Oh, for sure they are great motors and have a demand to fill....Don't know all the particulars, but the LT-1s will all have AFM engineered into them...
If they didn't have to dance around all the regs and bs, the V-8 would live forever and never be out of style....but it's still not getting promoted as being "efficient" or desirable for better mpg....

The trucks may get a pass for the needed power with a V-8, as the profit margin for light trucks I believe is significantly higher than passenger cars...Other than the Vette, isn't the Camaro the only GM passenger car that comes with a V-8?...and even so, over half Camaro sales are V-6...

Sure they will always have a niche, and will be built for that...crate motors, warranty replacements, maintenance replacements, etc...but demand won't have V-8s showing up in Cruzes,Malibus or Impalas.....

All the pressures...CAFE, weight, even "perception" as a guzzler, will eventually be the demise of passenger car V-8s...
As I believe what you say, that V-6 turbos may not be as efficient in the real world of driving, but if it gets a higher number for mpg ratings on the rollers for the window sticker, they will get the nod for production...

...Not a perfect world, and not how I'd like to see things go, but I think the writing is on the wall....I always suggest to everyone, enjoy these V-8s for as long as you can while they are plentiful and relatively affordable.

I recall the GM engineers stating they would prefer to put a TTV6 into the Vettes....but it won't fly with the Vette buyers as long as a V-8 is available...How much longer that will be the case, is anybody's guess, especially given they would even consider doing it.....

Well I'd like a V6 TT option..... :)

I don't see why they would prefer a TTV6. As seen with the LF3, it duplicates the LS3 with the added issues of heat soak and the complexity of a TT set up.

This may be the last stand of the V8 engine as a common power plant but that is entirely due to government busy bodies forcing THEIR desires on the rest of us. Sure, some emissions regulations are good for us but making the regulations so stringent that companies have to invest huge amounts of money to meet them is entirely outside the bounds of what the government should be doing.

I prefer the V8 engine. I like the sound, the feel and the relative simplicity of it. It's nostalgic and iconic to American cars. If the government didn't force everyone to adopt outrageous mileage standards and let the companies develop the engines they wanted, I bet we would see some amazing V8s and other types coming out.

Never said factory. If it can be done aftermarket eventually it will be possible with manufacturing.

I think you are reading a lot into the statement made by one guy about one car (the Stingray) to come up with this broad generalization. If not, can you provide the quote in full so we can all see?

He's right though, look at the mileage numbers in the CTS vsport. It has very similar projected mileage to to the LT1. Therefore, the Vette engineers are correct, it wouldn't have any mileage advantages.

I haven't seen any mileage numbers for the LT1 in a CTS. You are comparing apples to oranges. The ONE guy talking about the vette didn't say what the mileage was for the two engines, but he implied they weren't much different. It could be the gearing they used was optimal for a NA LT1 and not the turbocharged V6. It makes a difference. There are just too many vehichles out there now where manufacturers have opted for the turbo 6 over the large V8 because they got better gas mileage to make this much of one oblique statement about one car without any real data provided.

Show me the data for one vehichle where the large V8 makes the same power as the TTV6 and as good or better fuel economy. That's all I'm asking.

If it produced similar mileage in a lighter car, what makes you think it would be different in a slightly heavier one? The gearing insn't going to be that different between a Vette and a Camaro either, so that argument is invalid.

That is exactly the point and it is vailid. If you a engine that makes sufficient torque 2000 RPM to push the car at 70 MPH without lugging, and another engine that makes the same torque at 1200 RPM, then you would want different gearing to get optimal fuel economy for those two engines. So if they designed the transmission and differental gearing for the Stingray to work optimally with the torque curve of a 3.1L V4 (what the LT1 is running as when getting high fuel economy), then just stuck the TTV6 in there as a comparison, then they weren't trying to get the best mileage out of the V6 where they? Again, show me the data!

The V8 is going to get more premium priced as the Camaro goes through Gen 6. Engines like the TTV6 and others will have to fill in the lineup to replace those sales of V8's that perspective customers no longer want to pay what is expected to be a higher price point than V8's are in the 5th Gen.

I think many people just kind of like to forget that the LT1 has to go into 4 cylinder mode to get the gas mileage that puts it on par or slightly better than the forced induction V6. (in the Corvette)

People think "V8 gets the same mileage as TTV6"...but thats not an accurate assessment. Its not a simple V8 vs TTV6 discussion here.

What people like is that V8 rumble that is still possible with the LT1. If it weren't for that, it would change the argument significantly. I think the argument would be more about reliablity than anything else as some would say they want the TQ of the turbos, while others would say they'd rather have the N/A V8 and avoid costly turbo failure.

We're talking about the 6th gen Camaro, not the CTS. If the C7 doesn't gain any benefits from the V6, why would it have any gain on the Camaro? The base 2013 Vette has a 3.42 axle ratio, the base SS has a 3.45 axle ratio. If they follow this for the next gen cars, then the TTV6 would be useless in the Camaro, because it is useless in the Vette.

What I am saying is that we know nothing about the "test" for the C7. I want to see the data.

• What were the transmission gears used for the LT1 and the LF3?
• What was the final gear ratio used for the LT1 and the LF3?
• What minimum RPM would the LF3 have to run at to get the same torque as LT1 when it is in V4 mode at say 65 MPH in the top overdrive gear?

Apples to Apples comparision. If they designed the transmission's overdrive gears to work with the powerband available from the LT1 in V4 mode, then just slapped in an LF3 and said "see, no better gas mileage" then it is not a good comparision. They should design the entire drivetrain around the powerplant to get the optimal performance (acceleration and fuel economy). None of that is even discussed in the one little snippet one guy made in an oblique reference about the stingray. Thus my earlier comment that some are reading too much into that one statement.

We're never going to know about that stuff though. The fuel economy in the CTS vsport is pretty poor anyway, so I really think that the LT1 would produce equal fuel economy. It also comes with all the benefits that I previously talked about. GM HAS to offer an affordable V8 option because people like me won't buy it any other way. I would drive a V8 mustang over a TTV6 Camaro, and I hate Mustangs...

So, without knowing all that then we can't really say which one would be more effecient, right?

No one is saying there won't be a V8. Some are saying that eventually we may not find them in cars like Camaros. I don't know about that. Number of cylinders isn't what matters in all of this. A 4.4 L V8 can get just as good fuel econmomy as a 4.3 L V6. You can add turbos to anything, so why not a TTV8 at some point?

Anyone remember this? http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/02/s...ck-day-dreams/

Although it seems as if the 1LE and Z/28 were what grew out of this concept, the name sticks in my mind as a possible TTV6 edition.

On a related note, this is what I would have in mind for a 6th gen Z/28 (referring to the power train).

No we can't know for sure, but I'm taking GMs word that it isn't, because they're pretty serious about fuel economy. I'd take any V8 FI or not, you just won't see me in a 6 cyl of any kind.

I'm more interested in the retro-fit-ability(yes, I made that up) of this engine back to the 5th gen Camaro.
Find a wrecked TT3.6 caddy in a salvage yard, grab up the engine, trans, ecu and pcm and start hacking away to put it in a 2010 or 2011 Camaro.

Definitely won't be worth it. Just find an LFX and put a TT kit on it.

Twin turbo yes!

Does the TT have the advantage of using regular gas versus one of the V8s ? Camaro made a big break through when introducing the 2010 V6 with 29mpg and regular gas.

Nope, the LF3 requires premium gas.

Then I agree it makes no sense to use in the Gen6. Maybe a Europeon version since that seems to be a draw there.

The statement wasn't just make by "one guy"...it was made by the Corvette chief engineer, who was quoted in Hotrod magazine as saying "the LT1 is faster, more responsive, and more efficient than a twin-turbo V6"


Show me the data where a TTV6 gets better fuel economy than a V8.

I don't know how gearing adds anything to this debate. It's not like the TTV6 and NA V8 would have much if any difference at all in gearing. They'd probably run within 100 rpm of each other at 70. The compression ratio differences between FI and NA would have more effect on efficiency than that. And if they didn't, if the V8 was able to run significantly slower than the TTV6 without lugging, wouldn't that seem to contradict the low RPM torque argument turbo proponents always make.

Exactly...I'd also like to add the more linear response/power delivery of a NA engine compared to a turbo engine.

The LF3 and LS3 put out similar power while getting similar MPG.