Welcome to Camaro Z28!

Welcome to CamaroZ28.Com, the ultimate Source for Camaro enthusiasts! Here you can join over 90,000 Camaro enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to Camaros and more. You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
  • Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from over 5 million posts.
  • Upload your Camaro details to your Garage
  • Post photos, respond to polls and access other special features
  • Gain access to our free marketplace to buy, sell and trade Camaros, parts and more.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so join our community today today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.


Go Back   CamaroZ28.Com Message Board > 2010 - 2014 5th Generation Chevrolet Camaro Forums > 2010 - 2014 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Reply Post New Thread
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-30-2008, 01:48 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,961
3.0 Camaro?

Now that stories are popping up about the new 3.0 HF v6 for the 2010 Buick LaCrosse and the new Equinox, what are the chances of this engine showing up as a new Camaro base (maybe LS only?) engine in the future?

They're saying 250 horsepower, but didn't give a torque figure. It seems possible to me that this might make a better "base" engine than the LNF 2.0 Turbo as chances are it has a better torque curve for a heavy car.
This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on CamaroZ28.com!
__________________
1977 Pontiac Trans Am
Eric77TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:19 PM   #2
Registered User
 
2010_5thgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 4,467
that would be a good base engine. it would then be able to lower the cost of the base model.
2010_5thgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:22 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010_5thgen View Post
that would be a good base engine. it would then be able to lower the cost of the base model.
Whether it would/would not make a good base engine is one thing, but why do you think it would be less expensive than the 3.6?
Z284ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:25 PM   #4
Registered User
 
DAKMOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Philaduhphia
Posts: 1,407
Garage
NO.! Horrible! It would never have the same torque capabilities as the LTT. )?(

The car will still weigh in at 3800 lbs! Do you want worse gas mileage to save a few hundred dollars off the price of the car?
__________________
DAKMOR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:45 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAKMOR View Post
NO.! Horrible! It would never have the same torque capabilities as the LTT. )?(

The car will still weigh in at 3800 lbs! Do you want worse gas mileage to save a few hundred dollars off the price of the car? ?
I agree that this shouldn't REPLACE the current base V6, but rather become a new, lower-level model. Orrr....thinking on the spot, here...what if this engine was put in the LS, and the 3.6L engine became only available in LT trims?

This engine would have better gas mileage than the LLT, weight be damned at this point -- it is what it is. Being that it's not turboed, a 250-horse 3.0L V6 with the same technology as the LLT, coupled with proper gearing and fuel mapping could potentially return 29, and even so far as 30mpg hwy at the deliberate loss of some performance. But 30mpg seems to be the magic number in consumers eyes - so if they could reach that number with this engine, then it would definitely be worth it, imo.
__________________
"Keep the Faith."
Dragoneye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:53 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,169
No point in the Camaro unless it gets significantly better mileage. Otherwise it would just be a step backward for the car. Also, by the time this 3.0 debuts, the Mustang's base V6 should also be in 300 HP territory.
__________________
2001 SS, Rally Red , M6....Pro 5.0, !CAGS, SLP SFCs, Direct Flo lid, SLP SS Grill. 310 RWHP, 330 RWTQ bone stock @ 12,000 miles.

2001 S10 Extended Cab 2WD
Z28Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 02:59 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010_5thgen View Post
that would be a good base engine. it would then be able to lower the cost of the base model.
Let's see if this makes any sense.

The base Camaro LS comes with the 300 HP 3.6L DI V6. The car is pretty well-equipped with standard features for a base model car, and especially so starting at $22K.

Downgrading the Camaro LS to the 3.0L to save a few bucks (assuming the 3.0L costs less to produce than the 3.6L) would be pretty stupid. The difference in retail prices would be, at most, about $1000. Nevermind that you should never downgrade a vehicle - it should get better over time.
__________________
2001 NBM Formula M6 - Pacesetter LTs, Borlamouth, full SLP intake, Jasper rear/4.10s, BMR LCAs/Panhard bar, TT2s, tuned by Cartek - 340 RWHP, 352 RWTQ
1998 Camaro 3.8L M5 - Some bolt-ons - 15.269@90.84 MPH
2009 Malibu LS
skorpion317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 03:00 PM   #8
Registered User
 
DAKMOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Philaduhphia
Posts: 1,407
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z28Wilson View Post
No point in the Camaro unless it gets significantly better mileage. Otherwise it would just be a step backward for the car. Also, by the time this 3.0 debuts, the Mustang's base V8 should also be in 300 HP territory.
fixed.

And why go to a smaller displacement engine ? it's a v6, its a economical engine already, nothing short of expensive equipment and material will give it more fuel economy.

Which is the opposite ofr the V8 argument.
__________________
DAKMOR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 03:28 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAKMOR View Post
fixed.
Why? Camaro's base V6 has upped the ante. The next Mustang will adjust accordingly.
__________________
2001 SS, Rally Red , M6....Pro 5.0, !CAGS, SLP SFCs, Direct Flo lid, SLP SS Grill. 310 RWHP, 330 RWTQ bone stock @ 12,000 miles.

2001 S10 Extended Cab 2WD
Z28Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 04:46 PM   #10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,961
If the potential 3.0 doesn't get better mileage than the 3.6, then why bother with even creating a 3.0 verison? Just put the 3.6 in everything.

Judging by the fact that they are putting the 3.0 in the Equinox, and likely making it the base engine in the Cadillac SRX (according to what GMI are reporting) I'd assume it gets better mileage than the 3.6 in vehicles of equal weight.

I'll be curious to see what the torque figures are.

I wasn't figuring on this engine replacing the 3.6, but as a possible mileage leader - remember that even though gas prices are falling (for now) there are still upcoming CAFE increases to be met.

If it were to show up, I'd expect it to be the standard engine on LS and nothing else. They could keep the 3.6 standard on LT and perhaps optional on LS.
__________________
1977 Pontiac Trans Am
Eric77TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 05:01 PM   #11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,003
Send a message via AIM to HAZ-Matt
Maybe if it was a turbo 3.0L more people would want it in the Camaro

But I agree it doesn't make sense to have another V6 that will probably not save much money (or actually increase production costs) and probably won't affect fuel economy much.
__________________
Matt
2001 Formula

SOM FQuick Group FullThrottleV6 - The V6 Source
HAZ-Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2008, 06:14 PM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt View Post
Maybe if it was a turbo 3.0L more people would want it in the Camaro

But I agree it doesn't make sense to have another V6 that will probably not save much money (or actually increase production costs) and probably won't affect fuel economy much.
How does another V6 increase production costs if it's in another car line?

Why create a 3.0, which costs money, for the new Equinox and SRX when the 3.6 already exists? The 3.6 is a gas hog in the Vue, so I'm guessing they're figuring on some MPG savings in those vehicles.

Then why was the turbo 4 being examined? Last I heard, it was dismissed because the car was too heavy, but a V6 could eliminate some of the problems if there was enough torque.

There have been lots of discussions on here about smaller displacement V6s and 4s over the last couple of years.

Now that the car is here and gas is under $2.00 a gallon (which someone will probably argue it's not, even though it is here right now) again, I guess no one cares. But as those CAFE standards creep up, a couple of MPGs is going to be more significant to those numbers than you might think.

Doesn't really matter. I wasn't saying I was for it or against it, but if they were looking at 4 cylinders a while back, you don't think there's any concern about the car's fuel economy in the long run? It's decent, but not stellar.
__________________
1977 Pontiac Trans Am
Eric77TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2008, 07:32 AM   #13
Registered User
 
2010_5thgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ohio
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by skorpion317 View Post
Let's see if this makes any sense.

The base Camaro LS comes with the 300 HP 3.6L DI V6. The car is pretty well-equipped with standard features for a base model car, and especially so starting at $22K.

Downgrading the Camaro LS to the 3.0L to save a few bucks (assuming the 3.0L costs less to produce than the 3.6L) would be pretty stupid. The difference in retail prices would be, at most, about $1000. Nevermind that you should never downgrade a vehicle - it should get better over time.
wow! chill out bro. someone needs to get laid.
all i said was it would make it cheaper for a base model. and as far as getting better with time doesnt have anything to do with it. theres alot of mpg requirements now and as far as i would be concerned if there were a 4 cylinder turbo like they were thinking, i think that would be a down grade.
i was just making a point it would be cheaper for someone looking for a more fuel efficient less powerful camaro. i wouldnt buy it but maybe someone would. and 1,000 dollars less...i dont think so. maybe if you could somehow mate it up to the 3.6 tranny and it could use some of the components.

but damn settle down.
2010_5thgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2008, 10:29 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010_5thgen View Post
wow! chill out bro. someone needs to get laid.
all i said was it would make it cheaper for a base model. and as far as getting better with time doesnt have anything to do with it. theres alot of mpg requirements now and as far as i would be concerned if there were a 4 cylinder turbo like they were thinking, i think that would be a down grade.
i was just making a point it would be cheaper for someone looking for a more fuel efficient less powerful camaro. i wouldnt buy it but maybe someone would. and 1,000 dollars less...i dont think so. maybe if you could somehow mate it up to the 3.6 tranny and it could use some of the components.

but damn settle down.
You're taking it more seriously than you need to. I'm not attacking you in any way, just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to downgrade a vehicle to save a relatively small amount of money.
__________________
2001 NBM Formula M6 - Pacesetter LTs, Borlamouth, full SLP intake, Jasper rear/4.10s, BMR LCAs/Panhard bar, TT2s, tuned by Cartek - 340 RWHP, 352 RWTQ
1998 Camaro 3.8L M5 - Some bolt-ons - 15.269@90.84 MPH
2009 Malibu LS
skorpion317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2008, 10:44 AM   #15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cheektowaga, NY (Buffalo)
Posts: 578
agreed... telling someone "they need to get laid" because you misinterpereted their mood at the time of posting is unneccesary. I didn't get the impression that Skorpion was getting bent out of shape at all. It really doesn't make much financial sense to add a 3rd engine to the Camaro lineup (or replace an existing engine) unless it truely increases sales to do so.
JeremyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2008, 10:44 AM
 
Reply Post New Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Copyright © 1996-2013 CamaroZ28.Com. All rights reserved.

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.