6 cylinder options in the Camaro?

The original 1st gen Camaro had a straight 6 (250ci 4.0) motor. I wonder if Chevy is thinking of using the straight 6 4.2 that is in the Trailblazer for the base models? It puts out 291hp in the SUV. This would be an awesome motor to have a supercharged or turbo option also.

Not a chance. Its way too tall and probably too long to fit.

Nope, it will fit.

http://www.smithracecraft.com/gallery/galler24.jpg

Requires a different oil pan and a different intake.

http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/p159143_image_large.jpg

Here is a good read on the engine. Variable valve timing etc.

http://media.gm.com/division/powertrain/news/4200_Overview.pdf

GM will be making a Direct Injection 3.6L V6 with over 300HP soon.


Nope, it will fit.

http://www.smithracecraft.com/gallery/galler24.jpg

Requires a different oil pan and a different intake.


What car is that in?

No way on the I-6 for the Camaro. They have much better car based V-6's. This is designed for turck applications and even negating the weight and set up on the TrailBlazer, the I-6 get horrible fuel economy. 2WD TB gets 16/22 and believe me that is not what I have seen, worse. So, they'll put something in more car based.

[QUOTE=Z28x]GM will be making a Direct Injection 3.6L V6 with over 300HP soon.
/QUOTE]
I have a feeling they won't use it in the V6 Camaro, though, might make it too pricey, seeing as how we're only getting one V6.

No way on the I-6 for the Camaro. They have much better car based V-6's. This is designed for turck applications and even negating the weight and set up on the TrailBlazer, the I-6 get horrible fuel economy. 2WD TB gets 16/22 and believe me that is not what I have seen, worse. So, they'll put something in more car based.

Well, the 6.0 in the Trailblazer only gets 15/19. In the Corvette it gets 17/27. Using that difference in weight and aerodynamics that would put a I-6 equiped Camaro above 30mpg with 300 hp.

Z28x, I forgot to mention that is in a Chevy II.

a inline 6 would be nice, however it's seen as an "old" engine. It will take some marketing, and nice numbers (MPG & HP) to get people to buy it.

a inline 6 would be nice, however it's seen as an "old" engine. BMW.

GM will be making a Direct Injection 3.6L V6 with over 300HP soon.

I have a feeling they won't use it in the V6 Camaro, though, might make it too pricey, seeing as how we're only getting one V6.

Do we know that? Clearly thats likely but you never know.

a inline 6 would be nice, however it's seen as an "old" engine. It will take some marketing, and nice numbers (MPG & HP) to get people to buy it.

Someone better tell all those 3 series owners their engines are "old". :)

a inline 6 would be nice, however it's seen as an "old" engine. It will take some marketing, and nice numbers (MPG & HP) to get people to buy it.

The 4.2L I6 came out in 2002. It is DOHC w/ VVT it isn't that old. a DI version would be 330HP+

People would love to have one in the Camaro


[QUOTE=Z28x]GM will be making a Direct Injection 3.6L V6 with over 300HP soon.
/QUOTE]
I have a feeling they won't use it in the V6 Camaro, though, might make it too pricey, seeing as how we're only getting one V6.

It will be out in January in the 2008 CTS and is said by many reliable people here to be going into the Camaro. This might be a optional V6 though.

Well, I trust your judgement/sources from what you've said in the past, so that makes me very excited! Optional, or not. :cool:

think public, not the enthusist. If they here it has the same type of 6 cylinder that used to come in camaro's they are going to think they are no better than they where.

Nope, it will fit.

http://www.smithracecraft.com/gallery/galler24.jpg

Requires a different oil pan and a different intake.



Just curious, why would you show us a picture of the engine bay of a handcrafted, tube frame, hotrod.....and then state the 4.2 will fit the '09 Camaro?

Do you think they'd really put a 6-cyl with that much HP in the Camaro? Isn't it kind of close to the output of the new Z?

think public, not the enthusist. If they here it has the same type of 6 cylinder that used to come in camaro's they are going to think they are no better than they where.

Its got the same type of V8 it used to have too? Is the public going to think a 400hp V8 is no better than 300hp one?

Its got the same type of V8 it used to have too? Is the public going to think a 400hp V8 is no better than 300hp one?
Yup. and horrid gas milage ;). It's all about educating the public.

Just curious, why would you show us a picture of the engine bay of a handcrafted, tube frame, hotrod.....and then state the 4.2 will fit the '09 Camaro?

It was the only picture I could find with an aftermarket intake manifold. Most of the engines extra height comes from the factory intake that turns and goes over the motor. Look at that motor in the picture and the factory picture I posted. By taking the intake out and to the drivers side it siginificantly reduces the height of the engine. Thus making it a viable engine.

The length of the new motor is within 1/2" of the old 250. So it's not very long either.

With GM pushing the "our cars get better than 30mpg" issue they could use this motor and have 300+ hp.

I think it would be a win/win situation.

Offer a supercharged/turbo version as an option? (RS maybe?) It would be an awesome road race platform.

The I6 is only in the Trailblazer and variants currently, and those vehicles will supposedly not have a next generation. GM just came out with a new line of pickups and SUVs, and the I6 is conspicuously absent from those vehicles.

I'm sure it won't fit in the transverse engine crossovers that will supposedly replace GMT360.

So my question is, will the 4200 I6 die in a few years?

no in-line 6

no in-line 6

Damn it Scott, just make an alias and spiull the details already. Your posts are as frustrating as internet porn. :cry:



:D

no in-line 6

so that means the I-5 is a go then right? :D




...just kidding (someone will probably post this as fact in another thread:rolleyes: )

id be happy with a 3.8 supercharged six speed.

No I6 opens up the door for the I4, since we all know there will only be Ecotec variants in the new Camaro. ;)

no in-line 6

Scott,

Any chance in hell that GM will bring out the LSX based V6, like the 4.3 was to the SBC? That would would a good up level V6 for the Camaro.

So my question is, will the 4200 I6 die in a few years?

That is a very good question.

The 5.3L is going into the H3 and then probably the Colorado. The Colorado won't need a 291HP I6 if it has a 315HP 5.3L DoD/AFM V8 that gets the same milage.

I wouldn't be suprised to see a variance of the 3.6 V6 in the CTS make it in the Camaro. Its already making 255hp and with some engineering I would be 275 or so would be right in line.

Talk about a very pleasant everyday car to drive that ANYONE can afford. Think about it...a 275hp 5or6 speed manual or an A5orA6 transmission with a lot of the good stuff. Bet that would be pretty cool.

Note: Disclaimer to my statement. I am thinking 90% of the REST of the population. Not us Horsepower junky freaks. (Stand tall when you read that!!!)

No way on the I-6 for the Camaro. They have much better car based V-6's. This is designed for turck applications and even negating the weight and set up on the TrailBlazer, the I-6 get horrible fuel economy. Posted by Jacoz35thSS

You mean like the BMW 3 series? Im pretty sure they all have I-6 and get like 40mpg

You mean like the BMW 3 series? Im pretty sure they all have I-6 and get like 40mpg

The BMW 3 won't get 40, unless you only go downhill. But there are three major differences between the BMW I-6 and the GM truck I-6.

1. The BMW is a slant 6. This slightly increases width, but reduces height, which is important for a passenger car.

2. The BMW has a smaller bore. This reduces the length of the engine, so that it will fit under a reasonable length hood.

3. The BMW has a shorter stroke. See number 1.

By the time you modify the 4.2 I6 (reducing displacement and power), you've spent a lot of money, and what does it buy you over the 3.6V6? Well, you have an I6, which is inherently smoother, and you may have less friction, because you have half the number of camshafts. But it has less displacement. Plus with 6 cylinders in a line, you need a stronger crank and a stronger block, to avoid twisting. So do the advantages minus the disadvantages justify GM offering yet another 6 cylinder engine?

The I-6 in my old TB (AWD) got over 17 mpg mixed driving all the time.

It was an EXT and it was quick. I'd say re-map it to be higher hp and lower torque and bingo 300 plus hp and 30 mpg as long as the new maro is not 4000 lbs. Add in the correct gearing and it's no big deal to get 30 mpg and 300 hp. This would be through cams and ecu changes, plus the inherent intake and oil pan changes, but I think it'd be a great idea. It'd be a great basis for my TT project.

The 3.9L V6 is going in the Camaro from what I have read. It's getting the higher output version from the G6 GTP making somewhere around 260-280hp.

The 3.9L V6 is going in the Camaro from what I have read. It's getting the higher output version from the G6 GTP making somewhere around 260-280hp.

I have hard this talk recently too. Hope its not true.

The 3.6L DOHC 255ish HP seems like a no brainer to me.

I have hard this talk recently too. Hope its not true.

The 3.6L DOHC 255ish HP seems like a no brainer to me.

You'd rather have 255 than 260 to 280? The 3.9l is cheaper, and it would have more power and torque if the rumor is true. Why would you rather have the 3.6?

You'd rather have 255 than 260 to 280? The 3.9l is cheaper, and it would have more power and torque if the rumor is true. Why would you rather have the 3.6?

For one there is no guarntee the 3.9 will put out 280 hp. It makes 240 right now and IS NOT the top enigne in G6's. Its been surpassed by the 252hp 3.6L V6.

Heck the 3.9 is not even availible in the new Malibu or Aura.

WHat does that say? Tells me its days are numbered. So why then a costly move to add hp and switch it around for RWD configuration? The volume of a V6 Camaro is hardly justification.

Now lets look at the 3.6L. Hp is pegged at 258 for the 08 CTS.
Its the base engine for G8--which is based on Zeta--as is the Camaro.

Seems fairly obvious and logical why the 3.6L should be the base engine. And 258hp is more then rnough to full fill the misison of a V6 Camaro.

So after reading my arguemnents, why would GM go to the trouble of the 3.9 in the Camaro? And why would you rather have one?

Dont forget about the direct injected 3.6.

For one there is no guarntee the 3.9 will put out 280 hp. It makes 240 right now and IS NOT the top enigne in G6's. Its been surpassed by the 252hp 3.6L V6.

Heck the 3.9 is not even availible in the new Malibu or Aura.

WHat does that say? Tells me its days are numbered. So why then a costly move to add hp and switch it around for RWD configuration? The volume of a V6 Camaro is hardly justification.

Now lets look at the 3.6L. Hp is pegged at 258 for the 08 CTS.
Its the base engine for G8--which is based on Zeta--as is the Camaro.

Seems fairly obvious and logical why the 3.6L should be the base engine. And 258hp is more then rnough to full fill the misison of a V6 Camaro.

So after reading my arguemnents, why would GM go to the trouble of the 3.9 in the Camaro? And why would you rather have one?

HP is not pegged at 258...they have a direct injected version making 300.
The 3.6 makes 275hp in the Lambda's with dual exhaust, said to make 280+ in the Buick...so there is more power to be had.

I hope that the 3.6 makes more power then 250+ with the Mustang V6 probably gunna be over 270 with teh Duratech 3.5.

HP is not pegged at 258...they have a direct injected version making 300.
The 3.6 makes 275hp in the Lambda's with dual exhaust, said to make 280+ in the Buick...so there is more power to be had.

I hope that the 3.6 makes more power then 250+ with the Mustang V6 probably gunna be over 270 with teh Duratech 3.5.

hey just passing on what I read. Base engine for CTS is the non DI 3.6

I have hard this talk recently too. Hope its not true.

The 3.6L DOHC 255ish HP seems like a no brainer to me.

For one there is no guarntee the 3.9 will put out 280 hp. It makes 240 right now and IS NOT the top enigne in G6's. Its been surpassed by the 252hp 3.6L V6.

Heck the 3.9 is not even availible in the new Malibu or Aura.

WHat does that say? Tells me its days are numbered. So why then a costly move to add hp and switch it around for RWD configuration? The volume of a V6 Camaro is hardly justification.

Now lets look at the 3.6L. Hp is pegged at 258 for the 08 CTS.
Its the base engine for G8--which is based on Zeta--as is the Camaro.

Seems fairly obvious and logical why the 3.6L should be the base engine. And 258hp is more then rnough to full fill the misison of a V6 Camaro.

So after reading my arguemnents, why would GM go to the trouble of the 3.9 in the Camaro? And why would you rather have one?

If it has 280hp, I'd rather have it, because it'd be cheaper and more powerful than the 3.6. This is all just rumor anyway, so we're just guessing on costs and all that. But between a rumored 280hp 3.9 and a non-DI 3.6 -- probably with 252 like the G8, though that's just speculation again, I'd rather have the 3.9.

If it has 280hp, I'd rather have it, because it'd be cheaper and more powerful than the 3.6. This is all just rumor anyway, so we're just guessing on costs and all that. But between a rumored 280hp 3.9 and a non-DI 3.6 -- probably with 252 like the G8, though that's just speculation again, I'd rather have the 3.9.


but your not making much of a case for that being likely to happen ;)

3.9 is doubtful to be cheaper at all. How can they get 40 more hp from the 3.9 and maintain gas milegae and emmsions?? Everyting is a trade off and there is no free lunch.

Even if they could do it--it will likley increase the price so much that, in conjuntion with the 3.6L being cheaper all the time (notice how production and avaiblbility have gone sharply up?) and price differential would be nominal.

Besides the 3.6L soumds kick ass! I drove a Malibu SS and it sounded like a broken dishwasher under WOT. 7K redline too :D

but each to there own....

but your not making much of a case for that being likely to happen ;)

I don't think I understand what your context is here -- not making much of a case for what?



3.9 is doubtful to be cheaper at all. How can they get 40 more hp from the 3.9 and maintain gas milegae and emmsions?? Everyting is a trade off and there is no free lunch.

Even if they could do it--it will likley increase the price so much that, in conjuntion with the 3.6L being cheaper all the time (notice how production and avaiblbility have gone sharply up?) and price differential would be nominal.

These are two assumptions on your part. I don't know whether they are, in fact, true. I've read things about V6 cost elsewhere that indicate maybe your cost assumption isn't valid. 280hp from a 3.9V6 sounds about as difficult as 372 from a 5.2V8, which doesn't really sound difficult, given LS2s down under making 413 (yes I know it's a 6.0).

I don't think I understand what your context is here -- not making much of a case for what?




These are two assumptions on your part. I don't know whether they are, in fact, true. I've read things about V6 cost elsewhere that indicate maybe your cost assumption isn't valid. 280hp from a 3.9V6 sounds about as difficult as 372 from a 5.2V8, which doesn't really sound difficult, given LS2s down under making 413 (yes I know it's a 6.0).


All I was trying to say is that while 280 can be had form 3.9L why would they do it? Remeber the no free lunch bit. Have to swtich to RWD,mod it quite alot, make it run claen and get good gas mileage. Tall order to just use in the Camaro.

GM rarely has 1 engine for just one car. They share engines alot.

I know you'd like the 3.9L but I was asking you to justify a case for it. Like I was--and I made one for the 3.6L. I am admiditedly making a simple case---unit volume on the 3.6L goes up, costs go down.

Just trying to good debate ;) going and not the what you'd like to see--stuff.

All I was trying to say is that while 280 can be had form 3.9L why would they do it? Remeber the no free lunch bit. Have to swtich to RWD,mod it quite alot, make it run claen and get good gas mileage. Tall order to just use in the Camaro.

GM rarely has 1 engine for just one car. They share engines alot.

I know you'd like the 3.9L but I was asking you to justify a case for it. Like I was--and I made one for the 3.6L. I am admiditedly making a simple case---unit volume on the 3.6L goes up, costs go down.

Just trying to good debate ;) going and not the what you'd like to see--stuff.

Okay. Well, I don't have any data on costs, so I can't really generate a case. My original point is that I'd rather have a 280hp 3.9 than the 3.6 (making 252hp as in the G8), given that the 3.9 should be cheaper to build (based on OHV engines being a few hundred $$ cheaper than the DOHC engines).

You give up some refinement, but I'm fine with that for a Camaro.

If the 3.9 is more expensive to build than the HF 3.6, then the case for it is much weaker.

I'll probably end up buying a V8 version in any case, so it's a moot point for me....

I'll probably end up buying a V8 version in any case, so it's a moot point for me....

Hehe--me too :D