[glenB]

The non turbo'd V6 is dead. Between emissions standards and gas mileage its history. The new 2.7 turbo 4 is every bit the V6 and then some.

The fact that Chevy decided to make a 1LE 4 cyl is proof. Long live the turbo 4 cyl.

[SecondZ28]

Originally Posted by 6sigma

It isn't thought of as a performance option, or even a good engine, even though it is smooth as silk and makes more power than the old LT1 and about the same as an LS1

It's short nearly 100 lb-ft of torque compared to the LS1 (284 vs 375)

[Need4Camaro]

I can't say what Chevy will or won't do.

I will say the 3.6 was a good and very under estimated motor. I preferred it over the turbo 4 as well in the new 6th Gen. All I was looking for was a quick and sporty commuter car and the V6 gave me that and more.

As for fuel mileage, My V6 specifically got the same or better mileage than most 4 Cyls I've seen on here. I've gotten up to 47 MPG on the highway and cruising around 100% street I averaged around 30 without driving like a grandma even.

The best part of it, was it could use regular unleaded, for those who don't live in the southeast, there is nearly a $1.00 per gallon price difference between regular unleaded and premium which overall is about $10 - $15 extra per fillup.

Originally Posted by SecondZ28

It's short nearly 100 lb-ft of torque compared to the LS1 (284 vs 375)

True but the actual quarter mile times are very close to the LS1 and the 0-60 times are pretty much on par with the non-freak LS1's

They're running high to mid 13's where stock LS1's run mid to low 13's. For a stock NA V6 thats pretty damn impressive.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I can't say what Chevy will or won't do.

I will say the 3.6 was a good and very under estimated motor. I preferred it over the turbo 4 as well in the new 6th Gen. All I was looking for was a quick and sporty commuter car and the V6 gave me that and more.

As for fuel mileage, My V6 specifically got the same or better mileage than most 4 Cyls I've seen on here. I've gotten up to 47 MPG on the highway and cruising around 100% street I averaged around 30 without driving like a grandma even.

The best part of it, was it could use regular unleaded, for those who don't live in the southeast, there is nearly a $1.00 per gallon price difference between regular unleaded and premium which overall is about $10 - $15 extra per fillup.



True but the actual quarter mile times are very close to the LS1 and the 0-60 times are pretty much on par with the non-freak LS1's

They're running high to mid 13's where stock LS1's run mid to low 13's. For a stock NA V6 thats pretty damn impressive.

Agree 200% with what you're saying a person needs to have driven one of these new V6 is to have an fair non-biased and informed opinion. I

The V6 puts Camaro on par with most Japanese cars that have the V6 that are considered sport. Definitely a good bang for a buck and a ton of fun.

And as a guy who also owned a 2002 LS1 equipped Camaro with the 6-speed Transmission I will second the V6 runs with those LS cars all day long.

Sure the new four-cylinder will definitely be able to with some mods but they'll still sound like s***. I would imagine they break down faster and you'll be throwing your warranty away just to get to where the V6 is right from the factory

[KMPrenger]

I love the 3.6 V6, so there's that. I'd hate to see it go.

But a similar discussion is going on for the GM mid-size trucks (I also currently own a 15' Colorado). If GM decides to put a larger turbo 4, than the 2.0 (lets just assume the 2.7) then there is zero reason to offer the V6 any longer.

The 2.7 would offer similar HP, far superior TQ, and likely as good or better FE...although now that the 3.6 can also run in 4 cylinder mode, I'm not sure FE would be a lot better, but maybe a little better.

I would be afraid to do it in fear or losing my warranty, but imagine an aftermarket tune on that 2.7....350 HP and 400TQ easy. Probably more on an aggressive tune. That'd be a fun little engine. Sound will be an issue unfortunately.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Frankie18SS

Exactly! The Camaro went from pony car to retro muscle car to world class sports car. This is the continued evolution, next generation super car.

I think your vision would push the Camaro too far up-market, perhaps past the point of sustainability.

Imagine AWD launches, cornering and torque vectoring.

That's well outside the realm of sports cars, up into supercar territory. Sports car driving should remain more about the driver doing the driving than about the car sanitizing it all for him.


I have an AWD car, and it's even turbocharged. But there are driving situations that it is poorly suited for that cannot be compensated for by stronger launches and better straightline acceleration once the boost comes up. I've had over 8 years to "get used to it" and I still don't like the way I have to predict when the boost is going to come in when I want to start accelerating out of a turn. Then again, that probably doesn't matter when the only things a person can relate engine power to are the 0 - 60 and ET stats.


Norm

[zx9rmal]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

I have an AWD car, and it's even turbocharged. But there are driving situations that it is poorly suited for that cannot be compensated for by stronger launches and better straightline acceleration once the boost comes up. I've had over 8 years to "get used to it" and I still don't like the way I have to predict when the boost is going to come in when I want to start accelerating out of a turn. Then again, that probably doesn't matter when the only things a person can relate engine power to are the 0 - 60 and ET stats.

Norm

With today's turbo technology, I don't think there's much of an issue with turbo lag. My previous car was a '12 GTI and max boost started at 1,900 rpm. Even when I went to larger turbo, boost was almost immediate. I think most of the turbo cars are similar these days.

[F1FTY]

Originally Posted by zx9rmal

With today's turbo technology, I don't think there's much of an issue with turbo lag. My previous car was a '12 GTI and max boost started at 1,900 rpm. Even when I went to larger turbo, boost was almost immediate. I think most of the turbo cars are similar these days.

Subaru OEM tunes are pretty awful too, something else to keep in mind.

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by zx9rmal

With today's turbo technology, I don't think there's much of an issue with turbo lag. My previous car was a '12 GTI and max boost started at 1,900 rpm. Even when I went to larger turbo, boost was almost immediate. I think most of the turbo cars are similar these days.

Camaro needs to keep the V6 and keep the 4 cyl turbo also,issue solved.


Mustang got rid of there V6 because it was a garbage motor. The 2016 high content 3.6 Camaro V6 is a sweetheart of a motor.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by zx9rmal

With today's turbo technology, I don't think there's much of an issue with turbo lag. My previous car was a '12 GTI and max boost started at 1,900 rpm. Even when I went to larger turbo, boost was almost immediate. I think most of the turbo cars are similar these days.

It may be available at 1900 rpm, but going from an off-boost or low-boost condition to max boost still takes time so it's not instantaneously available. There's a difference, and a half second delay to full boost is more than enough to clearly notice if your driving includes conditions where any lag at all is objectionable. This can happen even if lag is not particularly noticeable under most other conditions.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Mustang got rid of there V6 because it was a garbage motor. The 2016 high content 3.6 Camaro V6 is a sweetheart of a motor.

Actually, the Mustang's 3.7L V6 (2011 and later) was a pretty good engine and made something like 305 HP. The 210 HP 4.0L that came before the 3.7 was the turd as far as ponycar performance is concerned.


Norm

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Camaro needs to keep the V6 and keep the 4 cyl turbo also,issue solved.


Mustang got rid of there V6 because it was a garbage motor. The 2016 high content 3.6 Camaro V6 is a sweetheart of a motor.

this...i got to drive the T4.even though it it a surprisingly powerful little motor i prefer the 6.but im an older guy and not wanting the extra plumbing(turbo,intercooler and wastegate) to maintain.i can see the younger crowd being drawn to the T4 as they can easily replace the turbo and tune it and make it a monster of a 4 cylinder for not a lot of money.

[Gen6_1Le]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

It may be available at 1900 rpm, but going from an off-boost or low-boost condition to max boost still takes time so it's not instantaneously available. There's a difference, and a half second delay to full boost is more than enough to clearly notice if your driving includes conditions where any lag at all is objectionable. This can happen even if lag is not particularly noticeable under most other conditions.


Norm

Wouldn't a electric hybrid turbo fix that lag issue ?

[Gen6_1Le]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Camaro needs to keep the V6 and keep the 4 cyl turbo also,issue solved.


Mustang got rid of there V6 because it was a garbage motor. The 2016 high content 3.6 Camaro V6 is a sweetheart of a motor.

GM puts the 4 cylinder 2.0 Hybrid 365 HP 30 MPG in the Camaro there will be no reason to have a V6 , unless they do a twin turbo V6 .