Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM
The turbo 4 they're talking about is a step down from the current 6. Sorry, it's not a performer.
|
If the weight also comes down a step, actual acceleration performance might not be enough different to notice without a stopwatch. Other measures (not just fuel usage) could actually improve.
Never mind that people buying in at the lower power levels tend not to be all that interested in brutal acceleration anyway. The current V6 is more than many will ever use as it is. These people are the "some's good" in "some's good, more's better, and too much is just enough", and there really are a lot of them. Just not people like either you or me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503
Don't think anyone is bashing the v6...Quite the contrary...Keep the V-6, upgrade it, whatever...The Camaro doesn't need a smaller/"entry-level" I-4....The V-6 already serves that purpose and offers more than any I-4 does...
|
If the rules were staying the same, that would be the intelligent thing to do.
Quote:
|
....Sinking good money into a "smaller" engine takes away funds and technology research, whatever that could go into improving v-6s and v8s..
|
In different states of tune there is every reason to believe that the same engine would be made available in other platforms.
Quote:
|
I sort of see more v-6ers cheerleading for an I-4 just so they can rub an embarrassing engine in the face of v-8 owners...
|
I don't see that at all. What I do see is a few V8 cheerleaders expressing fear that any new 4-cylinder variant will be not the least bit better than models with the low-tech 4's of the fairly distant past, and that somehow the V8 versions will be adversely affected as a direct result. Kind of a glass-is-half-empty train of thought.
Norm