"That output is almost 103 horses per liter"

As if that is something hard to do with forced induction.

103 horses per liter or not, its still a beast. The C6 z06 was a monster on the streets. This new one will be murder. Domestics are coming back with a vengeance. I've never respected Vettes until the C5 but man have they come up! This coming from a guy that drove a 460whp Evo IX and daily drives an S2000.

Amazing world-class performance and great exterior looks; even the Europeans respect this car.

The interior is a reminder that "cheap" is still something we in the U.S. don't mind paying a lot for. The instrument cluster looks like it was sourced from an after-market kit for $ 79.99.

Why does GM continue to do the Corvette interiors like a cheap econo-box ?

I love whining !

.

"engineers also set a goal of the ZR1 being the most fuel-efficient 600+ horsepower car on the market."

No...they're just too cheap/stupid/avoiding taxes? to give the car proper gearing so it tops out in 6th gear like real exotics do. I'll be amazed if this thing doesn't come with two over drive gears like a Ford Fusion and the cheesy 1-4 skip shift.

Someone paying $100k+ for a car that rips to 60mph in 3.5sec and tops 200mph doesn't give a rats ass about fuel economy.

Thank god they only make these 'timeless' cars in the states. Lookit that interior 'pukes pukes'.
I seriously wonder how many corvettes are exported worldwide......or they are only catered for their own lilo domestic market?? 'USDM'?? rofl.

Thank god they only make these 'timeless' cars in the states. Lookit that interior 'pukes pukes'.
I seriously wonder how many corvettes are exported worldwide......or they are only catered for their own lilo domestic market?? 'USDM'?? rofl.

not enough. i really need 800hp to get to the mall.
And with a topspeed 200mph, i'll be there in 3 seconds.

Man this is Heaven!

American GM V8 engine, american symbol like "Corvette"...heaven!!!

I already see that my fellow "America Obsessed" didnt waste any time.

HP/Displacement talk...interiors talk...armchair engineering telling whats wrong with it...fuel efficiency talk...we are relentless!

We america-obsessed people are trully commited to our cause.

All the rice burner fans are out criticizing instead of praising. This is a halo car and the Japanese have them, too. Although, I bet the rice burner fans don't criticize them. This new Corvette will be sold on a very limited scale and will be mostly for shows and racing. If it like the other new Corvette, it'll probably get great gas mileage.
Go GM go. Show the world you can build the best of any model cars with the best gas mileage. For those who don't know, GM is on it's way of cleaning up shop for gas mileage, starting from pickups to the smallest cars. Their pickup trucks gets the best in gas mileage. And recently, the Malibu and the Cobalt have won those bragging rights.

Maybe they want to keep the interior cheap and the fuel consumption as low as possible?

I think it wouldn't be a problem for Chevrolet to build it with the quality of european cars, but then they'd possibly take $200k instead of $100k.

But that's the reason for buying a Corvette for a lot of people (even here in Europe/Germany).

Most of the owners take it out at the weekend and enjoy the performance of the engine, suspension, etc. Nobody cares about some bad materials in the interior on a 2 or 3h trip.

The fuel consumption is in my opinion very important for the marketing, too. Especially today with all the discusions about global warming.

American cars don't enjoy the best reputation in the world becouse of it's consumption. But if they could bring it down to the same level than the Europeans, the cars would get more attractive to everybody.

Particularly the Vette is praised to be a good vehicle for daily use.

And of course it feels a bit better to know my car guzzels only 15L instead of 30L even i could afford it.

Btw. the gas price in Germany is €1.55 per 1 litre of supreme that means about $9.15 per gallon at the moment. (no, it's not a mistake)

But i love Corvettes anyway (and i'd trade my Z06 off for a ZR-1, without hesitating if i could afford it) although the Porsche factory is just 20miles away from here.

I was hoping to read the engine made this power naturally aspirated, that would have been cool.

Anyway, I don't understand why some of you guys are bashing this for fuel economy. C'mon, it's a sports car. Are we gonna start criticizing pick-up trucks because they take up too much space?

Sports cars are built for 2 reasons, performance and looks. The C6 has performance, and is halfway there in the looks department, so why not accomplish something else while the car is in R&D (such as a little better fuel economy)?

Let's say every car made 50mpg, went the same speed, and only looked differently. Wouldn't some of us say "screw a few mpg, make the car go faster'"?

I still have more respect for the Viper's engine because I love N/A. It gets 20mpg average in the viper, so this one will have to be pretty efficient.

Wow! 103hp per liter with a compressor, nice achievement GM!

I don't see why they try to show off with sucky specs as this one when in reality the car is a beast and one the best vettes yet.

"Wow! 103hp per liter with a compressor, nice achievement GM!"

Wow! Another guy that doesnt know what a pushrod engine is and still doesnt realise the hp-per-liter value is useless...

The Acura RDX (Honda) engine is turbocharged and develops 240 HP from 2.3L, or 104 HP per litre.

I didn't know that 104 HP per litre is great for an engine with forced induction while 103 HP per litre is poor.

Honda must have some amazing technology to be able to get that extra 1 HP per litre from their engine.

Um, Noya, hate to break it to you, but the ZR1 tops out in sixth gear, not fifth like previous Vettes. The gearing is as follows: 1st 2.29; 2nd 1.61; 3rd 1.21; 4th 1.00; 5th 0.81; 6th 0.67; Final Drive 3.42

Gas mileage should be interesting. It will most likely be the most fuel efficient 600+ horse power car, but will it avoid the gas guzzler like the Z06? That would be a real accomplishment.

The Most Fuel Efficient 600+ hp car on the market....oh, please, if it runs like its burning it.....and just how many 600+ hp cars ARE on the market?

If GM is really singing the fuel efficiency theme here, they could have reduced the hp a couple hundred and gained mpg. Made it a torque monster and geared a tall overdrive. A 35mpg Vette, 'magin that.

Gripe, gripe, gripe, whine, whine, whine.....just exactly what do yall think a decent interior IS????? Is that all you can complain about? I read these blogs and see if yall can't gripe about anything else, you fall back on a lousy interior (and you know who you are).

Europeans just don't understand (however I do feel sorry for you, all your cars look the same), in America, overkill is good for you. :)

Avatar:

Im sorry but i just had to badmouth this because its american thats all.

I know i say the dumbest things but i cant resist, its the "america" thing you know?

"Europeans just don't understand (however I do feel sorry for you, all your cars look the same), in America, overkill is good for you. :)"

Ohhh man...my fellow "America-Obsessed" comrades will love that statement!

Reality:
Neither of those engines (the LS9 or K23A1 fromt the RDX) are that much of an accomplishment. For example:
F20C (Honda S2000): 100hp/L
B18C5 (Honda Integra Type R): 108.3 hp/L
note: the it-r was produced 1996 through 2001, its a 12 year old car!!!

I am in no way criticizing this corvette, its an incredible performance car, albeit a brute to drive. I'm just writing to those who think that 103 OR 104 hp/L is any type of an accomplishment with forced induction. It's not.

Sorry, in my prev post I neglected to mention both of the honda engines are NA. No forced induction, and still getting 100+ hp/L. What if they threw a turbo or super on one of those?

Colt:

HP/Liter = Engine good or bad?!?

You are clueless man...

Wait guys, there is more. Don't forget about the scared VTEC. 108 hp/L. Well, that 8.4L making 2.5 times the power gets 13/22 for mileage and weighs 3400 lbs. The 7.0L making 2 times the power gets 15/24 weighing 3200 lbs. And the VTEC, with 2.2L gets 18/25 weighing 2900 lbs?

But its ok guys, that 8.4L gets only 71 hp/L and that 7.0L gets 72 hp/L.

Bragging rights are fine but when will GM produce quality cars for the rest of us?

Avatar:

And dont forget this Von Braun´s still dont know what a pushrod engine is...

@colt:

B18C1 + 6PSI turbo = 240 whp or 260 flywheel. so yeah its quite a bit more efficient than either the K or L engines listed above.

I've got a better stat for you 4 cylinder lovers.

The b series engines (Hondas civic/interga engines) weigh a little less than 300 pounds.

LS1 engines weigh roughly 450, so the ls9 will probably be closer to 500 with all the extra tubing and piping and supercharger and stuff.

That means the old type r integra puts out .66 hp/lb. Assuming the LS9 weighs 500 pounds it puts it at 1.276 hp/lb. The NA ls3 would be almost 1 hp/lb. Now, theres a metric that really matters! Holy crap?

Not to mention that ohv engines have a lower center of gravity over dohc. (good for handling)

S2000's average 21 mpg and are subject to a gas guzzler tax. Corvettes are not, and blow the doors off of the the S2000 (unless you're autocrossing).

High hp/liter doesn't really look so important or efficient anymore does it?

I used to have a GSR, and while it was fun to drive, it's not a sports car and not even remotely comprable to a Corvette (or an S2000 for that matter)

While I agree that too many people bash for the sake of bashing, and that no car will appeal completely to everyone, some valid points have been made above. First, the "most fuel-efficient 600-hp" car label is just stupid. I don't see many cars over 350 on the street, people who buy this don't care about gas mileage, and the gas mileage itself still sucks relative to our gas prices. Second, I think the point on cheap interior is valid. People seem to classify the Corvette as some sort of "affordable" sports car. It is not. The only people that will buy this car are the filthy rich, because they are the only ones that can afford to buy, maintain, and keep gas in it. It may cost much less than a Ferrari, but it definitely isn't in average salary worker territory. If someone like that buys one, they will be in financial trouble very shortly (like the people who bought all the houses they couldn't afford). In fact, these cars are probably bought up already at well above sticker price, just like the Ford did to kill our morale with the GT500. That being said, the people that can afford this would gladly pay a few thousand extra (chump change to them) for a nicer interior, as thsi car should have anyways. Some may do a custom interior anyways. Chevy did no favor to the working man by saving a few dollars on the sticker price (which is misleading as mentioned above) by using cheap interiors. Finally, for all the "little things" people don't like on the car, I'm sure aftermarket companies will be eager to listen and accomodate. For me, I'd be looking to have a new hood made without the window. Even though a majority of these cars will never be seen on the street, the few folks who actually drive these cars (and I respect them) will find that the window will look like crap shortly after. Aside from that, if I had the money, or was offered one, I would definitely take one;) Beautiful car, awesome performance, best Corvette.

Here is something else, adding onto what Cheap Car Lover touched on. Google the following image, Ford 5.0L vs 4.6L. On the left of that image is Ford's Modular 4.6L vs there old 5.0 on the right. DOHC engines not only generally weigh more then higher displacement OHV engines, but are also physically larger. For example, GM had to do a lot of interesting things to make the new 4.5L Duramax diesel fit where all the small blocks that they use fit. The engine uses a 72 degree block vs a typical 90 degree block to make it narrower. The exhaust manifold is in the valley with the turbo vs outside the block like typical engines. The intakes are directly on top of the cylinder heads vs in the valley.

Oh, I forgot to mention, this engine was developed completely in house by GM, despite having the DuraMax name attached to it. It is due out 2009 and rated for at least 310 hp and 520 ft-lbs of torque and expected to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25% over the Vortecs. It will also be 50 state legal.

i hear that hillary will not allow this car to go into production because GM hasent greased her palms enough in this election?

@CCL:

Now add the huge transmission, 9 quarts of oil, and huge drive shafts to support the power and your metrics get all messed up. Besides the B series is old news and the K series has more displacement and wieghs less even with a 6 speed... Add 6psi of boost to a K20 and you'll see even better hp/ltr and hp/lb.

You are correct that the Integra doesn't compete with the Corvette though. However just the fact that people will and do compare it though says leagues for the little engines that could. I've run a couple of vets in my teg and let me tell you it's fun especially when you hit the twisties. No way I'd run one of these Vettes but a little more boost and I probably could.

@Wow! and Reality:

You seem to have missunderstood my point. I'm saying there's no point in trying to show off with "we have achieved 103hp per liter", and I'm not only refering to this article. GM has a good car here, so they should let the track times do the talking, cause I'm really not impressed by 103 forced hp per liter, some Volvo's and Saab's do that too ;P

Further, for you Honda bashers, the F20C creates 120hp per liter and it's NA - that's engineering.

And just to chip in on the pushrod conversation.. pushrods suck.

M5 and M6 V10 DOHC engine: 529lb - 500hp
Viper V10 OHV: 548lb - 600 hp

Hp/Liter = Useless

@Cheap Car Lover:

Who the hell measures an engine based on performance per weight? This isn't the 60's. *IF* we measured based on your ridiculous assumption, then a rotary engine would be the way of the future. Or perhaps a motorcycle engine. Either way, we all know some engines are built sturdier than others (read: heavier), yet can give the same amount of power output. Because it's heavier does it mean it's inferior? Because we all know a 1JZ is much sturdier than a 13B (they both give about 280hp from the factory). Is it fair then to compare an engine made of Iron and one of Aluminum?

Why don't we measure the engine according to color next? Or maybe next we can measure them based on sound... Either way, stop posting outdated non-sense.

Gary has the right idea.

Ha! Ha! my Ferrari will run circles around that. American POS. Will fall apart at the track. Only for rich rednecks that won the lottery. Have fun at the Drag Strip (only thing its good at).

Awesome video. Not sure what GM wants from the ZR-1. To make the fastest Vette ever, or the best sports car in the world (lmfao), or the cheapest (100k) sport scar, everyday driver with ridiculous performance specs, and respectable MPG, or what.

If reliable Hp/L is their goal, they can do better, because others have.

GM should sell the ZR-1 for 150k and do it right, and forget the useless trade-offs. Compete with the Ford GT.

It feels like a NASCAR (before it became internationalized) vs F1 debate. GM, gets input from Tony Stewart, F1/Ferrari gets input from Michael Shumacher.

"Gripe, gripe, gripe, whine, whine, whine.....just exactly what do yall think a decent interior IS?????" - WVO

@ WVO

You just pointed it out in fact, the Lexus IS interior. The base IS 250 is less than $30k, and it's interior is 10x better than any Corvettes interior.

"M5 and M6 V10 DOHC engine: 529lb - 500hp
Viper V10 OHV: 548lb - 600 hp

Hp/Liter = Useless" - Zeeee

@ Zeeee

Not really. It tells you how "tuned" an engine is. The BMW V-10 is only 5.0L, while the Viper V-10 is 8.4L.
The BMW engine has a progressive, race car like power band that produces maximum HP right next to its 8,250rpm redline. This gives the car that classic sports car feel of more and more power as you push the engine harder, similar to Ferrari's and Lamborghini's.

To where the Viper V-10 is more like a truck engine, with massive TQ off idle and peak power at about 5,500rpm. While it's certainly capable (witnessed by it's performance stats and the old GTS racer), most people with money buy foreign sports cars for the above allure, nice interiors and newest/high technology, witnessed by the lagging sales of the Viper.

2.2L VTEC hp/lb = .73 14.4 Quarter Mile
M5/M6 hp/lb = .94 12.7/12.9
Viper hp/lb = 1.09 11.6
LS7 hp/lb = 1.10 11.7

How fast you are going is based on weight, power, and coefficient of drag. More power per weight, the faster you are going. More hp/L, you might be going fast, you might be going slow, you might be burning a ton of gas, you might be burning little gas, you might be reliable, you might break all the time. You can easily twin turbo a large displacement engine, and get it to have 1000+ hp at the wheels. Example, Lingenfelter makes 1100 hp to the rear wheels on pump gas. That is roughly 1294 hp at the crank assume 15% drive train loss. That is 184.86 hp/L. Now as for power to weight, that would be roughly 2.16 assuming the engine weighs 600 lbs. What is the fastest of the above group now? A quarter mile time of 9.5 for the Ligenfelter.

I will agree that the higher the hp/L, the higher the 'tune' is. At the same time, the less room for improvement. Thus, no replacement for displacement.

A better measurement would be hp/curb weight, but since we are strictly comparing engines, this is more meaningful then hp/L.

ya the Honda V-Tec's are pretty ok (krappy) who wants 200hp and 150lb ft tq anyway. Go ahead and drive them who cares you'll never touch a vette anyway. The Japanese supercars are all but gone (3000gt VR4, 300zx TT, Supra, NSX) all except for the Skyline which will destroy a ZR1.... until it hit's it's gear limited top speed. The NSX is a great handling semi exotic. Every other car in the end your still only driving a Honda or Toyota.

What happens when you put a turbo or S/C on a Vtec BOOM timb bomb happens. Anyway's non of these cars have a S/C from the factory so you can't compare. Pull the S/C off the Vette and add turbos and you just gained close to 100hp at the same boost levels. ANY v-8 (German, Japanese, American) will ALWAYS destroy 4 or 6cyl cars. Don't be stupid.

Myth: American cars get lousy gas mileage.
Fact: No US or Asian manufacturer has ever failed to meet the CAFE standard, while most European manufacturers regularly pay CAFE civil penalties ranging from less than $1 million to more than $20 million annually.

Myth: hp/l is important since it translates into power-to-weight or mileage, or...
Fact: For a given vehicle, installing a v6 over a 4 cylinder adds 145-160lbs including the requisite cooling and brake upgrades. Adding a turbo to a 4cyl can add over 200lbs when you include the intercooler, cooling and brake upgrades. Fuel efficiency ends up favoring the v6 more often than not (on regular gas no less.)

@ Jason

Of course it's a ridiculous comparison, I alluded to that in my post. I was responding to someone else's comparison of the LS9 and Type R because I thought it was ridiculous.

You talked about the FC20. It was suject to the gas guzzler tax and not competitive with a Corvette performance or MPG wise.

You're the only person I've ever heard of that doesn't think weight matters in a performance engine/car. Engine weight adds to curb weight, and any level headed person knows the less a car weighs the faster it is. Every reviewer in the world compares HP to weight of the car. I'm not really sure how weight will ever be "outdated".

I actually have a 1990 RX7 with a 13B and can tell you why it's not the way of the future. I average 16.5 mpg on a N/A engine and it was replaced at 110k, most people won't tollerate that. But as far as weight goes the car is incredibly light and fun to drive(It is in no way fast), thanks to that low weight engine.

Btw, from the factory an RX7 was faster than a Supra, partially because of the huge weight difference in the engines. I6's are really long and heavy. I'd still take the Supra any day though : o )

hp/l?
hp/lb?

How 'bout a metric that has some meaning to real people - $/100mi driven or if you prefer euros/100km.

Using $4.00/gal, 55%city 45% highway and the EPA’s adjusted on-road results. (I would use NEDC, but I can't get numbers for US cars.):

The 2008 7l Corvette cost $22.17 per 100mi driven while the 2008 1l Smart ForTwo cost $11.06 per 100mi driven.

Therefore the ForTwo cost half as much to operate as long as the fuel price is the same.

If, on the other hand, the Smart is being fueled with petrol that cost more than $8.00/gallon (1.35 euro/l), then the Smart Fortwo cost more to operate when compared to the Corvette at $4.00/g.

If other words, if you are driving a 1l Smart someplace where petrol cost more than 1.35 euro/l, then it is costing you more to drive than an American who drives a 7l Corvette.

I don't see why people keep saying hp/l doesn't matter and yada yada yada. Ofc weight and power ratios say alot more about a cars speed potentials! That was not the starting subject here.

All I said was, don't try to show off with a forced 103hp/l cause it's just nothing you can show off with; it's not exactly state of art engineering. End of story.

Unless you are racing in a class that limits displacement, then hp/ltr IS meaningless since it doesn't really say anything conclusive about power-to-weight or brake specific fuel consumption which are actually meaningful.

Hp/L still isn't as important as hp/lbs in displacement limited races, though slightly more important then in non displacement limited races. You can have a 2L car with 200 hp weighing 2500 lbs or one with 230 hp weighing 3000 lbs. Hp/L goes to the 230 hp car, but they will acelerate and top out at the same speed based on hp/lbs.

I am the product of too many viewings of "Fast and Furious"

103HP per liter is not so much of an achievement for many production engine today especially FI, but for a production pushrod engine it is since you cannot put a high lift, long duration, and long overlap cam on production engine without any valve technology and have it idle at 700-800rpm. It won’t idle at all. I’m sure the area of 103hp/L was the GM engineers’ safe limit margin. Basic bolt-ons and computer reprogramming on this car will easily make around or above 800HP.
Also, if you compare the Corvettes against the high dollar supercars, it's the underdog. Take for example, the Z06 are delivering supercar performance under the $100,000 price mark. It can hang on with cars that are way above its price point and still have better fuel mileage then them as well.

@Toy Man

The effect of long duration/overlap on idle quality is independant of where the cam sits. The air filling the cylinder doesn't know where the cam is.

A supercharger and positive manifold pressure changes everything.

After that video, I need a cigarette ;-)

103hp per litre isn't that impressive for such a hyped up over built engine when you consider the 2008 Subaru STI "rice burner" has 122hp per litre. We all know GM and the rest in North America have never been strong at getting the most out of their hardware.

If they would experiment a bit and try something different from a V8 pushrod for once in more than 60 years maybe they might make some advancements.

And it is because of those pushrod V8s that they can make all that power yet still get decent gas mileage.

We have been over this time and time again, highly strung, high hp per liter cars generally don't get all that great gas mileage. Your 122hp/L STi makes 305 hp and 290 ft-lbs gets 17/23. My GTO is rated with 400 hp and 395 ft-lbs and is rated 17/25 and weighs 600 lbs more. Heck, my fathers 285 hp and 320 ft-lbs 5.3L can do 21 on the highway and 16 around town on regular and the truck weighs 1000 lbs more then the STi and has a 4 speed auto.

Oh, and the experimentation part. The Gen V small blocks will get Direct Injection, not for power gains, but mostly for gas mileage gains. Then there is the Dual Mode Hybrid system. It takes the city mileage of a large displacement V8 and ups its city mileage 50%. A full size truck or SUV capable of getting pure twenties.

After that, there is the new small block DuraMax, which I talked about above. With the extra 25% fuel economy, it would be making 19/25 . Add a Dual Mode Hybrid system to that, and your making around 28/28, on a full size truck. There is Bush's wanted target for fleet mileage for trucks by 2015, and GM will have it in 2010, 5 years ahead of schedule, or at least be able to do it.

@Subpra

The "rice burner" you cite in your example has a 305hp engine in a 3366lb car and gets a combined EPA mileage of 19mpg.

The base Corvette has a 430hp engine in a 3217lb car and returns the same EPA combined mileage.

Why should I (or anyone) care about hp/ltr?

Absolutely hilarious that all the JDM fanboys/anti-American people can't stand the fact that Chevy has built a world class sports car with a whopping 638 HP.

So they have to resort to all sorts of nit-picking to find faults with the most trivial of issues and bring up things like HP/L. Usually when I see the term "HP/L" in any online discussion I simply leave the thread because I know the IDIOTS have come out to play.

Unfortunate people can't have a discussion about the merits of this car. Like the fact it has 600+ HP and lb/ft and can hit 205 MPH. Like the fact it makes extensive use of aluminum, magnesium and carbon fibre in its construction. That it has the largest carbon ceramic brakes of any production car IN THE WORLD (ones that Ferrari charges $18K as an option for on the 599 GTB). Or that has the same magnetic ride suspension system that Ferrari uses on the 599 GTB.

Hats off to you, Chevy, for producing one of the fastest cars you can buy at any price.

LOL OMG!

@Reality & friends:

In my first post I DID say that this car is a beast and one of the best vettes yet!

My point was (once again, but nobody seems to read) that, so they have built a supercar with 638hp and nice handling, very cool indeed, but don't come and say "We achieved 103hp/l" because it's NOTHING TO SHOW OFF WITH IF IT'S NOT N/A! Because it is actually harder to achieve those number without a supercharger, believe it or not ;P

It's like making a 1000hp dragracer and talk about how it handles the curves.

Hope the hp/l bashing gang got the point now, gosh.

@Z

You are so fixated on the hp/ltr figure that you miss the real beauty here: the engine is powerful AND fuel efficient (relatively) with enough manners to power a daily driver.

Afterall, why would GM need to brag about 103 hp/ltr when it already produces engines that pruduce 130hp/ltr and return 30mpg highway?

For the record: Although the Cobalt SS produces more hp/ltr than an STI, while being 30% more fuel efficient and costing 2/3 as much, I won't be lining up for one. (I doubt all the hp/ltr fanboys will either.)

Z:

Its a PUSHROD engine cry baby. Now shut up.

Incredible to see how many people here have reading disabilities. I'm not going to explain myself again.

HP/Liter is 4 Morons point was that pushrod engines don't make high hp/L do to there nature. The only way they can is through the use of boost. So, 103 hp/L for a pushrod engine is rather high, especially coming stock from the factory.

I believe I said in another thread that Lingenfelter makes 1294 hp with there twin turbo Z06, or 185 hp/L. The problem with this as I stated in that same thread is engine reliability goes down. They made it so it can do 100,000+ miles without fail, how many other super cars do that? Heck, Dodge takes away there lifetime warranty on all the SRT models, and it turns into 36,000 miles.

GM also knew that anyone buying this car would most likely be modding it. With just bolt ons, it will most likely be pushing over 800 hp. They lined the cylinders in iron when they didn't have to. An 11 rib drive belt, which it didn't need. A twin disc clutch and built trans which it also didn't need for the power it is putting out. They built it so it could be modded, and easily modded at that. Swap the pulley and instant power gain. It is only running 10.5 pounds of boost at peak, it can easily handle more. But keep in mind, your warranty will go bye bye then because engine life will go down.

How to measure performance is one of those things folks can argue about ad-infinitum. In the end, the best metric depends completely on the rules of the game. Take World Rally for instance. When I first started watching it, HP/L was king… because the rules stipulated 2.0L engines. There were some INCREDIBLE 2.0L engines put out for Rally use… making obscene amounts of power. Then there was the 300hp limit, and all of a sudden the metric shifted to area under the curve. These days WRC engines don’t make more than 300hp… but the make 300hp from pretty darn close to idle all the way up to redline.
So HP/L is sometimes important, sometimes not… but HP/LB is ALWAYS important, because weight impacts ALL aspects of performance… acceleration, braking, and handling. Another metric that most don’t think about is volume… Power/m^3 as well as the COG and aspect ratio for a powerplant all factor into how well that engine will enable the execution of a high performance sports car.
The Vette engine is a great design, it’s powerful and efficient, compact and light (all on a per HP basis). Is it the ultimate design… hardly… but it’s a damn good one.
Folks who claim that fuel economy is irrelevant to performance are mistaken… when you see good fuel economy numbers in an engine as large as this it means the torque band on the engine is HUGE. The only way to make one of these monsters efficient is to spin them as slow as possible, and you can’t do that if you’re powerband is 100rpm wide. When I see a 500hp motor getting 26mpg highway (in a 3200lb car) it tells me that the motor has a whole lot of area under the curve, it makes enough torque off idle to push a 3000lb car at highway speeds.

Avatar,

You probably also believe in the perpetual motion machine too. The fact is you can't get something from nothing. Power is energy which comes from fuel. To move any mass (acceleration) and overcome resistance (air and tires on road) it takes energy. The more power you have the more energy and fuel it will consume.

Back to the original point which was HP / Litre, the STI is higher as are most Japanese and european vehicles, on average which means they are more efficient / litre. This is a fact. I am not saynig it is better or worse, just a FACT.

This Vette V8 is using boost too! It has a supercharger which uses boost even more than a turbo in that boost is applied throughout the rpm range so there you go again contradicting yourself!

I too own a 5.4L 5400lbs pushrod Truck and it does not get anywhere close to the milage of an STI or GTO and it has less power so you can't use that BS on me.

Now, I caught you in another slight lie, I just looked up the EPA on the GTO and it gets 16/21 while the STI gets 17/23. You seem to twist reality to serve your outdated views. The STI is better again, and handles much better. It also has fewer problems per 1000 vehicles than the problem laden Pontiac division. Another FACT. Should I go on?

Ret REAListic.

Ive never seen an sti get anywhere close to its epa rated. Plus its not rated at 23 anyway its rated at 16/22. The gto is rated at 15/23 so your wrong again. The sti isnt a good design the boxer engine isnt effiecent enough naturally aspirated to do anything. Of course your 5400 lb truck gets bad mpg its got a bunch of weight to move around if it was a diesel youd be seeing fuel usage close to if not above that of a gto or sti because it would make enough torque at a low enough rpm for it to matter and not need the gearing to help it move along. As well as the imprezza did horrible on jdpower 2 stars out of 5 then the pontiac when pontiac did 3 so that argument is outt he window as well. Plus since you dont seem to understand torque, thats what moves mass not power. Power is a mathematical equasion derived from torque. Plus effiecency can be made many diffrent ways but hp/l is generally what people who drive 2l cars say because thats all they have to go on. if your car is running force induction depending on how much bar its running your little 2l engine may be consuming 6l or air.

First, my truck weighs about 4400 lbs. Sorry yours weighs way more then mine. Look it up, or go off of the GVW weight (6400 lbs) in the door. 4400 lbs plus 2000 lbs in the bed is 6400 lbs. Also, there is a reason why the Vortec 5300 gets better mileage then a 4800, because it's torque curve is flatter. Read Dave K's post about what that does.

Second, my GTO is an 06 6 speed, which EPA says is 17/25 for, which I get better then. You are quoting the 4 speed auto's mileage, which suffers from gas guzzler. The manual does not. So my facts are correct. The revised EPA estimates say it is 15/23, but the lowest I have seen is around 17. On highway, highest I have seen is 28, some have seen 30. If I mash on it at every red light, I can get it down to 14, but I don't think bouncing it of the red line every block in stop and go city counts. EPA testing isn't the best, but it is the only fair gas mileage comparison when can go off of.

Third, this Vette uses a super, others do not. Quote where I contradicted myself and I will apologize, but I have not. I said air=more fuel. However, this V8 with a super will be more fuel efficient then high reving N/A 600+ hp engines thanks to being able to cruise at low RPMs, again see above. It will use more gas then the Z06 though, thanks to using boost. If they dropped an 8.4L in it like the Viper and tuned it for 600 hp, it would most likely be more fuel efficient compared to the super charged 6.2L, but the engine wouldn't fit in the Corvette's frame. Just look at how long the noise of the Viper is compared to the Corvette. I also stated this is one of the reasons for not using a turbo/s in the engine, lack of space.

From Subpra:
"HP / Litre, the STI is higher as are most Japanese and european vehicles, on average which means they are more efficient / litre."

Not exactly... in fact the exact opposite is true. A 6L Corvette getting 26mpg when cruising on the highway at 65 is FAR more fuel efficient/L than an 2L STI getting 23 mpg under the same conditions... more than 3x more fuel efficient per liter in fact.

Small engines tend to have very peaky power curves, which means they have trouble pushing a big gear for fuel efficiency. Designers have to make a decision when designing a motor regarding power band... either design the motor for a wide torque band (less peak HP) or design it for a narrow torque band (high peak HP).

Most small engines opt for the narrow torque band and design the tranny to keep the engine rev's in that band to provide best overall performance. Thus you get an engine like those that Honda is fond of... they make good power but to get the most out of them you need to keep the rev's up. The flipside of that is that when the rev's are NOT up (cruising) you will not make much power... so your transmission needs to be set up for a 6th gear at 3-4k at 70. That equals poor fuel economy for the S2k's and Type-R's.

The big Chevy V8's are a bit different. Ever since the L98 they've designed those motors with lower peak power but a very wide torque band. The L98 was just a bit too weak for a big overdrive, but from the LT1 on the engines put out plenty of power off idle. As a result, gearing could be selected that wasn't so focused on keeping the rev's near redline. At 70mph those cars run around 1500 rpm. At such low tach rates, the car sips gas instead of sucking it down... which results in 25-27mpg fuel economy on the highway and no gas guzzler tax where less powerful Japanese and European sports cars all leave you paying out.

The Subaru's are also a bit different (I've got 2 and love them). The boxer engine is very torquey for a 4, and has a decent torque band. The problem with those cars is the AWD system which costs them a fair amount of parasitic loss - sucks in the summer but it's worth the cost in the winter.

Funny thing is: The fastest street legal car in the world is powered by an OHV V-8

Umm vettes are overrated. Vipers rule. digg it