Homepage Garage Wiki Register 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


Phastek Performance


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-23-2023, 11:19 AM   #57
Martinjlm
Retired from GM
 
Martinjlm's Avatar
 
Drives: 2017 Camaro Fifty SS Convertible
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Part of the rationale for transitioning to EVs was that ICE technology had suddenly peaked out and nothing better with ICE was feasible or worth pursuing. Remember that little pearl of "wisdom"? This had been determined back in 2017 or whenever the big decision to go all EV was supposedly made...lol

This new ICE V-8 must be a real dog, or at least nothing to get real excited about. If they tout it as an "improvement" then Winston Smith will have a new assignment real soon.
It was under development before the switch to EV. I was still there at the time. If it is still what it was intended to be when I was there, it is focused on making certain that the vehicles who use it are in better position to meet 2026 commercial vehicle emissions regulations and competitive with other commercial vehicles that will be in market at the time.

Real question… who is Winston Smith?

***EDIT*** Nevermind. Orwell’s ghost paid me a visit.
__________________
2017 CAMARO FIFTY SS CONVERTIBLE
A8 | MRC | NPP | Nav | HUD | GM Performance CAI | Tony Mamo LT1 V2 Ported TB | Kooks 1-7/8Ē LT Headers | FlexFuel Tune | Thinkware Q800 Pro front and rear dash cam | Charcoal Tint for Taillights and 3rd Brakelight | Orange and Carbon Fiber Bowties | 1LE Wheels in Gunmetal Gray | Carbon Fiber Interior Overlays | Novistretch bra and mirror covers | Tow hitch for bicycle rack |



Last edited by Martinjlm; 01-23-2023 at 11:31 AM.
Martinjlm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 11:19 AM   #58
arpad_m


 
arpad_m's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Camaro 2SS A8
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevyRules View Post
Right.....

Cause an engine that could make more power, burns less fuel, and runs cleaner than the current version is destruction to the industry and technology.....

Were you like this when they went to fuel injection? Addition of cats? iPhone debut? iPad?
The differences are minuscule. The LT6 makes more horsepower mostly because it revs so high, its torque is practically the same as that of the LT1. Fuel economy on the C8 Z06 is the same (base) or worse (Z07) than with the supercharged(!) Camaro ZL1, despite the car weighing 4-500 pounds less. I could not find precise emissions information, so I will not comment on the "runs cleaner" part.

I don't think that is anything to write home about this DOHC in terms of power or fuel economy. It is definitely better and more innovative in some ways, but not by much.
__________________
2018 Camaro 2SS ó G7E MX0 NPP F55 IO6
735 rwhp | 665 rwtq

Magnuson TVS 2300 80mm pulley | Kooks 1 7/8" LT headers | JRE smooth idle terminator cam | LT4 FS & injectors | TSP forged pistons & rods
JMS PowerMAX | DSX flex fuel kit | Roto-Fab CAI | Soler 95mm LT5 TB | 1LE wheels | 1LE brakes | BMR rear cradle lockout | JRE custom tune

1100 - 1/30/18 | 2000 - 1/31/18
3000 - 2/06/18 TPW 2/26/18
3400 - 2/19/18 | 3800 - 2/26/18
4300 - 2/27/18 | 4B00 - 3/01/18
4200 - 3/05/18 | 4800 - 3/14/18
5000 - 3/16/18 | 6000 - 3/19/18
arpad_m is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 11:29 AM   #59
ChevyRules

 
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by arpad_m View Post
The differences are minuscule. The LT6 makes more horsepower mostly because it revs so high, its torque is practically the same as that of the LT1. Fuel economy on the C8 Z06 is the same (base) or worse (Z07) than with the supercharged(!) Camaro ZL1, despite the car weighing 4-500 pounds less. I could not find precise emissions information, so I will not comment on the "runs cleaner" part.

I don't think that is anything to write home about this DOHC in terms of power or fuel economy. It is definitely better and more innovative in some ways, but not by much.
I don't see any reason why the Gen VI Small Block V8's would make less power( certainly not a 1980's repeat). The switch to DOHC would combat cold start emissions which is a challenge for big displacement engines( thus run cleaner part of my comment).

Like it or not, there are limitations to OHV. If GM can't get OHV to meet the 2027 MY emission standards, they will switch to DOHC.
ChevyRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 11:33 AM   #60
KingLT1


 
KingLT1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 1SS NFG A8
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: 46804
Posts: 6,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevyRules View Post
I wasn't referencing LT6. I was referencing this potential DOHC Gen VI V8 to replace the current OHV Gen V truck V8's. I don't see any reason why the Gen VI Small Block V8's would make less power( certainly not a 1980's repeat). The switch to DOHC would combat cold start emissions( thus run cleaner part of my comment).

Like it or not, there are limitations to OHV. If GM can't get OHV to meet the 2027 MY emission standards, they will switch to DOHC.
They can make any SBC OHV engine meet emissions standards with E85. But it doesn't fit the narrative.
__________________
2016 NFG 1SS A8
Options-2SS Leather/NPP
Perf. mods-Whipple 2.9/Fuel System/Flex Fuel/103mm TB/Rotofab Big Gulp/Cat Deletes/Corsa NPP
Per. times- 10.5 @ 137 w/ 1.8 60ft Full weight on 20's 1200DA
KingLT1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 11:35 AM   #61
ChevyRules

 
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLT1 View Post
They can make any SBC OHV engine meet emissions standards with E85. But it doesn't fit the narrative.
Then that vehicle would only be legal if filled with E85 at least for emissions purposes..... But then you would hurt your fuel economy......

This is literally turning into a, " I don't like this, so I will throw every excuse in my temper tantrum" discussion when change occurs.

And I am ignoring the EV transition here. Strictly talking about a switch from OHV->DOHC.

People will get over an architecture change much like people got over the loss of the retractable headlights on C6, loss of round tail lights on C7, and the move to a mid-engine architecture on the C8 Corvette.
ChevyRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 11:40 AM   #62
arpad_m


 
arpad_m's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Camaro 2SS A8
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevyRules View Post
Then that vehicle would only be legal if filled with E85 at least for emissions purposes..... But then you would hurt your fuel economy......

This is literally turning into a, " I don't like this, so I will throw every excuse in my temper tantrum" discussion when change occurs.

And I am ignoring the EV transition here. Strictly talking about a switch from OHV->DOHC.
Where do you see the "temper tantrum" in either my or King's posts?

DOHC and OHV technologies are practically the same age, both are over 100 years old, and there have been some flip-flops between the two, as both have distinct advantages and drawbacks. The "you are neo-luddites resisting change" argument has therefore little merit here, as has the implication of them representing distinct, successive stages on a one-way "evolution path".
__________________
2018 Camaro 2SS ó G7E MX0 NPP F55 IO6
735 rwhp | 665 rwtq

Magnuson TVS 2300 80mm pulley | Kooks 1 7/8" LT headers | JRE smooth idle terminator cam | LT4 FS & injectors | TSP forged pistons & rods
JMS PowerMAX | DSX flex fuel kit | Roto-Fab CAI | Soler 95mm LT5 TB | 1LE wheels | 1LE brakes | BMR rear cradle lockout | JRE custom tune

1100 - 1/30/18 | 2000 - 1/31/18
3000 - 2/06/18 TPW 2/26/18
3400 - 2/19/18 | 3800 - 2/26/18
4300 - 2/27/18 | 4B00 - 3/01/18
4200 - 3/05/18 | 4800 - 3/14/18
5000 - 3/16/18 | 6000 - 3/19/18
arpad_m is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 11:45 AM   #63
ChevyRules

 
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by arpad_m View Post
Where do you see the "temper tantrum" in either my or King's posts?

DOHC and OHV technologies are practically the same age, both are over 100 years old, and there have been some flip-flops between the two, as both have distinct advantages and drawbacks. The "you are neo-luddites resisting change" argument has therefore little merit here.
Cause the suggestion GM can just use E85 to meet emissions in 2027 using OHV is literally trying to find a way to resist such a change of architecture.

It's a complete non-starter of a suggestion cause E85 is not the main fuel used. It would be like me suggesting GM just go completely EV in 2027 instead. Both are impractical.
ChevyRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 12:36 PM   #64
m6-lt1

 
m6-lt1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2023 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by arpad_m View Post
The differences are minuscule. The LT6 makes more horsepower mostly because it revs so high, its torque is practically the same as that of the LT1. Fuel economy on the C8 Z06 is the same (base) or worse (Z07) than with the supercharged(!) Camaro ZL1, despite the car weighing 4-500 pounds less. I could not find precise emissions information, so I will not comment on the "runs cleaner" part.

I don't think that is anything to write home about this DOHC in terms of power or fuel economy. It is definitely better and more innovative in some ways, but not by much.
Youíre using an extreme case of a DOHC engine. An NA fpc DOHC engine is always going to burn more gas than a higher displacement ovh engine or a lower revving DOHC engine. Always has, always will. Ferraris are much lighter than Camaros and mustangs but their mpgs are atrocious when comparing the two (unless you bring the gt350 into play). That being said the issue at hand is emissions, not necessarily mpg. Getting a high displacement ovh engine (remember displacement has to be high in order for a pushrod engine to make any type of power) to pass cold start emissions is a tough task. While I canít prove this, there was a rumor that the reason the supercharged LT4 even exists is because Chevy wanted the c7 z06 to be NA but they couldnít pass cold start emissions while making the power they were targeting via a traditional high displacement ovh engine. I feel like this rumor is true and thatís why the LT6 exists in its current configuration.

The other reason why GM might make DOHC engines is because of displacement taxes on cars in Europe. While I believe these taxes to be BS because of the mpg being the same as smaller displacement DOHC engines (as you sort of brought up) Iím sure these taxes can deter purchases of GM commercial vehicles there.

By the way, Iím not a DOHC fan. If I was, Iíd have bought a mustang, not a camaro. Just stating what I believe to be fact about cold start emissions and why GM might make a switch (even though I think itís silly to invest in an architecture change for literally only 12 years).
m6-lt1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 12:50 PM   #65
genxer
 
Drives: multiple cars
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper the friendly G View Post
The V6 is a DOHC.
Yeah the 3.6, don't care.

The pushrods are and have been short-changed. There should have be no going back from the 427 small-block. A V6 from that would be the best handling front engine vehicle, and a strong truck motor.

Cold-start and emmissions is an excuse for streamlined production bean-counting. There has to be a combo of dual plugs, or egr, or concentric cam, that works. Dohc is regulatory machine bigotry.
genxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 12:53 PM   #66
ChevyRules

 
Drives: 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR
Join Date: May 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by m6-lt1 View Post
You’re using an extreme case of a DOHC engine. An NA fpc DOHC engine is always going to burn more gas than a higher displacement ovh engine or a lower revving DOHC engine. Always has, always will. Ferraris are much lighter than Camaros and mustangs but their mpgs are atrocious when comparing the two (unless you bring the gt350 into play). That being said the issue at hand is emissions, not necessarily mpg. Getting a high displacement ovh engine (remember displacement has to be high in order for a pushrod engine to make any type of power) to pass cold start emissions is a tough task. While I can’t prove this, there was a rumor that the reason the supercharged LT4 even exists is because Chevy wanted the c7 z06 to be NA but they couldn’t pass cold start emissions while making the power they were targeting via a traditional high displacement ovh engine. I feel like this rumor is true and that’s why the LT6 exists in its current configuration.

The other reason why GM might make DOHC engines is because of displacement taxes on cars in Europe. While I believe these taxes to be BS because of the mpg being the same as smaller displacement DOHC engines (as you sort of brought up) I’m sure these taxes can deter purchases of GM commercial vehicles there.

By the way, I’m not a DOHC fan. If I was, I’d have bought a mustang, not a camaro. Just stating what I believe to be fact about cold start emissions and why GM might make a switch (even though I think it’s silly to invest in an architecture change for literally only 12 years).
Yep.

If I recall correctly, the double spray with the fuel injectors GM does with the LT1 at cold start is a way to help with cold start emissions.

Look I am not here to bash ones preferences. If you like OHV over DOHC, fine. I just tire of the hand wringing. " Oh they can just use E85!" or the usual scape goat of, " DAMN GOVERNMENT".

It's the same hand wringing people did over the C6 losing the retractable headlights, C7 losing round taillights, and C8 going over mid-engine. You had the usual outcry from the fans/purists, but they moved on eventually. It will be the same with DOHC.
ChevyRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 12:59 PM   #67
genxer
 
Drives: multiple cars
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 421
I'd rather see the Vette go away first. Tech guys can go that way and be happy with their EV.
genxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 01:01 PM   #68
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by LT4Greg View Post
Maybe thereís hope for a 7gen Camaro now. I wonít be getting rid of my 6 gen ZL1 though.
If there is a Gen7 it will be an EV. I believe we will get a 2 door EV performance car from GM. Just what brand and model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fastz28 View Post
One thing that I think gets overlooked is motorsports. Chevrolet has been involved in motorsports since its inception almost. And the Camaro/Corvette has been involved in many racing series over the years. This commitment to racing could make it hard to completely drop ICE powertrains. While i think that in general, shifting the majority of drivers to EV is beneficial, there are definitely use cases for Gasoline/Diesel.
Race on Sunday, sell on Monday. If you aren't racing what you are selling then what's the point?

That being said Cadillac and Andretti racing are proposing an F1 team so there is that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro View Post
Ditto. I will wait until recharge times come down to the 5 - 7 minute margin before I consider one.
Soon. Likely more people working on this every day than ICEs now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devstrike View Post
This big time forcing people into something they won't buy is a bad business decision.
You aren't being forced. GM at least is doing this voluntarily and likely for stock price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by genxer View Post
F**k no to dohcs.
I'm holding a glimmer of hope they'll make a killer v6.
To paraphrase Tadge Juechter, why do I want to pay a LOT more for an engine that get's no more HP and no better real world fuel economy. It was actually explored for Corvette years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by genxer View Post
Yeah the 3.6, don't care.

The pushrods are and have been short-changed. There should have be no going back from the 427 small-block. A V6 from that would be the best handling front engine vehicle, and a strong truck motor.

Cold-start and emmissions is an excuse for streamlined production bean-counting. There has to be a combo of dual plugs, or egr, or concentric cam, that works. Dohc is regulatory machine bigotry.
Ok, you may need to just trust the fact that emissions targets are real and they are expensive. Has nothing to do with bean counters.

As for a V6 made from the 427? LOL GM did that twice resulting in 2 push rod V6s that were frankly not all that great. A 90 degree V6 has all kinds of problems that require balance shafts and added cost. And then there is the can't rev so won't make the same power.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 01:13 PM   #69
genxer
 
Drives: multiple cars
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 421
They kept the stale one off the 350 too long. Didn't make the genV big enough. Complaints about nvh or rev's are weak.

No need to re-start the GM butt-covering; insider or not.
genxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2023, 01:19 PM   #70
arpad_m


 
arpad_m's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Camaro 2SS A8
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by m6-lt1 View Post
Youíre using an extreme case of a DOHC engine. An NA fpc DOHC engine is always going to burn more gas than a higher displacement ovh engine or a lower revving DOHC engine. Always has, always will. Ferraris are much lighter than Camaros and mustangs but their mpgs are atrocious when comparing the two (unless you bring the gt350 into play). That being said the issue at hand is emissions, not necessarily mpg. Getting a high displacement ovh engine (remember displacement has to be high in order for a pushrod engine to make any type of power) to pass cold start emissions is a tough task. While I canít prove this, there was a rumor that the reason the supercharged LT4 even exists is because Chevy wanted the c7 z06 to be NA but they couldnít pass cold start emissions while making the power they were targeting via a traditional high displacement ovh engine. I feel like this rumor is true and thatís why the LT6 exists in its current configuration.

The other reason why GM might make DOHC engines is because of displacement taxes on cars in Europe. While I believe these taxes to be BS because of the mpg being the same as smaller displacement DOHC engines (as you sort of brought up) Iím sure these taxes can deter purchases of GM commercial vehicles there.

By the way, Iím not a DOHC fan. If I was, Iíd have bought a mustang, not a camaro. Just stating what I believe to be fact about cold start emissions and why GM might make a switch (even though I think itís silly to invest in an architecture change for literally only 12 years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevyRules View Post
Yep.

If I recall correctly, the double spray with the fuel injectors GM does with the LT1 at cold start is a way to help with cold start emissions.

Look I am not here to bash ones preferences. If you like OHV over DOHC, fine. I just tire of the hand wringing. " Oh they can just use E85!" or the usual scape goat of, " DAMN GOVERNMENT".

It's the same hand wringing people did over the C6 losing the retractable headlights, C7 losing round taillights, and C8 going over mid-engine. You had the usual outcry from the fans/purists, but they moved on eventually. It will be the same with DOHC.
Thanks for these comments, guys, I think we are having a quite enjoyable and civilized discussion. I am not an OHV "fan" either, although I will say that I love the sound of a cross plane crank V8 and flat plane crank engines just turn me off, but that is purely subjective, unlike everything else I've said before (btw I think the GT350 is a fantastic hybrid of the two).

I would not advocate E85 out of the box either, it's simply not available widely enough and its low price is dependent on subsidies. While I did upgrade to flex fuel and am loving it, this probably wouldn't be a sustainable proposition for the Camaro, there is no way E85 emission metrics would be accepted by the EPA when 90%+ of buyers would just use 93.

Two things, however. First, you pretend that there is a clear OHV to DOHC evolution and derive your point of "innovate/evolve or die" approach from it, which I don't see. These have traded blows over decades and as I said, they have both advantages and drawbacks. Incidentally, monstrosities like displacement taxes in Europe strongly favor DOHC, but one you quite simply introduce overall size or weight or material use or design complexity taxes that would then favor OHV configurationsóeither way, this is arbitrary and quite biased at the moment, since instead of a real world metric (such as size, weight or fuel economy), it focuses on an arbitrary sub-spec (cylinder displacement).

Also, mandated and less and less achievable fuel economy standards are clearly targeting the mandated phasing out of ICE engines, similar metrics could be devised if someone hypothetically wanted to phase out EVs (say, maximum battery size, overall powertrain weight or minimum charging time that are relentlessly made more impossible each year).

Second, cold start emissionsóI will admit that I'm out of my depth here, but I could never understand why the first 10 or 15 seconds after cold starting an engine matters so much. It doesn't feel like a frequent occurrence even when multiplied by the number of vehicles on the road, considering a typical runtime per trip, and even less when considering trip interruption counts and the fact that these are typically followed by warm starts. In other words, why do the regulators care so much about cold start emissions? @Martinjlm, do you have any insights perhaps?
__________________
2018 Camaro 2SS ó G7E MX0 NPP F55 IO6
735 rwhp | 665 rwtq

Magnuson TVS 2300 80mm pulley | Kooks 1 7/8" LT headers | JRE smooth idle terminator cam | LT4 FS & injectors | TSP forged pistons & rods
JMS PowerMAX | DSX flex fuel kit | Roto-Fab CAI | Soler 95mm LT5 TB | 1LE wheels | 1LE brakes | BMR rear cradle lockout | JRE custom tune

1100 - 1/30/18 | 2000 - 1/31/18
3000 - 2/06/18 TPW 2/26/18
3400 - 2/19/18 | 3800 - 2/26/18
4300 - 2/27/18 | 4B00 - 3/01/18
4200 - 3/05/18 | 4800 - 3/14/18
5000 - 3/16/18 | 6000 - 3/19/18
arpad_m is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

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 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.