Any takers for the DI 300hp V6? - Page 6 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

Jimbo88mm · 01-23-2008, 04:22 AM

Hi guys, first post on this site.

In regards to speculating which v6/v6s we'll see, I have a feeling the base model will use the 3.5l lz4. I don't see how they would be able to hit a base price of $19k-$22k with any other v6 in their lineup (unless we get the 3800 again).

With that engine, the power will be in the same neighborhood as the base mustang and the fuel economy would probably be decent (plus being able to use e85). If they want to edge out the mustang, they could concievably go with the 3.9l lz8.

Assuming that there will be two different flavors in V8 I'm not really sure I see a way for another v6 to fit in. The newer 3.6l engine thats in the CTS isn't a cheap engine. The 08 Malibu with the 3.6l starts in the mid 20s.

Thoughts?

*DGthe3* · 01-23-2008, 08:23 AM

Welcome to the site

As far as engines go, the 3800 is dead, just like the LS2. but everything else sounds reasonable

sdimess84 · 01-23-2008, 09:07 AM

Im shooting for the v8 as well. Nothing like the sound of a v8 rumble

Camaro89 · 08-02-2008, 02:45 AM

I'll have to go with the DI 300HP V6. If I had the money I would upgrade to an SS, but being a college student with a lot of bills and high gas prices I have to go with the V6 and some mods.

carsismeZ06 · 08-03-2008, 12:15 PM

I'm going to shoot for a V8, and land on an RS V6. Then maybe later I can buy a Camaro and create a race car out of it!

GXPMAN · 08-04-2008, 09:24 AM

The V6 With a small turbo might be interesting.

Xanthos · 08-04-2008, 10:33 AM

Doesn't it though? According to STS, their kit for the V6 mustang, at 5 psi, produces 250 hp and 256 tq at the wheels, compared to 166 and 177 stock. Thats 50 percent improvement, and with a single turbo setup! And at 9 psi, it produces 313 hp and 326 tq at the wheels, or an 88 percent improvement. And seeing how I'm only looking for a 50 percent improvement (Intake and Exhaust put the v6 at 300 rwhp in the caddy, and I'm shooting for about 450 rwhp, which should be enough to reach my goal of a 13.00 second 1/4), this looks very promising indeed.
- Xanthos

GXPMAN · 08-05-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

Doesn't it though? According to STS, their kit for the V6 mustang, at 5 psi, produces 250 hp and 256 tq at the wheels, compared to 166 and 177 stock. Thats 50 percent improvement, and with a single turbo setup! And at 9 psi, it produces 313 hp and 326 tq at the wheels, or an 88 percent improvement. And seeing how I'm only looking for a 50 percent improvement (Intake and Exhaust put the v6 at 300 rwhp in the caddy, and I'm shooting for about 450 rwhp, which should be enough to reach my goal of a 13.00 second 1/4), this looks very promising indeed.
- Xanthos

AND..

. You would be able to maintain your gas mileage.. Just by staying out of the boost!!

lafountain · 08-05-2008, 02:01 AM

Well this shows a little of what the 3.6 is capable of.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2...nd-rubber.html

Xanthos · 08-05-2008, 10:46 AM

It also shows the burning oil problem that is the one thing that concerns me about this engine. I was reading some caddy forums, and it seems to happen more often than not.
- Xanthos

lafountain · 08-05-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

It also shows the burning oil problem that is the one thing that concerns me about this engine. I was reading some caddy forums, and it seems to happen more often than not.
- Xanthos

Yeah, that is something I have been reading quite a bit about too. Definitely a concern.

GXPMAN · 08-05-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

It also shows the burning oil problem that is the one thing that concerns me about this engine. I was reading some caddy forums, and it seems to happen more often than not.
- Xanthos

Quote:

Originally Posted by lafountain

Yeah, that is something I have been reading quite a bit about too. Definitely a concern.

Well Just because that 3.6 burns a little oil.. doesnt mean they all do..

They had an Oil Consumtion problems with the LS2 also.. Mainly on the cars with manual transmissions.. Could be improper breakin procedure didnt seat the rings.. Or a problem with the aluminum on that paticular engine where the oil just.. beleive it or not... Seeped through.

Besides 6500 miles on the same oil..

I run synthetic and every 3 to 4 k miles I change the OIL.. Not because the oil is worn out. but how long can you really trust the Oil FILTER.?

Xanthos · 08-05-2008, 02:24 PM

I'd agree with you, but I've read A LOT of testimonials about it burning oil. Seems to be more common than not.
- Xanthos

Shadowsong · 08-05-2008, 02:44 PM

ut ohes.... So we have an oil burning problem in the 3.6?

01-23-2008, 08:23 AM	#72
DGthe3 Moderator.ca Drives: 05 Grand Am GT Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Niagara, Canada Posts: 25,372	Welcome to the site As far as engines go, the 3800 is dead, just like the LS2. but everything else sounds reasonable __________________ Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them __________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!! __________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum

08-03-2008, 12:15 PM	#75
carsismeZ06 Corvette and Camaro lover Drives: 2010 Camaro...some day... Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 983	I'm going to shoot for a V8, and land on an RS V6. Then maybe later I can buy a Camaro and create a race car out of it! __________________

08-04-2008, 10:33 AM	#77
Xanthos PWA Relapse Drives: Formerly-Stick Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 12,588 View My Garage	Doesn't it though? According to STS, their kit for the V6 mustang, at 5 psi, produces 250 hp and 256 tq at the wheels, compared to 166 and 177 stock. Thats 50 percent improvement, and with a single turbo setup! And at 9 psi, it produces 313 hp and 326 tq at the wheels, or an 88 percent improvement. And seeing how I'm only looking for a 50 percent improvement (Intake and Exhaust put the v6 at 300 rwhp in the caddy, and I'm shooting for about 450 rwhp, which should be enough to reach my goal of a 13.00 second 1/4), this looks very promising indeed. - Xanthos __________________ 2017 1LT/RS A8 Hyper Blue Metallic

08-05-2008, 02:01 AM	#79
lafountain Drives: 2011 Synergy Green 2SS/RS Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Lexington Park, MD Posts: 887	Well this shows a little of what the 3.6 is capable of. http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2...nd-rubber.html __________________ Hey, you want to lay the fate of the world on the kid's Camaro? That's cool. I bought a car, turned out to be an alien robot. Who knew?

08-05-2008, 10:46 AM	#80
Xanthos PWA Relapse Drives: Formerly-Stick Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 12,588 View My Garage	It also shows the burning oil problem that is the one thing that concerns me about this engine. I was reading some caddy forums, and it seems to happen more often than not. - Xanthos __________________ 2017 1LT/RS A8 Hyper Blue Metallic

01-23-2008, 04:22 AM	#71
Jimbo88mm Drives: 95 Lumina, 99 Maxima Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Austin TX Posts: 4	Hi guys, first post on this site. In regards to speculating which v6/v6s we'll see, I have a feeling the base model will use the 3.5l lz4. I don't see how they would be able to hit a base price of $19k-$22k with any other v6 in their lineup (unless we get the 3800 again). With that engine, the power will be in the same neighborhood as the base mustang and the fuel economy would probably be decent (plus being able to use e85). If they want to edge out the mustang, they could concievably go with the 3.9l lz8. Assuming that there will be two different flavors in V8 I'm not really sure I see a way for another v6 to fit in. The newer 3.6l engine thats in the CTS isn't a cheap engine. The 08 Malibu with the 3.6l starts in the mid 20s. Thoughts?

01-23-2008, 09:07 AM	#73
sdimess84 Drives: 1996 SS S10 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Nashville Posts: 49	Im shooting for the v8 as well. Nothing like the sound of a v8 rumble

08-02-2008, 02:45 AM	#74
Camaro89 Drives: 2008 Dodge Charger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Peoria, AZ Posts: 4	I'll have to go with the DI 300HP V6. If I had the money I would upgrade to an SS, but being a college student with a lot of bills and high gas prices I have to go with the V6 and some mods.

08-04-2008, 09:24 AM	#76
GXPMAN Drives: Pontiac Solstice GXP Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: MISSISSIPPI Posts: 32	The V6 With a small turbo might be interesting.

08-05-2008, 02:24 PM	#83
Xanthos PWA Relapse Drives: Formerly-Stick Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 12,588 View My Garage	I'd agree with you, but I've read A LOT of testimonials about it burning oil. Seems to be more common than not. - Xanthos __________________ 2017 1LT/RS A8 Hyper Blue Metallic

08-05-2008, 02:44 PM	#84
Shadowsong Drives: 2014 Mustang Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Conroe, Texas Posts: 642	ut ohes.... So we have an oil burning problem in the 3.6?