Corvette Will Soon Have a DOHC V8 According To Chevy Documents

[Ogantone]

Sounds like the engine from the first gen ZR1, Which was 400 plus horsepower DOHC, NOW don't quote me on this just trying to remember the specs. But then I could be wrong?

[Ogantone]

Or maybe, anybody remember Cadillac North star engines. DOHC. WOW I'M OLD

[redvett]

^{Those engines the ZR-1 & N.S. are ancient . Newer engines are more robust and efficient. Throw all the old stuff out and embrace new technology. A 5.7l now makes about 100+ HP today.}

[Ogantone]

I hear you on the new tech, I love the LS platform, my 5.3 makes more power then my 5.7. The ZR1 engine was nice it paved the way for what if we did do DOHC in a vett. I can't wait for the DOHC engines. I might put one in my suburban, just to see.

[redvett]

There was a ZR-1 owner that made his ZR-1 run 9.00 at the Bowling Green Beech Bend KY strip and ran 9.oo 1/4 mile no NOS. or Supercharger. Just ZR-1.

[SouthernSilveradoGuy85]

As long as it's a V8 I'm not going to complain.

[SouthernSilveradoGuy85]

I drive a silverado. Ford also makes fantastic trucks though. Are you mad because the EB is faster than the Chevy? Did a Ford owner own you? Do you even know why you don't like ford or do you follow blindly with the "found on road dead" crowd.

 

I don't buy a truck to be fast. If I wanted something fast I'd get a V8 Camaro. I'd take a naturally aspirated V8 over a V6 with 2 puny little turbos. If you remember the advantage of the EB was supposed to be power of a V8 with gas mileage of a V6. Well they failed since I've read countless people that it gets the same rough mileage of a V8 so really there's no advantage. And then the mileage drops way faster when towing. Of course I'm not going to buy a truck for gas mileage either, but the advantage of the EB just isn't there. Plus Ford is pushing the EB way to hard. They will soon not even offer the F-150 with a V8 so that means the same for a Mustang unless you go up to a Shelby. I say that because even the new GT (consumer GT40) even has the EB without a V8 option. So if they're willing to do that for a supercar then they'll do that for a normal Mustang GT. I can understand offering EB as an option, but still give a V8 as an option also. In really have nothing agaist Ford in general, just don't know why they're pushing the EB like they are. I don't care for the all aluminum body since you can literally tear it apart with your bare hands without tools, but I can at least understand why they did that which is to have a higher payload and tow rating by lowering the truck's weight. I don't like that knob on the Ford that helps back up a trailer. I'd rather know how to myself which I do and not count on the truck to back up a freaking trailer.

[mookdoc6]

I don't buy a truck to be fast. If I wanted something fast I'd get a V8 Camaro. I'd take a naturally aspirated V8 over a V6 with 2 puny little turbos. If you remember the advantage of the EB was supposed to be power of a V8 with gas mileage of a V6. Well they failed since I've read countless people that it gets the same rough mileage of a V8 so really there's no advantage. And then the mileage drops way faster when towing. Of course I'm not going to buy a truck for gas mileage either, but the advantage of the EB just isn't there. Plus Ford is pushing the EB way to hard. They will soon not even offer the F-150 with a V8 so that means the same for a Mustang unless you go up to a Shelby. I say that because even the new GT (consumer GT40) even has the EB without a V8 option. So if they're willing to do that for a supercar then they'll do that for a normal Mustang GT. I can understand offering EB as an option, but still give a V8 as an option also. In really have nothing agaist Ford in general, just don't know why they're pushing the EB like they are. I don't care for the all aluminum body since you can literally tear it apart with your bare hands without tools, but I can at least understand why they did that which is to have a higher payload and tow rating by lowering the truck's weight. I don't like that knob on the Ford that helps back up a trailer. I'd rather know how to myself which I do and not count on the truck to back up a freaking trailer.

 

Totally agree......It was over marketing hype the EB engines! GM played their cards perfect "We find absolutely no advantage with that setup to move that amount of mass" and what happened? MPG'S were a lie, oil consumption to make 5.3's look like sippers, Complexity, failing to start in a Houston downpour or just simply turning off. THE FERD WRENCH on the dash, Look GM has the Janky 8speed I get that but we are not complaining on the boards about blown engines, rods through the covers etc. RATTLE AT START? please spare me @ 60K they are straight up junk!

[Jsdirt]

I've been saying this for 25+ years : "Why doesn't GM, Ford, or Chrysler build a V8 the way the japs build 4-cylinder sportbike engines?"

 

The japs can extract 100 RWHP out of a 600cc DOHC 4-cylinder ... with carburetors. Using the HP per liter out of a 2016 electronically controlled 600cc sportbike at the crank, any N/A 5.3 should be putting out 998HP, instead of 300-whatever.

 

Using my well-over-20-year-old '94 Honda CBR600F2 as a benchmark (using RWHP, mind you), the 5.3 should be putting out 530 RWHP.

 

Get with it, GM!

[Daryl Z71]

Those little engines react really well to small changes though, where as a bigger V8 takes a much bigger change to get a decent amount of extra power.

 

Like my 700cc Raptor, I added a pipe to it and it made a huge difference, but when I changed mufflers on the truck, not so much.

[MikeNH]

I've been saying this for 25+ years : "Why doesn't GM, Ford, or Chrysler build a V8 the way the japs build 4-cylinder sportbike engines?"

 

The japs can extract 100 RWHP out of a 600cc DOHC 4-cylinder ... with carburetors. Using the HP per liter out of a 2016 electronically controlled 600cc sportbike at the crank, any N/A 5.3 should be putting out 998HP, instead of 300-whatever.

 

Using my well-over-20-year-old '94 Honda CBR600F2 as a benchmark (using RWHP, mind you), the 5.3 should be putting out 530 RWHP.

 

Get with it, GM!

 

People always get hung up on specific output and it's a foolish measure. Sport bike engines are high strung, special applications that would be useless in day to day driving. And the truck engines will run well past 100,000 miles on shit gas with nothing more than oil and air filter changes. Sport bikes won't do that. The current 5.3 should make more power but GM probably dulls it down to make the 6.2 more desirable. The 5.3 should easily make the 380-390 the other guys make but then 420 wouldn't be as impressive. A truck engine built like you describe would be junk, no one would want to spin it to 12,000 RPM as it'd be a miserable driving experience, fuel economy would be terrible and chances are you'd never get a big engine to rev that high anyway.

[Jsdirt]

Well why not? That's the direction they're headed!

 

It would be nothing like that anyway. The largest sportbike engine is what, 1,400 cc's ... vs. 5,300 cc's for the 5.3 V8. If designed like a sportbike engine, it's redline would be well under 9k RPM ... or else it would scatter itself all over the roadway. Laws of physics apply here. Same concept that spins nitro-powered remote control buggies to 25,000 RPM ... while a 80cc 2-stroke dirtbike with 1970's technology spins at around 12k. Why would anyone design a truck engine with a top-weighted power band anyway? A simple cam design would bring the redline down around 7k, and it would have so much torque it would flatten your eyeballs. I built a 1,000cc Suzuki GSX-R engine 15 years ago that dynoed 160 RWHP, and over 100 ft.lbs of torque before the clutch started slipping - was capable of much more. I'll never know. Just tweaking the cams made that torque number - the guy running the dyno had been around Jap sport bikes 30 years and had never seen torque like that in his life, and he's probably dynoed thousands of them.

 

My '94 K1500 would have FLAT STOMPED my '07 5.3 in a stoplight-to-stoplight drag race. Nothing got out of the hole better than the '94. That's how the 350 was. Party was over well before 5k, however. My Silverado doesn't even wake up until 3,200 ... but then if you rev it, it burns oil ... but I digress.

[MikeNH]

Dude I'm done with your stupid shit attitude on new tech. No stock 350 would touch a 5.3, take off the rose colored glasses and move on.

[Jsdirt]

Wish I still had the '94, so I could show you. Beat new cars DAILY commuting to work for 4 years - everyone drag raced at this one light to be the first to the lane drop. NOBODY got ahead of me in my '94, except a guy in a 'Vette.

 

Immediately driving my Silverado, I was beat NEARLY EVERY TIME. STILL TO THIS DAY I get beat off the line. The LS engine SUCKS in the lower RPM range!! Maybe you like it ... but I DON'T!

 

I could give a shit less if you don't believe me. Keep funneling money into GM, sucker. They love you.