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 02-18-2013, 08:07 AM   #337
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,883
GM had the 153 CID four as far back as 1962 as the entry level engine for the Chevy II/Nova. Essentially half of a SBC 307 and not the 151 CID Iron Duke's predecessor.

Keep in mind that the Chevy II/Nova chassis also received inline sixxes - as well as the L79 350HP 327 which made for a car that you'd have been smart to not underestimate. Friend of mine had one of those little beasts back in the day.


I think SlingShot's point is that if you're going to talk about 1960's sixxer motors, at least identify the configuration correctly. Lancia and maybe a couple other European makes and Buick excepted, nobody was fitting V6's to cars, so generically calling all sixxes "V6" makes people sound like teenage to 20-something newbies to cars.


Kind of separately, Ford did play around with a turbo 2.3L four in the Fox chassis, but the technology was too advanced for most of the market and too far short of "mature" at the time. Being maybe a little better than the H6 Corvair or the V8 Buick turbocharging efforts in the 1960's still didn't mean it was good enough or that the market was really ready for it.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 10:11 AM   #338
Pappa Joe

 
Pappa Joe's Avatar
 
Drives: Charger/TL1000R/Cobalt/ZL1
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaroc5 View Post
Look at that those turbo neons and calibers putting out over 300hp from the factory....give the V8 a run for it's money

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

My bike is only a 2 cyl but will destroy my ZL1 in a race
Pappa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 07:22 PM   #339
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: 9,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post


Kind of separately, Ford did play around with a turbo 2.3L four in the Fox chassis, but the technology was too advanced for most of the market and too far short of "mature" at the time. Being maybe a little better than the H6 Corvair or the V8 Buick turbocharging efforts in the 1960's still didn't mean it was good enough or that the market was really ready for it.

Norm
Note that technology wasn't ahead of it's time, Ford just wasn't there yet. A friend of mine who worked on the Buick 3.8L Turbo told me they had been contacted by Ford looking get some help with the engine you mention because they weren't able to get it done. May not be fact, but I believe the guy. GM was pretty far ahead in the mid 80s in this regard.
__________________
"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 02-18-2013, 07:28 PM   #340
buckeyemike
 
buckeyemike's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro LS
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Scott AFB
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pappa Joe View Post
My bike is only a 2 cyl but will destroy my ZL1 in a race
what's power-to-weight?
buckeyemike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 09:06 PM   #341
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
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.
Either you weren't paying attention, or your memory is (putting it as politely as I can) fading.

The 1955-1957 T-Bird only came with a V8. (292 in 1955, 292 or 312 in 1956, and 292 or 312 in 1957 w/optional factory Supercharger)

You should have googled it.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2013, 09:31 PM   #342
tomlink

 
tomlink's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 2LT RS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 759
Send a message via AIM to tomlink Send a message via MSN to tomlink Send a message via Yahoo to tomlink Send a message via Skype™ to tomlink
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
You could get a 1964 1/2 Mustang with a V6 or a V8
WRONG. You could get a 200ci I6. *Inline*, not V. My Dad had one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
But remember, the Ford Probe was a failure.
In what respect? Have you ever driven a Probe? I drove one for 18 years before getting my Camaro. Ford was afraid it would take sales away from the Mustang, for good reason, and that was its only failure. Even with a 2.5 V6 it was a beast. There is more to a car than straight-line acceleration. If I could buy a brand new Probe I'd swap my Camaro in a heartbeat. It was the best balanced, best handling car I have ever owned in 40 years of driving.
tomlink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:01 AM   #343
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomlink View Post
In what respect?
Sales. The car was a failure. It was only around 8 model years, and in it's last year it was the worst selling Ford vehicle of that year.

FYI, Ford was not afraid it would take away Mustang sales, as it was touted as a possible replacement for the Mustang. But Mustang fans complained about its FWD and lack of a V8 (gasp!!!), so Ford created a new model and thus the Probe was born.

And it matters not how good the car performed in calling it a failure. If we are going to judge a product's success not by units sold, profits, increased market share, etc, but only by performance, then you would have to call Betamax a success.
__________________
'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 02-19-2013, 09:35 AM   #344
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
Sales. The car was a failure. It was only around 8 model years, and in it's last year it was the worst selling Ford vehicle of that year.

FYI, Ford was not afraid it would take away Mustang sales, as it was touted as a possible replacement for the Mustang. But Mustang fans complained about its FWD and lack of a V8 (gasp!!!), so Ford created a new model and thus the Probe was born.

And it matters not how good the car performed in calling it a failure. If we are going to judge a product's success not by units sold, profits, increased market share, etc, but only by performance, then you would have to call Betamax a success.
Betamax was awesome! I saw both of the movies made for it.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 11:06 AM   #345
justa25thTA

 
justa25thTA's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomlink View Post
WRONG. You could get a 200ci I6. *Inline*, not V. My Dad had one.


In what respect? Have you ever driven a Probe? I drove one for 18 years before getting my Camaro. Ford was afraid it would take sales away from the Mustang, for good reason, and that was its only failure. Even with a 2.5 V6 it was a beast. There is more to a car than straight-line acceleration. If I could buy a brand new Probe I'd swap my Camaro in a heartbeat. It was the best balanced, best handling car I have ever owned in 40 years of driving.

doubtful
__________________
Yeah, I'll get around to it...
justa25thTA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 11:08 AM   #346
justa25thTA

 
justa25thTA's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,615
The Mustang SVO was a limited-production version of the Ford Mustang sold from 1984 to 1986, during which time it was the fastest, most expensive version of the Mustang available. Although it departed both physically and mechanically from any prior version of the Mustang, it held the same spot within the lineup, both in terms of performance over "lesser" variants and in prestige, as had variants such as the Shelby tuned and "BOSS" Mustangs of the 1960s and 70s.


Still ultimately concerned with issues such as fuel consumption and emissions, SVO engineers opted to pass over the venerable production 4.9 liter V-8 in lieu of an updated, turbocharged, and stronger version of Ford's 2.3 liter inline four, originally used in the Pinto. Endowing the engine with an advanced, computer controlled fuel injection system and an intercooled turbocharger system helped push power output to 175 horsepower, fairly high for the time. In addition, a "fuel grade" switch was added to the dash, allowing the driver to adjust the vehicle's performance level depending on if premium or standard grade fuel was being used. A factory installed Hurst shifter was made standard in order to improve feel and quickness. With fine tuning and the addition of a new water-cooling system, power output rose to 200 horsepower (149 kW) for 1986 (205 horsepower (153 kW) for 439 85.5 SVOs). Also the 1986 SVO had new "aero" headlights. These headlights were designed for the 1984 model, but regulations would not allow them to be used until the mid-1985 update. The vehicle's standard Borg-Warner 5-speed manual transmission was updated then as well, receiving revised gearing to match the new 3:73 rear end ratio,
__________________
Yeah, I'll get around to it...
justa25thTA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 12:08 PM   #347
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 11,853
Some of the best economy cars made were in the early sixties with the Ford Falcon and the Chevy Nova....They didn't sell, so to speak...Customers wanted more hp, performance, etc., and weren't that interested in "economy"...

Interesting now how an I-4 Camaro is discussed and compared with the Pinto and other cars that were a "joke"...Hope that doesn't become the case with the new Camaro I-4, same breath as Honda, Hyundai, etc.. but as you can see, memories die hard...lol

I also can't help but think of the future horrors in these forums...lol...Once the ricer crowd starts with their intellectual input, and arguing with muscle car fans...God help us all...lol
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 04:47 PM   #348
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by justa25thTA View Post
The Mustang SVO was a limited-production version of the Ford Mustang sold from 1984 to 1986, during which time it was the fastest, most expensive version of the Mustang available. Although it departed both physically and mechanically from any prior version of the Mustang, it held the same spot within the lineup, both in terms of performance over "lesser" variants and in prestige, as had variants such as the Shelby tuned and "BOSS" Mustangs of the 1960s and 70s.


Still ultimately concerned with issues such as fuel consumption and emissions, SVO engineers opted to pass over the venerable production 4.9 liter V-8 in lieu of an updated, turbocharged, and stronger version of Ford's 2.3 liter inline four, originally used in the Pinto. Endowing the engine with an advanced, computer controlled fuel injection system and an intercooled turbocharger system helped push power output to 175 horsepower, fairly high for the time. In addition, a "fuel grade" switch was added to the dash, allowing the driver to adjust the vehicle's performance level depending on if premium or standard grade fuel was being used. A factory installed Hurst shifter was made standard in order to improve feel and quickness. With fine tuning and the addition of a new water-cooling system, power output rose to 200 horsepower (149 kW) for 1986 (205 horsepower (153 kW) for 439 85.5 SVOs). Also the 1986 SVO had new "aero" headlights. These headlights were designed for the 1984 model, but regulations would not allow them to be used until the mid-1985 update. The vehicle's standard Borg-Warner 5-speed manual transmission was updated then as well, receiving revised gearing to match the new 3:73 rear end ratio,
If 4 cylinder turbo is so great, swap out your LS3 for one. You could easily fit it in there. If I get you the 4 will you give me that nasty 6.2 liter V8 from your SS?
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:50 AM   #349
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
If 4 cylinder turbo is so great, swap out your LS3 for one. You could easily fit it in there. If I get you the 4 will you give me that nasty 6.2 liter V8 from your SS?
We aren't talking about the same kind of buyer.

I wouldn't buy an I4 or I4-T Camaro (or in a Mustang or a Challenger for that matter) if a V8 with MT was available. So let me try to describe the other kind of potential buyer.

Back in the 1970's, my sister and her hubby owned a Challenger, so they aren't exactly strangers to ponycar ownership. They're now empty-nesters, and my B-I-L no longer drives (health issues). Nobody in the family would be comfortable about my sister having 400+ HP available in anything. She isn't technically inclined and for her and the driving she does, engine configuration is utterly without importance.

I really think there are more people like her than like you or me. Of course they don't show up on enthusiast fora, so you simply don't "see" them when you're surrounded by people more like-minded to yourself.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 02:40 PM   #350
Stealthpanda
Thread Ender
 
Stealthpanda's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS L99
Join Date: May 2011
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,039
Alot of people are missing the point, wont ever get the point, and dont want to get the point. Good reason this thread wont die. Some people ONLY want to own a Camaro with a V8 in it. Some didnt care, and thought the 300+ hp V6 was all they would ever need, and they still might even think that way to this day. Both of these situations are completely understandable. Some people are just way more adamant about things than others.
Stealthpanda 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 09:10 PM.


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