Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List 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 06-05-2014, 07:22 PM   #15
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Wasn't this pretty much a given?
No it wasn't...not in my opinion.

Ford originally did not have plans to use the 3.7 V6 in the Mustang, but it was given the go ahead after the turbo 4 and the V8 because it would still enable them to offer a low entry price.

I also believe it wasn't a given because offering a V6 in a lineup that includes a performance oriented turbo 4 cylinder is a hard sell. In my mind, even though I want the V6 to be offered, even I had a hard time coming up with a good reason why you'd offer a V6 when the turbo 4 could be faster, and have better highway FE. No 60 degree V6 will match the torque of a turbo 4 cylinder when its pumped up to around 300 HP, as typically you see more TQ than HP in these applications.

But if GM goes a different route and offers a lower power, better FE base turbo 4 as the base, and a high output n/a V6 as the middle ground, then I think that makes sense.

OR

Maybe Fen is right, and they will offer a powerful turbo 4, and a powerful V6 at roughly the same, if not exact same price.

Anyways, this is the first real "confirmed" bit of news we've had engine wise on the 6th gen, so I think its pretty cool news. I think the LT1 is a given, but we have yet to hear of it going into the 6th gen, or any model that use Alpha chassis yet for that matter
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 03:41 PM   #16
mr02Z/28

 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 04:03 PM   #17
Jason@JacFab
 
Drives: 2016 1LT RS Camaro; 72 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Point, OR
Posts: 5,564
Send a message via AIM to Jason@JacFab Send a message via MSN to Jason@JacFab
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
+1
Jason@JacFab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 04:06 PM   #18
mr02Z/28

 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
I like variety and I honestly think a 4cyl Turbo would add more interest to the Camaro name plate .... Options can never be a bad thing ....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 09:17 PM   #19
SSmokinSS
Get Some
 
SSmokinSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 6Speed
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The Wood's Edge, NM
Posts: 713
My 2.0L turbo Solstice was a beast. It was 260hp.
Given the weight difference, a Camaro with a 300-330hp turbo 4 banger would interest me as long as the fuel mileage was above 30.
I'd still have the V8 for making children cry.
__________________
SSmokinSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 10:27 PM   #20
Cymaro
 
Cymaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro LT2/RS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSmokinSS View Post
My 2.0L turbo Solstice was a beast. It was 260hp.
Given the weight difference, a Camaro with a 300-330hp turbo 4 banger would interest me as long as the fuel mileage was above 30.
I'd still have the V8 for making children cry.
Add on the GM stage kit while keeping your warranty and make 290 hp and 340tq!
Cymaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 03:05 AM   #21
G-Mann
 
Drives: 2015 F22 M235i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
I prefer the idea of a high performance 4 cyl turbo model over one focused on fuel efficiency. In a lightweight package I think this would turn into a popular choice.

It will be interesting to see what direction GM takes but this could be the beginning of the end for the V6.

Instead of following ford GM should bust out with the first plug in hybrid offering with near current V6 performance and 45 mpg's vs a watered down 4 banger.
G-Mann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 11:40 AM   #22
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
I'm not sure why so many are against a Hi Output Turbo 4 for the 6th Gen Camaro as long as they still make the V-8 available ... if you don't want the Turbo 4 just don't buy it .... as for me, I like the idea of a H.O. 4cyl turbo as long as it is in the 320-330hp range with good torque range ....
Because a HO turbo 4 will have almost exactly the same stats as a V6, but be more expensive and less reliable than a N/A V6. I don't understand why people are so happy of that. Is it "because race car" or something?
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 01:30 PM   #23
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Because a HO turbo 4 will have almost exactly the same stats as a V6, but be more expensive and less reliable than a N/A V6. I don't understand why people are so happy of that. Is it "because race car" or something?
I didn't really intend for this thread to turn into another "for or against a 4 cylinder" topic, but I guess that's inevitable when discussing the V6.

That said, if this source is correct there will FOR SURE be a V6 in the next gen, and that alone, I think is exciting news for some people, and the potential and configurations of the V6 is what I'd like to dive into and get more opinions on.

In my mind, the only advantages of a turbo 4 over a V6 is low to mid range torque will can be much higher and also highway FE could be a tad bit better, but not much when you start talking about a 300+ HP 4 cylinder turbo engine. You could also say that it likely weighs less than a V6. Those are the reasons people are happy about a possible turbo 4. (also the tuning potential is very high, but this discussion is about stock only)

The V6 on the other hand should have a peak HP advantage, as you almost never see stock turbo 4 cylinders making 330 - 340 + HP. Usually the TQ is higher than the HP in the turbo engines.

If the V6 ends up having cylinder deactivation, then I think that washes away the highway FE advantage the turbo might have.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 02:41 PM   #24
ssrs396
 
ssrs396's Avatar
 
Drives: 68 vert 396 13 ls
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: cruising
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
I didn't really intend for this thread to turn into another "for or against a 4 cylinder" topic, but I guess that's inevitable when discussing the V6.

That said, if this source is correct there will FOR SURE be a V6 in the next gen, and that alone, I think is exciting news for some people, and the potential and configurations of the V6 is what I'd like to dive into and get more opinions on.

In my mind, the only advantages of a turbo 4 over a V6 is low to mid range torque will can be much higher and also highway FE could be a tad bit better, but not much when you start talking about a 300+ HP 4 cylinder turbo engine. You could also say that it likely weighs less than a V6. Those are the reasons people are happy about a possible turbo 4. (also the tuning potential is very high, but this discussion is about stock only)

The V6 on the other hand should have a peak HP advantage, as you almost never see stock turbo 4 cylinders making 330 - 340 + HP. Usually the TQ is higher than the HP in the turbo engines.

If the V6 ends up having cylinder deactivation, then I think that washes away the highway FE advantage the turbo might have.
I mentioned this another time but my only fear is that I would rather have the V6 but if it is not the base model the price will increase. I love the fact that the LS is a great car at a great price point. If the 4cyl is the base car then I would have to consider it due to price point and tuning potential.
ssrs396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2014, 02:47 PM   #25
mr02Z/28

 
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
Unless you get a Turbo V-6 in the 6th Gen, I think the Turbo 4 would be a better bet due to the fact the Buick version of the Turbo 4 already makes 295lb/ft where as the 3.6L only makes 276lb/ft ......


adding more "boost" may make the Torque jump considerably ... just my opinion .....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2015, 07:51 AM   #26
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,133
I know I'm resurrecting a year old thread, but I thought it would be interesting given what we've learned since Saturday.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2015, 08:57 AM   #27
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,960
Not to brag....or at least not too much (ha!) but my original thoughts in the first post weren't too far from the real thing!
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2015, 09:47 AM   #28
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,960
By the way...does anyone know what type of ECU they are using for the LGX? I'm assuming its Delphi....but would be nice to know for sure.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

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 10:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.