[Cam#7]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

I haven't seen any mileage numbers for the LT1 in a CTS. You are comparing apples to oranges. The ONE guy talking about the vette didn't say what the mileage was for the two engines, but he implied they weren't much different. It could be the gearing they used was optimal for a NA LT1 and not the turbocharged V6. It makes a difference. There are just too many vehichles out there now where manufacturers have opted for the turbo 6 over the large V8 because they got better gas mileage to make this much of one oblique statement about one car without any real data provided.

Show me the data for one vehichle where the large V8 makes the same power as the TTV6 and as good or better fuel economy. That's all I'm asking.

Does the TT have the advantage of using regular gas versus one of the V8s ? Camaro made a big break through when introducing the 2010 V6 with 29mpg and regular gas.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Cam#7

Does the TT have the advantage of using regular gas versus one of the V8s ? Camaro made a big break through when introducing the 2010 V6 with 29mpg and regular gas.

Nope, the LF3 requires premium gas.

[Cam#7]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Nope, the LF3 requires premium gas.

Then I agree it makes no sense to use in the Gen6. Maybe a Europeon version since that seems to be a draw there.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

I think you are reading a lot into the statement made by one guy about one car (the Stingray) to come up with this broad generalization. If not, can you provide the quote in full so we can all see?

The statement wasn't just make by "one guy"...it was made by the Corvette chief engineer, who was quoted in Hotrod magazine as saying "the LT1 is faster, more responsive, and more efficient than a twin-turbo V6"

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Show me the data for one vehichle where the large V8 makes the same power as the TTV6 and as good or better fuel economy. That's all I'm asking.

Show me the data where a TTV6 gets better fuel economy than a V8.

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

That is exactly the point and it is vailid. If you a engine that makes sufficient torque 2000 RPM to push the car at 70 MPH without lugging, and another engine that makes the same torque at 1200 RPM, then you would want different gearing to get optimal fuel economy for those two engines. So if they designed the transmission and differental gearing for the Stingray to work optimally with the torque curve of a 3.1L V4 (what the LT1 is running as when getting high fuel economy), then just stuck the TTV6 in there as a comparison, then they weren't trying to get the best mileage out of the V6 where they? Again, show me the data!

I don't know how gearing adds anything to this debate. It's not like the TTV6 and NA V8 would have much if any difference at all in gearing. They'd probably run within 100 rpm of each other at 70. The compression ratio differences between FI and NA would have more effect on efficiency than that. And if they didn't, if the V8 was able to run significantly slower than the TTV6 without lugging, wouldn't that seem to contradict the low RPM torque argument turbo proponents always make.

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

What people like is that V8 rumble that is still possible with the LT1. If it weren't for that, it would change the argument significantly. I think the argument would be more about reliablity than anything else as some would say they want the TQ of the turbos, while others would say they'd rather have the N/A V8 and avoid costly turbo failure.

Exactly...I'd also like to add the more linear response/power delivery of a NA engine compared to a turbo engine.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I think many people just kind of like to forget that the LT1 has to go into 4 cylinder mode to get the gas mileage that puts it on par or slightly better than the forced induction V6. (in the Corvette)

People think "V8 gets the same mileage as TTV6"...but thats not an accurate assessment. Its not a simple V8 vs TTV6 discussion here.

What people like is that V8 rumble that is still possible with the LT1. If it weren't for that, it would change the argument significantly. I think the argument would be more about reliablity than anything else as some would say they want the TQ of the turbos, while others would say they'd rather have the N/A V8 and avoid costly turbo failure.

The LF3 and LS3 put out similar power while getting similar MPG.

[wakespeak]

I can't see why a twin turbo v-6 would make sense. More expensive to build, maintain, and warranty fix than a naturally aspirated engine. Fuel economy in the real world is a wash. I would take simpler, smoother V-8 that can run AC and have some grunt at low rpms any day.

[shrinkdoc]

Originally Posted by SC2150

It might, but thats only 420hp.....you can get a turbo or SC and have 500 plus right now.

Please explain further.