2012 Camaro V6 Engine's New Cylinder Head Design Adds Power, Saves Fuel - Page 5 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

mikeSS · 05-17-2011, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarylandSpeed

Few things.

Headers scavenge. What that means is because of their length, and their design, they accelerate the exhaust gases. It is not a matter of "flowing better"...the actually make the gas move faster because of the vacum pulses in the exhaust. This is why LT's make more power than shorties. On a V8 car, LT's make 25HP untuned.

Not only are LT headers not possible with this design, but it is also terrible because it creates a hard limit on how well your exhaust can flow. Your engine is an air pump. To make more power, you have to put more air in, and allow more air out. With this, you are now limited to whatever exhaust can flow through the integrated manifold, and that 2" or whatever oval port. To do anything better at minimum is gonna require reworked heads.

The only reason they did this was to save money. I like the BS about the reduced mass of the parts adds to fuel economy. Bottom line is that it is cheaper to cast the manifold in the head than make it a seperate part.

I hope this never makes it to the V8.

but i don't blame GM for doing it, how many v6s out there have long tube headers ? compared to how many v6s are made i bet its a little percentage on people modding them. same goes for the v8 i bet, but not as bad. so not to many people really care, all they see is " more HP" COOL!

lets hope it doesn't make it to the v8s.

musicmanz28 · 05-17-2011, 05:45 AM

If they can can get kind of power from a v6.... what are the possibilites on a v8?

PAUL SS · 05-17-2011, 07:55 AM

Looks like plenty of material there for porting. What about the single down pipe, I would like to see that. And like Chuck said those heads are just begging for a turbo to be bolted on. This is a futuristic design, Congrats to GM.

FC_GIBB · 05-17-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingnotes

These heads are screaming for a turbo to be mounted right there...

Hellz yeah, thats exactly what i was thinking the first time i saw the Pictures.

Arachnyd · 05-17-2011, 09:26 AM

V6 is not made primarily for performance... The V8 is...

Who said "I want a faster car so I'm going with the V6?" no, there are only 3 reasons why anyone got the v6- Cost, Fuel Economy, or Environmental impact. This helps all 3 of those, right? so it is a great innovation. it only needs to be "Fast enough".

Plus, who here remembers the days when we were excited about 222 hp in a 3800 lb car?? Heck, when I bought my 3000GT, I was psyched that I was putting down power with the "huge" 222hp DOHC, compared to the guys with the 163 hp SOHC engine on the base model. The VR4 (which had a whopping 296 HP) was a little out of reach, and at a price tag of 40k ($40,000.00 in 1990 had the same buying power as $68,500.87 in 2010.)

Conveniently, those cars align pretty well with the V6 camaro, V8 camaro, and the ZL1... and todays V6 camaro can probably outrun a stock VR4... which at the time was even classed as a SUPERCAR....

So seriously, I am still amazed that TODAY we can buy a car for $22k that has better performance than a 68k equivalent car did 20 years ago...

b4z · 05-17-2011, 10:01 AM

So far nobody has talked about torque.
I would like to see GM get the tq up from 273 @ 4800rpms to 273 @ 3500 rpms with the same 323hp. or maybe 295tq @ 4800rpms with 90% of it available from 2800rpms to 5300rpms.
tq is what a 3700lb car needs.

FACT: the HFE engine can go to 4.0L.
FACT: when the HFE engine came out for the 2004 model year there was talk of a 3.6L twin turbo 425hp engine. That was 8 model years ago!!!!!!!!

Why not: a 3.9L version with AFM for trucks with 320+hp and 300tq from 2500-5000 rpms?
AND
A 3.9L H.O. version with 350-360hp, AFM and 300tq @ 3500rpms?

A V6 Camaro with 360hp with lightweight forged 19s, lighter front end due to the V6 and a few weight saving components would be a flippin blast on a twisty road.

b4z · 05-17-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BumblebeeAmigo

Plus, who here remembers the days when we were excited about 222 hp in a 3800 lb car?? Heck, when I bought my 3000GT, I was psyched that I was putting down power with the "huge" 222hp DOHC, compared to the guys with the 163 hp SOHC engine on the base model. The VR4 (which had a whopping 296 HP) was a little out of reach, and at a price tag of 40k ($40,000.00 in 1990 had the same buying power as $68,500.87 in 2010.)

I hear ya'.
I used to eat those V6 3000GT's and Dodges for lunch in my 3400lb '87 IROC w/ 215hp TPI, 5 spd, 3.45 rear axle and limited slip. I think my car would 0-60in 6.8 seconds. LOL.

Hmmmmm. 3rd gen with all aluminum LFX motor and aftermarket front suspension. What's that. maybe 3200lbs?

Norrin Radd · 05-17-2011, 12:23 PM

I have been waiting for more info to be released about these heads once I heard they were switching to integrated manifolds. Plus the new ECU and E85 capability...I hope to be in a position to buy a 2012 V6 to adapt the two of the new Borg Warner EFR series turbos to these heads via an adapter/flange.

*DGthe3* · 05-17-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b4z

So far nobody has talked about torque.
I would like to see GM get the tq up from 273 @ 4800rpms to 273 @ 3500 rpms with the same 323hp. or maybe 295tq @ 4800rpms with 90% of it available from 2800rpms to 5300rpms.
tq is what a 3700lb car needs.

FACT: the HFE engine can go to 4.0L.
FACT: when the HFE engine came out for the 2004 model year there was talk of a 3.6L twin turbo 425hp engine. That was 8 model years ago!!!!!!!!

Why not: a 3.9L version with AFM for trucks with 320+hp and 300tq from 2500-5000 rpms?
AND
A 3.9L H.O. version with 350-360hp, AFM and 300tq @ 3500rpms?

A V6 Camaro with 360hp with lightweight forged 19s, lighter front end due to the V6 and a few weight saving components would be a flippin blast on a twisty road.

Minor detail but ... 278 ft-lbs, it went up (along with the hp) when they actually rated it for 2011 MY.

I'm not really sure why you think the V6 needs more toque for its weight. I can only really go off the 2010's and 2011's with all this but ...

To my knowledge, this car has the highest torque to weight ratio of any 6 cylinder Camaro. GM did extremely well with the breadth of the torque band. It has 90% of it available from around 2100 rpm up through what looks like 6300. It also does pretty well in terms of specific torque (torque/L). Getting more than 80 ft-lbs/L is very difficult on a naturally aspirated engine. Most, if not all, naturally aspirated cars that you can buy today are in the 60-80 ft-lb/L range, and the vast majority being between 65 and 75. Its just the way the laws of physics work. All in all, this is the best V6 GM has ever put in a Camaro. Sure, it would be great to have more. But when wouldn't it be great to have more? You say it would be a blast to drive a 360 hp V6 Camaro on a twisty road, I'm sure it would. But a 370 hp V6 would be even better. And you know what would be even better than that? a 380 hp V6.

htron50 · 05-17-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH

Your kidding right? I would gladly take a set of aftermarket headers over some "new" factory exhaust. So a bump in 11hp is enough to justify not adding headers to that setup?

Don't Fret !!! The NEW HEADERS for this consist one ONE solid tube so should cost you much less!! You may even opt for POLISHED CHROME to make a statement!!

PYROLYSIS · 05-17-2011, 02:51 PM

Has the TREMEC trans for the v-6 rumor been confirmed or denied yet? I think that would be a great package and could make the v-6 even more desirable. As long as price doesn't jump too much, adding a higher quality manual trans would be a great change.

Norrin Radd · 05-17-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

Has the TREMEC trans for the v-6 rumor been confirmed or denied yet? I think that would be a great package and could make the v-6 even more desirable. As long as price doesn't jump too much, adding a higher quality manual trans would be a great change.

It definitely needs a better 6 speed trans, I sure hope they upgraded it.

htron50 · 05-17-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

You're right. My mistake. I don't know why I was thinking that....

Aluminum warps too fast vs cast iron...won't the focused extra heat remaining in the HEAD longer mean quicker fatique?? AS i stated at first. You have to admit the heat is in the head longer and the cooling channels will be challenged!

Norrin Radd · 05-17-2011, 03:05 PM

LS1, LS2's and many other aluminum heads and blocks for that matter are known to produce massive amounts of power. There is a concentrated amount of exhaust in one area, yes, but remember the firing order of the engine...the pulses of the exhaust are at different times so therefore the concentrated amount of air is not as concentrated as you may think. You can even see this happening in the video on this thread by GM when he's talking about the head design and flow. Im not an engineer, nor claim to be, but that is how I understand it, correct me if I am wrong!

Also, add the option to run e85, e85 burns cooler than gasoline...

05-17-2011, 07:55 AM	#59
PAUL SS The Mark of Excellence Drives: 2010 ABM 1SS RS LS3 Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Smallest State in the Union Posts: 8,690 View My Garage	Looks like plenty of material there for porting. What about the single down pipe, I would like to see that. And like Chuck said those heads are just begging for a turbo to be bolted on. This is a futuristic design, Congrats to GM. __________________ BMR, CAI, DynoMax, Elite Eng., Hurst, Jannetty, Clear Image Headers & Hi Flow cats, Jet Hot, LSR, TSW, VMax, Vredestein

05-17-2011, 09:26 AM	#61
Arachnyd Master of all trades Drives: 2many2count Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: West Chester, OH (near cincy) Posts: 732	V6 is not made primarily for performance... The V8 is... Who said "I want a faster car so I'm going with the V6?" no, there are only 3 reasons why anyone got the v6- Cost, Fuel Economy, or Environmental impact. This helps all 3 of those, right? so it is a great innovation. it only needs to be "Fast enough". Plus, who here remembers the days when we were excited about 222 hp in a 3800 lb car?? Heck, when I bought my 3000GT, I was psyched that I was putting down power with the "huge" 222hp DOHC, compared to the guys with the 163 hp SOHC engine on the base model. The VR4 (which had a whopping 296 HP) was a little out of reach, and at a price tag of 40k ($40,000.00 in 1990 had the same buying power as $68,500.87 in 2010.) Conveniently, those cars align pretty well with the V6 camaro, V8 camaro, and the ZL1... and todays V6 camaro can probably outrun a stock VR4... which at the time was even classed as a SUPERCAR.... So seriously, I am still amazed that TODAY we can buy a car for $22k that has better performance than a 68k equivalent car did 20 years ago... __________________ 2010 Camaro SS modified extensively. I stretched the body to make it a 4 door, but I swapped in the 3.6L DI V6 for fuel economy. Then I picked up a corvette body around the V8. I also swapped the body for a C2 Z28. (In short I traded it for three cars, a Corvette Z06r, a C2 Camaro Z28, and a Cadillac CTS Summer Performance package 3.6L DI with Aisin 6spd.)

05-17-2011, 02:51 PM	#67
PYROLYSIS Remember the Charleston 9 Drives: 2004 KME PREDATOR, 2014 2SS/RS/1LE Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Summerv1LE SC Posts: 5,381 View My Garage	Has the TREMEC trans for the v-6 rumor been confirmed or denied yet? I think that would be a great package and could make the v-6 even more desirable. As long as price doesn't jump too much, adding a higher quality manual trans would be a great change. __________________ BRING BACK THE B4C POLICE CAMARO! 2002 V-6 5 speed rally red (current camaro) Also driven:1992 Z-28 305 auto Red w/ black stripes (anniversary), 2001 V-6 auto light pewter metallic,1991 RS V-6 auto Black

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Camaro Product Manager - interview	Moose	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	11	04-04-2012 06:10 PM
GM memo to dealers	Moose	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	41	02-04-2010 07:33 PM
Official Camaro Convertible CONCEPT Press Release	Tran	Camaro Convertible Forum	12	11-18-2009 07:05 PM
Camaro (concept) Press Release!!	Pencil.Fight	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	4	07-21-2008 03:33 PM

05-17-2011, 05:45 AM	#58
musicmanz28 Drives: 2011 Synergy Green LS Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix AZ Posts: 49	If they can can get kind of power from a v6.... what are the possibilites on a v8?

05-17-2011, 10:01 AM	#62
b4z Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '19 F150 2.7TT Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 1,425	So far nobody has talked about torque. I would like to see GM get the tq up from 273 @ 4800rpms to 273 @ 3500 rpms with the same 323hp. or maybe 295tq @ 4800rpms with 90% of it available from 2800rpms to 5300rpms. tq is what a 3700lb car needs. FACT: the HFE engine can go to 4.0L. FACT: when the HFE engine came out for the 2004 model year there was talk of a 3.6L twin turbo 425hp engine. That was 8 model years ago!!!!!!!! Why not: a 3.9L version with AFM for trucks with 320+hp and 300tq from 2500-5000 rpms? AND A 3.9L H.O. version with 350-360hp, AFM and 300tq @ 3500rpms? A V6 Camaro with 360hp with lightweight forged 19s, lighter front end due to the V6 and a few weight saving components would be a flippin blast on a twisty road.

05-17-2011, 12:23 PM	#64
Norrin Radd Drives: Supra/Camaro Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: TX Posts: 12	I have been waiting for more info to be released about these heads once I heard they were switching to integrated manifolds. Plus the new ECU and E85 capability...I hope to be in a position to buy a 2012 V6 to adapt the two of the new Borg Warner EFR series turbos to these heads via an adapter/flange.

05-17-2011, 03:05 PM	#70
Norrin Radd Drives: Supra/Camaro Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: TX Posts: 12	LS1, LS2's and many other aluminum heads and blocks for that matter are known to produce massive amounts of power. There is a concentrated amount of exhaust in one area, yes, but remember the firing order of the engine...the pulses of the exhaust are at different times so therefore the concentrated amount of air is not as concentrated as you may think. You can even see this happening in the video on this thread by GM when he's talking about the head design and flow. Im not an engineer, nor claim to be, but that is how I understand it, correct me if I am wrong! Also, add the option to run e85, e85 burns cooler than gasoline...