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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-17-2011, 03:53 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, 04:05 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, 04:15 PM   #71
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,285
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, 04:19 PM   #72
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,285
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, 04:31 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, 04:59 PM   #74
djsnoflake
Faith Keeper
 
djsnoflake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Silverado LTZ, 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 2,764
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, 05:09 PM   #75
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,051
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.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 06:22 PM   #76
b4z

 
Drives: '06 Pontiac GTO M6, '09 V8 SRX RWD
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,285
Of course it would cost more. You gotta figure that the LLT/LFX is probably similiar in cost(if not more) as an LS3/L99 because of the DOHC heads. Remember there are 4 cams in that engine.
Then you add the cost of 2 turbos, plumbing, intercooler, larger radiator, development costs, emissions testing, certification etc.
The 3.5L Ecoboost V6 in the F150 has a retail cost of $1,000 more than the 5.0L DOHC Coyote motor.
b4z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 08:18 PM   #77
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 26,372
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by htron50 View Post
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!
I'm fairly certain the powertrain engineers have addressed this...but where aluminum conducts heat better, it will also dissipate it better than steel. if they've got coolant running through there, it should all do just fine...imo. Though I'm no engineer...
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 10:03 PM   #78
CAMAR0
Loose is Fast!
 
CAMAR0's Avatar
 
Drives: Mikes Hard Lemons
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brick House
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
I'm fairly certain the powertrain engineers have addressed this...but where aluminum conducts heat better, it will also dissipate it better than steel. if they've got coolant running through there, it should all do just fine...imo. Though I'm no engineer...
Their software models the thermal expansion/contraction. If your interested in how industry and race teams study these things check out Race Tech Magazine for more info. There magazine is free online at the link below. It costs about $10 a month at your local Barnes and Noble. By far my favorite magazine ever... but then again I am an Engineer!

http://www.racetechmag.com/emag/

PS the new head is itching for a Turbo!
CAMAR0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 11:28 PM   #79
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 26,372
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAMAR0 View Post
Their software models the thermal expansion/contraction. If your interested in how industry and race teams study these things check out Race Tech Magazine for more info. There magazine is free online at the link below. It costs about $10 a month at your local Barnes and Noble. By far my favorite magazine ever... but then again I am an Engineer!

http://www.racetechmag.com/emag/

PS the new head is itching for a Turbo!
They kinda made it easy, didn't they?

And thanks, I'll check that out when I get a chance!
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 11:20 AM   #80
nak3dsnake


 
nak3dsnake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro IBM 2LT/RS M6
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderbuddy View Post
I dont know about anyone else, but I'm interested in the composit intake manifold and new fuel rails.
Me too.
__________________
Looks: AAC P13W DRLs, Heritage Grille, RS Embroidered Headrests, GM Door Sill Plates, GM Premium Floor Mats, Body Color Engine Cover, LLT Mobile 1 Oil Cap, ZL1 Sport Pedals, 3M Clear Bra.
Performance: Vararam Ram Air Intake, Hurst Short Throw Shifter w/ Hurst Hard Drive Pistol Grip, IDEALG Clutch Master Cylinder, RX Catch can, GTO clutch fluid reservoir, Brembo Brakes, 1LE Track Pack, GMPP Exhaust Upgrade.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 11:30 AM   #81
nak3dsnake


 
nak3dsnake's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro IBM 2LT/RS M6
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,282
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.
Its just a rumor, GM already stated they have no plans to upgrade. The online ordering guide is wrong too because they have the tremecs listed on the 2010 and 2011 models, and we all know that aint true.
__________________
Looks: AAC P13W DRLs, Heritage Grille, RS Embroidered Headrests, GM Door Sill Plates, GM Premium Floor Mats, Body Color Engine Cover, LLT Mobile 1 Oil Cap, ZL1 Sport Pedals, 3M Clear Bra.
Performance: Vararam Ram Air Intake, Hurst Short Throw Shifter w/ Hurst Hard Drive Pistol Grip, IDEALG Clutch Master Cylinder, RX Catch can, GTO clutch fluid reservoir, Brembo Brakes, 1LE Track Pack, GMPP Exhaust Upgrade.
nak3dsnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 06:24 PM   #82
2001ragtop

 
2001ragtop's Avatar
 
Drives: V8 american car
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,417
Okay now they will do it to the V8.....
2001ragtop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 12:11 AM   #83
vtboyarc
 
vtboyarc's Avatar
 
Drives: Taurus
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 19
the LS is supposed to get 30mpg....shouldn't the LT get the same?
vtboyarc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:11 AM   #84
derklug

 
derklug's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Boss 302
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Posts: 1,371
The new argument is going to morph into a Hp/Tq/MPG realm, and the # of cylinders will become irrelevent. Give me a fast revving 1 cyl producing 550 horse, 475Tq, and 40MPG, and my response will be "V WHAT"
__________________
The biggest mistakes in life come when you know exactly what you are doing.
derklug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:41 AM   #85
Sawyer


 
Sawyer's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 5.0
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,346
Great job GM!
Sawyer is offline   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 07:10 PM
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
Camaro (concept) Press Release!! Pencil.Fight 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 4 07-21-2008 04:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 PM.


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