[bdavies11]

Originally Posted by Saybe

v6 power for a cheaper price and there must be a slightly better mpg.

I doubt after you mod the turbo engine you'd get better milage than the V6. The v6 is speculated to be $1000-$1500 more than the turbo anyway. If you put that extra $1500 towards the V6 you keep the warranty and pay less in fuel.

[Saybe]

Originally Posted by bdavies11

I doubt after you mod the turbo engine you'd get better milage than the V6. The v6 is speculated to be $1000-$1500 more than the turbo anyway. If you put that extra $1500 towards the V6 you keep the warranty and pay less in fuel.

So I dont get the point why people want to get the turbo 4 because its cheaper to mod...

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Saybe

So for $1000 of upgrade on a turbo 4 will get me 335+ hp?

E85 tune, downpipe and CAI and I think you would be over 335 at the crank. No warranty, but mo' powa!

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by bdavies11

Easier to mod than the v6? Probably.

Better MPG? I think that can be debated.

On paper, yes, the I-4 Turbo will probably get better fuel milage than the v6 but most likely only by 1-2 mpg. However, I think the 4 cylinder requires premium fuel while the v6 runs on regular. In the the long run, the stock v6 will cost less and be quicker than the stock I4.

Agreed. Fuel economy with small turbo engines is very subjective when it comes to the real world average driver. If you know how to keep your right foot out of boost, then they can deliver excellent MPG, but few people know or want to drive like that. This results in the angry posters saying they can't get even close to the EPA rating. Ford has been on the receiving end of this problem awhile, which is partly why GM chose to stick with AFM to help boost the trucks/SUVs.

Now add in tuned T4's, and most likely their drivers will not best the V6 in real world MPGs, simply because they like power and are going to use it more often.

[bdavies11]

Originally Posted by Saybe

So I dont get the point why people want to get the turbo 4 because its cheaper to mod...

Easier to mod, not necessarily cheaper.

[Memphis43]

Originally Posted by Saybe

So for $1000 of upgrade on a turbo 4 will get me 335+ hp?

Very possible. Believe it or not the Balts were around 3200 lbs and the camaro in 4 cyl form is going to be close to that supposedly.

I wouldn't be surprised if it gets in the high 12s with a couple of mods.

These ecotec motors are no joke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LesserO2Evils]

Saybe, THIS is why ppl would buy the 2T over the V6.

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

E85 tune, downpipe and CAI and I think you would be over 335 at the crank. No warranty, but mo' powa!

[Saybe]

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

Saybe, THIS is why ppl would buy the 2T over the V6.

another quuestion: Lets say I upgrade the 2.0T to 400hp, my monthly insurance will be the same as the SS?

Here in my country you can have a 1000hp and the insurance will be the same . HP and Age has nothing to do with insurance here. How does insurance work in USA? Also what are the chances of getting a speed ticket?

[LesserO2Evils]

Insurance will be based off of YOUR driving record and the VALUE of the car. They will not know what ACTUAL HP the car puts out. Dont ask/Dont tell.
Tickets all come done to your driving. HP is irrelevent.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by joes407

My friend has a cruze 4 cylinder turbo and its crap. I have yet to drive the 300 hp impala

You do know there is around a 130 HP difference between the 1.4T in the Cruze and the 2.0T? Right?

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

E85 tune, downpipe and CAI and I think you would be over 335 at the crank. No warranty, but mo' powa!

And a free hand grenade. GMPP calibration got you 25 HP and 50 lbft I think. A 300 HP engine is reasonable. That's a whopping 150 HP per liter. More in a little 4 banger is just greedy and wayyy over stressing the engine.

Remember, 150 HP per liter in the 6.2 would be 930 HP.

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Agreed. Fuel economy with small turbo engines is very subjective when it comes to the real world average driver. If you know how to keep your right foot out of boost, then they can deliver excellent MPG, but few people know or want to drive like that. This results in the angry posters saying they can't get even close to the EPA rating. Ford has been on the receiving end of this problem awhile, which is partly why GM chose to stick with AFM to help boost the trucks/SUVs.

Now add in tuned T4's, and most likely their drivers will not best the V6 in real world MPGs, simply because they like power and are going to use it more often.

Depends on where you are driving, but I've not seen a 3.6 ATS get anywhere near what we get with Mrs. Number 3's ATS 2.0T. That being said, I think there is only 3 MPG different in the highway number. And with AFM on the new V6 that should be even less.

But real world, equal right foot to equal right foot, the 2.0 will surpass the 3.6.

Originally Posted by Memphis43

Very possible. Believe it or not the Balts were around 3200 lbs and the camaro in 4 cyl form is going to be close to that supposedly.

I wouldn't be surprised if it gets in the high 12s with a couple of mods.

These ecotec motors are no joke


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I was in Sky Redline forums, 400 was not uncommon.

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

Saybe, THIS is why ppl would buy the 2T over the V6.

Still wouldn't. But yes, much easier to get bigger % gains with a simple calibration.

Originally Posted by Saybe

another quuestion: Lets say I upgrade the 2.0T to 400hp, my monthly insurance will be the same as the SS?

Here in my country you can have a 1000hp and the insurance will be the same . HP and Age has nothing to do with insurance here. How does insurance work in USA? Also what are the chances of getting a speed ticket?

Yesssss, but your monthly fee to save up for an engine rebuild would likely make them equal.

But the same here, it's the basic engine size or HP advertised that does the trick. Or if it's RED. That adds a lot

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

Insurance will be based off of YOUR driving record and the VALUE of the car. They will not know what ACTUAL HP the car puts out. Dont ask/Dont tell.
Tickets all come done to your driving. HP is irrelevent.

Unless the HP leads to your driving............then it's relevant

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by joes407

My friend has a cruze 4 cylinder turbo and its crap. I have yet to drive the 300 hp impala

The 4 banger in the Camaro will be making almost exactly twice the power of the 1.4L in the Cruze (275 vs 138). Not exactly a good point of comparison.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Number 3

And a free hand grenade. GMPP calibration got you 25 HP and 50 lbft I think. A 300 HP engine is reasonable. That's a whopping 150 HP per liter. More in a little 4 banger is just greedy and wayyy over stressing the engine.

Remember, 150 HP per liter in the 6.2 would be 930 HP.

At the stock 275 HP level the 2.0T has a power density of 137.5 HP/L. Extrapolating that up to 6.2L would yield 852.5 HP, way more than any engine GM has ever produced. So, the 2.0T is most likely built tougher than say the lower volume LT4. That being said, a bump of 22% above factory spec probably won't grenade the engine if done properly (think of about 520 crank HP in an LS3; some fail, most don't). The GM stage 1 tune for the previous version of the Ecotec 2.0T added between 30 and 40 HP. Adding 40 HP to the new one would get you to 315 HP. 20 more HP won't be that hard to do and probably won't take it over some magic line leading to certain failure.

[jimmypop13]

Originally Posted by Saybe

So I dont get the point why people want to get the turbo 4 because its cheaper to mod...

The low end torque you get with a turbo4 makes a car much more fun to drive around town than a N/A v6

[fradaj]

Will the T4 have any kind of weight advantage over the V6?