2012 "Track Pack" Camaro to be called Z/28...

[thePill]

Although I honestly admire the evolution of the TT V6's, I just can't see a TT V6 being the track option for a Camaro Z28. The only two TT's that would even be considered is the 3.0 and the 3.6, it is proven that the 3.6 can make 425hp but it wasn't made public if the setup could pass emissions. The TT 3.0 is being produced to compete with at least 350hp but as of now only produces 270 hp and 213 lb-ft.
The weight of a VVT, DOHC V6 twin turbo with exchanger/intercooler and plumbing could very likely push 400+lbs. Even if the 3.0 uses the more compact valley turbo setup, it will still weigh a decent amount. It is said that the TT 3.6 could produce fuel efficiency numbers equal to a 3.6 V6 but again, this engine as far as I know is uncertified. The 3.0 is currently being designed with performance, fuel efficiency, emission requirements and could possibly be much lighter than the 3.6. Although, the 3.0 will not perform as the 3.6 does, as it could be around 360hp but really fall behind on torque due to smaller bore/stroke. However, unless they are offered against a new Gen5 V8, the cost of a V8 that already exist will be much, much lower. Regrettably, there is simply no room for a TT V6 as an entry level engine or a high performance option as long as the standard N/A V8 is around.

There is a remedy for that though. The Gen5 V8 (or V8's) will feature an engine block with a "raised" cam. The camshaft will set higher in the block, farther away from the crank and allow for the pushrods to enter the head casting at a greater angle. This aggressive pushrod angle will flatten the pushrod movement to more of a left to right operation instead of the traditional up-down at a "V" angle. This will increase valve train speed and also eliminate the pushrods operation through the intake port as pushrods have always naturally done. The LS3 heads offset the pushrods further into the head casting and away from the intake port to increase airflow but doing so, it placed the pushrod guides in the direct path of direct injection. This new Gen5 will obviously host DI, increasing fuel economy, efficiency, eliminate valve train parasitic losses, increase valve train speed increasing maximum RPMs and increase horsepower, torque at a flatter power curve with better CO2 emission output. This can all be accomplished simultaneously while reducing the displacement if only by a fraction of a litre. Larger displacement will become more and more obsolete as standard V8's become super efficient and with efficiency naturally comes power. If a standard NA V8 could produce 440hp, get 28mpg, have a 7000rpm redline and weigh just as the current V8's do then a TT V6 could definitely become a bargain performance option, especially when the majority of aftermarket money is in forced induction. A high volume TT V6 could broaden GMPP's aftermarket stance because a 350hp, 32mpg package would be highly marketable. Surely a FI, fully forged Gen5 would find its way into a bragger model in limited numbers if needs be. The Ecotec I4 (maybe for extreme sales volume) could also bolster the aftermarket along with the TT V6 as it would inherently be lighter than the TT V6 and could manage 300hp at 3400lbs and still attract the masses with a 36mpg.. all for the base MSRP of what a V6 Camaro offers now.

The NA Gen5 would be reserved for the Z28, offered along with the SS (TT V6, You say Super Sport, I say Standard Sport) equaling it in weight but producing numbers far higher than the SS with the exception of MPG's.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I'd agree with most of what you said, Pill.

I think your fuel economy assumptions are a little aggressive/hopeful, and none of us know if GM's been working on a performance-oriented 3.6L TT V6 in the basement (I'll bet my ZL1 they do...)...

Still, good overview!

The best thing about the Gen V V8...is that although you'll probably see its application shrink slightly thanks to better V6s and increasing fuel economy/emissions standards...it'll hardly disappear. Trucks are a very big part of GM's portfolio. As is the Corvette, and Camaro. So long as those three factors exist -- there will be a Small Block Chevy available to be shoehorned into any vehicle they think appropriate.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'd agree with most of what you said, Pill.

I think your fuel economy assumptions are a little aggressive/hopeful, and none of us know if GM's been working on a performance-oriented 3.6L TT V6 in the basement (I'll bet my ZL1 they do...)...

Still, good overview!

The best thing about the Gen V V8...is that although you'll probably see its application shrink slightly thanks to better V6s and increasing fuel economy/emissions standards...it'll hardly disappear. Trucks are a very big part of GM's portfolio. As is the Corvette, and Camaro. So long as those three factors exist -- there will be a Small Block Chevy available to be shoehorned into any vehicle they think appropriate.

The MPG estimates may be hopeful but it wouldn't be insane to think that a 5.5 (stay with that number for now) with Electric power steering, Direct Injection, VVT, Cylinder deactivation (go without if possible), maybe some fancy cylinder wall work and (this is really hopeful) Electric Air Conditioning!!! I could see 28mpg over the 24 the LS3 has in which uses none of the above. Figure in some well thought out gearing in both transmission and in the final and it could possibly be higher. All my other MPG guesses are based off of the Gen5 guesstimation and again... very hopeful...

Not sure if the engines are certified with A/C running or not but just think... EAC could see a small gain like the EPAS in both power and MPG's while not in use and no penalty for full blast ... Hell, if it wasn't costing me power and fuel, I would pump cold air right into the intake from the A/C... Now that's CAI!!!

Gotta stop... gettin off topic...

Edit: Those are highway guesstimations...

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by thePill

The MPG estimates may be hopeful but it wouldn't be insane to think that a 5.5 (stay with that number for now) with Electric power steering, Direct Injection, VVT, Cylinder deactivation (go without if possible), maybe some fancy cylinder wall work and (this is really hopeful) Electric Air Conditioning!!! I could see 28mpg over the 24 the LS3 has in which uses none of the above. Figure in some well thought out gearing in both transmission and in the final and it could possibly be higher. All my other MPG guesses are based off of the Gen5 guesstimation and again... very hopeful...

Not sure if the engines are certified with A/C running or not but just think... EAC could see a small gain like the EPAS in both power and MPG's while not in use and no penalty for full blast ... Hell, if it wasn't costing me power and fuel, I would pump cold air right into the intake from the A/C... Now that's CAI!!!

Gotta stop... gettin off topic...

Edit: Those are highway guesstimations...

Pill, the improvements you suggest are all directionally correct, however, they don't add up to 4 mpg on an LS3. The only thing the L99 doesn't have is DI and EPS, and those don't add up to 4 mpg (unless you are willing to take less performance)and if you are asking for AFM on a manual that's a whole different set of challenges. That's why there is an L99 in the first place. And any changes to the cylinder and combustion chamber are miniscule refinements on years and years of practice in this area, not giant leaps. This is a daily battle for tenths and tenths of tenths.

But I love the optimism

What you haven't covered is a more aggressive FE oriented calibration. Early torque converter lock up, much more aggressive decel fuel cut off. Earlier shifting. For the most part that is already done, but you could go further. But if you simply calibrate the car to "force" FE, then you will PO customers. Refer to the original Lambda launch if you have any doubts on this.

You always have to consider that you have to have a car that is drivable and delivers on the performance expectations of the customer. Why would you buy an SS if it really wasn't that much more of a performance car over the super impressive V6? Now if you can get all of todays performance and improve FE (EPS does that) that's awesome. It's just hard to do.

As for electric A/C, run the numbers and see how much electric power would be required, how much bigger a battery you might need and how much bigger an alternator would be required. In the end, EPS is a benefit over Hydraulic. And BMW (maybe you didn't know this) doesn't allow the alternator to charge the battery until absolutely necessary to legally game the EPA Cycle. So engine load can be and is often a big deal. But electric A/C needs power as well and it's not free. So from a cost benefit, mass benefit, is it still a viable solution? The Volt has a huge battery to store this energy. And using the electric heat or A/C has an effect on the range and it can be a big effect depending on if it's very hot or very cold.

And yes, air conditioning is considered in the EPA Schedule.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

Now if you truly want to focus on the highway number, then you have to focus on aerodynamics. That plays one of the if not the biggest part in highway FE. So you can do things like the Cruze ECO for aero (underbody shielding, radiator close out, lightweighting (another famous Camaro5 topic) and gearing to achieve about a 10% or so improvment. Those that I know and trust have driven the ECO and are quite happy with the drivability. The slightly lower mass offsets the gearing changes and makes a very pleasant car. All this using the same 1.4T engine. So you could do some things here as well, but in the end it's CdA, not Cd. And the Camaro is simply a big car. Low rolling resistance tires help too, but that's a direct trade off of handling and braking.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I'd agree with most of what you said, Pill.

I think your fuel economy assumptions are a little aggressive/hopeful, and none of us know if GM's been working on a performance-oriented 3.6L TT V6 in the basement (I'll bet my ZL1 they do...)...

Still, good overview!

The best thing about the Gen V V8...is that although you'll probably see its application shrink slightly thanks to better V6s and increasing fuel economy/emissions standards...it'll hardly disappear. Trucks are a very big part of GM's portfolio. As is the Corvette, and Camaro. So long as those three factors exist -- there will be a Small Block Chevy available to be shoehorned into any vehicle they think appropriate.

Let's also not forget the huge crate engine selection available at every Chevy dealership's parts department. For those of us not wanting to keep our stock powertrains, we have the choice of dropping anything we want under the hood. Place your stock engine on eBay or Craigslist and throw a 572 in there.

[nards444]

What everybody has to remember this is a mass produced car thus it has to preform like a mass produced car. It has to be able to handle every day driving. These cars are not built like a Viper or Vette for a reason. Speculation is nice and all but in reality there only going to go so far.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Let's also not forget the huge crate engine selection available at every Chevy dealership's parts department. For those of us not wanting to keep our stock powertrains, we have the choice of dropping anything we want under the hood. Place your stock engine on eBay or Craigslist and throw a 572 in there.

GM has a phenomenal range of crate engines!

They use a different computer interface specifically so they cannot plug into the OE ECM. That isn't a problem. It is an opportunity to upgrade you dash to AutoMeter gauges

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Pill, the improvements you suggest are all directionally correct, however, they don't add up to 4 mpg on an LS3. The only thing the L99 doesn't have is DI and EPS, and those don't add up to 4 mpg (unless you are willing to take less performance)and if you are asking for AFM on a manual that's a whole different set of challenges. That's why there is an L99 in the first place. And any changes to the cylinder and combustion chamber are miniscule refinements on years and years of practice in this area, not giant leaps. This is a daily battle for tenths and tenths of tenths.

But I love the optimism

What you haven't covered is a more aggressive FE oriented calibration. Early torque converter lock up, much more aggressive decel fuel cut off. Earlier shifting. For the most part that is already done, but you could go further. But if you simply calibrate the car to "force" FE, then you will PO customers. Refer to the original Lambda launch if you have any doubts on this.

You always have to consider that you have to have a car that is drivable and delivers on the performance expectations of the customer. Why would you buy an SS if it really wasn't that much more of a performance car over the super impressive V6? Now if you can get all of todays performance and improve FE (EPS does that) that's awesome. It's just hard to do.

As for electric A/C, run the numbers and see how much electric power would be required, how much bigger a battery you might need and how much bigger an alternator would be required. In the end, EPS is a benefit over Hydraulic. And BMW (maybe you didn't know this) doesn't allow the alternator to charge the battery until absolutely necessary to legally game the EPA Cycle. So engine load can be and is often a big deal. But electric A/C needs power as well and it's not free. So from a cost benefit, mass benefit, is it still a viable solution? The Volt has a huge battery to store this energy. And using the electric heat or A/C has an effect on the range and it can be a big effect depending on if it's very hot or very cold.

And yes, air conditioning is considered in the EPA Schedule.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

Now if you truly want to focus on the highway number, then you have to focus on aerodynamics. That plays one of the if not the biggest part in highway FE. So you can do things like the Cruze ECO for aero (underbody shielding, radiator close out, lightweighting (another famous Camaro5 topic) and gearing to achieve about a 10% or so improvment. Those that I know and trust have driven the ECO and are quite happy with the drivability. The slightly lower mass offsets the gearing changes and makes a very pleasant car. All this using the same 1.4T engine. So you could do some things here as well, but in the end it's CdA, not Cd. And the Camaro is simply a big car. Low rolling resistance tires help too, but that's a direct trade off of handling and braking.

You are a wealth of information and expertise, Number 3. Truly an inspiration.

I'm curious, Jim...and if you can't answer, I understand...

Do you suppose the Gen V V8s will be considered revolutionary or evolutionary by the talking heads? I'm looking forward to clarification from the company at some point...but "advanced combustion system design" has me drooling a little.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

You are a wealth of information and expertise, Number 3. Truly an inspiration.

I'm curious, Jim...and if you can't answer, I understand...

Do you suppose the Gen V V8s will be considered revolutionary or evolutionary by the talking heads? I'm looking forward to clarification from the company at some point...but "advanced combustion system design" has me drooling a little.

What Gen V V8s?

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

As for electric A/C, run the numbers and see how much electric power would be required, how much bigger a battery you might need and how much bigger an alternator would be required. In the end, EPS is a benefit over Hydraulic. And BMW (maybe you didn't know this) doesn't allow the alternator to charge the battery until absolutely necessary to legally game the EPA Cycle. So engine load can be and is often a big deal. But electric A/C needs power as well and it's not free. So from a cost benefit, mass benefit, is it still a viable solution? The Volt has a huge battery to store this energy. And using the electric heat or A/C has an effect on the range and it can be a big effect depending on if it's very hot or very cold.

And yes, air conditioning is considered in the EPA Schedule.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

I had heard that the EPA figured A/C usage into the final figures but didn't know the duration of the test. The duration is the same as high speed driving is and is simulated at 95 degree outside temperature. There should be no reason that test should be figured into the finale rating and judging from the curves, it is killing the rating.

Off topic: I view A/C as a big problem even more since the EPA began testing. We started doing figures on a EAC mid-2010 and based on the ridiculous current AC BTU's autos use now (10k-20k)the size of the alternator needs to be well over 200 amps and a capacitor is needed but its work in progress... There was a news paper article on it in Illinois but I never received a scan of the clipping, it was suppose to be called Mobile Central Air... Pam Schmalenberg should have written the article...

I also have a "Cool Air" System on paper, it works from exhaust gases like a turbo, doing the pressurizing and heating but it already has theoretical drawbacks (no clutch based disengagement). Both of my arguments are based on the fact that the traditional automotive A/C unit can cool a 1500sq ft home, there is no need for that so reducing the output would be in order. If I base either of my systems off a 5000 BTU standard, the EAC can be done with a current battery and a 125 amp alternator at 14-15 volts... The "Cool Air" Turbo needs some sort of disengagement but I am out of ideas... for now...

Back on topic:

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

What Gen V V8s?

Boooooo!!!!

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

What Gen V V8s?

These: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us...pr/0427_plants

I wouldn't have asked if they were publicly known.

Originally Posted by thePill

Both of my arguments are based on the fact that the traditional automotive A/C unit can cool a 1500sq ft home, there is no need for that so reducing the output would be in order.

But are houses rolling greenhouses on hot pavement...or parked super-heated ovens requiring instant-cool down when the driver gets out of work in the afternoon? A huge drawback of drawing comparisons between the automotive industry and any other industry is that there are very few things they share in common with anything else...

Agreed, though...back on topic. The still-non-existent Z28...

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by nards444

True and I think GM would be better off coming out with a different car, I mean having 2-3 different camaros I dont know guess its cheaper for them. But Camaro isnt mustang where it can release 50 million different brands.

it's just another trim level (think of it as saleable marketing), much simpler and less expensive than another car.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by thePill

Peak power can be ignored, its the curve and freeing up some RPM's that a track star is interested in. I still like the Z51 package for suspension... You don't need to widen the tires, if you don't stagger the wheel/tire size you can eliminate oversteer. Oversteer mostly comes from weight and an oversized rear tire. If this is a track car, it is better to offer 275/40-19's all the way around so the driver/team can rotate the tires and save money. You just have to watch for snap understeer, but the ability to rotate the car will improve with running a 275/40-19 all the way around (and weight/rotational mass)..

Doesn't a larger rear tire create understeer?