[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by SlingShot

Our Sky Red line with the GMPP tune would eat out LLT hands down, and would even give our SS a good run. Never under estimate the 2.0T engines, GM knows how to build them right.

I had an '07 Sol GXP with the GMPP tune on my LNF 2.0L turbo. 2 liters, 290 bhp, 340 lb/ft, and the engine was not peaky at all

And I agree, my GXP would give my 1SS a run for it's money. Power to weight is very similar, and there's actually a fatter powerband over a larger area 'under the curve' with the GM tuned LNF. I make more torque in the LS3, but truth be told, my LNF generated usuable torque faster at low rpms. My big complaint about my Camaro SS is that my turbo LNF had better throttle response under 3K rpm; then again there's better tech in the LNF than an LS3

Originally Posted by BoomBoomKid

Turbos will lose boost after 50K miles. The bottomline turbocharged engines are not high mileage engines never have been. We have older F150 and 1500 trucks with 100's of thousands miles on them. The new ones will never match them. I can't understand why anyone would go out and buy a turbocharged 4 cyc.truck, it'll be fine for a short period, yet nolonger will it be the best selling vehicle in America.

Couple things:

-There's no law that says that at 50K "turbos loose boost". Mine didn't.
-That's a truck application, not a lighter weight car appilcation
-It's not 1980 any more; the tech is here to make durable turbo engines

[BoomBoomKid]

The major concern I see with a turbocharged engines is longevity of the engine, i.e. 100K, 200K, etc. of heavy duty miles. I have never seen a turbo engine rack up high miles without an overhaul. How many of the new ecotech F150 trucks will last 100K miles, not many? Turbos will lose boost after 50K miles. The bottomline turbocharged engines are not high mileage engines never have been. We have older F150 and 1500 trucks with 100's of thousands miles on them. The new ones will never match them. I can't understand why anyone would go out and buy a turbocharged 4 cyc.truck, it'll be fine for a short period, yet nolonger will it be the best selling vehicle in America.

[2ssx2]

Originally Posted by BoomBoomKid

The major concern I see with a turbocharged engines is longevity of the engine, i.e. 100K, 200K, etc. of heavy duty miles. I have never seen a turbo engine rack up high miles without an overhaul. How many of the new ecotech F150 trucks will last 100K miles, not many? Turbos will lose boost after 50K miles. The bottomline turbocharged engines are not high mileage engines never have been. We have older F150 and 1500 trucks with 100's of thousands miles on them. The new ones will never match them. I can't understand why anyone would go out and buy a turbocharged 4 cyc.truck, it'll be fine for a short period, yet nolonger will it be the best selling vehicle in America.

My car has 60k miles supporting 22psi boost since day 1 and I drive it like I stole it. This post has no relevance in today's market. Look at all the turbo cars on the road.

[KarFan]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

None....IF....the price of the V6 isn't artificially jacked way up to make room for a more expensive "base" engine underneath it, or to "encourage" buyers to not get the better engines (like Ford did with the 2010 Fusion in making the lesser of its two V6s a $2500 standalone option).



That's the assumption I'm basing most of my gripes on.

You're seeing the beginning of automakers charging more for less efficient and more powerful engines. This will continue as CAFE rules tighten.

For the Camaro and Mustang this will mean that V8's will be more premium priced in relation to the base engine options than they are now.

V8's will be available for the forseeable future but not as affordable as they are now.

[HDRDTD]

"There is nothing about the V8 that inherently forces a gas guzzler tax. That is a result of the way GM designed it, not the number of cylinders. I can name a certain supercharged V8 with 80 more horsepower that has no gas guzzler tax. "

'IF' the V8 they choose for the 6th gen falls far enough behind the mandated CAFE standards, then there will be a gas guzzler tax.

The ZL1's are already charged a gas guzzler tax with today's CAFE requirements.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

'IF' the V8 they choose for the 6th gen falls far enough behind the mandated CAFE standards, then there will be a gas guzzler tax.

The ZL1's are already charged a gas guzzler tax with today's CAFE requirements.

As far as I know, the gas guzzler tax is a separate regulation/tax from CAFE, and not based on the car's particular rating compared to CAFE.

[Mblock66]

Im just going to wait for the 8th Gen Camaro, I hear its supposed to be incredible!

A 1 cyl turbo and supercharged .25 liter engine making 500 hp and a curb weight of 2800 lbs

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by Mblock66

Im just going to wait for the 8th Gen Camaro, I hear its supposed to be incredible!

A 1 cyl turbo and supercharged .25 liter engine making 500 hp and a curb weight of 2800 lbs

And it will be solar powered.

[Mblock66]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

And it will be solar powered.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that yet!

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

And it will be solar powered.

Camaros will be powered by zen energy before that happens.

[Fraxum]

Originally Posted by Hylton

I agree - the 4 banger Mustang sold well back in the early 80's even though you could have made the car go faster by pushing it.

My recollection is that the original SVO Mustangs did not sell very well. They were ahead of their time. I think the world is ready for a new one now:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-mus...h-in-2015.html

The idea of an SVO-like Camaro would fit where Ford might be going. A lighter modded FI 4 in a Camaro is actually cool and would be a great track car where big HP is not needed. I would bet 300 at the wheels in a 3,400 pound car would be quite fun.

Expect a non-FI 6 (so as not to compete with the LT1) and some form of the LT1. Maybe the smaller version, 5.5 liters will be the SS. The 6.2 LT1 will be the Z28. Will there be a new ZL1? Do we need it? Time will tell.

[Fraxum]

Originally Posted by ShnOmac

Now that is funny!

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

Keep in mind, I'm not saying not to offer the Camaro with the V8, by all means do so even though you might have a gas guzzler tax to deal with like we do with the ZL1, I'm just saying I see nothing wrong with offering a high performance Turbo-4 in the lower models.

I kind of do.

Suppose a high performance turbo 4 is more expensive than the V8; what will Chevy do? Can they market a 4 cylinder muscle car that's more expensive than their V8 version?

And will they? Or will they push up the price of the V8 instead?

And will there need to be compromises in other areas of the car to accomodate both a 4 cyl turbo and a V8?

Here's my issue; we don't have many choices for pony/muscle cars as it is. If the manufacturers water down performance (or start charging a premium for performance, in what used to be an affordable performance car), we may not have any choices.

And who wants the same power train in the Malibu, ATS, Camaro and who knows what else, anyway? Shouldn't these different cars actually be different, so that we (the consumers) have choices to pick from?

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by trewyn15

Ever heard of IMO also known as in my opinion? Like it's already been said, there's a V8... LS3 or L99... why do they need a 4 cylinder or a 6 cylinder in a MUSCLE car when they have the V8?

The majority of traditional pony car buyers do not buy the V8. That's why.