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


BeckyD @ James Martin Chevy


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-07-2012, 05:11 PM   #267
2ssx2
 
2ssx2's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 2ss se/ 2009 cobalt ss
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Washington State
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrybird 12 View Post
Wow....if that was possible, could you imagine a Spark with a 575hp V8 in it...
I want one. would be like in the old days when there were stuffing blown 455's in a chevette.
2ssx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 05:45 PM   #268
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 2ssx2 View Post
I want one. would be like in the old days when there were stuffing blown 455's in a chevette.
I saw one in a wheelie contest that actually flipped completely over backwards....


Sorry this went off topic... But the whole thread has gone to pot anyway
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...
The Bird is the word!

Last edited by Angrybird 12; 12-07-2012 at 06:53 PM.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 02:06 AM   #269
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrybird 12 View Post
Sorry this went off topic... But the whole thread has gone to pot anyway
Sorta agree. I thought this thread was an argument between whether a turbo-4 or N/A V6 would be the better base engine. For the record, most of my comments here have more or less been based on a dislike of turbos, and concern that a turbo-4 would net less performance for more cost than a N/A V6.

When did this shift to an argument that the Camaro shouldn't have any base engine at all? I agree it needs the base engine to make the car high enough volume to be affordable (and clearly, that base engine needs to be a V6).
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."
. 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 02:26 AM   #270
Taintedveins
Shark attack!
 
Taintedveins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro LS
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Sorta agree. I thought this thread was an argument between whether a turbo-4 or N/A V6 would be the better base engine. For the record, most of my comments here have more or less been based on a dislike of turbos, and concern that a turbo-4 would net less performance for more cost than a N/A V6.

When did this shift to an argument that the Camaro shouldn't have any base engine at all? I agree it needs the base engine to make the car high enough volume to be affordable (and clearly, that base engine needs to be a V6).
But are they really looking at performance cost in the next gen when you get to the Turbo? I mean if we have a v6 putting out 340 and a v8 putting out 350 with a small price difference between the 6 and the 4 gm could just be pushing the 4 to balance out the line. I mean if the 4 can get 40 highway on a stock tune with the v6 pulling 33 (highest I have achieved with stock tune and no mods) again and the 8 pulling 26(again highest I have seen) then it would make sense. 40+33+28= 101 average that and the it would be around 34 instead of the current 28.
__________________
Taintedveins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 02:47 AM   #271
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taintedveins View Post
But are they really looking at performance cost in the next gen when you get to the Turbo? I mean if we have a v6 putting out 340 and a v8 putting out 350 with a small price difference between the 6 and the 4 gm could just be pushing the 4 to balance out the line. I mean if the 4 can get 40 highway on a stock tune with the v6 pulling 33 (highest I have achieved with stock tune and no mods) again and the 8 pulling 26(again highest I have seen) then it would make sense. 40+33+28= 101 average that and the it would be around 34 instead of the current 28.
V8 will be closer to 450. A roughly 300 hp turbo-4 will not achieve anywhere near 40. The current 270hp 2.0T is rated 31 mpg in the ATS. The V6 in the Camaro is rated 29-30 mpg, and would be better than that if it were in the smaller ATS platform. So I don't really see the benefit in CAFE. And since the V6 runs on regular, and the turbo likely not, I really don't see the benefit to the buyer.

And in terms of CAFE, the averaging is not that simple. They take the average of all the cars they sell. So if one engine is rated at 20 and one is rated at 30, the average is weighted based on the sales of each model, not just the availability of the model. In other words, if GM offers a lower performance, high economy version, but no one buys it, it doesn't help their CAFE average much. So what they will likely do is artificially raise the price of the V6 and V8 to "encourage" more people to buy the lower performance model.

Also, the averaging of the mileage ratings is not linear. For the average to be a linear function, what is being averaged must be taken over the units in the denominator (gallons), not the numerator (miles). For example, driving two cars the same distance, one getting 30 mpg, the other 20 mpg, the average is 24 mpg, not 25. To make the average linear at 25 mpg, the two cars have to get their respective economies over the same number of gallons, not the same number of miles.
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."
. 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 03:04 AM   #272
mikeSS


 
mikeSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 c7
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 7,462
Its really the way the world is going. can not stop it from happening. Lets hope they will keep making v8s for the ones who want one.

its not even a thing about power either, its sound.
mikeSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 12:07 PM   #273
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 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
And some of you think you can toss anything into a Camaro and it'll still sell. Must be the catchy name.
Do you seriously not like the fact that they use the LFX engine across multiple vehicles? I guess you don't understand how good business operates then. You know other manufacturers do the same thing right? The LFX is a fantastic engine, and so GM SHOULD use it wherever they can. Its not exactly the same in each vehicle though...it comes in different states of tune in other cars. I'd not be surprised to see it come as the base engine in the new Silverado. Ram is doing it with their trucks (same V6 engine as in the Challenger....OMG!) and it has gotten good reviews.

Maybe it will perk you up to know it makes the most HP and TQ in the Camaro, even if it is just slightly more. Now..feel better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeSS View Post
Its really the way the world is going. can not stop it from happening. Lets hope they will keep making v8s for the ones who want one.

its not even a thing about power either, its sound.
Man I'd love to know how many more buyers would have bought the V6 if it sounded just like a V8 in every way. Yes I know it isn't possible, but lets just pretend. I think it would be a huge difference.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 01:50 PM   #274
Taintedveins
Shark attack!
 
Taintedveins's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro LS
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
V8 will be closer to 450. A roughly 300 hp turbo-4 will not achieve anywhere near 40. The current 270hp 2.0T is rated 31 mpg in the ATS. The V6 in the Camaro is rated 29-30 mpg, and would be better than that if it were in the smaller ATS platform. So I don't really see the benefit in CAFE. And since the V6 runs on regular, and the turbo likely not, I really don't see the benefit to the buyer.

And in terms of CAFE, the averaging is not that simple. They take the average of all the cars they sell. So if one engine is rated at 20 and one is rated at 30, the average is weighted based on the sales of each model, not just the availability of the model. In other words, if GM offers a lower performance, high economy version, but no one buys it, it doesn't help their CAFE average much. So what they will likely do is artificially raise the price of the V6 and V8 to "encourage" more people to buy the lower performance model.

Also, the averaging of the mileage ratings is not linear. For the average to be a linear function, what is being averaged must be taken over the units in the denominator (gallons), not the numerator (miles). For example, driving two cars the same distance, one getting 30 mpg, the other 20 mpg, the average is 24 mpg, not 25. To make the average linear at 25 mpg, the two cars have to get their respective economies over the same number of gallons, not the same number of miles.
I did not know that! thank you for the information, but is it so unlikely that a new generation of turbos in the newest 4 wouldn't have higher mpg standards with performance benefits?? and I find the EPA estimates incredibly low. I have yet to get lower then 21 in town.
__________________
Taintedveins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 06:30 PM   #275
Blast
 
Drives: 2009 SAAB 9-5 Aero
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taintedveins View Post
I did not know that! thank you for the information, but is it so unlikely that a new generation of turbos in the newest 4 wouldn't have higher mpg standards with performance benefits?? and I find the EPA estimates incredibly low. I have yet to get lower then 21 in town.
I rented an SS auto for just over three weeks this june and in town I was averaging 16 without a lead foot.

I was averaging 28 on the highway though.

// Stefan
Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 06:52 PM   #276
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taintedveins View Post
I did not know that! thank you for the information, but is it so unlikely that a new generation of turbos in the newest 4 wouldn't have higher mpg standards with performance benefits?? and I find the EPA estimates incredibly low. I have yet to get lower then 21 in town.
Sure, further fuel economy advances will be achieved with turbo-4s as the years go on and technology improves, but the same can be said of NA V6s as well.

Based on what I'm seeing, the downsizing and turbocharging trend is not netting significant economy gains as promised, at least not in the real world. Companies doing it, Ford with Ecoboost in particular, like to advertise the turbo-4 as some miracle engine, with the power of a V6, but the economy of a 4. Well, no, they more closely end up with the power of a V6 with the economy of a V6. Just because the turbo engine may have the displacement and cylinder count as a base Ford Focus certainly does not mean it will get the same mileage as one. If you want the base Focus mileage, you have to accept the base Focus tune and power level, too.

Also, I must have a similar driving style to you, because I too have no problem beating EPA estimates in anything I drive. During the warmer months, I can consistently get upper 30s out of my Alero, and I even got 31 a couple of times out of my 5.0 last summer. One interesting thing I've noticed from experience about EPA ratings from driving many different vehicles is how consistently inconsistent they seem to be, where whole classes of vehicles seem to be underrated more than others, while others seem to get better ratings than they deserve. For example, A typical "car" will usually beat the EPA highway estimate by 15-25% or sometimes more for me, while crossover SUVs with the same driving style usually average out to 5-10% above their rating at best.

I suspect the turbo engines are the same way...i.e. they put up impressive numbers within the narrow parameters of the EPA test, but in the real world, don't perform as well as a N/A engine with the same rating when you start using the gas pedal. A lot of car mags and online reviews post real world fuel economy in reviews now, and it seems that when driven hard (as a sports car like the 6th-gen Camaro will likely be more often than other cars), turbo engines (at least gas ones, diesels seem to do better) end up missing their EPA targets by more than N/A engines. The EcoBoosts seem particularly bad. (I know, we're discussing GM, but the Fords offer the most available data for turbos, and if those are supposed to be mainstream turbos....why would someone else's mainstream turbo be much different?)
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."
. 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 08:03 PM   #277
2ssx2
 
2ssx2's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 2ss se/ 2009 cobalt ss
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Washington State
Posts: 241
My Turbo Cobalt with a 22psi tune only averages about 24 in town and 28 on the hway. I do drive it fairly aggressive.

I want to say I love this car and I am happy I bought it. The motor is so impressive my hat is off to gm for really giving people like me a chance to buy an american 4cl car that can be tuned and run with the import crowd.

I do not care if they ever put this motor in a camaro or not, but I can honestly tell you that you would not be disappointed if they did.

I wanted the best of both worlds so I know have a 2ss Camaro with supercharger on the way.

I would love to take some of you on a ride in my car as the handling is also second to none.
2ssx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 01:07 AM   #278
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Do you seriously not like the fact that they use the LFX engine across multiple vehicles? I guess you don't understand how good business operates then. You know other manufacturers do the same thing right? The LFX is a fantastic engine, and so GM SHOULD use it wherever they can. Its not exactly the same in each vehicle though...it comes in different states of tune in other cars. I'd not be surprised to see it come as the base engine in the new Silverado. Ram is doing it with their trucks (same V6 engine as in the Challenger....OMG!) and it has gotten good reviews.

Maybe it will perk you up to know it makes the most HP and TQ in the Camaro, even if it is just slightly more. Now..feel better?
I don't like the fact that we're talking about putting a 4 cylinder in a muscle car. I feel like that defeats the purpose of having a muscle car. I don't care how many other successful cars have the same engine, it's irrelevant.

So many people parse quotes though just to make "gotcha" arguments that it tends to screw up the conversation.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 03:10 AM   #279
buckeyemike
 
buckeyemike's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro LS
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Scott AFB
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
I don't like the fact that we're talking about putting a 4 cylinder in a muscle car. I feel like that defeats the purpose of having a muscle car. I don't care how many other successful cars have the same engine, it's irrelevant.

So many people parse quotes though just to make "gotcha" arguments that it tends to screw up the conversation.
I don't like the fact that people are so hung up on "muscle cars" (spoiler alert: the original camaro was a pony car to begin with) that people get so upset about cylinder count and not performance/mpgs/cost... but that's just me.
buckeyemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 08:12 AM   #280
Camaro_Firebird
 
Camaro_Firebird's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RS black 6 speed
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Mead, CO
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyemike View Post
I don't like the fact that people are so hung up on "muscle cars" (spoiler alert: the original camaro was a pony car to begin with) that people get so upset about cylinder count and not performance/mpgs/cost... but that's just me.
I agree with the above. The first muscle cars (GTO, Mustang) were pony cars with a bigger engine. If there's a market for a 4 cyl I don't see an issue with filling it.
Camaro_Firebird is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th generation camaro, alpha camaro, alpha platform camaro, camaro 4 cylinder turbo, camaro alpha platform, turbo 4 camaro, turbo 4 cylinder camaro

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 09:39 AM.


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