Why does everyone think that a Turbo V6 would weigh less than an LS3/L99 Camaro.

[The IOM Ninja]

I just don't understand this, all things considering the weight of the different trim levels are pretty close

3750 / 1705 - LT automatic
3769 / 1713 - LS automatic
3913 / 1779 - SS automatic

3741 / 1700 - LT manual
3780 / 1718 - LS manual
3860 / 1755 - SS manual

As per the Camaro5 Wiki

I think in a Twin Turbo setup the weight of the turbos and all of the extra piping would bring it pretty much equal. If you are comparing Manual to Manual, the Auto SS jumps quite a bit....

[The IOM Ninja]

Originally Posted by BloodUSMC

well with twin turbo it might almost weigh the same but with more power.

That I understand, but if you are talking mod for mod wouldn't the V8 still have the upper hand? I mean a V8 will always make more torque a V6 will almost always be deficient in that sense, but if you were talking Twin Turbo both Cars with equal horsepower how would that play out torque wise. I would assume the V8 would almost always have more.

[BloodUSMC]

removed my message so i dont start a war. lol.
Im not sure if people I race suck at driving but so far I raced 3 V8 cars. including 1 svt cobra and somehow I managed to stay infront of them in the beginning. torque...

But anyway, personally if I had to redo this whole buying thing, I would have gotten the SS. But I still love my V6.

[The IOM Ninja]

Originally Posted by BloodUSMC

removed my message so i dont start a war. lol.
Im not sure if people I race suck at driving but so far I raced 3 V8 cars. including 1 svt cobra and somehow I managed to stay infront of them in the beginning. torque...

But anyway, personally if I had to redo this whole buying thing, I would have gotten the SS. But I still love my V6.

LOL I don't want this to start a war either I don't want this to be a V6 vs V8 thread I just want some concrete facts about this because almost, mostly V6er's, seem to think that Turbo setups don't effect the weight of the car, but I believe the piping would be quite heavy for the car. I can see were it would be lighter than a force induction V8 though but once you go forced induction you can just up the power so it really would be a bad comparison now that I think of it.

[SSGUNNER]

[The IOM Ninja]

The way I see it Naturally Aspirated High Displacement V8's have high torque numbers, or for a better way of saying it Torque Numbers that compare to their Horsepower Numbers. Naturally Aspirated Low Displacement V8's don't have that same luxury and it tends to be that way for all low displacement engines, V10's, V12s etc.

Turbo Charging the Nissan GT-R yields a Torque:Horsepower Ratio that is still not Comparable to a Naturally Aspirated V8 410:400 (L99), but in the case of a Supercharged V8 604:638 (LS9) the Ratio better than the GT-R's V6 but still not as good as a Naturally Aspirated V8. Explain...

[Ir0nM4n]

what brought on the question

Why does everyone think that a Turbo V6 would weigh less than an LS3/L99 Camaro.

[TJ91]

well lets just say for comparison sake were going turbo v6 vs STOCK SS
You have an LT that weighs about 3750, you minus 50 for the exhaust immediatly and now your sitting at 3700. So you have 160lbs to less then an SS. Now add some turbos and some piping and im assuming (could be wrong) That your now back to about where a STOCK SS weights, unless turbo kits weigh less which I doubt. Now you have about 30-40rwhp more then an SS depending on how much boost. We have a member pushing 450 on stock internals. So now comes the torque question. Honestly, on paper, the LLT definitly doesnt show trq, and in stock form, it doesnt. But after slight modifications, this car somehow moves and I dont know how because on paper it shouldnt. So Turbo V6 should have the SS beat, just because of the increased power as soon as it hits boost.
We have a member who ran an 11.96 with a 125 shot. So using ricer math skills lol, if you can add 125 rwhp to an LLT, and you GET it to HOOK, you should be able to run similar times

[Atlas]

I wish there was a morphological chart somewhere that conveyed the numerical percentage weighted values of engine development between these popular platforms in question. Might help to answer a lot.

Weight is almost irrelevant as long as you have the appropriate torques to move it, and the adequate horsepower to keep it going. In the case of a Turbo V6 Camaro weighing as much/less as its V8 kin, doesn't really factor all that much as a weighted value when compared to other variables. Simply put, its the same damn car underneath it all, who cares? I'm not sure who everyone is, but you're talking about a Camaro, not an Exige, or Triumph. My opinion (and this is where that morphological table will come in handy), curb weight is the least collated factor among other variables in reference to the Camaro. I think we're obsessing to much over the number of cylinders.

Secondly, the engine in the LT was not designed to be turbo-charged. It has been done, and in many cases successfully. However, drivability, longevity, and reliability are compromises made when an engine does something the engineers didn't account for in R/D or T/E. It is not a high performance engine like that of the VR38(GTR) where its power ratings are weighted higher than other variables, and the ancillary and subsequent components compensate for the need to make that power. Short version; shit will break. Engines designed to be force fed from the get go have design implements that account for the increase in load, resulting in better overall drivability, reliability, and longevity when compared to an engine that is turbo/super - charged after the fact.

Point being, you can only play the numbers game for so long. After awhile it gets old. My last car went through four engines. One of which was turbocharged using aftermarket components, and another that came from an entirely different car (2ZZGE - found in the Celica GTS and Lotus Elise). I had a lot of time between builds to crunch numbers and play diddle. The whole F.I. vs displacement can go either way in a number of different ways. Needless to say, all that bench racing accounted for squat once I got behind the wheel.

It is really hard to compare cars know a days. It becomes almost laughable when you start doing it while taking into account a myriad of modifications. Just drive the damn things. You can talk math in school.

[The IOM Ninja]

Originally Posted by MINI HLK

what brought on the question

Why does everyone think that a Turbo V6 would weigh less than an LS3/L99 Camaro.

I should have been more clear, why do a lot of people thing that the Jay Leno Camaro would weigh less than an SS. I've seen plenty of people that seem to think that and I just wanted an honest to god comparison between a Turboed V6 Camaro and an SS, I have no doubt that forced induction makes it so you can go further, but a V8 Camaro (or should I say a stock engine making that kind of power) can do it more reliably. As you know Boost causes things to break and you can only go so far reliably.

I know that there are several factors but I just wanted to see how the difference would truly be if it were making the SAME Horsepower Figures as the V8...

I'd love if Gretchen would chime in on this thread to help give some insight...

[REDXIIIDave]

The turbo parts woudn't equal the added mass of the V8 (hp to hp, and torque to torque). Only the expense would be higher. And the MPGs. Count on it being the future of high perfomance.

[Shadow Camaro]

i just cant see how a turbo and its piping could possibly weigh 100 lbs.

[DietCoke]

Originally Posted by Shadow Camaro

i just cant see how a turbo and its piping could possibly weigh 100 lbs.

Turbo alone is almost 40. Now add a huge cast manifold/flange, coolant/oil lines, a bov, pipe to an i/c,the i/c itself, and a crossover pipe & downpipe. Easy 120-150. More for twins. Since we live in the realm of warranty reality add 90 pounds for an iron block, too.

[DietCoke]

For comparison's sake, the 2 liter 4cyl turbo in the cobalt/sky/solstice weighs more fully dressed then an ls3 by 24 pounds... and thats a 4cyl. (LNF)