Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List 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


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-17-2013, 10:23 AM   #323
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
My kid wants to get a car right after he gets out of college...been going back and forth on Cruze or Sonic...Might wait and add a Gen6 to the equation...lol...(He's got his heart set on a "turbo" of some kind)...
Just teach your son that turbo doesn't mean what he thinks it does. It means take a smaller engine and put an exhaust driven compressor on it to make more power than it otherwise would and still get the rough FE of the base engine. Worked great on the Buick 3.8L V6 which was awesome. I was going to get a plate that said Trbo gln or something like that because 3.8L is a gallon LOL. Sounded cooler at the time I guess.

But today it means take an anemic 1.4L and boost it so it has decent drivability and great FE. So the 1.4L T in the Sonic and Cruze has a whole different meaning. 2.0T on the other hand is no better than a good V6 for performance. You just have lighter weight and better FE than the 6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
I can only base my opinion with my experience on the Kappa platform, and in that application the 2.0T works great.
Mine looked just like the one in your sig. Had the GMPP calibration. Wish I still had it. Maybe you have mine, when did you buy it? LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
I like the kinder, gentler, Dragoneye.
I watched Dragoneye dissapear over burgers on my back deck after C5Fest. It was an amazing sight. It might take something pretty powerful to bring Dragoneye back. Mr. Wyndham is driving around in a ZL1. Dragoneye had one on order and was lusting after one for many years.

So it's kind of like wishing the butterfly could be a caterpillar again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
If the R&D budget or packaging considerations for the I-4 compromise the V8 version in any way, it's worth speaking out against it before they go too far down that rabbit hole.
The only way that happens is if you don't package for the V8 in the first place. V8 is bigger, needs more radiator and needs a bigger transmission just for starters. So if the V8 is considered from the begining this isn't an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Based on the Kappa platform, packaging is not an issue because a small block Chevy slides right in there ...
I thought Mallet had to use a hammer in a few places
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 10:52 AM   #324
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 12,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Just teach your son that turbo doesn't mean what he thinks it does. It means take a smaller engine and put an exhaust driven compressor on it to make more power than it otherwise would and still get the rough FE of the base engine. Worked great on the Buick 3.8L V6 which was awesome. I was going to get a plate that said Trbo gln or something like that because 3.8L is a gallon LOL. Sounded cooler at the time I guess.

But today it means take an anemic 1.4L and boost it so it has decent drivability and great FE. So the 1.4L T in the Sonic and Cruze has a whole different meaning. 2.0T on the other hand is no better than a good V6 for performance. You just have lighter weight and better FE than the 6.

That's sort of what I thought, but then I've been hearing that the turbo now is more of a factor at all speeds, not just when you "get on it"...that they are more reliable than before...dunno...but if you gotta get your foot into it to feel the turbo, probably kills any economy...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 11:12 AM   #325
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
That's sort of what I thought, but then I've been hearing that the turbo now is more of a factor at all speeds, not just when you "get on it"...that they are more reliable than before...dunno...but if you gotta get your foot into it to feel the turbo, probably kills any economy...
That's about how they work. Under normal driving you only have a moderate loss of economy due to the exhaust driven compressor.

But the smaller Turbos, under 1.5L you are simply getting equivalent performance to the base engine. Using Cruze/Sonic as the example you can get the same HP in either a 1.4L Turbo or a NA 1.8L. But the Turbo is the higher FE engine. So in this case you aren't getting any more driving performance.

So it really is about the equivalency the Turbo adds. Look at the 1.6L Turbo GM uses on Opels. That is still not quite the HP as the new NA 2.5L GM has in the Malibu and ATS. But it will get better FE.

Ford uses this even more. They have a 1.6L Turbo they put in the new Escape and Fusion. In the Escape that is 178 Hp which is actually higher than the base 2.5L and also gets better FE. Then they add the 2.0L T as the top end choice at 240 HP. The 1.6L T is the best for FE.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 11:40 AM   #326
LStick

 
LStick's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 2LS Red Rock
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Streetsboro Ohio
Posts: 1,209
Brother in law had one of those Iron Duke 4 cylinder Camaros. Long on looks, short on performance.
I think some of us are envisioning an entry level car, with crank windows, manual locks, and no a/c. A Camaro XFE.
LStick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 03:16 PM   #327
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,497
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by LStick View Post
Brother in law had one of those Iron Duke 4 cylinder Camaros. Long on looks, short on performance.
I think some of us are envisioning an entry level car, with crank windows, manual locks, and no a/c. A Camaro XFE.
I'd love a camaro with manual locks, windows, no AC, no Onstar and came with 550+ N/A HP for 30k. A REAL street brawler!
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 04:21 PM   #328
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
I'd love a camaro with manual locks, windows, no AC, no Onstar and came with 550+ N/A HP for 30k. A REAL street brawler!
I'm with you man.

Let's keep Pony Cars what they are. We've all seen the numerous V8 vs V6 arguments, but the fact is both sides have to agree to the simple fact: Those engines were both there from the start. You could get a 1964 1/2 Mustang with a V6 or a V8, and you could get a 1967 Camaro with a V6 or V8. Neither car had a 4-cylinder option. You want a 4-banger, fine. But dont call it a Camaro because its not. Do what Ford did in the 1980s with the Probe. Design a new model car for those clamoring for a 4-cylder Pony Car. But remember, the Ford Probe was a failure.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 04:49 PM   #329
SlingShot


 
SlingShot's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seminole, Fl.
Posts: 7,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
I'm with you man.

Let's keep Pony Cars what they are. We've all seen the numerous V8 vs V6 arguments, but the fact is both sides have to agree to the simple fact: Those engines were both there from the start. You could get a 1964 1/2 Mustang with a V6 or a V8, and you could get a 1967 Camaro with a V6 or V8. Neither car had a 4-cylinder option. You want a 4-banger, fine. But dont call it a Camaro because its not. Do what Ford did in the 1980s with the Probe. Design a new model car for those clamoring for a 4-cylder Pony Car. But remember, the Ford Probe was a failure.

There were no V6's in the first gens, in fact they didn't exist at all ...
__________________
SlingShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:03 PM   #330
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
There were no V6's in the first gens, in fact they didn't exist at all ...
There were no I-4s in any of them, either.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:28 PM   #331
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
There were no V6's in the first gens, in fact they didn't exist at all ...
The 1967 Camaro had a 6-cylinder option.
http://www.firstgencamaro.com/1967.html

So did the 1964 1/2 Mustang.
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/64-65.shtml

I see you're playing semantics, but I think everyone (including you) sees my point.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams

Last edited by Lou_Dorchen; 02-17-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:40 PM   #332
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
There were no I-4s in any of them, either.
Maybe if they had a turbo 4 back then they would have???

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:51 PM   #333
SlingShot


 
SlingShot's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seminole, Fl.
Posts: 7,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
The 1967 Camaro had a 6-cylinder option.
http://www.firstgencamaro.com/1967.html

So did the 1964 1/2 Mustang.
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/64-65.shtml

I see you're playing semantics, but I think everyone (including you) sees my point.

So did the Vette and T-Bird ... Your point is what ? You don't like it so nobody should have it ...

FYI ... I didn't have to Google it, I was alive and well back then.
__________________
SlingShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:54 PM   #334
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
So did the Vette and T-Bird ... Your point is what ? You don't like it so nobody should have it ...
My point is exactly what I said it was. If GM wants to have a 4-cylinder option, design a new model like Ford did with the Probe, but dont call it a Camaro.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 07:38 AM   #335
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
So did the Vette and T-Bird ... Your point is what ? You don't like it so nobody should have it ...

FYI ... I didn't have to Google it, I was alive and well back then.
The point also is you said it didn't exist, I was alive then too so? Instead of making a snarky comment, how about he was right on a well known Camaro fact?
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 08:07 AM   #336
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
I'm with you man.

Let's keep Pony Cars what they are. We've all seen the numerous V8 vs V6 arguments, but the fact is both sides have to agree to the simple fact: Those engines were both there from the start. You could get a 1964 1/2 Mustang with a V6 or a V8, and you could get a 1967 Camaro with a V6 or V8. Neither car had a 4-cylinder option. You want a 4-banger, fine. But dont call it a Camaro because its not. Do what Ford did in the 1980s with the Probe. Design a new model car for those clamoring for a 4-cylder Pony Car. But remember, the Ford Probe was a failure.
How many 4 cyclinder engines did Ford or GM even offer in the 60's?
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 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 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.