2014 C7 Chevrolet Corvette

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

Cam and head specs please? And tuner?

Patrick G "baby" cam: 222/230 0.597" (don't have full specs, perhaps PO/builder might...).
Engine is a stock LS2 bottom end with stock L92 heads lightly shaved to maintain C.R., stock LS3 intake.

The P.O./builder took an HPTuners course and tuned it himself. I had some work done to clear it up down around idle/off-idle. Still get some "surging" at very low speed, very small throttle.

Dyno results:


These rear wheel results are probably a bit optimistic. The car did 129.2mph in the 1/4 at a 2240' density altitude, without hard-launching it (2.05sec 60'). Car weighs ~3050 lb. with driver and some fuel.
flywheel hp ~(129.2/234)^3 * 3050 = 513hp or ~452 at the wheels.
Correcting the trap speed for d.a. http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...ect+ET+and+MPH
and then plugging into the horsepower calculator suggests more like 540-555hp at the flywheel at standard sea-level density, which would be ~475-490 at the wheels.

Anyway, definitely WAY more power than a stock LS2 or LS3, perhaps a bit more than an LS7

184.8mph at the Texas Mile

Yeah, I like this motor a LOT...

[bestwheelbase]

Originally Posted by ZDan

184.8mph at the Texas Mile

I've said it before and I'll say it again - damn they're fast.

I think I've convinced a friend to attend the Ohio Mile in 2013. In a boosted E30...

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

LOL, I wouldn't say opposite, but the point of fuel economy is entirely relative. It's non-sensical for us to compare a Prius C to a C7, unless they're both being used in the same way. If they're both commuters, then you can plainly say the Corvette gets poor fuel economy. It's all relative. Also, the argument about X MPG highway is entirely academic; I'd prefer to use Fuelly statistics as they're some sample of real world. There you can see most C6's average 20 MPG, whereas most 86's average 27 MPG.

I suppose that's all slightly unfair to the Corvette, but then again, the world isn't a fair place. I was kind of hoping the bombshell for the C7 would've been an IMA Hybrid along with the new LT1, but most likely the average demographic isn't ready for that kind of "have your cake and eat it too" implementation.

The more I look at the technical advancements (or rather, lack thereof) in sports cars, the more I think it's the buyers that are screwing themselves over rather than the companies making the cars sitting there being lazy.

There is absolutely no reason a Porsche 911 should get worse gas mileage than a Corvette. No reason. However, as ZDan points out it seems like 911 owners manage to get worse gas mileage in the real world. Something tells me more than just a few drivers think that a few of the gears in their gearbox aren't very useful (and they only have 6 of them too).

Or maybe look at the Miata crowd. I think I've seen people say they prefer a 5 speed transmission??? WTF? Actually I told a friend who drives an NA Miata that I wish I had 6 gears, and he said "why?" (this guy is a MechE major too).

I can completely understand why sports car makers are reluctant to put in proper highway cruising gears; Even some Corvette owners think they don't have enough power on tap in top gear.

We're not even getting into the start-stop backlash that BMW (and other companies' European models really) is experiencing. People think it's cool that the engine makes some faint burbling noise and burns a large amount of fuel doing nothing. They say a sports car is supposed to waste lots of fuel for no reason at all. Even when the engine is 6+ liters and burns almost just as much fuel idling as a more reasonable car uses when travelling at 40mph. I bet you start-stop on this LT1 would make the "city" gas mileage shoot up to 20 mpg.

If I were an automaker, I sure as hell wouldn't put anything new into sports cars if I wanted to make money. Why spend more money and have consumers scoff at the technology and say it "ruins everything"?

[vtmike]

2 valves/cylinder, pushrod, and rear leaf spring. This is what my tax money helped create. Wish the government would have let GM die and increased its backing of a car company making innovative cars like Tesla.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[R_E_L]

Did anyone else download the GT5 DLC? Some photo mode fun:

[LSxJunkie]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Patrick G "baby" cam: 222/230 0.597" (don't have full specs, perhaps PO/builder might...).
Engine is a stock LS2 bottom end with stock L92 heads lightly shaved to maintain C.R., stock LS3 intake.

The P.O./builder took an HPTuners course and tuned it himself. I had some work done to clear it up down around idle/off-idle. Still get some "surging" at very low speed, very small throttle.

Dyno results:


These rear wheel results are probably a bit optimistic. The car did 129.2mph in the 1/4 at a 2240' density altitude, without hard-launching it (2.05sec 60'). Car weighs ~3050 lb. with driver and some fuel.
flywheel hp ~(129.2/234)^3 * 3050 = 513hp or ~452 at the wheels.
Correcting the trap speed for d.a. http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...ect+ET+and+MPH
and then plugging into the horsepower calculator suggests more like 540-555hp at the flywheel at standard sea-level density, which would be ~475-490 at the wheels.

Anyway, definitely WAY more power than a stock LS2 or LS3, perhaps a bit more than an LS7

184.8mph at the Texas Mile

Yeah, I like this motor a LOT...

That small of a cam, unless it's on a 110-112 LSA, should idle pretty smoothly at 800rpm and definitely shouldn't buck or surge. However, if this was the first time your tuner tuned an LSx (ballsy), then I can understand that. If you care to, take a ride down to Jersey and have Doug at ECS look at the tune. They've built and/or tuned about 10 of my friends' cars and I've never seen a problem. Or Carmen at Vette Doctors, who's done 3 cars I know of. Either way, both of those shops tune 100s of LSxs a year.

That's a great trap speed. You're making good power out of a little cam. However, I'd be more concerned about how much he left on the table. I prefer a safe, fat tune every day and twice on Sunday.

Originally Posted by vtmike

2 valves/cylinder, pushrod, and rear leaf spring. This is what my tax money helped create. Wish the government would have let GM die and increased its backing of a car company making innovative cars like Tesla.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Rear leaf spring AND front leaf spring. Shows what you know.

[Panda Grahams]

I'm not one to ever talk about American muscle, but I was hoping for something a bit more on the "looks" part of the C7. The front is a Viper rip-off, the sides are a rip from the Gt-r, and the back is an uglier Camaro. Oh well...

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The more I look at the technical advancements (or rather, lack thereof) in sports cars, the more I think it's the buyers that are screwing themselves over rather than the companies making the cars sitting there being lazy.......

If I were an automaker, I sure as hell wouldn't put anything new into sports cars if I wanted to make money. Why spend more money and have consumers scoff at the technology and say it "ruins everything"?

You have a great point. The average demographic just isn't ready.

Originally Posted by R_E_L

Did anyone else download the GT5 DLC?.....

I did! The car is incredible; well balanced, amazingly easy to drift at ~100 MPH, and looks excellent on replay. Put on some stickier tires and it's a track-terror.

[WingsofWar]

lol

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Panda Grahams

the sides are a rip from the Gt-r, ...

GTFO!


Low-slung, svelte, sculpted.


High, bulky, slab-sided. A 2-door SUV with an odd roofline.

They don't look anything alike to me. Totally different size, totally different proportions, totally different everything unless you think the diagonal vents behind the front wheels look similar between them.

[SUB-FT86]

I love the C7 and the GT-R but I prefer my cars to look low-slung and sleek in profile. It's the right shape for a sports car IMHO!! I think the C7 is the best looking car under 100k right now and the FRS/BRZ is the best looking under 40k. I would love to have both cars. One for the basic light performance and the other for the high performance.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

....I prefer my cars to look low-slung and sleek in profile. ...

Amen!

[vtmike]

Originally Posted by LSxJunkie

That small of a cam, unless it's on a 110-112 LSA, should idle pretty smoothly at 800rpm and definitely shouldn't buck or surge. However, if this was the first time your tuner tuned an LSx (ballsy), then I can understand that. If you care to, take a ride down to Jersey and have Doug at ECS look at the tune. They've built and/or tuned about 10 of my friends' cars and I've never seen a problem. Or Carmen at Vette Doctors, who's done 3 cars I know of. Either way, both of those shops tune 100s of LSxs a year.

That's a great trap speed. You're making good power out of a little cam. However, I'd be more concerned about how much he left on the table. I prefer a safe, fat tune every day and twice on Sunday.




Rear leaf spring AND front leaf spring. Shows what you know.

Thanks for adding to the list of reasons this is a joke of a halo car.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by vtmike

Thanks for adding to the list of reasons this is a joke of a halo car.

Lots of positives, few negatives associated with composite leafs used instead of coils for springs in the Corvette's all double-wishbone suspension.