Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Grabiak Performance Center
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2008, 08:55 AM   #71
Beau
 
Drives: Fast
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 24
SS4Ever, there are tons of different types of GM engineers there. The guy you talked to sounds about as informed as a first year college student who bought their civic Si, who recently read a cat back exhaust would be good to put him in the 11s.

The fact is with GM, they always cork up a certain percentage of power, GM usually leaves a lot of power on the table. The main reason for this is that GM doesn't make quiet nor vibration free motors typically. NHV is the acronynm for the day for most paper GM engineers.

However... The good news, sinice most of the GM vehicles are over built, then corked up, they respond well to bolt ons.

The ONLY thing that matters is rise in volumetric efficiency with each mod done.
There are only two motors I know of that don't respond to bolt ons.

Its the S2000 motor, and most recent Nissan VQs. Why? Because they are already engineers to make the best power within those parameters, their runners lengths and volumes are already optimized. Their intake already flows enough without it impeding stock performance, as well as their exhausts. So on and so forth.

GMs again, on the other hand do not typically share the same passion for extracting everything they can out of a motor, they say, ok here are the specs, we need to get it this quiet. Lets do it easy, and make a muti baffled intake with wird turns and chambers, that'll quiet it down~! ( and it does... for cheap too )

Same with the exhaust.

P.S. the non DI motor, GMs drag racing team dumped the Ecotec in a specific class that allowed up to 3.5 liters. They took the 3.6 destroked it, and make 1665 WHP out the first time with it and killed their transmission. They didn't even think they would come close to that number, btw.
Beau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 09:04 AM   #72
Camaro_Corvette
36.833283,-76.021958
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
holy crap...I took a link to another page, check this out:


100 + hp on 4.5 psi?!? Jeez!
I think whoever first said this little engine has some potential was understating the situation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
Absolutely...don't know why I didn't in the first place...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7079
OMFG
__________________
I am seriously never serious vv V vv Next order of business
Camaro_Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:39 PM   #73
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by zebra View Post
you must mean new 6 cylinders. in 1991 GMC took a regular 150hp 4.3 Sonoma and beefed it up to 330hp & called it a Syclone. guys have since then bumped them to over 1000hp.
They also converted that engine to forced induction. It was turbocharged. I'm talking about normally aspirated V6's...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:44 PM   #74
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau View Post
P.S. the non DI motor, GMs drag racing team dumped the Ecotec in a specific class that allowed up to 3.5 liters. They took the 3.6 destroked it, and make 1665 WHP out the first time with it and killed their transmission. They didn't even think they would come close to that number, btw.
Yeah but AFTER they probably destroked it, completely re-built the engine, upgraded the block, pistons and all internals then converted it to forced induction. Which can be done to pretty much any engine.

I'm just saying that normally aspirated, that V6 won't have to much more power to be gained from what I was informed. Yeah you throw a turbo or supercharger on it of course you're looking at gains of 100hp or more. But a full load of bolt-ons aren't going to give that V6 like 70+ HP which I think alot of you are expecting...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:44 PM   #75
zebra
just can't seem to leave
 
zebra's Avatar
 
Drives: your mom wild!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: cold & windy
Posts: 10,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS4EVER View Post
They also converted that engine to forced induction. It was turbocharged. I'm talking about normally aspirated V6's...
okay. you didn't specify that last time.
__________________
zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:46 PM   #76
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by zebra View Post
okay. you didn't specify that last time.
sorry.
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2008, 07:00 PM   #77
Flighttester
 
Drives: 2008 Audi A4 3.2 MT S Line
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayhawk View Post
I am no expert on DI, but I think a limiting factor is the injection system's ability to overcome the cylinder pressure. Add a lot of boost and the system could really struggle to get the fuel into the cylinder. I would imagine upgrading of the factory system would get pretty expensive and complex. If the maximum bmep in the cylinder is 2000 psi, the injection system will have to be capable of much more than that to accurately put the correct amount of fuel in. Upping this significantly through FI may cause a lot of issues in fuel control.

That's why direct injection systems are so expensive to implement.

They require very high pressure pumps and lines. That don't come cheap.

But, it's worth it.
Flighttester is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future Products—General Motors KILLER74Z28 General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 5 11-14-2012 04:07 PM
New York Times: Siphoning G.M.’s Future GTAHVIT General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 2 07-10-2008 06:37 PM
GM To Unveil Future Business Plans On Tuesday Mr. Wyndham General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 5 06-03-2008 09:02 AM
Steve Dinan: BMW sets the tone for future combustion engine development Scotsman General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 1 03-25-2008 08:06 PM
LSX owners: AFR Cylinder Head Owners FTI-EDC General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 0 11-10-2006 05:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.