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 08-19-2013, 02:03 PM   #771
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
Appearing as #35 on the 50 worst cars of ALL TIME!
the Camaro Iron Duke--

"There was a time when 90 horsepower was a lot, and that time was 1932. Fifty years later, it was bupkis, especially under the hood of Chevy's beloved Mustang-fighter, the Camaro. As the base engine for the redesigned 1982 Camaro (and Pontiac Firebird), the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" was the smallest, least powerful, most un-Camaro-like engine that could be and, like the California Corvette, it was connected to a low-tech three-speed slushbox. So equipped, the Iron Duke Camaro had 0-60 mph acceleration of around 20 seconds, which left Camaro owners to drum their fingers while school buses rocketed past in a blur of yellow."
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 02:16 PM   #772
pv-camaro
 
pv-camaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro 2001 3.8V6
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Netherlands (Europe)
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
Appearing as #35 on the 50 worst cars of ALL TIME!
the Camaro Iron Duke--

"There was a time when 90 horsepower was a lot, and that time was 1932. Fifty years later, it was bupkis, especially under the hood of Chevy's beloved Mustang-fighter, the Camaro. As the base engine for the redesigned 1982 Camaro (and Pontiac Firebird), the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" was the smallest, least powerful, most un-Camaro-like engine that could be and, like the California Corvette, it was connected to a low-tech three-speed slushbox. So equipped, the Iron Duke Camaro had 0-60 mph acceleration of around 20 seconds, which left Camaro owners to drum their fingers while school buses rocketed past in a blur of yellow."
Oke, i didn't know it was that bad, 90 horsepower is not much
pv-camaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 02:37 PM   #773
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
It was a lawn mower!
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2013, 02:41 PM   #774
Burn Notice24
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro Convertible
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by RA1987 View Post
why would anyone not want a V10 camaro? You always move forward not step back. Keep the Camaro V8 , V10 and maybe twin turbo V6 (like the GTR).
The v10 would be pretty expensive. There would be a lot of cars in that price range so I don't think they would be big sellers.
Burn Notice24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 10:33 PM   #775
mc_acoustic

 
Drives: 2010 1LT Limited Edition Camaro A6
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba
Posts: 887
I could of sworn I posted in this last night, what is happening with the forums...
__________________
2010 Camaro Synergy Green Edition V6/A6: Cold Air Inductions Intake, Trifecta tune, BBK long tube headers and Hi flow cats, MRT V1, Ported Throttle Body, Stage 4 Ported Intake Manifold (MACE), Black Ice-olator Intake Manifold Spacer, Plenum Spacer, Nytrex Triple Threat Nitrous.
mc_acoustic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 07:47 AM   #776
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: 9,909
Tried going on last night and got message the servers were not responding or something. Many posts from yesterday seem to be gone.
__________________
"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 09-07-2013, 07:56 AM   #777
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: 9,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by pv-camaro View Post
The Camaro don't need to become a small car or an ugly hatchback, it just needs to get a bit shorter and lighter,

i agree with, a muscle car like the Camaro needs a fast engine, but the new engines are getting better and better,

If you take the LS1 out of the 4th generation, compare it with the new 3.6V6, they have almost the same horsepower.

The 2.0L turbo engine of new Cadillac ATS gets 275 horsepower, in 2016 GM should get way over 300 horsepower out of it, so in my opinion it may be a good entry level engine, with a good fuel economy
And top of the line could still be a V8, or a turbo V6,


a 4 cilinder in a Camaro is not new, in 1982 till 1985 they had a 4 banger too, it may not the best engine, i don't know, i have never driven one.
You think GM is going to completely redo this brand new engine in only 2 years? Not saying they won't, but it would be very out of character to spend 100's of millions on an engine and then redo it 2 years later. To get way over 300 HP would be a pretty big tear up. That is a lot of HP from a 2 liter. That would be equal to nearly 1000 HP from the LS3 on a per liter basis. And we all know what it would take for GM to achieve that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
Appearing as #35 on the 50 worst cars of ALL TIME!
the Camaro Iron Duke--

"There was a time when 90 horsepower was a lot, and that time was 1932. Fifty years later, it was bupkis, especially under the hood of Chevy's beloved Mustang-fighter, the Camaro. As the base engine for the redesigned 1982 Camaro (and Pontiac Firebird), the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" was the smallest, least powerful, most un-Camaro-like engine that could be and, like the California Corvette, it was connected to a low-tech three-speed slushbox. So equipped, the Iron Duke Camaro had 0-60 mph acceleration of around 20 seconds, which left Camaro owners to drum their fingers while school buses rocketed past in a blur of yellow."
Have to keep in mind folks that in that same time frame the V8 made 145 HP and you could get the Cross Fire FI V8 with a whopping 165 HP. I had my moms 82 Trans Am on highway and it would only go 105. So we still called those muscle cars and pony cars. It's just what the times demanded and allowed from technology to meet emissions standards, etc. The new NA 2.5L in the Malibu and ATS makes 195 to put it in perspective.
__________________
"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 09-07-2013, 08:38 AM   #778
unkillsam
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro LT
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Springfield, PA
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pv-camaro View Post
If you take the LS1 out of the 4th generation, compare it with the new 3.6V6, they have almost the same horsepower.
The LS1 in a top-spec 01-02 Camaro/Trans Am was making 345HP/345TQ while more easily attainable models were still 325/335.

Compared with 278TQ for the 3.6 HF, not exactly a good comparison, thought I owned both 4TH gen V8 and 5TH gen V6, the V6 does pull almost as good thanks to the 6-speed auto.
unkillsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:36 PM   #779
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
You think GM is going to completely redo this brand new engine in only 2 years? Not saying they won't, but it would be very out of character to spend 100's of millions on an engine and then redo it 2 years later. To get way over 300 HP would be a pretty big tear up. That is a lot of HP from a 2 liter. That would be equal to nearly 1000 HP from the LS3 on a per liter basis. And we all know what it would take for GM to achieve that.
.
I agree that getting way over 300 HP is far fetched, but getting to 300 HP and about 350TQ is not.

I mean, they already damn near did it with an optional GM factory tune for the Cobalt SS. 290hp and 340TQ

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...umber=19212670

I think whatever Ford does could be a clue on what GM does. Rumors suggest that the next Mustang base engine will be the V6, with possibly a slight power increase over the 305HP/280TQ it currently has. An optional engine could would be the turbo 4, and if that is true I'd expect it to have around 300hp and 340+ TQ.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 03:22 PM   #780
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: 9,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
I agree that getting way over 300 HP is far fetched, but getting to 300 HP and about 350TQ is not.

I mean, they already damn near did it with an optional GM factory tune for the Cobalt SS. 290hp and 340TQ

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...umber=19212670

I think whatever Ford does could be a clue on what GM does. Rumors suggest that the next Mustang base engine will be the V6, with possibly a slight power increase over the 305HP/280TQ it currently has. An optional engine could would be the turbo 4, and if that is true I'd expect it to have around 300hp and 340+ TQ.
What they can do and what they will do are usually two different things.

Why would you want to have a 4 cylinder turbo equal to the V6? The reason to buy the V6 can't simply be "hey, I want equal performance but worse FE"?

Also you have to consider why GM made the GMPP kit available as an aftermarket accessory and not a production improvement. Guessing there is some warranty issues that are covered by the extra $500 it cost.

I had that kit in my Sky Redline. It made a really nice improvement. The biggest was the torque jump. Going from 270 to 300 was ok but it pulled like a little locomotive with the 335 (if I recall correctly) lbft of torque.

If they try to pump up the 2.0T to the levels everyone keeps suggesting, then there won't be a need for the 6 cylinder. It will just be 4 cylinder and 8 cylinders optional.

I can't say anymore what they will or won't do. I'm now guessing like everyone else. But I don't see them trying to make a 330 hp 4 cylinder for the Camaro or even for the Cadillac ATS/CTS which arguably would need it more than the Camaro for image.
__________________
"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 09-07-2013, 09:24 PM   #781
blk13SS
 
blk13SS's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 1SS LS3 '05 Neon SRT-4
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 188
All I'm thinking is of the massive size of the Camaro's engine bay, and how a 4 cyl would look in it...


(Family Guy' Consuela's voice) No....noo....
__________________
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/972215_10151639026654474_979065832_n.jpg
2013 1SS LS3/Cold Air Inductions/VMAX ported tb/TSP 1 7/8 LTs and xpipe/factory NPP axleback/BTR stg 3 cam kit/ZL1 injectors/3.91 gears/MGW sts/DSS carbon fiber driveshaft/DSS 1000hp axles/BMR LCAs & adj. toe rods/DSMLIGHTS E85 dyno tune 454/427 running out fuel. ZL1 fuel pump, McLeod twin disk, and retune coming soon!
blk13SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 07:23 PM   #782
danl
 
Drives: 2013 JSB Camaro 2ss
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 184
if the T4
will help the v-6, and v-8 survive CAFE for a few more years. . .then its a no brainer
danl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 10:16 AM   #783
gen=5

 
gen=5's Avatar
 
Drives: 13 ZL1 vert blac fastlane/LPE 750
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: houston
Posts: 1,154
Well there are too many posts to read from the start,but I Believe GM has to do what makes sense. Although I dont like the idea of it having a 4cyl..there is a V-6 that makes 300hp,and thats a lot compared to the LS1 only having 300 that started the whole ls thing..why lower the price point even more !!! if those that cant afford it priced at what it is why lower it to the point that those of us that spend 30k to 60k for it have to see one on every corner with stickers to make them faster...do we need a 19k 200hp camaro ? sure if it had 400hp,lol
__________________
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346589 CHECK OUT THE BUILDING OF MY RANCH FOR DISABLED VETS, COMPLETE WITH A GUN RANGE &, PAINT BALL COURSE coming...garage for car shows,and a workout & rehab center hopfull
gen=5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2013, 11:57 PM   #784
donathonnn
donathonn
 
Drives: 95 integra, 2014 2LS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 7
A four cylinder engine note doesn't fit the camaro. Plus a four cylinder doesn't seem very muscly at all
donathonnn 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 05:23 AM.


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