[mgwarlock]

Got a 2012 LT and four years dreaming of V8.

2016 got a SS to end sufferings.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Originally Posted by mgwarlock

Got a 2012 LT and four years dreaming of V8.

2016 got a SS to end sufferings.

Thanks for the words of wisdom. We need more members like you on this form you contribute so much I don't know what we would do without you

[Hops]

Really don't get the fixation on engine, and how it generates somewhat heated conversation, they're both are great. And to counter some of the comments in this thread: The v6 1le very much belongs on the track, and is a performance car. It's engineered for the use, and GM openly warranties a tracked v6 1le (as is does the ss). It doesn't do too bad on the track either:

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...ry-car-feature

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Hops

Really don't get the fixation on engine, and how it generates somewhat heated conversation, they're both ... great.

That wasn't always the case, and unfortunately the image of 6-cylinders equaling poor performance didn't die out with the old pushrod inline sixxes.

When these cars (yours and mine both) first came out, the 6-cylinder engines fitted to them were inline engines fed through a single one-barrel carburetor on a not-very-flow-efficient rake manifold (and a few other low-performance choices as well) that made roughly 35 HP/liter, maybe 40 HP/L tops.

Oh yeah, that's if I use the old gross HP numbers that were advertised. In today's net-HP context, that'd be more like 30 - 33 HP/L. And with only 2.8 - 3.8 liters (170 - 231-ish CID) worth of it in most cases (there were a couple all the way out to 4.1L/250 CID) there just wasn't much power available at any rpm. Think 90 - 125 at the crank . . . or what takes only about two cylinders of today's 6.2 to make.

I guess you could rev them a bit past 4000 rpm, if you were feeling particularly mean that day.


Not that all inline sixxes were like that; the Jaguar 3.8 and 4.6 sixxes were DOHC and Pontiac toyed with SOHC versions that were significantly stronger than the pushrod sixxes and were happier to considerably higher rpms.


Norm

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

That wasn't always the case, and unfortunately the image of 6-cylinders equaling poor performance didn't die out with the old pushrod inline sixxes.

When these cars (yours and mine both) first came out, the 6-cylinder engines fitted to them were inline engines fed through a single one-barrel carburetor on a not-very-flow-efficient rake manifold (and a few other low-performance choices as well) that made roughly 35 HP/liter, maybe 40 HP/L tops.

Oh yeah, that's if I use the old gross HP numbers that were advertised. In today's net-HP context, that'd be more like 30 - 33 HP/L. And with only 2.8 - 3.8 liters (170 - 231-ish CID) worth of it in most cases (there were a couple all the way out to 4.1L/250 CID) there just wasn't much power available at any rpm. Think 90 - 125 at the crank . . . or what takes only about two cylinders of today's 6.2 to make.

I guess you could rev them a bit past 4000 rpm, if you were feeling particularly mean that day.


Not that all inline sixxes were like that; the Jaguar 3.8 and 4.6 sixxes were DOHC and Pontiac toyed with SOHC versions that were significantly stronger than the pushrod sixxes and were happier to considerably higher rpms.


Norm

Don't forget the 240Z, it had a 2.4L inline 6 that revved to 7K. Great affordable performance car that could handle too.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Don't forget the 240Z, it had a 2.4L inline 6 that revved to 7K. Great affordable performance car that could handle too.

For sure I shouldn't have missed that one. I can still rattle off the names of more than half a dozen people I knew that had either that car or its 2.6L successor.


Norm

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

For sure I shouldn't have missed that one. I can still rattle off the names of more than half a dozen people I knew that had either that car or its 2.6L successor.


Norm

They were outstanding in terms of performance per dollar. It almost fits the bill for a muscle car or pony car, depending on your definition of those terms. Not sure where they lost there way, but the 370Z is not following enough of the original formula anymore.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

They were outstanding in terms of performance per dollar. It almost fits the bill for a muscle car or pony car, depending on your definition of those terms. Not sure where they lost there way, but the 370Z is not following enough of the original formula anymore.

I'd put the start at the introduction of the 280ZX.

And then there's influence from Carlos Ghosn (aka "Mr. CVT").


Norm

[autocross]

Why is the aftermarket for the Camaro so much smaller than the mustang? I found just about every part under the sun for the mustang, and numerous variations of that one part. Best of all, the parts are generally relatively cheap.

The camaro didn’t have that many parts in comparison, and those parts were a lot more expensive. why is this?

I really like the V6, but it kind of bugs me how small the aftermarket is. I have access to more power modifications for my old truck than this car. I am not sure why people aren’t making turbo kits because the exhaust was designed for it!

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Originally Posted by autocross

Why is the aftermarket for the Camaro so much smaller than the mustang? I found just about every part under the sun for the mustang, and numerous variations of that one part. Best of all, the parts are generally relatively cheap.

The camaro didn’t have that many parts in comparison, and those parts were a lot more expensive. why is this?

I really like the V6, but it kind of bugs me how small the aftermarket is. I have access to more power modifications for my old truck than this car. I am not sure why people aren’t making turbo kits because the exhaust was designed for it!

I am with you on that there's not a lot of aftermarket for the V6. It's good for guys that are just going to drop an intake on it maybe do something with the exhaust and drive it.

That would give you a good 10 horsepower we've got results on the V6 section proving it.

That brings you up to aboat 350 hp which is pretty good for a car of it's price

But if you're looking to do more you have to look at the overkill and that's about it

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by autocross

I really like the V6, but it kind of bugs me how small the aftermarket is.

The aftermarket for 6 cylinder power mods has always been like that, probably because most people looking specifically for V8 levels of power went with a V8 in the first place. Keep in mind that the U.S. automotive hobby has always been more about big power with a V8 rumble than about achieving even a semblance of balance between acceleration and cornering.

I have access to more power modifications for my old truck than this car.

If the traditional SBC (pre-LS), BBC, and Windsor-based SBF didn't define the backbone of the aftermarket, they were damn close to it. And with that kind of volume comes competition and a certain amount of pressure to hold prices down. Which in turn makes it easier for more people to get involved.

I am not sure why people aren’t making turbo kits because the exhaust was designed for it!

It's hard to make a business case for developing something like that when being able to sell enough units to cover costs and actually generate a little profit is uncertain at best. But perhaps there are a few individual efforts, more like what hotrodding was like in its very earliest days.


Norm

[mdhopt36]

I think it's simpler than that. V6 is pretty well optimized in stock form.
The power developed to the size displacement is amazing for a NA engine.
ie, it's barely more than half the displacement of the 6.2
The 6.2 develops only about 35% more ponies.
Throw in the typical V6 car is 300# lighter, and you get a heck of a bang-for-the-buck situation.
My 2 pennies worth.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by autocross

Why is the aftermarket for the Camaro so much smaller than the mustang? I found just about every part under the sun for the mustang, and numerous variations of that one part. Best of all, the parts are generally relatively cheap.

The camaro didn’t have that many parts in comparison, and those parts were a lot more expensive. why is this?

I really like the V6, but it kind of bugs me how small the aftermarket is. I have access to more power modifications for my old truck than this car. I am not sure why people aren’t making turbo kits because the exhaust was designed for it!

Well, as others have said, this (V6) engine is already well optimized. There really isn't much room for gains. It already has a good intake, so a cold-air intake won't add much (but it will make it look nicer). The exhaust manifold is built into the head, so you can't do headers. You can get a ported throttle body, but that won't add much (just help the throttle feel). Plus, if you go with turbos, you end up with about the same HP as the V8 in the SS. And for the price you would pay for the two turbos, intercoolers, etc., you could have just went with the V8 in the first place, and have a warranty. Not to mention, the ATS-V has a 3.6L V6 twin-turbo, but it uses liquid cooled secondary side intercoolers (charge-air coolers). If you want to go that route, it will cost you even more. You may want to look into an E85 tune (if you have the fuel available nearby). That could get you some good gains for the money.

So, the question is, what SPECIFICALLY are you looking for? Cam and/or heads? Intake manifold? Turbo kit? Supercharger kit? Porting the heads/manifold? Stroking the engine?

If it were me, and I wanted the lighter weight of the V6, and wanted significant gains, I would probably look into supercharging it. Much less plumbing than turbos, so it would be much easier to fit, and you can get some significant gains. Plus, it's not outrageously expensive (comparatively speaking).

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by mdhopt36

I think it's simpler than that. V6 is pretty well optimized in stock form.
The power developed to the size displacement is amazing for a NA engine.

Agreed, and particularly for a car specifically intended for easy street driving. To go much past its 93 HP/liter level would almost certainly require several hundred more usable rpm and end up costing more than a few ft*lbs torque at the low end (where most people drive most of the time). Hundred HP/L NA engines usually come with redline rpms starting with '8'.


Norm