Camaro to get LS7 for 2014. Z/28 Confirmed

[Leonidae@MFT]

Yet OHC design does it better by the principle of having less parts that do reciprocating movement. This is also why we are yet to see a production OHV/cam in block motor that revs to over 8k.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yet OHC design does it better by the principle of having less parts that do reciprocating movement. This is also why we are yet to see a production OHV/cam in block motor that revs to over 8k.

GM seems to be handling the competition just fine, I don't see the need for them to spend millions to develop a OHV engine just because a few people think it's too old world or may be snobbish tech wise (though I'm guilty of this too but only when the performance dictates). For the technology they've made it quite modern and competitive, I could understand if it didn't yield the performance but it does.

Also we've seen OHV go to 9 grand, they run in a spec racing series if that helps.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Uh huh.. This "spec racing series" has nothing to do with roadlegal, emission regulations following production motors, does it now? No, it does not.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Uh huh.. This "spec racing series" has nothing to do with roadlegal, emission regulations following production motors, does it now? No, it does not.

You never specified it, no reason to be a smart arse. I'm sure if they felt the Vette engines needed to rev higher than 7100-7200 they would..

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

You never specified it, no reason to be a smart arse. I'm sure if they felt the Vette engines needed to rev higher than 7100-7200 they would..

This is also why we are yet to see a production OHV/cam in block motor that revs to over 8k.

Right on top of the page, no smart-arsing on my part. And while GM touts the LS7 as 28mpg motor, it most definitely is not. Not without that particular fuel scrooge transmission that it's mated to.. But that is yet another can of worms.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Right on top of the page, no smart-arsing on my part. And while GM touts the LS7 as 28mpg motor, it most definitely is not. Not without that particular fuel scrooge transmission that it's mated to.. But that is yet another can of worms.

I don't see why mpg matters with this type of car. Also if you drive the car with conservation in mind diligently you can save plenty. I'm guessing you are trying to bridge a supposed advantage for a V6 though I have had issues with the last two V6 cars I owned not living up to their MPG either.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

MPG doesn't really matter in a sportscar, true, but I've seen a parts catalog where a crate LS7 was marketed as "28mpg motor", when any gearhead worthy of his wrenches realizes that it is not. And it is simply not possible to achieve the advertized MPG in less that perfect conditions, there's just too much variables starting from the drivers weight down to the pressure of the tires and whether the car has been waxed recently or not. Is this enough OT for you?

 

[Slash]

At the end of the day, who really gives a 🤬? It's not our car to make and a far as I'm concerned GM can do whatever the hell they want.

The new LSX engines are doing well enough that its pointless to develop a new OHC engine to replace them. It's as simple as that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

MPG doesn't really matter in a sportscar, true, but I've seen a parts catalog where a crate LS7 was marketed as "28mpg motor", when any gearhead worthy of his wrenches realizes that it is not. And it is simply not possible to achieve the advertized MPG in less that perfect conditions, there's just too much variables starting from the drivers weight down to the pressure of the tires and whether the car has been waxed recently or not. Is this enough OT for you?

Pretty sure we already agreed, and if you can show me and other how waxed car vs an unwaxed car has a big enough drag coefficient to effect fuel efficiency, I'd love to see it. Like I said already I know that car isn't going to get 28 mpg, but if I'm buying such a car...who cares. @Slashfan pointed this out.

 

[YSSMAN]

I would love to see a TT V6 Camaro it would be a damn good car and might get Ford to put the 3.5 TT in the Mustang.

There is a major problem with this, however; The Cadillac ATS-V. The Cadillac will be employing the 3.6L twin-turbo V6 from the Cadillac CTS V-Sport (and XTS V-Sport), and having it based on the same chassis as the next-generation Camaro, I'm not entirely sure that GM would be okay with that kind of product overlap. Then again, current rumors all point to Buick building a twin-turbo V6 sports coupe, calling it the GN/GNX, and that alone would be enough to keep away a turbo V6 Camaro, I'd think.

The real problem here, and I'm happy to admit this even as a GM fan, is that their smaller displacement turbo options (outside of the new V6) really look bad in comparison to what Ford has to offer. Power and performance are generally down across the board, but they are arguably a generation behind in terms of design and execution. Unless GM has an entirely new line of engines on the way that I'm unaware of, I wouldn't expect to see them offering too many in their newer, more-popular models until that's sorted out. As it is, they're already taking some punch out of the 2.0L turbo used in the Buick Regal GS, and they've yet to amp up the performance on the 1.4L turbo used in damn-near everything else.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Why would a 4 door Cadillac overlap with a Camaro? Don't you mean overlap with the 6.2 considering how close in power output they'd be?

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I live about 1/4 mile from Betten and they have a couple of these out front. I just cant get into these new Camaros. The rear tail lights are just hideous. Even in person. Give me the new C7 Vette or new Mustang any day over these new Camaros.

 

[YSSMAN]

Why would a 4 door Cadillac overlap with a Camaro? Don't you mean overlap with the 6.2 considering how close in power output they'd be?

Much like the outgoing CTS-V, current plans have the ATS-V showing up as a sedan and as coupe. You can read all about it, here. I personally can't imagine GM being all that willing to do that kind of overlap, particularly when they plan on doing a turbo V6 Buick, too. That just seems like a bit too much.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Neither the CTS sedan or coupe directly competed with anything else in the GM lineup, though - mostly due to well placed price points.

 

[Tornado]

His point was that the CTS sedan and coupe weren't built off of the same thing as anything else in the GM lineup.

 

[YSSMAN]

Neither the CTS sedan or coupe directly competed with anything else in the GM lineup, though - mostly due to well placed price points.

Right. But, you're thinking of the present, not in two to three years time. Keep in mind that, on the Alpha chassis, all of these cars will be included:

• Cadillac ATS and ATS-V
• Cadillac CTS and CTS-V
• Chevrolet Camaro
• Buick GN/GNX (assuming production has been green-lit)

Sure, the current CTS-V and Camaro ZL1 share a lot of the same pieces mechanically, but there are justifiable differences in size, performance, and overall demeanour that make the price difference reasonable. But all of that changes in 2016 with consolidated chassis, suspension, engine and transmission options.

We know that the ATS will be offered as a coupe and a sedan, and it sounds as though we can assume that the CTS will do the same. The ATS-V will offer the same twin-turbo 3.6L V6 as the Cadillac CTS V-Sport (ie, a 420 BHP powerhouse), and it being based on the same chassis as the Camaro, my guess would be that GM wouldn't want to play that game for multiple reasons...

1. The new Camaro and the ATS-V Coupe should be roughly the same size and weight - anything else, and GM is doing it way wrong
2. Offering the same premium engine option in a "mainstream" trim Camaro would be absolute idiocy if point #1 is correct. Unless that Camaro model is a performance variant, or if the ATS-V has a significant power bump over it, it doesn't seem like a logical choice
3. Assuming that the Buick GN/GNX is approved for production, despite it being a closer product in terms of luxury, it arguably makes much more "sense" in the product lineup than a Camaro with that powertrain option... Furthermore, it seems far more likely that the GN/GNX would be based on the larger version of the Alpha chassis that underpins the CTS, first

Overall, I'd expect the next-generation Camaro to be pretty straightforward with it's engine options.

• 3.6L V6 - 315 BHP: The base option, same corporate version you see everywhere
• 2.0T I4 - 270 BHP: Optional engine, direct from the ATS and everything else
  • I could see GM working on a turbocharged variant of it's corporate 2.5L unit, but, as of yet, I haven't heard of a project such as this
• 5.3L V8 - 355 BHP: Basic eight-cylinder option, not sure if current naming scheme would continue given existence of SS sedan
• 6.2L V8 - 455 BHP: I could see GM topping off the Camaro with the Corvette's LT1, giving it a proper set of racing tires and a well-tuned suspension and using the Z/28 nameplate again

 

[ShobThaBob]

That's just a lot of assumption. I don't see the 5.3 or 2.0 being utilized at all. I can see the TTV6 being an option, though.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't see how anyone can see it being an option, since that would be a performance line up car. What would it be called?

Also if you can afford such a line up car as has been said then why not buy the ATS-V? Better question, why would GM have potentially two competing cars in the performance class especially if an ATS-V coupe option is made available.

 

[Tornado]

Better question, why would GM have potentially two competing cars in the performance class especially if an ATS-V coupe option is made available.

Why does GM do any of the things that GM does? Remember when they made 4 different versions of the same awful minivan whose only difference was how big the grill was on the front? "Old GM" or not, that still wasn't too long ago, and most of those people kept their jobs.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Why does GM do any of the things that GM does? Remember when they made 4 different versions of the same awful minivan whose only difference was how big the grill was on the front? "Old GM" or not, that still wasn't too long ago, and most of those people kept their jobs.

Yeah, thanks for a memory that was nearly gone. I think after receiving (then paying back) the tarp funds GM turned its BS around some, though they seem to be falling back a bit. Also if the V6 TT was made they'd probably slow it down and not give it the full potential so they don't have another GNX/GN beating Corvette and Camaro like the 80s.

 

[YSSMAN]

Also if the V6 TT was made they'd probably slow it down and not give it the full potential so they don't have another GNX/GN beating Corvette and Camaro like the 80s.

I'm under the assumption that, if the GN/GNX is back on the table, that would be the main reason as to why they wouldn't do a 3.6T version of the Camaro. Although it too would be awfully similar to an ATS-V in terms of powertrain, I'd think it fair to assume that the Buick would be on the larger CTS version of the Alpha chassis, and may even be a straight-up replacement for the CTS-V Coupe.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm under the assumption that, if the GN/GNX is back on the table, that would be the main reason as to why they wouldn't do a 3.6T version of the Camaro. Although it too would be awfully similar to an ATS-V in terms of powertrain, I'd think it fair to assume that the Buick would be on the larger CTS version of the Alpha chassis, and may even be a straight-up replacement for the CTS-V Coupe.

That makes sense, I don't even see a reason for the coupe. I like the Wagon and Sedan but I'd be happy to see the coupe go and the GN/GNX return as long as it is done right.

 

[YSSMAN]

The biggest hurdle for GM would be making it acceptable in China, not just in the United States. The interior would have to be sufficiently plush, but really have the sporting credentials to do the GN name justice.

If I were doing it:

• Base it on the same stretched version of the Alpha platform underneath the Cadillac CTS
• Long door coupe, GT style, like an American version of the Bentley Continental GT
• Wheelbase ~ 114in, Length ~ 190in, Weight ~ 3,700 lbs
• 3.6L twin-turbo V6, 450 BHP, 450 LB/FT
• 8-speed automatic, only
• Magnaride suspension, multiple states of tune, but built more as a GT car than an outright performer
• Wheels no-larger than 19", reasonably sporty tires, but nothing extreme
• Give it the fancy differential from the Corvette
• Set the price in the low $50k range - enough to separate it from the Chevrolet SS and CTS V-Sport, but not so much that the price is unreasonable

And just as easily, GM could rebrand the car in the Chinese market with a softer suspension and tires and make it a halfway decent E-Class Coupe competitor, or, give it four-wheel-drive, and make it a poor man's Bentley Continental.

 

[Organ-Donor]

Z/28 priced at $75,000.

 

[ND4SPD]

Ugh. I thought it'd be just a little bit above the ZL1's price... That seems a hell of a price.

 

[MCNAGTROC]

I was thinking it would be low to mid 60's as thats 4K more than what I paid for my 09 GTR back in 2008 and 1K more than our loaded brand new C7 and that doesnt get you AC or Stereo which I think most would opt for

 

[Joey D]

I would hate to buy tires for the Z/28, 305's all around.

 

[YSSMAN]

I was thinking it would be low to mid 60's as thats 4K more than what I paid for my 09 GTR back in 2008 and 1K more than our loaded brand new C7 and that doesnt get you AC or Stereo which I think most would opt for

I doubt I'm going to see a single Z/28 without the A/C package. I don't think people find that to be a logical choice these days, even if it makes absolute sense in the historic aspect of the car.

As much as I'd like to say, yeah, I could do without a stereo and A/C, if it were my money and I had to consider resale values, it'd be a no-brainer to select that $1,500 option box.

 

[Keef]

As far as I can tell they're just selling the engine for that price. Doesn't the ZL1 have more power? I'm not sure why anybody would go for this one besides the engine specifically. It even manages to have a goofy as hell stance with the downsized wheels.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Why are they detuning the 2.0T?