Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
TireRack
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


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2009, 02:34 PM   #35
havocnmayhem2005
 
Drives: 1999 Z28, 2007 Saurn Aura
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: texas
Posts: 50
This is all well and good I suppose. Sure it will outrun the Challenger and Mustang V6'ers, but there are several V6 sedans on the market, not really meant for racing by any means, but they run mid 14's. I guess on the other hand, most of them really won't be as well rounded of a car overall, plus none look 1/100000000th as good as the Camaro, and most cost more by a few thousand. I dunno. It's hard to compare things like that, but I'd just like to see a V6 camaro run high 13's and the SS get into mid-high 12's(which I think it will)
havocnmayhem2005 is offline  
Old 01-16-2009, 03:16 PM   #36
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocnmayhem2005 View Post
This is all well and good I suppose. Sure it will outrun the Challenger and Mustang V6'ers, but there are several V6 sedans on the market, not really meant for racing by any means, but they run mid 14's. I guess on the other hand, most of them really won't be as well rounded of a car overall, plus none look 1/100000000th as good as the Camaro, and most cost more by a few thousand. I dunno. It's hard to compare things like that, but I'd just like to see a V6 camaro run high 13's and the SS get into mid-high 12's(which I think it will)
I think you'll be very happy then. These numbers are exactly what I expect them to get. The V6 I expect will break into the 13's stock with a good/moderately good driver, and the V8 will be in the 12's even without one.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
Old 01-16-2009, 04:21 PM   #37
havocnmayhem2005
 
Drives: 1999 Z28, 2007 Saurn Aura
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: texas
Posts: 50
I am fairly confident that the SS will go well into the 12's, which by all means there should be someone at least able to match a few of the 01-02 "freaks" that hit 12.6-12.8 and 12.9-13.1 were very common stock for those cars. anyone know the power to weight ratio for an 02 vs an 2010 Camaro?
I'm just worried about the V6.
havocnmayhem2005 is offline  
Old 01-16-2009, 05:15 PM   #38
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocnmayhem2005 View Post
I am fairly confident that the SS will go well into the 12's, which by all means there should be someone at least able to match a few of the 01-02 "freaks" that hit 12.6-12.8 and 12.9-13.1 were very common stock for those cars. anyone know the power to weight ratio for an 02 vs an 2010 Camaro?
I'm just worried about the V6.
Don't be. It'll break into the 13's stock.

The lbs/HP of a 2002 SS is 10.7 or so.
of a 2010 SS will be about 9 or so.
of a 2010 LT will be about 12.3 or so.

Hope this helps.
- Xanthos

P.S. - Also - we've already seen that the V6 camaro will be at about 11 lbs/HP with only intake and catback, no tune. Throw headers on that too and you'll be as good as a stock 2002 SS, if not slightly better.
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 12:09 PM   #39
Dakota Kid

 
Dakota Kid's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RJT/L99
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 1,151
So the manual V6 will get about 25 mpg, and the auto will get 27 mpg?

I can't fathom getting an automatic tranny with this car...if these numbers are correct I may have to stretch and get the SS with a manual tranny...it is projected to get about 23 mpg, right?
Dakota Kid is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 02:02 PM   #40
kanys

 
kanys's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota Kid View Post
So the manual V6 will get about 25 mpg, and the auto will get 27 mpg?

I can't fathom getting an automatic tranny with this car...if these numbers are correct I may have to stretch and get the SS with a manual tranny...it is projected to get about 23 mpg, right?
Yes I *think* I remember hearing it should be about 23 highway, and maybe 24 with the auto since it has AFM.
kanys is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 03:27 PM   #41
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota Kid View Post
So the manual V6 will get about 25 mpg, and the auto will get 27 mpg?

I can't fathom getting an automatic tranny with this car...if these numbers are correct I may have to stretch and get the SS with a manual tranny...it is projected to get about 23 mpg, right?
I don't think there will be that much of a gap between auto and manual fuel economy. We're talking a 10% difference in 6th gear gearing - unless you're going fast enough to where the lean burn can't kick in, the extra 200-300 rpms shouldn't make that big of a difference.

Mathematically speaking, assuming stock tires and gear ratios, the cruising RPMS will look like this:

At 80 MPH:
Auto - 2055 rpms
Manual - 2300 rpms

At 75 MPH:
Auto - 1926
Manual - 2156

At 70 MPH:
Auto - 1798
Manual - 2013

That seems like a broad enough sampling to hit all the more common highway speeds. Now, the "sweet spot" for ideal gas mileage is different for each engine on the planet, but most of the places I've read say the sweet spot is about 2200 rpms. For the manual, thats about 77 MPH. For the auto, its about 86 MPH. Which do you usually cruise at? Seems the manual will get better real world MPGs as long as you keep your foot out of it.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 03:33 PM   #42
Dakota Kid

 
Dakota Kid's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RJT/L99
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 1,151
It seems to me that based on the info provided, one might as well spring for the SS, since really two or three mpg difference is not significant, IMO. I bet the performance between the 6 and the 8 is worlds apart, though.
Dakota Kid is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 03:52 PM   #43
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota Kid View Post
It seems to me that based on the info provided, one might as well spring for the SS, since really two or three mpg difference is not significant, IMO. I bet the performance between the 6 and the 8 is worlds apart, though.
Yes, but just don't be upset if the gap ends up being more than what the preliminary ratings would make it seem to be.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 03:58 PM   #44
CamaroSpike23
Truth Enforcer
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,815
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muscle Master View Post
I read that the Challenger SE will get the 4.0 DI Phoenix engine with MDS pushing north of 320 HP in 2010/2011

enjoy while you can
4.0 ~320 hp

3.6 ~304 hp

now imagine if GM made a 4.0 v-6 to put in this car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota Kid View Post
It seems to me that based on the info provided, one might as well spring for the SS, since really two or three mpg difference is not significant, IMO. I bet the performance between the 6 and the 8 is worlds apart, though.
only by about 120 hp or so.....lol
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
A group as a whole tends to be smarter than the smartest person in that group until one jackass convinces everyone otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelmanSS View Post
Post count is truly an accurate measure of how cool someone is on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Norris View Post
I piss excellence
and fart awesomeness
"You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overflow View Post
But not all people were born awesome like you, Spike.
CamaroSpike23 is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 04:03 PM   #45
Dakota Kid

 
Dakota Kid's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RJT/L99
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 1,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by XanthosV6 View Post
Yes, but just don't be upset if the gap ends up being more than what the preliminary ratings would make it seem to be.
- Xanthos
No doubt. We will see what the real world numbers briing. When, not if, gas goes back up to 4 bucks a gallon this may become a no brainer choice.
Dakota Kid is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 04:28 PM   #46
TJ91
:chevy:
 
TJ91's Avatar
 
Drives: 2LT/RS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,876
A fatass with 320hp can kiss my @$$
By then we might get an ecoboost or somthing.
The SE for now is just a joke, was that 7.1seconds to 60, thats a shame.
I wonder what it will run with 320? Do you think 5.9 is possible? Doubt it
TJ91 is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 04:34 PM   #47
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
The Challenger SE weighs 20 lbs less than the Camaro LT.

I think we would have better competition if they upped the HP to 320. But, I really don't expect them to do this. 300 seems more reasonable - it will put the Camaro and Challenger on a virtually even footing in terms of performance, and help keep insurance costs down. Plus, they wouldn't want to put it only 50 HP down from the R/T.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 04:47 PM   #48
Muscle Master
SS Lightning
 
Muscle Master's Avatar
 
Drives: An SRT8
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
Posts: 2,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by XanthosV6 View Post
The Challenger SE weighs 20 lbs less than the Camaro LT.

I think we would have better competition if they upped the HP to 320. But, I really don't expect them to do this. 300 seems more reasonable - it will put the Camaro and Challenger on a virtually even footing in terms of performance, and help keep insurance costs down. Plus, they wouldn't want to put it only 50 HP down from the R/T.
- Xanthos
Meh...+1

there are 5 variants of the new Phoenix V6 engine and two which is DI both north of 300HP, the 3.7 and 4.0...........I was a little bais and said the 4.0 but the chally most likely will get the 3.7 DI V6
__________________

Quote:
The first rule of modding something that's not American is to not try to compete with modded V8 cars that are American. Really, they can run insane power with little investment. It's not even a fair fight.
Camaro 2SS RS, IBM, White Rally Stripes, custom fuel door: Status: going to the dealer: soon
Muscle Master is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 05:03 PM   #49
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Well, at least we're on the same page.

Personally, I'll welcome the competition. It'll be better than just flat-out smashing the mustangs and challengers.

And before you jump at me, I'm referring to like-priced and like-engined trim levels.
And don't forget that the LLT block is DESIGNED to support up to 4.0 liters. So, GM has some range to play.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 05:07 PM   #50
Muscle Master
SS Lightning
 
Muscle Master's Avatar
 
Drives: An SRT8
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
Posts: 2,285
hmm I wonder what gains the LLT would have if it was stroked to 4.0 Liters
__________________

Quote:
The first rule of modding something that's not American is to not try to compete with modded V8 cars that are American. Really, they can run insane power with little investment. It's not even a fair fight.
Camaro 2SS RS, IBM, White Rally Stripes, custom fuel door: Status: going to the dealer: soon
Muscle Master is offline  
Old 01-17-2009, 05:14 PM   #51
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muscle Master View Post
hmm I wonder what gains the LLT would have if it was stroked to 4.0 Liters
In horsepower? Probably not as much as you would like.

In torque? Well... that's a different story. There's a reason I was considering doing this, but it would cost about twice as much as a top-of-the-line supercharger/turbocharger setup. Definitely not the best bang for your buck mod.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline  
 
Closed Thread

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
GM memo to dealers Moose 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 41 02-04-2010 08:33 PM
Official Camaro Convertible CONCEPT Press Release Tran Camaro Convertible Forum 12 11-18-2009 08:05 PM
UPCOMING CAMARO IMPORTANT DATES CamaroScotty 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 125 01-11-2009 01:31 AM
2010 SEMA Camaro "Black" heading for showroom floor Nexus6 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 98 11-03-2008 08:00 PM
edmunds drives the v6 !!!!!!! ???????? i3litzkrieg 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 47 09-02-2008 01:13 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 AM.


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