X stands ten in roman numerals.

LSX = LS ten
duh

Those OHV engines you’re ragging on are a proven technology that makes awesome power combined with great fuel economy. A Z06 corvette gets 28mpg on the highway. Show me any other supercar that does that!

#2, I completely agree with you. OHV designs are low-tech rubbish.

Unfortunately, you’re wrong about people who love OHV engines not being able to afford Vettes. If you’ll recall back to the C4 era, the ZR-1, with a DOHC engine, didn’t sell very well at all, because those damned rednecks (no sarcasm at all…I agree) didn’t buy into high-tech DOHC engines. Well that’s one of the reasons, along with price, etc.

OHV engines are definately low-tech and inferior (in theory, and I would argue in practice) to OHC engines. However new materials have allowed OHV engines to close the gap a lot to OHC engines, for example Titanium alloy pushrods to lower momentum in the pushrods, allowing much higher revs, etc. OHV engines also have the added benefit of being easily able to produce a lot of low-end torque. Of course they cannot rev nearly as high as OHC engines.

So yes, I agree with you. OHV is ancient low-tech garbage. But the world of rednecks doesn’t. And OHV engines have closed the gap to OHC engines recently.

…unless of course they start adding things like F1-esque pneumatic valve lifters to the OHC engines…the same ones that allow F1 engines to rev to nearly 20,000 RPM. (those would not help OHV engines, which are rev-limited by the momentum in the pushrods)

Oh yeah…and I forgot…

GM, if you’re listening…600hp just isn’t going to cut it. We’re looking for more…

And a little more aero work, we’re talking about adding Bernoulli Tunnels at the mininum, maybe a few wings…

If you really want to impress overseas GM, you’re gonna have to beat the Carrera GT handily at the Ring.

7:15 anyone?

Why would they have to beat a Carrera GT to “impress” anyone overseas. Did you see how goddamn expensive that CGT was? The fact that the Vette could come anywhere close to that performance, at a fraction of the CGT’s price (even after European taxes and such) is incredible,

Anon sounds as ignorant as the “rednecks” he mentioned. Kinno makes a more sound argument and I agree with him. I’m Just noting that fact that OHC with and engine that size will add significant weight as well as space. The question could also be asked if it provides enough lowering in center of mass to help handling(I recognize that it may not matter). Redesigning the LS_ engine to this degree is probably not cost efficient for GM (I guess nothing is really cost efficient for them huh?). This is one of GM’s most solid products and they don’t have much room to gamble on something like OHC on it. Regardless, of one’s favoring of OHC over pushrod, its a great engine.

correction: it will add weight and “take up” space

the Corvette is not going to have to beat a top supercar in the world, worth more than 5 times its own cost, to impress anyone. Find a better performing car under $150,000.

the Corvette is not going to have to beat a top supercar in the world(Carrera GT), worth more than 5 times its own cost, to impress anyone. Find a better performing car under $150,000.

snohprexd, Wankle (Mazda/Rotary) did that years ago. Three moving parts IIRC.

OHV = lower center of gravity, less weight, more compact, less complex, more durable – sounds like good engineering to me.

How many of you Corvette bashers have actually driven a new Corvette, let alone have the means to buy one? Who cares if it OHV or DOHC as long as it gets the job done? A DOHC wouldn’t fit in the current chassis anyway without some big “redneck” scoop or bulge in the hood. And for the record, I have previously owned a 911, a 928, an E36 M3 and Audi S4. Stop pontificating, and get a life…

what engine does the C5-R use?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/motor_sports/1268896.html

ok, how about the C6-R?

How are these ‘redneck’ engines doing in their racing applications vs. Aston, Porsche, BMW, etc?

#1, Dead on. Filing now since they probably already have the “X” under testing and proving somewhere. Let’s not get too bad on Redneck engineering now…NASCAR’s cup *spec* engine is a bigblock pushrod carb engine is it not? Not to say NASCAR is the epidomy of technological advancement but there are many ways to skin a cat. Or get that cat to go 200MPH and last under extreme duress. A high angle V8 for lower center of gravity and supercharge could be tasty.

wait till you see what toyota has planned for the zo6……..

These are the specs, supercharged 6.3 litre 680H.P. Extensive carbon fibre,curb weight 2900 lbs.Top speed well in excess of 200 m.p.h. Price 100K. NOT BAD FOR A REDNECK RIDE! YOU READ HEAR FIRST.

For all those demanding better performing cars for the money, I could list a few.

Ariel Atom
Caterhams
Radicals

etc etc. oh and don’t go into all that “living with it” thing. After all, we are talking about performance.

also lol

7 liters supercharged and only 600 hp. YAWN. I would expect a supercharged 7 liters to produce AT LEAST 850 hp.

#18 Those cars you listed aren’t really cars just frames with wheels and engines…

#18, exactly. Like I said before, stop comparing kit cars, etc to full production vehicles…When they get to skip a whole book of restrictions that apply to full-production vehicles, you can’t really compare them…

Guess which one’s safer and more reliable?

As for beating the Carrerra GT, I was speaking about the Blue Devil. (Wagoner sucks…) Of course normally we (reasonable people) wouldn’t expect it to, but across the pond, it would come in really handy to shut up all those European critics who refuse to give the Z06 due credit.

The CGT is 10 seconds faster on the Ring than the Z06 I believe. And if #17 is correct, I imagine that the addition of Bernoulli tunnels would allow the BD to easily hand it to the CGT.

Or could the “LSX” be a engine for a upcoming camaro?!?!

#20 , so what? the guys keep on going about how z06 is the best performance for money when it’s clearly not.

As for BD beating CGT, i would not be impressed. CGT is now an old car.

Also I don’t put too much faith in those ring times. The ring is a great track, but too many factors come into play when comparing car performances. I prefer short compact tracks like Suzuka. On the short top gear test track, the CGT is around 3 seconds a lap faster than the Z06. a big difference. Even the cheaper Ariel Atom beats the CGT.

23,

Short track courses are probably the way to go. However, I think Top Gear’s track is a horrible indicator of a car’s performance; it’s far too limited in its layout to test how cars handle different conditions. Also, as far as I know, they don’t test cars on that track under standardized conditions so that would also greatly affect lap times.

Also, I haven’t watched many laps but it also seems that they take laptimes from there from laps with obvious errors, like going off-line or pushing out the rear end. So those lap times should be taken as a an approximate indicator.

Suzuka is a fantastic track, containing pretty much every type of challenge. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I believe it includes everything from straights, S-curves, hairpins, chicanes, decreasing-radius curves, etc. Under controlled conditions (track and atmospheric) Suzuka would be an ideal choice.

I would love to see someone perform tests on Suzuka…

I used to love the Ring on GT4, but after a while it’s just too long and complex to get a perfect lap in to improve on your record. Suzuka is my fav track on GT4.

I think GM should focus on refining the interior of the Vette rather than giving it more horse power. The interior of the Z06 is horrible (being in one at our school career fair), a 68k car should not feel so damn cheap inside.

OHVs are good for low volume traditional American sports cars and muscle cars because they complement the “retro feel”. A retro engine for a retro car seems a good match. As for the rest of the world where gasoline is expensive and is sold by the liters not gallons. That output from such a huge engine capacity simply isn’t acceptable hence the preference for OHCs by the carmakers outside the US. Besides that, GM hasn’t got the money to make a new engine family for its lower volume sportscars so leftover architecture is good enough for them.

carnut4ever:

Please list the mpg of every engine over 400hp, then benchmark 500hp. See where the base corvette, and then the zo6 compare on that list.

once again… what engine is in the C5R and C6R? How do those vehicles compare to other vehicles in their respected racing class?

compliment the retro feel? Are you stupid or something boy?

Mike, those corvettes only win so many races because they are reliable. All the other cars in its class are clearly faster. Even their drivers said so in an interview after they won Sebring.

Plus you can’t really compare an engine of a race car to the production version.

it is still OHC vs OHV.
“only win so many races”
“they are reliable”
“after they won Sebring”

HA! I like how you use the comments from a post-victory interview to try to degrade the effort…

#29: save your breath. Sometimes, no matter how much true information you provide, some people will never get it.

I think reliability is a key factor. If you can’t last what good are you. Audi seems to be leading the way with understressing their engines…why would you want a retail vehicle that is bored out to the max and is a ticking time-bomb? You’ve got drivetrain reliability, quality rubber issues, all these things that just don’t necessitate 1000hp label to just sell cars. The vette / aston battle was awesome at Le Mans with both of those cars beating all but a few of the top of the line P1 cars. Even the previous C5, fielded by a french team I believe was at the top of the list. After he complained about the car during practice and qualifying you could see his attitude change as the race wore on and the car was doing well.

wow, facts actually shut these numbskulls up for once…

all your base belongs to OHV

Stop evading the original question by throwing me another. Where’s your answer to my question? As for your question, we are talking about hp per liter here, if you really want mpgs then US carmakers should shift to lower displacement engines just like the rest of the world. No one buys a performance V-8 and says look! how many mpgs I got! Smaller high feature and high hp per liter are the way to go and that is the way the rest of the world is going. As for your racing question, lets have 2 v-8s on the same engine architecture. One will have OHV heads and the other DOHC heads. See which engine will leave the other behind in total power then we will talk. The Corvette has been racing the same OHV v8 with a newer C6 body for a long time now, they had a testing advantage over the Aston Martins it wouldn’t surprise me if they had the reliability advantage. SOME PEOPLE HERE are like GM who is too proud and too STUBBORN to accept the truth. Look where GM is right now LOL..

Why is higher hp/liter the way to go? What I want is a motor that has a high horsepower per weight ratio. That adds to a low weight car, and a light weight car can typically get better gas mileage. Modern DOHC motors are typically much larger and much heavier than modern pushrod motors that have the SAME horsepower output. Yes, the LS7 motor is a quite large 7 liters, but compare the motor SIZE, the motor WEIGHT, and the cars MPG to any other car that has 500 horses and you’ll find that it does very well against the competition.

Mike, the C6-R uses the LS7, pushed out to 600 horses. So, if this new LS9, or whatever it’s going to be called is going to have 600 or more horsepower, we could see a street car, priced around 150,000 that will actually perform better and run faster than the race car. My guess is that it would go from 0-60 in 3 seconds flat or less, and have a top speed of almost 220 mph, just as long as they keep the weight of the car to a minimum.