Z28 and the 5th Gen Refresh.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by WYKOFF69Z

Pill,
FYI, the Boss that was at my local Ford dealer sold for $5,000 over sticker. It's going from Florida to Virgina.

People shopping out of state for the Boss is pretty common but Florida is a pretty good distance from Virginia. The pickings are really slim now... I'm still inquiring on whether Ford will do a Job #2 this summer or not. I have also heard the there were more than 4000 Boss 302s produced but I haven't confirmed that. I did the figures once based on the official press release and the share of the nation release but can't remember how many Boss's it came to. The 4000 number didn't come from Ford but if every dealer was guaranteed at least one then that would be almost 4k. Ford will never publicly release production numbers until after the model year or all Boss's have been sold. It would defeat the whole SoN concept which was intended to reduce dealer markup. The guys who compete with the Boss 302s are very successful and are recieving a lot of positive feedback... They dominate their classes. The Z28 should be special order ONLY with only a select amount of dealerships receiving floor models. Orders for the Z28 should start at the beginning of the model year (June-July) and start production early Janruary so all buyers can take delivery at the end of March for the season...

[drknow90rs]

I'm a little iffy on the 4 cyl debate. i have no issues with the ecotec 2.0 except that it has been tried in the past with the SVO mustang, and in the hotter climates it didnt work so well. (heat destroyed those turbos and you almost never see a 10 year old turbocharged gas engine in AZ.) I know things have changed in the last 25 years, but most people arent too confident in turbochargers for a daily driven vehicle here. I think that if it's put in the 3,600# camaro, the cobalt SS, or whatever the ecotec is being put into, will eat them alive. Also, torbocharged 4 cyls only get good fuel mileage when the turbo isnt "Spooling" (When they are not under heavy "Load".) To motivate a camaro from a stop, it'll have to spool every time. I know my science is a little off, but you get the drift, right? I'm not saying GM wont put the thing in the camaro, just that it wont sell, IMO.

[GEEo]

Originally Posted by thePill

Some more angles on my proposed 2013 Z28 5th Gen Camaro refresh. This is just a simple headlight cover but it really changes the Camaro's looks. Imagine if the lower fascia was changed to complement the new headlights, work the grille maybe flush with the headlights for more aerodynamics. Use the Bumblebee/ZL1 brake ducts/driver lamp cluster standard. Need some feedback here... or some help...

I like the black Camaro here, Black always wins.



Nice profile shot here, looks really clean. The bumper cover was altered to accommodate the new headlight shields.



This looks really aggressive, very race car inspired look. Just the simple change in headlight design and the car looks significantly different.


The yellow tint is from rubber debris and grime from racing, the headlight cluster is used on this Camaro. Something worth looking at.

I know that those headlights serve for aerodynamic purposes, but dammm they look terrible!!

[thePill]

Originally Posted by drknow90rs

I'm a little iffy on the 4 cyl debate. i have no issues with the ecotec 2.0 except that it has been tried in the past with the SVO mustang, and in the hotter climates it didnt work so well. (heat destroyed those turbos and you almost never see a 10 year old turbocharged gas engine in AZ.) I know things have changed in the last 25 years, but most people arent too confident in turbochargers for a daily driven vehicle here. I think that if it's put in the 3,600# camaro, the cobalt SS, or whatever the ecotec is being put into, will eat them alive. Also, torbocharged 4 cyls only get good fuel mileage when the turbo isnt "Spooling" (When they are not under heavy "Load".) To motivate a camaro from a stop, it'll have to spool every time. I know my science is a little off, but you get the drift, right? I'm not saying GM wont put the thing in the camaro, just that it wont sell, IMO.

Any turbo 4 will sell very well in Europe (and Asia if they sell there too). The idea of a Ecotec 2.0 in a 6th Gen Camaro would be to reach certain corners of the market that a V6/V8 doesn't reach. I am praying that the 6th Gen Camaro will fall between 3300-3400lbs and while that isn't a 3000lbs Cobalt, there is always room to showcase your 2.0 Ecotec capabilities in the Camaro. Lets say that the 6th Gen Camaro will weigh 3300lbs with the Ecotec 2.0 (The Caddy ATS is projected to weigh 3400 with their I4 I believe). If the current E2.0 can produce 260hp and still get 30mpg in a 3000lbs body, the Ecomaro (See what I did there?) wouldn't be too far off from the same performance numbers the Cobalt had (0-60: 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile: 13.9 at 103mph). If you look at the stats, that Camaro is still a pretty fast car... The thing is, Ford is pushing 40mpg from their Ecoboost 4 cylinders while GM isn't. This is something I looked into all day and the best GM can do is 30mpg while Ford is getting 35+mpg from an 3300lbs Mondeo and 35mpg from a 3700lbs S Max. I know technology helps a lot and the Cobalt figures were from 2008 but GM needs to catch up on this. When Ford is offering a 35mpg, 275hp, 3300lbs SVO Mustang and GM is still pushing a 30mpg, 324hp, 3600-3700lbs LT Camaro and the Mustang is besting the Camaro in every category... then that is bad business. The weight the I'4s offer, even with a turbo, brings the whole car down into a comfortable weight range. The V6 engine the Camaro uses weighs 380-390lbs (LS3 weighs 418), the Ecotec 2.0 weighs 300lbs wet, turbo'd and with accessories and can see 300hp, 300tq and spin up to 9000rpm easy. I honestly hate 4 cylinders, but if it is going to save the pony car market and the V8... bring them on... After I read into these Eco engines, I wouldn't mind having a daily driver SVO Mustang... maybe even a convertible, who knows...

Edit: I didn't realize before but the dilemma for you Camaro enthusiast is very real. I was unaware that GM's Ecotec 2.0 only achieved 30mpg which is what the Camaro's V6 does now and I argued that it would be stupid for GM to not make that move. On the other hand, Ford's Ecoboost 2.0 produces 35-40mpg right now, in vehicles ranging from 3300lbs to 3800lbs. I assumed that the Ecotec 2.0 produced the same numbers as the Ecoboost 2.0.. performance wise, that is true, efficiency wise is another dilemma all together. I apologize for the dispute, I should have researched a little more before coming to a conclusion.

[2cnd chance]

For a new front end look and an aerodynamic enhancement a retro RS look (hidden Headlights) would be cool. Could LED's make it work?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by thePill

Any turbo 4 will sell very well in Europe (and Asia if they sell there too). The idea of a Ecotec 2.0 in a 6th Gen Camaro would be to reach certain corners of the market that a V6/V8 doesn't reach. I am praying that the 6th Gen Camaro will fall between 3300-3400lbs and while that isn't a 3000lbs Cobalt, there is always room to showcase your 2.0 Ecotec capabilities in the Camaro. Lets say that the 6th Gen Camaro will weigh 3300lbs with the Ecotec 2.0 (The Caddy ATS is projected to weigh 3400 with their I4 I believe). If the current E2.0 can produce 260hp and still get 30mpg in a 3000lbs body, the Ecomaro (See what I did there?) wouldn't be too far off from the same performance numbers the Cobalt had (0-60: 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile: 13.9 at 103mph). If you look at the stats, that Camaro is still a pretty fast car... The thing is, Ford is pushing 40mpg from their Ecoboost 4 cylinders while GM isn't. This is something I looked into all day and the best GM can do is 30mpg while Ford is getting 35+mpg from an 3300lbs Mondeo and 35mpg from a 3700lbs S Max. I know technology helps a lot and the Cobalt figures were from 2008 but GM needs to catch up on this. When Ford is offering a 35mpg, 275hp, 3300lbs SVO Mustang and GM is still pushing a 30mpg, 324hp, 3600-3700lbs LT Camaro and the Mustang is besting the Camaro in every category... then that is bad business. The weight the I'4s offer, even with a turbo, brings the whole car down into a comfortable weight range. The V6 engine the Camaro uses weighs 380-390lbs (LS3 weighs 418), the Ecotec 2.0 weighs 300lbs wet, turbo'd and with accessories and can see 300hp, 300tq and spin up to 9000rpm easy. I honestly hate 4 cylinders, but if it is going to save the pony car market and the V8... bring them on... After I read into these Eco engines, I wouldn't mind having a daily driver SVO Mustang... maybe even a convertible, who knows...

Edit: I didn't realize before but the dilemma for you Camaro enthusiast is very real. I was unaware that GM's Ecotec 2.0 only achieved 30mpg which is what the Camaro's V6 does now and I argued that it would be stupid for GM to not make that move. On the other hand, Ford's Ecoboost 2.0 produces 35-40mpg right now, in vehicles ranging from 3300lbs to 3800lbs. I assumed that the Ecotec 2.0 produced the same numbers as the Ecoboost 2.0.. performance wise, that is true, efficiency wise is another dilemma all together. I apologize for the dispute, I should have researched a little more before coming to a conclusion.

Pill, what vehicle does Ford have with an Ecoboost that gets even 35 MPG let alone 40 EPA?. The new Taurus with the 2.0 Ecoboost is 30 MPG, if I recall their press release, and Ford hasn't introduced it in anything else yet in the U.S. market. I think it is slated for Explorer soon. If you are using Euro numbers, those aren't the same as our EPA numbers here. Ford is only getting 40 MPG here in the US with the Fiesta (non ecoboost) and the Focus (non ecoboost and special FE model only). The 2.0 Ecoboost isn't available in either of those products in the U.S.

EDIT: Just checked, the Ecoboost in the C-max is a 1.6 L making 150 HP. So not unlike the 1.4 L Turbo in the Cruze. And GM does have a 140 HP 1.6 L in the Zafira that also gets 42 MPG on the euro schedule as well. So we aren't making direct comparisons.

So does a Regal with the 2.0 turbo getting 32 MPG and a Taurus getting only 30 mean GM is besting Ford????

Now as to your point on a Ecostang or Ecomaro (LOL), yeah, someday that will likely have to happen. In 10, 15 or 20 years, will the price of fuel end performance? Or will that simply be a stop gap to Estang and Emaro?

All I can tell you is my Sky is about 2950 pounds or so and has the GMPP calibration with bumps HP by 30 and torque by more. And it is a blast to drive. And it will pull with an SS for a short while on Woodward Avenue although that is no specific admission or comparison in any way shape or for that could lead to the assumption of driving in an over spirited manner on public roads. But it won't replace a V8. Someone said they would be happy with a 550 HP one cyclinder. Well the feeling and sound of driving that would not be quite as rewarding.

Remember the old axiom, there is no replacement for displacement or no substitute for cubic inches? There is a reason for that.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Pill, what vehicle does Ford have with an Ecoboost that gets even 35 MPG let alone 40 EPA?. The new Taurus with the 2.0 Ecoboost is 30 MPG, if I recall their press release, and Ford hasn't introduced it in anything else yet in the U.S. market. I think it is slated for Explorer soon. If you are using Euro numbers, those aren't the same as our EPA numbers here. Ford is only getting 40 MPG here in the US with the Fiesta (non ecoboost) and the Focus (non ecoboost and special FE model only). The 2.0 Ecoboost isn't available in either of those products in the U.S.

EDIT: Just checked, the Ecoboost in the C-max is a 1.6 L making 150 HP. So not unlike the 1.4 L Turbo in the Cruze. And GM does have a 140 HP 1.6 L in the Zafira that also gets 42 MPG on the euro schedule as well. So we aren't making direct comparisons.

So does a Regal with the 2.0 turbo getting 32 MPG and a Taurus getting only 30 mean GM is besting Ford????

Now as to your point on a Ecostang or Ecomaro (LOL), yeah, someday that will likely have to happen. In 10, 15 or 20 years, will the price of fuel end performance? Or will that simply be a stop gap to Estang and Emaro?

All I can tell you is my Sky is about 2950 pounds or so and has the GMPP calibration with bumps HP by 30 and torque by more. And it is a blast to drive. And it will pull with an SS for a short while on Woodward Avenue although that is no specific admission or comparison in any way shape or for that could lead to the assumption of driving in an over spirited manner on public roads. But it won't replace a V8. Someone said they would be happy with a 550 HP one cyclinder. Well the feeling and sound of driving that would not be quite as rewarding.

Remember the old axiom, there is no replacement for displacement or no substitute for cubic inches? There is a reason for that.

As far as I read, it was the S-Max http://motoren.wordpress.com/2011/05...coboost-s-max/

the Mondeo and Edge http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/...el=1582&page=3

I think that that is based on the UK system though and I thought that CAFE and EURO4 (EURO4 is EPA equivalent and it is EURO5 as of 1 Jan, 2011) were almost identical... I will check into it. The Regal and Taurus are about 400lbs apart so a 2mpg difference would be reasonable. It also states that the 2013 Ecoboost 2.0 Taurus will get a 31mpg rating which is best in class, I expect Ford will squeeze another mpg out of that before release but still, that is a full size sedan weighing 4000lbs. So 1mpg separates the two and the Regal is only a mid-sized sedan and that is with the manual as far as know, the auto only gets 28mpg. Anyway, I would hope that a 3300lbs SVO Mustang could manage 35mpg.

Edit: Gasoline turbocharged direct injection engines achieve 20% more fuel economy over engines that are equal to their displacement and number of cylinders. I'm not completely sure how it is accomplished but it has something to do with the sheer amount of air that is consumed. Depending on output and vehicle weight, 20% could be a 2-6mpg increase, I know other engine technologies assist with these numbers but it is very impressive. Both GM and Ford's start/stop technology should see a pretty nice gain as well...

The first Ecoboost/Ecotec V8 is going to be incredible.

Edit #2: I'm not sure what the Europeans use instead of CAFE but I did discover that the testing methods are different in the UK. They have two different test, one being urban and the other being extra-urban (LOL). There is no need for some of the test we conduct in Europe because of traffic and such. The US usually has better highway mileage compared to their extra-urban and the UK's urban rating is usually better than the US's city rating. The combined fuel economy numbers are higher in the US than they are in Europe however; the UK uses the imperial gallon instead of the US gallon (20% larger than the US gallon). I also discovered that the "Miles per Gallon" system was misleading...

Gallons per mile
Gallons per mile (GPM) is a way of measuring the fuel consumption of a vehicle. It conveys the amount of fuel that will be used more intuitively than Miles per gallon, which can be misleading. For example, many people incorrectly believe the improvement from 34 to 44 mpg saves more fuel than the improvement from 15 to 19 mpg because they look at the difference (or percentage change) between MPG levels. The improvement of 15 to 19 mpg saves about twice as much fuel as the improvement of 34 to 44 mpg over a given distance of driving. "Gallons per 100 miles" (GPHM) corrects these illusions When comparing the fuel savings of different vehicles, GPHM can be subtracted. MPG cannot.
Because using "gallons per mile" yields small numbers, it is useful to use a longer distance as the base, such as "gallons per hundred miles" (GPHM) or "gallons per 10,000 miles." Many countries use a measure of volume over distance to measure fuel consumption.

To me, it seems like the whole system is flawed. With the incorporation of air conditioners into the US fuel economy ratings, to the GPM vs. MPG debate, the system has large inconsistencies and downfalls. During an 18 mile trip, lasting 35 minutes, I was able to achieve an average 30.2mpg with a 5.0 V8 that is rated at 27mpg highway. Although I wasn't exactly blistering home (My son calls it "snail racing"), I still managed a 30.2mpg average which is roughly 7mpg over the sticker average.... Either way, good info

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by thePill

As far as I read, it was the S-Max http://motoren.wordpress.com/2011/05...coboost-s-max/

the Mondeo and Edge http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/...el=1582&page=3

I think that that is based on the UK system though and I thought that CAFE and EURO4 (EURO4 is EPA equivalent and it is EURO5 as of 1 Jan, 2011) were almost identical... I will check into it. The Regal and Taurus are about 400lbs apart so a 2mpg difference would be reasonable. It also states that the 2013 Ecoboost 2.0 Taurus will get a 31mpg rating which is best in class, I expect Ford will squeeze another mpg out of that before release but still, that is a full size sedan weighing 4000lbs. So 1mpg separates the two and the Regal is only a mid-sized sedan and that is with the manual as far as know, the auto only gets 28mpg. Anyway, I would hope that a 3300lbs SVO Mustang could manage 35mpg.

Edit: Gasoline turbocharged direct injection engines achieve 20% more fuel economy over engines that are equal to their displacement and number of cylinders. I'm not completely sure how it is accomplished but it has something to do with the sheer amount of air that is consumed. Depending on output and vehicle weight, 20% could be a 2-6mpg increase, I know other engine technologies assist with these numbers but it is very impressive. Both GM and Ford's start/stop technology should see a pretty nice gain as well...

The first Ecoboost/Ecotec V8 is going to be incredible.

A 35 on the highway will be wayyyyyyyy more dependent on aero than being 3300 pounds. Weight gives you a good city number.

And where did you get a 20% improvement for SIDI? For example the engine in the Cruze is not DI. If I add DI to the 1.4L Turbo in the 42 MPG ECO model I could be at 50??????

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

A 35 on the highway will be wayyyyyyyy more dependent on aero than being 3300 pounds. Weight gives you a good city number.

And where did you get a 20% improvement for SIDI? For example the engine in the Cruze is not DI. If I add DI to the 1.4L Turbo in the 42 MPG ECO model I could be at 50??????

It is up to 20% and that would most likely be in the Eco 4's http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455

The Ecoboost 3.5 (called TwinForce then) was a 15% increase over the regular 3.5 (up to 34.5mpg). It depends on the program I guess and all the engine technologies that assist the GTDI engines. The percentage is a flat number; you would have to take into consideration that the percent gain would not scale with the MPG. A 30mpg 1.4 and a 40mpg 1.4 would gain the same solid number. It might be 20% for the 30mpg engine (6mpg gain) but it would only be 15% in the 40mpg engine (6mpg gain). It was mostly because the N/A 2.0 4 cylinder was rated around 30mpg so that would be right on the money. So a 50mpg 1.4 might be difficult, but there would still be a very handsome increase.


I am waiting for the day that everything associated with the intake system (CAI, intake manifold) is replaced by a "Cold air injector" that blast compressed cold air right into the chamber. Maybe even design a head with no intake valve.

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

A 35 on the highway will be wayyyyyyyy more dependent on aero than being 3300 pounds. Weight gives you a good city number.

That is true but a good portion (55%) of the testing is done under city conditions (Edit: Disregard that, that is for the gas guzzler tax, sorry.. I'm in pain killer mode). I hope that the start/stop technology is standard in most vehicles by then, that will really help the city portion of the quiz. I am willing to bet that Ford will make the new Mustang more aerodynamic this time around. They did say it would be a modern design and while I do not think that they will go with the Dorthy's ruby slipper look like most sports cars, it will be an improvement.

[thePill]

Anyway, that was a nice little intermission break away from the Z28 but we need to get back to work.

I have been looking into transmissions that could possibly be matched with a Hi-Po LS3 (LS3R). The best transmission would have to be the Z06's TR6060 MM6. The MM6 has a torque rating of 470lb ft at 4000lbs and only weighs 121lbs wet (single clutch only). The weight alone (121lbs) is incredible, I thought that the TR6060 M10 was the lightest at 149lbs(Edit: 146lbs) but I was way off. Using the MM6 over the M10 is a 28lbs weight savings and that is very, very good. There is a problem with the weight though, 4000lbs is definitely a generic standard given to Corvette transmissions. The GVWR of the Camaro is about 4800lbs and there is the problem. Tremec could revalidate the transmission at 4800lbs but the torque rating would be lower, by how much I don't know. Just some quick math brings the figure down to 430tq at 4800lbs... GM could reduce the cargo capacity from 732lbs to 300-400lbs and that would solve that or... find another transmission which would suck.

Here are the gear ratios
1st: 2.66 (This would have to be changed, the 3.73's would feel like 2.73s)
2nd: 1.78
3rd: 1.30
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.74 (We really need to find a transmission with only one overdrive, two overdrives in a performance vehicle is nonsense. It lowers the entire gear ratio spread throughout the gears...
6th: 0.50

Looks like a great transmission with the exception of the maximum weight capacity, 1st gear ratio and the extra overdrive.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

A 35 on the highway will be wayyyyyyyy more dependent on aero than being 3300 pounds. Weight gives you a good city number.

And where did you get a 20% improvement for SIDI? For example the engine in the Cruze is not DI. If I add DI to the 1.4L Turbo in the 42 MPG ECO model I could be at 50??????

Wait....what?!? Serious question here...Cruze's turbo engine DOESN'T have SIDI? I had just assumed it did, though....I guess I've never read it anywhere...

Originally Posted by thePill

(We really need to find a transmission with only one overdrive, two overdrives in a performance vehicle is nonsense. It lowers the entire gear ratio spread throughout the gears...)

I had to chuckle at this...only because it really hit home as I just took our Pop's old '79 Z28 and she was rolling around town with 3 gears and NO overdrive....

I'll take my 5th and 6th OD gears, pretty please. Place 2 and 3 in good spots for shifting in corners, and it should do fine. Especially if the business case for this hypothetical Z28 is one that actually expects people to buy it....

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by thePill

It is up to 20% and that would most likely be in the Eco 4's http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455

The Ecoboost 3.5 (called TwinForce then) was a 15% increase over the regular 3.5 (up to 34.5mpg). It depends on the program I guess and all the engine technologies that assist the GTDI engines. The percentage is a flat number; you would have to take into consideration that the percent gain would not scale with the MPG. A 30mpg 1.4 and a 40mpg 1.4 would gain the same solid number. It might be 20% for the 30mpg engine (6mpg gain) but it would only be 15% in the 40mpg engine (6mpg gain). It was mostly because the N/A 2.0 4 cylinder was rated around 30mpg so that would be right on the money. So a 50mpg 1.4 might be difficult, but there would still be a very handsome increase.


I am waiting for the day that everything associated with the intake system (CAI, intake manifold) is replaced by a "Cold air injector" that blast compressed cold air right into the chamber. Maybe even design a head with no intake valve.

Ok went to your link:

•EcoBoost uses gasoline turbocharged direct-injection technology for up to 20 percent better fuel economy, 15 percent fewer CO2 emissions and superior driving performance versus larger displacement engines.

•Ford Explorer America concept at the North American International Auto Show showcases EcoBoost combined with other sustainability actions; together, they deliver a 20-30 percent increase in fuel economy, depending on engine selection, versus today’s mid-size utilities.

Bullet 1, up to 20% higher when compared to larger displacement engines. This means the Turbo DI engine get 20% better than a larger engine, not 20% higher than an engine of equal size no DI. This marketing claim was the same one Buick made back in the 80's.

Bullet 2, this just means with mass reduction, aero, lower rolling reistence tires, etc, etc, that they can get up 20 to 30% better MPG with and Ecoboost engine.

And in neither case does it suggest DI alone is worth 20%.




But I agree, back to this mythical car you are talking about.............

[SuperCarEnthusiast]

The next generation high performance Camaro will be like the current Suburu WTX or the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. Small, lightweight, turbo powered 4 liter engine and total weight is 3600 pounds.