[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Ace01

They have the engines, just do it GM. Some one should make a turbo kit for the current 3.6 to make 400HP

GM is already getting 415 out of the LF3 and 465 with the LF4. The new 3.0 V6 TT in the CT6 is making 400. So aftermarket should be closer to 500.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by Number 3

GM has been (they tried to get GM to do the calibration for the old Turbo Mustang years ago) and still is pretty solid on the turbo front.

What you are buying in to is Ford's marketing around ECO Boost. Which is basically a DI turbo. GM's 2.0T in the Solstice/Sky beat Ford to the punch. Now the Ford guys will tell you ECO Boost is also a proprietary calibration but basically every engine has that so I don't subscribe.

Ford has beat GM to the punch by putting their Turbo 6s in the Full Size PU, but that's about it.

GM has a turbo 1.4L, 1.6L, 2.0L, 3.0L and 2 3.6L Turbo engines in production just in NA.

The marketing that Ford is doing is seriously miss leading people about turbocharged engines.

GMs first production turbocharged motor is between the Chevy Corvair in the early 1960s (flat 6 boxer turbocharged before the Posche 911 turbo) and the Oldsmobile turbojet fire V-8 engine.

As you stated GM had turbocharged and directly injected engines since the 2007 model year. Ford was actually a bit late to the party however they have more then made up for it in marketing.

[Ace01]

V6 Engine being built

[Ace01]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-...rain-detailed/

[Ace01]

Stop by the dealer today to check out he twin Turbo V6 in the ATS-V Man that car is awesome. Looking at the engine bay it is exactly like our Camaro's. This engine would fit right in.

[justinschmidt1]

very old thread, but as a current ATSV and former CTSV owner was interesting reading the thoughts and id like to give some input from actually owning one and experiencing things first hand as the reviews and what not dont always tell the whole story.

A few things id like to comment on:

-stock for stock performance seems pretty similar although my personal M6 ATSV outperformed even the fastest stock M6 SS on the "fast list" with an 11.89@118 mph.

- I think the biggest factor in why the LF4 feels more like a high strung engine is the way the factory tuning is designed. It is a cadillac after all.

They really bring the boost/power in slowly with RPM and theres A TON to be unlocked with tuning.

-gas mileage as with any boosted car, the heavier your right foot, the worse it gets, however just cruising the highest ive seen was 33.8 mpg avg on a 25 mile stretch according to the computer. My buddy with an A8 ATSV has seen as has as 37-38 mpg on stretch's with his tuned ATSV.

-being a factory turbo platform the gains with simple mods and tuning are substantial.

My car for example, M6 ATSV sedan, car is stock other than tuning and a set of stickier tires went 11.27@127 mph with a soft 60 foot.

Im a V8 guy and would have loved the ATSV with an LT1 as well, but I really dont think the LF4 is an inferior powerplant.

[DenverTaco07]

this was supposed to be some GOT character being resurrected but the gif animation....

oh well.

ATS-V is a slick car, hope they keep making them.

[soloknight6]

I just want an N/A LT1 derivative with both port/direct injection. Wait... Maybe I can build one!

[Ace01]

GM should drop that twin turbo motor in the Camaro.

[SliChillax]

Ehh I would prefer the engine response and power delivery of the LT1 in a car like the Camaro or ATS-V

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by SliChillax

Ehh I would prefer the engine response and power delivery of the LT1 in a car like the Camaro or ATS-V

People say that, but the response and early torque of modern turbo engines usually changes their mind. Think 450lb of torque or more at 1500rpm. This is why the euro cars are such monsters, using hot-V setups that can generate full torque at absurdly low RPM. The American manufacturers have been slow to adopt many of the technologies and features of modern turbos.

[drperry]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

People say that, but the response and early torque of modern turbo engines usually changes their mind. Think 450lb of torque or more at 1500rpm. This is why the euro cars are such monsters, using hot-V setups that can generate full torque at absurdly low RPM. The American manufacturers have been slow to adopt many of the technologies and features of modern turbos.

Which is odd for GM considering how much success they had with their turbo vehicles in the 80s and 90s, lol.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk