check out the new 2006 ZO-6 pics and specs

[Clem Z.]

go to www.digitalcorvettes.com

[Duke W.]

Very trick, BUT...

...it looks like the base price is going to be mid to high sixties. A 1SX Z51
coupe is beginning to look like a good value.

Chances are the article is no longer on those links as this is "embargoed" information that got out prematurely. There is a thread on the Corvette Forum C6 Z06 board where someone copied and pasted all the text, but chances are Troy will have to remove the words if GM calls him.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=975025

As of a few minutes ago the picture links still worked.

Here are some basic specs.

3130 pound curb weight, Hatchback coupe with FIXED ROOF.

7.0L 500 HP @ 6200, 475 lb-ft @ 4800, redline 7000, titanium rods, dry sump lubrication system, 2.20/1.63 inch valves, port flow up 18 percent compared to LS2.

Beefed up T-56 six-speed, no word on trans or axle ratios.

Aluminum side rails, could be all aluminum structure if center tunnel is aluminum rather than steel (unconfirmed) Magnesium alloy front and rear cross members.

Bolted magnesium roof structure with SMC panel (The roof is fixed!)

Carbon Fibre front fenders (other CF panels unconfirmed)

Battery located at right rear corner of frame rail and end bar. (Dry sump tank is in original battery location at right rear of engine compartment.)

9.5"/12" wheels; 275/35ZR-18, 325/30ZR-19 F1 Supercar runflats. (Other information indicates a Y in the service description, so it will probably have a 186 MPH speed limiter, but this is not confirmed. Unconstrained and suitably geared, top speed would be in the 200 ballpark.)

14"/13.4" vented, cross hole brake rotors (about an inch larger than base C6) with six piston fixed calipers in front, four piston fixed calipers, rear.

Duke

[Gary Bishop]

$80,000 U.S. plus *NM*

[Rich G.]

Re: Very trick, BUT...

A few months ago I bought a 2003 ZO6 with just under 4000 miles. All I can say is, these guys have come a long way in 40 years! I can't imagine a car with MORE hp and BIGGER brakes. They say the C5 ZO6 stops from 60 in 109 feet. I haven't tried that yet. Didn't want the cheese to slide off the pizza.

Very impressive car

Rich Giannotti

[Clem Z.]

Re: Very trick, BUT...

now you know why i tell people when they ask "don't you wished you kept your older corvettes" i tell them not if i had to drive them because i am not in a position of having corvettes just to set around and look at,i need a driver.

[Clem Z.]

Re: Very trick, BUT...

duke, remember the first year the dealer will mark them up 20-30K just like the ZR-1s so you are looking at 90K+ to own one. i thing maybe GM wanted the word out on price because there are a lot of C-6 buyers setting on the fence waiting for the new ZO-6 with hopes that the price will be the same as the older ZO06s. like you say the C-6 looks like a bargain at 50K.

[Duke W.]

Re: Very trick, BUT...

I keep thinking RATIONALLY - that is, guys won't go out and repeat the ZR-1 experience, but then I've known plenty of guys over the years who had more money than sense! (One just recently took the obligatory bath selling his '95 F355 that he drove no more than 5000 miles since he bought it about five years ago. It worked out to about $10 per mile including maintenance and repairs.

Who was it who said those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it? Burke? Gladstone? Churchhill?

It was Henry Ford who said "history is bunk", so maybe some still believe it.

My understanding is that Z06 production is targeted at about 5500 per year, so in a few years they won't exactly be rare.

Duke

[Clem Z.]

Re: Very trick, BUT...

the first ZR-1 at the dealership mrs clem wrote the deal 85K 25K over sticker and the guy hauled it away on a rollback so it would not have any miles on it. the shark indy pace car stickered for about 13K and they sold new at the car auction for 20K. there are people who will pay over sticker for a car they want bad enought and the money difference do not mean squat to them. dealers in areas where they know the money is will bid them up from other dealers just to get them. i will get one if they come with a auto trans but i will wait till the rush is over maybe 2007. there are 2006 ZO-6s already on ebay

[Clem Z.]

dry sump????

i wonder if the oiling system is not a true dry sump but what GM used on the ASA engines. a single stage external scavage pump to the pan that moves the oil to the tank and the stock front mounted crank driven oil pump supplies the pressure.

[Duke W.]

Re: dry sump????

By my definition a dry sump is any system that uses something other than gravity to return ALL the oil to the area of the oil pickup, and the sump is isolated from the crankcase regardless of whether it is integral to the engine or remote.

I am sure that the LS7 scavenge pump(s) are internal, not external. The tank is at the right rear of the engine compartment - where I think the battery is on other C6 models. (Z06 battery is now behind the right rear wheel.) I have no doubt that it is a "true drysump" by any definition.

The tank is not huge, but a dry sump does not have to be since proper scavenging should keep oil from building up inside the engine.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: check out the new 2006 ZO-6 pics and specs

clem, et al-----

To some extent the new 7.0L LS-7 engine worries me a bit. The basic architecture of the Gen III (and, GEN IV) engine was based on a family of engines in the 4.8L to 5.7L displacement range. Largely, that was set when the 4.40" bore spacing, exactly the same as the Gen I and II small blocks, was established early in the design stage. Shortly after its initial introduction, the upper end of the design size limitations were "stretched" when the 6.0L engine was introduced for trucks. However, this engine was a cast iron block-only configuration which allowed some extra bore size increase without the "constraints" otherwise imposed by the aluminum block with cylinder liners.

For the GEN IV series, the aluminum block versions have been slightly "stretched" to 6.0L and now we have the "super-stretched" 7.0L which includes a significant increase in bore and stroke.

GM tried something like this before. With the GEN I engine, which began at 265 cid, the displacement was progressively increased to 283, 327, 350, and, finally, 400. Up to the 350 (5.7L) stage, everything went beautifully. Then came the 400 cid.

This sort of reminds me of an old comedy routine of Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. Johnny would tell a joke that gets a big laugh out of the audience. Then, he'd tell a series "follow-on" jokes, each building on the success of the first in getting the audience howling with laughter. Finally, the last in the follow-on series would "flop". Then, Johnny would say "one too many". For the Gen I engine, the 400 cid was "one too many". In the Ed Cole-driven effort to squeeze as many cubes as possible out of the small block, they just went too far and ended up with an engine that was not very successful, at all. Strangely, GM never manufactured as a PRODUCTION engine a combination which the aftermarket made very successful----the 350 bore size of 4.00" with the 400's 3.75" stroke to yield 383 cid (GM has started making this engine configuration for SERVICE-only during the last several years, though).

GM could have manufactured a very large small block at the 7.0L (or, larger) size with the GEN I engine. The aftermarket has been doing it for years. However, GM NEVER did this. Instead, they used a larger bore-spacing engine to achieve the larger displacements. We know this as the "big block". If the small block was just as good with large displacements, then why did GM ever design and manufacture a big block?

For sure, the LS-7 engine of today has been stretched to the "outer limits" of displacement. I believe that it's been stretched well beyond the design parameters of its originally concieved architecture. After all, the engine was designed around a maximum of 5.7L displacement. Due to the HUGE costs associated with design, tooling, and manufacture of a new engine series, the major design parameters are necessarily going to be set around the architecture that works best for the vast majority of requirements. The vast majority (probably 99%) of the requirements which GM has for V-8 engines fall in the 4.5L to 5.7L range. So, that's what the engine design paramters were optimized for.

The next thing you know, GM is involved in a "power" war with the Dodge Viper (which has 10 big cylinders, by the way). Something has to be done to "compete". So, the little V-8 gets "super-stretched". I realize, of course, that the 7.0L configuration has worked out very well for the C5R during the past season. However, this is a specially built engine by Katech which bears little resemblence to the Gen III (and, Gen IV) PRODUCTION engines. Plus, these engines are designed to last a race under racing conditions; NOT the day-in-and-day-out "challenges" which a street engine faces. Certainly, durability is proven by the 7.0L C5R engine, but will that translate into durability for the 7.0L LS-7 street engine?

Another consideration here is how much is too much? For a street engine, I really think that power and torque in the "400" range is just about the maximum that is usable under virtually any street conditions that fall below 200% of the legal limits. Everything beyond that is just about "bragging rights", "prestige", "machismo", "ego-mania", "one-upsmanship", and so on and so on. Even with my "ZL-1" project, I'm not building the engine around original power levels. As I've said numerous times before, that configuration produces a poorly driveable machine. Even more important, though, is the fact that a C-2 or C-3 chassis and drivetrain must be modified to hold up to "500+" power and torque levels and there's NO WAY I'm going to modify the drivetrain and chassis of my car. And, on top of this, you end up with a machine that has power and torque that you can NEVER use on the street. So, I'm shooting for 450-475 hp and about 500 lb/ft of torque. Even that's really too much in any meaningful sense and if it proves to be a problem I'll make mods to downgrade it.

Something else has always made me wonder about the Gen III small block: how come these engines are not used by NASCAR teams and many other forms of racing where the original GEN I small block is still ubiquitous? The Gen III engine has been around now for 8 full model years, so it's not as if it's an unknown, "new-fangled" sort of thing.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that GM's validation process will ensure that the new 7.0L LS-7 is not "one too many". But, the 400 cid Gen I went through such a validation process, too. So, I'm a little worried.

[Gary Bishop]

Re: My 2003

My 2003 had to have a new engine put in last spring. The original had about 6,300 miles on it when the block cracked between #3 and #5 cylinder walls. They say it was a bad casting which a few received.

[Clem Z.]

Re: check out the new 2006 ZO-6 pics and specs

GM tried to NASCAR to approve a new engine but NASCAR shot them down. NASCAR makes sure no one get ahead of the other manufactures because when dodge came into NASCAR they approved a large bore short stroke engine that turned out to be a better performer than either GM or ford so NASCAR set a max bore limit of 4.155. dodge complained because their block would now be heavier than the other 2 but NASCAR said tought s--t. it took a year for dodge to get a new block cast and for that year they were not doing very well in NASCAR. the new 7 liter engine has a new block that they have been using in the caddy race cars but the caddy did not have the stroke of the new ZO-6 engine. the caddy engine was 4.150 bore X 3.27 stroke and the 7 Liter is 4.125 X 4.00

[Mark #28455]

Huh?

Duke,
You are correct that the C3 chassis doesn't hold up well to higher torque loads but that only matters in first gear due to the torque multiplication effect of the trans and rear. With a higher horsepower engine, your tires become the limiting factor and with stock sized tires, you just smoke the tires. When you're attempting a pass on the highway in third or fourth gear, the higher horse motors really come alive.

What's the point in building a ZL1 if a Mustang Cobra is faster?

I have stroked my L89 to 489 cu in and first and second gears do smoke the tires but third pulls like you wouldn't believe! You should get a 4.25" stroker crank for your ZL1 and build it with the JE 9.5:1 pistons. With a reasonable cam it will idle great and tolerate even pump gas just fine.

Good luck with your project!
Mark

[Clem Z.]

there is no replacement for displacement

i drove a 482 cu in aluminum headed BBC in a pickup for years till the gas crunch came. there is nothing like being able to spin the rear tires at 50 MPH while passing someone.i used to beat corvettes from redlights with a couple of dirtbikes or a snowmobile in the bed for traction. this truck would run 130 mph and a few porsche drivers were left scratching their heads. i even blew one away while pulling a trailer with 3 dirt bikes. i could put on quite a shower of sparks on the dry roads when i had on my studded snow tires. this was in my younger days and my reflexes were much faster. my C-6 corvette sometimes takes me by suprise now.