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 05-08-2013, 02:14 PM   #71
Cam#7

 
Cam#7's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2LT IBM / SIM stripe 6M
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: STL
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
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.

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.
__________________
Cam#7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 02:29 PM   #72
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam#7 View Post
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.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 02:47 PM   #73
Cam#7

 
Cam#7's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2LT IBM / SIM stripe 6M
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: STL
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
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.
__________________
Cam#7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 11:35 PM   #74
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
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?
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"


Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
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.
Show me the data where a TTV6 gets better fuel economy than a V8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
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!
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
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.
Exactly...I'd also like to add the more linear response/power delivery of a NA engine compared to a turbo engine.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 12:20 AM   #75
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
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.
The LF3 and LS3 put out similar power while getting similar MPG.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2013, 12:20 PM   #76
wakespeak

 
Drives: 2013 2SS LS3/NPP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 943
I can't see why a twin turbo v-6 would make sense. More expensive to build, maintain, and warranty fix than a naturally aspirated engine. Fuel economy in the real world is a wash. I would take simpler, smoother V-8 that can run AC and have some grunt at low rpms any day.
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 12:43 AM   #77
shrinkdoc

 
Drives: SRT Yugo GT Super Sport with Manual
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: va
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC2150 View Post
It might, but thats only 420hp.....you can get a turbo or SC and have 500 plus right now.
Please explain further.
shrinkdoc 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 09:22 PM.


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