by "JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7" (jayzayeighty)
Published 06/12/2017 at 21:45
by "JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7" (jayzayeighty)
Published 06/12/2017 at 21:45
Tags: Corvette
STARS: 1
The current-generation Corvette represents a great engineering effort—and an even better sports car value—but for its evolutionary qualities moreso than its revolutionary ones. That is to say that its merits lie under the skin, with too-gaudy styling detracting from the finer points and sales alike. Though those who were waiting for a Corvette to scream a bit less
Vette
and more
trendy
were satiated by the redesign, disappointing sales numbers suggest that the contingent eager and able to put a down payment on a plastic fantastic with a drastic redesign has been largely exhausted. However, with age-old
heresy
rumors swirling around regarding a rear mid-engined and turbocharged C8, I would like to offer up an option that is likely cheaper, more appealing, and more lucrative alike in the Sting Ray/Stingray tradition: a C8 built on the solid bones of the C7.
This refreshed C7 would be executed in a fashion similar to the inception of the C3; keeping the proven and capable underpinnings, elements of the car would be reimagined to enhance its faded appeal. Please ignore the mishaps of MY1968 for the sake of the comparison. The C3 looked different, defining the model’s styling cues for decades to come, and brought about improved powertrains as well. The C2 chassis and suspension was good enough to make enhancements more effective than an expensive ground-up redesign. It is clear that the same is true of the C7's aluminum frame and transverse monoleaf suspension with MRC. Let us start with tweaking elements and incrementally changing tune to improve the steering, handling behavior, ride a la Porsche with the 911 and BMW with the M3. Judging by most reviews, there is room for improvement in these areas.
Then there is the weight, so obviously integral to every aspect of a vehicle’s performance. Standard convenience items and luxuries such as infotainment can be made optional along with excessively stylized and sized wheels, aiding performance some while marginally broadening the potential audience for the Corvette. The engine would be a key factor in this regard, as it is one component that has been gaining weight and (scoff) complexity. While this latest all-alloy small block is compact and lightweight for its displacement, more can be done. In the 13 years between 1984 and 1997 (C4 to C5), the Corvette produced a 65% improvement in power of 140 hp while the the 13 past years come MY2018 will have yielded just 60 hp/15%.
Retaining the newfound direct injection, compression can be raised further using a twin-spark combustion chamber configuration, as is found in many high performance engines today. With higher volumetric efficiency and perhaps a better-flowing head, the displacement and physical dimensions of the engine can be slightly reduced while still producing at least 500 hp due to higher engine speed capability. Valvetrain, cam, and other small changes are a given but should not be difficult based on a look at GM’s current crate engine catalog. Given a loosening of regulations, recently-introduced cylinder deactivation and VVT can be discarded for a very marginal power bump and weight reduction. While a physically smaller engine with a similar bore:stroke ratio, there would be an advantageous reduction of curb weight and shift in its distribution.
The real opportunity, however, lies in materials advancements. The modern SBC has been all-aluminum with iron sleeves since 1997. However, Chevrolet can drop significant heft taking a page out of BMW’s tragically dusty
naturally aspiration book
. A hydroformed camshaft, magnesium alloy block, and use of lightweight materials and components could potentially drop nearly 100 pounds. Electric oil and water pumps round out the list to reduce parasitic loss. We can call this gem of the lineup the LT-0, a powerplant that can serve a greater marketing purpose and serve many duties proficiently due to its hypothetical packaging, poundage, and sheer potency.
Now attention must turn to the aesthetics of the facelifted car. The current profile certainly eschews the right look, but the details can be significantly revised without angering the consumer base. On the contrary, rehashing older details such as a large glass hatch, four circular taillights, and generally softer edges would resuscitate sales and allow the C7 to appeal to the traditional target market its controversial design initially could not. Basically more of a Bill Mitchell design than a Tom Peters one. All of those who viscerally jilted the sharp edges and coupe-like concept would flock back to the brand, seeing the reimbodiment of the car they initially fell in love with. A changed body would also present opportunities to drop fruitless bulk while using present-day research to make it more widely appealing.
To those who say that the Corvette is good enough currently, they are right. It does not need to be a Porsche equivalent to outperform or outsell the real deal. These less-than-educated suggestions, however, may at least contain some reasonable changes to make the current Corvette more appealing and popular while improving the sensations transmitted to the driver. The competition would not even have to blink to produce the same effect. It is time for the current Stingray, rather than a modern “Sting Ray” equivalent, to embody the historically accurate Stingray nameplate: the updated, ultimate, true-to-form Corvette it can be.
"wafflesnfalafel" (wafflesnfalafel1)
06/12/2017 at 22:31, STARS: 1
exactly - tighten up the design, a bit less busy, bring back a version of the round taillights, continue to incrementally improve the mechanicals. It might even be able to take some styling cues from that nice gold C3.
"JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7" (jayzayeighty)
06/12/2017 at 23:01, STARS: 0
Thank you; you know, the real problem with the vision of the Corvette team must be that they are ashamed to envision a damned Corvette! At any rate, while relaxing CAFE standards may be controversial, I wouldn’t mind the potential for a direct-injected, twin spark, lightweight LS7 replacement. I am sure that cutting costs becomes easier given the unnecessary costs are known. Should a lighter, cheaper 6 speed become available the price might remain palatable despite the improvements. The TR6070 is pretty interchangeable with the TR6060 as is. Hell, let’s bring back pop-up headlights while we’re at it! Kidding.
Sort of.
"Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever" (superchan7)
06/13/2017 at 01:46, STARS: 0
My biggest gripe with the C7 is the exterior. It has way too many busy cut lines, holes and black trim pieces.
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
06/13/2017 at 10:05, STARS: 1
Retaining the newfound direct injection, compression can be raised further using a twin-spark combustion chamber configuration, as is found in many high performance engines today. With higher volumetric efficiency and perhaps a better-flowing head, the displacement and physical dimensions of the engine can be slightly reduced while still producing at least 500 hp due to higher engine speed capability. Valvetrain, cam, and other small changes are a given but should not be difficult based on a look at GM’s current crate engine catalog. Given a loosening of regulations, recently-introduced cylinder deactivation and VVT can be discarded for a very marginal power bump and weight reduction.
There’s just so much wrong with this, where do I begin...
Twin spark on an LT based motor is practically impossible without diminishing the excellent flow characteristics of the head.
Also Twin Spark doesn’t increase your V/E. As for your better head flow statement:
This is about as good as it gets for a 2 valve engine. This is crazy good for an unported, as cast factory head. It actually flows better than a factory LS7 head on a 4.125 inch bore.
the displacement and physical dimensions of the engine can be slightly reduced while still producing at least 500 hp due to higher engine speed capability.
No, why would you decrease displacement? (especially with loosening emissions requirements) The bottom end has never been a durability concern on an LS/LT motor. The failure point for almost all pushrod engines is valvetrain. This has been known for about 100 years hence OHC. As for changing the physical size of the engine, that’s simply ludicrous. The LS/LT is one of the most compact and power dense motors in existence. Not to mention the cost associated with creating a 7/8th’s LT motor
Valvetrain, cam, and other small changes are a given but should not be difficult based on a look at GM’s current crate engine catalog. Given a loosening of regulations, recently-introduced cylinder deactivation and VVT can be discarded for a very marginal power bump and weight reduction.
Ok, I’ll give you that cylinder deactivation poses a problem for performance due to the lifter limitations, but it would take an extreme amount of “loosening” to get any of the GM crate cams to pass any sort of emissions testing. The variable cam phasing actually helps flatten the power curve, it’s advantage far outweighs its marginal weight impact.
The real opportunity, however, lies in materials advancements. The modern SBC has been all-aluminum with iron sleeves since 1997. However, Chevrolet can drop significant heft taking a page out of BMW’s tragically dusty naturally aspiration book . A hydroformed camshaft, magnesium alloy block, and use of lightweight materials and components could potentially drop nearly 100 pounds. Electric oil and water pumps round out the list to reduce parasitic loss. We can call this gem of the lineup the LT-0, a powerplant that can serve a greater marketing purpose and serve many duties proficiently due to its hypothetical packaging, poundage, and sheer potency.
This is where you jump the shark completely. First a hydroformed camshaft cannot handle the stresses of the comparatively massive valves and the spring seat pressures needed to control them. Magnesium alloy is simply not going to happen for a GM road car. Cost prohibitive and dangerous in a crash. As in, no sanctioning body is going to let the average geriatric on a track with a giant hunk of magnesium between the fenders. Also 100 lbs is highly optimistic, even carbon fiber valve covers, valley cover, intake, timing chain cover and rear cover, there aren’t enough things that can be lightened to deliver that kind of impact. Electric Oil pump is just about the worst idea that I have ever heard, there is little parasitic loss on the LT1 because the pump is variable volume and pressure. Electric water pump was done on the first, LT1 and was binned during the development of the LS1 for durability reasons.
As far as the engine is concerned, I think what you’re trying to do is take general concepts and apply them to a specific product, a product that you might not have all the details of the existing product, or understand the engineering behind it.
"JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7" (jayzayeighty)
06/13/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 0
These less-than-educated suggestions, however, may at least contain some reasonable changes
It seems that at least one part of this statement is true, and thank you for informing me about this stuff. I did not mean to feign authority on the topic. The LT1 is already a fantastic motor that does almost everything well and I was merely sharing my deluded, patchwork pipe dream that exists in a vacuum of physics. l don’t think that the modern MgAl block used as an example, however, is considered dangerously volatile. But I see how egregiously I assumed that a technology that works in one case will work in any.
"Bob" (bobbymanntwo)
05/24/2019 at 22:03, STARS: 0
Not going to happen. Two seat sports car sales are in the tank, and GM isn't going build 2 sports cars that compete with each other.