Quote:
Originally Posted by fierodeletre
While I *did* postulate that a turbo 4 might cost more than the smaller V6, this is pure speculation. In the same article, it states that the reason GM is going to use the CTS-V's 550 hp SC V8 instead of the ZO6's 505 hp NA V8 in the new Z28, is because the supercharged engine is cheaper to produce (I know, the author was surprised too). Conventional wisdom may say the turbo engine would cost more, but it might not in the long run.
Also, I've driven V6 F-bodies here and there, and I think there are plenty of people who have dreamed of owning these cars. I've driven both. I like both for different reasons. How many cylinders there are and their placement along the crankshaft of the engine is not in any way shape or form a measure of that engine's performance or efficiency. My buddy's 3.8L V6 97 camaro blew the doors off of my 82 Trans Am WS6 with the 3.83 rear end and a four barrel on it's 5.0L V8. Wasn't even close. There's WAY too much stigma attached, I think often stemming from uninformed masses, to the engine's configuration. People assume that number of cylinders equals performance. People also don't consider the dynamic difference forced induction has. A car with a factory turbo is already set up for easy tuning and tweaking. Also, a turbo car can behave just like its displacement would have you thinking when you keep your foot out of it. It's the original MDS. Only it works better.
All this is moot however. The big decider will be what the market demands. If there not enough new-era, free-thinking potential camaro owners who would buy a turbo four camaro, it simply won't happen no matter how cool or how much sense it makes.
Also: the C1 corvettes were inline sixes, not V6s. I'm pretty sure we need a tutorial on this, because the number of people saying V4 is kind of alarming. (not that V4's didn't and don't exist. They're just VERY few and far between.) It shows a lack of understanding about engine layout.
|
While I disagree somewhat with your point on engine size and displacement and with your example of a 97 V6 beating up on a 15 year older V8 from the bottom of the hp days(not taking a shot at ya), I think you are dead on with the V6, Inline 6 and V4 comments. I think we at times use V as a de facto badge for “cylinders” not the configuration of said cylinders as it is intended. I know I do it. I’ve been doing it on this whole thread. Having owned an inline six I can say they are a different animal. I actually like them better.