[DSX_Camaro]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The LT1 gets better mileage than the LF3 in the CTS-Vsport. Pushing it to 450 hp will not help mileage.

Mileage is entirely dependent on gearing. The LT1 with the 7 speed has a 7th gear ratio of like .47 or .42 depending, IIRC. The LF3 with the 8 speed auto has an 8th gear ratio of like .7. The CTSVSport also weighs like 600lbs more than the C7. And the LT1 of course has 10-15hp more, plus 2 cylinders and massive displacement difference.

Very, very different. A properly geared LF3 would whoop an LT1 on mileage.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by mr02Z/28

The 2.0L turbo has had 270ish horsepower since 2008, I think it's time it pushes 300hp at least ...... needs more like 320hp ......... if the 6th Gen weighed in @ 3,400lbs(2.0L) with better gears, posi in the Auto and a PG tranny, i'd be happy .....

You would be pushing hand grenade territory out of 2 liters.

[WATCHER]

Originally Posted by MikeT

Personally, I hope that you're right because, as someone who prefers the NA V6, I'd save a few bucks if it were the base model. However, the scuttlebutt is that the LGX V6 will be bumped up to ~340 hp or so. At this point, it's hard to imagine GM doing a turbo 4 that'd be an upgrade to a 340 hp V6.

As such, I think that the more likely scenario is a base turbo I4 (270-300hp) with the LGX being the upgrade.

I agree...there is no reason to FOLLOW the Ford mistake by artificially degrading the V6 to a "Base" status in order to artificially force demand to a turbo 4 inline, when the GM 3.6 is wonderfully efficient. After all, there is no REAL "ECO" in "ecoboost".

[nikeair042]

idk about you guys, but I think the new ats-v looks awesome. the front is aggressive, the wing on the back, it just looks awesome. I wish they would have thrown a V8 in there instead of a V6. I wonder how it sounds since its only a v6. I really think the 2016 camaro is going to miss the mark in the looks department. Im not thrilled with what I see so far.

[MikeT]

Originally Posted by nikeair042

idk about you guys, but I think the new ats-v looks awesome. the front is aggressive, the wing on the back, it just looks awesome. I wish they would have thrown a V8 in there instead of a V6. I wonder how it sounds since its only a v6. I really think the 2016 camaro is going to miss the mark in the looks department. Im not thrilled with what I see so far.

I'm pretty much the opposite of you. I like the way the new Camaro is shaping up; so far, so good.

On the other hand, I think that the ATS-V looks hideous. Did the Pontiac Aztek design team come out of retirement or what??

But, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To each his own...

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by nikeair042

idk about you guys, but I think the new ats-v looks awesome. the front is aggressive, the wing on the back, it just looks awesome. I wish they would have thrown a V8 in there instead of a V6. I wonder how it sounds since its only a v6. I really think the 2016 camaro is going to miss the mark in the looks department. Im not thrilled with what I see so far.

Go to the ATS-V thread on the Camaro5 website. Lots of clips of the car running. It sounds good!

[MBS]

This thread is giving me a headache

[Number 3]

At "about 3700 pounds" does not bode well for all you guys hoping for a sub 3600 pound SS. Some light weight material, some extra stiffening and an ELS rear diff may no make it into a Camao but that isnt 100 pounds.

[ilirg]

Sub 3600 is delusional. 3700-3750 for a fully loaded SS with V8 is highly likely and completely acceptable, I think it will be a hell of a car at that weight.

[KMPrenger]

3,650 to 3,750. That's my official stance on the 6th gen SS.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

3,650 to 3,750. That's my official stance on the 6th gen SS.

Same here. If it falls in that range, I would be pretty damn happy.

[DSX_Camaro]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The assumption there is that a twin turbo V6 would be more efficient than a V8, and there isn't really any indication that that's true. At least not at General Motors.

The CTS-Vsport is about the same size, weight, and power as the current Camaro SS. But it gets either the same or slightly worse fuel economy as the LS3/L99. On the other hand ... the new LT1 is a bit more efficient than the current gen IV small blocks. So its pretty safe to say that the LT1 is more efficient than the twin turbo LF3. It certainly isn't any less efficient.

All due respect, when you look at the gearing and the drag coefficients between those two vehicles (C7 and CTSVSport) you would find the LF3 is geared almost identically to the LFX and thus does not achieve any kind of efficiency. It has 430ftlbs at peak, it could be geared waaaaay taller. You'll note the 7th gear for the LT1 is always .4x:1. THAT is efficient.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by DSX_Camaro

All due respect, when you look at the gearing and the drag coefficients between those two vehicles (C7 and CTSVSport) you would find the LF3 is geared almost identically to the LFX and thus does not achieve any kind of efficiency. It has 430ftlbs at peak, it could be geared waaaaay taller. You'll note the 7th gear for the LT1 is always .4x:1. THAT is efficient.

The ratio of each individual gear is pretty meaningless on its own without taking into account the final drive ratio. For the C7 manual, this is 3.42:1 and on the CTS-Vsport its 2.85:1. That gives an overall ratio, for these two particular speeds in these two particular cars, of 1.44:1 for the Corvette and 1.95:1 for the CTS-Vsport. And while this is still a sizeable difference, there is also a sizeable difference in the two cars so I imagine that they're both near their optimal RPM for rolling down the highway with their respective transmissions. Afterall, thats usually the target that powertrain engineers aim for when selecting gear ratios for a given car.

I should also point out that I was not directly comparing the Corvette to the CTS-Vsport. What I was doing was comparing the CTS-Vsport to the Camaro SS, which is overall a very similar vehicle (and this idea is validated by the fact that the LFX is used in both cars & hits the same fuel economy figures in each). For the same reason, I compared the C6 to the C7 -because they are overall quite similar (size, shape, weight). The reason I compared them like this was because there was no direct way to compare the LT1 to the LF3. So, I used the LS3 as a proxy. LF3 vs LS3, LT1 vs LS3. If there was anything to the idea that the LF3 is more efficient than the LT1, the CTS-Vsport should show a decent fuel economy benefit over the LS3 in the Camaro -because the LT1 shows some improvement over the LS3 in the Corvette. I don't care if its 5 mpg or 0.5 ... at that I am looking at is the relative performance of the engines

And after re-reading that several times ... I think even I'm confused. So lets simplify it to A vs B & B vs C.

If we know that:
1) A is less than (or equal to) B . . . . and
2) B is less than C


Now, I realize that there are quite a few approximations & assumptions in what I did. So it might be going a bit too far to say that the LT1 is undeniably more efficient than the LF3. But I have yet to see anything to suggest that the reverse is true (that the LF3 is more efficient than the LT1). At best, I'd say they might be equally efficient. But in all likelihood, the LF3 is less efficient.

[DSX_Camaro]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The ratio of each individual gear is pretty meaningless on its own without taking into account the final drive ratio. For the C7 manual, this is 3.42:1 and on the CTS-Vsport its 2.85:1. That gives an overall ratio, for these two particular speeds in these two particular cars, of 1.44:1 for the Corvette and 1.95:1 for the CTS-Vsport. And while this is still a sizeable difference, there is also a sizeable difference in the two cars so I imagine that they're both near their optimal RPM for rolling down the highway with their respective transmissions. Afterall, thats usually the target that powertrain engineers aim for when selecting gear ratios for a given car.

I should also point out that I was not directly comparing the Corvette to the CTS-Vsport. What I was doing was comparing the CTS-Vsport to the Camaro SS, which is overall a very similar vehicle (and this idea is validated by the fact that the LFX is used in both cars & hits the same fuel economy figures in each). For the same reason, I compared the C6 to the C7 -because they are overall quite similar (size, shape, weight). The reason I compared them like this was because there was no direct way to compare the LT1 to the LF3. So, I used the LS3 as a proxy. LF3 vs LS3, LT1 vs LS3. If there was anything to the idea that the LF3 is more efficient than the LT1, the CTS-Vsport should show a decent fuel economy benefit over the LS3 in the Camaro -because the LT1 shows some improvement over the LS3 in the Corvette. I don't care if its 5 mpg or 0.5 ... at that I am looking at is the relative performance of the engines

And after re-reading that several times ... I think even I'm confused. So lets simplify it to A vs B & B vs C.

If we know that:
1) A is less than (or equal to) B . . . . and
2) B is less than C


Now, I realize that there are quite a few approximations & assumptions in what I did. So it might be going a bit too far to say that the LT1 is undeniably more efficient than the LF3. But I have yet to see anything to suggest that the reverse is true (that the LF3 is more efficient than the LT1). At best, I'd say they might be equally efficient. But in all likelihood, the LF3 is less efficient.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, it's just that yes, there are a couple assumptions in there that change the figures a lot. The CTS VSport has 25.7" tires which drop the OD by 3" compared to the Camaro, or just over 10%. Stick those on the Camaro and it'd be like having a ~3.60 rear end ratio. CTS VSport 24mpg, Camaro LFX 27mpg, CTS LFX 29mpg. The CTS also has a much better coefficient of drag plus the 8 speed which logically helps the mileage, like with the LFX numbers. (Point being: at 2000rpm it's still running the same speed as an LFX equipped car, instead of turning lower rpm. It should get at least similar gas mileage, not this much worse. Such as how the new Mercedes TTV6 E400 gets identical gas mileage to the E350, 30mpg.)

On the other hand, the C7 is better than the C6 and the LT1 is better than the LS3. I think that is an objective statement - essentially identical, but the LT1 has DI, VVT, DoD and an extra gear(s depending). Denying the LT1's efficiency would be ridiculous, also. I simply have a hard time believing the LF3 is any manner of optimized since #1 it doesn't exactly fill any gaps and #2 probably won't be around much longer (like the good ole' LS6)... and #3 GM engineers can't seem to gear anything short of the Corvette for crap.