[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

Evil I don't think it's gotten out of hand, just a lot of discussions going on... What perplexes me is all the hate for the V6. I mean the SS guys don't like it and the Turbo 4 guys don't like it, I have never said there shouldn't be a 4 cylinder or V8 Camaro but others say there shouldn't be a V6. I would welcome even more engine choices. I was actually wishing they would offer a 400hp V8 option for the LT models. But I guess that would open up a bigger can of worms...

Agreed. I think we have been having a good discussion. I am a fan of both motors and more importantly a fan of more choices than fewer.

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Just my opinion, but I believe this generation, we will see bolt on/tuned/tires V6ers hitting very high 12s like the Mustang V6 has done in the previous generation. With 350+ HP (after some mods and a tune), and a little weight reduction, the new V6 will have the same, if not a hair better weight/HP ratio than the current L99 SS. If the V6 really does lose around 250lbs over the current base V6, it won't need any weight reduction to have the same weight/HP ratio.

Nitrous/FI V6ers should see high 11s to mid 12s easily.

I found this interesting, various testing of a 2015 ATS Coupe

Car tested ------ -----trans---0-60 ----1/4 mile --------- source
Premium 2.0T Coupe RWD 6M 5.7 sec 14.1 sec @ 101 mph Car and Driver
Premium 2.0T Coupe RWD 6M 5.5 sec 14.1 sec @ 98.9 mph Motor Trend
Premium 2.0T Coupe RWD 6M 6.0 sec 14.3 sec @ 100 mph Motor Week
Premium 3.6 Coupe RWD 6A 5.4 sec 14.0 sec @ 102 mph Car and Driver
Premium 3.6 Coupe RWD 6A 5.6 sec 14.1 sec @ 102 mph Car and Driver
Premium 3.6 Coupe RWD 6A 6.2 sec 14.6 sec @ 100 mph Motor Week

Interestingly they tested a manual 2.0t vs a 6 speed auto 3.6 (I don't know if you can even get a manual trans w/ the 3.6 in the ATS?)...

I'd have to see a dyno graph of an LFX and LGX comparison, but If you were to test an LFX and LGX in the same car (not accounting for weight loss of the 6th gen, same car, same weight), I really can't see the LGX "destroying" the LFX. I would suspect given the same car, same weight, etc the differences would be marginal at best.

I wonder how the test times shown above would have been effected if both cars had an 8 speed auto?? Both slightly faster, but still on the same general plane. Maybe the LGX would be .1-.2 faster than the 2.0t?

If the above testing really is true, I don't see a v6 being much better in the 1/4 mile than the 2.0t. It looks like the v6 is a little quicker off the line, but still only marginal, and the 2.0t must come on real strong and reel the v6 back in towards the end of the track.

If the 6th Gen LGX/2.0t testing reports anything like the above. I think dollar per dollar spent on mods (full bolt ons and a tune), the 2.0t will may very well beat the 3.6 in a 1/4 mile run. At least until you put FI of some kind of the v6, which again is big $$$, then it will obviously stomp the 2.0t into the dirt.

But we really won't know until they start cranking out cars and they make their way to the hands of the people. It will certainly be interesting to see what unfolds

2015 ATS Coupe 3.6 premium weighs 3530
2015 5th gen Camaro 2LT weighs 3802, 2LS 3702
2015 ATS Coupe Premium 2.0T weighs 3411

I don't see the LGX weighing any less than the LFX with it's wider bore spacing (slightly longer block because of this?), and whatever extra BS gets strapped onto it for the cylinder deactivation. Hard to say though right now.

More food for thought.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by csw.live

Maybe GM will offer some type of Stage 1 upgrade for the turbo 4...

Didn't they do that with the Cobalt SS?

Yes, and the HHR and the Solstice/Sky all maintaining warranty

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

Evil I don't think it's gotten out of hand, just a lot of discussions going on... What perplexes me is all the hate for the V6. I mean the SS guys don't like it and the Turbo 4 guys don't like it, I have never said there shouldn't be a 4 cylinder or V8 Camaro but others say there shouldn't be a V6. I would welcome even more engine choices. I was actually wishing they would offer a 400hp V8 option for the LT models. But I guess that would open up a bigger can of worms...

Everyone hates what they don't understand or identify with.................and you can go as deeeeeep as you want into that comment. I won't, however.

Originally Posted by suzook

While I understand having choices, but I don't understand getting a v6, or i4, then dumping all that $ for more HP, instead of just getting the v8 in the first place.

Cuz it's fun and it makes it your own.

Originally Posted by laborsmith

GM does not condone tuning engine control units and anyone who believes otherwise must start sharing whatever they are smoking.

"Nuff said.

Laborsmith

But GM did sell a calibration through GMPP that added 25 HP and 40 lbft of torque (memory fading with age). And it was warranty protected.

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Agreed. I think we have been having a good discussion. I am a fan of both motors and more importantly a fan of more choices than fewer.

More choices may mean more sales. More sales means more Camaros. Yippeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

[laborsmith]

Number 3 is correct, GM did then and in certain cases now includes an ECU calibration with certain GMPP kits: my bad. What is true, and if I was thinking I would have made clear, is GM does not condone 3rd party not GM approved calibrations.

Laborsmith

[benanderson89]

I for one would rather get the i4 over the v6. The 6 does sound nice, but I'm inside the car so its no great shakes to me.

I'm not a drag strip guy, though. Less weight on the nose and the shunt from the Turbo on exit is perfect for corner munching, and it'll still be a really quick car that'll put you in illegal speeds in no time flat. Reviews of the Mustang EB tell the same story: want to go around a corner? Get the Turbo motor.

A nicely optioned 4 cylinder or a base model SS is what I'll be going for if I decide to get a Chevy next year. New Mustang is really tempting but the Gen6 is really growing on me. Lets see what the pricing is like.

[Bassment]

Originally Posted by benanderson89

I for one would rather get the i4 over the v6. The 6 does sound nice, but I'm inside the car so its no great shakes to me.

I'm not a drag strip guy, though. Less weight on the nose and the shunt from the Turbo on exit is perfect for corner munching, and it'll still be a really quick car that'll put you in illegal speeds in no time flat. Reviews of the Mustang EB tell the same story: want to go around a corner? Get the Turbo motor.

A nicely optioned 4 cylinder or a base model SS is what I'll be going for if I decide to get a Chevy next year. New Mustang is really tempting but the Gen6 is really growing on me. Lets see what the pricing is like.

You can't compare mustang reviews with what the camaro will do, as the mustang v6 is their base and the turbo 4 is an upgrade. It's opposite with camaro so likely the review will be opposite.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Bassment

You can't compare mustang reviews with what the camaro will do, as the mustang v6 is their base and the turbo 4 is an upgrade. It's opposite with camaro so likely the review will be opposite.

Yep and the fact the EB mustang gets the PP pack while the v6 does not.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

Nope. GM never said no 4-cylinder in a Camaro. There was a quote from Al O. Where he said something along the lines of, if it was his choice, he would not put 4 banger in the car. As we all know, Al O. does not make those decisions, he just engineers what GM asks him to. In this case, it looks like the corporate bean counters won out over Al's opinion.

I'd like to clarify.

All never said anything related to the 4 banger, that he liked it or that it should/shouldn't be in the car...or otherwise. This was the result of poor integrity in journalism...the writer made "inferences" out of nothing.

In more recent news, at the media day, Al said I could quote him in saying that he very much enjoys driving the 4-cylinder Camaro. Says it's a lot of fun out playing around.

[fradaj]

How much lighter will the Turbo 4 Camaro be than the V6 and V8 Camaro's? Any guestimates?

[titanfan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

I'd like to clarify.

All never said anything related to the 4 banger, that he liked it or that it should/shouldn't be in the car...or otherwise. This was the result of poor integrity in journalism...the writer made "inferences" out of nothing.

In more recent news, at the media day, Al said I could quote him in saying that he very much enjoys driving the 4-cylinder Camaro. Says it's a lot of fun out playing around.

Of course he did! What would you expect him to say, "I hate that CAFE standards forced us into offering a 4-cylinder option in the Camaro"? Some of you guys crack me up.

[fastball]

Just remember: the 2016 4 cylinder Camaro will have a faster 0-60 time than the original 1967 Camaro SS.

There is a part of me that really wants to buy the turbo 4 for the weight savings. But in the end I know I'll be getting the SS.

[TheSSpimp]

Its gonna be crazy seeing a youtube video of a modified 2.0t beating a stock SS in the 1/4 mile but you now it is coming. There is videos on youtube right now with ATS 2.0t's going low 12's on youtube.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by TheSSpimp

Its gonna be crazy seeing a youtube video of a modified 2.0t beating a stock SS in the 1/4 mile but you now it is coming. There is videos on youtube right now with ATS 2.0t's going low 12's on youtube.

I figure someone will take a chapter from the previous Ecotec 2.0T book and build one heck of a monster.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips...tec-to-1000-hp

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Jason@JacFab

I found this interesting, various testing of a 2015 ATS Coupe

Car tested ------ -----trans---0-60 ----1/4 mile --------- source
Premium 2.0T Coupe RWD 6M 5.7 sec 14.1 sec @ 101 mph Car and Driver
Premium 2.0T Coupe RWD 6M 5.5 sec 14.1 sec @ 98.9 mph Motor Trend
Premium 2.0T Coupe RWD 6M 6.0 sec 14.3 sec @ 100 mph Motor Week
Premium 3.6 Coupe RWD 6A 5.4 sec 14.0 sec @ 102 mph Car and Driver
Premium 3.6 Coupe RWD 6A 5.6 sec 14.1 sec @ 102 mph Car and Driver
Premium 3.6 Coupe RWD 6A 6.2 sec 14.6 sec @ 100 mph Motor Week

Interestingly they tested a manual 2.0t vs a 6 speed auto 3.6 (I don't know if you can even get a manual trans w/ the 3.6 in the ATS?)...

I'd have to see a dyno graph of an LFX and LGX comparison, but If you were to test an LFX and LGX in the same car (not accounting for weight loss of the 6th gen, same car, same weight), I really can't see the LGX "destroying" the LFX. I would suspect given the same car, same weight, etc the differences would be marginal at best.

I wonder how the test times shown above would have been effected if both cars had an 8 speed auto?? Both slightly faster, but still on the same general plane. Maybe the LGX would be .1-.2 faster than the 2.0t?

If the above testing really is true, I don't see a v6 being much better in the 1/4 mile than the 2.0t. It looks like the v6 is a little quicker off the line, but still only marginal, and the 2.0t must come on real strong and reel the v6 back in towards the end of the track.

If the 6th Gen LGX/2.0t testing reports anything like the above. I think dollar per dollar spent on mods (full bolt ons and a tune), the 2.0t will may very well beat the 3.6 in a 1/4 mile run. At least until you put FI of some kind of the v6, which again is big $$$, then it will obviously stomp the 2.0t into the dirt.

But we really won't know until they start cranking out cars and they make their way to the hands of the people. It will certainly be interesting to see what unfolds

2015 ATS Coupe 3.6 premium weighs 3530
2015 5th gen Camaro 2LT weighs 3802, 2LS 3702
2015 ATS Coupe Premium 2.0T weighs 3411

I don't see the LGX weighing any less than the LFX with it's wider bore spacing (slightly longer block because of this?), and whatever extra BS gets strapped onto it for the cylinder deactivation. Hard to say though right now.

More food for thought.

That's good food for thought.

I agree with you 100% that performance-wise, the LGX does not destroy the LFX. Put the LGX in the current 5th gen Camaro as it is, and the performance difference will be negligible. But its a healthy 12HP increase none the less.

The 5th gen V6 automatics trap somewhere around 14.4 - 14.6 in magazine testing, while the fastest manual V6 I've seen in magazine testing is a 14.2 (0 - 60 was 5.6 in that test also)

So that tells me that due to mostly weight alone (gearing is the same I believe), the Cadillac ATS shaved up to a few tenths in 0 - 60 and up to half a second in the quarter mile compared to the Camaro V6.

I'm still holding out for a stock V6 quarter mile time somewhere between 13.5 (extreme low end) to a 13.8 (high end) due to the V6 Camaro likely weighing a bit less than the ATS, having more HP than the ones shown in your testing above, and also having the 8 speed. I think all of this should be good for an additional .2 to .4 of a second in the 1/4 mile.

I'd really love to see it at least match the 13.7 the 2011 Mustang V6 PP tested at in Motortrend but I think it depends on how well the V6 pulls through the gears with its 8 speed auto.

I don't think the turbo 4 will be far behind, as it will likely weigh somewhere between 50 - 100 pounds less than the V6. I see it being closer in 0 - 60 than 1/4 mile but I could be wrong.