Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Classic Design Concepts
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

Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons Bolt-Ons | Intakes | Exhaust

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2008, 12:53 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 SScattergunSS View Post
This is something I think everybody will get a kick out of, especially future V6 Camaro owners. I just read in the current ( December 2008 ) issue of Road & Track on page 122. Believe it or not, they tested the Dodge Challenger R/T, ( NOT the SRT8, but the R/T )and got a 0-60 time of 6.2 seconds, and a quarter mile time of 14.5 seconds at 99 mph. If the Direct 6 Camaro is as advertised, there are going to be some turly surprised and very upset / embarrassed Challenger R/T owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No kidding!?! Wow.

Even if you put it at 6.0 and 14.3 for "drivers error", that's still in line with the V6 Camaro...interesting. And sad for Dodge guys....
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 01:18 PM   #52
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
Maybe the challenger will get better (if and) when GM buys out DC.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 01:38 PM   #53
Crowley
Okie doke
 
Crowley's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 GT500
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: McKinney Texas
Posts: 3,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
No kidding!?! Wow.

Even if you put it at 6.0 and 14.3 for "drivers error", that's still in line with the V6 Camaro...interesting. And sad for Dodge guys....
Motortrend go the following from the R/T ..

2009 DODGE CHALLENGER R/T
Base price $29,995
Price as tested $39,055
Vehicle layout Front-engine, RWD, 5-pass, 2-door, coupe
Engine 5.7L/376-hp/410-lb-ft OHV 16-valve V-8
Transmission 6-speed manual
Curb weight (f/r dist) 4154 lb (53/47%)
Wheelbase 116.0 in
Length x width x height 197.7 x 75.7 x 57.1 in
0-60 mph 5.1 sec
Quarter mile 13.6 sec @ 104.9 mph

Braking, 60-0 mph 135 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.82 g (avg)
MT figure eight 27.5 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)
EPA city/hwy fuel econ 16 / 25 mpg
CO2 emissions 1.02 lb/mile

For the SRT8 ..

2009 DODGE CHALLENGER SRT8
Base price $41,695
Price as tested $43,730 (manual), $42,840 (auto)
Vehicle layout Front-engine, RWD, 5-pass, 2-door, coupe
Engine 6.1L/425-hp/420-lb-ft OHV 16-valve V-8
Transmission 6-speed manual, 5-speed auto
Curb weight 4146 lb (man), 4137 lb (auto)
Weight dist, f/r 55/45%
Wheelbase 116.0 in
Length x width x height 197.7 x 75.7 x 57.1 in
0-60 mph 4.6 sec (man), 4.7 sec (auto)
Quarter mile 13.1 sec @ 108.4 mph (man), 13.1 sec @ 108.3 mph (auto),

Braking, 60-0 mph 121 ft (man)/117 ft (auto)
Lateral acceleration 0.87 g (avg, man), 0.87 g (avg, auto)
MT figure eight 26.7 sec @ 0.67 g (avg, man), 26.4 sec @ 0.69 g (avg, auto)
EPA city/hwy fuel econ 14/22 mpg (man), 13/19 mpg (auto)
CO2 emissions 1.16-1.28 lb/mile
__________________
Crowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 03:20 PM   #54
BowtieGuy
Enlightened
 
BowtieGuy's Avatar
 
Drives: Nothing Currently
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SScattergunSS View Post
This is something I think everybody will get a kick out of, especially future V6 Camaro owners. I just read in the current ( December 2008 ) issue of Road & Track on page 122. Believe it or not, they tested the Dodge Challenger R/T, ( NOT the SRT8, but the R/T )and got a 0-60 time of 6.2 seconds, and a quarter mile time of 14.5 seconds at 99 mph. If the Direct 6 Camaro is as advertised, there are going to be some turly surprised and very upset / embarrassed Challenger R/T owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That pretty funny, but Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Edmund's can't test a car properly to save their lives. They honestly can't drive. I go with M/T for times.
__________________
If you believe it is your right to speak freely no matter the content, relevance, or intelligence of statement, then it is my duty to the powers that be to set you straight.

People have to talk about something just to keep their voice boxes in working order. So they'll have good voice boxes in case there's ever anything really meaningful to say.
Kurt Vonnegut
BowtieGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 12:12 AM   #55
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
The MT numbers are usually spot on. But heres a few things to get your smile back on.
7.3 - The 0-60 time of the base Challenger. Hahaha.
15.6 - The 1/4 time of the base Challenger. Hahaha.

13G's - The difference in base prices for the SS and the SRT8. And the SS is just as fast
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 12:14 AM   #56
headpunter
Not That sad..considering
 
headpunter's Avatar
 
Drives: Man
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about.
Posts: 3,784
Send a message via AIM to headpunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
The MT numbers are usually spot on. But heres a few things to get your smile back on.
7.3 - The 0-60 time of the base Challenger. Hahaha.
15.6 - The 1/4 time of the base Challenger. Hahaha.

13G's - The difference in base prices for the SS and the SRT8. And the SS is faster
fixed
__________________

Last edited by headpunter; 11-06-2008 at 01:45 AM.
headpunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 12:20 AM   #57
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by headpunter View Post
fixed
Hahaha. But really... i dont think so. 4.6 is the SS's time. And thats what MT gave it.

And also in the stats you see the challenger's manual is faster. That is the first sign of a crappy automatic.
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!

Last edited by SemperFi; 11-06-2008 at 11:43 AM.
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 01:12 AM   #58
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Hahaha. But really... i dont think so. 4.6 is the SS's time. And thats what MT gave it.

And also in the stats you see the manual is faster. That is the first sign of a crappy automatic.
4.6 is the manufacturer's estimated time. It will be faster. Just like the V6 camaro (which, incidentally, low 14s for the 1/4 should be closer to 5.5 0-60, right?).
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 01:46 AM   #59
headpunter
Not That sad..considering
 
headpunter's Avatar
 
Drives: Man
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about.
Posts: 3,784
Send a message via AIM to headpunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Hahaha. But really... i dont think so. 4.6 is the SS's time. And thats what MT gave it.

And also in the stats you see the manual is faster. That is the first sign of a crappy automatic.
if autos are supposed to be slower how does that mean its a crappy auto?
__________________
headpunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 07:30 AM   #60
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by XanthosV6 View Post
4.6 is the manufacturer's estimated time. It will be faster. Just like the V6 camaro (which, incidentally, low 14s for the 1/4 should be closer to 5.5 0-60, right?).
- Xanthos
I think you give them too much credit. they said the v6 would get 27 on the highway. But now they resign and say it 26. Id say 4.6 is where we will be. And im FINE with that. 4.6 is bustin butts.
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 07:32 AM   #61
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by headpunter View Post
if autos are supposed to be slower how does that mean its a crappy auto?
Not anymore. look at porsche and mercedes. Almost all of their automatics are faster and more fuel efficient. Because they are well developed, with computer controlled shifts and what not. I think youd agree that a computer does a better job than your foot and hand...
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 08:47 AM   #62
Muscle Master
SS Lightning
 
Muscle Master's Avatar
 
Drives: An SRT8
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ
Posts: 2,306
Are you serious........

Quote:
Originally Posted by SRT Engineers

The 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T with its 375-hp 5.7-liter V8 and six-speed manual transmission accelerated to 60 mph in 5.9 seconds (5.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip), then reached the quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds
Lets not kid our selfs, the R/T will smoke the the LT

seriously 400 ft of torque
__________________

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   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 09:37 AM   #63
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
^ He's right. The R/T Challenger is pretty much on par with the Mustang GT, which will both smoke a Camaro V6.

Even IF the Camaro does 0-60 in mid 5's which I think is wishful thinking personally due to its weight and torque... 5.7-5.9 is probably the most accurate estimation that we can say for now. It's .1 quicker than the 5.8 time of the CTS 3.6L V6 and .1 slower. But seeing the Camaro V6 weighs around 120-200lbs lighter it should be capable of 5.7....

Needless to say it won't be beating the Challenger R/T or Mustang GT stock...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 11:42 AM   #64
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS4EVER View Post
^ He's right. The R/T Challenger is pretty much on par with the Mustang GT, which will both smoke a Camaro V6.

Even IF the Camaro does 0-60 in mid 5's which I think is wishful thinking personally due to its weight and torque... 5.7-5.9 is probably the most accurate estimation that we can say for now. It's .1 quicker than the 5.8 time of the CTS 3.6L V6 and .1 slower. But seeing the Camaro V6 weighs around 120-200lbs lighter it should be capable of 5.7....

Needless to say it won't be beating the Challenger R/T or Mustang GT stock...
Apparently the people at Road & Track have a broken stopwatch.
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2008, 02:38 PM   #65
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
Yeah, but even if it doesn't beat them stock, one can do a lot of work with the 4500 dollars saved over the mustang GT and the 7500 saved over the challenger R/T.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2008, 12:16 PM   #66
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 21,978
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Turbo vs Supercharger thread created

back on topic
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 04:44 PM   #67
Camaro82
 
Drives: 370z
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: va
Posts: 40
I might be buying V6 Camaro.

All black!!!
Camaro82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 09:05 PM   #68
Beau
 
Drives: Fast
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 24
Arg... You guys make my head hurt.

I think I should probably clear up a few things about direct injection and my love (3.6DI).

Firstly, one of the issues is NOT fuel pressure overcoming cylinder pressure. Somone quoted 2000PSI for cylinder pressure. Yeah thats at peak cylinder ignition, you aren't injecting anything into the motor during an ignition event silly :] In addition to that direct injection is actually spraying at well over 1000 PSI, just an FYI.

To all of these "two words" guys that are using one reason the car is making power with 4.5 PSI.

It is a combination of the high compression ratio, direct injection as it cools the cylinder and intake charge, but more so the very good flowing heads.

One thing I wanted to add, you can knock with direct injection too, the ONLY reason why there is a lower propensity for knock is due to simple physics. Blast compressed air onto your hand, as the air moves from high pressure to low it absorbs heat during expansion, so it feels cool to your hand even though it was much hotter compressed. Same with the fuel, the dispersion and expansion of the atomizing fuel going from well over 1000 psi to a 200 psi cylinder ( not 2000, remeber the fuel hasn't ignited yet ) allows it to cool the air charge by a good margin.

I only hope GM moves to E85 with Direct Injection as well, the results would be remarkable, although I would imagine there would be an extra bit of sooting over the DI due to the cooling effect the alcohol would have over even the gasoline which already soots in a DI setup.

Last edited by Beau; 12-07-2008 at 09:29 PM.
Beau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 11:05 PM   #69
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
I had actually spoken to a retired GM engineer who still manages to keep himself in the know with GM's current engine line up, and I can't recall for the life of me what his specialization was called, he was a mechanical engineer but he had some specific title and did work specifically with engines.... Anyways I had spoken to him in regards to the 3.6L DI, VVT V6 and told him all the stats on the engine, like CR, etc....

And I was trying to get some info out of him regarding the engine's potential, I know that D3 performance has made some supposedly promising gains out of just a tune and intake, but he told me from what I told him that the engine stock is pretty close to its full potential, and that without doing any further extensive modifications like converting to F.I. or doing some major internal upgrades, that he wouldn't expect to see any more significant additional gains power wise coming out of the V6 that's going in the Camaro.


Although that just seems to be the case with most 6 cylinder engines....
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 11:44 PM   #70
zebra
just can't seem to leave
 
zebra's Avatar
 
Drives: your mom wild!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: cold & windy
Posts: 11,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS4EVER View Post
Although that just seems to be the case with most 6 cylinder engines....
you must mean new 6 cylinders. in 1991 GMC took a regular 150hp 4.3 Sonoma and beefed it up to 330hp & called it a Syclone. guys have since then bumped them to over 1000hp.
__________________
zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 08:55 AM   #71
Beau
 
Drives: Fast
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 24
SS4Ever, there are tons of different types of GM engineers there. The guy you talked to sounds about as informed as a first year college student who bought their civic Si, who recently read a cat back exhaust would be good to put him in the 11s.

The fact is with GM, they always cork up a certain percentage of power, GM usually leaves a lot of power on the table. The main reason for this is that GM doesn't make quiet nor vibration free motors typically. NHV is the acronynm for the day for most paper GM engineers.

However... The good news, sinice most of the GM vehicles are over built, then corked up, they respond well to bolt ons.

The ONLY thing that matters is rise in volumetric efficiency with each mod done.
There are only two motors I know of that don't respond to bolt ons.

Its the S2000 motor, and most recent Nissan VQs. Why? Because they are already engineers to make the best power within those parameters, their runners lengths and volumes are already optimized. Their intake already flows enough without it impeding stock performance, as well as their exhausts. So on and so forth.

GMs again, on the other hand do not typically share the same passion for extracting everything they can out of a motor, they say, ok here are the specs, we need to get it this quiet. Lets do it easy, and make a muti baffled intake with wird turns and chambers, that'll quiet it down~! ( and it does... for cheap too )

Same with the exhaust.

P.S. the non DI motor, GMs drag racing team dumped the Ecotec in a specific class that allowed up to 3.5 liters. They took the 3.6 destroked it, and make 1665 WHP out the first time with it and killed their transmission. They didn't even think they would come close to that number, btw.
Beau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 09:04 AM   #72
Camaro_Corvette
36.833283,-76.021958
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
holy crap...I took a link to another page, check this out:


100 + hp on 4.5 psi?!? Jeez!
I think whoever first said this little engine has some potential was understating the situation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
Absolutely...don't know why I didn't in the first place...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7079
OMFG
__________________
Camaro_Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:39 PM   #73
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by zebra View Post
you must mean new 6 cylinders. in 1991 GMC took a regular 150hp 4.3 Sonoma and beefed it up to 330hp & called it a Syclone. guys have since then bumped them to over 1000hp.
They also converted that engine to forced induction. It was turbocharged. I'm talking about normally aspirated V6's...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:44 PM   #74
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau View Post
P.S. the non DI motor, GMs drag racing team dumped the Ecotec in a specific class that allowed up to 3.5 liters. They took the 3.6 destroked it, and make 1665 WHP out the first time with it and killed their transmission. They didn't even think they would come close to that number, btw.
Yeah but AFTER they probably destroked it, completely re-built the engine, upgraded the block, pistons and all internals then converted it to forced induction. Which can be done to pretty much any engine.

I'm just saying that normally aspirated, that V6 won't have to much more power to be gained from what I was informed. Yeah you throw a turbo or supercharger on it of course you're looking at gains of 100hp or more. But a full load of bolt-ons aren't going to give that V6 like 70+ HP which I think alot of you are expecting...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 04:44 PM   #75
zebra
just can't seem to leave
 
zebra's Avatar
 
Drives: your mom wild!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: cold & windy
Posts: 11,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS4EVER View Post
They also converted that engine to forced induction. It was turbocharged. I'm talking about normally aspirated V6's...
okay. you didn't specify that last time.
__________________
zebra 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
Future Products—General Motors KILLER74Z28 General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 5 11-14-2012 04:07 PM
New York Times: Siphoning G.M.’s Future GTAHVIT General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 2 07-10-2008 06:37 PM
GM To Unveil Future Business Plans On Tuesday Mr. Wyndham General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 5 06-03-2008 09:02 AM
Steve Dinan: BMW sets the tone for future combustion engine development Scotsman General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 1 03-25-2008 08:06 PM
LSX owners: AFR Cylinder Head Owners FTI-EDC General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 0 11-10-2006 05:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.


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