chevrolet corvette 2005

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  chevrolet corvette 2005

Engine Engine power Fuel consumption Fuel type 0-100 (0-60) Top speed
6.0 i V8 405 hp 13.5 l/100km Petrol 4.5 s 290 km/h
7.0 i V8 Z06 505 hp ? Petrol 3.5 s ?
Body type Coupe
Number of doors 2
Number of seats 2
Engine position Front
Driven wheels Rear
Length 4 435 mm
Width 1 845 mm
Height 1 245 mm
Wheelbase 2 685 mm
Ground clearance 90 mm
Weight (normal) 1 470 kg
Weight (max) 1 750 kg
Boot space (min) 635 l
Boot space (max) 635 l
Fuel capacity 68 l


What do you think about this car? please comment.

posted by  mercedes_fan

The Corvette pwns all!!!:smoke:

posted by  Andrew0261

i think they are under-powered for how big the motors are.

posted by  jackal2000

The 7.0 liter 505hp LS7 is physically smaller and lighter than the BMW M5's V10. I bet you don't complain about that motor.

LS7>M5 my opinion

posted by  My Life, My Era

Good Call MY life you beat me to it. These are great cars and even better for the money. Road and Track awarded it the best all around sports car (Non-Z06).

And why does it matter when a car makes a great amount of power with a little more displacement but still in a lightweight package. To me it just means you have more cubes to work with when you start modifying. And with more displacement there is always more POTENTIAL for power.

posted by  Enthusiast

I don't understand what a BMW V10 engine has to do with a small block V8? Just because they produce similar power? A small block V8 is physically smaller than a V10... not a strange occurrence. Even if the two are 2.0L apart. However he is speaking in context of "size" meaning "liters" as engines are almost always referred to.

Am I agreeing that the LS7 should put out more power for its size? No. However, there are engines that are smaller and put out more power. For example:

6.3L V8 @ 507 hp

The reason being is that these are production cars. Fuel consumption factors greatly into the design and potential for power isn't solely based on displacement. There are a lot of things that go into the design of an engine other than its displacement. Even one who speaks of the engineering of the LS7 should know this. Being that it is a highly engineering V8.

For some odd reason the comparison of a performance sedans engine to a sports coupe has been a prevalent one.
LS7 Vs M5 (

posted by  DSMer

I think they just don't tune their engines so much. I can't think of any domestic car that tunes its engine a lot to increase volumetric efficiency. I can't even think of a domestic engine that makes 80hp/L.

The advantages of greater displacement with less hp/L is a greater torque:hp ratio.

I still like cars that get 100hp/L (more than 4 cyl) like the m5 v10.

posted by  Bronxie

If you use the context clues given to you in my statement, you would see that I used the M5's V10 as an example to illustrate that more displacement does not always translate into a physically larger engine. This ignorant belief is the bread and butter hate topic of American sports car haters. I'd prefer a lightweight large displacement engine over a heavier smaller displacement engine if both produced the same horsepower.
To further answer your question, I used the M5's V10 because that is one of the most praised engines in the world while the LS7 gets most of its love primarily in America....even though the LS7 is lighter, smaller, produces more torque and a broader powercurve and has proven to be the easier and more reliable of the two engines to tune for high power. "Shock" factor. What better engine to make a point against than one of the most loved?

This is generalizing V10s and, in general, a poor comparison. You're comparing a type of V8 to the entire V10 category.

Since when does displacement dictate fuel consumption? I hate to go back to the M5, but the smaller displacing M5 engine gets 14 mpg while the Z06 gets like 22-26 mpg. The smaller displacement isn't helping the M5's mpg. Other factors are determing the mpg rating.

Highly engineered? What seperates highly engineered from lowly engineered...or normally engineered? Every engine has tons of design hours dedicated to it, what makes the LS7 more engineered than the others?

posted by  My Life, My Era

Last time I checked the LS7 was the ONLY 500+ horsepower car that didnt have to pay the gas guzzler tax.
The BMW V10 vs LS7 was also argued on ls1tech a while back.

Bronxie about domestic engines not making more than 80hp/L.
Ford GT 5.4 550hp
Escape Hybrid 2.3L 220hp
Crossfire SRT-6 3.2 330hp
SRT-4 2.4 230hp
Cobalt ss 2.0 205hp
and possibly the Sky Red Line (cant remeber off the top of my head)

I dont see what is so important about HP/Liter on a street car. I doesnt win you races and if a bigger displacement engine can accomplish everything a smaller one can while making the same hp, it will probably have more torque. So whats the big deal about hp/liter

posted by  Enthusiast

Damn My Life you beat me to it. And I think Ex F1 V10s may be smaller than a SBC.

posted by  Enthusiast

OH I'm sorry, I meant to say NA engines.

Those are all FI engines :)

And I also said not more than 4 cyls...

So given that, you got any that fit the bill?

posted by  Bronxie

I understand that the M5's engine has a similar output, but the M5 is a V10 and the LS7 is a V8. When discussing the "size" of engines, they are usually, and more often than not, referred to in displacement. We are dealing with liters and cubic inches here. Your preference of engine is not on trial here. Your interpretation of size is.

I could not agree more that the LS7 is more powerful in a lot of aspects when compared to the M5's engine, but M5 has a V10 and the Corvette has a V8, if you're going to discuss powerband, size, and makeup then it would only be fair to compare another engine of cylindrical likeness.

A generalization it is, but you will find that most small block V8's are smaller than most production V10's. Thats the whole idea behind the small block. Not only were they more tecnically advanced than their big block counterparts but they were lighter and smaller. A 4cylinder is smaller than a V8. Thats an obvious and irrelevant observation. It was made to be.

It doesn't "dictate" fuel consumption, however it plays a great role in how much fuel a particular engine uses. Again, you can't compare a banana to an apple no matter how sweet the two are. The M5 weighs in a whopping 2+ tons. The Corvette Z06 is 3,130lbs. Again the Corvette is a coupe and the M5 is a luxury sedan.

The fact that GM spent millions of dollars to engineer, manufacture, and assemble these engines. If you think the same care, money, and consideration has went into the engine inside of a Malibu, then you are clearly mistaken. What makes it more engineered is that it IS more engineered and there is no other way to put it. I'd rather not get into this because I have been at these factories and plants. I've seen firsthand what engines are put together in a matter of months versus those that take years to develop.

You are on to something. A few automotive engineers that I have spoken to tend to agree with the idea that .5L per cylinder is an ideal volumetric efficiency. Hence the 2.0L 4, or the 3.0 V6. BMW wanted 5liters, so they created a V10.

True, but its also one of the few production cars with that kind of power from that type of engine that weighs about 3000lbs.

Everything is not about winning races, and having a bigger engine. Its all an engineering hierarchy. Engines are designed the way they are designed to perform for the operation they were intended for.

Are you shitting me? I don't think there has been an F1 engine above 3.0L since the late 50's. Quite possibly ever.... If you think F1 cars are lugging around large V8's and V12's then you are clearly mistaken.

posted by  DSMer

If it is possible to produce a lightweight, high torque/high hp v8, then why do a lot of high end european sports cars still use smaller, highly tuned engines with a lot less torque?

Look at any of the BMW Ms (includes the m5 v10, and the s54 v6)

Any outgoing ferrari...

Lamborghini gallardo...

Any porsche...

Btw I am referring to NA engines.

Why wouldn't they want more torque and hp in a lighter package if it's possible?

posted by  Bronxie

What about the Gallardo it is also a 5 liter V10 that puts out about 500hp hand according to road and track it weighs about 3500lbs(according to road and track). It gets a whopping 15mpg on the highway EPA (Road and Track)
That is a much lighter car than the m5 with a simialar engine and still doesnt tuch the Z06s 25+ mpg Highway EPA rating.

Well when you narrow it down with all those parameters of course its one of the few vehicles in its category. I could narrow most sports cars into categories like this simply because different manufactures have different phylosiphies(Spelling?) about building cars.

Exaclty and the LS7 was designed the way it was designed for the power it was designed for using the displacement it was given.

I said F1 V10s where smaller than SBCs cause earlier you said...if I may quote... and I knew how crazy F1 engineers where about weight saving (ever seen a F1 spark plug!?) and last time I most where running 3.0 V10s. (next season the displacment cap was being stepped down and most were gonna switch to V8s IIRC)I was simply showing that you generalization wasnt always correct.

And Bronxie I would be more than happy to reply to your posts if they were clearer.

But Plain and simple different car companies build cars and power differently. Some like to use big displacement and some like smaller displacement.

posted by  Enthusiast

You probably know the answer, but...

People buy these cars expecting a particular experience when they drive them. The brands build to these expectations.

Ferrari makes rev happy cars with power up high. Porsche, boxer engines or whatever. Lamborghinis are wild. You get the point.

If Ferrari made a large displacement V8 for their F430, then it would feel like a Corvette's acceleration. They would be dissappointing their clients.

They build within their expectations to preserve their "self".

I'm sure every car company in the world that builds engines could produce any engine any other car company in the world produces. Ford could build an engine similar to the Enzo's V12, and Toyota could make an LS7. But they build engines for their image and what could fit in their expected budget. I don't think Chevrolet could sell a vehicle for enough money to cover the production cost of a Ferrari V12, and an LS7 type engine would probably be too American for a Ferrari.

posted by  My Life, My Era

Wouldn't it take many more engineering hours to design a 5.0l na engine that makes 500hp than a 7.0l engine that makes similar power? Or is there not necessarily a correlation...

posted by  Bronxie

Good call my life I was thinkin the same thing just couldnt put it into words as eloquently as you.

Ferraris rev happy roots could also very well be from there strong ties to motorsports in which displacement, caps are usually enforced and the only way to make hp is high revs. And most equate Ferrari to a street legal race car its image and history.

posted by  Enthusiast

Well it really depends the type of components used and the goals for the engine. But generally more displacement makes it easier to make power.

posted by  Enthusiast

A Lamborghini Gallardo cost about $175,000-200,000. Do you really think at that price they care about the consumers worries about fuel mileage?

We are talking about two production vehicles and two production engines. Why, for the sake of a feasible argument, would you introduce the parameters of a one off engine? Apples and Bananas...

posted by  DSMer

Just showin that there are other crucial factors that affect gas mileage outside of engine displacement. And I threw in the Gallardo because it is a smaller engine than the LS7 with simial power output somewhat in the same weight range.
My LT1(5.7) routinely gets better gas mileage than my buddies scion tC(2.4)

posted by  Enthusiast

I know this, you don't have to reiterate it to me. I've stated it before. You were trying to compare the weight difference of the M5, Corvette, and Gallardo. It doesn't work, sorry....

posted by  DSMer

The M5 has SMG standard, which if you are not familiar with, has thousands of different settings and preferences.

Apparently, you start using 400hp, and you have to kind of dial in 500hp by using the M mode.

I suppose in an attempt to save gas. It also weighs 4000 lbs, which I'm sure decreases mileage by a lot.

posted by  Bronxie

Ha! Save gas...yeah right. It's there to add to the cool. Everyone wants a "power" button.

posted by  My Life, My Era

The M5 is a very luxurious sedan. A adrenaline pumping drive through the winding roads on the weekends isn't exactly the kind of drive you would want your wife and 2 kids to experience on the way to church. However, It is also a performance car.

Hence the creation of the "power" button. Not only does it increase the output but it also increases the throttle response. After driving one this past Saturday at work I can see why they added that option.

That power button serves the same idea as the EDC, and DSC. It just simply allows you alter the driving characteristics so your passengers can actually drink out of an open container without spilling it. Hell the SMG stick has like 8+ modes of gearing that allow the car to drive smoother or more "sport-like"

But when its all said and done you can bump the power up, turn on the EDC to sport, turn off the stability, put the shifter into sport mode and really get some rubber burning.

But I just parked the car, I wouldn't know anything about that.....:laughing:

posted by  DSMer

I think everyone knows the reason given by BMW for the "power" button. You don't have to explain common sense sh*t ALL THE F*CKING TIME.

You suck at being a human.

posted by  My Life, My Era

the only problem with the M5 is the indicator stalk! it doesnt self cancel (Jeremy Clarkson said that, and a BMW salesman told me when i was looking round the showroom)

posted by  True_Brit

The SMG offers more like 11294396283851 combinations of driving preferences from what I hear.

posted by  Bronxie

From your track record, I wouldn't expect anything common from you let alone anything that makes sense. Seems like your new "light" has found its old darkness.

Don't spew bullshit if you're going to throw a sissy fit when someone cleans it up.

posted by  DSMer

I haven't driven one unfortunately, but I assume they're the 'one-touch' stalks, like Vauxhall uses on it's new cars?

posted by  Cliffy

well no, even they self cancel on the new vauxhalls! but the m5, you switch on the indicator, it stays there until the click click click click of the indicator annoys you!

posted by  True_Brit

That's just stupid in this day and age....! Now ya mention it though, I do recal Clarkson taking some sort of dislaike to the M5....

posted by  Cliffy

thats exactly what he disliked about the M5

posted by  True_Brit

Your Message