Kyle2k

Most respectful people don't deal their opinions in absolutes like you just did lol. So I respectfully say, give me your opinion about the new information, because if you noticed in my small rant, I agree with you on your previous argument.


Edit: Based on how quickly you responded to my last post when you weren't even "online" and the fact that you are idling in this thread and not responding. Im curious if you know how to respond to someone when they don't wan't to/feel like arguing anymore. Just an observation/opinion?

max2000jp

I tell it like it is an don't sugar coat it. That's the problem with America today. Everyone has to be so PC. As for my response, I just got home last night and was reading over the forum. Perfect timing eh? I can respond to someone who disagrees, just provide a bit of substance behind the arguement.

As for the information you provided, I agree with it. The G8 weighs under 4000 lbs and is larger and has more content than the Camaro. GM is working on AFM but I read that they were having issues with implementing it in the LS3. Something about a harmonics/vibration issue at 70ish mph. I personally think we will see AFM and Direct Injection used in the Camaro. It's current technology that GM currently has and increases economy. It's really a no brainer.

Kyle2k

I am actually curious to see how much weight the Camaro will actually lose, I personally have no clue exactly how much weight is contributed by "the platform", but, if you take out the pretty much full sized seats in back, a lot of the heated seats, power everything, navigation, the extra sound deading stuff from the g8 and shorten the car by atleast some (even if its just from the body panels). Not to mention what CF, racing seats, lighter rims, non-runflat tires (or spare removal) the aftermarket provides, I think the Camaro could make the upcoming mustang look like a pig. And oh my god i can't wait for the next generation of chevy small blocks. As per chevy- the new zr-1 is the most fuel efficient 600 hp + production more. EVER, period.

max2000jp

The Camaro concept is 10 inches shorter than the G8. I figure that the Camaro will come in somewhere around 3800 lbs or ~150 less than the G8 V8.

Enfynet

Hasn't the Camaro typically followed that role in the past though? Bigger motors, cheaper interiors(?), and slightly higher sticker price?

Remember at the end of the day it's the V6 that kept the Mustang alive.

max2000jp

GM has been doing a nice job on interiors lately. Given the added price of the Camaro, I think the Camaro interior will be more upscale.

Enfynet

How much added price are we looking at? I know its over 30k... which, well makes the Mustang immediately seem like less of a "pig"... Although, I wouldn't mind a Mustang SE model somewhere in the price range of the Camaro that would make the bowtie look silly.

Kyle2k

You keep on looking at GM of the past, I have a feeling the new Camaro will be under 30k, look at the G8, its a sedan (with good performance and mid level luxury) trust me, you guys might just be suprised. GM doesnt want to screw up twice.

max2000jp

+1...The G8 also comes with a lot of upscale features standard for under 30K.

Enfynet

You mean... it will be actual "competition" this time instead of pseudo-competition? Like, how the GTO was competition for the Mustang, and the STi is competition for a Shelby GT?

Kyle2k

Whatever you feel about the GTO may be true...yet irrelevant if you look at the price of the G8, and your right, the STi isn't competition for the Shelby GT. The STi, is way too good to be compared to an overpriced Shelby "badge and run".

Furthermore you can keep on bringing up V6 sales and which one lasted longer, but for the people that are actually concerned about performance this time around (me) they should swallow their pride and admit GM has a superior vehicle this time around. Especially since it wont be more than ~$1000 more. 2011 will be a whole other story, but don't be suprised if GM brings DI to the table too.

Enfynet

Slow down there chief... I'm not arguing here. The GTO was nearly 10k more than the Mustang, and the STi should never have been compared to a "collector" badged car. Sheesh... Calm down.

Kyle2k

I am not angry, or pissed, or in a "matter of fact" mood. But I am just proving my point, I thought I did it very respectfully and calm...guess not lol.

Enfynet

It's quite alright, you've spent most of this thread going toe-to-toe with max.

jsaylor

Enjoyed that? Funny you should mention homework since the math in your last response to me could use some work....back to the subject at hand.....

Yep, I missed this one entirely. For what it's worth the 6th gen Eaton has also already made an appearance on the Toyota Aurion in the land down under for those who might be curious.

Max hp and boost for an intercooler are not directly related to how well said intercooler functions on a stock engine at stock boost levels. In fact, intercoolers can be too large for a given hp/boost level needlessly sapping airflow and thus hp for no practical gain in cooling effect. Given this, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Actually the concept is a bit different since the ZR1 uses a bit more eventful route through the intercoolers than I had previously thought going up and around the blower rather than straight down into the cylinder heads. As for the GT's intercooler the effect is no different than the sandwiched intercoolers we've seen on manifold mounted blowers for years now and is exactly what I expected....intercooler integration into a still separate intake manifold isn't going to change that formula much although it is obviously good for packaging.

Yes, you are....but your error is a common one. Any parasitic loss will be based on flywheel hp and not rwhp for reasons which should be obvious upon further study. The correct method......

In an engine with 650hp at the flywheel if you lost 15% in parasitic drag to the driveline you would end up with 650x.85=552.50rwhp. (Or, you could say that 650x.15=97.5 and then subtract that from 650 although I am unsure why you would want to) To convert back to flywheel hp you simply divide the 552.50rwhp figure by the same .85 which magically takes you back to 650hp....or 552.5/.85=650. Of course you can use the second example to figure flywheel hp with only the rwhp figure, as I did earlier in this thread.

After reviewing this thread I noticed somebody covered this already but figured it was worth covering again.

We are far too close to prime time for the 5.0L V8 for major factors to be changed without serious repercussions. The reality is that 5.0L pre-production ramp up is probably little more than a year away even assuming that Ford only expects these engines to be in cars by an early 2011MY. HP numbers could change between now and then but at this stage that is as unlikely as GM deciding to pull the plug on half the LS series V8 production to put themselves in a better position to meet CAFE standards. Possible? Yes. Unlikely? Yes.

Is engineering work still being done? Of course. But Ford is at the fix it stage now addressing only that which doesn't work or is problematic and has known what they want this engine to be for some time at this stage in the game. Put plainly it could happen but anybody with even the slightest knowledge of how solidified a program this vast in the automotive world is by this stage understands how costly it would be to do so. It just doesn't happen and it doesn't happen for a reason....money.

You are seriously comparing a hand-built engine with a production run of ~10-15k units per year to a volume engine likely to find a home under the hoods of a few hundred thousand vehicles a year? Development and production of these two engines couldn't be any more different.

max2000jp

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaylor

Enjoyed that? Funny you should mention homework since the math in your last response to me could use some work....back to the subject at hand.....

We do have a nice comparison in the GT500. The TVS is inferior to the twin screw from the dynos I’ve seen. Whipple recently came out with an improved version that will further the gap.




I am trying to lead you to overall efficiency. The ZR1’s design is largely based on packaging to get it under the hood. Both the ZR1 and GT intercoolers will work well under stock boost. What I was trying to infer is that we know that the GT’s intercooler is very efficient up to about 800 hp or 18lbs or boost. As boost increases, so do IAT’s. We do not know what the capabilities of the ZR1 intercooler are. It could become inefficient at 725 bhp. Right now as it sits, we don’t know any important details on the ZR1’s intercooler.




Like you said, GM’s design has a lot to do with packaging. Both intercoolers look like they will function similarly. Neither has a long length of piping, like in a Air-to-Air where we could see loss of boost.




You got me there. I never have been good at math




Actually we are TWO years away from prime time for the 5.0L. The 5.0L is slated for CALENDAR year 2010. GM/Ford typically take ~36 months to develop a vehicle. Changes can definitely be made and they are. It seems like FourCam and BlueII can attest to this. Their sources keep changing various bits and pieces. If you don’t like my 03-04 Cobra example, then let’s talk about the S197 rear suspension. Ford does make changes and mostly they are driven by the bean counters.


GM can also be making changes to the LS3 too. Direct Injection and AFM seem like a no brainer. HP will increase with direct injection and both will work towards fuel efficiency. You’ve made it seem like Ford is the only company improving their engine line-up. I am sure that GM has something in store for the Gen V small block.

Like I said, I am neither a Ford or GM guy. I like cars! If I could afford one, I’d be driving a new GTR. It’s truly a game changer in terms of performance. High 7:20’s on the Ring and that’s not even the V-spec!

jsaylor

But the difference here is that we are comparing a specific twin screw, the GT's Lysholm, to a specific roots, in this case the TVS. Put succinctly within it's size class the 2.3L Lysholm on the GT, while a nice piece, was more or less at the bottom of the twin screw food chain when it debuted in the GT. In every respect efficiency wasn't as good as it is with an Autorotor, which is the twin screw most folks think of when they think of twin screws....and in my experience they tend to be thinking of twin screws larger than 2.3L

Now we have the TVS which is significantly more efficient than the older rootes designs we have seen in the past closing the gap here with the back of the twin screw pack and which uses these advantages to further widen it's traditional advantages in off idle torque production and off-power fuel economy. With a stock longblock/heads and the TVS a GT500 can produce as much as 850hp on 93 octane running around 17lb of boost. And while twin screws would crush those numbers, like the Autorotor/KB 2.8L for example, I am unaware of a 2.3L Whipple-equipped GT500 which has bettered that mark on pump gas

Minor changes until actual production starts are obviously to be expected, but in projects this large by and large these are usually exactly that....minor changes since these things are obviously expensive by this point and not often done without very good reason. A large shift in hp and torque could happen but is, at this stage, no more or less likely than the same thing happening for previously unforseen circumstances with any of Detroit's existing engines.

And full 5.0L production is scheduled to start in February 2010 IIRC which means initial ramp up is likely scheduled for sometime in October-November which is truly the point where the engines is done and they simple want to make certain the whole thing actually works. That time frame puts finalization of 5.0L V8 parameters right at 1-1/2 years out...and that isn't a lot of time for a program this large.

At this stage Ford knows very well what the engine can produce and what they want it to produce. Barring relatively significant and unexpected issues they wont change a lot....which means odds of the same are very small.

Yes, but in reality those changes could just as easily be to the detriment of LS power production in an effort to increase fuel efficiency, just as we could see with the 5.0L V8. Is it likely? Not really since we would have almost certainly hear something about it by now if such a change were going to be made within the next couple of years. But if we are going to forecast based on worst case scenarios the LS series V8's can't be excluded, particularly not since we know that the general is working overtime to figure out how to balance CAFE standards and their engine lineup.

As for near future changes for the LS V8, the implementation of DI, etc is likely a certainty at some juncture on the gen V platform....it just doesn't appear to be happening by the 2011MY unless GM has gotten much better at keeping secrets. As for Ford being the only one making advances in smallblock tech I've never insinuated anything like the same. But I do think the momentum in advancements with V8 engines in every size category appears to be in Ford's court for the next couple of years with the upcoming 5.0L and 6.2L plus V8 designs. Couple that with the upcoming Ecoboost engines and Ford easily appears to be in a better position to weather the CAFE storm over the next four to five years than does GM whose comparable designs are in many cases noticeably further behind on the drawing board.

I have a soft spot for Nissan....I loved the last gen 300ZX....but the newest crop just doesn't do it for me in terms of appearance. The GTR is stupid fast but I just can't wrap my brain around a fast car that ugly. In a way it reminds me of the MkIV Supra which brought amazing performance for the price to market fifteen years ago, but did so in a wrapper that turned buyers away in droves. I don't think the GTR will suffer the same fate in the marketplace for various reasons, but I just can't bring myself to overlook the...well...looks.

Kyle2k

You type so much it almost makes me want to skip over reading it sometimes lol, but...If you think Ford has the upper hands with engine developments you don't look at GM's cars too closesly. The Zr-1 has been named the most efficient 600+hp engine ever. Not to mention that most of GM's smallblocks already get mid-20's for mpg, without DI and AFM. And if you are talking about 4v in comparison to OHV, then I think you are still overestimating them, because I recall many people saying GM heads flowed so much better and the GM head designer could take a crap on the CAD program Ford uses and get 50 extra CFM's out of em.

And to call the MkIV Supra ugly is just sin in my mind for ANY car enthusiast. I think the price tag of the supra turned buyers away more than its looks. Especially considering the new edge mustang looks like and accord on steroids and the 4th gen camaro looks like a chrysler concorde on meth. You obviously don't like smooth lines and/or superior aerodynamics as much as you like the more edgy design of a majority of american cars.

jsaylor

You're going to find a lot of sinners in this world if you think everybody should like the MkIV Supra. That said I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say that, initially, the MkIV's price tag played a massive role in it's ultimate sales failure. Upon debut the money required to park yourself in a loaded Supra Turbo could nearly park you in a base 911, and I think the impression was that the Toyota brand simply hadn't earned the cred to play in that league. And since the Supra was primarily about advancing the art of sports car refinement in contrast to the ZR1's approach of offering mega power on a beer budget Toyota couldn't play the 'were faster than x' card as readily as GM can or as say Nissan can with the GTR.

That said, I also well remember that Supra sales stayed in the toilet even after rebates and incentives nearing 20 large hit the turbo model. The Supra Turbo went from surprisingly expensive to a relative bargain nearly overnight and the reality was continuing sluggish sales. The reason? You almost couldn't discuss the MkIV and not end up on the subject of how ugly the car was back then and I thus think we have to consider this a major factor in the Supra's demise. Ultimately it seems that the market has evolved a bit and the Supra's looks are now seen as an asset by an increasing percentage of enthusiasts...but to me it's still fugly. Smooth? Yes. Elegant? IMO not even remotely. Ironic then that Toyota produced the most attractive Japanese car ever built IMO, the 2000GT.

As for the IV gen Camaro and the new edge Mustang, of these models lines as a whole the only car I find even passably attractive is the 03/04 Cobra and that car isn't a super-model by any stretch. In my opinion the reality is that most dedicated modern coupes are relatively disappointing stylistically speaking with the only real lookers beneath 100k on the market right now being the Mustang, Vette, 911, Challenger, and XKR. I'll throw the G35/Skyline an honorable mention but I think it has fallen off a bit since the last model. At the moment the standard 911 is, IMHO, the best looking car below 100k on the face of the earth.

It's a curse.

We're entering a brave new world here with 4 dollar a gallon gas and tightening CAFE and against that I don't think GM is as prepared as they would like to be. While 600hp V8's will remain important in the niche market IMO, something many folks wouldn't agree with me on, the fuel economy of such limited production vehicles isn't really significant with the real focus being on the 350-450hp segment under the hoods of four passenger cars IMO. In this respect, despite the hype, the LS series V8 doesn't fare so well in the near term. For example, the G8 GT had to forego the LS3 to avoid a GGT, and the reality is that while the LS3 powered Camaro will almost certainly encompass enough improvements to avoid the GGT as well it wont be by much. These are not fuel sipping cars and, as yet, little appears likely change about that by the 2011 or 2012 model years

At the moment Ford is no better off with the 4.6L which drinks comparable gas for 100 fewer hp produced. But, given the increase in CAFE standards and gas prices the near future has become far more important than the here and now and in that near future Ford has more items which appear set to make a vast improvement in their fortunes than does GM or Chrysler. The upcoming 5.0L DOHC V8, the upcoming Boss/Hurricane 6.2L plus V8's, and the upcoming 3.5L GTDi V6 combine to offer Ford a slew of alternatives all of which promise increased fuel ecomnomy and the combination of which gives Ford the adaptability to accommodate whatever new measures may be enacted with CAFE standards while never threatening to take V8 power and torque off the board in any volume. Right now that range of alternatives offering V8 power with improved fuel economy and the production flexibility to bend to gas price increases and CAFE standards is absolutely priceless.

I just don't see anything like the same kind of promise rising from GM right now. We have the promise of DI and somewhat better fuel economy with the gen V smallblock but we are talking about incremental improvements here. Ultra was canceled at a surprisingly advanced stage in development with the prevailing rumor being that GM didn't believe the could support more than one V8 platform at the moment, even with the second being as low volume as Ultra. GM has also indicated that a GTDi V6 is in the works but it is by all appearances several years behind Ford's effort here.

I think people are too often fixated on what the car companies have been doing and are thus two close minded to what they are actually in the process of doing. The reality is that things have changed very much at Ford and we have every indication that they are on the leading edge of a powertrain lineup which can provide the power to which we are accustomed along with the economy that we know find ourselves needing. I suppose I'm so pleased by this because it has been so long since we have seen that kind of effort form Ford poweretrain.

Enfynet

You cannot compare engines in two different vehicles based on performance in said vehicle. All you're left with is 100 extra variables that differ for each. If you want to know how efficient an engine is, it needs to be run alone on an engine dyno. A 6.0L V8 mated to a 6-speed gearbox, and highway rear end will easily outperform a 4.0L V6 mated to a 4-speed gearbox and a larger rear end gear. But if you left both of those engines to idle for an hour, there's a good chance the 6.0L will use more fuel than the 4.0L