Turbo 6 cylinder option?

With the rumors about the 3.5 twin turbo going into the new Mustang, what do you guys think about a Turbo 6 in the Camaro? I've been hoping for the option since 1987 when I first experienced a stock Grand National that produced more torque than the L-98 in the Vette. I personally would prefer a turbo 6(with strong internals) over a NA V8. If they could get AFM to work on it that would be even better. Anybody else a turbo fan or strictly V8's only? Let me edit, I want a turbo 6 that can be cheaply modified and won't grenade. If it's made of glass then give me the V8.

Personally i would consider a turbo 6 .

I'd buy one in a heartbeat. (no pun intended)

I like the turbo option mainly for the weight savings(unless it's iron blocked) and the easy modibility of turbo's. they're free horsepower waiting to be uncorked.

I think it's a great idea. I'd consider it if it were in the ~350hp range.

I think it's a great idea. I'd consider it if it were in the ~350hp range.

I can't imagine it wouldn't, those 20+ year old SFI Buick V6's have been past that for... what 20 years :)

I can't imagine it wouldn't, those 20+ year old SFI Buick V6's have been past that for... what 20 years :)
Um, no, they haven't.

My lightly-modded GN makes about 260rwhp. It's the torque that makes it special. :D

If I bought a Camaro with a turbo V6, I would want it to make at least 350hp and 350lb-ft.

Um, no, they haven't.

My lightly-modded GN makes about 260rwhp. It's the torque that makes it special. :D

If I bought a Camaro with a turbo V6, I would want it to make at least 350hp and 350lb-ft.

Hi
I didn't mean stock:D
Back at the powertour in 01 my bolt on 89 Turbo T/A Dyno'd 349.8 RWHP and 416 torque on a stock turbo.
I haven't dynoed my Turbo Z or my current Turbo T/A but they have many many more mods then I had back then.
I don't think it would be too hard for a Turbo 6 2010 Camaro to be 350RWHP from the factory

I would definetely consider a turbo 6 based on price.

If Ford comes out (as the rumors say) with a Twin turbo 6 making 415-425 hp and as much torque as the GT, for the same price as the GT, it will be on my list.

If GM does the same, it too will be on my list. As long as I can special order it without other options and an Manual Trans, it's all good.

having owned and LOVED a Grand National (still my favorite car I ever owned) I would jump at the chance to own a new V6 Turbo if it dominated like the GN's did back in thier day.

Back at the powertour in 01 my bolt on 89 Turbo T/A Dyno'd 349.8 RWHP and 416 torque on a stock turbo.
What mods did you have to make those numbers? My GN isn't stock, but it doesn't make anywhere near that much power.

I would definetely consider a turbo 6 based on price.

If Ford comes out (as the rumors say) with a Twin turbo 6 making 415-425 hp and as much torque as the GT, for the same price as the GT, it will be on my list.

If GM does the same, it too will be on my list. As long as I can special order it without other options and an Manual Trans, it's all good.I'm exactly like you, whichever is the better bang for the buck, durable, and cheap to mod will be in my garage. I was glad to see Ford coming to it's senses, the only problem is a lot of the purists have a hard time considering anything other than a V8. I'll take a quick revving DOHC Turbo 6 anyday!

What mods did you have to make those numbers? My GN isn't stock, but it doesn't make anywhere near that much power.

K&N, chip, 42lbs injectors, fuel pump, hotwire kit, adjustable FP regulator, THDP (with the cutout open) converter.
Thats about it.
I just dug up a picture of the dyno chart it was 349.8 and 412 ft lbs torque.
http://krif.com/jim/tta/Powertour/jimpiperdyno.jpg

I would like anything that would take out those Stangs. I don't know if i can afford those?

If the V8 and turbo 6 had the same performance/cost numbers, I would pick the turbo 6.

I like the turbo option mainly for the weight savings(unless it's iron blocked) and the easy modibility of turbo's. they're free horsepower waiting to be uncorked.

How much weight savings could you expect? Turbocharger(s) piping, intercooler(s)...it adds up, especially if you're talking a DOHC motor. At that point you'd be lucky to weigh the same as an LSx motor, let alone come out lighter.

How much weight savings could you expect? Turbocharger(s) piping, intercooler(s)...it adds up, especially if you're talking a DOHC motor. At that point you'd be lucky to weigh the same as an LSx motor, let alone come out lighter.

Perhaps, but remember your not just shaving two cylinders off, if you lopped two cylinders off of an LS3 that would leave 4.65L and we are probably talking mid 3s. So the six cylinders are also smaller meaning that everything is smaller and lighter.

Also assuming you leave the tranny in the same spot, decreasing the length of the block by 20-25% and hanging a turbo on each side would move the weight rearward (and maybe downward) allowing for better cornering and harder launches.

Um, no, they haven't.

My lightly-modded GN makes about 260rwhp. It's the torque that makes it special. :D

If I bought a Camaro with a turbo V6, I would want it to make at least 350hp and 350lb-ft.

I wouldn’t worry the turbo Sol & Sky make 260hp & 260ft/lbs (at the flywheel) with 2.0 liters. If GM can work the same magic on a 3.0 V6 it should be good for nearly 400 & 400 (260 / 2 = 130/L * 3.0L = 390 hp & ft/lbs) and 4.0 would make a pretty awesome top dog at about 520.

Perhaps, but remember your not just shaving two cylinders off, if you lopped two cylinders off of an LS3 that would leave 4.65L and we are probably talking mid 3s. So the six cylinders are also smaller meaning that everything is smaller and lighter.

Also assuming you leave the tranny in the same spot, decreasing the length of the block by 20-25% and hanging a turbo on each side would move the weight rearward (and maybe downward) allowing for better cornering and harder launches.

I think you underestimate just how much weight a DOHC setup can add.

I think you underestimate just how much weight a DOHC setup can add.

I think you overestimate how much turbos weigh, I think you also overestimate how much a DOHC setup adds. We're not talking 100 lbs pre side here. We're talking less of a difference than going from Iron to Aluminum. Lets say it adds 15 lbs per side, is that 30 lbs plus the 20 lbs for the turbos going to make that V6 weigh as much as the LSX? I don't think so.

Seriously, it will be a fair amount lighter. The new age V6's are lighter than a V8, overhead valve included, and not by a slim margin. The LSX engines have a lot of girth cast in. The new V6's, not so much.

I really wonder if people who say the turbos add weight have ever picked up a turbo. They are not light as in throw it up with one hand, but I'd be suprised if my T30 weighed 10 lbs.

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you don't know, you don't know. That's fine.

I think you overestimate how much turbos weigh, I think you also overestimate how much a DOHC setup adds. We're not talking 100 lbs pre side here. We're talking less of a difference than going from Iron to Aluminum. Lets say it adds 15 lbs per side, is that 30 lbs plus the 20 lbs for the turbos going to make that V6 weigh as much as the LSX? I don't think so.

Seriously, it will be a fair amount lighter. The new age V6's are lighter than a V8, overhead valve included, and not by a slim margin. The LSX engines have a lot of girth cast in. The new V6's, not so much.

I really wonder if people who say the turbos add weight have ever picked up a turbo. They are not light as in throw it up with one hand, but I'd be suprised if my T30 weighed 10 lbs.

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you don't know, you don't know. That's fine.

My T28 weighs closer to 15lbs. I would bet on close to 50lbs from the turbos and associated equipment, and another 30lbs for the heads.

And after that we're still assuming that this is a bare bones aluminum block, which would seem unlikely if it was purpose built to handle a pair of turbochargers. I wouldn't be surprised to see an iron block.

You won't offend me, I just think you're being a little optimistic.:shrug:

Just to give a little idea of how much a turbo 6 motor from a 86/87 GN weight is 455 lbs with everything attached.

An LS1 481 pounds W/O flywheel.

I just wanted to post what the weight is for the ones wondering how much a turbo 6 motor weighs. But that is with iron block and heads and all accessories.

-Adam

I would pick the turbo 8 if it was available! Ha. Yeah the turbo 6 would be pretty awesome, although I love the sound of a small block at 7000rpm.

Just to give a little idea of how much a turbo 6 motor from a 86/87 GN weight is 455 lbs with everything attached.

An LS1 481 pounds W/O flywheel.

I just wanted to post what the weight is for the ones wondering how much a turbo 6 motor weighs. But that is with iron block and heads and all accessories.

-Adam

And those were pushrod motors, correct?

It's really not a fair comparison though, motors have changed in the past 20 years.

And those were pushrod motors, correct?

It's really not a fair comparison though, motors have changed in the past 20 years.

Agreed, it is hardly fair since the v6 has an iron block and the LS1's is alloy.

the DOHC heads on the 4.6 mod motor add 60 pounds over the SOHC heads. Also isn't the dressed weight of the LSx 440-445 pounds?

I couldn't figure out what the source is, but wikipedia says that the LY7 tips the scales at a modest 370 lbs. "as installed" whatever that might mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine

I couldn't figure out what the source is, but wikipedia says that the LY7 tips the scales at a modest 370 lbs. "as installed" whatever that might mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine

370lbs sure isn't much. However, we still need to pack on some weight for the turbo system. Even if we could get it into the car at 400lbs v. 500lbs for a V8, I'd take the extra weight.

Just my $.02:)

370lbs sure isn't much. However, we still need to pack on some weight for the turbo system. Even if we could get it into the car at 400lbs v. 500lbs for a V8, I'd take the extra weight.

Just my $.02:)I don't know about you but if I can have a better performing, lighter weight, easier upgraded, better gas mileage vehicle, I would take it. Automakers would kill to save 100 pounds per car, that would be like driving around with 2 big bags of concrete in the trunk. Even if the V6 and all it's turbo accessories weigh the same in the end as a V8, it's still gonna get better gas mileage.

I don't know about you but if I can have a better performing, lighter weight, easier upgraded, better gas mileage vehicle, I would take it. Automakers would kill to save 100 pounds per car, that would be like driving around with 2 big bags of concrete in the trunk. Even if the V6 and all it's turbo accessories weigh the same in the end as a V8, it's still gonna get better gas mileage.

Well I am a performance nut, and I know the kind of power I like to get out of a car. You're not going to be able to do it reliably with that motor. That's not to say they won't make a purpose built turbo V6 that can handle the extreme boost it would take to compensate for it's lack of displacement, but then again I think that motor would end up being heavier and defeat the purpose.:lol:

You are right though, it would get better gas mileage, there is something to be said for that.

Well I am a performance nut, and I know the kind of power I like to get out of a car. You're not going to be able to do it reliably with that motor. That's not to say they won't make a purpose built turbo V6 that can handle the extreme boost it would take to compensate for it's lack of displacement, but then again I think that motor would end up being heavier and defeat the purpose.:lol:

You are right though, it would get better gas mileage, there is something to be said for that.I guess you want to argue for the sake of arguing so I'll step out. Laugh all you want about gas mileage, but I promise if you offer GM two engines with the same power and one gets 2mpg better, that's the one that the company is going to go with. CAFE changes will be here soon and auto companies are doing everything they can to save weight and get the same performance with better gas mileage. GM's AFM in my opinion and others who have it on their cars and trucks is that it has little to no impact on mpg, most people are never gonna drive 55mph on a perfectly level road for 100 miles. In my old SRT4 I could run with V8's when I put my foot down and when I wanted to drive for mileage I could get almost 30 driving in city traffic by staying out of boost(granted my Hwy was about the same as my 02 Z28 6 speed, about 28). Try driving an LS1 in city traffic and see if you can bust 16mpg. Turbo's and Direct Injection are the future, the days of big cubic inch GM's for the common working man are almost over.

I've actually wondered what the LNF would be like in the Camaro - not as a hard core "performance" motor, but as a midlevel option. It doesn't make V8 torque, but it does have 260 lb. ft from 2500 to 5250 RPM. The Solstice GXP weighs 2988 or so. If the Camaro weighs somewhere between that and the 3500 pound weight of a CTS, it could be a good performer. That power and weight would probably be right in the neighborhood of a Grand Prix GTP.

I've actually wondered what the LNF would be like in the Camaro - not as a hard core "performance" motor, but as a midlevel option. It doesn't make V8 torque, but it does have 260 lb. ft from 2500 to 5250 RPM. The Solstice GXP weighs 2988 or so. If the Camaro weighs somewhere between that and the 3500 pound weight of a CTS, it could be a good performer. That power and weight would probably be right in the neighborhood of a Grand Prix GTP.I think it would get horrible mileage in the new heavy body Camaro, it's just too much weight for it to push without using a ton of gas. There is a sweet spot for weight I would imagine that would be the balance point between power and economy. Look at a Dodge Dakota the V8 actually got better than the V6 because the truck was so heavy the 6 had to wrok too hard to be effecient. I think it would take a turbo 6 to get the torque you need for a 3800lb+ vehicle.

I guess you want to argue for the sake of arguing so I'll step out. Laugh all you want about gas mileage, but I promise if you offer GM two engines with the same power and one gets 2mpg better, that's the one that the company is going to go with. CAFE changes will be here soon and auto companies are doing everything they can to save weight and get the same performance with better gas mileage. GM's AFM in my opinion and others who have it on their cars and trucks is that it has little to no impact on mpg, most people are never gonna drive 55mph on a perfectly level road for 100 miles. In my old SRT4 I could run with V8's when I put my foot down and when I wanted to drive for mileage I could get almost 30 driving in city traffic by staying out of boost(granted my Hwy was about the same as my 02 Z28 6 speed, about 28). Try driving an LS1 in city traffic and see if you can bust 16mpg. Turbo's and Direct Injection are the future, the days of big cubic inch GM's for the common working man are almost over.

Hey man I agree with you for the most part, sorry if you mis-interpreted the ":lol:". I know which one GM would pick, and I can't blame them for it. I am simply saying that as a performance enthusiast I would sacrifice a little weight savings (and really I think I am being very generous saying the V8 would be 100lbs heavier) to have a better performance platform.

If I had to pick a car and keep it showroom stock then sure, I'd be right there with you. Lucky for me though, that is not the case.

Not that any of my opinions matter, it will be many years before I buy another camaro, and I'll probably be buying it for my wife. They just don't have the "performance per dollar" value to justify buying one for myself.

I think it would get horrible mileage in the new heavy body Camaro, it's just too much weight for it to push without using a ton of gas. There is a sweet spot for weight I would imagine that would be the balance point between power and economy. Look at a Dodge Dakota the V8 actually got better than the V6 because the truck was so heavy the 6 had to wrok too hard to be effecient. I think it would take a turbo 6 to get the torque you need for a 3800lb+ vehicle.

You're probably right, but I still think that it's interesting that a Grand Prix GTP Makes 260 horses at 5200 rpm and 280 lb ft. at 3600 and weighs in at 3700 pounds.

The LNF (in Solstice GXP) makes 260 horses at 5300 rpm and has 260 lb ft (starting at 2000) running up to 5300 RPM. Doesn't seem that if a Camaro weighed 3700 the mileage would be hugely different than a GTP. Torque starts way low.

My T28 weighs closer to 15lbs. I would bet on close to 50lbs from the turbos and associated equipment, and another 30lbs for the heads.

And after that we're still assuming that this is a bare bones aluminum block, which would seem unlikely if it was purpose built to handle a pair of turbochargers. I wouldn't be surprised to see an iron block.

You won't offend me, I just think you're being a little optimistic.:shrug:

I seriously doubt they would use anything nearly as large as a T28. In addition, I don't think a 3-5 lb aluminum radiator and few aluminum tubes, probably mostly plastic ones actually, plus two small turbos will add 50 lbs when even added to your 30lbs of T-28s.

At the most I'd say 35 lbs would be added from the turbos and all equipment. Also, an aluminum block can handle power. Sure it probably can't handle 1000 hp, but do you think they are going to run huge amounts of boost through it? The engine has been designed and engineered to be aluminum. Taking it from 300 hp to 400 by adding a little more air pressure does not necesitate a switch to iron. Companies have been turbocharging aluminum engines for decades now. Some are even 6-7-800 hp monsters. I think GM has stepped up it's game enough by now that they can engineer an aluminum engine block that can comfortably handle a decent amount of power. Nissan RB20DETTs from 1989 could handle 30 lbs of boost and 700+ hp from the factory, that's 19 years ago. Am I thinking the 3.6 is as stout? Probably not. It also has the disadvantage of beeing a V instead of an inline 6. However that's not to say the 3.6 can't handle boost, even properly cooled boost at 8 lbs would yield over 400 hp with the DI. Most Hyperuetectic pistons can handle 8 lbs. Who's to say the 3.6 can't? What if they change the pistons? Do you know something about this motor that most people don't? You have repeated that they can't do it with THAT motor, so why can't they do it with THAT motor?

I think GM has stepped up their game enough to where the 3.6L can handle it. With a change of pistons I think it can probably go up to 11-12 psi.

If you know something we don't please share it.

Turbo 6's make V8 torque, with a larger flatter curve.
They would have to lower the compression ratio a little, which would cut down on detenation, and get more air into the cyls.

And I'd say it would take closer to 12psi to make good hp/torque numbers with the V6, based on my experience with GrandNationals.
(I wouldn't go over 13psi with Hyperuetectics tho.)
And they would have to ensure a minimal voltage drop at the fuel pump, b/c every 1v drop, drops pressure 10%...or used to.

A V8 wouldn't need to go over 8psi tho.

I mentioned a 4cyl turbo a few times b/c I couldn't dream they would ever build another V6 turbo legend..:bow:
(Well, maybe I could dream..:think:)

I seriously doubt they would use anything nearly as large as a T28. In addition, I don't think a 3-5 lb aluminum radiator and few aluminum tubes, probably mostly plastic ones actually, plus two small turbos will add 50 lbs when even added to your 30lbs of T-28s.

At the most I'd say 35 lbs would be added from the turbos and all equipment. Also, an aluminum block can handle power. Sure it probably can't handle 1000 hp, but do you think they are going to run huge amounts of boost through it? The engine has been designed and engineered to be aluminum. Taking it from 300 hp to 400 by adding a little more air pressure does not necesitate a switch to iron. Companies have been turbocharging aluminum engines for decades now. Some are even 6-7-800 hp monsters. I think GM has stepped up it's game enough by now that they can engineer an aluminum engine block that can comfortably handle a decent amount of power. Nissan RB20DETTs from 1989 could handle 30 lbs of boost and 700+ hp from the factory, that's 19 years ago. Am I thinking the 3.6 is as stout? Probably not. It also has the disadvantage of beeing a V instead of an inline 6. However that's not to say the 3.6 can't handle boost, even properly cooled boost at 8 lbs would yield over 400 hp with the DI. Most Hyperuetectic pistons can handle 8 lbs. Who's to say the 3.6 can't? What if they change the pistons? Do you know something about this motor that most people don't? You have repeated that they can't do it with THAT motor, so why can't they do it with THAT motor?

I think GM has stepped up their game enough to where the 3.6L can handle it. With a change of pistons I think it can probably go up to 11-12 psi.

If you know something we don't please share it.

I never said it wasn't feasible with that motor.:confused:

If you are referring to what I think you are referring to then you are taking it out of context and I urge you to reread what I wrote.:)

Maybe the 3.6 can handle some boost, I don't know a whole lot about that motor, are you sure that is the one they would use? All I said was I wouldn't be surprised to see an iron block, or at least an aluminum block designed for boost.

I think you may be taking my statements the wrong way, I have made very few absolute assertions. With good reason, I might add, as it is often unwise to assert anything about the future.:)

Well I am a performance nut, and I know the kind of power I like to get out of a car. You're not going to be able to do it reliably with that motor. That's not to say they won't make a purpose built turbo V6 that can handle the extreme boost it would take to compensate for it's lack of displacement, but then again I think that motor would end up being heavier and defeat the purpose.:lol:

You are right though, it would get better gas mileage, there is something to be said for that.

This is what I was refering to. You are saying "You're not going to be able to do it reliably with that motor".

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what you wrote is what I took it for. We've been sayin turbos on the 3.6L would be good, you are saying you don't think it can handle it. I don't see why it should not be able to handle medium levels of boost. Ford's 4.0L SOHC in the 05+ Mustang is not designed to take boost, but with minimal tuning there are examples running 9 lbs supercharged or turboed.

Some people like myself will be counting on the V6's ability to handle boost. If I can get a few things lined up right, I hope to get my hands on a manual trans V6 and put twin turbos on it myself to develop a kit.

This is what I was refering to. You are saying "You're not going to be able to do it reliably with that motor".

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what you wrote is what I took it for. We've been sayin turbos on the 3.6L would be good, you are saying you don't think it can handle it. I don't see why it should not be able to handle medium levels of boost. Ford's 4.0L SOHC in the 05+ Mustang is not designed to take boost, but with minimal tuning there are examples running 9 lbs supercharged or turboed.

Some people like myself will be counting on the V6's ability to handle boost. If I can get a few things lined up right, I hope to get my hands on a manual trans V6 and put twin turbos on it myself to develop a kit.

That is the quote I was talking about, but you are taking it out of context. I was making a point to STOCK1SC about why I would not want a turbo V6, because that motor could not handle what I would do to it.

The statement had nothing to do with the stock motor, it was in reference to heavily modifying motors. I can see how you would make that mistake though, it's perfectly reasonable.

There is no replacement for displacement. I love a big cam on a larger V8. I wouldn't mind owning a turbo sky, but that would just be a totally different car and not what I would be going for. I wouldn't mind a turbo V6, but it would have to prove it's self to me over time before I would pick it over my V8.

It would be really cool if chevy made a retro version of the Corvette that looked like the early 60's late 50's and used the sky platform, but put a turbo V6 in it.

There is no replacement for displacement. I love a big cam on a larger V8. I wouldn't mind owning a turbo sky, but that would just be a totally different car and not what I would be going for. I wouldn't mind a turbo V6, but it would have to prove it's self to me over time before I would pick it over my V8.

It would be really cool if chevy made a retro version of the Corvette that looked like the early 60's late 50's and used the sky platform, but put a turbo V6 in it.Turbo, the replacement of displacement.

There is no replacement for displacement. I love a big cam on a larger V8. I wouldn't mind owning a turbo sky, but that would just be a totally different car and not what I would be going for. I wouldn't mind a turbo V6, but it would have to prove it's self to me over time before I would pick it over my V8.

It would be really cool if chevy made a retro version of the Corvette that looked like the early 60's late 50's and used the sky platform, but put a turbo V6 in it.

spoken by someone who has never encountered a 650+ hp single turbo 3.8L Regal.

I built one with a buddy, it outran and outright embarassed a 750 superbike with an experienced rider. Most people thought it was a big block by the rumbling exhaust.

It has been proven time and again that a smaller engine with forced induction can match power of bigger engines.

also, big displacement means bad mileage, meet CAFE.

Until Chevy figures out how to squeeze 35mpg out of 6.0L of V8, you can forget about having big huge V*s in our future, except in very limited numbers with very high prices.

also, big displacement means bad mileage, meet CAFE.

Until Chevy figures out how to squeeze 35mpg out of 6.0L of V8, you can forget about having big huge V*s in our future, except in very limited numbers with very high prices.Yep, CAFE is gonna kill the big engines. Why lug around all those extra cylinders using up gas when you can get the same power and more torque from a boosted 6? I'm glad to see so many others that would like the option as well. One thing a lot of people forget is you really need to cam to make more power with a V8(nitrous excluded) and when you do people know it because of the lope but with a turbo they don't have a clue if you have 300hp or 600hp. I like that about turbo's, it ****s with people's heads! Kind of like people driving up next to SRT-4's, they don't know if they're running against 230hp or a 600hp Z06 killer.

Turbo, the replacement of displacement.

Yup, forced induction is great. But I'd still rather have a 6.2L V8 that I can turbocharge rather than having a 3.6L V6 that is already turbocharged.

There is no replacement for displacement + a turbo (or two).;)

Yup, forced induction is great. But I'd still rather have a 6.2L V8 that I can turbocharge rather than having a 3.6L V6 that is already turbocharged.

There is no replacement for displacement + a turbo (or two).;)Turbocharging a high compression 6.2 = trouble. That's if you can fit the turbos on the car. Unless your talking an STS type turbo kit with 5 miles of plumbing it doesn't sound very feasible and will be very expensive.

also, big displacement means bad mileage, meet CAFE.

Until Chevy figures out how to squeeze 35mpg out of 6.0L of V8, you can forget about having big huge V*s in our future, except in very limited numbers with very high prices.

I bet a Camaro with the Tahoe's 2 mode hybrid 6.0L could get 35mpg.

Turbocharging a high compression 6.2 = trouble. That's if you can fit the turbos on the car. Unless your talking an STS type turbo kit with 5 miles of plumbing it doesn't sound very feasible and will be very expensive.

Who said anything about high compression? I think we are still operating from 2 very different view points.

You want something from the factory that is sufficient as is and meets all of your requirements (i.e. good power, decent gas mileage, reliability, etc.). I want something from the factory that has the potential to meet my requirements (i.e. big motor, strong tranny/rear, and enough room for a turbocharger setup), I couldn't possibly care less about the gas mileage because it takes gas to make horsepower. Swapping pistons for lower compression is fairly inexpensive, and if someone can squeeze a couple of turbochargers under the hood of a corvette I can certainly find a place for them in a camaro.

I understand your point and respect what you want, but if I had my way it is just not enough.:shrug:

Who said anything about high compression? I think we are still operating from 2 very different view points.

You want something from the factory that is sufficient as is and meets all of your requirements (i.e. good power, decent gas mileage, reliability, etc.). I want something from the factory that has the potential to meet my requirements (i.e. big motor, strong tranny/rear, and enough room for a turbocharger setup), I couldn't possibly care less about the gas mileage because it takes gas to make horsepower. Swapping pistons for lower compression is fairly inexpensive, and if someone can squeeze a couple of turbochargers under the hood of a corvette I can certainly find a place for them in a camaro.

I understand your point and respect what you want, but if I had my way it is just not enough.:shrug:

different strokes for different folks. I need the good mileage so a turbo 6 with the power of a SB 8 sounds great to me. I do not plan on owning any 550+ hp monsters anytime in the near future, so a 6 with or without turbos that can make 400+ hp with boost factory or aftermarket is cool with me.

Honestly, a friend of mine has a Subaru Legacy GT (4 banger turbo) and barely gets any better gas mileage then my LT1 that has 75 more horsepower.

Buy a Toyota Prius if you want good gas mileage. Turbo V8 > All ;)

Honestly, a friend of mine has a Subaru Legacy GT (4 banger turbo) and barely gets any better gas mileage then my LT1 that has 75 more horsepower.

Buy a Toyota Prius if you want good gas mileage. Turbo V8 > All ;)

well there could be something wrong with the car, or it could simply be the driver.

My wife averages 11mpg in our dodge durango, I avg 17.

It's an 05, runs great, he averages around 21 highway, 17 in the city. I get around 28 highway due to the 6 speed, not sure about around town.

A 4 cylinder is obviously going to get better gas mileage, but its still making high end power so its gas consumption is still going to be quite large.

Like I said, if you want better gas mileage, get an economy car.

It's an 05, runs great, he averages around 21 highway, 17 in the city. I get around 28 highway due to the 6 speed, not sure about around town.

A 4 cylinder is obviously going to get better gas mileage, but its still making high end power so its gas consumption is still going to be quite large.

Like I said, if you want better gas mileage, get an economy car.Well an STI is an AWD vehicle so that basically sucks up a ton of gas. V6 Turbo Regals could get 27-28 on the hwy with a 4 speed auto, an LS1 with the same 4 speed auto gets 25. Camaro is lighter and much more aerodynamic. both run about the same. Hell a Mazda RX8 doesn't have a turbo and it gets worse mileage than a V8. We're not talking Subaru's and Mazda's however, we're talking GM turbo's. Heck get an SRT4 stay out of boost and see if you can't get 30mpg in the City! It's all in how you drive.

We all know having a performance car never results in good gas mileage. No matter what the car CAN get, you will still drive it harder then that.

Plus why waste the mileage on the nice car when you could just pick up a good gas mileage vehicle for cheap? :confused:

I will admit a turbo V6 would be a fun car to work with, but it shouldn't really be argued for its gas mileage.

Just turbo a V8 and be done with it. Sure, the gas mileage will hurt alittle (you can baby foot a V8 too, ya know) but you'll see tons more power.

We all know having a performance car never results in good gas mileage. No matter what the car CAN get, you will still drive it harder then that.

Plus why waste the mileage on the nice car when you could just pick up a good gas mileage vehicle for cheap? :confused:

I will admit a turbo V6 would be a fun car to work with, but it shouldn't really be argued for its gas mileage.

Just turbo a V8 and be done with it. Sure, the gas mileage will hurt alittle (you can baby foot a V8 too, ya know) but you'll see tons more power.


It's not us (the consumer) who really need to worry about the mileage, but GM does have to think about ways to get better performance with more mileage.

different strokes for different folks. I need the good mileage so a turbo 6 with the power of a SB 8 sounds great to me. I do not plan on owning any 550+ hp monsters anytime in the near future, so a 6 with or without turbos that can make 400+ hp with boost factory or aftermarket is cool with me.

Eh, if I want gas mileage I'll add another gear, or maybe a powerglide like they did with the 4+3 in the vette.:lol:

The other thing about the added displacement is when you do hit the 700-800 hp range the motor has better street manners than a balls-to-the-wall V6.

I hear what you're saying, that's why I have a 45-50mpg motorcycle.:)

Originally Posted by jerminator96:
Eh, if I want gas mileage I'll add another gear, or maybe a powerglide like they did with the 4+3 in the vette.

The other thing about the added displacement is when you do hit the 700-800 hp range the motor has better street manners than a balls-to-the-wall V6.

I hear what you're saying, that's why I have a 45-50mpg motorcycleThat's only true w/o the turbo, I've personally seen wheel standing, 10sec GN's that had great street manners.(some approaching 1,000hp)
The ECM's could be set on 5 different power/boost levels.
Can't do that with NA...

Originally Posted by cvccbum:
Honestly, a friend of mine has a Subaru Legacy GT (4 banger turbo) and barely gets any better gas mileage then my LT1 that has 75 more horsepowerI believe you. Those boxed fours in the Suby's are torquey but thirsty, add the AWD and performance gearing, and it moves pretty good but thirsty.

In case anyone is still wondering, the Global V6 family (which includes the LY7 & LTT) was designed for turbos. It even has 6 bolt main caps and a forged crank. The rods are “sinterforged” which sounds kinda sketchy, but hopefully GM will upgrade them for a turbo motor if they’re as bas as they sound.

The article I found only mentions 2.8 & 3.2 L turbo versions, but if they can achieve the same specific output as the LNF that would be 364 & 416 respectively (peak torque and peak HP are the same value on the LNF). The LTT seems to have all same the high tech goodies as the LNF (step-less VVT, DOHC, 4 valves, DI etc.) so I think that the same 130hp & 130 ft/lbs per liter is a reasonable goal.

http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1676/article.html?popularArticle

And this second article says that a TT DI 3.6 would probably get better mileage than the NA DI 3.6. Obviously, a TT DI 3.2 would be even less thirsty.
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html

Sounds like a pretty good deal for those of us who want a powerful yet practical daily driver, if GM will build it. And you 500hp+ types will probably be happier with the GT500 fighter.

In case anyone is still wondering, the Global V6 family (which includes the LY7 & LTT) was designed for turbos. It even has 6 bolt main caps and a forged crank. The rods are “sinterforged” which sounds kinda sketchy, but hopefully GM will upgrade them for a turbo motor if they’re as bas as they sound.

The article I found only mentions 2.8 & 3.2 L turbo versions, but if they can achieve the same specific output as the LNF that would be 364 & 416 respectively (peak torque and peak HP are the same value on the LNF). The LTT seems to have all same the high tech goodies as the LNF (step-less VVT, DOHC, 4 valves, DI etc.) so I think that the same 130hp & 130 ft/lbs per liter is a reasonable goal.

http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1676/article.html?popularArticle

And this second article says that a TT DI 3.6 would probably get better mileage than the NA DI 3.6. Obviously, a TT DI 3.2 would be even less thirsty.
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html

Sounds like a pretty good deal for those of us who want a powerful yet practical daily driver, if GM will build it. And you 500hp+ types will probably be happier with the GT500 fighter.

Nothing wrong with sintered metal rods. They work well with our old LT1/LT4 motors. They last a whole lot longer than the pistons anyway. There are guys running ~600hp on the stock crank and rods in those motors.

I'm curious about the "stepless VVT" in those motors. Is that just a constantly variable timing advance, or does it change the valve lift/cam profile also?

Nothing wrong with sintered metal rods. They work well with our old LT1/LT4 motors. They last a whole lot longer than the pistons anyway. There are guys running ~600hp on the stock crank and rods in those motors.


Weird, on the gun boards people throw fits when a manufacturer uses sintered small parts acting as though they are certain to break before you even get the pistol home. I guess "Sinterforged" really is diferent.


I'm curious about the "stepless VVT" in those motors. Is that just a constantly variable timing advance, or does it change the valve lift/cam profile also?

Just constantly variable, I was looking for way to distinguish that from the older systems that only had two position (regular and advanced). Although I've never quite figured out why one would want to be able to vary lift, seems like you could get the same effect by closing the throttle a little. But variable duration would rock.

Originally Posted by jerminator96:
I'm curious about the "stepless VVT" in those motors. Is that just a constantly variable timing advance, or does it change the valve lift/cam profile also? It actually changes the Cam Phasing, by allowing one or both cams to move clockwise or counterclockwise in relation to the crank.
Kinda like when we used to advance our cams, but now on a DOHC motor they can advance/retard the Intake Cam, and Exhaust cam, individually.
Impossible on a pushrod, single cam, motor.
It allows the maximum advance for take off, and retard for top end.

Nothing wrong with sintered metal rods. They work well with our old LT1/LT4 motors. They last a whole lot longer than the pistons anyway. There are guys running ~600hp on the stock crank and rods in those motors.


Thanks for the info. If GM brings a turbo V6 to the states I'll feel a little better about the bottom end and maybe adding some goodies.

On the gun boards people throw fits when a manufacturer uses sintered small parts acting as though they are certain to break in a few thousand rounds although I've never seen it happen.



I'm curious about the "stepless VVT" in those motors. Is that just a constantly variable timing advance, or does it change the valve lift/cam profile also?

Just constantly variable, but couldn't think of the word. I was trying to distinguish constantly variable and its flat torque curve from the older systems that only had two positions and a lumpy torque curve.

Thanks for the info. If GM brings a turbo V6 to the states I'll feel a little better about the bottom end and maybe adding some goodies.

On the gun boards people throw fits when a manufacturer uses sintered small parts acting as though they are certain to break in a few thousand rounds although I've never seen it happen.

I guess I can understand the gun guys not wanting sintered parts, but then again no one complains about the Kalashnikov's cheap stamped metal parts.:shrug:

If it's my carry weapon we're talking about though, I'm all for using the best parts possible.


Just constantly variable, but couldn't think of the word. I was trying to distinguish constantly variable and its flat torque curve from the older systems that only had two positions and a lumpy torque curve.

Gotcha. I've always wondered if anyone used a VVT system that could change the duration and lift, though you're right, I'm not sure why you would want to vary the lift. I thought Ferrari developed a system to do that, but I haven't seen any evidence that it was actually used in a production car.

It actually changes the Cam Phasing, by allowing one or both cams to move clockwise or counterclockwise in relation to the crank.
Kinda like when we used to advance our cams, but now on a DOHC motor they can advance/retard the Intake Cam, and Exhaust cam, individually.
Impossible on a pushrod, single cam, motor.
It allows the maximum advance for take off, and retard for top end.
Unless you complicated the cam design and allowed the intake lobes to move a little in relation to the exhaust lobes. Almost like a cam within a cam.

Unless you complicated the cam design and allowed the intake lobes to move a little in relation to the exhaust lobes. Almost like a cam within a cam.

I'm pretty sure someone has done that, or something similar. I vaguely remember seeing a camshaft design where the cams were separate from the shaft. I'll try to find it.

Camaro has to fight back and fight back hard. I know all that talk about how american Muscle should be v8, but according to the nature of the times, we cannot really be thinking this way. I really do hope Camaro gets a turbo v6 options, just to show the Mustang isnt the only muscle car around.

:cz28:Camaro has to fight back and fight back hard. I know all that talk about how american Muscle should be v8, but according to the nature of the times, we cannot really be thinking this way. I really do hope Camaro gets a turbo v6 options, just to show the Mustang isnt the only muscle car around.

:cz28: Of course there will be those who will feel no real american muscle car has fewer than 8 cylinders, with enough cubes to displace 4-5 honda i4s. I still encounter some who think the T-type/ GN/ GNX is not a real muscle car. Many even think the Mustang SVO is a joke.

Sure a Turbo 6 will not easily provide 620 hp as in the ZR1, but it will provide the HP of a mid level V8, and the mileage of the V6 that GM so desperately needs. And GM needs this more than us.

Perhaps GM will do the same as what Ford is supposedly doing, offer the 8 and a Turbo six for about the same price. This way, those who need the displacement so bad, will be able to get it.

:cz28:
Sure a Turbo 6 will not easily provide 620 hp as in the ZR1, but it will provide the HP of a mid level V8, and the mileage of the V6 that GM so desperately needs. And GM needs this more than us.

Perhaps GM will do the same as what Ford is supposedly doing, offer the 8 and a Turbo six for about the same price. This way, those who need the displacement so bad, will be able to get it.

I suspect that this is just to gauge acceptance and one of those engines will go away after a year or two.

I'm pretty sure someone has done that, or something similar. I vaguely remember seeing a camshaft design where the cams were separate from the shaft. I'll try to find it.

It is in the new Viper but I think it is only good for 10-15 degrees. Mopar licensed the use of someone else's design so GM could also use it in the last of the Gen IV small blocks. Hopefully the Gen V small blocks will have DOHC or better yet two cams in the block.



Gotcha. I've always wondered if anyone used a VVT system that could change the duration and lift, though you're right, I'm not sure why you would want to vary the lift. I thought Ferrari developed a system to do that, but I haven't seen any evidence that it was actually used in a production car.

BMW uses a system like that. I think they call it Valvetronic. They claim that the latest version is drivable without a throttle body installed but they have to include one to keep the emissions at down at idle.

Think of it as having a high lift, hi duration cam with computer controlled, adjustable valve lash. So at idle and low load they you keep the lash really loose and the valve doesn't open until the follower is halfway up the lobe, but at WOT it cranks down to zero lash so the valve opens early and wide.

I think FIAT developed a similar system in the 80s, I have no idea what became of it as I don't follow cars I can't buy in the states.

It is in the new Viper but I think it is only good for 10-15 degrees. Mopar licensed the use of someone else's design so GM could also use it in the last of the Gen IV small blocks. Hopefully the Gen V small blocks will have DOHC or better yet two cams in the block.

That's where I saw it! That was driving my crazy!

I think you're going somewhere with two cams in the block.:think:

BMW uses a system like that. I think they call it Valvetronic. They claim that the latest version is drivable without a throttle body installed but they have to include one to keep the emissions at down at idle.

Think of it as having a high lift, hi duration cam with computer controlled, adjustable valve lash. So at idle and low load they you keep the lash really loose and the valve doesn't open until the follower is halfway up the lobe, but at WOT it cranks down to zero lash so the valve opens early and wide.

I think FIAT developed a similar system in the 80s, I have no idea what became of it as I don't follow cars I can't buy in the states.

The system I was thinking of utilizes tapered cams, with a more aggressive lift/profile at one end of the lobe and a mild one at the other, then the whole camshaft slides across the rocker. The biggest problem I see with the design is that the cams would have to be so wide to provide enough surface area for the rockers or cam follower.

If FIAT had it then chances are Ferrari was using it in some form or fashion.

Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt:
Unless you complicated the cam design and allowed the intake lobes to move a little in relation to the exhaust lobes. Almost like a cam within a cam.I can't remember where, but I've seen something like that in development.

Originally Posted by 5thGen :
Sure a Turbo 6 will not easily provide 620 hp as in the ZR1, but it will provide the HP of a mid level V8, and the mileage of the V6 that GM so desperately needs. And GM needs this more than us..Don't be so sure. I have personally worked on GN's that DOUBLED their horsepower easily hitting the 500hp range with bolt ons, stock longblock.

As great as the GN's were, the '89 TTA's were sought after more...LC2 powered Trans Am; aerodynamic, handled better, and rarer.

I believe it's time for another GM Trump Card, turbo V6 legend!..

I can't remember where, but I've seen something like that in development.
The Viper has cam in cam.

Don't be so sure. I have personally worked on GN's that DOUBLED their horsepower easily hitting the 500hp range with bolt ons, stock longblock.

As great as the GN's were, the '89 TTA's were sought after more...LC2 powered Trans Am; aerodynamic, handled better, and rarer.

I believe it's time for another GM Trump Card, turbo V6 legend!..

Doubling would be scary. If we extrapolate from the 2.0 L LNF’s 260 hp & 260 ft/lbs then a 3.6 turbo would have more power than an LS3. Ford even said last year that they had a prototype 3.5 L twin turbo V6 with 415 & 400 and I've read that they plan to put a turbo V6 (and a new V8)in the Mustang when the Camaro comes out.

But judging by the LNF & 335 boards, they probably won’t leave as much power on the table as it did in the ‘80s. I imagine getting past 500 would require methanol injection (or E85) and maybe bigger turbos. The big question will be what can the injectors flow and can you get bigger ones.

Doubling would be scary. If we extrapolate from the 2.0 L LNF’s 260 hp & 260 ft/lbs then a 3.6 turbo would have more power than an LS3. Ford even said last year that they had a prototype 3.5 L twin turbo V6 with 415 & 400 and I've read that they plan to put a turbo V6 (and a new V8)in the Mustang when the Camaro comes out.

But judging by the LNF & 335 boards, they probably won’t leave as much power on the table as it did in the ‘80s. I imagine getting past 500 would require methanol injection (or E85) and maybe bigger turbos. The big question will be what can the injectors flow and can you get bigger ones.

If I'm not mistaken Ford is already using a turbocharged (perhaps twin) 4.0L V6 in the some trim level of the Falcon in Australia, putting out around 330hp. Apparently it's capable of well over 500hp with some modification.:eek:

If I'm not mistaken Ford is already using a turbocharged (perhaps twin) 4.0L V6 in the some trim level of the Falcon in Australia, putting out around 330hp. Apparently it's capable of well over 500hp with some modification.:eek:

I think you are thinking of the i6 with yep, 330 hp. That's an engine we don't see here in the US.

I think you are thinking of the i6 with yep, 330 hp. That's an engine we don't see here in the US.

Ah, yes you are right, it is an I6. Great motors, the packaging is just troublesome. It's usually not worth it. The great thing about cars with an I6 is that you can usually fit an SBC in fairly easily. Take the old Datsuns for example.

If I'm not mistaken Ford is already using a turbocharged (perhaps twin) 4.0L V6 in the some trim level of the Falcon in Australia, putting out around 330hp. Apparently it's capable of well over 500hp with some modification.:eek:

It is a 4.0 DOHC inline 6 w/ VVT and a single turbo. http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2792/article.html

Apparently a tune with no other mods can get you to hair over 400hp and the stage I & II kits can get you up 500hp. http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2794/article.html

Stage III & IV seem silly, if I was looking to spend that kind of cash I'd at least consider an alloy V8 block that might shave a few pounds off of this iron blocked I6. http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2802/article.html

I gather that Ford of Oz is killing the I6 in 2010 and probably going to the lighter, more modern Duratec 35. Ford has already shown turbo versions of this engine making 360-430 hp.

Originally Posted by Grape Ape :
The Viper has cam in cam.



Doubling would be scary. If we extrapolate from the 2.0 L LNF’s 260 hp & 260 ft/lbs then a 3.6 turbo would have more power than an LS3. Ford even said last year that they had a prototype 3.5 L twin turbo V6 with 415 & 400 and I've read that they plan to put a turbo V6 (and a new V8)in the Mustang when the Camaro comes out.

But judging by the LNF & 335 boards, they probably won’t leave as much power on the table as it did in the ‘80s. I imagine getting past 500 would require methanol injection (or E85) and maybe bigger turbos. The big question will be what can the injectors flow and can you get bigger ones.The Viper motor at NAIAS is probably where I saw it then.
That's the $20 question(s)...how hard is it to upsizes DI injectors?, or how much can they flow?
Once that's overcome, changing: programming, fuel pump, turbo, exhaust, throttle bodies, down pipes, IC's etc etc..will set the horses free.

That's the $20 question(s)...how hard is it to upsizes DI injectors?, or how much can they flow?
Once that's overcome, changing: programming, fuel pump, turbo, exhaust, throttle bodies, down pipes, IC's etc etc..will set the horses free.

I can't think of any DI engine with more displacement per cylinder or HP per cylinder so I fear that these might be the biggest DI injects available for a while. Unless the diesels injectors are swappable you may be stuck waiting for the aftermarket or adding port injectors that only fire when the DI system is maxed out.

As for me I don’t think I’d add much more than a tune since I’m looking for a DD. But in a couple years I might start looking for a nice classic convertible that needs a new engine. Nothing collectable, just something mid sized, with a reputation for being a little slow…

I can't think of any DI engine with more displacement per cylinder or HP per cylinder so I fear that these might be the biggest DI injects available for a while. Unless the diesels injectors are swappable you may be stuck waiting for the aftermarket or adding port injectors that only fire when the DI system is maxed out.

Diesel injectors may very well be your best bet, unless there is some racing application you could borrow from.