Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-05-2014, 10:48 AM   #1
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,464
New LGX V6 "confirmed" for 2016 Camaro

User FenwickHocky65 originally posted this in his "Great thread of Knowledge"...but not much else was said. So now that I've given him his props, I thought I'd post this in the 6th gen section for more discussion.

Someone on the GMInsideNews site sounds pretty confident that the new "LGX" V6 engine will be going into the 6th gen. The title of the thread says "Confirmed" but there is no proof of the confirmed news linked that I saw. There is a healthy discussion there...check it out: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...camaro-167114/

To sum it up: It is believed there will be 4 cylinder (I'd say most likely turbo 4), 6 cylinder, and 8 cylinder options, but opposite of Ford's model, the 6 cylinder will be the midlevel, optional engine choice. Al O may have said no 4 cylinder for Camaro, but thats just his thoughts....not a confirmation.
There are no specs on this engine yet, but again some believe it will once again be a 3.6 like the outgoing LFX engine. It will also be used in the 2016 ATS, and other GM models.

So assuming all of the above is true, then my thoughts are this. If the turbo 4 cylinder is the base engine, then that probably means it won't be intended as the direct performance competitor to the Mustang's midlevel turbo 4 engine. Instead, it would be the most economical version, but still provide a "fun" amount of power. I'd guess at least the same as the current 272HP/295TQ found in the current "LTG" turbo 4 cylinder.

So to be a viable midlevel option over the turbo 4, the LGX V6 is going to need a bit of a bump in HP, or TQ, or hopefully both. I think better economy than LFX is a given, but I'd like to see at least 330+ HP, and 290 + TQ. (The 3.8 in the Genesis makes 345HP, so a high HP number isn't my concern as much as TQ to be honest) I have been posting a lot, that I hope to see a V6 with a big displacement at least 3.6 but more like 3.7 -3.8 (for more torque), cylinder deactivation (hwy fuel economy), and of course direct injection, cam phasing, etc. The engine would need to be very refined for use in Cadillac models.

If I were to have my choice, a 345 HP, 290 - 300TQ V6 in a 3,450 lb package sounds like a fun ride for mid to upper 20s (I'm sure it would eclipse 30 with nearly all options checked). This is about what the ATS V6 weighs. As the midlevel option, it would be wise of GM to offer a performance package, just like they are for the midlevel Mustang.
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 11:07 AM   #2
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,861
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
Just food for thought.

Buick offers a no-cost upgrade to the LFX from the 2.4L eAssist in LaCrosse, and a no-cost downgrade from the LTG in Regal to the 2.4L eAssist.

Assuming LTG and LGX are indeed both slated for Camaro, perhaps there could be a similar strategy.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2000 Ford Ranger XLT Regular Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 01:21 PM   #3
wakespeak
 
Drives: 2013 2SS LS3/NPP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 657
4 cyl turbo doesn't worry me at all considering the current levels of low end torque and refinement. If it lets a lightweight V-8 model survive the new CAFE footprint BS in the coming years, then fine. Even without CAFE, there needs to be some way to manage around the possibility of $5-$6/gal gas, which despite more supply, could easily happen. Last time that happened everyone flipped out and bought a hybrid the next day.

I am guessing the new LGX will be more easily adapted to turbos and incorporate lessons learned from the LFX.
__________________
NPP, 1LE front (27mm)/rear (28mm) stabilizer bars, ZL1/1LE rear toe Links, ZL1/1LE shifter, Apex catch can, 1LE oil separator, Goodridge stainless steel brake lines,1LE strut tower brace
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 02:53 PM   #4
MikeT
 
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 177
Right now, the Camaro is pretty much the only 'affordable' V6 passenger car in GM's entire stable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the Impala moving upscale and the Malibu ditching the V6, GM doesn't offer a single V6 passenger car under $30K (other than the Camaro). I'd hate to see that end, especially with Ford sticking with an affordable V6 Mustang... and Chrysler putting its nice Pentastar V6 in whole range of affordable cars.

I personally don't have a problem with a turbo 4 as the base engine, but I sincerely hope that a V6 (this new LGX V6 specifically) is a low-cost upgrade.
MikeT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:17 PM   #5
PoorMansCamaro
n00b
 
PoorMansCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Really Slow
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 54,200
if true, makes my decision, if I were to get a 6th gen, easy. v8.

could be that the LS models get the turbo 4 and the lt models get the v6. prices would be about the same as now, minus inflation.
__________________
PoorMansCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:38 PM   #6
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro View Post
if true, makes my decision, if I were to get a 6th gen, easy. v8.

could be that the LS models get the turbo 4 and the lt models get the v6. prices would be about the same as now, minus inflation.
Just curiousity asking, why would that make your decision easy? Was you hoping on a TTV6?
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:45 PM   #7
DSX_Camaro

 
DSX_Camaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Summit White 2LT/RS
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 32765
Posts: 1,098
Honestly I wish they had a performance package for the V6 that had the LF3...
__________________
Mods: VMAX Ported Throttle Body, K&N CAI, 1LE Strut Tower Brace, Solo High Flow Cats, Elite Engineering Catch Can, Apex Scoop w/ Washer Relocation Kit, CTS Front Caliper Conversion, JacFab Ported Intake Manifold, JacFab Intake Manifold Spacer, Custom 2.5"/3" Hybrid Magnaflow Exhaust

Next: Wheels / Tires, or boost.

DSX_Camaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:48 PM   #8
PoorMansCamaro
n00b
 
PoorMansCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Really Slow
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 54,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Just curiousity asking, why would that make your decision easy? Was you hoping on a TTV6?
I know that was a long shot, but no. if the Camaro made a mid tier turbo 4, I might have opted for that, and mod the crap out of it.

getting a low tier turbo 4, I could modify it, and it would probably only be good enough to compete with the v6's, or just be fast enough to beat them, but lose badly to the v8's. honestly, the v8 is what I want, but i'm open minded.
__________________
PoorMansCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 03:50 PM   #9
PoorMansCamaro
n00b
 
PoorMansCamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: Really Slow
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 54,200
I could honestly see chevy make the turbo 4 almost identical to the v6. maybe slightly lower in hp/tq, but not by much. hell, maybe even higher in torque. Kind of like how they have the sonics 1.4 and 1.8.
__________________
PoorMansCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 04:44 PM   #10
Red Chief
 
Drives: 2012 v6 Black
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cape Girardeau
Posts: 88
Why even warm up to the idea of a 4 cylinder in a Camaro? Because of the Mustang? Just because Ford sold out doesn't mean Chevy has to make the same mistake.
Red Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 04:48 PM   #11
DSX_Camaro

 
DSX_Camaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Summit White 2LT/RS
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 32765
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Chief View Post
Why even warm up to the idea of a 4 cylinder in a Camaro? Because of the Mustang? Just because Ford sold out doesn't mean Chevy has to make the same mistake.
CAFE standards rising.
Want to keep Camaro alive.
Need Turbo 4 to offset V8 / boosted V8 fuel consumption.

Or...
__________________
Mods: VMAX Ported Throttle Body, K&N CAI, 1LE Strut Tower Brace, Solo High Flow Cats, Elite Engineering Catch Can, Apex Scoop w/ Washer Relocation Kit, CTS Front Caliper Conversion, JacFab Ported Intake Manifold, JacFab Intake Manifold Spacer, Custom 2.5"/3" Hybrid Magnaflow Exhaust

Next: Wheels / Tires, or boost.

DSX_Camaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 05:09 PM   #12
freddyD
 
Drives: 2014summit white camaro
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Naples Florida
Posts: 238
wow
freddyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 06:31 PM   #13
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,765
Wasn't this pretty much a given?
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 06:52 PM   #14
ssrs2lt

 
ssrs2lt's Avatar
 
Drives: too many
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: oh va pa
Posts: 1,552
Always up for more hp and more options
ssrs2lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 07:22 PM   #15
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Wasn't this pretty much a given?
No it wasn't...not in my opinion.

Ford originally did not have plans to use the 3.7 V6 in the Mustang, but it was given the go ahead after the turbo 4 and the V8 because it would still enable them to offer a low entry price.

I also believe it wasn't a given because offering a V6 in a lineup that includes a performance oriented turbo 4 cylinder is a hard sell. In my mind, even though I want the V6 to be offered, even I had a hard time coming up with a good reason why you'd offer a V6 when the turbo 4 could be faster, and have better highway FE. No 60 degree V6 will match the torque of a turbo 4 cylinder when its pumped up to around 300 HP, as typically you see more TQ than HP in these applications.

But if GM goes a different route and offers a lower power, better FE base turbo 4 as the base, and a high output n/a V6 as the middle ground, then I think that makes sense.

OR

Maybe Fen is right, and they will offer a powerful turbo 4, and a powerful V6 at roughly the same, if not exact same price.

Anyways, this is the first real "confirmed" bit of news we've had engine wise on the 6th gen, so I think its pretty cool news. I think the LT1 is a given, but we have yet to hear of it going into the 6th gen, or any model that use Alpha chassis yet for that matter
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 03:41 PM   #16
mr02Z/28
 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 688
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 04:03 PM   #17
Jason@JacFab
Mad Scientist

 
Jason@JacFab's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LT Camaro; 72 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Point, OR
Posts: 3,811
Send a message via AIM to Jason@JacFab Send a message via MSN to Jason@JacFab
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
+1
__________________

Specializing in attractive "no drill" front license plate brackets for the 2010+ Camaro Check out our new website! www.jacfab.com
2010 Camaro 1SS RJT w/ SIM Stripes; M6. 12.535 @ 112.33mph SOLD!
2014 Camaro 1LT RRM; A6.JacFab No-Drill front license plate bracket... More to come...
Jason@JacFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 04:06 PM   #18
mr02Z/28
 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 688
I like variety and I honestly think a 4cyl Turbo would add more interest to the Camaro name plate .... Options can never be a bad thing ....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 09:17 PM   #19
SSmokinSS
21 smiles per gallon
 
SSmokinSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 11SS/RS-11CTS
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The Wood's Edge, NM
Posts: 586
My 2.0L turbo Solstice was a beast. It was 260hp.
Given the weight difference, a Camaro with a 300-330hp turbo 4 banger would interest me as long as the fuel mileage was above 30.
I'd still have the V8 for making children cry.
__________________
SSmokinSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 10:27 PM   #20
Cymaro
 
Cymaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro LT2/RS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSmokinSS View Post
My 2.0L turbo Solstice was a beast. It was 260hp.
Given the weight difference, a Camaro with a 300-330hp turbo 4 banger would interest me as long as the fuel mileage was above 30.
I'd still have the V8 for making children cry.
Add on the GM stage kit while keeping your warranty and make 290 hp and 340tq!
Cymaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 03:05 AM   #21
G-Mann
 
Drives: 2015 F22 M235i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
I prefer the idea of a high performance 4 cyl turbo model over one focused on fuel efficiency. In a lightweight package I think this would turn into a popular choice.

It will be interesting to see what direction GM takes but this could be the beginning of the end for the V6.

Instead of following ford GM should bust out with the first plug in hybrid offering with near current V6 performance and 45 mpg's vs a watered down 4 banger.
G-Mann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 11:40 AM   #22
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
Because a HO turbo 4 will have almost exactly the same stats as a V6, but be more expensive and less reliable than a N/A V6. I don't understand why people are so happy of that. Is it "because race car" or something?
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 01:30 PM   #23
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Because a HO turbo 4 will have almost exactly the same stats as a V6, but be more expensive and less reliable than a N/A V6. I don't understand why people are so happy of that. Is it "because race car" or something?
I didn't really intend for this thread to turn into another "for or against a 4 cylinder" topic, but I guess that's inevitable when discussing the V6.

That said, if this source is correct there will FOR SURE be a V6 in the next gen, and that alone, I think is exciting news for some people, and the potential and configurations of the V6 is what I'd like to dive into and get more opinions on.

In my mind, the only advantages of a turbo 4 over a V6 is low to mid range torque will can be much higher and also highway FE could be a tad bit better, but not much when you start talking about a 300+ HP 4 cylinder turbo engine. You could also say that it likely weighs less than a V6. Those are the reasons people are happy about a possible turbo 4. (also the tuning potential is very high, but this discussion is about stock only)

The V6 on the other hand should have a peak HP advantage, as you almost never see stock turbo 4 cylinders making 330 - 340 + HP. Usually the TQ is higher than the HP in the turbo engines.

If the V6 ends up having cylinder deactivation, then I think that washes away the highway FE advantage the turbo might have.
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 02:41 PM   #24
ssrs396
 
ssrs396's Avatar
 
Drives: 68 vert 396 13 ls
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: cruising
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
I didn't really intend for this thread to turn into another "for or against a 4 cylinder" topic, but I guess that's inevitable when discussing the V6.

That said, if this source is correct there will FOR SURE be a V6 in the next gen, and that alone, I think is exciting news for some people, and the potential and configurations of the V6 is what I'd like to dive into and get more opinions on.

In my mind, the only advantages of a turbo 4 over a V6 is low to mid range torque will can be much higher and also highway FE could be a tad bit better, but not much when you start talking about a 300+ HP 4 cylinder turbo engine. You could also say that it likely weighs less than a V6. Those are the reasons people are happy about a possible turbo 4. (also the tuning potential is very high, but this discussion is about stock only)

The V6 on the other hand should have a peak HP advantage, as you almost never see stock turbo 4 cylinders making 330 - 340 + HP. Usually the TQ is higher than the HP in the turbo engines.

If the V6 ends up having cylinder deactivation, then I think that washes away the highway FE advantage the turbo might have.
I mentioned this another time but my only fear is that I would rather have the V6 but if it is not the base model the price will increase. I love the fact that the LS is a great car at a great price point. If the 4cyl is the base car then I would have to consider it due to price point and tuning potential.
ssrs396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 02:47 PM   #25
mr02Z/28
 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 688
Unless you get a Turbo V-6 in the 6th Gen, I think the Turbo 4 would be a better bet due to the fact the Buick version of the Turbo 4 already makes 295lb/ft where as the 3.6L only makes 276lb/ft ......


adding more "boost" may make the Torque jump considerably ... just my opinion .....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

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 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.