• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Mid-Engine Corvette spy shots

Porsche 911 has pretty much looked the same for decades now for the same reason you won't see a mid engine Corvette.

Totally agreed, not to mention there's no major spec sheet gain to be made by changing the format.

That said, the new Cadillac gives them a brand platform that could totally experiment with a LS-based mid engine sports car. Which would be pretty fucking awesome, and an better brand than Chevrolet to justify exotica pricing and wild styling. If they wanted to outdo the Audi R8 and further establish Cadillac as a performance-luxury brand, that's the approach I'd take.
 
The corvette has always been GM's sportscar flagship. I'd be surprised if they'd try to out do it with a different model.
 
Marcus…you consider the NSX an exotic. Wow, just wow.

And btw, the Z06 has been running with Porsches, Ferraris, and Lambos for a while now. The new Z06 is in the same league as the MP4 (on track).
 
When you see the price of the new one...you might change your mind.

But he is referring to the old one. The old one was a nice car. A very nice car, but was never a great car, nor was it exotic. Shit, it wasn't really fast either.
 
Your name is SBC and you're asking?

Entire books have been written on this topic. I think it's the best street car engine created to date. My take (and I haven't read enough to see anyone else write it up in these terms) is that if you compare engines by usable performance per pound, or usable performance per exterior volume, there is very little in the same territory and nothing at the same price, reliability, economy, and flexibility.

Usable performance = total area under the torque curve, not peak torque or peak horsepower.

There are lots of engines that have better power per displacement, but that's a useless spec sheet figure outside of racing classes defined by displacement. What defines VEHICLE performance is the size of the exterior dimensions, not the interior.

The same pushrods that get poo-poo'd as old tech allow an ultra low profile, weigh very little, and deliver broad, broad torque. Not to mention low maintenance and insane fuel economy. You can fit that engine into more places than any other V8, a lot of V6s and even some DOHC I4s. And you have more flexibility to optimize CG and lower the overall vehicle architecture.

Put more simply, find another stock street engine that does 500+hp and weighs less or is smaller. You can't.
 
Your name is SBC and you're asking?

Entire books have been written on this topic. I think it's the best street car engine created to date. My take (and I haven't read enough to see anyone else write it up in these terms) is that if you compare engines by usable performance per pound, or usable performance per exterior volume, there is very little in the same territory and nothing at the same price, reliability, economy, and flexibility.

Usable performance = total area under the torque curve, not peak torque or peak horsepower.

There are lots of engines that have better power per displacement, but that's a useless spec sheet figure outside of racing classes defined by displacement. What defines VEHICLE performance is the size of the exterior dimensions, not the interior.

The same pushrods that get poo-poo'd as old tech allow an ultra low profile, weigh very little, and deliver broad, broad torque. Not to mention low maintenance and insane fuel economy. You can fit that engine into more places than any other V8, a lot of V6s and even some DOHC I4s. And you have more flexibility to optimize CG and lower the overall vehicle architecture.

Put more simply, find another stock street engine that does 500+hp and weighs less or is smaller. You can't.

Small block Chevy and LS motors are very differant and Gen 1 motors are far better. Total area under the curve? LS motors make no torque or power under 4K. They are underpowered, and not that impressive. Just curious why people think they are so awesome. Make me a believer, because I can't get into it.

Oh and the FPC GT350 is 550hp N/A and all over the LS......
 
Last edited:
Small block Chevy and LS motors are very differant and Gen 1 motors are far better. Total area under the curve? LS motors make no torque or power under 4K. They are underpowered, and not that impressive. Just curious why people think they are so awesome. Make me a believer, because I can't get into it.

Oh and the FPC GT350 is 550hp N/A and all over the LS......

The SBC is a legendary engine for sure. But it didn't really get good (stock) until the GenII LT1/LT4. Nice flat powerband but still a torque monster. Just a bit lacking in efficiency and ultimate horsepower. So they clean sheeted the thing, other than the bore spacing, and we got the GenIII LS series. While it may seem like there's not so much under the curve...there is. It's just that the curve is a lot higher than the SBC. That said, they did trade a little of the low end grunt for the high rpm hit. Basically, they wanted a cammer. Without the extra weight of multiple cams, bigger heads, and cam chains. Which I think they've accomplished.

And the Ford Coyote engine is truly an amazing engine. That flat plane setup in the new Shelby is even more amazing. That thing would be downright nasty with a forced induction setup on it. Maybe for the next Ford GT?
 
Not a new 'vette, but they intro'd the new Volt.... :thumbup

:laughing
 

Attachments

  • Capture new volt.JPG
    Capture new volt.JPG
    58.5 KB · Views: 19
Not a new 'vette, but they intro'd the new Volt.... :thumbup

:laughing

I actually really like it. Tesla don't count since it's like $100k, but the Volt was one of the few "green" cars that actually looked nice. Not like the cheese wedge Prius or the road blob Leaf. And this new Volt is a great evolution. I imagine my old man might trade in his 2011 Volt for this new one.
 
Small block Chevy and LS motors are very differant and Gen 1 motors are far better. Total area under the curve? LS motors make no torque or power under 4K. They are underpowered, and not that impressive. Just curious why people think they are so awesome. Make me a believer, because I can't get into it.

Oh and the FPC GT350 is 550hp N/A and all over the LS......

I also agree the new Fords are really nice engines, with impressive stats. But I bet they're harder to build a vehicle around. Can you dig up the weight and height measurements on the Ford? I couldn't find them, but I'll bet you a beer those 5.2 liters won't fit under the same hoods the new LT1 or a 7.0L LS7 will.

What makes it so awesome is the ability to fit more displacement into less space and weight than anything else. I don't normally adhere to "no replacement for displacement" because usually people use that as an excuse to add weight and size. The Chevy is the adage implemented properly.

I'm not saying it's perfect (and I'm loath to pay GM compliments). Every piece of engineering is a collection of compromises, but I think Chevy optimized for real world vehicle performance better than anyone else, AND managed to do it at crazy value for the money.
 
Last edited:
Factory is one thing, aftermarket is another, at the end of the day both the gen 1 and ls motors are 90 degree v8s with the same bore spacing, throw enough money at either and you'll have something mean.

Was seriously considering building an ls motor next, probably gonna wind up going bbc though. Just makes more sense when you start modifying shit.
 
The LS series is easier to make cheap power than a classic SBC, up to a point. Beyond that, the big power number guys go to BBC's.

The key to remember here is that most LS engines are starting at a stock OEM HP number that the SBC guys are building up to. And stock LS heads flow numbers that only decent aftermarket SBC heads can even think of touching. The SBC was designed about 60 years ago. It was a great design, no doubt, but it was never designed to truly handle the same stress levels and power numbers that is accounted for in the latest designs.

But the aftermarket has had a long time to play with the SBC's, so while I know the aftermarket power numbers are basically even between the two, you'll always have a few extra steps to reach those ponies with the older generation of engine. And from a design standpoint, the modern engine will "live" with those higher power numbers easier.

For example...

The 69 Camaro of 'Life's Good Racing!' had a classic SBC (albeit, a Donovan aluminum block) and ran about 550hp when fresh and healthy. That engine lost about 60 hp per year between 'refreshes' that required new valve springs and a number of close inspection steps. With no other failure, this meant that running the classic engine cost about $3500.00 a year. (an ARP rod bolt failure finally sent this engine to the grave.)
By contrast, the LS engine that it runs now has, at 623hp, a lower maintenance rate, and less power loss. (I don't know the exact numbers because I no longer work there, this info is from the new crew chief that took over my job)

Another way to look at it, is to think about my poor Karmann Ghia engine. At 2300 cc's and 220-ish hp, it seems quite pathetic... But... it's actually making 5 TIMES the power it was originally designed for. Sure it can do it...for short periods of time... but it requires far more attention than if I just slapped some 2.2 liter modern thing that makes the exact same power straight from the factory in there.

I'll always have a soft spot for the classic.... But I have to tip my hat to the modern
 
I also agree the new Fords are really nice engines, with impressive stats. But I bet they're harder to build a vehicle around. Can you dig up the weight and height measurements on the Ford? I couldn't find them, but I'll bet you a beer those 5.2 liters won't fit under the same hoods the new LT1 or a 7.0L LS7 will.

What makes it so awesome is the ability to fit more displacement into less space and weight than anything else. I don't normally adhere to "no replacement for displacement" because usually people use that as an excuse to add weight and size. The Chevy is the adage implemented properly.

I'm not saying it's perfect (and I'm loath to pay GM compliments). Every piece of engineering is a collection of compromises, but I think Chevy optimized for real world vehicle performance better than anyone else, AND managed to do it at crazy value for the money.

Guys are cramming Coyote motors into fox body Mustangs. They're actually relatively compact. Wikipedia says its roughly the same size as the old 4.6L modular.
 
Last edited:
I actually really like it. Tesla don't count since it's like $100k, but the Volt was one of the few "green" cars that actually looked nice. Not like the cheese wedge Prius or the road blob Leaf. And this new Volt is a great evolution. I imagine my old man might trade in his 2011 Volt for this new one.

I like it as well! Has a long list of improvements to go with the new style including a 50 mile EV range.
 
Back
Top