3.6 DI V6 Faction check-in

[drivingincamaro]

cause if i got a v8 my insurance would be alot plus i do not need 400 horses 300 is good

[Shadowsong]

Originally Posted by AquaBlue6

I can't wait to get the 3.6 DI. Plenty of power to make me happy for the time being, and I'm sure it wont be long till STS http://www.ststurbo.com makes one of their rear mount turbo kits for it. They got 290 RWHP out of a V6 mustang with 9PSI, so I don't think 400 should be too hard with this engine.

I'm not really a fan of STS setups... I'll be looking for a more traditional, under the hood twin turbo setup.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by drivingincamaro

cause if i got a v8 my insurance would be alot plus i do not need 400 horses 300 is good

It's great that you're using reason and practicality to help make your decision.

[4thGen]

Originally Posted by drivingincamaro

cause if i got a v8 my insurance would be alot plus i do not need 400 horses 300 is good

Remember, you could always add an intake and exhaust and have 340hp.

[The_Beast_]

SUPERCHARGER.

nough said.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by 4thGen

Remember, you could always add an intake and exhaust and have 340hp.

I seriously doubt that GM's engineers are so incompetent that they've put a 40hp bottleneck in the intake and exhaust. Perhaps an intake and exhaust would be necessary to get that 40hp after other modifications that would produce more power.

[4thGen]

Originally Posted by theholycow

I seriously doubt that GM's engineers are so incompetent that they've put a 40hp bottleneck in the intake and exhaust. Perhaps an intake and exhaust would be necessary to get that 40hp after other modifications that would produce more power.

You might want to check out this thread. I wouldn't call it a bottleneck myself.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by 4thGen

You might want to check out this thread. I wouldn't call it a bottleneck myself.

Yikes! That's definitely a bottleneck; the engine would make those extra 31hp (not 40) and 19 ft-lbs if it weren't for the stock intake and exhaust. Also, the intake and exhaust on the Camaro are probably not going to be exactly the same as the CTS, though I don't expect them to be any better.

I wonder why they designed it that way? Noise? Cost? I take back what I said about incompetence; that was short-sighted of me, I forgot to consider that they need to design a compromise to please everyone instead of concentrating on a few specific qualities.

[Txturbo]

bottleneck..detuning...whatever you want to call it.

[4thGen]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Yikes! That's definitely a bottleneck; the engine would make those extra 31hp (not 40) and 19 ft-lbs if it weren't for the stock intake and exhaust. Also, the intake and exhaust on the Camaro are probably not going to be exactly the same as the CTS, though I don't expect them to be any better.

I wonder why they designed it that way? Noise? Cost? I take back what I said about incompetence; that was short-sighted of me, I forgot to consider that they need to design a compromise to please everyone instead of concentrating on a few specific qualities.

I need to clarify when I said 40hp(the increase was 31rwhp), I meant 40bhp, not 40rwhp.

Originally Posted by Txturbo

bottleneck..detuning...whatever you want to call it.

Well, in THIS case, I would consider it detuning. Just because GM could have went all out and given this thing 400hp as opposed to 300hp, doesn't mean they should. Giving it 300hp keeps the price reasonable. I consider bottlenecks to be major flaws in engine design that restricts power output and reduces the potency of the engine, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Restrictions from a stock intake DUCT and exhaust are negligible. Restrictions in the intake manifold(s) and heads are bigger issues.

[ZeeTwentyFour]

yea there is about 13% drivetrain loss, so 31 rwhp is about 40 at the crank. That's pretty good for an automatic!

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by ZeeTwentyFour

yea there is about 13% drivetrain loss, so 31 rwhp is about 40 at the crank. That's pretty good for an automatic!

That math is broken. 13% of 40 is 5.2. Loss would have to be 22% for the rest of those numbers to work.

[ZeeTwentyFour]

i did it this way. Based on the numbers they got from the dyno, stock they made 263 RWHP. The engine is rated at 304 BHP so thats a loss of 41 Hp from the crank to the wheels. 41/304 is 0.134868421... so thats 13.4% loss no? maybe I'm using the wrong formula.

[theholycow]

That sounds right...and it means that another number was broken. With a 13% loss, 31rwhp would be 36bhp, I think.