- 9,884
- Carthage, TN
- race_emhard
The next Chevrolet Camaro Z28 won't be unleashed onto unsuspecting Shelby GT500s for quite sometime, with the SS getting 426 Mustang Crushing HPs from a LS3, I was thinking, what engine should the Z28 have?
next Z28 engine
- Thread starter Azure Flare
- 32 comments
- 1,446 views
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
You're a Chevy guy, this I can see. Now, how does the small straightline performance gap between the Mustang and Camaro count as being "crushed?" You guys really should have more speed.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,723
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I thought the Z28 was rumored to be dead?
http://blogs.automobilemag.com/6558678/car-news/bob-lutz-hints-camaro-z28-is-dead-again/index.html
http://blogs.automobilemag.com/6558678/car-news/bob-lutz-hints-camaro-z28-is-dead-again/index.html
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
Try 302ci.
The 305 was a piece of dog crap with small bores and lots of low end torque. The proper Z/28 had a 302 using the exact same dimensions as Ford's 302 (4" bore, 3" stroke) and was a properly revvy motor.
Now then... Mustang gets 400hp base V8 = dead Camaro is dead. GT500 can always take a bit more boost and hit 600+hp.
Fail flame war thread has failed.
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
Tradition would dictate a 350, 396, or 400. Never a 305. Why? Because of what RJ said
Although I'd imagine that that was the '69 Z/28, yes?
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
Notice I said proper Z/28, not Z28 
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
Not at all the same and that's the issue.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Chevy put a 283 crank in a 327 block which came out to just over 302ci.
305ci was the maximum for Trans am racing back when the Z/28 came out, perhaps thats where the confusion came from. Please don't tell me you confused the 60's 302 with the '80's turd of a 305.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure the Z28 project is dead, but it'll most likely be the LSA or LS9
305ci was the maximum for Trans am racing back when the Z/28 came out, perhaps thats where the confusion came from. Please don't tell me you confused the 60's 302 with the '80's turd of a 305.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure the Z28 project is dead, but it'll most likely be the LSA or LS9
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
I voted jet engine because that is the only thing that will make the 5th gen Camaro any good.
Mustang crushing? Suuuuuuure. *hands over more kool-aid* Your precious SS has trouble keeping up with the regular Mustang GT--the '10 GT500 would probably wipe the floor with it.
+50 points!
I'll second that.
At least it will make a properly good noise, something the LSx engine doesn't make stock.
I'll assume you meant 302.
Although I would love to see a modern 305ci with some proper EFI and direct injection.
It served a purpose, and excelled doing it. It was a cheap, reliable and more importantly not a V6 so that automatically says
to you. It wasn't slow, it made a great noise, it was cheap to maintain and most importantly GM thanks to the WONDERFULLY CRAPPY US Goverment choked the engine with emissions junk. I changed the intake and added a catback (and hollowed out the catalytic converter) and increased almost 40bhp over stock. Wait until my Camaro is finished then you will apologize about insulting the 305. 👍
-51 points...
Kiss my Camaro RS 305's butt.
Mustang crushing? Suuuuuuure. *hands over more kool-aid* Your precious SS has trouble keeping up with the regular Mustang GT--the '10 GT500 would probably wipe the floor with it.+50 points!
I'll second that.
At least it will make a properly good noise, something the LSx engine doesn't make stock. I'll assume you meant 302.
Although I would love to see a modern 305ci with some proper EFI and direct injection. It served a purpose, and excelled doing it. It was a cheap, reliable and more importantly not a V6 so that automatically says
to you. It wasn't slow, it made a great noise, it was cheap to maintain and most importantly GM thanks to the WONDERFULLY CRAPPY US Goverment choked the engine with emissions junk. I changed the intake and added a catback (and hollowed out the catalytic converter) and increased almost 40bhp over stock. Wait until my Camaro is finished then you will apologize about insulting the 305. 👍Never a 305. Why? Because of what RJ said
-51 points...
Kiss my Camaro RS 305's butt.
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
I voted jet engine because that is the only thing that will make the 5th gen Camaro any good.
+50 points!
I'll second that.
I'll assume you meant 302.
It served a purpose, and excelled doing it. It was a cheap, reliable and more importantly not a V6 so that automatically says
-51 points...
Kiss my Camaro RS 305's butt.
You sure love your 305. I think it's a nice engine too, almost bought 2 different F-bods with it. Either way though, the 305 isn't very legendary, has a bad street rep, and is outclassed by the 350.
The Ultimate TBI DIY thing on 3rdgen.org was very enlightening. Another reason I was looking into the cars, besides the fact I could afford them before I lost my job.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
The 305 was underpowered in stock configuration, I dislike small bores, and no matter how much polishing you do, a Chevy 302 would be infinitely more awesome.
- 41,058
Yes. That is what the GT500 needs. More power. Nevermind the boat anchor over the front wheels.
Didn't Chevy do some fiddling with a 302 engine in a couple of concept Camaros in the late 90s?
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
- 41,058
Did I neglect to mention the $20,000 surcharge? If I was going to spend $50,000 on a RWD car for committing hooliganism, I would buy one that at least pretends to turn left and right, slushbox be damned. Considering the power, the GT500 still isn't really particularly fast anyways; probably due at least in part to the boat anchor over the front axle. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, and this argument isn't one that is particularly new or really worth bothering with.
Anyways, how did Chevy make the classic 302? It was a 283 stroke and a 327 bore, right? Do GM even make any engines that would allow a similar design anymore?
Anyways, how did Chevy make the classic 302? It was a 283 stroke and a 327 bore, right? Do GM even make any engines that would allow a similar design anymore?
Last edited:
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,474
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Not quite that much...
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests..._gt500_chevrolet_camaro_comparison/index.html
52/48 vs 58/42, I know which one I would take. It would be hard to justify buying the GT500 over the GT too.
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
I said jet engine, because I'm pretty sure the Z28 isn't even coming, straight from Lutz's mouth. Additionally, as much as I'm a GM man and would buy a Camaro regardless, when the Mustang gets its 5.0L alloy block V8 next year or late this year it will be the one doing the crushing, even less weight, much more power and I wouldn't be surprised to even see it matching or beating a 370Z in cornering. They should have made the Camaro smaller from the start, or right now employ serious weight reductions like the Commodore is supposedly slated for.
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
Probably because the Commodore's lightening scheme involves removing all U.S. required crash structure?
Personally think that Z28 should be between SS and LS.
Personally think that Z28 should be between SS and LS.
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
And a Ford 302 is infinitely even more awesome
The GT500 is getting an aluminum block and more internals from the Ford GT now. So that should shed about 100 pounds off the front, IIRC
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
Ford actually denied using an aluminum block, they are still using the iron block in the 2010. The dry sump system from the Ford GT wouldn't fit in the engine bay of the GT500 so they couldn't use the aluminum block without doing some re-engineering of the engine bay.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/17/2010-shelby-gt500-uses-cast-iron-not-aluminum-block/
- 1,376
- GTP_LSX
If GM were to produce a Z/28, it would be very nice if they opted for a DI version of their LS3 or LS9, or just made a new motor all together. Producing a new motor and showcasing it in the Camaro is highly unlikely. The new DI V6 @ +/-300 Hp is no slouch, the LS1 from the fourth generation F-Body cars ran about that stock. I know they said 315-330, but very few cars would actually produce that at the rear wheels without free mods and bolt-ons or SLP mods. It would, IMO, be a much cooler option than strapping a blower to it. High rev, Direct Injected, Variable Valve Timing, Variable Cam Timing, DOHC 32v and any other abbreviations that could be thrown at it LS based motor? 
Not likely, but would be very cool, IMO.
I'd like to see a weight drop for the Z more than anything, Like the 3rd/4th generation 1-LE racing package. Though it would have to be more extensive on the 5th gen as far as weight savings goes. Also I doubt many people would want to pay top dollar for the TOP model Z/28 while having a lesser equipped car, as far as goodies go compared to the lesser powered SS model. Not everyone wants to go to the track and turn laps, most wanna turn heads. I was hoping it would be lighter, though not many cars are light these days. Also, as much as I have followed and drooled over a '10 Camaro, I can't see buying one, now that GM is Government Motors and all, I'd rather spend my money with a company that didn't take tax payer money, then not even take care of its secure debtors during a bankruptcy. Besides the '10 Mustang looks very nice, down on power but 350Lbs+ lighter than the Camaro. Not that I'd be able to afford either one at this time though.
Still though, seeing a orange SS with black stripes is enough to break a neck, it's so weird seeing something you've seen on the monitor for years passing you on the interstate, or parked next to you at the grocery store.
Not likely, but would be very cool, IMO.I'd like to see a weight drop for the Z more than anything, Like the 3rd/4th generation 1-LE racing package. Though it would have to be more extensive on the 5th gen as far as weight savings goes. Also I doubt many people would want to pay top dollar for the TOP model Z/28 while having a lesser equipped car, as far as goodies go compared to the lesser powered SS model. Not everyone wants to go to the track and turn laps, most wanna turn heads
. I was hoping it would be lighter, though not many cars are light these days. Also, as much as I have followed and drooled over a '10 Camaro, I can't see buying one, now that GM is Government Motors and all, I'd rather spend my money with a company that didn't take tax payer money, then not even take care of its secure debtors during a bankruptcy. Besides the '10 Mustang looks very nice, down on power but 350Lbs+ lighter than the Camaro. Not that I'd be able to afford either one at this time though.Still though, seeing a orange SS with black stripes is enough to break a neck, it's so weird seeing something you've seen on the monitor for years passing you on the interstate, or parked next to you at the grocery store.
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
To answer this question, they did, and it was near the end of the 4th gens lifeapan. The engines were custom built by a shop outside of Detroit, using a significantly reworked LS1 as its basis. It would have been great if they did it, but in some respects, the 5.3L V8 used in the truck line would have been a better choice.
Oh, and I voted foe the LS7, even if the project is dead.
Eric.
Premium
- 8,515
- GTP_Eric
- Ebiggs
Just skimming through that Motor Trend article with the Shelby...They ran a 12.8 in the Shelby. The Camaro SS is capable of 12.47 12.87 stock.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33047
Edit: Whoops, thought it was 12.47, the article claimed it was a tenth slower, so this supports that. Nothing to see here.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33047
Edit: Whoops, thought it was 12.47, the article claimed it was a tenth slower, so this supports that. Nothing to see here.
Similar threads
- Poll
