V8 10K RPM engine is something GM is not capable of at this point in time.

Vrocks
06-03-11, 02:39 PM
The next CTS is going to be even closer to the 5 series in pricing, especially the V. Based on what I've read and seen, the next M5 should be faster than the current V, so the next V has to be at least as fast as it is. I don't really care if they put a smaller displacement V8 under the hood and add turbos or a SC as long as it performs.

I prefer the power delivery of SC over TT but if they need to go to turbos for MPG (marketing) it's not a big deal. The best setup would be a NA engine but I don't think that's an option anymore.

M5eater
06-03-11, 02:41 PM
Based on what I've read and seen, the next M5 should be faster than the current V, so the next V has to be at least as fast as it is
yeah, but such is the cylce of the auto-industry :P

thebigjimsho
06-03-11, 03:34 PM
I can imagine a 5.5 DI with TT as being the next mill. I just don't see a tiny V8 with TT and 10K rpm redline anytime in the next 10 years...

JFJr
06-03-11, 05:11 PM
The way most people drive them, is @ 60mph, with an auto, maybe going to work or the grocery store, trying to get 30mpg because gas is $4/gallon.Ha haa! I presume you're not serious. I personally don't give a rat's @*#% about gasoline prices. If I did I would own a sorry electric car and not a "V." I wonder how many auto transmission "V" owners on this forum drive 60 mph on a highway with a higher posted speed limit. In my neck of the woods, you risk being rear-ended on the highway driving that slow.

The safe bet is that a blown variation of the next generation Corvette engine (5.5 liter V8 w/direct injection), derived from Le Mans racing, will power a future "V." Overhead cam engines are complex, physically larger than pushrod engines of the same displacement and more expensive to build. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

M5eater
06-03-11, 06:47 PM
Ha haa! I presume you're not serious. I personally don't give a rat's @*#% about gasoline prices.
Sorry, I was speaking about vette owners only.

Everyone that buy's a vette is not a boy-racer,

If I did I would own a sorry electric car and not a "V." I wonder how many auto transmission "V" owners on this forum drive 60 mph on a highway with a higher posted speed limit. In my neck of the woods, you risk being rear-ended on the highway driving that slow.

The LS3 430HP corvette gets 26Mpg, and can easily do 28-30mpg we can also safely assume not everyone else with a corvette or CTS-V cares so freelessly about gas as you do. The ratio of C5s and C6's that I have seen (or any coupe owned by an American for that matter) are driven by people that daily drive them and purchased it for the looks and wow factor rather than because of it's sports car appeal greatly outweigh the enthusiasts that drive it at least farily quickly, or modify it.. America is the only country where people buy sports cars to go grocery shopping.



I wonder how many auto transmission "V" owners on this forum drive 60 mph on a highway with a higher posted speed limit
60,65,70, whatever the limit is, my point was to say that it's not excessive, or anymore that they would do in an Accord.. I would also be willing to bet it's >50% of owners that do this.

JFJr
06-03-11, 07:48 PM
Tell us what high performance sedans you're driving so that we can talk more intelligently.


Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

JimmyH
06-03-11, 08:25 PM
The 5.5 has not been confirmed yet. That's the racing engine they are using. A 10k rpm engine seems a little unrealistic. Unless it's the next zr1 engine. I could see that. Folks are paying $110k for the current zr1. I am sure they will pay more for an F1-like engine.

JFJr
06-03-11, 09:19 PM
So what's the advantage of an F1 engine on the street when we need torque to maneuver in traffic?


Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

haterinc
06-03-11, 09:21 PM
The article says they'll have variations of engines for the vette and I didn't see anywhere that the 3L would be the alpha dog, so if they slap a civic motor in the base model to appease Obama (on his way out the door!) and the tree huggers then have at it as long as they have a mod friendly platform for the true enthusiast. They say they're after a new breed of buyers but they'd better realize if they're going younger, the younger gens are all about upgrades and bigger faster better...

JFJr
06-03-11, 09:33 PM
Any sorry 3.0 liter engine is "caca" (spelling) so why even think about it for a street engine?


Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

M5eater
06-03-11, 11:00 PM
Tell us what high performance sedans you're driving so that we can talk more intelligently.


Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)
Was that supposed to be an insult?

Any sorry 3.0 liter engine is "caca" (spelling) so why even think about it for a street engine?

RapidRob
06-03-11, 11:20 PM
Any sorry 3.0 liter engine is "caca" (spelling) so why even think about it for a street engine?


Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

Especially if it's in a 4K+ lb vehicle ... :helpless:

Rob

M5eater
06-04-11, 10:56 AM
nevermind.

JimmyH
06-04-11, 12:30 PM
They say they're after a new breed of buyers but they'd better realize if they're going younger, the younger gens are all about upgrades and bigger faster better...

GM better hope they appeal to 20-30 year old millionaires.

Domsz06
06-04-11, 01:26 PM
I think the article is just guessing on a lot of things. IF we all recall every year the vette has come out there has been articles on perhaps a mid engine version. But it still has not happened.

I think it could be pretty cool if we had a turbo'd v. Would make upgrades fun :)

JFJr
06-04-11, 02:31 PM
The safe bet is that a blown variation of the next generation Corvette engine (5.5 liter V8 w/direct injection), derived from Le Mans racing, will power a future "V." Overhead cam engines are complex, physically larger than pushrod engines of the same displacement and more expensive to build. Why fix it if it isn't broken?BTW, I forgot to mention that basic 4-valve-per-cylinder engine technology has been around since the early 1900's, so it's hardly more modern and sophisticated technology than that used in the highly refined pushrod engines of today. And the variable timing tricks, etc., used since then are not confined to overhead cam engines.

JimmyH
06-04-11, 03:13 PM
You don't get "true" variable timing in a pushrod engine. There is only one cam, so intake and exhaust timing cannot be variably timed independently of each other. I don't understand why the L99 has it. It doesn't seem to do much. I am quite satisfied with the broad range my LS3 has.

I think they should leave the Vette as is; front-gargantuan-engine, rear drive. If they want a mid-engine supercar, GM should give it a different name. If they are looking to attract buyers from Porsche and Ferrari, I really doubt those buyers will care what the nameplate says. Considering those cars generally don't have names anyway (alphanumeric models).

If they really want a high-tech, uber-high-performance-gee-wiz car, they should go all out with the XLR-V. Rumors are, that is what they are planning.

So GM, do one of the above, and make the Vette cheaper for those of us who have always wanted one, but are not about to spend a year's salary to get one.

JFJr
06-04-11, 03:57 PM
I think they should leave the Vette as is; front-gargantuan-engine, rear drive. If they want a mid-engine supercar, GM should give it a different name. If they are looking to attract buyers from Porsche and Ferrari, I really doubt those buyers will care what the nameplate says. Considering those cars generally don't have names anyway (alphanumeric models).I agree. The way to attract more buyers is to keep being visible and successful in Le Mans racing, and to upgrade the interior to satisfy a certain whiney segment. The Euro snobs are a lost cause and will never buy a Corvette, so why bother with them? Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that more than a few former Euro snobs have bought a current "V," and actually respect and enjoy them, so Cadillac appears to be on to something.

Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

JimmyH
06-04-11, 04:37 PM
euro snobs ftw :thumbsup:

1madstsv
06-04-11, 06:21 PM
Did you all for get about the other V the Sts-v 4.4L s/c 469hp dohc. It flopped. $78,920 on the windo sticker in mine. If I had not sold my 750il v12 5.4l BMW the V would have been sold off by now it is crap. Fast butt still crap. My c5 is crap to butt it new was 39,870 so that's ok. I drove a 2010 x5 m BMW tt 4.4 555 hp that's a nice suv. I have 5 gm cars in my garage and have owned over 25+ cars and my 750 was by far the best car. So gm better get with it our I will have a m5 in my driveway soon. Our a e63

JFJr
06-04-11, 06:31 PM
Competition is good for BMW and Cadillac. Do or did you have a current CTS-V in your stable? If not you might be missing what most of the forum members are experiencing.


Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

JimmyH
06-04-11, 06:34 PM
You can keep your $100k sauerkraut burner. Kthx.

1madstsv
06-04-11, 07:11 PM
Don't knock it till you have owned one. I hated them till I drove one.

JFJr
06-04-11, 07:37 PM
A 3.0 liter overhead cam V8 would be great in a riding lawn mower; at least it could move that light vehicle off the line. Remember the Tim Allen and Bob Vila wars on Home Improvement? Ha haa!

Jud
(Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk)

thebigjimsho
06-04-11, 08:01 PM
Did you all for get about the other V the Sts-v 4.4L s/c 469hp dohc. It flopped. $78,920 on the windo sticker in mine. If I had not sold my 750il v12 5.4l BMW the V would have been sold off by now it is crap. Fast butt still crap. My c5 is crap to butt it new was 39,870 so that's ok. I drove a 2010 x5 m BMW tt 4.4 555 hp that's a nice suv. I have 5 gm cars in my garage and have owned over 25+ cars and my 750 was by far the best car. So gm better get with it our I will have a m5 in my driveway soon. Our a e63
Shoulda got a CTS-V...

JimmyH
06-04-11, 09:48 PM
used stsV are a great bargain. I feel sorry for the guys that bought them new. but if folks didn't pony up for them, gm would dropped the price like toyota was forced to with the supra.

JimmyH
06-04-11, 09:48 PM
And I am sure the M5 is a fine car. I am sure the ZR1 is an amazing car. I wouldn't buy either. They are both hideously overpriced.

hulksdaddy
06-04-11, 10:01 PM
Did you all for get about the other V the Sts-v 4.4L s/c 469hp dohc. It flopped. $78,920 on the windo sticker in mine. If I had not sold my 750il v12 5.4l BMW the V would have been sold off by now it is crap. Fast butt still crap. My c5 is crap to butt it new was 39,870 so that's ok. I drove a 2010 x5 m BMW tt 4.4 555 hp that's a nice suv. I have 5 gm cars in my garage and have owned over 25+ cars and my 750 was by far the best car. So gm better get with it our I will have a m5 in my driveway soon. Our a e63

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r103/hulksdaddy/0130976059.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y261/GawkyEndymion000/leaving.gif

BlackCadillac91
06-04-11, 10:06 PM
^^^^ Lmfao

thebigjimsho
06-04-11, 10:50 PM
And I am sure the M5 is a fine car. I am sure the ZR1 is an amazing car. I wouldn't buy either. They are both hideously overpriced.
Maybe because you're a poor schmuck. I wouldn't say the M5 is a bargain. But you do get a ton of technology in the package. As for the ZR1, it's a bargain. It's a supercar in performance numbers for a fraction of the price. Yes, its interior is hideous. But a custom builder can make it sweet and still be a fraction of the price of a comparable Porsche, Lambo or Ferrari...

thebigjimsho
06-04-11, 10:57 PM
used stsV are a great bargain. I feel sorry for the guys that bought them new. but if folks didn't pony up for them, gm would dropped the price like toyota was forced to with the supra.
Yeah, the CTS-V was almost identical to the M5 in performance numbers and close in size. To me, $51K sounded like a steal. $80K for an STS-V and $100K for an XLR-V made NO sense to me...

EuroTrash
06-05-11, 12:37 AM
I dont know my old 35k or so 2.0 liter turbo4 cyl would but a hurting on all but a few of the ctsv's on this forum. (dont have it any more, was fun having 440 whp while it lasted)

There is just something awesome about getting 200+ whp per liter, i dont care if you have 2 liters or 6+ liters.

I would LOVE me some mid-low liter turbo charged v8 goodness. Hell the internals would have to be properly stout to handle that sort of power from an OEM. Which of course means, downpipe/exhaust/reflash and it would hopefully make even more hp. Maybe its just my fondness of turbo charged low liter motors speaking, but ill be damned if there aint a more amazing feeling then a nice bigg laggy turbo hitting a nice violent boost curve.

Regardless of which route they go, if they keep up with the momentum they created it should be bad ass.

JimmyH
06-05-11, 01:36 PM
Maybe because you're a poor schmuck. I wouldn't say the M5 is a bargain. But you do get a ton of technology in the package. As for the ZR1, it's a bargain. It's a supercar in performance numbers for a fraction of the price. Yes, its interior is hideous. But a custom builder can make it sweet and still be a fraction of the price of a comparable Porsche, Lambo or Ferrari...

If the ZR1 was a bargain, they wouldn't be sitting on showroom floors. Sure, the first few months saw the Igottahaveits paying the market adjusted prices. When I was shopping my SS, I visited 6 different Chevy dealers. Four of them had a ZR1 sitting on the floor collecting dust. No market adjustment stickers that I could see.

Yes I know, there will always be folks who will pay crazy money for a car. I am not one of them. If that makes me a poor schmuck, so be it. Gimme an ATS-V with an LS3 and a crappy interior for $45k and I will wet my pants.

thebigjimsho
06-06-11, 01:02 PM
You wet your pants when you see me. I should charge you money.

hulksdaddy
06-06-11, 01:47 PM
You wet your pants when you see me. I should charge you money.

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/denistephenson/smileys/smiley%20text/thtmi.gif

JimmyH
06-06-11, 02:40 PM
You wet your pants when you see me. I should charge you money.


guilty as charged

JimmyH
06-09-11, 03:51 PM
You know, I was thinking about this. And this whole rumor of a small turbo V8 smells alot like GM Product Planning is on a fishing expedition.

Release a rumor to the internet, see how everyone reacts to it...

thebigjimsho
06-09-11, 04:38 PM
I farted.

JimmyH
06-09-11, 05:38 PM
I knew I smelled something

thebigjimsho
06-09-11, 06:06 PM
Indeed.