GM source says Chevy planned to revive Z/28 Camaro with C8 Z06 engine

300zxfreak said:

In reply to Panhandler :

All mfrs seem to be engaged in an ugly front end contest, which I've never seen announced, but seems to have no end in sight.

Did someone say "gaping maw"?

this had to have been inteeeeeeeeeensely ugly in 1970.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

They were considered European in styling.

300zxfreak said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

By 1971 I assume you really mean 1969 ?

HA. Funny, over the years I've grown to appreciate the 69< out of necessity. There was just nothing else out there! (the same way I see this newfound appreciation of 70< Chargers due to the unobtainium of the pretty ones). Sometimes I forget how much an ugly child of an ugly decade they were -- and my first car, my second favorite - was an 80 Camaro RS. 

Appleseed said:

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

They were considered European in styling.

iansane said:

When they inevitably option the camaro in an electric drivetrain, will it be the E/28?

already taken..;)

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

Ah, but the US courts have ruled that part numbers can't be copyrighted (see Intel vs. AMD) and E28 is a chassis code, not a name.

Besides, Mazda didn't get huffy over BMW trying to ride the Mazda cachet by calling one of their 3-series the 323.    Volvo was unconcerned about the 740, either.  No word as of yet from Ferrari over the BMW F40 chassis.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Let alone the years where you could buy a Mercedes-Benz E36 and a BMW E36 at the same time!

randyracer said:

A lone voice in the wilderness for 6th-gen Camaro?  I bought one in Brilliant Blue, 4-cyl Turbo 1LE, and I think it looks terrific, and handles even better.  The 275 hp and about 300 lb/ft torque, all bottom end, is plenty for me for spirited street driving without jail or hospital time.             And I am not a fan of trendy flat-plane cranks.  GM better do it right.  The Ford GT350 vibrates and has weak low rpm pull, and cannot be raced because it beats its bearings to death.  Not impressed.        GT500, on other hand, is back to properly-engineered cross-plane. and is a fantastic powerplant.  Welcome back engineering over marketing. 

Can’t wait to make the last payment on my V6.  I’ll be looking for a 2.0t 1LE just like yours!

racerfink said: I can’t wait to make the last payment on my V6.  I’ll be looking for a 2.0t 1LE just like yours!

What does the 2.0l 1LE have that you're looking for? I think you already have the best looking bumper cover of all of the variants pre/post face lift. The 2.0l is a fine engine, but the V6 is nicer. Fuel costs are about the same due to octane requirements. Yes the 2.0l weighs 100lbs less.

My memory is very rusty, but my recollection is that the OEM shocks/springs/swaybars and maybe one link was all it took to have 1LE suspension. You could buy someone's take off SS bits (I think the springs may be different, but aren't expensive new). You can do better than the wider OEM wheels/tires. Front brakes bolt up and are inexpensive (again perhaps buy take off)

For cooling, I think there are two auxiliary rads in each side of the primary rad, I think that's straightforward to add. I think it's fairly straightforward to add the oil cooler too. The trans cooler might be slightly more challenging, not sure. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the 2.0l/V6 1LEs have the diff cooler like the SS+.

Then there are the interior bits, which probably aren't cost effective to acquire and the unattractive hood wrap.

For one, the V6 has to run in F Street, where it is simply not competitive.

And second, I really want a 2.0t 1LE.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

300zxfreak said:

In reply to Panhandler :

All mfrs seem to be engaged in an ugly front end contest, which I've never seen announced, but seems to have no end in sight.

Did someone say "gaping maw"?

 

this had to have been inteeeeeeeeeensely ugly in 1970.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Even if it is wrong.  

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Did someone say "gaping maw"?

 

this had to have been inteeeeeeeeeensely ugly in 1970.

I was there. 

It wasnt 

iansane said:

When they inevitably option the camaro in an electric drivetrain, will it be the E/28?

No.  My sources say it will be 1LEctric

I'm happy to see some love for the 2nd gen Camaro. Done properly I think they look incredible.

In reply to 350z247 :

Only before they got those hideous Endura bumpers, though.

I don't see a strong reason to go from 6.2L of torque to 5.5L.  

I seriously want a 2nd gen F body, the earlier the better.  

I really like the 16-18 pre-face lift 6th gens. I bought a red SS 1LE

As for heat soak it was a major problem on the C7 Z06s that share an engine with the ZL1. Im pretty sure the ZL1 has more grille area so maybe that solved it, but I think that really tarnished people thoughts on GM FI track cars, for the last few years, as someone mentioned, you dont really hear about it on the camaros.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to 350z247 :

Only before they got those hideous Endura bumpers, though.

This. The early split bumpers ones were a good looking car.

A 401 CJ said:

iansane said:

When they inevitably option the camaro in an electric drivetrain, will it be the E/28?

No.  My sources say it will be 1LEctric

Is your source Deep Burple?

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I don't see a strong reason to go from 6.2L of torque to 5.5L.  

I seriously want a 2nd gen F body, the earlier the better.  

Well, the original Z28 (or was it Z/28?) was a high strung 302 when you could more cheaply get a 327 or a 396.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I don't see a strong reason to go from 6.2L of torque to 5.5L.  

I seriously want a 2nd gen F body, the earlier the better.  

Well, the original Z28 (or was it Z/28?) was a high strung 302 when you could more cheaply get a 327 or a 396.

Yes it was made for 5.0L limits of trans am racing.  The 327, 350 and 396 cars had better street manners and more low end torque.  That low end torque makes cars more fun IMO.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I will admit that it makes little sense when there is no homologation to meet.  Even Chevy stuck all the DZ302 bits in a 350 for 1970 when the SCCA allowed destroking to meet the 305ci limit.

But Ford has/had the Voodoo engined Mustang, and Chevy gotta me-too.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I will admit that it makes little sense when there is no homologation to meet.  Even Chevy stuck all the DZ302 bits in a 350 for 1970 when the SCCA allowed destroking to meet the 305ci limit.

But Ford has/had the Voodoo engined Mustang, and Chevy gotta me-too.

Pretty sure the next ZO6's powerplant is more or less what they're using in the C8.R, so past is prologue here to some extent:

300zxfreak said:

In reply to Panhandler :

All mfrs seem to be engaged in an ugly front end contest, which I've never seen announced, but seems to have no end in sight.

I know that "mfrs" is meant to be "manufacturers" but I still read it as "motherberkeleyers"

Given the ambitious power targets for the Z06 engine, 86 ft-lbs/l would put it at 473 ftlbs vs. 470 for the LT2 base engine. 86ftlbs/l would be impressive, but not a record.