Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
SNL Performance
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions

5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions General 5th generation Camaro topics not covered by other subforums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-16-2011, 09:29 PM   #51
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3 View Post
Actualy, it conducts heat pretty well. Far better than cast iron does.
You're right. My mistake. I don't know why I was thinking that....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH View Post
All I'm saying is that I don't think Chevy nor it's fans should be going nuts simply because they found a way to add 11hp to it's V6 engine, sure it can be used as a selling point, but regarding performance 11hp is just not enough to put it ahead against the competition of it's class. Ford is releasing so many wonderful things for both the V6 Mustang and the 5.0 until it's ridiculous. Chevy really seems to be playing catch up. How many performance packages can we purchase from Chevy for the SS or V6???? lol.
This isn't the thread...it's completely off-topic...but I don't think anyone should start singing Ford's praises because they've marketing department is among the best. The fact is they offer much of what Chevy provides standard. As far as "wonderful things".....let me stamp a () right here....yup. That works.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 10:58 PM   #52
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 22,020
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH View Post
Well because it's that obvious, its a V6 engine, why else would I compare a v6based car vs another of the same type????????

Price vs performance? The 370z does cost some cash, but my first initial thoughts wouldn't be to compare it to an SS because stock vs stock there isn't anything to raise my eyebrow over, the SS wins. I understand your point about the 370z costing more than the V6 Camaro but I don't feel like that alone should stop a person from comparing two cars which are composed of the same type of engine, a nonturbo/nonsupercharged v6. Can I not compare "apples to apples" just because one apple cost more than the next???

I can see if this was a dodge SRT10 engine or something way outside it's class, but they're both v6 engines on different plateforms, why not. The Camaro is way heavier, the Z is light. If I'm not in the position to compare two v6 based engines what else am I suppose to compare the V6 Camaro's performance to? What other cars? A maxima? A dodge neon? A POS honda from 93? This is the same reason someone created the thread "what can the v6 Camaro beat anyway"?
An engine is a means to an end though. I wouldn't use the engine type as a basis for comparison any more than I would compare two cars based on compression ratio or the width of the tires. I look at what the aggregated result of all those elements does for the complete car and see what other cars achieve similar results, at a similar price point. How they get there is less important than where they end up.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
don't believe a thing you read about the next gen Camaro -- as history has proven time and time again:

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCT PLANS PERIOD FbodFather
__________________

Camaro5 Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 11:23 PM   #53
Mr CLuTcH
Always On Kill!
 
Mr CLuTcH's Avatar
 
Drives: S.I.M. SS
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3 View Post
An engine is a means to an end though. I wouldn't use the engine type as a basis for comparison any more than I would compare two cars based on compression ratio or the width of the tires. I look at what the aggregated result of all those elements does for the complete car and see what other cars achieve similar results, at a similar price point. How they get there is less important than where they end up.
Yeah,.....me too. So how much is 11hp going to to shave off of the V6 Camaro's 1/4 mile time? What does it do for the complete car?
__________________
S.I.M. SS(L99):
*American Racing Headers (LT)
*Magnaflow cat-back competition exhaust
*K&N typhoon CAI
*Aggressive cam.
*Tune
**Result**: 465rwhp/ 447rwtq. Satisfied.
Mr CLuTcH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 11:49 PM   #54
Inferno LSX
Supercharged LSX
 
Inferno LSX's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS Black/Carbon Fiber
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 6,623
I bet a hand full of V6 guys would gladly take 11HP factory. How many V6 cars actually get headers anyways? I bet most just bolt on a cat back exhaust and a CAI.
__________________
Inferno LSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 11:54 PM   #55
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 22,020
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH View Post
Yeah,.....me too. So how much is 11hp going to to shave off of the V6 Camaro's 1/4 mile time? What does it do for the complete car?
Well .. rule of thumb says +10 hp = -1/10th of a second in the 1/4.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
don't believe a thing you read about the next gen Camaro -- as history has proven time and time again:

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCT PLANS PERIOD FbodFather
__________________

Camaro5 Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 11:58 PM   #56
MarylandSpeed



 
MarylandSpeed's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 & 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by PercyJWellingtonIII View Post
-----------------
Why would anyone want headers if not needed? For the output of this engine this new design will probably out perform a set of long tube headers when you factor in the weight along with the flow. The channels in the new exhaust seem to be very smooth for even flow. Now a high output 6.2 headers would I am sure be more effective.
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.
__________________
www.marylandspeed.com * 443-730-9428 * Great Prices and Experienced Service!

MarylandSpeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 01:27 AM   #57
mikeSS


 
mikeSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 E92 M3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 7,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarylandSpeed View Post
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.
__________________

2010 camaro cammed- sold
2013 E92 V8 M3 DCT ZCP
C7 pending order
mikeSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 05:45 AM   #58
musicmanz28
 
musicmanz28's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro LS
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mid Michigan
Posts: 38
If they can can get kind of power from a v6.... what are the possibilites on a v8?
musicmanz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 07:55 AM   #59
PAUL SS
The Mark of Excellence
 
PAUL SS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 ABM 1SS RS LS3
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Smallest State in the Union
Posts: 8,411
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, Vredestein
PAUL SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 08:14 AM   #60
FC_GIBB
 
FC_GIBB's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Impala LTZ
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Greenbackville, VA
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingnotes View Post
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.
__________________


A veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "'The United States of America", for an amount "up to, and including my life". That is honor, and there are way to many people in this country who no longer understand it.
FC_GIBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 09:26 AM   #61
Arachnyd
Master of all trades
 
Arachnyd's Avatar
 
Drives: 2many2count
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: West Chester, OH (near cincy)
Posts: 730
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.)
Arachnyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 10:01 AM   #62
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,203
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 10:09 AM   #63
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumblebeeAmigo View Post

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?
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 12:23 PM   #64
Norrin Radd
 
Norrin Radd's Avatar
 
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.
Norrin Radd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 01:47 PM   #65
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 22,020
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4z View Post
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.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
don't believe a thing you read about the next gen Camaro -- as history has proven time and time again:

WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCT PLANS PERIOD FbodFather
__________________

Camaro5 Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:50 PM   #66
htron50


 
htron50's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 2,462
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr CLuTcH View Post
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!!
__________________
2012 CAMARO-ZL1
Sincere Thanks to City Chevrolet, Charlotte, NC http://www.citychevrolet.com/blog/ca...et-camaro-zl1/
htron50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:51 PM   #67
PYROLYSIS
Remember the Charleston 9
 
PYROLYSIS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2004 KME PREDATOR, 2014 2SS/RS/1LE
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Summerv1LE SC
Posts: 4,483
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
PYROLYSIS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:53 PM   #68
Norrin Radd
 
Norrin Radd's Avatar
 
Drives: Supra/Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS View Post
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.
Norrin Radd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:53 PM   #69
htron50


 
htron50's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 2,462
Wink They ALSO WARP much faster than CAST IRON!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
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!
__________________
2012 CAMARO-ZL1
Sincere Thanks to City Chevrolet, Charlotte, NC http://www.citychevrolet.com/blog/ca...et-camaro-zl1/
htron50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:05 PM   #70
Norrin Radd
 
Norrin Radd's Avatar
 
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...
Norrin Radd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:15 PM   #71
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3 View Post
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.
If you look at the MB and BMW 6s their max tq is in the 3500 range. That's where GM needs to get it rather than 4800rpms and up.
I agree it's a good engine from a specific hp view.
I like it more than the Nissan 3.7L. Roooough.

Maybe we need to bore it out a little AND stoke it. It will probably lose some of it's smoothness and willingness to rev.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:19 PM   #72
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,203
I do wonder with this new exhaust in head design if it is not as strong. Will it take boost?
I've got the 3.0L in my CTS and it is a very smooth, willing to rev motor. But with only 223 tq in a 3800lb car it is not what you would call quick off the line. Gm says that the tq curve is flat, and I've seen the graph, but .................
EPA ratings for the CTS are identical whether it is a 3.0L or 3.6L. gear ratios are the same.
I can get 37mpg instant at 60mph.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:31 PM   #73
Norrin Radd
 
Norrin Radd's Avatar
 
Drives: Supra/Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4z View Post
I do wonder with this new exhaust in head design if it is not as strong. Will it take boost?
I've got the 3.0L in my CTS and it is a very smooth, willing to rev motor. But with only 223 tq in a 3800lb car it is not what you would call quick off the line. Gm says that the tq curve is flat, and I've seen the graph, but .................
EPA ratings for the CTS are identical whether it is a 3.0L or 3.6L. gear ratios are the same.
I can get 37mpg instant at 60mph.
I would be more inclined that this head design will take boost quite reasonably with very minimal lag. The valves/airflow obviously will, the exhaust design is begging for a turbo...The only downside I can think of(forced induction wise) is not having the benefits of longer runners, but the upside is compact-ability and minimal lag, having the turbochargers mounted almost directly to the head is a huge space saver. If done right, you could adapt most of the stock exhaust system while utilizing a electric cutout. Really most of the fabbing would be the intercooler,piping system and air filters. OR, if you want to run a single turbo, do you know how easy it would be to make a twinscroll design header for a twinscroll turbo with these integrated exhaust heads? Two large exhaust pipes into a twinscroll flange and your done..Of course this is all theoretical since we do not have an engine/car at our doorstep..
Norrin Radd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 03:59 PM   #74
djsnoflake
Faith Keeper
 
djsnoflake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Silverado LTZ, 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 2,791
Sounds good to me!

CAFE doesn't care about how mod-able a motor is, they just want numbers. GM is getting those numbers.

And I think the vast majority of V6 owners aren't worried about headers
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
.........we are far from finished.................
djsnoflake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 04:09 PM   #75
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: `12 LFX/`11 EB F-150/`13 Sonic RS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 5,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorlius View Post
V6 EcoBoost = twin-turbos.

Twin-turbos on the Camaro V6 - if it could handle it without needing a reworking - should be able to put out better numbers than the LS3. But it would cost considerably more to produce, too.
Definitely!

Not sure I agree about the expense part, though. Chevy has produced turbo cars at reasonable expense (e.g. new Cruze, old Cobalt). Adding two small turbos and an intercooler won't be that expensive. They probably won't do it on all models, but it could be a new trim (3LT?? Z24??) some day in the future.
__________________
EFR Twin Turbo LFX-GPI Tune-ZL1 fuel pump-10:1 CR forged pistons-3.45 gear-Meth Injection-BMR Trailing Arms, Bushings & Sway Bars-CircleD 4000 Stall-GPI Fuel Enrichment System
647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ @18.5 psi on 93 Octane (locked converter)
1/8 mile -- 7.158 @ 102.10 (20psi); old build
Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is online now   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
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.