Next Gen Corvette to steal M3 owners?

[Seattle S65B40]

Originally Posted by duk

6.2 liter and more compact than S65? wow

Who said anything about 6.2L?

From article:

"GM has approved the use of a very European-style V-8 that will be only slightly larger than 3 liters in displacement."

[mpm3]

[elp_jc]

Originally Posted by e1000

Whether it's archaic or not, the Corvette powerplant is still a well performing engine. It's more compact (if i remember correctly), lighter weight and achieves a greater absolute output than the S65, all while getting better gas mileage.

I didn't say anything about performance . It's a miracle the performance GM gets out of those engines, but it's still arcaic technology . It's obviously more compact size to size due to 1 cam vs 4, 16V vs 32, no valve timing vs quad VANOS, 1 TB vs EIGHT... etc. And yes, it's barely more powerful but you're talking 6.2 vs 4 liters. And the better fuel economy is not due to the engine itself, but light car weight and tranny ratios. Put that same engine on an M3 and it'd be rated at 12-16 rather than 14-20 . Remember the 16 rating is only due to the 1-4 skipshift crap, and the Vette weighs at least 500 lbs less than the M3. Mine had dismal fuel economy in the city with the skipshift bypassed.

Yes, it's a great car for the money, but it's almost all plastic, pushrod engine, rental car interior, and even an ALL leaf-springs suspension. And yes, I was thinking of trading the M3 for one, due to their simplicity, but couldn't get something decent for it, so will keep it. I love some of the technology on the M3, but am tired of throwing money away on cars because it doesn't make economical sense to keep them after warranty. With a Vette, I could fix almost anything, and it'd be immensely cheaper as well. And a lot less likely to fail in the first place. Different perspectives. Have a good one gang.

[e1000]

Oh no, the leaf spring argument. Both the pushrod engine and leaf springs on a Corvette, while based on old technology is in my opinion, very advanced and well engineered. I concede the fuel efficiency is mainly due to weight, aerodynamics and tall final gears, but it still doesn't change the fact that the LSx series of engines in modern Corvettes are nothing to scoff at. In any performance metric, even the lowly C6 will outperform an M3, and it just gets worse from there.

Would I drive one? No. I personally like the refinement and creature comforts of the M3.

[elp_jc]

Originally Posted by e1000

but it still doesn't change the fact that the LSx series of engines in modern Corvettes are nothing to scoff at.

Yes, but again, that doesn't change the fact it's cheap and arcaic technlology . I owned one, and was planning to own another (and also own an M3), so I know from first hand experience. Just saying the truth.

It's like saying somebody is ugly and you say it she has a great personality. It doesn't have to be one or the other; it can be both, like what we're discussing .

[JPatrick]

This is not the first time corvette headed down this path. The 1990-95 ZR-1 had a 4 CAM all aluminum engine designed by lotus and built by mercury marine. It was pretty much state of the art at the time. Really a beautiful engine. But looking at the current value of the 90-95 ZR-1s, it really never caught on like the older iron block engines.

[positiveions]

i'd still take an M3.

[eamon]

Im not too good with engines, but if its such a small v8, roughly 3 liters, putting out over 400hp, isnt that almost a bad thing? Wouldn't that mean the engine will be problematic and pretty much maxed out from all the pressure?
Like I said I dont know anything really about engines other than hp and torque but would be curious to know

[duk]

Originally Posted by Seattle S65B40

Who said anything about 6.2L?

From article:

"GM has approved the use of a very European-style V-8 that will be only slightly larger than 3 liters in displacement."

was replying to 'e1000's' post

[CrazyIvan]

Originally Posted by eatrach73

i'd still take an M3.

^+1, and room for 4-5 people, and a useable trunk....

[Darkduke]

We talked about this engine in the "M Division choosing between four possible engines for next M3" thread a little bit...

Apologies for the repost, Mkoesel. I read your comments after I had posted the topic. I was going to comment in that thread that BMW should follow GM's lead (?) when I saw you had beat me to it...

....I buy cars for their hardware and feel, not the badge.

Couldn't have said it better! In almost all of the comparisons I have read, the M3 has always outperformed other vehicles that have had similar raw numbers simply because of feel.

Also, Corvette is losing that core 35-45 year old customer, and they want them... They want my age group, the 25-30 year old guys who go and buy a used M3 to buy a used Corvette.

Precisely! One of my Co-workers, who is 20 years my senior, owns a big block 'vette. He was very skeptical of my choice...up until actually driving it. He is now a complete convert, and is looking to add an E9x as his DD. He couldn't get over the Jekyl/Hyde behavior and how managable the car was around town.

[Nautik]

Originally Posted by e1000

Whether it's archaic or not, the Corvette powerplant is still a well performing engine. It's more compact (if i remember correctly), lighter weight and achieves a greater absolute output than the S65, all while getting better gas mileage.

+1 That engine is really quite remarkable considering how much power it makes, the weight, and how efficient it is.

[skier]

Originally Posted by Nautik

+1 That engine is really quite remarkable considering how much power it makes, the weight, and how efficient it is.

Yep, no problem with the drivetrain. The interior, on the other hand, is a different story.

[templarklimek]

With BMW moving away from high rev small V8's i'm having a hard time seeing GM doing this. And while the Vette has interior issues, the platform and engine are simply awesome. and they keep getting better.

I've never driven a vette and frankly if I drove a Z06 I would most likely defect due the sheer performance and bang for buck.

Having said that the M3 offers a much more refined auto and after I S/C my
M3 then it's bliss.

Perhaps GM will go to a smaller say 5.0L engine with forced induction. They do need to address the demographic. Hard core performance guys know how awesome it is and respect for that. Buy you also have guys driving for status or "middle age crisis" Not sure what that means. They want to attract our demographic, which I look forward to seeing.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

I didn't say anything about performance . It's a miracle the performance GM gets out of those engines, but it's still arcaic technology . It's obviously more compact size to size due to 1 cam vs 4, 16V vs 32, no valve timing vs quad VANOS, 1 TB vs EIGHT... etc. And yes, it's barely more powerful but you're talking 6.2 vs 4 liters. And the better fuel economy is not due to the engine itself, but light car weight and tranny ratios. Put that same engine on an M3 and it'd be rated at 12-16 rather than 14-20 . Remember the 16 rating is only due to the 1-4 skipshift crap, and the Vette weighs at least 500 lbs less than the M3. Mine had dismal fuel economy in the city with the skipshift bypassed.

Yes, it's a great car for the money, but it's almost all plastic, pushrod engine, rental car interior, and even an ALL leaf-springs suspension. And yes, I was thinking of trading the M3 for one, due to their simplicity, but couldn't get something decent for it, so will keep it. I love some of the technology on the M3, but am tired of throwing money away on cars because it doesn't make economical sense to keep them after warranty. With a Vette, I could fix almost anything, and it'd be immensely cheaper as well. And a lot less likely to fail in the first place. Different perspectives. Have a good one gang.

You should do some research on the vette's "leaf spring archaic suspension" other than name it has nothing in common with a traditional leaf spring setup as it's a transverse spring arrangement and given that the vette uses double wishbones at all four corner it is actually a more advanced suspension design than the mcpherson strut/multi link the m3 employs.

The transverse leaf spring is used because it offers a decrease in unsprung weight and works well in its own right.

[Levi]

No way 10.000 RPM. Todays most responsive production car is he Lexus LF-A, with its 560 PS 4,8l V10 and redline at 9.500 RPM, but remember it is NA. The highest revving FI production car is the McLaren MP4-12C with its 600 PS 3,8l V8 Twin-Turbo and redline at 8.500 RPM, but its cost the price of a Ferrari 458 Italia. The next highest revving turbo cars are going to be the new Toyota Supra and if BMW wants it, the next M3, but do not expect more than 8.500 RPM, 8.000 RPM would be plenty enough compared to standard 7.000 RPM. We'll see where will the new Porsche 911 Turbo 991 have redline.

[1love]

Not.gonna.happen.

[SIIK2NR]

I've driven and ridden in so many vettes and they all just suck for quality in the interior and the structure with rattles. Vettes shake like a crack whore holding the winning lotto ticket.

[maaicher]

Originally Posted by Nelrock

To me...BMW really needs to be concerned with price.

When I bought my E46 M, the starting price was around 48K, if I remember right. The MSRP on my E92 M, was 58K and some change. Granted, I didn't pay MSRP either time, but after equipping, the E92 still came out close to 70K.
If they follow this trend and start the F3X M out in the mid to upper 60's...plus equipping...we're talking low 80K.
I love my M to death...but that's getting pretty close to pricing it outside the range I'd pay for one...considering alternatives at that sort of price.

Well said

[1love]

Originally Posted by SIIK2NR

I've driven and ridden in so many vettes and they all just suck for quality in the interior and the structure with rattles. Vettes shake like a crack whore holding the winning lotto ticket.

Eh. The same can be said for BMWs, or any other make. Considering how many parts go in each car its just impossible not to have rattles.

Unfortunately my Z4MR has a creak behind the seats somewhere whenever i go over bumps. But its all good.

[AMPowerJ]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

From arcaic pushrod engines to something not even a new $200K+ McLaren can't rev to? Oh, and sell it for $50K? Yeah, right!
Calling 10K rpm 'near' F1 (19K) levels tells you if you should take that 'article' seriously .

The engine is bulletproof. Some things don't necessary need changing for the sake of change. Call that arcaic if you wish. If GM does change the engine it will be for gas mileage ... nothing more.

[Brucewonder]

+1, but most likely at that price, ppls are gonna go Porsche

Originally Posted by Nelrock

To me...BMW really needs to be concerned with price.

When I bought my E46 M, the starting price was around 48K, if I remember right. The MSRP on my E92 M, was 58K and some change. Granted, I didn't pay MSRP either time, but after equipping, the E92 still came out close to 70K.
If they follow this trend and start the F3X M out in the mid to upper 60's...plus equipping...we're talking low 80K.
I love my M to death...but that's getting pretty close to pricing it outside the range I'd pay for one...considering alternatives at that sort of price.