Homepage Garage Wiki Register 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


AWE Tuning


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-20-2015, 09:31 PM   #29
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Oh dear God all mighty, stop getting so hopeful.

Mass has very little affect on highway FE. Highway FE is 50% aerodynamics, 30% powertrain and 20% rolling resistance (mass).

You realize you are now hoping a 335 HP Camaro will deliver the same highway FE as a Cruze weighing in at 3250 pounds with a 1.4 liter turbo 4 cylinder with 138 HP????????

Again, I'll qualify with the "I hope you are right", but sadly, I know you are wrong.
So you mean my LT1 SS won't get 45 mpg? That's lame.






__________________
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 09:37 PM   #30
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So you mean my LT1 SS won't get 45 mpg? That's lame.






Well at 88 mph, really serious sIO&^*t is gonna happen..............
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 09:45 PM   #31
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
If GM plans on producing a turbo 4 cylinder and LGX Camaro, I think there should be more of a separation between the two power trains. I don't see how having two cars with different engines but being within 40 hp/lb*ft of each other would work.

If the T4 is supposed to be the base engine, that means the LGX would have to compete with the EcoBoost Mustang and it makes more torque but slightly less power.
I don't see anything wrong with it...The V6 option might not cost much at all (of course, I'm sure they'll throw in other things with it to make it more expensive...probably)

Heck, they could make the Turbo 4 with 295HP and 300+ and just offer both engines at the same price....just pick what you want. I don't see that happening, but again I wouldn't have any problems with it.

The Ecoboost has more power, and considerably more torque than the Mustang V6, but in reality its barely faster. In fact, the V6 has tested with a higher 1/4 mile speed, but the Ecoboost wins in ET due to its low end grunt. In stock form..the Ecoboost runs out of steam on the top end compared to these V6s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fradaj View Post
Didn't the Camaro V6's have a few more HP than the Cadillac's for both the LLT and LFX?
No...the Camaro (lucky for us) has always had the most aggressive tuning for top end power and has always matched the Cadillac since the LLT V6. In other vehicles, the LLT/LFX was typically rated a bit lower. So I expect the Camaro to have the same 335 HP. If they dumb it down for the sake of brand image, I'll be disappointed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fradaj View Post
Any possibility the TT3.0 becomes the base engine in the Gen 6 Camaro?
Not happening. The LFX is slated for use in the Camaro. Not the 3.0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indydriver View Post
Sorry but...

Cylinder deactivation+Stop/Start+Twin Turbos+Direct Injection=

Warranty Claims out the Ying-Yang.
Maybe, maybe not. Its a new engine, so as much as I hate to say it...that worries me. The LLT, while a great engine in my opinion, had its share of issues (timing chain, oil consumption). The LFX is a more mature/reliable version of that. Lets hope this engine takes all of those lessons learned and doesn't have issues with the early models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDRDTD View Post
I'll be damned If I can find it now, but earlier today I was reading yet another article about the new TT V6's, both the 3.6 and the 3.0.

One thing the article stated was that they tried the 3.6 in the ATS-V and found that it made it too nose heavy, so only the CTS-V would get the 3.6.

I expect the 3.0 to end up in the new Camaro as well for the same reason?
Again...no turbo V6 is going to wind up in the 2016 Camaro. Also, not sure what your referencing, but the ATS-V is getting the LF4, with is a TTV6 3.6 engine. CTS-V will get the blown LT4 V8 engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBS View Post
Or easy it gets that other 1 mpg with the expected weight loss in fact I bet we will see 37 or 38
No way that will happen.

I expect the LGX to be in the 31 - 33 MPG highway range. I don't see why it wouldn't. Yes, the 8 speed may only get it another 1 MPG, but we also have less weight, and last but not least....cylinder deactivation if you are just cruising.


I fully expect the stock Camaro V6 to out perform the Ecoboost Mustang everywhere...0 - 60, 1/4 mile, and on the track. The extra horsepower over the LFX, and the lighter weight will help, but that 8 speed will likely help the most. Hell, I'm fairly certain the V6 Dodge Charger gained an entire second in the 0 - 60 when it went to the 8 speed automatic. (but it might've had a 5 speed before???). I don't expect a whole second from just the 8 speed, but I expect 10ths forsure in 0 - 60.

Now...as I've said before. Tune the Ecoboost, and its all over for the V6 Camaro.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 09:48 PM   #32
Angrybird 12
7 year Cancer Survivor!
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 17 Cruze RS, 07 G6 GT, 99 Astro
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 21,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Oh dear God all mighty, stop getting so hopeful.

Mass has very little affect on highway FE. Highway FE is 50% aerodynamics, 30% powertrain and 20% rolling resistance (mass).

You realize you are now hoping a 335 HP Camaro will deliver the same highway FE as a Cruze weighing in at 3250 pounds with a 1.4 liter turbo 4 cylinder with 138 HP????????

Again, I'll qualify with the "I hope you are right", but sadly, I know you are wrong.
Mass does effect highway fuel economy if you drive a lot in the mountians. You gotta get that mass up those hills, and unless you are dead pedaling it and dropping speed you will be using more gas because that mass slows you down. Around the Mountians of East Tennessee and Western North Carolina I get around 28 mpg. But when I drive to eastern North and South Carolina my mileage goes up to over 30.... Less mass means it will require less power to get you up the hills.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...
The Bird is the word!
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 10:05 PM   #33
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrybird 12 View Post
Mass does effect highway fuel economy if you drive a lot in the mountians. You gotta get that mass up those hills, and unless you are dead pedaling it and dropping speed you will be using more gas because that mass slows you down. Around the Mountians of East Tennessee and Western North Carolina I get around 28 mpg. But when I drive to eastern North and South Carolina my mileage goes up to over 30.... Less mass means it will require less power to get you up the hills.
Oh come on now..... don't confuse real world with the EPA.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 10:23 PM   #34
MBS


 
MBS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 rs 2lt
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Oh dear God all mighty, stop getting so hopeful.

Mass has very little affect on highway FE. Highway FE is 50% aerodynamics, 30% powertrain and 20% rolling resistance (mass).

You realize you are now hoping a 335 HP Camaro will deliver the same highway FE as a Cruze weighing in at 3250 pounds with a 1.4 liter turbo 4 cylinder with 138 HP????????

Again, I'll qualify with the "I hope you are right", but sadly, I know you are wrong.
They are getting 30mpg right now with a 4 year old engine , They have switched to a smaller and lighter platform with more gears , only expecting a 2 mpg gain seems to be not expecting much when you take less weight , more gears and a more efficient engine , we all will know soon enough .
MBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 10:36 PM   #35
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBS View Post
They are getting 30mpg right now with a 4 year old engine , They have switched to a smaller and lighter platform with more gears , only expecting a 2 mpg gain seems to be not expecting much when you take less weight , more gears and a more efficient engine , we all will know soon enough .
That smaller, lighter platform is Alpha. And the best they have through 2015 is 30 mpg for a 2.0T 4 cylinder. To suddenly jump up and down with Christmas morning excitement and think the Camaro with the same engine will get more than the Malibu or the ATS with the same engine is just hope. And that 4 cylinder is allllll new baby. Not 4 years old.

ATS 2.0 T is 30 MPG
Malibu 2.0 T is 30 MPG

Camaro 3.6 L is ?????

Seriously to continue to think that simply being an AWESOME Camaro results in physics defying performance is beyond hopeful.

Sorry but 2 mpg doesn't come from sunshine and rainbows. We are talking about the same architecture that today gives 28 mpg with a V6 and 30 with a 2.0 T and everyone is thinking because it is a Camaro that these numbers go up by 25%????????

The 8 speed should get 1 to 2 mpg
AFM should get another 1 mpg

Start/Stop only affects city driving, not highway.

Go figure.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 10:56 PM   #36
ChefBorOzzy

 
ChefBorOzzy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 F150
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,196
Camaro should pull in 31 for the EPA rating on the highway cycle. I could see it doing better than that in the real world though.
ChefBorOzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 11:10 PM   #37
mr02Z/28

 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
<~~~~~ would rather have the TT 3.0L in my 6th Gen Camaro, considering the posted HP/TQ of the New 3.6L LGX V-6 is sadly negligible compared to the 5th Gen ...
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2015, 11:47 PM   #38
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
<~~~~~ would rather have the TT 3.0L in my 6th Gen Camaro, considering the posted HP/TQ of the New 3.6L LGX V-6 is sadly negligible compared to the 5th Gen ...
Sadly negligible????

It's a nice progression and best in class V6 on regular octane fuel.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2015, 12:46 AM   #39
LesserO2Evils
GM repeat offender...
 
Drives: 16 2SS
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Grandview, Texas
Posts: 1,474
I am amazed at the quantities of drugs and/or alcohol APPARENTLY consumed by members of this forum. I swear ppl pull #s straight out their ass. There is a big difference between OPTIMISM and DELUSION.
__________________
'16 2SS, Summit White. A8. MRC. NPP.
Ordered:09/03/15. Received 12/22/15

INCOMING: ‘22 ZL1, Satin Steel. A10. PDR.
Ordered: 03/02/22.
LesserO2Evils is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2015, 01:47 AM   #40
z28camaro2471
C5 Member #227
 
z28camaro2471's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaros
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 808
I get less than 10 mpg in my 79 z/28. No, it's not "stock" but it is "matching numbers". Double digit FE is good!!
z28camaro2471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2015, 06:23 AM   #41
PYROLYSIS
Remember the Charleston 9
 
PYROLYSIS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2004 KME PREDATOR, 2014 2SS/RS/1LE
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Summerv1LE SC
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
We shall see. I, as usual, hope you are correct. 35 is equal to todays Cruze with a 1.8L 4 cylinder. And don't go by a 30 MPG Camaro, go by the 28 MPG ATS. Unless you are willing to tolerate crap gearing for FE and not performance. The current Camaro V6 according to Chevrolets website is 28 for the LS and LT models. Used to be 30 so not sure what happened.

But for reference the 2015 Mustang is 28 for the V6 and 32 for the ECO boost 4 cylinder. So I hope you are right that a 335 HP V6 can gain 5 mpg over the Mustang, 7 over the current Camaro and ATS.

So to repeat, I hope you are correct. I just hope the new Malibu is 35. Camaro? Holy crap that would be awesome to have a 335 HP V6 that actually gets rated at 35 mpg highway. A world beater that would be. 90s V8 HP with 2015 4 cylinder FE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBS View Post
Or easy it gets that other 1 mpg with the expected weight loss in fact I bet we will see 37 or 38
^ See, I'm not so crazy.
__________________
BRING BACK THE B4C POLICE CAMARO!
2002 V-6 5 speed rally red (current camaro) Also driven:1992 Z-28 305 auto Red w/ black stripes (anniversary), 2001 V-6 auto light pewter metallic,1991 RS V-6 auto Black
PYROLYSIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2015, 07:40 AM   #42
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS View Post
^ See, I'm not so crazy.
No one accused you of being crazy.................just infinitely hopeful. And that's not a bad thing.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

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 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.