By on December 4, 2013

Z06_teaser

Just off the wires, we have word from Chevrolet that the 2015 Corvette Z06 will debut at NAIAS in January – the perfect time slot to steal some of the thunder from the Blue Oval, which will show the all-new Mustang and the F-150 to the public for the first time. Last year, Ford managed to upstage GM’s truck debuts with the surprise unveiling of the Atlas concept. Looks like GM is exacting some revenge.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

44 Comments on “Chevrolet Confirms 2015 Corvette Z06 To Debut At NAIAS...”


  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    But…it”s a GM. It was a Corvette that caused me to swear off GM, further reinforced by the bailout.

    I’m still not feeling excited here, so must be more time for healing is needed. A lot more time.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    Ok, but still both the Mustang and the F150 are more significant than any new Vette, just based on sales volume and money generated for the manufacturer, I’ve never heard of anyone wanting to buy a GM product just because they make the Vette.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      I’ve never heard of anyone wanting to buy a Ford product just because they make the Mustang. Have you?

      And to delve a bit deeper, when Ford was making the GT I don’t know anyone who purchased a lesser Ford because the GT existed. Maybe you did.

      By all means please let us know.

      • 0 avatar
        Volt 230

        Vette is a halo car, Mustang is not. Ford has no direct competitor to the Vette. For that, I must give kudos to GM. Let’s see if they can take on the imports now!

        • 0 avatar
          hubcap

          The Mustang IS Ford’s halo car. Maybe not in base V-6 guise but in BOSS or GT-500 form it certainly is and has been for a long time.

        • 0 avatar
          Type57SC

          So you don’t think people look at the Mustang and are redirected (in the dealership or website) or take notice (through marketing) of the Fusion or Escape and say – yeah, I need the practicality so that’s what I’ll get instead?

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            I certainly do not think Mustang shoppers cross shop the Escape.

            Just as I would not think a Camaro shopper would leave in an Equinox.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      A Camry is significant to Toyota’s bottom line but I don’t think one has ever stole the stage at a major auto show. I think the Mustang’s very derivative looks will be a disappointment though. And the Z06 is not a new idea. So I don’t know if either will really stomp the other as far as show impact.

      • 0 avatar
        suspekt

        I must disagree.
        When a major OEM unveils their bread and butter product (Camry, Accord, F150), it does steal the show.

        Also, I love combing over the design of the volume products far more than the niche offerings because there is far more effort put into the mainstream designs. From a design standpoint, they need to remain fresh and relevant to the consumer after being seen thousads of times on city streets.

        I think it is far more difficult designing a product to stand this test then for say, a Boxster, to look fresh because it just isn’t seen as often.

  • avatar
    raph

    Hmmm… I thought Ford would have debuted the Mustang at NYIAS given New York State’s historical significance.

    Also seems silly to steal thunder from each Ford product by debuting them at the same time?

    • 0 avatar
      jz78817

      you mean NYS’s unwarranted self-importance?

      • 0 avatar
        cdotson

        jz78817:

        I agree New York has extreme levels of unwarranted self-importance, but I would accuse the City of that more so than the entire state.

        While I wouldn’t consider it historical significance, it is true the first production Mustang made its debut at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York.

  • avatar
    hubcap

    The new Mustang will be on full public view tomorrow. I’m excited to see what the new ZO6 will bring to the table and if it will remain naturally aspirated or gain a smaller displacement twin turbo set-up as has been rumored.

  • avatar
    mjz

    Ford’s going to show brand new versions of two of its most iconic products, and GM expects to steal thunder from them with a High-Zoot Corvette. Ain’t gonna happen.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Good time to introduce an all aluminum twin turbo 8.1L?

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I’d prefer a DOHC 32 valve LS7, that would probably make somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 to 650 horsepower.

      • 0 avatar
        davefromcalgary

        Wouldn’t DOHC 4 Valve defeat the purpose of the small block design philosophy?

        • 0 avatar
          imag

          Yes. It also wouldn’t fit under the hood and would raise the center of gravity significantly.

          And it’s unlikely to be even feasible with the LS7.

          And people build 600 hp LSXs all the time without DOHC.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            But would that be streetable at all? You can build an 800 horsepower turbo small block that will run low 8s in the 1/4 mile all day long, but it would be completely unlivable.

            Only way I can see to make more power would be to either make a bigger LS9, make a production EFI LSX454, or keep the LS7 and add turbos. Unless just adding variable valve timing and direct injection (assuming the LS7 doesn’t have those already) would add a good deal more power.

          • 0 avatar
            imag

            @NoGoYo

            My understanding is that if you go with forced induction, there is no need to have seven liters, and the big bores in a small block may not have the strength required to handle it.

            The new LT1 will likely be a much better fit for a forced induction Z06. Considering that it just came out with 460 horsepower, it will likely that it will be able to exceed the old LS7 in naturally aspirated form.

            Regardless, the Chevy motors are designed and optimized around pushrods, and considering that they got the LS7 up to 7000 RPM redline with titanium bits, I’d say they are doing darned well at it.

            Anyway, I can’t figure out why I need more than 500 horsepower, but that’s just me.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          Seeing as there are no “big blocks” any more, the “small block” philosophy is obsolete. Ford has a 5 liter V8 (DOHC 32V) that makes almost as much power as GM’s 6.2 liter V8 (OHV 16V). Keeping engine size down is great and all, but an OHC engine would make more power, just as pretty much all OHC engines do.

          GM 3.4 V6 (175 hp, 12V OHV) vs Chrysler 3.5 V6 (215 hp to start, SOHC 24V), for example.

          Granted, such an engine would be better suited for an Italian supercar style mid mounting, because it wouldn’t fit under a Corvette hood…

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            Let’s not cherry pick data to make your point pointing to the ancient GM 3.4.

            The GM 3.5 produced 200 HP at debut in 2004, and 217 HP by 2007. Push rods and all.

            The argument against push rods is as silly as calling the live axle in the Mustang archaic. I hear Toyota is still using 4-speed autos and Chrysler still clings to the 5-speed auto.

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            “Seeing as there are no “big blocks” any more, the “small block” philosophy is obsolete. Ford has a 5 liter V8 (DOHC 32V) that makes almost as much power as GM’s 6.2 liter V8 (OHV 16V).”

            and they get roughly equivalent fuel economy. Seriously, I own a ’12 Mustang GT and I don’t give a shit that the Camaro SS’s engine is 1.2 liters larger. They both make ~420 hp and both get similar fuel economy.

            Get this through your head: *nobody who wants one of these cars gives a shit about your uninformed gripes.* OHV vs. SOHC vs. DOHC is unimportant. Only the results matter.

            When you’re old enough to actually buy your very own car, maybe you’ll realize this.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            LSx engines owe no one an apology. Give GM credit when it is due, and its due here.

  • avatar
    imag

    Let’s hear it for fender flares.

  • avatar
    Dan R

    Who cares?

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    @APaGttH: You, my friend, are the cherry picker. I compared a 1990s spec 3.4 to Chrysler’s 3.5 of the same time period. It took 14 years for GM to get a 3.5 pushrod V6 to make the same amount of power as a SOHC 24 valve V6 from 1993. And by 2007 that same 3.5 Chrysler V6 had been making 250 horsepower (with the exception of the slightly lower output 234 hp version) for eight years.

    I just don’t see how GM could produce a major change from the LS7’s current 505 horsepower output while maintaining OHV architecture without:

    A: Making the engine bigger

    or

    B: Adding forced induction.

    And not changing the power output at all when the regular ‘Vette got a power boost would just be strange.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Pushrods are not a limiting factor, OHC has 1 advantage over Pushrods, and that is RPM.

      Otherwise anything an OHC can do, a OHV can do better.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        So GM’s pushrod V6 was a lame duck not because pushrods are bad, but because GM engineers are bad? I can live with that.

        I wonder what prevents a pushrod 3 or 4 valve per cylinder engine from being unfeasible, though. I’m guessing there’s just not enough room for the extra pushrods, lifters, and rocker arms.

        • 0 avatar
          Athos Nobile

          “I wonder what prevents a pushrod 3 or 4 valve per cylinder engine from being unfeasible”

          Have a look at some old Mack engine heads ;-)

          IIRC even some CAT have 4 valves per cylinder with pushrods.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Hold up, I broke the English language in that comment a bit…

            Take out the un.

            And hey, pushrod 3 and 4 valve per cylinder diesels? That sounds genuinely fascinating.

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        the only people who complain about pushrods are people who think they’re experts because they slavishly watch Top Gear.

        Drooling morons, in other words.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          Well if pushrods don’t hold an engine back, then Ford’s engineers must just be geniuses for managing almost as much power as the LS3 out of a 5 liter motor. Guessing it’s all about revs, like Ferrari’s screaming banshee short-stroke V8 that makes 542 hp from 4.5 liters.

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            “Well if pushrods don’t hold an engine back, then Ford’s engineers must just be geniuses for managing almost as much power as the LS3 out of a 5 liter motor.”

            displacement is for the most part irrelevant, little boy. Yes, the Camaro has a larger displacement engine for similar power output, but that comes with essentially no penalty in fuel consumption. So, long story short, you have a lot to learn about how engines work before you can even pretend to have any credibility.

            “Guessing it’s all about revs, like Ferrari’s screaming banshee short-stroke V8 that makes 542 hp from 4.5 liters.”

            I don’t think you want to be making this argument. The 458 is 300 lbs lighter than the Mustang GT, and 5-600 lbs lighter than the Camaro, yet gets way (WAY) worse fuel economy.

            There is a very real penalty which comes with high-specific-output engines. they make high peak hp, but that peak gets very narrow. And a peaky, HSO engine is even less efficient away from its power peak than an engine with lower specific output but a broader power/torque band.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Displacement is not physical size or weight, it is just a calculated number. So unless you live in a place with a displacement tax, I guess I don’t know why it matters in the first place.

      Here’s the size comparison of the Ford 4.6 versus the 4.9L V8. The 4.6L is physically “bigger” even though it has a smaller displacement:

      http://tinyurl.com/n7rsndr

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Well it used to be that bigger engines made more power than smaller ones, but that went away starting in the 70s. Now I guess displacement really is just a number.

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      The LT1 has as much torque as an LS7 and added a fair amount of horsepower over the LS3 by using heavily optimized internals and airflow, as well as variable valve timing. And they have increased the fuel economy. Considering how the LSx progressed over its lifetime, I do not expect that they are near the upper limit.

      I appreciate DOHC motors, but I also respect what Chevy has done with the small block. Try to buy a motor from another manufacturer that puts out similar power to weight and size. There are a couple supercar motors that will do it, but they are 3x-10x the cost and won’t last nearly as long or deliver anything near the fuel economy.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    Well I know enough to know that RPMs are what make power for many a naturally aspirated engine, and the Ferrari V8 makes as much power as it does because it revs so high.

    And hey, I’m not trying to be an expert…if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and free knowledge is a damned useful thing. I probably learn more stuff that I actually care about on here than I do paying for college classes.

    • 0 avatar
      jz78817

      “Well I know enough to know that RPMs are what make power for many a naturally aspirated engine, and the Ferrari V8 makes as much power as it does because it revs so high. ”

      yes, but the flip side to that is that an engine which needs to rev high to make rated power is not always going to be pleasant to drive on the street. The higher an engine’s specific output gets, (generally) the narrower the powerband. On a track, a skilled driver can know how to use such a peaky beast of an engine. On the street… well… there’s a reason we’re now seeing 8- and 9-speed transmissions. I mean, F1 cars make insane hp at insane RPM, but you need a month of training just to learn how to get the damn car moving without stalling the engine.

      put another way, I have a ’12 Mustang GT. It can put out 412 hp. It is the most powerful vehicle I’ve ever owned. 95% of the time, I’m not making use of that, and I’m thankful it has reasonable low-end torque and good mid-range power. And you need to learn that simply quoting peak hp numbers is pointless when practically none of us ever make use of that.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        That makes sense, a main complaint against rotary engines is their lack of torque. Granted, I don’t think a Ferrari 458 is supposed to be an every day street car.

        • 0 avatar
          jz78817

          well then you can’t hold up one engine as superior against another just based on numbers, or how its valves are opened.

          as far as Wankel engines go, their main benefit is a high power-to-weight ratio. otherwise they’re terribly peaky and horribly inefficient. Not as bad as gas turbines, though.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States