Hear The Monstrous Roar Of The 10.3L Chevy ZZ632 Crate Engine: Video
40
Sponsored Links
The centerpiece of Chevrolet Performance’s booth at this year’s SEMA Show will undoubtedly be the automaker’s newly introduced ZZ632 crate engine. With a price tag of about $38K, this monstrous 632 cubic-inch crate engine has already generated a ton of buzz online, and with 10.3 liters of displacement, as well as a head-spinning output of 1,004 horsepower and 876 pound-feet of torque, it’s not hard to see why.
We’ll likely learn a little bit more about the new Chevy ZZ632 crate engine at the SEMA Show next week (which GM Authority will be attending), but in the meantime, General Motors has placated our Chevy-obsessed minds with a video of its massive new Big Block undergoing some calibration testing on an engine dyno.
This video doesn’t really tell us anything about the ZZ632 crate engine that we didn’t already know, but this is the first time we’ve heard the engine running and under wide-open-throttle. It sounds mostly like every other Big Block Chevy we’ve heard in the past, although this video allows us to hear what it sounds like when it hits its rather high redline of 7,000 rpm.
As we pointed out when the engine debuted last week, a single example of the ZZ632 endured over 200 simulated drag-racing passes on a dynamometer during development. It’s not clear if the engine seen in this video is this exact engine, although it seems likely.
It’s worth pointing out this engine is fitted with a pair of silver-painted valve covers and not the orange-painted valve covers that were pictured on the engine in the press photos. As far as we know, the engine will ship with the orange valve covers and not these silver ones.
The performance-obsessed people behind the Hoonigan YouTube channel are currently working on a ZZ632-powered third-generation Chevy Camaro, which will be present at the SEMA Show and will likely be one of the first vehicles equipped with the new crate engine. We’ll have full details on the Hoonigan build once SEMA kicks off next week, but for now, check out the video embedded below to hear the motor in action.
View this post on Instagram
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Camaro news, Chevy news, SEMA news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Sponsored Links
Come on people buy some of my over priced eggs so I can get one of these monsters…LOL
Enigne overpriced and a V-12 Ferrari sounds better.
Insanely overpriced.
Nothing wrong with the sound of that…
My thoughts exactly, it’s the sound that will gain you respect on the road.
This is a perfect engine swap for the 2022 Chevy Silverado ZR2!
Except it’s a drag race engine, not designed for durability beyond 200 pulls (per GM) which calculates out to 1/4 mile X 200 is 50 miles of durability at the limits (These engines are designed to be freshened once a season). Not to mention it will not even come close to fitting in the engine bay of the T1 pickups due to width and height. Have you looked how far the engines in the current trucks are pushed back under the cowl? and the height of this engine? Not going to fit. Then on width, take a look at the headers, and if you put tighter headers on it it will kill the performance as it has to breathe to make the power.
My thoughts, spending $30K for a crate engine that won’t fit, then you put a lower intake manifold and smaller headers, knock it down to 750hp, and then how often do people turn 7000 rpm’s in pickups? Not often, so knock the power down some more, when you could spend $10K for a blower and tune on the 6.2L and out perform this… Fools and their money are quickly parted.
Don’t poop on that man’s dream Donavan. Just because you lack the skill, money, and balls it takes to bust out the sawzall and carve this motor a new home in a new silveraydo. This beast of a motor would be just fine if you get the correct gear ratios and T-56 Magnum. Acting like 1000 HP 4×4 trucks don’t already exist.
What I lack is the stupidity and ignorance for a project like that. Putting a drag race engine with 50 miles of durability in an off road Silverado, and then manual too, this is taking stupidity to a whole new level, and I though I had seen it all. Lets see ZR2 $85K including tax, Engine 35K, Transmission and drive train upgrades 10K, various parts and fabrication 25K, So at $155K you have a truck that is all cut up with 1000Hp and a manual that would be worth nothing, I would just go buy the Hummer EV, and beat that configuration on road or off road, and drive better, quieter, and if you chained them together The Hummer EV would drag that Silverado all over town till it begged for mercy.
I have a 632cid engine that I’ve installed in a 1970 Chevelle and it is NOT “too wide” and by slapping a shorter intake manifold on this engine, will NOT knock 250 HP off. You are dead wrong on that. It might knock 30 or 40 HP off the 1,004 HP spec. You’ll need a set of custom headers, (as I did) but there again, headers with tight turns aren’t knocking hundreds of horsepower off the ZZ632 engine. You might knock 50 HP off. So when all is said and done, you would still be at a 900 HP level. Not too shabby for a pump gas naturally aspirated build.
And if this was intended to be a “drag race” only engine, then it wouldn’t be a pump gas build and it wouldn’t have a hydraulic camshaft in it either. So you’re wrong on that too.
Well, lets go point by point… First, this is not any 632, and your 632, might have a similar short block, but not these cylinder heads. On the ZZ632, it does not use a BB Chevrolet intake or exhaust port design or location, there are no shorter intake manifolds built or sold for it, so if you want to “slap” a shorter intake manifold you are going to have to build a sheet metal intake. Take a look at the pictures of the engine from the front and where the ports leave the heads compared to the standard BBC heads, Shoot, these are higher intake ports than even Dart Big Chief heads. Here is what GM says…. all-new, high-flow spread-port cylinder heads derived from Pro Stock racing technology.
Second on the headers, this engine does not use standard BBC port location or height, so you are for sure making custom headers. Going from 2 1/2″ primaries this engine is designed for down to 1 3/4 primaries which will fit in a Chevelle, will hurt the engine much more then 100 HP, I do this for a living, and have my own Dyno for the last 25 years. I have done a lot of work on heads, intakes and exhaust, airflow is critical, and an engine like this with large cubic inches needs very large primaries on the headers to flow well. It does not work well to have cylinder heads that flow like these if you are going to choke the exhaust, because the engine loses all its efficiency if you cannot get the exhaust out. Now did you also note in the dyno video, they do not have it directly connected to their exhaust system, because they are calibrating it for open header operation, with just a short downpipe, like is used in a sportsman drag car. If GM intended for this engine to run through mufflers and full exhaust they would run, and calibrate it that way on the dyno. GM tests engines in as close to the conditions they intend for their customers to.
The height of this engine is about 18.50 ” from the top of the block to the top of the injector butterfly with no air cleaner, take some measurements on your 632 and get back to me? I am curious Most older Chevelles can fit about 11″ from a tall deck block to the hood. On this engine the valve covers will almost hit the hood.
Is this engine designed for drag racing? Well, GM rated durability by 1/4 mile pulls, and showed video of testing it with open headers and a down pipe which is exactly how sportsman racers typically run. In my shop we hook every street engine to exhaust when we are testing, and so does GM. You can clearly see in the Video GM could have easily positively connected this to their exhaust system, but didn’t… hmmm… It also has titanium valves, which I would typically not run in street deal with 7000 RPM redline.
With all due respect, please allow me to update your knowledge on Chevelles. For instance: 1 3/4″ primary tubes on a BBC engine you say? That would be utterly ridiculous using headers that small on even a 540cid engine, let alone on a 632cid engine. I have custom made headers that I bought from Lemons headers that fit perfect in my 1970 Chevelle with my 632cid engine that have 2 1/8″ primary tubes, and all four primary tubes on both the passenger side and the drivers side stay inside of the frame rails and do NOT invade the front wheel wells, and they had a price tag well below 2K and that’s even including shipping and ceramic coating. And Dan Lemons didn’t even need to have my car at his shop. He merely asked me 6 or 7 questions about what heads I have, accessories, and brake line routing. The man knows his stuff and makes an excellent product.
Dan Lemons also offers 2 1/4″ and 2 1/2″ primary tube headers for Chevelles with tall deck Big block engines, but they have two of the four primary tubes on each side going around the frame rails and invading the wheel wells, so I chose to avoid getting those.
Of course you can chop up your car to fit the right headers, and in my comment above that is exactly what I said, but I think anybody chopping up and old Chevelle is a fool, as we run out of those cars. You can build a 1000 HP supercharged LS, and it fits in with plenty of clearance, lighter weight and cheaper. You notice the quickest version of the COPO Camaro is the Supercharged 350 version, not the 572 version. BBC is just for nostalgia, it’s not fast. But you did not address the ZZ632 is 6″ too tall for your car even without considering the air cleaner, and that there are no shorter intakes manifolds available for this cylinder head?
“Chop up” my car??? You need to read my reply again, cuz you’re just missing the boat here son. I have 2 1/8″ primary tubes on my custom made Lemons headers with 3.5″ diameter collectors which is plenty for my 850 HP pump gas 632cid engine, and I did NOT have to “cut up” my car at all, nor are any of the primary tubes “dimpled” nor “dinged” up for fit. So what part of that don’t you understand???
I hate to disappoint you, but I have had one “modern” late model fuel injected car car that I installed a supercharger in which was a Ford modular motor, which ran good at the drag strip and during my daily work commute, and another LS2 engine equipped modern car which I installed another supercharger in, which also ran well and was fun to drive, and was again my daily driver.
So my point is that I am no stranger to supercharged LS engines, nor supercharged Ford engines. But that sure doesn’t mean that I’ll be spouting off comments about supercharged LS engines being superior to BBC engines, while at the same time, claiming that I’m about to purchase a BBC engine just to take it apart and see how it ticks. You’re all over the map with your off the wall comments here. I suggest you slow down on your constant self-proclaimed superior experience, and your self-proclaimed expertise, because self advertisement is never proof of anything, nor is it called for here.
Now I will give you credit where it’s due; and that is on your comment about the 11″ measurement you mentioned on Chevelles with stock hoods. However, you might be overlooking the 1970-72 Chevelles with the factory cowl hoods which allow an additional 2″ of hood clearance.
The measurement from the top of the front china wall of my tall deck 632cid block to the top of the 3.5″ tall air cleaner element is exactly 13.5″ and that fits underneath the 1970 factory cowl induction hood. However, that brings it very close to the hood, (less than an inch clearance) so I chained the engine to the frame rail on the drivers side with bolts going into the front and rear accessory bolt holes on the drivers side cylinder head, in case the drivers side motor mount breaks.
Also keep in mind that I have a Dominator carb, and a custom made 16″ diameter air cleaner with a drop base made by a place in Canada called Universal Spinners, (they do great work).
Of course I know the available height in a Chevelle, this is not my first rodeo. We used to very often use the Weiand Team G single plane manifold and cut the integral carb spacer off to fit in the car. On the Dyno just cutting that made -35HP difference on a typical 540 build FYI. We liked that manifold though because of the integral nitrous bosses, and could not find anything better that would fit under hoods.
But you don’t know it all about Chevelles as you obviously think you do, because there are other single plane intake manifolds for tall deck blocks that WILL fit and DO fit underneath the 70-72 Chevelle factory cowl induction hoods. One if from Edelbrock, (although you have to buy it used on E-bay since they aren’t made anymore) and the other is the one I have: The Merlin-X manifold, (now simply called the BMR).
Without specs, manufacturers of the various components (crank, rods, pistons, heads, cam/valvetrain, etc. – assuming it’s not GM/Chevy…) I would have to say that a Shafiroff, Musi, etc. could be had for the same $$$ (actually less) with more power or less $$$ with the same power using better components – Dart block, Manley/Callies crank & rods, Comp Cams/Lunati valvetrain, Brodix/Dart heads etc.
$38K ?!?!?! Wow 🍯🌈💰💰💰
And the valve covers are ugly…
Its actually $29,499, which is not a bad deal, and I will tell you why… GM released some specs and I was almost exactly right on the cam specs, but it’s a hydraulic roller (I figured solid roller), so basically GM is setting this engine up for the casual sportsman that wants to go all season without taking a valve cover off, and this HP/Torque rating is likely a conservative tune you can run all season, and not running on kill like the numbers Shafiroff or Musi will give you. These cylinder heads might be even more special than I first though with only .780 lift and 280 ish duration @.050 hydraulic roller, and making this power with what is likely a conservative tune. GM also posted pictures with the valve covers off it has Jessel “style” shaft rockers. I ordered one, and will play with it on the dyno a bit and then tear it down and have a look. Something tells me those heads will end up on the coordinate measuring machine.
Like any normal car part, the MSRP is severely inflated so that garages, i.e. car builders, can hide their overhead.
Donavan give it a break this is wrong with it that is wrong with it yea it to high price for the average Joe to buy but we the little people can dream I got a 468 built 4 yes ago 10.5.1 it been 85 to 150 passes 1/8 mile only drove very little on the street I’ve had a plate on it since 3 yrs for insurance but never touch the button depend on how I drive it it in the 6s in 1/8 mile I wish I had one for my car it a 80 model Malibu I got more suspension then I’ve got motor with that in it it would probably run 5.10 and drive the hell out of it on a 10.5 tire it would b a tuner and driver fun to do or make it do what I wanted it to do so just give it a break and don’t be so negative to the bowtie tj trantham
Huh? me negative? Maybe you should work on reading comprehension… I think this engine is awesome, and cannot wait to get one to play with. That being said, I think swapping this engine into a T1 pickup or C8 Corvette to be street driven as others have suggested is silly (They do not realize the dimensions this engine requires, as it is very tall, and with headers a very wide package It’s the wrong engine for those vehicles. In the COPO Camaro, I love it… Any other already cut up drag racing car…. Yeah Baby!
I agree Dave, the Shafiroff “twisted SR20” pump gas 632cid engine makes slightly more power, and for $9K less Of course that’s if you want to trust ANY crate engine which was build by somebody who you’ll never have the opportunity to meet with face to face, nor even speak with on the telephone.
I’d much rather have a 632cid engine built, (or any engine for that matter) by a small machine shop where the owner/builder who machines, builds, and assembles your purchased engine, is the same person who answers the telephone when you call, and the same person who will be talking to you bith before and after the purchase.
Fair enough, buying from a small local shop is typically better. many of the quality local shops are more careful with the machining than the OEM’s, and you are supporting a local business, but when it comes to t echnology, the OEM’s have an upper hand. Like in the case of the ZZ632 when it comes to cylinder heads, these other engine builders do not have anything like the ZZ632 heads yet, thats why I want one, to test it and see if GM is on to something with this design. Now when it comes to power, I definitely trust the OEM, as they will always give conservative numbers whereas the local shops always give their very best pull, even if they melted the spark plug electrodes on that pull. More than one local shop (not saying names) has been known to have additives in the fuel when they dyno too, especially if the customer is there watching where they cannot fudge the correction factors.
I looked up the twisted SR20 because I was curious, You realize its not 9K cheaper, it is 21,450, so 8K cheaper (not that I expected you could do math) but that does not include carburetor or ignition, where as the ZZ632 comes with fuel injection, and crank triggered ignition, coil packs, and the computer to run it, so not the same thing. If you add a crank trigger system and injection to the Shariff engine the price is about the same, and you are buying old technology. As a side note the Shafiroff engine also has stainless steel valves, and the ZZ632 titanium valves.
It seems like you need a deeper understanding on engines and comparing value, I think if the Shafiroff engine had the same specs, it would be more expensive. The ZZ632 comes as a package with GM’s basic tune, and I am sure could be woken up with more tuning. When I get mine I want to run it for some baseline numbers, then I will do a leak down test, and tear it down, adjust the clearances to what I like. I will change the cam to a mechanical roller, and maybe the pistons if I do not like what GM has in there (too heavy?). Might take a couple passes off the cylinder heads to raise compression, and will certainly measure up the cylinder heads on the coordinate measuring machine and create a 3D electronic model to explore more deeply this design. Then put it back together and tune on it to see what is there. Depending on how good it runs I might keep it for my COPO Camaro, or I might sell it to a customer.
I acknowledge your point about the carb, and ignition parts not being included in the Shafiroff 632 engine, but spare me on your condescending comment about me not having a “deep” understanding on engines. GM has a leg up on technology you say? Last I heard, their ZZ572 engines come with heads made by Edelbrock. So no great and far advanced “technology” going on there.
You make a claim that nobody has anything like the heads that the ZZ632 comes with. Are you saying that the Brodix SR20 heads, as well as the Dart Big Chief, nor the Brodix Big Duke heads can compare to whatever heads the GM ZZ632 engine have?
Are you aware of the fact that the Brodix SR20 heads will flow over 500 CFM right out of the box?? As far as titanium valves, that’s nothing new. That’s technology that can be had in many aftermarket BBC heads including AFR, Brodix, and Dart.
Just an FYI here: the pistons in the ZZ632 have got to be dished with anywhere from a 25cc to a 35cc dish if the chamber size spec I saw is accurate, ( 70cc Chambers as far as I know). To obtain a pump gas static comp ratio with a 632cid engine using 70cc chambers you have to use dished pistons, (even for a 12:1 static CR).
Perhaps, you should slow down in your comment, Richard Maskin (RIP) who founded Dart was a friend of mine since the late 1980’s when I started building racing engines. I first worked on a well known nascar team, and then a championship pro stock team. We built lots of large cubic inch big chief headed motors on the side over the years. Do these new heads GM is putting on the ZZ632 beat Dart Big Chief Heads? We don’t know that until I get one and play with it. I have lots of data on every series of big chief heads for comparison. What I do know is the intake ports are even higher than the Big Chief intake ports and a straight runner to the valves tend to work better. Back in the day the big secret in Pro Stock was to align the carburetor booster as close as possible to perfect alignment with the intake valve. This was the reason teams played with split dominators back in the day as it was easier to get perfect alignment (Bob Glidden raced this setup for 1 race, out qualified the field by a lot and NHRA outlawed the split dominator 4- 2barrels). This is the reason I am buying one of these engines to have a look at it, so I know what GM is up to, likely Dart, Brodix, and others are going to want to look at these heads too, to see if this is a configuration worth pursuing further. I am sure I will also find some more HP in this engine by the time I am done with it, then I will sell it to a customer. Learning never stops!
Brodix SR20 heads flow well, however they use older technology. Todays racing engines utilize designs that promote the best flame travel and higher combustion efficiency. Port flow is only part of the story, like a 101 level of understanding where horsepower comes from. OEM’s spend thousands of hours using computational fluid dynamics, and finite element analysis software to improve their combustion, and parts design. Do you wonder why ZZ632 can run 12 to 1 compression on pump gas, but Schiroff’s engine is 10.75 to 1? Bingo. GM says they utilized learnings from the LS3 to the LT2 cylinder heads and then scaled it up for the port setup on the ZZ632, The aftermarket can copy this design and likely improve it, but the aftermarket does not do as well designing an all new configurations from scratch. Like Richard Maskin used to say often, we are not engineers, we are mechanics and we don’t invent the wheel, we fix what is wrong, and improve it. As for casting GM heads, I don’t know or care who casts them, the design and tooling are GM’s. It’s like assembly, PAS assembles most of the performance crate engines other than the couple that are still built in the factories.
Flattop or dished pistons? this is where your lack of modern racing engine technology shows. Flattop or dished pistons are better for several reasons, first being combustion flame travel, the more the flame spreads out evenly over the piston the more power you can harness, second flattop or dished pistons are typically lighter for the same strength, third flattop or dished pistons tend to have less hot spots, fourth you can design the combustion chamber in the head for better combustion with flattop or dished pistons, fifth domed pistons tend to rock on the cylinder firing, therefore requiring more skirt strength aka weight. This really shows up as compression goes higher.
My point on the Ignition, Injection and Titanium valves is the ZZ632 has them, but your comparable engine did not, Thats a lot of cost in those items, and don’t forget the ZZ632 also comes with the computer to make it all work and likely several stock tunes. I will post back when I get the engine and run it, and if it is a POS, I will tell you, and I will post all of the specifics of components inside.
I read that twice.., nice!!
My “Lack of modern racing technology”??? You don’t even come close to understanding what I know, nor what I don’t know, since you’re trying to read between the lines of my replies, and therefore you continue to come up with false or inaccurate assumptions about me and about what I know.
For instance: show me where I said that flat top or dished pistons are inferior to domed pistons??? You won’t find that in any of my replies, because I NEVER said that, nor did I imply that. Instead the reality is that YOU read into my replies, things that are just not there.
I was merely pointing out to you that you’re going to find dished pistons in the GM 632 engine, if it really DOES come with a 12:1 static comp ratio, and if the chambers really are 70cc or even 75cc in size, UNLESS the head gaskets it comes with are .050″ thick or more, and/or the pistons are more than .025″ in the hole@TDC, (which I kind of doubt they would be). I simply stated a fact, that’s all.
I never said, nor implied that dished pistons make less power than domes pistons do. I know all about the flame front being hindered by domed pistons. So here again you do NOT possess superior knowledge than I concerning domed pistons having their drawbacks. I’m sorry of that injures your BIG ego, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Now as far as your comparison of the Brodix SR20 heads on the Shafiroff 632cid engine, and the GM ZZ632, and the difference in comp ratio, the heads are not the reason why shafiroff uses a 10.75:1 as compared to the GM ZZ632 12:1 comp ratio. Instead it is most likely the choice of camshaft specs, and more specifically, the valve timing that the cam design choice creates.
The GM 632 is using a pretty big cam, and it very likely closes the intake valve at a later point in the compression stroke, when the piston is further up the bore. Therefore, that alone allows a higher comp ratio to be used on pump gas, and it even creates a NEED for a high comp ratio, to make the same power level as the Shafiroff SR20 equipped 632cid engine makes with merely 10.75:1 comp ratio.
You can claim that the Brodix SR20 heads are “old technology” all you want, but the fact of the matter is the SR20 head equipped Shafiroff 632cid engine is making about 46 HP more at the same RPM as the GM ZZ632 engine is making, and it’s doing it with a lower static comp ratio than the GM 632 engine has.
So obviously you’re not seeing the forest for the trees here. The Brodix heads are still making the same power as the GM ZZ632 heads are, and they’re doing so with a considerably less static comp ratio. So lets see how you’re going to try and twist that around in an attempt to prove your superior knowledge. Hahaha
What good is “modern technology” in a hi-perf car, or a race car, if it doesn’t produce more power than the “old technology” does?? It only costs more than the “old technology” does, so other than draining your bank account, it’s worthless.
Wow, so much to say it took 3 replies… I am believing you less and less the more you babble, and give me other peoples claimed peak HP numbers. I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of bad mouthing other engine builders or cylinder head manufacturers as that is he said, she said BS. I will happily talk about the technical aspects of engines and making HP all day long,
If you learned to read, you would see in my last comment that I did not say the ZZ632 cylinder heads are better than anything, I said I am buying one to find out. I did say the intake ports were higher and the angle different than conventional BBC heads. I said I will run the engine for baseline numbers then tear it down, and see what GM is using, likely make changes, and see what its potential really is. You see Brodix has had decades to improve their design, and they have, BBC conventional heads made today are the best they have ever been, however if new technology comes out and can match or nearly match it in first iteration, how is that new technology going to be with years of modifications and improvements? See, you think in a closed box, I want to get the new technology and test it, modify it and see what it’s immediate and long term potential is.
Back to cost again, we already decided GM’s ZZ632 is the same price as a comparable engine from Schiroff, when you compare apples with apples. Actually let’s not forget the GM engine is injected, and has computerized crank trigger ignition, which means tuning is just a laptop away. Now my experience is an optimized engine will almost always make more power with a carburetor than port injection, and I intend to try that on the ZZ632.
I took a look at the ZZ632 yesterday here at SEMA, and talked to a couple engineers from GM who told me this is the first use of these heads, but there will be others. Some of what they told me was off the record, but I can certainly see potential.
holy hell little dick donovan – you sound like a prick that needs an ass whoopin
uhmmm, BTW my 632 pump gas engine has flat top pistons, because that’s what I wanted for a good flame front travel across the piston tops and chambers. And to actually think that I could’ve already known that without having heard it first from the great and all-knowing Donavan. Go figure
So this is what GOD sounds when it’s happy…
Why is GM or any auto company making new versions of monstrous ICEs? That they are, makes me think my purchase of a Bolt is meaningless.
Is GM planning on putting this engine in there Medium size trucks,
Donovan tested “for” 200 1/4 mile drag runs does not mean that is the end of life of an engine, I believe that you are upset because it would not easily fit anything that you own.
R.I.P. Donovan. In a truly narcissistic fashion, he knew it all. Yet like his savings, he blew it all. Now without a friend, so lonely in the end, he drops another comment on the good ole GM Wall.
LOL, yeah, its funny, one can easily troll that dude with any comment about putting this engine into a ZR2! Someone with the time and money should do it just for fun.
Overpriced for those who can’t afford it.