Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-06-2013, 05:14 PM   #57
2010SLVRBULIT


 
2010SLVRBULIT's Avatar
 
Drives: G5(LLT) & C6(LS3)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MARS
Posts: 7,435
I'm betting GM is waiting to see what Ford does w/ the new 2015 Mustang as far as 4 cylinder options are.
2010SLVRBULIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:51 PM   #58
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssrs396 View Post
"(probably besting the 2ltr turbos)"
Sorry...I thought you were implying we were saying to put the small V6 in the Camaro as well. I agree with you though that having a small litre V6 engine in the general lineup may not be fesible when there is aready a Turbo 4....but maybe not. We'll see.

But that 3.8 or so V6 still sounds very awesome to me.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 09:45 AM   #59
unkillsam
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro LT
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Springfield, PA
Posts: 103
I am the only one that would love to see the 4.3 truck motor in the 6th Gen? 290-310 HP in a lighter chassis but more importantly 310-315 lb/ft of torque, plus I bet it would sound better then the current LFX, more rumbly.
unkillsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 10:20 AM   #60
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,883
If you're hoping that "more rumbly" will be more like "V8-rumbly", that's not gonna happen from any size or configuration of six cylinders.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 10:54 AM   #61
Z51Stingray
Livin' the Dream
 
Z51Stingray's Avatar
 
Drives: '14 Z51 Stingray, '16 Malibu LT
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Waterloo, IA
Posts: 660
Nothing wrong with a V6 in a Camaro. Not everyone wants or can afford an SS.

Heck, I think a 4 cylinder should be available for those that want it.

Who knows, maybe GM will put the 4 cylinder from the Equinox in the 6th Gen? If it can push around a 4000 lb Equinox, it should be able to push around a 5th or 6th Gen.
Z51Stingray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 12:41 PM   #62
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkillsam View Post
I am the only one that would love to see the 4.3 truck motor in the 6th Gen? 290-310 HP in a lighter chassis but more importantly 310-315 lb/ft of torque, plus I bet it would sound better then the current LFX, more rumbly.
I doubt we will see that engine in a Camaro. GM is reportedly working on a new family of V6 engines that I'm betting we will see.

The 4.3 has all the new tech, but as a 90 degree engine it should be high on torque but not sure if we will see 300HP out of it, but I hope we do. I'm guessing if a V6 does make it into the Camaro again it will be another high reving 60 degree engine like the current LFX, but hopefully with 340+ HP and around 290TQ. It may even have cylinder shutoff like the 4.3 does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
If you're hoping that "more rumbly" will be more like "V8-rumbly", that's not gonna happen from any size or configuration of six cylinders.


Norm
Norm, why the assumption that he mean't "V8 rumbly". We have our own form of sound that we love...so no need to jump in with a useless comment. Yeah a V6 won't ever sound just like a V8, but if you think they can't sound "rumbly" and have a good strong tone, then you are just ignorant. Nothing wrong with not knowing. It just takes a lot more work to get there than it does with the V8.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:16 PM   #63
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,865
I can write the "GM put a truck engine in the Camaro" thread right now. That shouldn't happen. If it does it shows GM is incapable of making a decent world class product.

GM also tried a 3.0 L V6. It failed misserably because of the lack of torque and HP compared to the 3.6L. If you recall, GM launched the Equinox and SRX with 3.0L V6s and made that the base engine in the CTS. It had exactly the numbers everyone was looking for. It was not an EPIC FAIL, but it was a pretty big one. Took two years to resolve it. It gave you less power and performance and no real FE gain for the trade off.

Now if this is one of those threads (like the mythical 3,300 pound Camaro that everyone thinks is coming) that says GM should make a XXL V6 that gets 35 MPG and offers more HP than the current 3.6 and gives us V6 buyers the performance of an SS for no extra money..........................well we should shut that down right now.

Yes, GM could make a 3.0L V6 and put in the Camaro. Name your displacement. But you will run into one big problem. If you want a bigger displacement for more torque and HP you will LOSE FE, not gain. And if you want a 35 MPG Camaro, you will LOSE HP and Torque, not gain.

There is no free lunch here, guys. You can't just say "invent an all new V6 that gets the HP of an SS and the FE of a Chevy Cruze". If that could be done it would have been done.

And then there is the crowd that says, "I've got a tune and I make 350 HP in my V6". Nice, but your engine and the transmission that goes with it no longer meets GM standards for reliabilty. Sorry.

Basic point - it's just not that simple.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 02:00 PM   #64
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Norm, why the assumption that he mean't "V8 rumbly". We have our own form of sound that we love...so no need to jump in with a useless comment. Yeah a V6 won't ever sound just like a V8, but if you think they can't sound "rumbly" and have a good strong tone, then you are just ignorant. Nothing wrong with not knowing. It just takes a lot more work to get there than it does with the V8.
Because "trying to imitate the V8 rumble" is the path that 9 out of every 10 exhaust discussions concerning 6 cylinder engines follows. Might as well head it off from the get-go.

Don't be lecturing me about the sixxer exhaust note without knowing how I feel about the topic. Two of the cars in my driveway have V6 engines. I can play a pretty sweet tune running up and down through the gears on the little 7500 rpm-capable 2.5L in my Mazda 626, now that I've swapped in a more open muffler. It more than makes up for not being all that fast by being satisfying to listen to and a whole lot of fun to drive.

Hell, I'd put an X-pipe exhaust on the V8 car that I have now if it needed exhaust system repair, like I effectively did with the V8 car I had before that. There's just something about the snarl that builds as you're running up through the midrange and it echoes off the Jersey lane barriers or when going through a tunnel . . .


FWIW, I doubt that a 90° V6 engine is considered commercially acceptable for use in a passenger car any more. Trucks, maybe. Being able to run it down the 90° V8 production line is unlikely to still be a good enough reason to outweigh the disadvantages.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 12:37 PM   #65
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
I can write the "GM put a truck engine in the Camaro" thread right now. That shouldn't happen. If it does it shows GM is incapable of making a decent world class product.

GM also tried a 3.0 L V6. It failed misserably because of the lack of torque and HP compared to the 3.6L. If you recall, GM launched the Equinox and SRX with 3.0L V6s and made that the base engine in the CTS. It had exactly the numbers everyone was looking for. It was not an EPIC FAIL, but it was a pretty big one. Took two years to resolve it. It gave you less power and performance and no real FE gain for the trade off.

Now if this is one of those threads (like the mythical 3,300 pound Camaro that everyone thinks is coming) that says GM should make a XXL V6 that gets 35 MPG and offers more HP than the current 3.6 and gives us V6 buyers the performance of an SS for no extra money..........................well we should shut that down right now.

Yes, GM could make a 3.0L V6 and put in the Camaro. Name your displacement. But you will run into one big problem. If you want a bigger displacement for more torque and HP you will LOSE FE, not gain. And if you want a 35 MPG Camaro, you will LOSE HP and Torque, not gain.

There is no free lunch here, guys. You can't just say "invent an all new V6 that gets the HP of an SS and the FE of a Chevy Cruze". If that could be done it would have been done.

And then there is the crowd that says, "I've got a tune and I make 350 HP in my V6". Nice, but your engine and the transmission that goes with it no longer meets GM standards for reliabilty. Sorry.

Basic point - it's just not that simple.
Actually, it is kind of simple. I don't think anyone can really disagree with what you said there. Except that we aren't (or well, speaking for myself here) looking for some mythical thing.

What I'm looking for a is a combination of things:

1) 340ish HP V6 with a bit more torque than the current LFX...not much, but naturally if the HP rises by 15 or so, then surely we can expect a bit more torque hopefully.

2) Lighter weight. We already know by looking at the ATs that we should be able to see around 300 lbs lost.

3) 8 speed transmission in the auto.

I don't see any reason whatsoever they couldn't get a 3.6 or 3.7 V6 to make those kind of power numbers...its possible without really even being much of a stretch.

With the lighter weight and gearing, I don't see why at least 32 - 34 MPG highway wouldn't be possible.

So I think what I'm asking for is pretty realistic. Not asking for what your mentioning above. What your mentioning above is not much different than the SS owners asking for the next V8 in the Camaro to have 500 horsepower. Thats just silly talk right there.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 12:48 PM   #66
james347
 
Drives: 2006 Crownline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: .
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Lots of talk about the possibility of a turbo 4 in the 6th gen (and I'm betting it will happen) and lots of talk about the new LT1.

There is not as much talk about a V6 engine. (not talking turbo V6 here...just N/A)

First off, let me say, that with a light enough Camaro...somewhere in the 3,300 lb range, a turbo 4 could be a great performer. Especially if they give it 300HP/300TQ or more power.

But with that said, I feel that there could be good space for a V6 in the lineup, and I really hope to see one for several reasons. The current LFX is rated at 323HP, and 278TQ. I don't see why with some tweaking in the 3.6, that can't be raised to somewhere around 330 - 340HP, and 280 - 290 TQ. Keep the gear ratio at the current 3.27, weight around 3,400lbs like the Cadillac ATS and you have yourself a V6 capable of running mid 5s to 60mph and mid to high 13s in the quarter mile. Not to mention, with the lighter weight, I don't see why 30+ mpg on the highway wouldn't be doable.

Lets take that a step further and say they give the car a 7 or 8 speed automatic. That should help performance further, as well as raise hwy MPGs well past the 30 mark. (offtopic, but I hope they keep the tapshift...yes I really enjoy it!)

If we don't see the LFX in the next gen, then I see a case for an engine similar to the new 4.3 going in the Silverado. One bonus about this engine, is the fact that it has cylinder de-activation. I'm betting in a light car, with the proper gears, that it could return some very pleasing MPGs on the highway. Mid to upper 30s easy. Hell, why would you even need a turbo 4 with efficency like that?? For truck duty, that engine is likely cammed and tuned for great torque, and decent horsepower. I'd guess 300+TQ and HP around the same levels. If tweaked for HP, instead of Torque, (similar to how the Ford 5.0 is for Mustang vs. the F150) it should be capable of fantastic numbers.

So here, in my opinion you have the perfect combination of power and efficency. I know to some, nothing less than V8 power will do, and I have no problems with that. But for me, I really love my modded V6. She runs strong. The only big issue I have with the 5th gen is the weight. Some days I drive my (modded) car and think "damn shes running good!" and at other times...I wish I had another 20 - 30 HP/TQ on tap, or about 300+ lbs less weight.

I have no real desire to move to an SS (although I do love that V8 rumble), and with the weight drop that should be coming, I'd buy a V6 all over again. It would be a fantastic car, and don't get me started on how well I think a nicely modded V6 would perform in a light weight Camaro.

So....what do you all think?
I do.
james347 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 10:30 PM   #67
Gibroni
 
Drives: '12 IOM LT 'vert
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NEPA
Posts: 649
The V8 is a dinosaur. Mercedes is going with 6 cylinder turbos in their performance cars within the next 2 years. The Caddy CTS will have 3 engine options, the 2.0 turbo 4, the NA 3.6 V6 And the TT 3.6 V6. Those are the options for the Next Camaro. You might see the V8 in a high performance model such as the next gen ZL1 or Z28.
Gibroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 06:44 AM   #68
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibroni View Post
The V8 is a dinosaur. Mercedes is going with 6 cylinder turbos in their performance cars within the next 2 years.
Only because of external regulatory pressures that have little to do with engine architecture. Mercedes is simply bowing to those arbitrary requirements.


Quote:
The Caddy CTS will have 3 engine options, the 2.0 turbo 4, the NA 3.6 V6 And the TT 3.6 V6. Those are the options for the Next Camaro. You might see the V8 in a high performance model such as the next gen ZL1 or Z28.
Know that the 90° V8 is clearly a better arrangement than any of those in at least one significant respect, that being internal balance. You perceive this as 'smoothness'. Inline fours tend to get a bit rough at displacements much past 2.0L, as do most V-sixes at much bigger than about 3.5L. Think "thrashy at high rpms". It can be crutched to some extent through the added cost, complexity, and weight of adding balance shafts. Or by soft and expensive engine mounts. Neither technique benefits performance.

I actually like IL-4's and V6's - as long as their displacement limitations are respected rather than crowded.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 08:31 AM   #69
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibroni View Post
The V8 is a dinosaur. Mercedes is going with 6 cylinder turbos in their performance cars within the next 2 years. The Caddy CTS will have 3 engine options, the 2.0 turbo 4, the NA 3.6 V6 And the TT 3.6 V6. Those are the options for the Next Camaro. You might see the V8 in a high performance model such as the next gen ZL1 or Z28.
This may be a thread about the V6 option, and I'm a big advocate for it. But I definitely disagree with your statement. The V8 is no "dinosaur", and you can bet it will be back again in the "SS" model, or whatever designation they give to the higher performance version in the 6th gen.

I still believe the V6 is the one in most danger of going away...at least in this particular vehicle. The Caddy gets the TT 3.6 in part to the fact that they want to push this car more in overseas segments, which are used to seeing more boosted V6s in cars like that.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 07:51 PM   #70
unkillsam
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro LT
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Springfield, PA
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
Because "trying to imitate the V8 rumble" is the path that 9 out of every 10 exhaust discussions concerning 6 cylinder engines follows. Might as well head it off from the get-go.

Don't be lecturing me about the sixxer exhaust note without knowing how I feel about the topic. Two of the cars in my driveway have V6 engines. I can play a pretty sweet tune running up and down through the gears on the little 7500 rpm-capable 2.5L in my Mazda 626, now that I've swapped in a more open muffler. It more than makes up for not being all that fast by being satisfying to listen to and a whole lot of fun to drive.

Hell, I'd put an X-pipe exhaust on the V8 car that I have now if it needed exhaust system repair, like I effectively did with the V8 car I had before that. There's just something about the snarl that builds as you're running up through the midrange and it echoes off the Jersey lane barriers or when going through a tunnel . . .


FWIW, I doubt that a 90° V6 engine is considered commercially acceptable for use in a passenger car any more. Trucks, maybe. Being able to run it down the 90° V8 production line is unlikely to still be a good enough reason to outweigh the disadvantages.


Norm
If I wanted the V8 rumble I would have bought a V8. The V6 is enough car for me.

Obviosly any V6 will not sound like a V8, but the 4.3 would have a deeper sound then the 3.6, based on my experiences with the old version of the 4.3

Thanks for assuming Norm.
unkillsam is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.