Superformance Grand Sport Corvette

[Don]

" they have now turned to making a highly accurate replica of the 1963 Corvette Grand Sport Corvette. "

" The Superformance Grand Sport clone will come as either a coupe or a roadster, the choice will be up to the buyer, and it can be fitted with any crate engine presently on hand from GM’s Performance Parts division. And even better, the Superformance licensed replica can be ordered to be completely street legal, unlike the original prototypes. "

Article:

http://www.carthrottle.com/replica-1...superformance/

[Ron61]

Don,

That is a nice looking car. To bad it still has to compete for the 500 SB-100 numbers this state allows. That would be a real attention getter around here for sure.

Ron

[Don]

The new Chev crate engine is advertised as 50 state compliant for emissions, with the necessary hardware and software. A possible alternative, subject to the individual states accepting the engine and emissions package ?

From a previous posting:

" From the GM LS3 announcement at the SEMA Show. Not sure if there is a manual transmission version, but one of the comments specifically mentions for automatic transmissions. MSRP is $9,375. Web site contains a search feature to find dealers by zip code along with any discounted prices. Appears the configuration is more readily adapted to Rods, 55 Chev used as an example, than a Cobra. " The Future of Hot Rod Performance "


" Part# 19244805 The E-ROD kit features a 6.2-liter LS3 crate engine, rated at 430 horsepower and 424 lb.-ft. of torque. It also includes a GMPP LS3 engine wiring harness, GMPP engine control module, Exhaust manifolds, catalytic converters, oxygen sensors and sensor bosses, fuel tank evaporative emissions canister, mass airflow sensor and sensor boss, accelerator pedal (for use with the LS3’s electronic throttle), air filter, and a full instruction manual "


http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/ho...4=NovemberFuel "

[Don]

From Hemmings.com, note the comment regarding CARB. While not an authentic engine for the Grand Sport, offers an alternative

GM Performance Parts unveils E-Rod program:

In some parts of the country, issues have been mounting concerning the legal registration of specially constructed vehicles — that is, any vehicle created from parts or a “kit” rather than those built from an existing chassis. These would include kit cars that use brand-new frames, such as Cobra replicas and street rods built on newly manufactured frames, as is common practice today. California, in particular, has been calling for such vehicles to be held to new-car emissions standards, creating waves throughout the old-car hobby and the aftermarket industry.

Now, after collaborating with SEMA to create a solution, GM Performance Parts has introduced a solution in the form of smog-legal crate engine packages. Presented to the industry at last week’s SEMA Show in Las Vegas, GMPP showed the E-Rod System and its components while explaining its development. In short, the introductory package, which consists of a 6.2-liter LS3 engine rated at 430hp, comes with a complete EFI system, including (among other things) a wiring harness and pre-calibrated engine controller. When combined with the package’s OE-style exhaust manifolds and catalytic converters, plus the included mass-airflow sensor and evaporative emissions canister, the package replicates the engine in a 2010 Camaro SS,

" and thanks to close work with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the package will be accepted in California and other areas that use similar emissions test standards. "

Other packages are in the works, including a more budget-oriented 5.3-liter and a more powerful 7-liter (427-inch) LS7, and even though these requirements don’t affect all vintage car owners, the complete nature of these packages does make them appealing.

For more details and updates, watch www.gmperformanceparts.com.
- By Terry McGean

[VRM]

I'm sure the new engines are nice. Call me old-fashioned, but there is just something ultra-appealing to me when it comes to Webers mounted on that crossover manifold.
I've been toying with the idea of an FIA roadster in Mecom colours as sort of a 'what if' - maybe I could get a matched pair.

Steve

[Ron61]

Don,

and thanks to close work with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the package will be accepted in California and other areas that use similar emissions test standards. "

Not necessarily true. It seems that every area here has different standards regardless of what CARB says. There is Cobra builder here that was going to use the new model Mustang engines with all of the emission stuff and he told me he had checked with CARB and they told him it would be ok if they passed the sniffer test. But the jerks around here would not accept them and would fail them on the visual test as that engine wasn't available in 1965, even though all special construction vehicles in this state have to be registered by the year they are built. Therefore a vehicle built in 2008 has to be registered as a 2008 and pass those standards, but because those engines weren't around back in the 60s they would not take them. I am not sure just how much of this is true as I heard it from 3 sources and all 3 had different versions of it. I know that up here is the most anti car place in the country. I would not spend the money to build one of those cars with that engine set up until I saw some that were actually accepted by the DMV.

Ron

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by VRM

I'm sure the new engines are nice. Call me old-fashioned, but there is just something ultra-appealing to me when it comes to Webers mounted on that crossover manifold.
I've been toying with the idea of an FIA roadster in Mecom colours as sort of a 'what if' - maybe I could get a matched pair.

Steve

I'm with you. I'd much prefer a period correct engine.

[Don]

VRM & dcdoug: Agree, much better to have the period correct engine, especially, as mentioned, with stack or cross over fuel injection. But with the states making it more and more difficult to install these engines in all types of kit cars, the E-Rod system offers an alternative. In the example used, '55 Chev, probably would not be any problem either way , period correct or E-Rod, since it was not a kit car .

Ron: Agree, but seems odd Chev/GM would risk in their advertising and press releases the acceptance of the E-Rod system in CA if they felt it would not be acceptable.

" and thanks to close work with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the package will be accepted in California and other areas that use similar emissions test standards. "

CT, prior to exempting a few years ago all Composites ( CT name for kit cars ) from emissions testing, used a standard of all 1965 and earlier engines were OK as is and those 1966 and later had to have the emissions hardware/software based upon the year of the engine.

[dcdoug]

Really, CA should open up the SB100 limits to some sufficiently large number (5,000?), charge a higher tax rate (don't know what it is now), make a contribution to some state program that offsets the carbon emissions and pocket the revenue.

A. Kit cars/replicas do not contribute to smog in ANY measurable way.

B. CA is bankrupt and will be for a very long time (not that this will make much difference, but it won't hurt....)

I would appreciate it if you could all sort this out so when I move there at some point I don't have any SB100 stress....

[Don]

dcdoug:

A group of hobbyists and CT business', such as Peter from ERA, testified in person for the CT emissions exemptions, without the use of lobbyists. A few of the points mentioned, were the limited number of Composites, ( CT name for kit cars ) 300 out of over 1,000,000 registrations, limited usage due to New England weather, hobbyist type limited miles as opposed to daily transportation , participation in charity events, excellent mechanical condition, safe driving, etc

Peter gave very captivating testimony and the co-chairs of the Transportation Committee received his comments very favorably, no negative votes when the amendment was reported out of Committee

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by Don

Peter gave very captivating testimony and the co-chairs of the Transportation Committee received his comments very favorably, no negative votes when the amendment was reported out of Committee

Sounds like he needs to take a trip to CA....