A little rant......

[Brett]

You know, I really despise it when people say one of the problems with the ZR-1 is that it doesn't have a Corvette engine.

Garbage.

If anything, the LT-5 is more Corvette's engine than any other engine! It was designed specially for Corvette, and ONLY Corvette. Chevy just simply employed some expertise from two outside souces (Lotus and MercuryMarine) to achieve a better product. The LT-5 is one of, if not THE, most personal Corvette engines ever!

So it's DOHC......who cares!!!

Last I checked, the ONLY car that has EVER had the LT-5 in it was a..............CORVETTE.



Brett

 

[8388]

One of the reasons why the market value of the ZR1 is as it is today is because of all the negative rumors put forth, and mainly by people who have never owned or much less even been close to a ZR1. Which is why I sometimes get on the defensive, when reading some of the poop some say about the car. Even today, some 13 years later the ZR1 still seems to be the car that all others are judged and compared to. And then there's the 24 hour endurance record, at speeds that most performance cars can't even reach.

 

[Brett]

Even today, some 13 years later the ZR1 still seems to be the car that all others are judged and compared to

I have an issue of 'Vette magazine from 1990, and it mentions how the technology in the LT-5 would have been extremely advanced for F1 vehicles only ten years prior. The ZR-1 was way ahead of its time, as far as domestic vehicles are concerned. This is proved by how well it stacks up today.

The use of Lotus and MM isn't something negative......it shows you how much GM wanted to raise the bar, and that maximum effort was put into the developement. It's not like we were importing engines. The LT-5 is still a "Chevy" engine.

When you think about it rationally---the General, hanging its balls out, spending top-dollar, collaborating with OTHER companies, and actually taking a chance?---the ZR-1 is something that should have never come out of GM.

And yet it did.



Brett

 

[Rob]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of mis-information out there about the ZR-1 and a lot of people have some very warped understanding of the car's history.

 

[Rob]

I have an issue of 'Vette magazine from 1990, and it mentions how the technology in the LT-5 would have been extremely advanced for F1 vehicles only ten years prior. The ZR-1 was way ahead of its time, as far as domestic vehicles are concerned. This is proved by how well it stacks up today.

The use of Lotus and MM isn't something negative......it shows you how much GM wanted to raise the bar, and that maximum effort was put into the developement. It's not like we were importing engines. The LT-5 is still a "Chevy" engine.

When you think about it rationally---the General, hanging its balls out, spending top-dollar, collaborating with OTHER companies, and actually taking a chance?---the ZR-1 is something that should have never come out of GM.

And yet it did.


Brett

Actually, I believe that a lot of the development work of the ZR-1 was kept very hush-hush at GM because if at any time the beancounters caught wind of what was going on, they would have axed the car before it ever saw the light of the day.

 

[warren s]

I love the ZR-1, and wish I could have bought one when i bought my Corvette a year and a half ago.

However I always thought it was "strange" that General Motors decided to contract out Lotus and Merc Marine to build an engine for a car that was unique to GM.

 

[Rob]

I love the ZR-1, and wish I could have bought one when i bought my Corvette a year and a half ago.

However I always thought it was "strange" that General Motors decided to contract out Lotus and Merc Marine to build an engine for a car that was unique to GM.

Lotus had experience building DOHC motors which GM did not and Mercury Marine had plenty of experience at building low volume, aluminum engines which GM did not.

 

[warren s]

I remember reading that. And the time factor and the cost of tooling up a new engine design for a limited production run.

As an owner of a 74 Mazda RX-4 in the early eighties, I also remember how GM refused to ask Mazda for developmental help in building a 4 rotor wankle, and later decided to scrap the entire project. So it was surprising to me when they "Outsourced" for a piston engine.

 

[Brett]

Rob:

So basically you're saying I'm giving GM too much credit?

That's an interesting theory though. Is that just a hunch of yours, or did you read something somewhere? I'd like to hear more. I don't see how the details of such a project could be kept secret, as everything would have to be approved. How could they not know?

If that is what happened though, and it was kept hush-hush, the point still stands (even more so) that the ZR-1 was above and beyond, and something GM wouldn't have approved of.



Brett

 

[Brett]

However I always thought it was "strange" that General Motors decided to contract out Lotus and Merc Marine to build an engine for a car that was unique to GM.

See, that is the kind of attitude I am talking about. Why the pessimistic view? In my eyes, it shows a very conservative automotive company throwing the biases of such a competitive business out the window, and exhausting every possible resource, which meant teaming up with more experienced parties "out of house", to create something very special.

I think that says a lot for the roots of the ZR-1.



Brett

 

[Rob]

Rob:

So basically you're saying I'm giving GM too much credit?

That's an interesting theory though. Is that just a hunch of yours, or did you read something somewhere? I'd like to hear more. I don't see how the details of such a project could be kept secret, as everything would have to be approved. How could they not know?

If that is what happened though, and it was kept hush-hush, the point still stands (even more so) that the ZR-1 was above and beyond, and something GM wouldn't have approved of.



Brett

Yes and no. I believe it was a small group within GM that spearheaded the LT5/ZR-1 project and had corporate GM found out about it early on, chances are, they would have killed the concept before it even got up off the ground.

It's not just a hunch on my part, but I believe that it's pretty well documented in Anthony Young's "The Heart of the Beast" book which I highly recommend.

 

[Rob]

See, that is the kind of attitude I am talking about. Why the pessimistic view? In my eyes, it shows a very conservative automotive company throwing the biases of such a competitive business out the window, and exhausting every possible resource, which meant teaming up with more experienced parties "out of house", to create something very special.

I think that says a lot for the roots of the ZR-1.



Brett

I don't think it's a pessimistic attitude but rather an interesting and valid observation.

GM is pretty conservative as compared to some other automotive companies. That's one of the reasons why the LT5/ZR-1 project blew a lot of people away. It was the one time that they did not ride the fine lines of conservatism as much.

 

[8388]

I remember talking with a GM engineer, that claimed that there were actually two GM engineering teams working on separate but secretive performance projects during those days. One was the ZR1, the other was a Fiero proto type with the turbo Quad 4. So there's no telling how often or how many of these projects really exist from time to time.

 

[Brett]

I don't think it's a pessimistic attitude but rather an interesting and valid observation.
GM is pretty conservative as compared to some other automotive companies. That's one of the reasons why the LT5/ZR-1 project blew a lot of people away. It was the one time that they did not ride the fine lines of conservatism as much.

Isn't that what I just said?

And by pessimistic I meant when Warren said it was "strange". Why "strange" instead of "cool"? I am just wondering why the project got a negative/mixed reaction from some instead of a positive one. You would think people would have been rejoicing that GM deviating from the norm.



Brett

 

[warren s]

See, that is the kind of attitude I am talking about. Why the pessimistic view? In my eyes, it shows a very conservative automotive company throwing the biases of such a competitive business out the window, and exhausting every possible resource, which meant teaming up with more experienced parties "out of house", to create something very special.

Attitude???

Exhausting every possible resource?? More experianced parties?

Biases of a competitive business out the window?

Ford and Chrysler contract out many susbsystems and now engines. The automotive industry has beeen doing it for years. Thats why you need your vin# to by brake shoes for some old Fords. One product wont hold up the assembly line if the manufacturer goes on stike. They just get it from another.


As far as GM, The company that invented the small block 350, created the ZL1, has more patents than the number of cars Lotus built , had to contract out a V8 that produces a little more than 1Hp per cubic inch, and double the price of the car. I just find that strange. It does not mean I disrespect the ZR-1

 

[Tyler Townsley]

As far as GM, The company that invented the small block 350, created the ZL1, has more patents than the number of cars Lotus built , had to contract out a V8 that produces a little more than 1Hp per cubic inch, and double the price of the car. I just find that strange. It does not mean I disrespect the ZR-1 [/B]

Read Heart of the Beast and All Corvettes are Red to get an idea of the decision process of those involved. 200-500 words on a forum cannot explain the dynamics of the time.

Tyler

 

[Brett]

Sorry, Warren, I did not mean to imply you had an "attitude", I wanted to know why your attitude was that it was "strange". You seem like a very knowledgable guy from our discussions in the past, and I wanted to know why you felt that way. And I know you don't disrespect the ZR-1. That's not what I was asking, and sorry if it looked that way. I did not mean to ruffle any feathers.

Exhausting every possible resource?? More experianced parties?

Yes, Lotus had the experience in DOHC tech, and MercMarine had the experience in aluminum engines.

Biases of a competitive business out the window?

I think so. Admitting you don't have the tech, and utilizing specialty companies specific knowledge to do a better job than you ever could have? GM learned quite a bit from their little LT-5 experience, didn't they folks? (Northstar anyone?)

Ford and Chrysler contract out many susbsystems and now engines. One product wont hold up the assembly line if the manufacturer goes on stike. They just get it from another.

That is done for completely different reasons than why GM contracted out for the ZR-1..... It wasn't to assure assembly could continue or to save money....quite the opposite in fact. The ZR-1 project was very costly, hence the hefty price tag of the car. You get what you pay for.



Brett

 

[JT ZR-Won]

Read Heart of the Beast and All Corvettes are Red to get an idea of the decision process of those involved. 200-500 words on a forum cannot explain the dynamics of the time.

Tyler

I haven't read All Corvettes are Red, but Heart of the Beast does explain in detail the entire process from start to finish.

Jay

 

[warren s]

Brett-

All is cool among us Corvette folks!!


I will obtain and read those books suggested.

 

[Brett]

Excellent point, c5d.

Mercury and GM are connected at the hip too, and have a very close, long standing relationship with each other.

Mercury's inboard/outboard engines are all General Motor's blocks. They use the 496 (previously used the 454), 350, and the 4.3 liter. Mercury is basically GM on the water.

I know for a fact they have been together since at least the 80's, and they probably go back a lot farther than that.

So like you said, GM was using the talent at hand, and the ZR-1 really isn't the step-child its been made out to be.

Great discussion, guys.



Brett