If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Road & Track)   Tony Stewart beats the crap out of the new 2014 Corvette Stingray   (roadandtrack.com) divider line 56
    More: Spiffy, Chevrolet Corvette, Corvette Stingray, A.J. Foyt, Lewis Hamilton, instant-runoff voting  
•       •       •

7101 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Jul 2013 at 3:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-28 03:38:54 PM
Fail for no actual footage of him driving it like mad.
 
2013-07-28 03:39:38 PM
Went to the likker store across from the assembly plant last week.  Sat right next to a black one at the light.

Stunning.
 
2013-07-28 03:41:12 PM
It's like a steroid vial on wheels.

/and I mean that in a good way
 
2013-07-28 03:44:36 PM
The new stingray looks beautiful though.
 
2013-07-28 03:53:05 PM
I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette
 
2013-07-28 04:01:38 PM
Bastard should have put it into a wall
 
2013-07-28 04:05:46 PM
The more I look t that car the uglier it gets. It has to have one of the ugliest rear ends in car history. The original stingray is disappoint.
 
2013-07-28 04:23:49 PM

Repo Man: I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette


How does it behave in time? Will it still hit those specs in a year? Two?
 
2013-07-28 04:28:07 PM

Vermithrax Perjorative: The more I look t that car the uglier it gets. It has to have one of the ugliest rear ends in car history. The original stingray is disappoint.


It looks like they welded a Camaro ass end to an Aventador.
 
2013-07-28 04:29:38 PM
Wait, who? At first I thought you meant this guy -
i74.photobucket.com

I'd like to have him throw a car around some curves, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Who's Tony Stewart?
 
2013-07-28 04:36:52 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Repo Man: I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette

How does it behave in time? Will it still hit those specs in a year? Two?




As this is a new engine design, you can't really be sure. But it shares most of its design with the Gen III/IV V8, and those have been reliable performers. Cam in block, two valve per cylinder designs that make their peak horsepower at relatively modest RPM tend to last better than more complex, smaller engines that make their peak power at higher RPM.
 
2013-07-28 04:50:21 PM
MRC in a new Corvette? Yeah, been there, done that (as a passenger) back in my days working with automotive.

Proving grounds are always fun, unless you are prone to getting carsick.
 
2013-07-28 05:20:15 PM
Who is Tony Stewart? I don't follow boxing.
 
2013-07-28 05:28:14 PM
That'll add 5-6 inches on your penis guaranteed!

/Looks too much like a 458 for me.
 
2013-07-28 05:52:11 PM

Repo Man: I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette


You've got to admire the marketing boys making lemonade out of lemons but that measurement is very misleading. The standard measure of an engine is power per unit of displacement, not weight. So the BMW unit produces 520 bhp or 118 bhp per litre compared to the 585 bhp of the LT1 or 95 bhp per litre.

So if the BMW engine was the same displacement as the LT1 is would be 731bhp, more than 140 bhp more.

Now this is a quantum leap forward for a domestic American engine but it's still being held back by having pushrods. For a performance engine in a car overhead cams are just a better option.
 
2013-07-28 06:20:29 PM
That's a gorgeous looking color. I want that on my ZL1
 
2013-07-28 06:56:32 PM

Norfolking Chance: Repo Man: I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette

You've got to admire the marketing boys making lemonade out of lemons but that measurement is very misleading. The standard measure of an engine is power per unit of displacement, not weight. So the BMW unit produces 520 bhp or 118 bhp per litre compared to the 585 bhp of the LT1 or 95 bhp per litre.

So if the BMW engine was the same displacement as the LT1 is would be 731bhp, more than 140 bhp more.

Now this is a quantum leap forward for a domestic American engine but it's still being held back by having pushrods. For a performance engine in a car overhead cams are just a better option.


I would like to see how reliable each one is in a stress test sometime.
 
2013-07-28 07:22:45 PM
Worst link-everrrr

Who the hell cares to read when you can have amazing video?
 
2013-07-28 07:29:08 PM
 
2013-07-28 07:31:33 PM

Norfolking Chance: Repo Man: I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette

You've got to admire the marketing boys making lemonade out of lemons but that measurement is very misleading. The standard measure of an engine is power per unit of displacement, not weight. So the BMW unit produces 520 bhp or 118 bhp per litre compared to the 585 bhp of the LT1 or 95 bhp per litre.

So if the BMW engine was the same displacement as the LT1 is would be 731bhp, more than 140 bhp more.

Now this is a quantum leap forward for a domestic American engine but it's still being held back by having pushrods. For a performance engine in a car overhead cams are just a better option.




No, it isn't. High specific output only really matters on paper. Why is the measurement misleading? What good is a smaller engine that makes same power (in this case, less) if it weighs more? Isn't the huge benefit of a high specific output engine supposed to be that it is smaller and lighter? And in this case, with all of the extra valve gear up high, the weight is higher in the chassis, exactly where you do not want it. In case you have not noticed, Ford's V8s have OHCs, but they are not really outclassing Chevrolet's offerings. The Chevrolet Gen III V8s have become the engine swap of choice for autos across the spectrum for many good reasons.

More power (all else being equal, or at least close to it) out of the same displacement is going to mean both torque and horsepower peaks are moved to higher RPM. This means less low RPM torque, therefore less low RPM power. A properly engineered large displacement pushrod V8 will make its horsepower peak well below the threshold RPM where the valve actuation becomes a liability. And it will make lots of low RPM torque, which makes the car a joy to drive. On a really twisty back road? Leave it in third, and let the torque pull it out of the corners. Look at this:
i43.tinypic.com

That's about 400 lb/ft at 2,000 RPM. That's what gets you going from the stoplight, and pulls you out of the corners.

If displacement is limited, either by racing class, or by government disincentives, you have to spin the engine up to make power (or used forced induction, or both). With a smaller cylinder, you cannot use two large valves, so you have to use more smaller ones. Past a certain RPM, pushrods become problematic. GM has none of those problems when designing a V8 for the Corvette.
 
2013-07-28 07:59:31 PM
 
2013-07-28 08:13:06 PM
To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine.

If you use the 4.4 from the 4 door family sedan, yes.
If you use the 4.4 from the 2 door coupe you're only 5 ponies shy, and have 480 lb-ft of torque starting @ 1750 RPM.
 
2013-07-28 08:22:52 PM
Another good video, Motor Trend - 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Z51! Especially impressive to me: 60 to 0 in 104 feet! Obviously, the Z51 package will be worth getting.
 
2013-07-28 08:42:22 PM
It took GM almost sixty years, but they finally got it right.  My great uncle bought one of the first ones off of the line (he used to run Fisher Body #2 so he knows some people).  He flew down to take the factory tour and see his motor being bolted together and they let him drive a demo.  He said they finally got it right and he has owned $200K+ Italian sports cars as well as an assortment of 'Vettes.  I don't remember the number, but he has one of the 20 production models produced.  It's dark blue with an automatic with paddle shifters.
 
2013-07-28 08:44:04 PM
#first 20 production models
 
2013-07-28 08:44:57 PM

peewinkle: He said they finally got it right


Just in time for 10$/gal gas!
 
2013-07-28 09:25:47 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: peewinkle: He said they finally got it right

Just in time for 10$/gal gas!


Commute in a Leaf, bust out the Corvette on nice sunny weekends.  Problem solved.
 
2013-07-28 10:14:36 PM
Can't wait to see all the gray headed boomers driving it around town.
 
2013-07-28 10:15:08 PM

Tom_Slick: Quantum Apostrophe: peewinkle: He said they finally got it right

Just in time for 10$/gal gas!

Commute in a Leaf, bust out the Corvette on nice sunny weekends.  Problem solved.


So the solution to rising energy costs ... is to have more cars?

That's so stupid, it must be American.
 
2013-07-28 10:29:42 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Tom_Slick: Quantum Apostrophe: peewinkle: He said they finally got it right

Just in time for 10$/gal gas!

Commute in a Leaf, bust out the Corvette on nice sunny weekends.  Problem solved.

So the solution to rising energy costs ... is to have more cars?

That's so stupid, it must be American.




No, it's the solution to having, and enjoying, a sports car.I used to ride my bicycle to work in order to save my money to blow on my Camaro. For that matter, many people with blue collar jobs have dirt track race cars that are not street legal. They have to have a pickup truck and a trailer to take it to the track, just to have fun with it.

Of course, many of the people who will have the $60,000 plus it will take to buy a new C7 won't be phased in the slightest by $10.00 a gallon gasoline.
 
2013-07-28 11:00:57 PM
My wife worked in Mooresville as a teen and met Tony Stewart a couple of times. He doesn't hink highly of the "little people"...
 
2013-07-28 11:01:52 PM
Think. Damn it, I have typical on smarts phoney.
 
2013-07-28 11:14:52 PM

Repo Man: Norfolking Chance: Repo Man: I'll get this out of the way before any "LOL, pushrods" types show up.

A key to engine building is how many ponies you can pump out per pound, and that is exactly why Chevy went to such great length to minimize the engine's weight. In fact, this 6.2-liter engine weighs just 465 lbs and is 25.3 inches tall. To put that into perspective, the ultra-powerful BMW 4.4-liter V-8 is mammoth when compared to the LT1, measuring 29.6 inches tall and weighing 503 lbs. To boot, the 4.4-liter powerplant falls 50 horsepower short of GM's new LT1 engine. This gives the LT1 6.2-liter a 1.033-pound-per-horsepower to 1.257-pound-per-horsepower victory over the famed Bimmer engine.

Chevrolet Introduces the All New LT1 V8 Engine for the C7 Corvette

You've got to admire the marketing boys making lemonade out of lemons but that measurement is very misleading. The standard measure of an engine is power per unit of displacement, not weight. So the BMW unit produces 520 bhp or 118 bhp per litre compared to the 585 bhp of the LT1 or 95 bhp per litre.

So if the BMW engine was the same displacement as the LT1 is would be 731bhp, more than 140 bhp more.

Now this is a quantum leap forward for a domestic American engine but it's still being held back by having pushrods. For a performance engine in a car overhead cams are just a better option.



No, it isn't. High specific output only really matters on paper. Why is the measurement misleading? What good is a smaller engine that makes same power (in this case, less) if it weighs more? Isn't the huge benefit of a high specific output engine supposed to be that it is smaller and lighter? And in this case, with all of the extra valve gear up high, the weight is higher in the chassis, exactly where you do not want it. In case you have not noticed, Ford's V8s have OHCs, but they are not really outclassing Chevrolet's offerings. The Chevrolet Gen III V8s have become the engine swap of choice for autos across the spectrum for many good reasons.

More power (all else being equal, or at least close to it) out of the same displacement is going to mean both torque and horsepower peaks are moved to higher RPM. This means less low RPM torque, therefore less low RPM power. A properly engineered large displacement pushrod V8 will make its horsepower peak well below the threshold RPM where the valve actuation becomes a liability. And it will make lots of low RPM torque, which makes the car a joy to drive. On a really twisty back road? Leave it in third, and let the torque pull it out of the corners. Look at this:


That's about 400 lb/ft at 2,000 RPM. That's what gets you going from the stoplight, and pulls you out of the corners.

If displacement is limited, either by racing class, or by government disincentives, you have to spin the engine up to make power (or used forced induction, or both). With a smaller cylinder, you cannot use two large valves, so you have to use more smaller ones. Past a certain RPM, pushrods become problematic. GM has none of those problems when designing a V8 for the Corvette.


That's some good info, thanks. As another guy mentioned the overall reliability and stress endurance over the lighter higher displacement gm engine would be interesting to know. Also they advertise great efficiency, but only when you run half the engine. It would also be interesting to see some real world efficiency numbers when people are actually enjoying the expensive car they just bought.
Though if I was gonna blow a bunch of cash on a nice car, id go with the vette. Nice to know they are at least trying to go toe to toe with the Germans.
 
2013-07-28 11:28:03 PM

Repo Man: Another good video, Motor Trend - 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Z51! Especially impressive to me: 60 to 0 in 104 feet! Obviously, the Z51 package will be worth getting.


Just mind boggling that they've got it down to that number. Didn't cars in the 1970s (particularly econoboxes) take a football field to get from 60 to 0?

/asks because the 70s were 20 years before his time.
 
2013-07-28 11:44:43 PM

Shakin_Haitian: My wife worked in Mooresville as a teen and met Tony Stewart a couple of times. He doesn't hink highly of the "little people"...


Your wife is a midget?
 
2013-07-28 11:52:01 PM

Craptastic: Shakin_Haitian: My wife worked in Mooresville as a teen and met Tony Stewart a couple of times. He doesn't hink highly of the "little people"...

Your wife is a midget?


In terms of wealth, she was. She got better. Kind of. Made the bad mistake of being a teacher in NC.
 
2013-07-29 12:07:45 AM

Repo Man: No, it's the solution to having, and enjoying, a sports car.I


Just rent it. Jeez, I get it, two cars is a symbol of the might of your penis to take money from the smaller penised.
 
2013-07-29 12:24:35 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Repo Man: No, it's the solution to having, and enjoying, a sports car.I

Just rent it. Jeez, I get it, two cars is a symbol of the might of your penis to take money from the smaller penised.


You sound like someone who spends a lot of time on public transportation being envious of people with cars.


---Oh, wait, it's QA.  Nevermind.  I didn't realize I was talking to a mentally disabled person.
 
2013-07-29 12:28:35 AM

RangerTaylor: You sound like someone who spends a lot of time on public transportation


That's right.

RangerTaylor: being envious of people with cars.


Envious of what?

RangerTaylor: ---Oh, wait, it's QA. Nevermind. I didn't realize I was talking to a mentally disabled person.


Ah, I see. Which kind are you? Space Nutter? 3D cornucopian?
 
2013-07-29 12:38:57 AM
You are really reaching with your analysis of the advantage of a 2-valve pushrod engine over a 4 valve DOHC engine.  Valve train weight above the chassis?  You mean, rocker arms and pushrods?  The lighter, simpler the valvetrain, the faster the engine revs and the higher the engine revs.  Flow across the valve determines where the peak HP or torque is on the RPM spectrum.  Total flow is directly related to the area of the valve face.  I can put four, smaller valves in the chamber and get the same or more total valve face area and thus equal or more flow and they will be lighter giving me the advantages listed above.  So, I have to go higher in the RPM's to get to my peak power but I don't care because I can get there a lot quicker and then make bigger power and have more response to throttle input.

Nowhere is this more highlighted than in modern motorcycle engines.  Your advice to just put it into third gear and let the torque drive you out of corners on a twisty road is analogous to telling a sportbike rider to switch to a Harley for the same reason.  Not going to happen.
 
kab
2013-07-29 01:01:46 AM
DRTFA, but did he back it into a telephone pole in an effort to improve that hideous rear end?
 
2013-07-29 01:06:58 AM

Farty McPooPants: You are really reaching with your analysis of the advantage of a 2-valve pushrod engine over a 4 valve DOHC engine.  Valve train weight above the chassis?  You mean, rocker arms and pushrods?  The lighter, simpler the valvetrain, the faster the engine revs and the higher the engine revs.  Flow across the valve determines where the peak HP or torque is on the RPM spectrum.  Total flow is directly related to the area of the valve face.  I can put four, smaller valves in the chamber and get the same or more total valve face area and thus equal or more flow and they will be lighter giving me the advantages listed above.  So, I have to go higher in the RPM's to get to my peak power but I don't care because I can get there a lot quicker and then make bigger power and have more response to throttle input.

Nowhere is this more highlighted than in modern motorcycle engines.  Your advice to just put it into third gear and let the torque drive you out of corners on a twisty road is analogous to telling a sportbike rider to switch to a Harley for the same reason.  Not going to happen.




It's funny that you mention that. I recently replaced a 2001 Suzuki Bandit with a 2012 Honda CBR 1000RR. The CBR is better in just about every way; lighter, much more sophisticated chassis and suspension, better brakes, better aero. But, when I've gotten on very twisty mountain roads, the larger displacement Bandit 1200 engine, which doesn't make nearly the peak power numbers that the CBR engine does, was much easier to ride. By the time the CBR begins to make power coming out of such corners, you're already braking for the next one. The Suzuki engine is a slightly detuned version of the old GSXR 1100 engine, just punched out a bit. With its low RPM torque, you just twist the throttle and the power is there. If there were a way I could have the CBR as it is, and also have the power band of the Bandit, that would be an ideal bike for me. The Bandit only has about 110 horsepower. The CBR has about 150. The higher peak power out of a smaller displacement engine makes it more impressive on paper, but since I spend my time on the street, and not on the track, having more power lower in the RPM range would be of more use to me. The 150 peak power, and the ability to do 180 MPH box stock? Not so much. I doubt there is a racetrack anywhere that has the sort of corners that I'm talking about; they don't make tracks like roads in the sierra mountains, so the CBR would eat the Bandit on any track anywhere. But that does me no good on the street.

Almost thirty years ago, I went for a motorcycle ride with my brother and a friend. My brother had the best bike, a Suzuki GS550E. I was riding a 1975 CB400F, and my friend was riding an old Triumph 500 twin. On the straighter roads we road on, my brother could drop us at will. But once we got up into the twisty back roads, he and my friend on the '69 Triumph kept swapping the lead. That was the first time I realized that there is more to the story than just peak horsepower.
 
2013-07-29 01:14:46 AM
Summary of this thread:

Side A: The Chevrolet engine is lighter, gets better gas mileage, and makes more power.
Side B: But in theory, the technology in the Chevy should be worse, so even though it's better in practice I'm still going to insist that it's worse.
 
2013-07-29 01:35:27 AM
"You mean, rocker arms and pushrods? The lighter, simpler the valvetrain, the faster the engine revs and the higher the engine revs."

Look at the dimensions of the two engines. Multiple cams, and multiple valves per cylinder end up adding a significant amount of weight high on the engine. In his book Power Secrets, Smokey Yunick could not stress enough how important it is to keep the weight as low as possible for handling. It was one of the major advantages that he listed for going with a dry sump oiling system (the other was that, even by the late sixties, the G forces they were pulling would lead to wet sump systems pulling air, and causing engine failures). The Chevrolet LT5 was a sophisticated DOHC V8. In spite of the fact that it was all aluminum, it actually weighed more than the aluminum head/iron block LT1 (which shared the same alpha numeric designation as the engine in the C7, but nothing else) It even had a system where one of the intake valve runners had a butterfly valve that only opened above certain RPM to try and preserve low RPM torque (another nifty feature they used was a "valet" key, that when set, kept those intake runners closed, resulting in a two intake valve engine). But, the LT1 still made more low RPM torque. And Lingenfelter could take your base Corvette's LT1, do some porting, and change the crank to one with a 3.75 inch stroke, and you had an engine that had much more torque than the LT5, about the same peak HP, less weight, and much less complication.

Don't forget, this is the base model version of the LT1 in the new C7. When they come out with a Z07 version, it will have even more power still.
 
2013-07-29 01:58:25 AM
From a Mustang/Camaro write up:

While it's fashionable to decry the Chevy's pushrod layout as antiquated, it has many inherent advantages. With only one camshaft nestled deep in the block, the engine is physically compact-the LS3 packs massive cubic displacement in considerably less volume than the sprawling Coyote with its large cylinder heads. Immediately, the LS3 is ahead where it counts most: power. Bigger engines generally make more power with less trouble and more durability than smaller engines, and that's especially true when comparing the LS3's 426 bhp at 5900 rpm to the Coyote's 412 bhp at 6500. For the record, the LS3's torque peak of 420 lb.-ft. is reached at 4600 rpm, whereas the Coyote's 390 lb.-ft. arrives at a lower 4250 rpm, thanks in part to its dual variable valve timing. As a more physically compact powerplant than the Ford, the LS3 can be employed in a smaller car, while also allowing for more working room in an existing engine compartment.
Almost as important, the 2-valve Chevy's single-cam valvetrain has many fewer parts than the Ford's jewelry store of valves, springs, rocker arms, lash adjusters, cams, phasers, pulse wheels, timing chains and tensioners. Fewer parts means less cost-always a good thing-and fewer parts can also translate into less weight. What weight the LS3 has is centered lower in the engine than in the taller Ford with its four steel cams, wider heads and four cam phasers sitting high and wide. There's a definite handling advantage to having a lower center of gravity.


Road and Track, Rival Vees
 
2013-07-29 05:27:27 AM
www.mkweb.co.uk

Stigray or nothing.
 
2013-07-29 07:23:59 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Tom_Slick: Quantum Apostrophe: peewinkle: He said they finally got it right

Just in time for 10$/gal gas!

Commute in a Leaf, bust out the Corvette on nice sunny weekends.  Problem solved.

So the solution to rising energy costs ... is to have more cars?

That's so stupid, it must be American.




Solution? Lol.
 
2013-07-29 10:20:39 AM
That is one impressive press release R&T printed for Chevy.
 
2013-07-29 10:58:38 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Repo Man: No, it's the solution to having, and enjoying, a sports car.I

Just rent it. Jeez, I get it, two cars is a symbol of the might of your penis to take money from the smaller penised.


You seem awfully interested in his penis.
 
2013-07-29 11:25:13 AM
mindreels.files.wordpress.com

Frankenstein will still be better.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report