[PYROLYSIS]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Awesome!! YES!!

This is what I've been wanting to read about for so long now...the 3.6 LGX. I was hoping for 340/290 but I'll take 335/284 without much gripe. Simple intake and exhaust modifications will have this engine at 350HP without much issue. Who knows how far it could go with a tune and other bolt-ons.

Also...it appears the V6 will get the new 8 speed as well....ANOTHER WIN!!!

335HP/8 speed auto, in a lighter V6 will be awesome.

I'll admit...I'm kind of hoping they disable the start/stop in the Camaro, or at least make the program so that it stays off if you are in sport/manual mode.

I'm also very impressed with the new TT3.0...I wasn't expecting numbers to be so quite that high. Love it. If they offered it in the next Camaro as an optional engine (but below V8) I'd take it for sure.

Thanks for posting!

I'm impressed as well. I think we may see 35 MPG HWY in the sixth gen with the 8 speed auto and a lower gear ratio similar to what they're doing right now with the 1LS. I hope a manual trans is offered with the LGX. An LGX 1LE would make for an awesome Camaro.

[Jeb114]

GM stated awhile back to the people at the Detroit auto show, think of the 2016 Camaro as a sports car not a muscle car. I see smaller engines, smaller car, 8 speed trans and better gas mileage. I think we will be lucky to see the LT1 for a couple of years!! GM does not want to be the only American gas guzzler next year again!

[Indydriver]

Sorry but...

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

Warranty Claims out the Ying-Yang.

[HDRDTD]

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?

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Jeb114

GM stated awhile back to the people at the Detroit auto show, think of the 2016 Camaro as a sports car not a muscle car. I see smaller engines, smaller car, 8 speed trans and better gas mileage. I think we will be lucky to see the LT1 for a couple of years!! GM does not want to be the only American gas guzzler next year again!

The LT1 has already been confirmed for the 2016 Camaro.

They probably meant the car would focus on straight line acceleration,handling and build quality instead of just going fast in a straight line like muscle cars.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

I'm impressed as well. I think we may see 35 MPG HWY in the sixth gen with the 8 speed auto and a lower gear ratio similar to what they're doing right now with the 1LS. I hope a manual trans is offered with the LGX. An LGX 1LE would make for an awesome Camaro.

With a 2.0T......maybe. Not likely with a V6. ATS with a V6 today is 28 I think. An 8 speed is good for 1 MPG.......not 7

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Indydriver

Sorry but...

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

Warranty Claims out the Ying-Yang.

Data playas to support this opinion.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

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.

Ecoboost Mustang is rated at 310HP/320TQ, think you meant to say the Ecoboost has slightly more TQ than the LGX but the LGX has a clear power advantage.

Who's to say the 2.0T in the Camaro will be the 272HP version. It could be the 259HP in the Buicks and Malibu. That would give a pretty good spread between T4 and V6.

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

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?

Considering the 3.6 LFX was already in the last generation and based on what Number 3 said about taxes and cost....think it's a safe bet the LGX will be the motor if we get a new one. 50/50 weight balance probably isn't a big concern for Team Camaro.

[PYROLYSIS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

With a 2.0T......maybe. Not likely with a V6. ATD with a V6 today is 28 I think. An 8 speed is good for 1 MPG.......not 7

2LS Camaro is rated at 30 highway. Per today's info trans is good for 5% increase and motor is good for 9%. 14% increase from 30 puts it at 34.2 MPG. If it's wishful thinking to hope for 35 it's only too overzealous by 1 MPG or so. I know you like to think conservatively due to all the crazy numbers being thrown around on here but I don't think I'm too crazy on this one. Like I was saying it would probably be too much of a stretch without conservative rear gearing but it's certainly not impossible.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

2LS Camaro is rated at 30 highway. Per today's info trans is good for 5% increase and motor is good for 9%. 14% increase from 30 puts it at 34.2 MPG. If it's wishful thinking to hope for 35 it's only too overzealous by 1 MPG or so. I know you like to think conservatively due to all the crazy numbers being thrown around on here but I don't think I'm too crazy on this one. Like I was saying it would probably be too much of a stretch without conservative rear gearing but it's certainly not impossible.

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.

[MBS]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

2LS Camaro is rated at 30 highway. Per today's info trans is good for 5% increase and motor is good for 9%. 14% increase from 30 puts it at 34.2 MPG. If it's wishful thinking to hope for 35 it's only too overzealous by 1 MPG or so. I know you like to think conservatively due to all the crazy numbers being thrown around on here but I don't think I'm too crazy on this one. Like I was saying it would probably be too much of a stretch without conservative rear gearing but it's certainly not impossible.

Or easy it gets that other 1 mpg with the expected weight loss in fact I bet we will see 37 or 38

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by MBS

Or easy it gets that other 1 mpg with the expected weight loss in fact I bet we will see 37 or 38

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.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Number 3

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.

32...that's my guess. To compete with the ecoboost.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

32...that's my guess. To compete with the ecoboost.

That would be a HUGE success. A NA V6 to deliver equal FE to a Turbo 4 with nearly equivalent HP. I'll grant you that might be possible. 35 or even 37/38? Holy crap would that be a space shot accomplishment. I hope GM can do that. Just not sure how.

Keep in mind a 2.0T in the ATS, our miracle of hope for a light weight Camaro, results in ..................................... Ta Dahhhhhhhhhh 30 mpg.