Turbo-4cyl 2010 Camaro Thoughts

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

4.5L V-8 turbo diesel....

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

GM's already done calculations, if not tried it. I remember Bob Lutz saying that there was barely any improvement in fuel economy, just a much more sluggish Camaro.

Right. If memory serves, they said that the gearing was configured in a way that the turbo was always spooled....that really counteracts any fuel-saving benefits...

However, they ARE looking at ways to make it more fuel efficient. They're coming out with a new version of the Ecotec line for the next-gen Equinox...they say it will provide class-leading fuel efficiency. And the Equinox is no lightweight. So it looks promising.

Originally Posted by taz

I cant picture a camaro w/o at least a V6. Do they have AFM for the V6? Drop down to 3 cylinders while cruising? Might bring up the gas mileage.

They have AFM on their pushrod V6's...but those are being phased out in favor of the newer OHC 3.6L engines. And they don't currently have any AFM system for OHC engines.:(

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

it would be harder to balance the rotating assy deactivating 3 cyl on a v-6

id say you could do 2 at most

Honda has some 6-4-3 cylinder deactivation...but I heard it rattles like a mother...

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by Sharpe

^In my ignorance, i thought that way until I researched and found that the import crowd will never take a V6 over a turbo 4, even if the turbo 4 has slightly less power. The reason is aftermarket -- a fully built turbo 4 will take a fully built N/A V6.

I'm not saying i like the idea of a lower-powered turbo 4 over the DI V6 that's going in the 5th Gen, though. The reason I say that is because the aftermarket will support the V8 Camaro, because that's what most Camaro owners will use as a platform. In other words, Camaro owners would rather have a NA V8 at 500 rwhp than a turbo 4 at 500 rwhp. And, with very good reason that I won't get into, because that's the age-old import vs. domestic battle that's better on the streets and on the track than on some Internet message board.

one big reason to have 500hp n/a V8 over turbo 4 500hp is the torque. something EVERYONE forgets about. torque is what moves the car, hp is just how fast/easy you can use that torque.

the guy that made a comment about the diesel, how it shot off like a v-8. diesels make donkey ballsacks full of torque. not always the highest hp, but they make power regardless.

GM's new 4.5L diesel V-8 for instance makes over 500 ft lbs of torqe and 300+ hp. it would be perfect to throw in this car. (tho i imagine it will make its way into the Ute first. but its the same dimensions as a traditional small block so the engine/vehicle combos are near limitless that this motor could be put into.

and the fact that it makes such a large amount of torque is what helps diesels get better gas mileage. the lower rpm you have to spin a motor to move, the better off you are. instead of like 4 bangers and the like that dont get into their power band untill higher rpms and dont have the torque to move larger cars.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Honda has some 6-4-3 cylinder deactivation...but I heard it rattles like a mother...

shakes, rattles, and pisses you off.

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by gladiatoro

You are correct sir and who would want one anyways lol

Not I. lol

Originally Posted by Sharpe

^In my ignorance, i thought that way until I researched and found that the import crowd will never take a V6 over a turbo 4, even if the turbo 4 has slightly less power. The reason is aftermarket -- a fully built turbo 4 will take a fully built N/A V6.

Hmmm, can you say Hyundai Genesis Coupe? They actually provided pre-production units to tuners for development, so the products are ready at launch.

Oh, which model did Hyundai provide? The Turbo 4.

I still won't do a 4. Of course I won't do V6 either. lol

[SS4EVER]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

diesels make donkey ballsacks full of torque.

That's quote worthy right there...

Originally Posted by camaro5

Not I. lol




Hmmm, can you say Hyundai Genesis Coupe? They actually provided pre-production units to tuners for development, so the products are ready at launch.

Oh, which model did Hyundai provide? The Turbo 4.

I still won't do a 4. Of course I won't do V6 either. lol

Well Ford did it with the 84-86 Mustang.... Remember the SVO Mustang????

[GrnMchin]

[QUOTE=
Which leads me to my next point, a Turbo diesel whether it be v-4 or v-6. From what i've read on them they have good all around fuel economy (both highway and city). But the main thing that i've seen is the turbo diesel has ALOT of torque compared to hp (again not sure why, please feel free to fill me in). I recently test drove a VW clean Diesel TDI, and it pulled away from a stoplight like a v-8, not kidding, it was probably the most fun i've had in a v-4 in a while (tho i like my cobalt). Of course this is all defendant on how good GM's diesel engines hold up, i believe the new cruze has one, lets hope for good things.
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Diesel make a ton of LB-FT(torque), because they generally have long strokes due to the fact the use friction generated by high compression to ignite the fuel the burn. That also why they don't rev to the moon. Diesel would be cool, but you would have to change the average American in think so. If you want to know what diesel can do look at the Audi R10. Tons of things can be done not to mention you can burn vegetable oil instead of diesel. A lot of high 12 sec 7000 lbs diesel trucks that all they due is change the engine program.

[CamaroSpike23]

[

Originally Posted by GrnMchin

Diesel make a ton of LB-FT(torque), because they generally have long strokes due to the fact the use friction and compression to ignite the fuel the burn. That also why they don't rev to the moon. Diesel would be cool, but you would have to change the average American in think so. If you want to know what diesel can do look at the Audi R10. Tons of things can be done not to mention you can burn vegetable oil instead of diesel. Alot of high 12 sec 7000 lbs diesel trucks that all they due is change the engine program.

turn up the boost, throw some propane injection in there to boot, and smoke the tires all day long.

[zebra]

Originally Posted by camaro5

Don't expect to see the Iron D.

oh i don't. especially with all things pointing to not having any gains over the V6

[Mr. Wyndham]

[brainfood]

There's also a ~250hp 3.0L DI V6 in existence somewhere....

[/brainfood]

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

[brainfood]

There's also a ~250hp 3.0L DI V6 in existence somewhere....

[/brainfood]

I've heard about that. I think its first scheduled use is in Buicks.

[Grape Ape]

For those of you who think an LNF powered Camaro would feel to slow, I'd like to point out that the LNF only gives up 12 ft/lbs compared to the LLT and has a flatter torque curve.

I'd also like to predict that if any Zetas get the LNF it will almost certainly be for sale overseas in markets in markets where it would be cheaper than the LLT because they charge ruinous taxes based on displacement.

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

4.5L V-8 turbo diesel....

that would be nuts but a little more realistic is the 2.9 turbo diesel 250 hp and 406 lb-ft. sign me up for that one although im not holding my breath they are putting them in ctss over seas im praying it will come stateside in anyting imagine a all wheel drive CTS with 406 lb-ft........

[kylepo]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I've heard about that. I think its first scheduled use is in Buicks.

the new srx will have it maybe the upper teim level nox and the new lacrosse will use it as a base engine along with a 290 hp di 3.6

[TonytheTiger]

Give it a colbalt ss tc engine

[zebra]

Originally Posted by TonytheTiger

Give it a colbalt ss tc engine

ain't that been all over the first page of this thread & proved that it didn't do anything good for the car?

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

GM's already done calculations, if not tried it. I remember Bob Lutz saying that there was barely any improvement in fuel economy, just a much more sluggish Camaro.