The Official 2009 Corvette ZR1 !!

[clayton]

Performane-wise, this car will be a blast to drive. Speed + $$$.

CONS: Interior looks like the same ol' ugly USA cars Cornering won't be Lotus/Porsche level.

I love the front so much. *Drools*
________
VOLCANO VAPORIZER REVIEWS

[trance565]

Even SOHC designs are outdated. A single set of valves does not a happy engine make. Large engines restricted with that sort of flow are screaming out for more. We had DOHC engines in the 1930's (Jaguar XK, anyone?) so its not like its a new innovation - you can build substantially MORE power with a DOHC than an OHV. Yes, its more expensive to build, but how come every other manufacturer and even the overseas markets of Ford and GM manage to make a cheap car with DOHC engine ranges? Hmm?

Also - the figures you quite are quite laughable - try 3.0 litres with 235 bhp - thats the STANDARD supra turbo motor which is 2954cc, 24v DOHC - 78.33bhp per litre, which beats the first three engines on that list (N/A Supra is 204bhp, so 102bhp per litre for that one)....oooh, even the 2.0 litre Cosworth YB DOHC from the mid-80's gets 204bhp - 102bhp per litre there....and then theres the Honda S2000's 2.0litre engine - 240bhp from that, so 120bhp per litre.

The Supra and Cosworth dont have any form of VVT either

Now i'm not knocking OHV engines that were in vehicles from the era of OHV (ie, the 60's and 70's - like my Falcon), but OHV has no place in a vehicle for the 21st century - it's time to move on.

As for the LSD - well, the latest mustang doesnt have an LSD as standard (it might be an option) and both it and the corvette have leaf spring suspension - which was old in 1920, having been passed down from ox-carts in the 1500's....

INDEPENDANT REAR SUSPENSION! ITS NOT HARD TO MAKE! NOR IS IT EXPENSIVE!

hp/liter doesnt matter. when you ahve a larger motor, you use more energy to rotate the pistons, fly wheel, crank, etc, so it's harder to make more hp/liter, so dont give hp/liter information, as it's completely moot.


and another way to give an engine the air it needs, is instead of adding more valves, which in turn, involves adding more weight, moving parts, and just overal more things to go wrong, you just bore out the valves.

and yes your supra is nice, but it uses a rubber belt to turn the cams lol, and the crankshaft pulley (harmonic balancer) cracks in 2 at 400+whp, which is laughable.

and clayton, im sure the cornering will be greater than that of a lotus, if not, then atleast on par, hell, my mustang is close to the cornering ability of a lotus (yes i know as i've played with one in the twisties before)

[Kai Robinson]

When you're using an all-alloy construction - weight of valvetrain isnt so much an issue.

What of the rubber cam turning belt - there is a problem with that somehow? Its a non-interference engine, so if it does snap - just replace the belt and carry on...

The Crank pulley for more than 400hp is easy enough to replace with a new one from ATI for less than $200 and there - splitting problem solved...

And would someone like to try and explain why the 4.3 Litre Aston Martin (N/A) V8 gets 380bhp when the 5.7litre Ford Hemi is capable of only 345? :p

[trance565]

ford doesnt cary a hemi.... and it's probably a truck engine, so look at the torque numbers, a 5.4 liter v8 triton can be taken out of a ford f150, slap a cobra crank, new cam, and valve train in, and you can have 450+whp NA.

and it's just 200 dollars you could be putting somewhere else.

chains are way better than rubber belts, likely hood of a chain breaking is rare. i know a few ppl who break their timing belts on supras stock and have had to replace them a few times. kinda annoying when you cant drive your car in the middle of a race.

[[XC] Lead Head]

Its the dodge hemi with 345HP.

Also, those engines you were listing make the peak horsepower at upwards of 9000 RPM! Most american engines are tuned for torque and lower RPMs. Most american engines will produce 80% of their torque by 1800 RPM, and nearly full torque between 3000-3500RPM, and peak HP by around 5200RPM.

OHV can easily produce just as much torque as SOHC, DOHC engines, maybe not horsepower though, because of RPM limitations.

I think you mixed something up to, your saying that the 6.4 HEMI OHV produces just as much power per liter as a turbo'd 3 liter engine?

[Kai Robinson]

I've had problems with chains in the past - Cosworth BOA 2.9 V6 for example - uses twin timing chains to drive four cams (two per bank) - the chains wear through the tensioners within 50,000 miles and the chains themselves have a tendancy to fatigue and shear when you least want them to - on an interference engine like that, i'd rather have a belt!

[Kai Robinson]

Well, erm - the Supra engine makes peak at 5500rpm (the redline is 6500 or so), Cosworth YB makes peak HP at 5800rpm and the S2000 has a double peak at 6500 and 7800rpm....so not 9000+ as you say

And no, i didnt mix anything up - look at math for yourself.

Supra Engine (Stock) = 235bhp. Divide Horsepower by the litre capacity of the engine, in this case 235bhp / 3.0 = 78.33bhp per litre.

The Hemi 6.4 you quoted as having 505bhp, well, divide 505 / 6.4 = 78.906

So yes, the 6.4litre engine produces 0.573bhp per litre MORE than my 3.0 litre engine....

Also if each cc of my engine produced 0.07955 bhp (235/2954), then once i've had a 20thou overbore (2990cc (83.5mm bore, 91mm stroke), it'll produce 237.85bhp

[Nazu]

European and Japanese engines will always make more hp per litre than American engines. Just because they have more advanced engine technology and they are DOHC compared to OHV. The whole hp/litre discussion is pretty stupid cos the higher hp/litre count doesn't make the engine any better than the lower hp/litre one. It's about the powerband and how easily the power is available for the driver, suspension and chassis are even more important when comparing different cars and how they handle.

[Kai Robinson]

LSD = win....and i meant the differential, not acid

Also, adjustable TEIN's = win +1

[Vette]

When you're using an all-alloy construction - weight of valvetrain isnt so much an issue.

What of the rubber cam turning belt - there is a problem with that somehow? Its a non-interference engine, so if it does snap - just replace the belt and carry on...

The Crank pulley for more than 400hp is easy enough to replace with a new one from ATI for less than $200 and there - splitting problem solved...

And would someone like to try and explain why the 4.3 Litre Aston Martin (N/A) V8 gets 380bhp when the 5.7litre Ford Hemi is capable of only 345? :p

Okay - i'm not slagging this off or anything - but seriously - pushrod engines DIED A DEATH. They should have all been pensioned off long ago. Yes, they were great in their day (60's and 70's) but COME ON! even a SOHC design would have been better! Why are so many US car manufacturers so lazy when it comes to updating their engine tech when people like BMW, Mercedes, VW and even the European Contingent of Ford and GM dumped OHV a LOOONG time ago?

Is the suspension on this going to be fully independant and NOT leaf springs?

Is the differential going to be Limited Slip?

Is the interior still going to feel tacky, plastic and cheap, despite its looks?

Dont get me wrong - i'm a fan of muscle cars (own a '72 Falcon) but when you guys churn out the same stuff over and over and over it gets a little tiresome, especially when you lag behind in the tech stakes for so long!

*grumbles*

Even SOHC designs are outdated. A single set of valves does not a happy engine make. Large engines restricted with that sort of flow are screaming out for more. We had DOHC engines in the 1930's (Jaguar XK, anyone?) so its not like its a new innovation - you can build substantially MORE power with a DOHC than an OHV. Yes, its more expensive to build, but how come every other manufacturer and even the overseas markets of Ford and GM manage to make a cheap car with DOHC engine ranges? Hmm?

Also - the figures you quite are quite laughable - try 3.0 litres with 235 bhp - thats the STANDARD supra turbo motor which is 2954cc, 24v DOHC - 78.33bhp per litre, which beats the first three engines on that list (N/A Supra is 204bhp, so 102bhp per litre for that one)....oooh, even the 2.0 litre Cosworth YB DOHC from the mid-80's gets 204bhp - 102bhp per litre there....and then theres the Honda S2000's 2.0litre engine - 240bhp from that, so 120bhp per litre.

The Supra and Cosworth dont have any form of VVT either

Now i'm not knocking OHV engines that were in vehicles from the era of OHV (ie, the 60's and 70's - like my Falcon), but OHV has no place in a vehicle for the 21st century - it's time to move on.

As for the LSD - well, the latest mustang doesnt have an LSD as standard (it might be an option) and both it and the corvette have leaf spring suspension - which was old in 1920, having been passed down from ox-carts in the 1500's....

INDEPENDANT REAR SUSPENSION! ITS NOT HARD TO MAKE! NOR IS IT EXPENSIVE!

Sorry to bring this up so late, it took a while between when I registered and when I was allowed to post.

In any case, a few things need to be corrected in this post.

1. The pushrod engine is a fine design. It trades higher revs for a compact package and lower revs. It’s simply a different way to achieve an ends. The Honda S2000 may be the king of the HP/L game but it paled next to the LS2 when you look at HP per lb of engine weight.

2. The HEMI is a trademark name used by Chrysler (Dodge), not Ford. Ford has no pushrod V8 gasoline motors. The turbo diesels are 4 valve head pushrod V8s.

3. The Corvette has had fully independent suspension since the second generation car was introduced in the 1960s. C2-C3 used a centrally mounted leaf spring. The left and right sides of the spring moved independently of each other. It was this way until the C4 came out. The C4 was innovative in using the leaf spring in both normal bump type compression as well as an anti-roll bar.

As for “fully independent” that depends on your definition. The common definition would actually define the motion of the wheels as independent. IE if the right wheel moves up, the caster, camber, toe of the left wheel are not affected. The Corvette has always had independent front suspension and got independent rear suspension in the 60s.

Now you might be thinking that with the later Vettes and that leaf spring acting as anti-roll bar the car doesn’t have true independent suspension. Well remember that anti-roll bars connect the left and right sides together on virtually ALL cars with independent rear suspensions. Certainly only the lowliest of cars would come without a rear anti-roll bar. So if you claim a Corvette leaf spring ties the left and right together (ie not independent) then no Porsche, BMW, or Ferrari would have independent suspension.

Here’s some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

4. The Corvette does offer a LSD but sometimes an open dif is actually more enjoyable to drive. The Mustang also offers LSD. The base car is a V6 ride for under $20k so money has to be saved.

5. The Mustang hasn’t had leaf springs since the 70s. All the Mustangs in the 80s, 90s and today have coil spring suspensions in the back.

6. At the price point the Mustang starts at IRS is expensive. Also, many people get hung up on the lack of IRS in the Mustang. It really does handle well. It would likely handle better with IRS but it would also cost a good bit more. Who are we to say Ford did or didn’t make the right choice going with the well sorted live axle vs the extra cost of an IRS setup?

[RAW-Raptor22]

Sorry to bring this up so late, it took a while between when I registered and when I was allowed to post.

In any case, a few things need to be corrected in this post.

1. The pushrod engine is a fine design. It trades higher revs for a compact package and lower revs. It’s simply a different way to achieve an ends. The Honda S2000 may be the king of the HP/L game but it paled next to the LS2 when you look at HP per lb of engine weight.

2. The HEMI is a trademark name used by Chrysler (Dodge), not Ford. Ford has no pushrod V8 gasoline motors. The turbo diesels are 4 valve head pushrod V8s.

3. The Corvette has had fully independent suspension since the second generation car was introduced in the 1960s. C2-C3 used a centrally mounted leaf spring. The left and right sides of the spring moved independently of each other. It was this way until the C4 came out. It was innovative in using the leaf spring in both normal bump type compression as well as an anti-roll bar.

As for “fully independent” that depends on your definition. The common definition would actually define the motion of the wheels as independent. IE if the right wheel moves up, the caster, camber, toe are not affected. The Corvette has always had independent front suspension and got independent rear suspension in the 60s.

Now you might be thinking that with the later Vettes and that leaf spring acting as anti-roll bar the car doesn’t have true independent suspension. When remember that anti-roll bars connect the left and right sides together on virtually ALL cars with independent rear suspensions. Certainly only the lowliest of cars would come without a rear anti-roll bar. So if you claim a Corvette leaf spring ties the left and right together (ie not independent) then no Porsche, BMW, or Ferrari would have independent suspension.

Here’s some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

4. The Corvette does offer a LSD but sometimes an open dif is actually more enjoyable to drive. The Mustang also offers LSD. The base car is a V6 ride for under $20k money has to be saved.

5. The Mustang hasn’t had leaf springs since the 70s. All the Mustangs in the 80s, 90s and today have coil springs in the back.

6. At the price point the Mustang starts at IRS is expensive. Also, many people get hung up on the lack of IRS in the Mustang. It really does handle well. It would likely handle better with IRS but it would also cost a good bit more. Who are we to say Ford did or didn’t make the right choice going with the well sorted live axle vs the extra cost of an IRS setup?

+1

[Kai Robinson]

An open diff is more fun to drive? Try going round these things called corners without shredding your tyres and without ending up in the scenery - it's not possible to do both at the same time. I'd rather my car actually handles.

Yes, the LS series have a smaller package than, say the DOHC Lotus designed LT series (as used in a previous Corvette)....but it's probably not as small or as lightweight as the Rover V8 which is 3.5litres in standard form and all-aluminium construction...and that was lifted from a '62 Buick

The one thing that amazes me, is that its not that hard to screw xxx amount of horsepower out of an engine these days - you could have a supercharged 4.7 litre V8 put out close to 900 horsies - as used in the Koenigsegg CCR (based on the ford modular V8).

4.7 litre vs 7.0 litre....well the 4.7 is going to be smaller, and in all likelyhood, better on fuel...which i would have thought would have been a principle consideration for cars in the US now - what with your "extortionate" (LOL!) fuel prices....

In any case, at the end of the day, for RWD V8 fun that can be bought on the cheap, i'd much rather have the Vauxhall Monaro 5.7 - no pretensions in that, and for a GM car, its got a good interior

Or the new 2008 Dodge Challenger....when it finally joins the world of real drivers and allows you to buy one with the T56 Manual instead of the lazy-arse automatic >_<

[Vette]

An open diff is more fun to drive? Try going round these things called corners without shredding your tyres and without ending up in the scenery - it's not possible to do both at the same time. I'd rather my car actually handles.

Yes, the LS series have a smaller package than, say the DOHC Lotus designed LT series (as used in a previous Corvette)....but it's probably not as small or as lightweight as the Rover V8 which is 3.5litres in standard form and all-aluminium construction...and that was lifted from a '62 Buick

The one thing that amazes me, is that its not that hard to screw xxx amount of horsepower out of an engine these days - you could have a supercharged 4.7 litre V8 put out close to 900 horsies - as used in the Koenigsegg CCR (based on the ford modular V8).

4.7 litre vs 7.0 litre....well the 4.7 is going to be smaller, and in all likelyhood, better on fuel...which i would have thought would have been a principle consideration for cars in the US now - what with your "extortionate" (LOL!) fuel prices....

In any case, at the end of the day, for RWD V8 fun that can be bought on the cheap, i'd much rather have the Vauxhall Monaro 5.7 - no pretensions in that, and for a GM car, its got a good interior

Or the new 2008 Dodge Challenger....when it finally joins the world of real drivers and allows you to buy one with the T56 Manual instead of the lazy-arse automatic >_<

I’m not interested in explaining all the details of LSD’s to you. You didn’t know who made HEMI motors or that Mustangs don’t have leaf springs.

The Rover motor is in fact very light. It is also a pushrod motor.

The Ford modular family engines are physically larger than the LSx family of motors. Yes, that means the 7L GM motor is actually smaller than the Ford motor. Here is a picture of Ford’s 4.6L motor next to their old pushrod 302 (4.9L).
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg
The LSx motors are only slightly larger than the Ford 302.

It’s nice that you have a healthy enthusiasm for cars. If you want to get hung up on the details of the technology in cars the next step is to actually understand them so you don’t mistakenly state that Corvettes don’t have independent suspensions.

[Movieman]

Hey guys, remember, friends first huh..
No "mines bigger than yours" as to knowledge.
We all have areas we know and areas we don't.
I could quote you every engine,transmission and rear end gearing availible in any GM car from 1955-1970 but I couldn't tell you what they offer today.
Let's keep it friendly and an exchange of knowledge.
We're all better off that way.

Now as to that funky word HEMI, technically Ford did make one.
The 1970 Boss 429 motor was I beleive technically a "canted valve hemispherical combustion chambered" motor.
No, I didn't look that up, from memory so if it's wrong I appologise.
Have a good night guys. This old fart needs sleep..

[Vette]

Hemispherical type combustion chamber, yes. Lots of companies have done those and you are correct that Ford is one of them.

HEMI, on the other hand is a Chrysler trade mark. Just as many companies have produced portable CD players only Sony has produced Discmen. Ironically, the new HEMI motors don't even have semi-hemispherical combustion chambers.

I didn't mean to come off as rude, I was simply correcting a number of errors in the post.

[trance565]

i though hemi had to due with the hemispherical pistons...

[Kai Robinson]

Leaf Springs, no matter how 'advanced' are still OLD AND OUTDATED. Replace them with coilovers - then you can brag.

As for understanding how LSD's work, i'm fully aware of the inner workings thanks, i have a 3.73:1 one on the back end of my supra...

What i said is perfectly true though. Not everyone wants to tailslide around corners - not everyone wants to drift to work, and those that buy expensive muscle/sports cars want handling as well as power. One is nothing without the other.

As Movieman says - we all have our own areas of expertise and i never once said i knew everything about corvettes.

Ask me whatever you choose about UK Market Fords from 1968 to present, Toyota's from 1949 to present and Most other brands of car sold over here and i'll bore you to death with details.

I do have a muscle car of my own - its called a Ford Falcon XB GT Coupe - Australian made, but the principle is no different than the ones that came out of the US. Leaf springs and OHV engines on that, i can accept. On a $100k 21st century 'sports' car, er, sorry, i'd rather spend it on a BMW

[Vette]

Leaf Springs, no matter how 'advanced' are still OLD AND OUTDATED. Replace them with coilovers - then you can brag.

As for understanding how LSD's work, i'm fully aware of the inner workings thanks, i have a 3.73:1 one on the back end of my supra...

What i said is perfectly true though. Not everyone wants to tailslide around corners - not everyone wants to drift to work, and those that buy expensive muscle/sports cars want handling as well as power. One is nothing without the other.

As Movieman says - we all have our own areas of expertise and i never once said i knew everything about corvettes.

Ask me whatever you choose about UK Market Fords from 1968 to present, Toyota's from 1949 to present and Most other brands of car sold over here and i'll bore you to death with details.

I do have a muscle car of my own - its called a Ford Falcon XB GT Coupe - Australian made, but the principle is no different than the ones that came out of the US. Leaf springs and OHV engines on that, i can accept. On a $100k 21st century 'sports' car, er, sorry, i'd rather spend it on a BMW

Based on the information in the wiki link can you explain why leaf springs as used on the Corvette are old and out of date? The first car to ever use a leaf spring as it is used on the current Corvette was the 1984 Corvette. Coil springs have been in use much longer. As used on the Corvette the total installation is lighter and lower profile than a comparable coil spring set up. It also costs more so GM didn’t do it to save money. Again, perhaps you could back your views.

Knowing how a LSD works is not the same as understanding how it affects the dynamics of a car. Specifically, a LSD tends to make a car less neutral in cornering. Under power it makes the car tend to understeer up to the point you loose traction with both rear wheels. Then you drift. In many applications it makes a car faster but doesn’t make it handle better. If you don’t understand the details of this, you don’t understand how a LSD affects vehicle dynamics. You are right that not every one wants to drift to work. Those people are better off without a LSD.

It’s perfectly OK to not know much about Corvettes. However, if you are going to bash the engineering of the car it is helpful if your reasons are technically sound. I understand that the use of leaf springs sounds odd but you have to understand that the historic problem with using leaf springs is when we use them as a suspension arm as well as a spring. The Corvette has a relatively tradition set of A arms at all 4 corners. The leaf does nothing but act as a spring. As such a valid question would be what makes a coil spring better than a cantilever spring?

Do you also think the Volvo 960 wagon was wrong for using leaf springs? Volvo used a setup like the Corvette on the 960 wagon for almost identical reasons. On the sedan they had room for the taller springs. On the wagon they went with the transverse leaf spring in conjunction with a multilink suspension to keep the packaged height lower and out of the cargo area.

Again, those who understand what GM did don’t bash it because of the innovative spring design.

[Movieman]

You too guys still at it?
I'm not going to get into the technical end.
I'd probably embarrass myself but to read the veiled innuendo and sarcasm.
You guys are bigger than that aren't you?
So someone used the wrong term or quoted something that might have been not 100% correct..Crap happens, but don't go on and on hoping that the other guy is going to come out and say "I'm wrong and your right" cause it just doesn't happen on the net.
No one ever admits they are wrong on the net..
Except me..
I've had 2 divorces so you know I screwed up royally at least twice.
Now that your at least smiling can you two guys step back and realize that you both love cars as I do and have more in common than you realize.
That's enough from me for the am..
Have a good day.

[Vette]

I honestly am interested in an open discussion on the topic but that takes a moment to stop and say perhaps there is something to what GM is doing. I used to always bash GM for the "stupid" things I thought they were doing. When I started looking at the details of what they were doing I found that I was often impressed with the intent or cleverness if not always the whole car.

I think people can be right when they bash something, I just am interested in seeing if they still think it's a bad idea after being presented with the detailed facts. I've seen many people change their minds about the Corvette's leaf springs after reading the wiki post.

[trance565]

Leaf Springs, no matter how 'advanced' are still OLD AND OUTDATED. Replace them with coilovers - then you can brag.

As for understanding how LSD's work, i'm fully aware of the inner workings thanks, i have a 3.73:1 one on the back end of my supra...

What i said is perfectly true though. Not everyone wants to tailslide around corners - not everyone wants to drift to work, and those that buy expensive muscle/sports cars want handling as well as power. One is nothing without the other.

As Movieman says - we all have our own areas of expertise and i never once said i knew everything about corvettes.

Ask me whatever you choose about UK Market Fords from 1968 to present, Toyota's from 1949 to present and Most other brands of car sold over here and i'll bore you to death with details.

I do have a muscle car of my own - its called a Ford Falcon XB GT Coupe - Australian made, but the principle is no different than the ones that came out of the US. Leaf springs and OHV engines on that, i can accept. On a $100k 21st century 'sports' car, er, sorry, i'd rather spend it on a BMW

the 3.73 ring and pinion are the gears, not the LSD, much different fyi. i have 4.10's in my rearend, yet i have no clue how the hell it works. dont need an LSD to have a 3.73 rearend gear set.

[[XC] Lead Head]

GM is obviously doing something right, since the corvettes still have great handling, and their motors are still cranking lots of power as well.

@trance, the old HEMIs of the 50s and 60s had hemi shaped shaped heads, as well as specially shaped pistons to keep compression ratio up because of the large size of the combustions chambers. The newer HEMI's aren't exactly true hemispherical combustion chambers, more like the upper part of a hemisphere, but they still trace their roots back to the originals, with two large valves infront of each other, and a centrally located sparkplug. Except the original hemi had one plug between the valves, the new hemi has two spark plugs on both sides of the valves, still in the center.

[RAW-Raptor22]

I’m not interested in explaining all the details of LSD’s to you. You didn’t know who made HEMI motors or that Mustangs don’t have leaf springs.

The Rover motor is in fact very light. It is also a pushrod motor.

The Ford modular family engines are physically larger than the LSx family of motors. Yes, that means the 7L GM motor is actually smaller than the Ford motor. Here is a picture of Ford’s 4.6L motor next to their old pushrod 302 (4.9L).
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg
The LSx motors are only slightly larger than the Ford 302.

It’s nice that you have a healthy enthusiasm for cars. If you want to get hung up on the details of the technology in cars the next step is to actually understand them so you don’t mistakenly state that Corvettes don’t have independent suspensions.

The 302 is 5.0L
The 300 in truck 6 is 4.9L
And the Ford Modular Mustang engine is 4.6L...
Oh... and Ford is bringing back the 302 btw...

[Pinnacle]

I dont know what to think of the Vette leafspring? But, then again you have something so simple that does a great job.

[Vette]

The 302 is 5.0L
The 300 in truck 6 is 4.9L
And the Ford Modular Mustang engine is 4.6L...
Oh... and Ford is bringing back the 302 btw...

Ford did call the 302 a "5.0" but it's just ever so shy at 4.949L which actually rounds down to 4.9. Either way, we are talking about the same motor. I will be happy if Ford follows GM and reintroduces a compact, light, pushrod V8. The 302 was a good motor.