More power but it's still butt-ugly compared to most euro and jap sports cars. And wow that interior color is tasteless beyond hope.

"Blue is the best color - EVER - obviously. I mean it's just so apparent. You'd have to be blind to disagree; even then, you'd be wrong."

Styling, like favorite colors, is mostly subjective. Blanketing statements about styling sound just as dumb as the quote above.

They have them steering wheel paddle shifters I hears :) I love the progress cars have been making!

Ugly or no, thats a matter of perspective. It is rather difficult to find a machine with these specs at this price point. Chevy should applauded for attempting to remain competitive and affordable.

This will be the fastest car for the money to date

Niz, I understand why you have a shitty outlook on things, yo momma is butt ugly. Datz okie dokie do, caus aholes are very impotent parts of the human body. Cheers chump.

This would be noteworthy if they did it WITHOUT increasing the engine displacement. Seriously, at the rate they're going with it by the time the 2015 Vette comes out it'll have to be a whole foot longer just for the engine! European and Japanese companies can get that same power from an engine in the mid-to-high 4 liter range or low 5 liter range - why can't American companies figure it out?

Why 436hp from 6.0L engine and be proud of it is beyond me? only american can understand.

Chevy only gets that horse power because of their valve and cams. They can't aspirate as much as the 4 valve per cylinder engines with over head cams. But they get better mileage and better low end torque. And they are cheaper and easier to research and build versus a variable valve timing engine with two cams and 24 valves. That's why they can't get the power.

Teldar

I should have just said 4 valves per cylinder, not 24 valves, as their 8 cylinder actually has 24 valves. Was thinking six cylinders.

Two intake and one exhaust. Look up the specs.

And look at the horsepower some of Ford's engines make. They can be turbo'd from here to tomorrow and make 800hp, because of aspiration, but they simply don't have the low end power GM's push rod engines have. Comparatively.

Teldar

To Remy,

One thing you dont understand is that having a large-displacement engine means that the engine can make gobs of power at lower RPM's. Which means you do not have to run the engine at 9000rpm to get 400hp. The vette engine makes most of its power at around 4000 to 5000 rpm. This also means that low end torque is improved. This also means that the car can be geared lower. (a car doing 70mph with the engine turning about 1700 rpm is a lot quieter and more pleasant to live with on long trips than one turning at 3500 in 5th gear like most Honda motors). What is the fun driving a car in which all of the power is between 8500 and 9000 rpm and when you drop below it, it has all of the power of a 78 VW Rabbit? I myself like to have power available throughout the whole travel distance of the accelerator thank you very much.

"European and Japanese companies can get that same power from an engine in the mid-to-high 4 liter range or low 5 liter range"

uhh please inform me of any of those cars that get 4 hundred horses for less then 70K that isnt a truck. I would really like to know.

Hey man...
FLAT torque curve... show me a rice rocket that has one...There IS NO replacement for displacement. Forced induction is what it is, but low RPM torque(and wide tires) gets a car off the line. Plus, lil FWD cars get up and go, give 'em respect, but the fun factor on a RWD with monster power can't be beat. The chick factor on a 'Vette beats the 4-banger or turbo-six anyway. Make the car a foot longer. Put in a 9-liter with gobs of torque and HP at 2600 RPM. I want one. I want two. I would pay 100 grand for one even if a 50,000 rocked up Accord does a 1/4 mile a tenth faster. This car is strong, sexy, an American Icon... something that is destined to the past since the Vette is the only thing that GM can get right. Bring it on because it's what we all crave.

This Vette would be a good value if dealer markup weren't so ridiculous. Sure most exotic cars generate considerably more HP at 6.2 L displacement (around 600+ for Lambo, Ferrari, etc.) but they also cost about 2 or 3 times as much.

My biggest issue with the Vette are the brakes, still they aren't using real racing brakes -- this is crazy for a car that can go over 180 mph.

But I'd still take a Lotus Exige with a Turbo any day over the Vette, both on the street and on the track. With current gas prices in the US at $4/gallon the Lotus Exige is a no-brainer purchase.

Rob.

Well look at the physical size of the engines in euroboxes. There huge if you saw the unveiling of the ls7 it is almost half the size of the bmw 5l engine. you people bashing this car have never been in a c6 corvette at all it may not have the best interior but for a drivers car its amazing.

Mark, you can get that power from a smaller engine without having a ridiculously high rpm or a huge drop off in power below a certain point - also, what fun is an engine where you have to shift at 5,000?

"FLAT torque curve... show me a rice rocket that has one."

VW/Audi's 2 liter turbo four - 207 lb/ft from 1,800 to 5,000 - with 200hp at 5,500. That's pretty much the ideal torque curve. Also, Vette's (new ones, not the classic ones like Sting Ray's and such) are fairly ugly. The C6 is much better than the last 20 years, but it's still pretty fug.

Mike - "uhh please inform me of any of those cars that get 4 hundred horses for less then 70K that isnt a truck. "

I can tell you two real quick off the top of my head - Audi RS4 (420 hp if I recall correctly off of a 4.2 liter V8) and the upcoming E90 BMW M3 - 400+ (expected 420) hp from a 4 liter V8. The RS4 I'm fairly sure is in the high $50,000's to low $60,000's and the previous E46 M3 started at $47,000 something and the new one will be somewhere around $50,000. So, we have power, we have class, and we have solid engineering. Even if you wanted to charge me $30,000 more I'd pay it for that.

Also, I haven't been in classic Vette's so I can't say, but for new Vette's - never in my life have I been in such a big car and felt so claustrophobic. The interior is so cramped and horribly set up that it's laughable. What the heck did they do with all that space?! The body's huge....yet you have the interior space of a dresser drawer.

Teldar:
I should have just said 4 valves per cylinder, not 24 valves, as their 8 cylinder actually has 24 valves. Was thinking six cylinders.

Show me where it says it actually has 24 valves. The only thing I could find was old "rumors" saying it might have 3 valve per cylinder. None of the LS3 engine description lists it as having 24 valves(3 per cyl).

That audi rs4 yes it does make 400 hp but is alot slower then the vette and it gets way woste mpg then the vette. As well as both of the cars you listed are not in the corvettes price range of 40k but they do fall into the z06 price range, where they are killed on a track.

/shrug
The front end/grill & headlights remind me too much of a person wearing goggles while sitting in a g-Force machine.

Pretty much anyone arguing against the performance of the 'Vette is a retard.

All we have to do is look at the Z06. Show me a car that gets within 10 seconds of it's Nurburgring(sp?) time that doesn't cost more than double that of the 'Vette.

As far as the LS3, this "huge bulky" 6.2L engine gets well over 30mpg on the freeway. I can point you to several less-than-4L displacing cars from both german and japanese automakers that can't touch that.

Interior/Exterior opinions are subjective. I think it looks sexy. But no one can argue with performance numbers. The 'Vette can't be beat there. Sorry. Next article.

Just like the Viper...ever increaing displacement vs. modern technology.

Remember the ZR-1 of the early-mid 90's?

Quad-cam, 32 valve V-8......yeah, Lotus designed and built it.

Does this beast still have the skip-shift feature to meet MPG / Emissions?

Look at those vents lol ! They look as if they were pulled out of an economy/rental Cobalt.

WTF is wrong with Chevy? People paying $45k+ for a "toy" would gladly pay another $1,000 or so for a decent interior. This isn't a SunFire...

Some of you people are clueless. Including the writer of this article because they have a 7l 505hp model available and its not even mentioned.
6l is only 355ci, thats only 5ci bigger than the venerable chevy 350ci. Has anybody seen the cid of the viper? Get real people. For ground rumbling torque at low rpm's, nothing beats displacement.

Rob

Show me where it says it actually has 24 valves. The only thing I could find was old "rumors" saying it might have 3 valve per cylinder. None of the LS3 engine description lists it as having 24 valves(3 per cyl).

Looking around a few different sites last night, I found the config of the LS2 and found some information that the LS3 is (basically) (structurally and mechanically) the same as the LS2. The LS2 has 3 valves per cylinder. Now, while I don't KNOW that the LS3 has 3 valves per cylinder, the fact that I couldn't find anything on the apporx 10 sites I looked at that said there were any significant changes to the LS2 to make it the LS3, I think it's pretty safe to say that it is a 3 valve per cylinder engine.

And right on with the Lotus. I would rather have the best driving car in the world for half the price than some crappy vette that weighs twice as much (or more) and handles like it. And the performance isn't significantly better for the vette versus the Lotus.

Again, to everyone out there, it's the high pressure at low rpm intake of the push rod engine which makes the low end torque without a boost to induction that the OHV OHC engines need to make the same kind of power. The benefit of OHV OHC is increased top end. You can keep pushing more in and out of the cylinders as there is more room for more valves since you don't need all those cams in the bottom of the block. So you turbo an OHV OHC engine and you keep getting more power....

Heck the 2008 Shelby Mustang GT500 is producing more hp that that from a 5.4 liter engine guys in the 50k dollar range. Oh by the way the 6.4 liter powerstrok diesel is in the 430 hp range too.

"As well as both of the cars you listed are not in the corvettes price range of 40k but they do fall into the z06 price range, where they are killed on a track."

Actually, the E46 M3 was only a couple thousand more. Also, he specifically said "under $70,000", which I was answering. I'd rather have a car with decent horsepower and a lot of torque than some jumped up Civic with 1,000 hp and 150 lb/ft of torque, but you can't deny the performance of high end European cars that give up some torque for significantly lower weight. Hell, The new M3 SHOULD hit 60 in about 4 seconds (they're listing at 4.8 but BMW always understates the M3's performance. The E46 M3 was listed as 5.0 but they changed it to 4.8 since most people were getting to 60 in 4.5). Even with the LS2 engine making 400 hp and 400 lb/ft of torque, the Monaro/GTO still couldn't get to 60 in under 5 seconds (if I recall correctly) while at the same time the E46 M3 with 333 hp and 263 lb/ft of torque was doing it in 4.5 seconds.

American companies need to remember the age old saying --- "Work smarter, not harder". Sure, anyone could pump up on steroids and smash through a brick wall - but it's much easier to find the crack in the wall where you flick it and the wall comes tumbling down.

Well if we are going to voice out own personal opinion on looks. IMO, this looks better than any BUTT UGLY euro-rice burner that I have ever seen, (except for some mid engine V-12 exotics), which fall in a different class. And you guys keep trying to compare a N/A vette with a Turbo Euro car. Well........Lingenfelter has already taken a C6 and made 1000 Horsepower out of it with there twin turbo kit. So lets compare apples to apples if you want to count Forced induction.
Everyone has there own taste. I wouldn't go to some Honda web link and bash there stupid looking little rice burners. Grow up kiddies.

"uhh please inform me of any of those cars that get 4 hundred horses for less then 70K that isnt a truck. I would really like to know."

For 70K you can buy TWO tricked-out Volkswagen Jettas or Golfs with their 2.0 liter turbo engines (which produce over 200 horsepower EACH), and still have enough change to pay for the gas for the year. So let's do some math, kids... 2.0l has 200hp. Two of those would be 4.0l with 400hp. Three would be 6.0l (approximately the displacement of the ONE Chevy engine) and 600hp.
Personally, I'd go for the two VW's. I can head off one direction pretty quickly, and (if necessary) my spouse could head off another equally quickly. Ooooh... good comparison: if two cars can go 0-60 in 6 seconds in opposite directions, thus covering X number-of-feet for each in 6 seconds, is that the equivalent of one car 0-60 in 3 seconds?
Sorry... math & science are probably not the strong points of someone who buys a Corvette. Trying to make up for small appendages probably is. Hint, buy the turbo V-dub, trick it out with a new paint job, and spend the money you saved on Enzyte.

wow... u guys are all dorks.

Remy

Is the Z06 even under $70k? I thought the top end vettes were around $80k. Makes it a little harder to swallow with some of the performance of other cars out there which do still cost less.

If you want to talk about performance, I would think the WRX STI would have to be mentioned. What is it? 290 hp and 290 lb-ft of torquefrom a 2.5l 4 banger?

However, like Rob mentioned, if you want refined driving you need to go with the Lotus, not some beast weighing over half again as much.

Teldar

The STi is 300 and 300 (on the current/previous gen one - the new one is supposed to be 320 / 320). The Z06 is like $75k - but a base Vette, like what this article is talking about, is $40-50k.

I too dream of when I get out of college in a couple years and can afford a Lotus Exige S (though I'd probably see if I could get more boost out of the supercharger).

why american cars increase power with bigger displacement.... i hate that...theres so manny other areas to increase...and i dont mean turbo...

"theres so many other areas to increase...and i dont mean turbo..."

Exactly. When BMW came out with the new 3-series a year or so ago they revised their valve timings. The new valve timings resulted in a 13% power gain along with a 12% mpg gain. Now that's a worthwhile improvement since increasing power normally means lowering mpg.

For those of you bashing the horsepower per liter, I guess you forgot to mention that the smaller engines from Europe that make around the same power also usually use turbochargers, superchargers, or rev to insanely high rpms to get those numbers.

The Corvette is built for American streets where spinning an engine to 15,000 rpm to make power doesn't work. It's about brute torque and high end horsepower. Sure Ferrari's have 4-5L V12s that make 450hp. But they also cost several hundred thousand dollars and get shitty gas mileage compared to the Corvette (19 and 29 and most owners see better than that).

The Corvette is meant to be a cheap, affordable high end sports car that hangs with all the other much more expensive ones out there. Is it as refined in some areas? No. But for $45-50,000 what do you expect?

"For 70K you can buy TWO tricked-out Volkswagen Jettas or Golfs with their 2.0 liter turbo engines (which produce over 200 horsepower EACH), and still have enough change to pay for the gas for the year. So let's do some math, kids... 2.0l has 200hp. Two of those would be 4.0l with 400hp. Three would be 6.0l (approximately the displacement of the ONE Chevy engine) and 600hp."

To this complete idiot, engines don't work that way you retard. You don't just double the displacement and double the horsepower. If you wanted to, you could get 600hp out of a 2.0L engine. Would you be able to drive it on the street? No. But you can do it. Chevy could've gotten 430 hp out of the LS2, but it would've meant sacrificing driveability.

I know plenty of guys with 4th gen Trans Ams that have 5.7L LS1s that get over 400 hp to the wheels (not at the crank like all cars are rated at) and still over 25 mpg. But Chevy has to meet emissions and fuel economy standards so they go with less aggressive camshafts and timing. A new camshaft in an LS2 will easily bump it up into the 500 hp at the crank range and still be driveable every day with decent mileage.

So all you people saying they suck because they have to bump up the displacement to get more horsepower, get your head out of your ass. How many other stock cars are there for $45-50,000 that will do a 12.5 in the 1/4 mile, kick ass on a road course, and still get 29 mpg highway.

Oh and an M3 doesn't do 0-60 in 4 seconds. I've raced them before. Try more like 5 by the average driver. BMW does that rating with a professional driver behind the wheel. And you say BMW underrates the performance of the M3? Guess what. Chevy ALWAYS underrates the horsepower of their engines. LS1 Camaros and Firebirds were rated at 330 hp with the performance package. They typically dynoed at 300-315 at the wheels with the 6 speed. That puts the actual horsepower at the crank when you figure in drivetrain loss at around 360-370. The LS2 is no different.

"I guess you forgot to mention that the smaller engines from Europe that make around the same power also usually use turbochargers, superchargers, or rev to insanely high rpms to get those numbers."

Usually - not all. BMW hasn't put forced induction on any M series cars to date.

"Oh and an M3 doesn't do 0-60 in 4 seconds."

I said the NEW M3 that's coming out in a few months or so should hit 60 in the 4 - 4.2 second range. The last gen M3 WAS listed at 5 (but revised to 4.8) and most people who reviewed the car hit 60 in 4.5 - 4.6 seconds.

"The Corvette is built for American streets where spinning an engine to 15,000 rpm to make power doesn't work."

Name one production car that goes anywhere near that high to hit max power. As far as I know, the highest rpm for max power in a current production car is the RX-8 which is at 8,500 rpms. I see plenty of those on the road and I've never seen one have trouble driving either.

I never said that it was a "bad" car - just that it's not some huge news that a bigger engine is making more power. If they got that same increase in power by improving their valve timings or other technology, it would be something worth reading about. As I said before, work smarter, not harder. Anyone can brute force something - it's much more impressive to use good engineering to achieve the same results - and with style.

Getting more power out of a given displacement is an engineering triumph, of course, but that power doesn't just magically come from nowhere. Variable valve timing, 4 valves per cylinder, more efficient intake and exhaust all contribute to more usable power to the drive wheels, but almost all of that extra power will come at higher RPM. GM could have done some or all of the above to get more power out of the 6 liter, but TORQUE would have improved only slightly, and the gains would have come at RPMs above 5000. Increasing the displacement may not be the technologically impressive way of getting increased power, but it does pay off in the simplicity of the engine, and that usable power coming at lower RPM. It also increases torque, especially at lower RPM, which more valves per cylinder won't do as well. Take the old 2.0 liter Neon 4 cylinder engine for example. It was available with 8 valves or 16 valves. The base 8 valve engine made about 130 hp. The 16-valve made 150. But they both made 125 pound-feet of torque. And the extra ponies in the 16 valve engine were only available above 4600 RPM. GM obviously wanted more power without requiring their drivers to wind the crap out of the engines. Knowing what their customers expect in a car, increasing displacement to increase power was the right call.

Gee and whats the life expectancy of a maxed out 4 or 6 banger pushing 400 or better hp. NOT VERY LONG.To each his own but ive seen many a 4 or 6 banger smoking away down the road after the meager life expectancy is wrought out of a motor that really can't handle it. Beides how about throwing twin turbo's or even a supercharger on the vette or even a viper now lets see the 4 or 6 bangers in the 4 liter range keep up not gonna happen.I could be wrong and I will be the first to admit when I am but most of those motors in the 4 liter range are turbo. Have a nice day guys and gals

I used to dream of Vettes, unitl I actually had the money to afford one. No thanks. Like all US cars, it has a big engine, big power, quick in a straight line, low tech, and a cheap interior/exterior.

The Corvette handles like crap, drives like crap, shifts like crap, brakes like crap, looks like crap; but hey its only $45-65K! If price per horsepower is your goal, I guess you can't beat it, but that's all you get. Specs are only half the story. The Viper sucks even more.

For a legitimate sportscar, I stick wtih Porsche and Ferrari for double the price. The only US sportscar that drives and handles as well as the Euros around a track is the Ford GT. Too bad its engine is low tech and not original, but you get 100HP/L. I personally love the Lambos, but they have serious reliability issues, and not as good as Porsche and Ferrari.

BMW and Audi are also better, but are slower than the Vette.

The vette does not handle like crap. Have you ever been inside a vette brian. Ive been to many track days where vettes witha good drive eat lotus porshes the lot. While lotus are fast they dont have things like interiors or ac or anything else that makes a car comfortable. While the vette does not have the best interior it is by no means a bad car. Ive owned a jag and it was a nice car but I couldnt count on it to take me anywhere. Now at 43k miles the water pump siezed and the car overheated and it blew the headgasket. This wasnt a old jag either it was a 2001 xk8. Now im not saying all euro cars suck but I havent seen very good results from audi or anything made in england. If you are around people who accually race their cars and not magazine race youll see that most bmws wont hit anywhere near quoted times, bmw m5 is a good example it has 500 hp but is really brittle and runs a quarter in 12.8. My neighbors mustang can do that from the factory with a solid axle. Plus the only m5 ive seen at a track day event blew the diff so cant say that car is gonna be any good.

Man some of you guys are fools... gm went with the 6.2 l engine not to increase hp. That could have been easily done with the ls2 6 l. Gm did it to consolidate the number of engine blocks they were making... look how many vehicles will share the 6.2. Smart move for a company that needs to cut excess spending.

6.2 l most trucks 6.2 most gm sports cars

that is all

i'll talk about being practical, save all your energies for all this car bashing.
the vette is still a muscle car for the US, where they have advantage in gas prices. The vette is a steal (cheap) if you're looking only at the engine performance but we all be disappointed if we expect it to handle,comfort, fuel mpg well.
i'd vote for a vette anytime for straightline/highway performance. Don't compare it to an bmw m5, it is 4 door sedan, with all the comfort and performance in it, you'll pay a lot for that.

in euro/jap cars. fuel price is a big factor.
that's why all the research and development goes to handling and extracting more engine performance for the same displacement. Talking about practical, stick a euro/jap car and a vette in heavy traffic, the vette will lose all those mpg bigtime since it is displacing 6 or 6.2 liters per unit of time. Turbocharging and variable valve timing is all there so that you'll use only the power when it is needed which explains the higher rpm's required for more power.
Supercars like ferrari and etc. is in a different class itself and looking only on its straight line performance is making me sad.

I'd always go for a Lotus for its mpg and handling performance for street use but it still expensive for most which explains the popularity of modding passenger cars to mimic or come close to the performance of true sports cars.

so it is a matter of how you will use it and your budget.

OK so I exaggerated a bit much with the Vette bashing. It's not that bad on the track, and it is pretty quick. Crude but effective, and it is fun. Not an everyday driving car. I'll stick with my expensive Euro trash.

You take any C5 or C6 Vette, call up Lingenfelter, drop another $25-$35k, and you have a street-docile 650-800hp twin turbo monster that still gets 25mpg or better. I remember seeing a video of a $140k C5 427TT doing 0-60 in 1.9 seconds with slicks, onto a 9ish second 1/4 mile. Corvettes are very reliable and capable in racing, and parts are cheap and easy to get for us in the US. Even a $10k C4 Z51 with a $10k LSx+T-56 transplant will dust more than a few $150k+ supercars. Vettes have [i]soul[/i] and they're [i]hongry[/i] for some tail-out curves! XD

Interesting.

Unknown you dare bring Jags into this argument? If I'm not mistaken, Jags are the bottom of this list in reliability.

Also, I believe many older Jag owners considered this horrible reliabilty part of it's "character".

Definately an interesting addition to this bicker contest.

Oh, to z3nny....

Show us some love. You've got stats, give us credible links to back them up.

I'm a fan of info based on facts. Statements don't make my blood boil with enthusiasm.

List the links and I won't call B.S. on you.

The discussion that a particular performance car is great / awful is nothing new; it has been going on as long as I can recall. Only the players change. Hopefully, they base their beliefs on their own personal experience, rather than comments from others or pictures from a magazine. Over the years, I have owned quite a few cars that I liked, ranging from some of the late 60's to 1970 American muscle cars (I view 1970 as the last year for the classic American muscle due to lower compression, lower HP starting in 1971), including Corvettes. While I still have a fondness for the older cars, I like this new Corvette, in some ways even more than I liked my 1963 vette, of which I was particularly fond. The new cars are more reliable, better made, quicker, faster, handle better, have a better ride; they are just better cars. And unlike some of the previous posters, I like the styling changes to the Corvette (although I think the back end still looks a little awkward) and probably will end up purchasing one. Also, the mention of Jaguar was interesting, as I now own a 1971 E-type. I have to agree with the perception that reliability isn’t a quality that Jaguar is known for, and while my E-type won’t match the performance of a great many of today’s performance cars, I still like it. Just goes to show that a lot of what goes into forming our likes and dislikes is highly subjective.
Now, for the discussion of engine displacement; I am also in the camp of the “there’s no replacement for displacement”. The truth is that in a street car, horse power is only part of the equation. While race cars (and some exotic street cars) generate a lot of HP at very high RPMs, this isn’t very practical for the street. It’s not often that we will be driving in the 7,000-9,000 RPM range in order to take advantage of that horse power. More important to a street car is to have the power available at a lower RPM and to have gobs of torque… and that’s where displacement comes in. That is what gives you the “push you back in the seat exhilaration” when you nail the throttle. Most of us (the sane ones anyway) are not going to be in a position very often to hit 180+ MPH, but we can get that acceleration rush from a car with a lot of low-end torque.
In any case, I thought that this was a very interesting discussion, thanks everyone.

Oh I know a car that gets roughly 400hp/400tourque thats under 70k USD!!!!!!!!! The Ford F6 Typhoon. Its Australian though. Oh and this car gets its max rated HP/Torque from 1500- 4500 rpm. Thats 3k rpm to have that power and fun....

I respect the Vette. I am mainly a ford guy but the Vette proves itself a very versitile opponent. It can normally take the Mustang, Viper and even most porches without a second guess. And japanese sports cars..... if you got stock to stock, there is not one japanese "sports" car that can even keep up w/American sports cars. Not even a stock Skyline. Now when you put about 20-30k worth or mods/upgrades then yea it could take the Vette. But put the same mods/upgrades, say a twin turbo, and you can have the equivalent to a Lingenfelter 427TT Vette that will smoke even a lambo.

But yea most european sports cars are not even close to 70k. They are 100k+ easily. Same w/ japanese. A Skyline is like about 70k to import and to get even close to that amount of power, another 20-30k.

Teldar:

"Looking around a few different sites last night, I found the config of the LS2 and found some information that the LS3 is (basically) (structurally and mechanically) the same as the LS2. The LS2 has 3 valves per cylinder. Now, while I don't KNOW that the LS3 has 3 valves per cylinder, the fact that I couldn't find anything on the apporx 10 sites I looked at that said there were any significant changes to the LS2 to make it the LS3, I think it's pretty safe to say that it is a 3 valve per cylinder engine."

The LS2 does NOT have 3 valves per cylinder.

one thing that everyone is forgetting is the actual targeted audience for the vettes: old men. i completely disagree with low-end torque being the end-all-be-all, and when you compare the handling of even the newest, most expensive vette to a long list of foreign cars, the vette will not handle as well, it's that simple. but the thing is, the averge american who buys a vette doesn't care about this stuff, they want a daily cruiser that gets decent gas mileage and can theoretically whoop almost every car on the (american) road. i say theoretically because the old men who buy the vettes dont actually race.

there are those who do, but i am talking about the targeted audience. hell, around here, i couldn't tell you how many vettes i fly by on the highway, or worse off, from a red light, and i drive a solara!! most people who buy vettes want status symbols, and just the way it is.

but seriously, the size thing... there's a reason they make convertables, and its not a cool factor. i'd love to see a race between a brand new 'vette and the soon to be released nissan gtr, especially a race with some turns and corners ;-)

"Niz:
More power but it's still butt-ugly compared to most euro and jap sports cars. And wow that interior color is tasteless beyond hope."

I second that, the Vette looks like a chinese Ferarri knock-off ... BTW GM everyone else is using OHC and have for like 15 years even Ford.

GM went with the 6.2L on the Vette because a tuned Pontiac GTO could own it.

The new Skyline will be AWD turbo and eat Shelbys and Vettes for lunch so comparing Jap/US is a mute point.

Teldar

Just to be clear the LS2 does NO