GM nears completion of twin-turbo V6 (LF3) to combat Ford’s new EcoBoost engine

[LOWDOWN]

Anyone, here, remember the '67-'68 Firebird SPRINT-6? OHC 215 c.i./215 horse inline 6 with a 4bbl. carb and a 4-speed? They were a "match", easily, for a 307 or 327 Camaro or 326 Firebird, off the showroom floor...or 289 Mustangs for that matter...

The '01-'03 Syclone /Typhoon? HotHotHot...

Don't underestimate the value of "only" 6 cylinders...especially in this "modern age", with modern tech...

[Ferrarimk13]

272 kW of power is about 365 horsepower which is impressive. I just dont see any small engine doing the car any good because until it loses some weight, theres nothing that can make it a ton better.

[GNVenom]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

So '86-'87 Regal T-Types and GN/GNXs were "economy cars"?

With $1,000 worth of "refining", they'd run mid/low-12s...better than or equal to a "muscle car" L99 with a similar budget...and capable of mid-20s mpg...with 25 year old technology.

The "potential" for a boosted V6, once the BoschBox is cracked, is very promising...with mpg enhancements and an eco-friendly future...but ONLY in RWD/AWD applications, thank you.

GM is finally reacquainting itself with its past, which also means "Eco-Boost" is NOT "new"...

+1

Pay attention boys. Seems most of you weren't around when BUICK built the Grand National - it was the fastest US production car in 1987. Little six with a single turbo. Say what you want about the V8 growl, but that little hissin' V6 will kick your arse every time. And turbos respond to boost mod's very nicely.

About 25 year old technology: It still tops the charts at the tracks even today. And it was crude cast iron block and heads, doggy incompetent fuel injection, two bolt mains, in a 3600 lb. carcass. It's insanely common for those 25 year old GN's to run 10's regularly. Look what you gotta do to your LS3 Camaro to achieve those numbers!

GM, bring on the turbo motors. We're ready and waiting...

Do not underestimate the power of a turbo - or two.

[Ronin_2SS]

Originally Posted by GNVenom

+1

Pay attention boys. Seems most of you weren't around when BUICK built the Grand National - it was the fastest US production car in 1987. Little six with a single turbo. Say what you want about the V8 growl, but that little hissin' V6 will kick your arse every time. And turbos respond to boost mod's very nicely.

About 25 year old technology: It still tops the charts at the tracks even today. And it was crude cast iron block and heads, doggy incompetent fuel injection, two bolt mains, in a 3600 lb. carcass. It's insanely common for those 25 year old GN's to run 10's regularly. Look what you gotta do to your LS3 Camaro to achieve those numbers!

GM, bring on the turbo motors. We're ready and waiting...

Do not underestimate the power of a turbo - or two.

I always say the boost bug has a killer bite

[bng804]

Originally Posted by GNVenom

+1

Pay attention boys. Seems most of you weren't around when BUICK built the Grand National - it was the fastest US production car in 1987. Little six with a single turbo. Say what you want about the V8 growl, but that little hissin' V6 will kick your arse every time. And turbos respond to boost mod's very nicely.

About 25 year old technology: It still tops the charts at the tracks even today. And it was crude cast iron block and heads, doggy incompetent fuel injection, two bolt mains, in a 3600 lb. carcass. It's insanely common for those 25 year old GN's to run 10's regularly. Look what you gotta do to your LS3 Camaro to achieve those numbers!

GM, bring on the turbo motors. We're ready and waiting...

Do not underestimate the power of a turbo - or two.

x2

[Den4176]

Originally Posted by brAnd7onX

Z-28!

+2

[Fandango]

Originally Posted by n!ght r!der

Impala vs Taurus BAM!

That's what I was going to say. This engine is going to be for the saloons such as the Malibu, Impala, CTS entry level. I don't think this engine will be int he Camaro until 2012. But, I can't see it being used for the V6 Camaro. From what I gather, the V6 Camaro is a better buy if you are buying a car and not a sports car. The mialage is better and so is the price. But who buys a Camaro for that?

Ah, but could you imagine the sales of TTV6 Camaro that could be marketed as the Eco Sports car of the new Millenium? Well, older guys like me just can't seem to fathom it. However, a new generation of buyers may. We have to see.

I'm going back to my Z/28 therapy...

[Mike24]

Sign me up

[Camaro_Corvette]

Nice! I can't wait to hear the numbers

[Camaro68]

[songsj]

I was about to say the same thing about the GN but you beat me to it. I am a huge V8 fan but a well designed and and put together V6 package in the right car can scream.
It's the whole package, not just HP, displacement , weight and boost.

[Sean@Phastek]

More food for thought....

The Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 is rated at 350 hp and 355 tq
The GM LF3 3.0L V6 is rated at 270 hp and 213 tq... before the Twin Turbos...

The 2010 Camaro 3.6L V6 is rated at 304 hp and 273 tq
The 2010 Camaro 6.2L V8 is rated at 426 hp and 420 tq
The 2010 CTS-V/Z-28 6.2L is rated at 556 hp and 551 tq

The 2011 3.7L V6 Mustang is rated at 305 hp and ? tq
The 2010 4.6L V8 Mustang is rated at 315 hp and 325 tq
The 2011 5.0L V8 Mustang is rated at 412 hp and ? tq
The 2011 GT500 5.4L V8 is rated at 550 hp and 510 tq

The 2010 6.1L V8 Challenger is rated at 425 hp and 420 tq
The new 6.4L V8 Challenger is rated at.... ?

Ford's Turbocharged EcoBoost V6 will not be going in the Mustangs....

But GM has made major head way with the new 2010 Camaro... so why not have a Twin Turbo option for the V6 Camaro, to go along with the Supercharged option for the Z28/V8 Camaro?

[rpepka]

I hope not. LONG LIVE THE V-8!

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by Fandango

This engine is going to be for the saloons such as the Malibu, Impala, CTS entry level. I don't think this engine will be int he Camaro until 2012. But, I can't see it being used for the V6 Camaro. From what I gather, the V6 Camaro is a better buy if you are buying a car and not a sports car. The mialage is better and so is the price. But who buys a Camaro for that?

Ah, but could you imagine the sales of TTV6 Camaro that could be marketed as the Eco Sports car of the new Millenium? Well, older guys like me just can't seem to fathom it. However, a new generation of buyers may. We have to see.

First of all, I'm about to turn 58, which takes me back to my late-teens in the late-'60s, the pinnacle of the "original" muscle car era. I worked as a pump-jockey/oil changer during high school, which afforded me the opportunity to "live the life"...along with all manner of friends with all manner of "awesome" machinery...on crap tires, with crap vehicle "dynamics"...

I currently own a '70 GS Stage 1 (THE "torque monster" of its day @ 510 Gross) AND am original owner of an '87 T-Type Turbo Regal that, with a $1,000 worth of mods (without cancelling GM's Warranty...), would and will run mid-12s very streetably, through the "right" wheels...RWD.

I had the misfortune to recently spend time with an '08 Impala SS with the 5.3 V8 and "torque management". What a frightful experience! Stomp on the gas...tugleft-tugright-tugleft-tugright... On anything but billiard table-smooth/flat and dry surfaces, that thing was all over the road...FWD and mega-torque is NOT for the faint-of-heart or inexperienced. AWD, maybe. RWD, bring it on!

In a Camaro? With its great chassis (relatively), tires, brakes, StabiliTrak and Traction Control? It would be the current definition of "awesome", only with exhaust you could practically breathe and mpgs formerly reserved for Isettas. A great way to "break-in" this sort of technology in preparation for the Gen-6 version with less avoir du pois...

I lived with a 1LT/WRS/MN6 for the last 6 months (just sold). Fine car. Good mileage. Quicker than a stock '68 Z/28 I drove "back in the day"!

More power (turbo), similar cruising mpgs (vs. LLT)...why NOT?! Bring on the hairdryer(s)!!