Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
RDP Motorsport
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-14-2013, 07:51 PM   #626
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,705
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I can't wait until GM/Chevy gives all of us a great surprise and drops in a Turbo 4 banger with 327hp/340tq in the 6th Gen Camaro and weighing in @ around 3,300lbs !!!! and wacth it run a 13.4 in the 1/4 mile !!!!!!!!!... YaY....



I would pay to see some folks faces on such a day:

__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
Past: 2012 Camaro ZL1 (For sale through Tom Henry Chevrolet)

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 06:41 AM   #627
Bad@ssCamaro
Ist State Chevy Supporter
 
Bad@ssCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 1SS/1LE...in 2014
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Western MA
Posts: 4,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I can't wait until GM/Chevy gives all of us a great surprise and drops in a Turbo 4 banger with 327hp/340tq in the 6th Gen Camaro and weighing in @ around 3,300lbs !!!! and wacth it run a 13.4 in the 1/4 mile !!!!!!!!!... YaY....
I thought speculation on the new platform had the car weighing in @ 3600 lbs. I'd say 13.8
__________________
Former Camaros: (gone but not forgotten)
1976 LT Black/Black 305 V8 (Bone Stock)
1976 LT Black/White 305 V8 (Bone Stock) except for Cragar chrome rims (yep - #2)
1985 Z-28 Black/Black 305 L69 M5(Bone Stock) I know: slow

Next Camaro:
CRT 1SS/RS/1LE

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
CAFE STANDARDS! Get used to them or vote our electeds in Washington out of office...........
Bad@ssCamaro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 07:30 AM   #628
Crazyhorse6901
Turbine Maker
 
Crazyhorse6901's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2LT-RS "LFX"V6
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hampton,Virginia 23661-1824
Posts: 261
Thumbs down

No thanks ..I'd rather see a weight reduction; the use of aluminum for example.

Last edited by Crazyhorse6901; 04-15-2013 at 07:40 AM.
Crazyhorse6901 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 08:36 AM   #629
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 8,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I can't wait until GM/Chevy gives all of us a great surprise and drops in a Turbo 4 banger with 327hp/340tq in the 6th Gen Camaro and weighing in @ around 3,300lbs !!!! and wacth it run a 13.4 in the 1/4 mile !!!!!!!!!... YaY....
As much as I want to see a V6 option in the next gen, if this was the base engine there would be no reason for the V6 then. Unless they made the V6 the base engine, and something like this as an optional engine (which wouldn't surprise me at all. I think Ford may go this route with the Mustang)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad@ssCamaro View Post
I thought speculation on the new platform had the car weighing in @ 3600 lbs. I'd say 13.8
Maybe with the V8 it MIGHT weigh around there, probably a tad less. But no, with a turbo 4 the 6th gen should weigh in at around 3,400 lbs if not under that. Look at the Cadillac ATS which is built on the same platform...its base car weighs under 3,400 lbs.
__________________
Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 08:04 PM   #630
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
No one has suggested that will happen. It's irrelevant.
Explain to me how it won't happen, assuming the new 4 will be base. How does a turbo-4, which will be more expensive than the V6, enter the lineup and not affect V6 and V8 pricing.....unless the 4 will be an extra cost option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
That's my thinking too. Aren't there plenty of good looking, 4 cylinder cars already? The Camaro doesn't need to be sold with a 4 cylinder unless the car maker just wants to charge extra for 6 or 8 cylinders.




Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
As much as I want to see a V6 option in the next gen, if this was the base engine there would be no reason for the V6 then. Unless they made the V6 the base engine, and something like this as an optional engine (which wouldn't surprise me at all. I think Ford may go this route with the Mustang)
If they made the V6 the base engine for the same cost, and charged more for the more expensive 4, I would have no problem with offering the option.

Ford actually does this on multiple cars already, with the 2.0L Ecoboost being an extra cost option. Thing the worries me about the Camaro is GM has no precedent of offering such a thing. In every car where a 4-cyl or turbo-4 has entered the lineup, the V6 (if it even continued to be offered at all) became a premium option...more money this year for the same thing as last year.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 08:22 PM   #631
mr02Z/28
 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 596
I hope it doesn't weigh in @ 3,600lbs..... According to Cadillac's website on the ATS, which the 6th Gen Camaro will be based,,,, the 2.0L ATS weighs in @ 3,373... ATS 3.6L weighs in @ 3,461lbs... some i am hoping the 6th Gen weighs in at around 3,400lbs....if we are lucky maybe less....


One reason i think the base 6th Gen will have a Four banger is due to the fact of the much reduced weight... Maybe "optional" 4cyl or 6cyl motors as base.. I would love to see the New V-8 LT motor in a 3,400lb 6th Gen Camaro, that will be sweet....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 08:39 PM   #632
MikeT
 
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I hope it doesn't weigh in @ 3,600lbs..... According to Cadillac's website on the ATS, which the 6th Gen Camaro will be based,,,, the 2.0L ATS weighs in @ 3,373... ATS 3.6L weighs in @ 3,461lbs... some i am hoping the 6th Gen weighs in at around 3,400lbs....if we are lucky maybe less....
In theory, the alpha Camaro could weigh less than the ATS because a Cadillac presumably includes some "luxury stuff" like soundproofing materials that could be dispensed with in a non-luxury vehicle that will likely start with an MSRP of $10,000 less. On the other hand, perhaps the ATS uses some lightweight metals and parts that would be too expensive to put in a Camaro? I don't know. Maybe it'll more or less be a wash, and the ATS weight figures will basically be what we'll see in the Camaro.
MikeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:29 PM   #633
trademaster
 
Drives: 06 Maserati gran sport, 12 z06
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit/NYC
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Explain to me how it won't happen, assuming the new 4 will be base. How does a turbo-4, which will be more expensive than the V6, enter the lineup and not affect V6 and V8 pricing.....unless the 4 will be an extra cost option.
How are you so sure that an ecoboost 4 would be more expensive than the v6 option they would offer? The cars you are referring to for which the Ecoboost is an added cost vs the v6 use the 3.5l duratec which is significantly older, less efficient and less expensive than the 3.7l duratec that is the base engine in the Mustang. The only car with both the 3.7 and 2.0t is the Edge and the 2.0t model is cheaper. They are different trim levels, so it isn't a direct drivetrain comparison, but it's still the only 3.7 vs 2.0t.
trademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:55 PM   #634
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
How are you so sure that an ecoboost 4 would be more expensive than the v6 option they would offer? The cars you are referring to for which the Ecoboost is an added cost vs the v6 use the 3.5l duratec which is significantly older, less efficient and less expensive than the 3.7l duratec that is the base engine in the Mustang. The only car with both the 3.7 and 2.0t is the Edge and the 2.0t model is cheaper. They are different trim levels, so it isn't a direct drivetrain comparison, but it's still the only 3.7 vs 2.0t.
The Ecoboost 4 is an added cost option over the V6 in the Taurus, Edge, and Explorer already. On the trim levels both are offered on, the 4 is a stand-alone option, not part of any particular option package. On the Edge, the 3.7L is unique to the low volume, top of the line Sport trim.

You are wrong about the 3.5L vs. 3.7L. Both are from the "cyclone" engine family that began to be phased in around 2007-2008, and are for the most part identical except for a small difference in bore, and both feature the same thoroughly modern technologies, like Ti-VCT. I think you are thinking of the Duratec 3.0L from the previous gen Fusion and Escape, 96-07 Taurus, and 05-07 Five Hundred, which was a completely different engine from the current V6s, and is no longer used in anything.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 05:52 PM   #635
james347
 
Drives: 2006 Crownline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: .
Posts: 705
For power that's why.

I got a four cylinder being built none of you people want to mess with, bring it on!!
Attached Images
 
james347 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 06:51 PM   #636
Palutz59
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '14 1LE soon
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 59
I'm not a fan of this 4 cyl Camaro idea at all. Frankly there are plenty of cars on the market to fill that demand. A Camaro is a Camaro for a reason. Take the big engine out and it's not a Camaro anymore. Kind of like automatic transmission for muscle cars ... I don't get it.

I'll stick to the big engine so I can hear the purr.
Palutz59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:00 PM   #637
AmericanMuscleCars
Thin Blue Line Camaro
 
AmericanMuscleCars's Avatar
 
Drives: A Visually Stunning Camaro
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NonYa
Posts: 1,470
The v8 is a four cylinder, until they engage, then it goes to all eight cylinders.
AmericanMuscleCars is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 12:04 AM   #638
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by james347 View Post
For power that's why.

I got a four cylinder being built none of you people want to mess with, bring it on!!
Where are you getting four from? I count ten in that picture.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 09:16 AM   #639
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
I'm starting to think this is entirely generated from the high revving ricer crowd who want the Camaro to be an Evo. It started out with everyone talking about mpg, like the proponents were all hankering for a hybrid or smart car version. Then it became the twin turbo HiPo torque monster version. (Which I don't believe will be any cheaper or get better mpg than a NA DI V6.)

The HP is about the same so why do it? Because Ford might? If your ford jumps off a bridge...

They just made an LS7 Z/28 Camaro. The guys and gals on the design team of this car CARE what it is in keeping with its history. When I said what if they made a 4 banger Corvette, everyone said-- IMPOSSIBLE! That's different...

This here is the best selling sports car in America in the last few years, why make a turbo 4 cylinder version that outperforms a V6 and approaches the V8 and change the image of the car from an American muscle icon to a ricey 4 cylinder grocery getter?!
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 10:36 AM   #640
Beehave
 
Beehave's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Yellow/Black 2SS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Burl., ON.
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by james347 View Post
For power that's why.

I got a four cylinder being built none of you people want to mess with, bring it on!!
We are passionate about our motors!
Beehave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 12:27 PM   #641
james347
 
Drives: 2006 Crownline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: .
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Where are you getting four from? I count ten in that picture.
Sweet! More power!!!
james347 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 02:21 PM   #642
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '13 Audi S4
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 7,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
I'm starting to think this is entirely generated from the high revving ricer crowd who want the Camaro to be an Evo. It started out with everyone talking about mpg, like the proponents were all hankering for a hybrid or smart car version. Then it became the twin turbo HiPo torque monster version. (Which I don't believe will be any cheaper or get better mpg than a NA DI V6.)

The HP is about the same so why do it? Because Ford might? If your ford jumps off a bridge...

They just made an LS7 Z/28 Camaro. The guys and gals on the design team of this car CARE what it is in keeping with its history. When I said what if they made a 4 banger Corvette, everyone said-- IMPOSSIBLE! That's different...

This here is the best selling sports car in America in the last few years, why make a turbo 4 cylinder version that outperforms a V6 and approaches the V8 and change the image of the car from an American muscle icon to a ricey 4 cylinder grocery getter?!
Well the original question was why would anyone want one. The reason would simply be they want Camaro style, handling and character with decent performance and better fuel economy.

This thread has a lot of people reacting as if the question was "why would anyone want a Camaro if it only had a 4 cylinder". I agree, you will likely see V8s in Camaros in the "near" future. A lot of geopolitical crap and added government regulation beyond a 50+ MPG CAFE could easily change that though.

But there have been a lot of Camaros sold over the years that didn't have a V-8 of any displacement. Some were even 4 cylinders. And frankly, someof the 6 cylinders weren't much to speak of either. 3.8L pushrod comes to mind. That didn't make them any less a Camaro. And keep in mind that the current 3.6L makes more HP than a lot of the old V8s.

So the original question was NOT eliminating V8s. It was adding a 4 cyclinder to the choices.

But I'm not sure you really mean a lower weight Camaro (if that happens) and a 270 to 300 HP Turbo charged 4 cylinder is a grocery getter.

ANNNNND to keep beating the dying horse, I'm also sure you don't think any early 80's Camaro with any V8 choice available represents "American Muscle". At least I'm pretty sure you don't mean that. Cuz I remember the day when the Chevy Citation with the HO V6 was faster than a Camaro with that sweeeeeet 145 HP V8.

Soooooooo let's ask this question, maybe a different thread.

Who would want a 2.5 L Turbo charged V8 in their Camaro? Is it HP, displacement or simply the number of cylinders that make it a Camaro? It would probably rev to 8,000 rpm easily and simply extracting numbers in a linear fashion from the current 2.0L T should make a respectable 350 HP.

__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 03:26 PM   #643
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 8,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Well the original question was why would anyone want one. The reason would simply be they want Camaro style, handling and character with decent performance and better fuel economy.

This thread has a lot of people reacting as if the question was "why would anyone want a Camaro if it only had a 4 cylinder". I agree, you will likely see V8s in Camaros in the "near" future. A lot of geopolitical crap and added government regulation beyond a 50+ MPG CAFE could easily change that though.

But there have been a lot of Camaros sold over the years that didn't have a V-8 of any displacement. Some were even 4 cylinders. And frankly, someof the 6 cylinders weren't much to speak of either. 3.8L pushrod comes to mind. That didn't make them any less a Camaro. And keep in mind that the current 3.6L makes more HP than a lot of the old V8s.

So the original question was NOT eliminating V8s. It was adding a 4 cyclinder to the choices.

But I'm not sure you really mean a lower weight Camaro (if that happens) and a 270 to 300 HP Turbo charged 4 cylinder is a grocery getter.

ANNNNND to keep beating the dying horse, I'm also sure you don't think any early 80's Camaro with any V8 choice available represents "American Muscle". At least I'm pretty sure you don't mean that. Cuz I remember the day when the Chevy Citation with the HO V6 was faster than a Camaro with that sweeeeeet 145 HP V8.

Soooooooo let's ask this question, maybe a different thread.

Who would want a 2.5 L Turbo charged V8 in their Camaro? Is it HP, displacement or simply the number of cylinders that make it a Camaro? It would probably rev to 8,000 rpm easily and simply extracting numbers in a linear fashion from the current 2.0L T should make a respectable 350 HP.

Yeah I think many responses in this thread are just way over-reacting. There will still be a V8 in the next gen, and thus, the Camaro image is not tarnished.

Those who may want a V6 option should be the ones that worry...myself included. I feel that is the engine in most danger of not making a come back in this car.
__________________
Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 04:41 PM   #644
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Well the original question was why would anyone want one. The reason would simply be they want Camaro style, handling and character with decent performance and better fuel economy.

This thread has a lot of people reacting as if the question was "why would anyone want a Camaro if it only had a 4 cylinder". I agree, you will likely see V8s in Camaros in the "near" future. A lot of geopolitical crap and added government regulation beyond a 50+ MPG CAFE could easily change that though.

But there have been a lot of Camaros sold over the years that didn't have a V-8 of any displacement. Some were even 4 cylinders. And frankly, someof the 6 cylinders weren't much to speak of either. 3.8L pushrod comes to mind. That didn't make them any less a Camaro. And keep in mind that the current 3.6L makes more HP than a lot of the old V8s.

So the original question was NOT eliminating V8s. It was adding a 4 cyclinder to the choices.

But I'm not sure you really mean a lower weight Camaro (if that happens) and a 270 to 300 HP Turbo charged 4 cylinder is a grocery getter.

ANNNNND to keep beating the dying horse, I'm also sure you don't think any early 80's Camaro with any V8 choice available represents "American Muscle". At least I'm pretty sure you don't mean that. Cuz I remember the day when the Chevy Citation with the HO V6 was faster than a Camaro with that sweeeeeet 145 HP V8.

Soooooooo let's ask this question, maybe a different thread.

Who would want a 2.5 L Turbo charged V8 in their Camaro? Is it HP, displacement or simply the number of cylinders that make it a Camaro? It would probably rev to 8,000 rpm easily and simply extracting numbers in a linear fashion from the current 2.0L T should make a respectable 350 HP.

Mid 70's and 80's Camaros (all American muscle at the time was fairly anemic due to the very same CAFE problems we are having now. And of course I know that those early slow catalytic converter having 145 HP sporting V8s don't compare to 4 bangers now.)

They also don't compare to DI V6s. I'm talking about now. No mid 70's engines compare to now, Priuses can beat some of them on a drag strip. It will be the same with us 50 years from now. I am not interested in or advocating comparing 4 bangers to engines almost 50 years ago, nor am I saying that only V8s are Camaros. It's just easier to discount me if you believe that.

I owned a V6 prior to the SS and I am comparing V6's to 4 bangers. Modern DI V6's tuned for performance.

What I said earlier is I think the Turbo 4 is NOT cheaper nor better mpg cost, and about the same power as a good NA DI V6.

So tell me about that, not the condescending part about whether I think a HiPo turbo 4 in a light weight modern car with modern rubber and suspension could outrun an old 80's Iroc Camaro.

As for what I believe is a grocery getter-- the I4 in the Impala and Malibu come to mind... Be careful what you wish for.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 04:55 PM   #645
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 259
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012...iews/120939996 here is a link to a review of the 2013 turbo 4 Malibu.

I repeat, I'm not for only V8-- I'm just pro V6 as the entry level.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 05:50 PM   #646
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
I haven't read through this whole thread.. but thought I would add this

Here is my 2010 V6 Camaro. RED = STOCK, BLUE = Bunch of bolt-ons and tune:




Here i my Focus ST 2.0 4 cylinder EcoBoost. The only mods are an axle-back, resonator swap and a tune! BTW, it definitely doesn't need to be "high reving"



Now, if my Focus wasn't WRONG WHEEL DRIVE!
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:41 PM   #647
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
I haven't read through this whole thread.. but thought I would add this

Here is my 2010 V6 Camaro. RED = STOCK, BLUE = Bunch of bolt-ons and tune:




Here i my Focus ST 2.0 4 cylinder EcoBoost. The only mods are an axle-back, resonator swap and a tune! BTW, it definitely doesn't need to be "high reving"



Now, if my Focus wasn't WRONG WHEEL DRIVE!
Anything has great potential if significantly modded. And 340 lb-ft at the wheels from a Focus ST is very significantly modded. That's more than a stock 3.5L V6 EcoBoost Flex or SHO. In percentage terms, that would be equivalent to modding an LS3 to ~625 tq at the flywheel.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:48 PM   #648
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Anything has great potential if significantly modded. And 340 lb-ft at the wheels from a Focus ST is very significantly modded. That's more than a stock 3.5L V6 EcoBoost Flex or SHO.
My mods on the ST are:

Cobb 93 octane tune
MRT axle back
Green replacement air filter

That's it!!! Not really significant at all! We've. Got our Flex cranked up to about 500 HP with just a tune and some methanol.
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 08:09 PM   #649
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '13 Audi S4
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 7,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
Mid 70's and 80's Camaros (all American muscle at the time was fairly anemic due to the very same CAFE problems we are having now. And of course I know that those early slow catalytic converter having 145 HP sporting V8s don't compare to 4 bangers now.)

They also don't compare to DI V6s. I'm talking about now. No mid 70's engines compare to now, Priuses can beat some of them on a drag strip. It will be the same with us 50 years from now. I am not interested in or advocating comparing 4 bangers to engines almost 50 years ago, nor am I saying that only V8s are Camaros. It's just easier to discount me if you believe that.

I owned a V6 prior to the SS and I am comparing V6's to 4 bangers. Modern DI V6's tuned for performance.

What I said earlier is I think the Turbo 4 is NOT cheaper nor better mpg cost, and about the same power as a good NA DI V6.

So tell me about that, not the condescending part about whether I think a HiPo turbo 4 in a light weight modern car with modern rubber and suspension could outrun an old 80's Iroc Camaro.

As for what I believe is a grocery getter-- the I4 in the Impala and Malibu come to mind... Be careful what you wish for.
Sorry if you thought anything I posted was condescending. Just trying to continue what I thought was a good converstation.

A turbo 4 will get better FE. Not a huge amount better, but if you look at the ATS you'll see I think 28 mpg for the V6 and 30 mpg for the 2.0 T.

My only point in the discussion is everyone seems level set on today. We had pretty crappy "muscle" cars in the past. In the future our definition may change again. And in the further future, that "muscle" may not even be generated by petroleum.

Again, appologies if you think I was putting you down. Not my intent at all.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 08:29 PM   #650
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
My mods on the ST are:

Cobb 93 octane tune
MRT axle back
Green replacement air filter

That's it!!! Not really significant at all! We've. Got our Flex cranked up to about 500 HP with just a tune and some methanol.
I find it hard to believe you got a nearly 50% torque gain over stock with just minor bolt-ons and advanced timing. You must have upped the boost several psi as part of the tune.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
A turbo 4 will get better FE. Not a huge amount better, but if you look at the ATS you'll see I think 28 mpg for the V6 and 30 mpg for the 2.0 T.
I don't think a turbo-4 will get any better fuel economy than a NA V6 at all, not as long as you compare engines of similar power. You can't compare power vs efficiency between the ATS V6 and turbo-4. The V6 makes 50 more horsepower.

Shrink the V6 in displacement until it was down to 270hp, or grow/tune the turbo-4 up to 320hp, and I think their efficiencies would be identical. Only differences would be the cost, complexity, and long term expensive repair potential.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 PM.


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