281hp 3.6 V6 base engine

According to an article in the lastest Automotive News, the base V6 will be a 3.6 with approximately 281hp...sounds like the same engine that's in the Traverse. I'm guessing that it will be +/- a few from that number.


That's 6 more hp than were in the LT1 in the 1993-1995 model.

...That's 6 more hp than were in the LT1 in the 1993-1995 model.

the difference is, the new car willl weigh more

Can you list your source?

the difference is, the new car willl weigh more

and will produce less torque.

and will produce less torque.

Probably a good bit less.

But should get excellent mileage and provide a ton more base power for older cars.

It is on page 82....
-A Chevrolet source said the car will be offered with a 3.6 liter V-6, producing about 281hp.

Later in the article Troy Clarke, Pres. of GM North America is qouted,
"The concept of the car will evolve into a really fun-to-drive, stylish vehicle, as opposed to something that just breathes fire and has cubic inches than the next guy."

I really hope this second quote isn't code for a smaller base v8?:(

How many horsepower is the current V-6 Mustang?

How many horsepower is the current V-6 Mustang?

i dunno but ill look it up but there gt has 300 ;)

found it: 210 4.0l dohc pos

That would be a pretty stout base motor.

I could totally see this...in the Traverse I think they're calling for ~26mpg hwy with that engine...take away ~1000lbs, and that'd be some pretty stout PR. "Camaro, with 30mpg V6"..."Take that Challenger" ;) ;) ;)

Later in the article Troy Clarke, Pres. of GM North America is qouted,
"The concept of the car will evolve into a really fun-to-drive, stylish vehicle, as opposed to something that just breathes fire and has cubic inches than the next guy."

I really hope this second quote isn't code for a smaller base v8?:(
I really hope it is!!! That means Gen V to me!:bow:

i dunno but ill look it up but there gt has 300 ;)

found it: 210 4.0l dohc pos

what, exactly, makes it a POS?

Mustang V6 will get a pretty serious bump in HP soon though.

sweet. that will be a great base engine for the camaro. DI and dohc v6 3.6 should get awesome mpgs.

what, exactly, makes it a POS?

Nothing, other than the fact that there are better technologies out there that make it seem a little outdated. Not to go back to the "pushrod is archaic" debate, but most manufactures have moved beyond this type of motor, even its American counterparts.

It would be like GM putting the 3.8 200hp V6 in the 5th gen Camaro. it would work just fine. Might be a little anemic, but GM's got better stuff.

Can you list your source?


here's a similar article I read today.

I could see it having a few more HP...with better exhaust, tuning etc.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/coupes/gm-will-be-keeping-the-camaro-cheap/


:usa:

I really hope it is!!! That means Gen V to me!:bow:

So, you're hoping for that 4.9L from the Denali XT concept? I think that I would be ok with that... :shrug: I just don't want it to lose the LS series rumble. Starting up that LS series engine in the morning is one of the main reasons I was REALLY looking forward to this car.

The 4.9L is just a show car red herring right now. The Camaro should get afew ponies more than the Traverse as well.

So, you're hoping for that 4.9L from the Denali XT concept? I think that I would be ok with that... :shrug: I just don't want it to lose the LS series rumble. Starting up that LS series engine in the morning is one of the main reasons I was REALLY looking forward to this car.
Heehee, no.:D Like Charlie said:

The 4.9L is just a show car red herring right now.

I had a feeling all along that's all it was (a theoretical engine), so - no. I was never expecting to see the 4.9L. I've just been really stoked about this 5th generation small-block stuff that I had to say something. :p

I think all the quote meant was that they are steering Camaro into new territory. No more is the Biggest, baddest, engine going to be the argument winner. Handling, agility - 0-60's are going to be more important. That will all be accomplished though less weight(more cost), and smaller, more potent engines. (i.e. Gen V small-blocks). The big, bad motors will just be bragging rights - and well earned at that! :lol:

I think all the quote meant was that they are steering Camaro into new territory. No more is the Biggest, baddest, engine going to be the argument winner. Handling, agility - 0-60's are going to be more important. That will all be accomplished though less weight(more cost), and smaller, more potent engines. (i.e. Gen V small-blocks). The big, bad motors will just be bragging rights - and well earned at that! :lol:

That all sounds good to me - and the v8 for less the $25k, right?? LOL ;)

That all sounds good to me - and the v8 for less the $25k, right?? LOL ;)

Thanks...you gave me a subject to dream about, tonight. :thumb:


:lol: :lol: hahaha

I think it's safe to say that the LS3 will be available in at least one model.

I think it's safe to say that the LS3 will be available in at least one model.

I hope so...if not, I may have to wait.:confused:

My take from the article is that they're aiming for volume. From reading this group, one might infer that all Camaro buyers want either a 2500 pound barebones coupe with 300hp or a 500hp monster (or at least that everyone needs to hear a V8 rumble). Out in the real world of real (millions of) buyers, people don't care about engine note, and they just want a nice, stylish car with some pep and good gas mileage.

I think the 281hp V6 will hit that straight on.

If you want a relatively inexpensive V8 model, better get one soon, however....

what, exactly, makes it a POS?

my opinion? I dont think a muscle car should come with an option of v6's but thats is yet again my opinion. I love Camaro's and Mustang's, no puscamaro or pusmustang though.

i dunno but ill look it up but there gt has 300 ;)

found it: 210 4.0l dohc pos


It's actually an sohc V6 with 12 valves, making 210hp. It's a relatively old design, as GM gets 220-240 with their ohv 12 valve 3.9. Further evidence of the old design is that EPA ratings are barely better than the 4.6 in the GT.

But it's probably cheap to make and enables a low base price. I have to think that a DI 3.6 Camaro with IRS will have to be priced at least $2-3k higher than the V6 Mustang.


Regarding weight, the base Commodores with the V6 come in around 3700 pounds IIRC. So maybe the base V6 Camaro will hit 3600, with some amount of success in the lightening campaign.

281hp and 3600 pounds should make for a mid 14s 1/4 mile -- maybe even low 14 on the right day with the right driver.

I was hoping the v6 base would have the 300hp motor out of the CTS. If the Camaro gets the 3.6 DI V6 @ 281Hp and the CTS gets that motor with 200HP, why is there a decrease in 19HP?

methinks it could be underrated ;)

EDIT:

I think I just answered my own question...

check out the picture below of a V6 camaro engine bay and take not of everything in there.

http://jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2008/01/thumb800x800_2228663565_897c5883bb_o.jpg

ok now take a look at the CTS's engine bay....

http://www.justbenz.com/~steveraymanchevy/80109760-25sm.jpg



The assumptions we can draw from these two pictures and the news above, is its probably the same motor. Similar engine cover, same location to pour oil into, airbox is in the same spot, and finally the emblem location is empty, with the same lines.

I am gonna make the biggest assumption ever and say that the Camaro will come with 300hp underrated from the LY7 VVT 3.6 V6. Check out the dyno below:

http://drupal.caddyinfo.com/files/images/2008ctsvvtdyno.jpg

my opinion? I dont think a muscle car should come with an option of v6's but thats is yet again my opinion. I love Camaro's and Mustang's, no puscamaro or pusmustang though.

I see your point. I see lots of Camaros and think wow there is a nice Camaro, but then notice that it is a V6 with a woman driving it. Suddenly I am very dissapointed. I would be nice to see a Camaro and know that it's a beast, but Cars need to sell and if you want people to no matter what see a car and go wow then get your self a classic car.

Is DOHC really better? Not unless you need that great consistent valve movement above 7000rpms, cough, 10,000, cough.

This V6 is very stout, end of story.

what is this going ot make the cost of the V6... I mean its great its getting a ballsy motor...


but we are talking about a very nice motor, in other high end GM vehicles right now. Is that gong to completely throw the cost off... but then again the regular 3.6L is in alot of vehicles now.

Is DOHC really better? Not unless you need that great consistent valve movement above 7000rpms, cough, 10,000, cough.

This V6 is very stout, end of story.

I agree, Ford is going to have to something about the 4.0 or lose a lot of magazine shootouts.

You can get substantially all the same high rev benefits out of SOHC & DOHC. The benefit of the second cam (with VVT) is the ability to change intake and exhaust overlap on the fly.

For a base motor, I might take pushrod over SOHC for the weight & packaging advantages, but DOHC brings some real increases in power & efficiency to the party.

BTW: am I the only one wondering if the CTS engine cover is there not because it came witht the engine, but to make it hard to tell which 3.6 that is (or if it is a new LY7 derivative)? I think we could at least tell if it was port injected or direct injected if not for the cover.

my opinion? I dont think a muscle car should come with an option of v6's but thats is yet again my opinion. I love Camaro's and Mustang's, no puscamaro or pusmustang though.

If there were no V6 Mustang or Camaro, then the cars would either not exist or the only ones that were available would be unattainable for the average enthusiast. The V6 models are the bread and butter that allow for the existence of affordable V8 models. Pony cars have always been this way.

my opinion? I dont think a muscle car should come with an option of v6's but thats is yet again my opinion. I love Camaro's and Mustang's, no puscamaro or pusmustang though.

The original Camaro (1967) and Mustang (1964) came with 6-cylinders.

Back then I think it was related to vehicle price, and not a need for vehicle economy. If you could afford the V8, of course you'd buy it because it was a lot more fun.

If the Camaro ends up with a 281hp V6, the performance is already there. In fact, it's more horsepower than a 1997 Camaro Z28 has.

i dunno but ill look it up but there gt has 300 ;)

found it: 210 4.0l dohc pos

Thats a 210 4.0 SOHC, Kid The only DOHC engine in the Mustang currently is the GT500 mill.

The original Camaro (1967) and Mustang (1964) came with 6-cylinders.

Back then I think it was related to vehicle price, and not a need for vehicle economy. If you could afford the V8, of course you'd buy it because it was a lot more fun.

If the Camaro ends up with a 281hp V6, the performance is already there. In fact, it's more horsepower than a 1997 Camaro Z28 has.

The original mustang I6 was a 170 cubic inch (2.8 liter) wonder with probably around 90hp in today's money. The four cylinder engine in today's family sedans is more powerful than the base Mustang V8 was (289 2v). One of the Ford magazines had a power build up article on one of those engines. It baselined at 141 rear wheel horsepower. Good enough for a neck snapping 17 second 1/4 mile.

Just saying, I see it as more affordable/but not as performance...


the 3.5L vvt ohv v6...


224 hp. not a powerhouse, but in base cars(like my base G6 sedan) 60* v6 has been around forever, even in f-bodies 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4L anyone? probably the most used basic design across the 3rd/4th gen platforms.

a D.I. 3.6L would be nice... but its only offered in a nice Caddy, unless they really cut costs, I don't see them putting this as the cheap base Camaro.


just an FYI...

my dad got his 94 stripper 3.4L camaro, no power 5-speed for $13k in 94 new off lot. Then he got his mildly loaded (power everything but cloth, no tops) 3.8L new off lot in 2k, for $15k


I don't seem them putting in the most powerful v6 gm offers on the market just by cost reasons

Just saying, I see it as more affordable/but not as performance...


the 3.5L vvt ohv v6...


224 hp. not a powerhouse, but in base cars(like my base G6 sedan) 60* v6 has been around forever, even in f-bodies 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4L anyone? probably the most used basic design across the 3rd/4th gen platforms.

a D.I. 3.6L would be nice... but its only offered in a nice Caddy, unless they really cut costs, I don't see them putting this as the cheap base Camaro.


just an FYI...

my dad got his 94 stripper 3.4L camaro, no power 5-speed for $13k in 94 new off lot. Then he got his mildly loaded (power everything but cloth, no tops) 3.8L new off lot in 2k, for $15k


I don't seem them putting in the most powerful v6 gm offers on the market just by cost reasons

Except that GM has already said this is what they're going to do.

Remember that the Traverse base engine is the DI V6.
The Caddy version gets about 20 more hp, for what that's worth.

Just saying, I see it as more affordable/but not as performance...


the 3.5L vvt ohv v6...


224 hp. not a powerhouse, but in base cars(like my base G6 sedan) 60* v6 has been around forever, even in f-bodies 2.8, 3.1, and 3.4L anyone? probably the most used basic design across the 3rd/4th gen platforms.

a D.I. 3.6L would be nice... but its only offered in a nice Caddy, unless they really cut costs, I don't see them putting this as the cheap base Camaro.


just an FYI...

my dad got his 94 stripper 3.4L camaro, no power 5-speed for $13k in 94 new off lot. Then he got his mildly loaded (power everything but cloth, no tops) 3.8L new off lot in 2k, for $15k


I don't seem them putting in the most powerful v6 gm offers on the market just by cost reasons

Who said that it would cost more? This engine is more expensive right now because they are assembling them in low volumes. Now if they started to buy them in bulk, to span across numerous platforms, that engine's price would start to come down.

Who said that it would cost more? This engine is more expensive right now because they are assembling them in low volumes. Now if they started to buy them in bulk, to span across numerous platforms, that engine's price would start to come down.

The DI 3.6 has to cost more than the port injection 3.6 because of

the wide band O2 sensor vs. standard
direct injectors vs. port injectors
2nd (crazy high pressure) fuel pump


Of course they could discontinue the non-DI version and make up the difference with more commonality of parts and better fuel economy.

So, when is a 4valve DI 4 cyl going to be made? Those are a little more important than the V8s as they sell more.

So, when is a 4valve DI 4 cyl going to be made? Those are a little more important than the V8s as they sell more.

I think the LNF came out in 2006.

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/0609htp_2007_saturn_sky_red_line/saturn_engine.html

But a (slightly larger?) NA version for the high volume cars would be a good idea.

The DI 3.6 has to cost more than the port injection 3.6 because of

the wide band O2 sensor vs. standard
direct injectors vs. port injectors
2nd (crazy high pressure) fuel pump


Of course they could discontinue the non-DI version and make up the difference with more commonality of parts and better fuel economy.

but those parts even aftermarket add up to less than 500 dollars.

The Caddy DI engine comes as part of a trim level with other features for about 2k.

I'm equally interested in the boosted power and fuel economy. While GM needs to weigh their cost to build and price point, they also need to consider consumer needs. With rising fuel costs, we need more economical vehicles.

Also, if this has more or less confirmed, the 280ish or possibly more hp V6 rules out the 5.3L for the base V8 unless it gets revamped to push out at least 350 hp.

Personally I like the idea of an aluminum block destroked LSX reving to 8k and making 350 or so HP. With DI, it could get decent mileage as well.

So we know for sure it'll be the 3.6?

So we know for sure it'll be the 3.6?

I don't think we know anything "for sure" about which engines will be used, I think it is all still speculation at this point in time.
Clyde

i 210 4.0l dohc pos

X10! I drove a V6 Mustang--the whole car was crap--and then engine sounded and felt like it should be a John Deer!

X10! I drove a V6 Mustang--the whole car was crap--and then engine sounded and felt like it should be a John Deer!

I read a couple years ago that it was the same V6 that Ford puts in the Ranger with the same tune & cams. :barf:

meh, the 4.0 in the Mustang is a moot point, it should be replaced by the 3.5 anytime.

meh, the 4.0 in the Mustang is a moot point, it should be replaced by the 3.5 anytime.

The looks like a much better mill at 265hp & 250 ft/lbs on regular vs. the LY7's 252 & 255 (according to Wikipedia). Wikipedia also says that Ford plans to build a version with GDI, variable exhaust cam timing (it already has it on the intake) a variable geometry intake manifold so their should be some fairly stiff competition for hottest V6.

More interesting is Ford's talk of hanging a pair of turbos on the 3.5 and making near LS3 power... http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=25149

Yeah the 4.0 is pretty much at the end of its useful life, its a dead horse. I guess Ford used it till they could get manufacturing capacity up on the 3.5 (as well as reducng inventory on the 4.0) It did its job though (even if it wasn't sewing machine smooth or the prince of specific output). The 4.0 was a cheap motor for a car that was designed to meet a cheap price point on modest production numbers.

Traverse V6 would make a great base V6 for the Camaro. 87 octane and more power and better fuel efficiency than any other V6 they could use.

I don't think we know anything "for sure" about which engines will be used, I think it is all still speculation at this point in time.
Clyde

It's more than speculation. Automotive News had the quote from someone at Chevrolet. They could change their minds, but this is more than idle speculation.

According to an article in the lastest Automotive News, the base V6 will be a 3.6 with approximately 281hp...sounds like the same engine that's in the Traverse. I'm guessing that it will be +/- a few from that number.


That's 6 more hp than were in the LT1 in the 1993-1995 model.

More like 300 hp for the LT1. They were underrated in the Fbodies just like the LS1 was.

Also, if this has more or less confirmed, the 280ish or possibly more hp V6 rules out the 5.3L for the base V8 unless it gets revamped to push out at least 350 hp.

Personally I like the idea of an aluminum block destroked LSX reving to 8k and making 350 or so HP. With DI, it could get decent mileage as well.

That engine would be tremendous in a car that weighs 2800 lbs. But a car that's going to come in somewhere in the mid 3k's in weight I would rather have a stroked V8 that has a torque curve shaped like an ironing board.;)

the funny thing is im pretty sure thats the same 3.6 with vvt thats in the saturn outlook/aura/vue. solid motor with a nice power band actually

the funny thing is im pretty sure thats the same 3.6 with vvt thats in the saturn outlook/aura/vue. solid motor with a nice power band actually

And Malibu and CTS (with DI). The latest version in the Traverse is a DI with a little less horsepower than the Caddy DI.

I think it's a winning powertrain. But my personal thoughts are it will be the non DI 3.6L unless they decide to drop the standard 3.6L.

I think it's a winning powertrain. But my personal thoughts are it will be the non DI 3.6L unless they decide to drop the standard 3.6L.

DI is the future. Slowly the non-DI engines will get replaced.

Accord Coupe V6 268hp
Altima Coupe V6 270hp

So if the six-cylinder is going to be "class leading", it probably needs to be the DI version. And yes these front-drivers are close enough to be in the same class IMO.

(But maybe there will be an 'entry level' engine for fleet rentals and so on.)

the funny thing is im pretty sure thats the same 3.6 with vvt thats in the saturn outlook/aura/vue. solid motor with a nice power band actually

Is this also the 264hp 3.6 with VVT that is in the Equinox Sport? I've driven my friends, and it's got a nice bit of oomph to it (keep in mind I'm used to driving a 103hp Aveo LOL).

I think it's a winning powertrain. But my personal thoughts are it will be the non DI 3.6L unless they decide to drop the standard 3.6L.

Chevy has already said it will be the DI version. Do you think they'll change their mind?

Keep in mind that the DI version is the only one available on the Traverse.

Chevy has already said it will be the DI version. Do you think they'll change their mind?
When did they say that?:confused:

When did they say that?:confused:

It was in the Automotive News article -- all but an official announcement.

Look at it another way -- if the Traverse is getting the DI V6 standard for the 2009 model year, it just makes sense that the Camaro would get the same engine for 2010.

If it is going to be that, i will be the happiest guy in the world. if the v6 is underrated at 281 hp, then i will somehow tweek it to get 300+ hp. Then ill show my riceburner friends whose boss. It really pisses me off though how they laugh at v6 cars.