[Risky Justice]

Originally Posted by IMadeYouReadThis

I would go SS for the TTv6. I think that would be a awesome well balanced ride that is still good on gas. Hopefully GM will price the SS lower next gen.

Are you saying you don’t have an SS now because you prefer the V6 to the V8? That makes absolutely no sense. The difference in gas mileage is only 2mpg, and I’ve made the premium fuel price point moot by switching to E85. Cars aren’t going to get cheaper, and a twin turbo V6 will cost most to produce than a V8...so if anything it would go up even more in price. It would be a decision based strictly on gas mileage, because the V8 will always be the most well balanced engine for this car.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Risky Justice

Are you saying you don’t have an SS now because you prefer the V6 to the V8? That makes absolutely no sense. The difference in gas mileage is only 2mpg, and I’ve made the premium fuel price point moot by switching to E85. Cars aren’t going to get cheaper, and a twin turbo V6 will cost most to produce than a V8...so if anything it would go up even more in price. It would be a decision based strictly on gas mileage, because the V8 will always be the most well balanced engine for this car.

While I agree that a TT V6 wouldn't pull better fuel mileage than an SS, on a NA side:
Have you made this kind of mileage in an SS?



My 3.6 V6 regularly gets 10 MPG more than my SS in similar driving conditions without exaggerating.

On the street, absolutely no highway I averaged 26 to 32 MPG depending on traffic conditions in the V6. My SS ranges from 18 to 22 MPG.

On the freeway, easily 37 and a highest of 47 which was done on a road trip to San Francisco. The absolute max my SS gets, 1 occupant in the car, doing between 75 and 80 MPH with the cruise control - is 28 MPG...which isn't bad...but at the same speeds my V6 was pulling nearly 40 MPG on average.

Don't go by whats on paper, If you did that, the old LS1 doesn't make 350 HP... go by what people are actually getting...there are some SS's getting 25 - 33 MPG, but that is not average...the average SS owner is between 18 and 26 MPG.

My SS ranges between 16 and 25 MPG on average.

The SS mileage is livable but the V6 has a huge advantage in this department.

Also.. only in certain states is there a $0.30 difference between premium and regular... many states that cost difference is nearly $1.00 per gallon, or essentially a fillup of premium costs about $10 - $15 more than 87...mainly in the Southwest and Southeast states, but it isn't as clean cut and dry as you think it is.

[Bhobbs]

Where’s the 7.0 V8 making 565 hp?

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by Risky Justice

Those saying the V6 feels faster are either lying or crazy. There is a .2 difference in the 1/4 mile and the 2.0T has more torque. The sound difference? Who cares, neither one is a V8 so that point is pretty moot—they both sound like shit compared to the LT1. The only way a V6 makes sense is if they turbocharge it and replace the V8 with it, which wouldn’t make sense since the LT1 is the better engine. This 6 cylinder is not on the same level as say a GTR—not even close.

Stock turbo 4cyl versus a stock V6 both manual, both same driver same day, the V6 is at least .5 quicker in the 1/4 mile.

[Rock-It Man]

https://media.cadillac.com/media/us/...-turbo-v8.html

Let's hope this engine is available on the Gen7 Camaro!

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

https://media.cadillac.com/media/us/...-turbo-v8.html

Let's hope this engine is available on the Gen7 Camaro!

Maybe a variant but Cadillac needs to have unique high performance cars and engines. Having "Cadillac" engines in a Camaro will badly hurt Cadillacs image. Hoping GM has the courage to stick to that.

But tha CTS-V seems to ok with a non-unique Powertrain so we shall see.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

For sure hybrids work better with automatic transmissions. Manual transmissions are just about over and done with, and having driven them for some 35 years, I'm not regretting my 15 years of automatics since then.

As one senior to another, it's one thing to make such an active decision yourself. The specter of having it forced on you isn't the same thing at all, and for a mfr to at least indirectly use the acceleration advantages of hybrid or electric technology to lure enthusiasts away from conventional manuals stings all the more. I don't regret the couple of periods in my life where I drove AT vehicles either exclusively or mainly, but I'm nowhere near ready to drive AT again. Nor, by all indications, is my wife.

Racing, of course, is one opportunity for developing technology that later becomes commonplace at lower cost.

It used to be that way, not so much any more. Top racing series are too tightly regulated for new developments to first surface there - if anything does and it brings a competitive advantage of any significance, it either gets banned outright or regulated down to a fraction of its potential.


Norm

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Originally Posted by Risky Justice

Are you saying you don’t have an SS now because you prefer the V6 to the V8? That makes absolutely no sense. The difference in gas mileage is only 2mpg, and I’ve made the premium fuel price point moot by switching to E85. Cars aren’t going to get cheaper, and a twin turbo V6 will cost most to produce than a V8...so if anything it would go up even more in price. It would be a decision based strictly on gas mileage, because the V8 will always be the most well balanced engine for this car.

Super in Canada is about $0.30 more a liter not a gallon it's an insane amount of money here. Because prices of gotten out of control so yes at this point in time for commuter I do prefer the 6. If it was a garage car the SS will be better. you look at my car I put about$5,000 in upgrades into the car to get it the way it is I could have not gotten hyper blue or dual mode exhaust not gotten the Bose stereo and then spent a few thousand more got an SS.

I didn't want to spend more than I did but money wasn't the only reason.

I have a 2011 Sierra with a 5.3 I've disabled the AFM because it kills the engine. the gas mileage is horrible on it and I'm very interested in the turbo 4-cylinder coming to full-size trucks next gen just to save me on gas.

I had a 2002 Camaro Z28 for over 10 years and I could burn a tank of gas in 200 km that was all super 94 octane crazy expensive who wants to spend that type of money on gas these days just to feed the Saudis pockets

And like I was saying bottom line I've already had the V8 muscle car for over a decade I just hit 40 I got nothing to prove I think the twin turbo V6 is a better car for me at this point in life.

[KROLIS]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Where’s the 7.0 V8 making 565 hp?

How about a 2.5 making 700 hp.

A POWERFUL HEART
At its core sits a reliable and powerful 2.5-liter 700 HP Rezvani built racing engine, and given an innovative and efficient Turbo charger. Rezvani builds the engine from the ground up using new Carillo racing forged pistons, rods, cams, valve, springs and Cosworth ECU. The results are astonishing performance — Beast is capable of 0-60 mph in just 2.9seconds, giving drivers the ultimate thrill. The engine also allows for a low cost of ownership and service.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by KROLIS

How about a 2.5 making 700 hp.

A POWERFUL HEART
At its core sits a reliable and powerful 2.5-liter 700 HP Rezvani built racing engine, and given an innovative and efficient Turbo charger. Rezvani builds the engine from the ground up using new Carillo racing forged pistons, rods, cams, valve, springs and Cosworth ECU. The results are astonishing performance — Beast is capable of 0-60 mph in just 2.9seconds, giving drivers the ultimate thrill. The engine also allows for a low cost of ownership and service.

Nah, I'd rather not have something that needs to be rebuilt every couple of times out.

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by KROLIS

How about a 2.5 making 700 hp.

A POWERFUL HEART
At its core sits a reliable and powerful 2.5-liter 700 HP Rezvani built racing engine, and given an innovative and efficient Turbo charger. Rezvani builds the engine from the ground up using new Carillo racing forged pistons, rods, cams, valve, springs and Cosworth ECU. The results are astonishing performance — Beast is capable of 0-60 mph in just 2.9seconds, giving drivers the ultimate thrill. The engine also allows for a low cost of ownership and service.

or a 2.0l making 1217 rwhp? 0-60 in 1.8 sec?

https://autoweek.com/article/tuners/...#ixzz5P16eCLlb

[CamaroGen6]

What about a hybrid V6? By calculating the numbers that a hybrid system would give a 4 cylinder and a V8 I get these numbers for a V6:

6 Cylinder, 3.6L, hybrid engine, 425 HP (total system power), 27 mpg combined, 0-60 mph in 4.1 seconds

Idk about pricing, but it should be less than 8k since that's what the hybrid v8 would go for. My guess would be 4 - 6k if they don't do a hybrid 4 cylinder.

[Rock-It Man]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

As one senior to another, it's one thing to make such an active decision yourself. The specter of having it forced on you isn't the same thing at all, and for a mfr to at least indirectly use the acceleration advantages of hybrid or electric technology to lure enthusiasts away from conventional manuals stings all the more. I don't regret the couple of periods in my life where I drove AT vehicles either exclusively or mainly, but I'm nowhere near ready to drive AT again. Nor, by all indications, is my wife.



It used to be that way, not so much any more. Top racing series are too tightly regulated for new developments to first surface there - if anything does and it brings a competitive advantage of any significance, it either gets banned outright or regulated down to a fraction of its potential.


Norm

Regarding AT, check out Ferrari and Lamborghini's AT only cars. Porsche is still offering manuals, but the automatics outperform them. And now that manual setups offer rev matching, why not just use paddle shifting? The need for any skill has been removed. All that remains is the inferior durability of a manual clutch and some serious safety issues in traffic. I don't like being a pedestrian in an environment crowded with marginal drivers with their foot on a clutch pedal.

Hybrids address the low RPM inefficiency of internal combustion engines. Hybrid cars are so efficient at low speed acceleration that they get equal or better mileage in city driving vs highway. I can't see any downside whatsoever to hybrids.

As for your reference to racing series, you must be thinking of NASCAR.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

Regarding AT, check out Ferrari and Lamborghini's AT only cars. Porsche is still offering manuals, but the automatics outperform them.

Actually, I've driven (albeit very briefly) two-pedal F and L cars, so I can say with some basis in experience that it's no more of a selling point to me that those makes have AT-only models than the fact that Chevy's Malibu and Ford's Fusion are AT-only. Truth be told, I think brands F and L have been losing some of the luster they once had, starting with the advent of their AT-only models.

And now that manual setups offer rev matching, why not just use paddle shifting? The need for any skill has been removed.

As I've posted before, if I was racing or at least engaged in Time Trialing where there were tire or other valuable contingencies at stake (assuming that I was at all competitive), I'd probably have to make different choices than I ever would for any other driving. Paddles or at least some sort of assisted shifting would probably be things I'd have to do differently. For all other driving (up to and including HPDE in advanced run groups), to remove the need for this skill is to remove the fun without getting any up-side benefit in return. Lose-lose. Mindless convenience on the street? More loss.

As for your reference to racing series, you must be thinking of NASCAR.

Also F1, which has been banning or limiting new technologies for years. There hasn't been a racing series without limits on technology since the first iteration of the Group 7 / Can-Am (and even they banned the Chapparal "sucker cars", which certainly qualified as thinking "out of the box").


Norm