CAMARO6 - Preview of the Gen-6 SS Engine?

CAMARO6 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)

- 2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155)

- - Preview of the Gen-6 SS Engine? (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283040)

I strongly doubt that this will happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Blur (Post 6294698)

I strongly doubt that this will happen.

The base Corvette or the 5.3L making its way into a 6th gen Camaro?

Y'all talk about the 5.3 like it's a piece of trash but the COPO Camaro only comes with 2 engines, supercharged 5.3 and LS7. Don't forget about the ZL1 engines in the Camaro there were a few of them and I think the L88 427 made it into a few Camaro's also

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAP'N B (Post 6295072)

COPO engines are a completely different animal than production motors.

I think it might not be a bad idea, I mean it's a 327, depending on the internals a nice "smaller" displacement v8 that can rev might be something that hits market that the lt1 may miss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeSS (Post 6294084)

i heard a few weeks ago about this. i heard the 5.3L engine is less powerful than the Ls3. which is kind of sad...

Really I think a 5.3 thats roughly 375hp is pretty impressive compared to the outgoing 5.3 and we all know how well they responded to mods so I would place judgement just yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAP'N B (Post 6295072)

The 5.3 in the COPO is a lsx block that's a big bore/small stroke as where the truck 5.3 is a small bore/long strong and is limited to smaller valves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN (Post 6293431)

All this "5.3 truck engine" stuff does NOT translate to a direct drop-in in either the Vette or Camaro.

- Think "car cam, intake, exhaust and a-l-l the other improvements inherent in the Gen-5 SBC", going forward.

- Think "327 cu. in." which powered similarly-weighted (to the coming C-7 Vette) C-1/C2/C-3 Vettes right into our conscious "lust zones".

- Think roughly "current power-to-weight"...which should equal great performance combined with great mpg, a necessary component to any business case.

- Or...would you rather have a hair-dryed V6?!

"Cost of manufacture" seldom/never is a guarantee of "selling price". What IS a guarantee is, with mandated systems, necessary fuel economy regulations, and supposed weight decreases inherent in next-Gen vehicles partially due to more expensive high-tech materiale, the only way to keep MSRP under some constraint is to "give" on some things. A 35-3600 lb Gen-6 Camaro SS will NOT "need" 450+ hp. Under 400 will deliver performance a Gen-5 Camaro owner will be able to accept, and retain their perma-grin. Detuning a 6.2 to less than 400 is simply dumb (or directly using the dreaded TRUCK version!) and would not adequately address the mpg situation. A 5.3 will...

Or would y'all prefer a V6 SS instead?

I would rather have a 5.3 over a tt v6 soley based on the sound that comes with it in a car like the corvette but the car did start life with a inline 6 so a "tt blue flame 6" could be cool to. Also I think that the amount of vette drivers turned of by the "lesser" 5.3 v8 would pale in comparison to the people that could now afford a vette if it comes at a lower price point.:thumbsup:

I never understand why a 3.6 doesn't get near twice the MPG of a 6.2. Hopefully the new Gen will ?

I think the 5.3 in the Camaro is the worst idea I have ever heard. A twin turbo V6 would be so much better, let the NA guys have the LT1 and give the FI guys a TT engine. Although Dodge did it successfully with the RT and SRT lineups. I guess it isnt the worse thing afterall but I still prefer a TT to mod the hell out of easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redleader (Post 6295817)

I never understand why a 3.6 doesn't get near twice the MPG of a 6.2. Hopefully the new Gen will ?

Are you serious?

There are 4 cylinder cars that don't get twice the highway mileage of the SS and especially the Vette. Gas mileage doesn't directly correlate to the size of the engine. If you feel it does you have much learning to do my friend.

As for the talk of this 5.3...I don't understand some of the comments here.

First off let me say that I'm not at all convinced the 5.3 will make its way into the Vette OR Camaro.

But lets say it does. Take a look at the Ford 5.0 V8. In truck form, the 2011 model made 360 HP, and that same year it made 412HP in the Mustang. So if Chevy does the same, I don't see why we couldn't have a 375 horse truck version and a 420HP version in the next gen Camaro. It uses much of the same direct injection tech that the current V6 uses, and the LT1 uses, and they both have nice flat wide torque curves....so I'm guessing the 5.3 does as well.

I'd love to see the LT1 in the next Camaro, but I have no doubts that a properly factory tuned 5.3 in the ligher next gen Camaro couldn't stomp on the current 6.2 in this gen.

I'm just niave :-(
Thanks for the Xtra info.

Cant wait to find out

Quote:

Originally Posted by redleader (Post 6296741)

I'm just niave :-(
Thanks for the Xtra info.

No problem....sorry if it came out as bashing. Not my intent, but you lurk around here for very long and you will learn a lot!

I am definitely thinking the 5.3L DI would outperform the current LS3 with all the tech it will have in it..stop thinking of it as "only a truck motor" it is completely redesigned and the LT1 has been compared to the LS7, the DI most certainly plays a factor in this and torque rating should not suffer due to lower displacement size!

I've got to point out.....I just had chills. Reading through....re-reading out of curiosity....I had this flashback of a 2008 thread.

We were discussing - almost identically as we are right now - how Chevy should put the L76 (361hp) from the then-current G8 GT into the base V8 car, and the LS2 (400hp) into the upper-trim.....

Instead, we got an LS3 for "cheap", and an LSA in our upper-V8 trim. :laugh: I'm hoping history repeats itself!!

My only problem with this concept of a base model 5.3L is cost...it won't be any cheaper to produce a 5.3L than the LT1...not if we're assuming it uses all the same tech.