5.5L Gen V V8 Confirmed?

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

There is no 5.5L Gen V V8. It's a racing-only displacement. Gen V will retain the current 5.3L and 6.2L displacements.

So...if they add direct injection and variable valve timing, keep the 6th gen SS at 6.2L, and the 6th gen really does lose a few hundred pounds....

Originally Posted by Apex Chase

GM is supposed to have a 7 speed manual and I believe an 8 speed auto in the pipeline. Should result in better performance and fuel economy.

This is the one thing I don't like about current and future trends. That many gears is one thing with an automatic, but with a manual, at what point are the (diminishing) returns in performance and fuel economy of adding gears not worth the PITA factor of having to work that many gears yourself. Having a shift pattern more and more resembling that if a big rig seems like it might take some of the sports car fun out of it.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Personally, I'd go with 3 displacements (4.9L, 5.7L, and 6.5L (396 cu)), but I'm not in charge at GM.

302, 350, and 396?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

a shift pattern more and more resembling that if a big rig seems like it might take some of the sports car fun out of it...

Ironically, most big rigs have a clever switch on the shifter that chooses the low or high range because there are so many gears. The pattern resembles that of a 6-speed in cars...but there could actually be 8-12 hidden in there on a semi.

If a 7-speed makes it into cars....I'd be willing to bet that people will quickly start skipping gears as a regular practice...Even with "just" six, I often go from 1-3-6...or 1-2-5-6...

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

If a 7-speed makes it into cars....I'd be willing to bet that people will quickly start skipping gears as a regular practice...Even with "just" six, I often go from 1-3-6...or 1-2-5-6...

Yeah, I already skip gears too with just 6, usually 2-4, or 3-5.

And that makes me think of another worry. With the engineers so desperate for CAFE numbers, do they get more aggressive with skip-shift, maybe forcing a 1-5 shift, or expanding it to multiple starting gears, like forcing skips from 2-4, 2-5, etc....not just from 1?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Yeah, I already skip gears too with just 6, usually 2-4, or 3-5.

And that makes me think of another worry. With the engineers so desperate for CAFE numbers, do they get more aggressive with skip-shift, maybe forcing a 1-5 shift, or expanding it to multiple starting gears, like forcing skips from 2-4, 2-5, etc....not just from 1?

Only if it makes actual results. Lugging the engine doesn't necessarily increase fuel-economy...That said - if they do....Nothing a $20.00 mod can't fix.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Only if it makes actual results. Lugging the engine doesn't necessarily increase fuel-economy...That said - if they do....Nothing a $20.00 mod can't fix.

Some of these fuel economy-related mods are going to be the way to tell if someone's an enthusiast or a casual driver.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Yeah, I already skip gears too with just 6, usually 2-4, or 3-5.

And that makes me think of another worry. With the engineers so desperate for CAFE numbers, do they get more aggressive with skip-shift, maybe forcing a 1-5 shift, or expanding it to multiple starting gears, like forcing skips from 2-4, 2-5, etc....not just from 1?

The thing with skip shift is that the 1-4 pattern was chosen (in part) because it's at least semi natural: as you go down, bump it over then keep going down. With a little practice it can become pretty fluid. A 1-5 shift would be a lot more cumbersome: down half way, over 2, then up. Its still doable, but it would take more effort/concentration/skill than the 1-4 used today.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Only if it makes actual results. Lugging the engine doesn't necessarily increase fuel-economy...That said - if they do....Nothing a $20.00 mod can't fix.

Other solutions include a resistor & some electrical tape (total cost is under $2), starting in 2nd, tuning it out electronically, shifting a little later, or giving it some more gas (the most ironic solution of all to the gas-saving CAGS system).

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Other solutions include a resistor & some electrical tape (total cost is under $2), starting in 2nd, tuning it out electronically, shifting a little later, or giving it some more gas (the most ironic solution of all to the gas-saving CAGS system).

Yours truly does the last option...but not intentionally...

Actually...(and I've tried this over and over again)...I have to really make an effort to get CAGS to activate. It rarely happens by surprise.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Yours truly does the last option...but not intentionally...

Actually...(and I've tried this over and over again)...I have to really make an effort to get CAGS to activate. It rarely happens by surprise.

That means you're driving the car the way the engineers intended

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Apex Chase

GM is supposed to have a 7 speed manual and I believe an 8 speed auto in the pipeline. Should result in better performance and fuel economy.

I can't see extra shifts in a manual improving the quarter mile times. The extra time it takes to shift more times will offset the tiny improvment gained by the extra gear(s).

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I wouldn't be surprised if all sources of the next gen 5.5L V8 were eventually traced back to a guy who overheard a couple snippets of a conversation. He tells one of the buff books, and it spreads from there.



as for the gen Vs, I would not be surprised if GM the new 5.3L becomes a lot more visible, becoming the base V8 in Camaros & Corvettes and consolidating the small (5.3L and less) V8s in trucks. That would leave the 6.2 for high performance cars (Z06) or, in a slightly altered form, as the big gas V8 in trucks.

Personally, I'd go with 3 displacements (4.9L, 5.7L, and 6.5L (396 cu)), but I'm not in charge at GM.

Well, if we can put the CAFE standards back where they were 4 years ago, we could ALL enjoy the 6.2 in any Camaro, and not have to buy some ultra expensive limited edition model to get one.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I can't see extra shifts in a manual improving the quarter mile times. The extra time it takes to shift more times will offset the tiny improvment gained by the extra gear(s).

True.

And I think perhaps we're already starting to see that, where Automatic Camaros and CTS-Vs are faster than their manual counterparts in the quarter-mile.

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Well, if we can put the CAFE standards back where they were 4 years ago, we could ALL enjoy the 6.2 in any Camaro, and not have to buy some ultra expensive limited edition model to get one.

Also true!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Well, if we can put the CAFE standards back where they were 4 years ago, we could ALL enjoy the 6.2 in any Camaro, and not have to buy some ultra expensive limited edition model to get one.

CAFE has nothing to do with my reasoning. Since CAFE is sales weighted, 'moderate' volume performance cars mean little with regard to the CAFE score of General Motors. Their fuel economy isn't too bad & they account for between 1 and 2 percent of GM's sales volume. If the 'mainstream V8' Camaros and Corvettes see a 2 mpg improvement from using a 5.3 instead of a 6.2, then the net effect on GMs CAFE score would be something like 0.04 mpg.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

CAFE has nothing to do with my reasoning. Since CAFE is sales weighted, 'moderate' volume performance cars mean little with regard to the CAFE score of General Motors. Their fuel economy isn't too bad & they account for between 1 and 2 percent of GM's sales volume. If the 'mainstream V8' Camaros and Corvettes see a 2 mpg improvement from using a 5.3 instead of a 6.2, then the net effect on GMs CAFE score would be something like 0.04 mpg.

I think reality has rejected you. If what you say is correct, then there would be no reason to make 4 cylinder Mustange and Camaros in the next generation.