Why not a turbo V6?

I've been joking around for a while now about a "Maximum Bob" turbo V6 but I think with the current gas prices a turbo V6 could actually attract a lot of buyers.

Base 300 hp DI V6 and a 400+ hp turbo V6.

I'd buy it.:yes:

I already own a turbo V6. Love it. The turbo V6 F-body has been done ('89 Turbo TA), and was/is awesome. GM should do it again!

Having said that, a naturally aspirated V8 must be on the option list. :yes:

Given the choice between a 400hp turbo 6 and a 400 hp NA V8, I'll take the turbo 6, it will be faster and get better mileage(not much but maybe 1-2) and be easy to mod granted it isn't made out of glass. Not to mention it will probably be lighter, again not by much but 100lb's is possible.

I have two Turbo6 F-Bodies (89 Turbo T/A and a 92 Z28 I converted) you know I'd be all over it.
A GM ad with a GN fading into a 5th gen with the tag line like "We did it again..." would be great!

Put me down for one

turbo cars don't really get any better mpg then there couterpart NA V8 cars.
Therefore I can't see a reason for GM to do it.

Given the choice between a 400hp turbo 6 and a 400 hp NA V8, I'll take the turbo 6, it will be faster

Why would it be faster?

Why would it be faster?

Because of the blow off valve noise. :lol:

Why would it be faster?

I don’t think it will be meaningfully lighter (or heavier), although the weight should be a little farther back.

But the modern Turbo, DI, VVT engines (LNF and the 6 in the 335) have flatter torque curves than anything I’ve ever seen attributed to a NA V8.

Why would it be faster?More torque than a NA V8 can make. GN's made more torque with 3.8l than Corvette's did with 5.7l.

turbo cars don't really get any better mpg then there couterpart NA V8 cars.
Therefore I can't see a reason for GM to do it.

Sky Redline (2.0 with DI and a turbo): 19/28 MPG & 260hp
Base Sky (2.4 NA with port injection): 19/25 MPG & 173hp

I can only assume that a Sky with a LY7 (3.6 port injection V6) would get worse mileage than either of the fours do to parasitic losses.

I think that a twin turbo V6 Camaro could actually return better mileage than the base (NA) V6.

Why would it need to be a twin turbo? The Grand Nationals did'nt seem to need more than one 20 years ago to beat up on most other cars on the road.

Why would it need to be a twin turbo? The Grand Nationals did'nt seem to need more than one 20 years ago to beat up on most other cars on the road.

It wouldn't need to have two turbos but two small turbos would spool-up faster than one bigger one. That probably wouldn't matter to the drag guys, but I want a daily driver.

Sky Redline (2.0 with DI and a turbo): 19/28 MPG & 260hp
Base Sky (2.4 NA with port injection): 19/25 MPG & 173hp

I can only assume that a Sky with a LY7 (3.6 port injection V6) would get worse mileage than either of the fours do to parasitic losses.

I think that a twin turbo V6 Camaro could actually return better mileage than the base (NA) V6.
Assuming the base NA V6 is the Direct Injected one....would it? Problem is, GM doesn't have a NA Direct Injected I-4 from which to judge.

I guess my question is, does a modest (OEM) Turbocharger always increase fuel economy?

Assuming the base NA V6 is the Direct Injected one....would it? Problem is, GM doesn't have a NA Direct Injected I-4 from which to judge.

I guess my question is, does a modest (OEM) Turbocharger always increase fuel economy?

Here is an Aussie speed mag's article comparing two VW DI 2.0s, one turbo charges and one NA. http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html and here is the conclusion:
So let’s take a step back. In the comparison shown above of the two 2-litre engines, the turbo engine has better fuel economy, better CO2 emissions, 50 per cent more bottom-end power and 34 per cent more top-end power.


It appears that because they are so modest, factory turbos produce some boost at low enough RPM & load that they can reduce pumping losses at cruise. I imagine that there is a synergy with the DI ultra lean burn mode.

Here is an Aussie speed mag's article comparing two VW DI 2.0s, one turbo charges and one NA. http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html and here is the conclusion:


It appears that because they are so modest, factory turbos produce some boost at low enough RPM & load that they can reduce pumping losses at cruise. I imagine that there is a synergy with the DI ultra lean burn mode.
That's a really good read. Thanks for that.:thumbsup:

I'm up for that, Turbo everything!! :lol:

Seriously, though...I think (I did before, but that article reinforced it) that a Turbo, or hopefully twin turbo V6 can do nothing but good for the Camaro, and GM in general.:yes:

they should put in GM's next gen diesel. 4.5 (I think)V8 supposedly 25% better fuel economy than similar power Gas V8.
Or why not the V6 diesel that will be showing up in GM cars in a few years?

they should put in GM's next gen diesel. 4.5 (I think)V8 supposedly 25% better fuel economy than similar power Gas V8.
Or why not the V6 diesel that will be showing up in GM cars in a few years?

I think the new 2.9 Diesel would be a great option for a "green" Camaro.

However, I also wonder why they can't substitute or add a turbo 4-cylinder. They've got outstanding motors...maybe the cost is too much to adapt to RWD applications and testing would cost too much?

Gas isn't getting any cheaper, and if this car has to survive on volume, you've got to be able to sell to the people who want a little performance but don't want a big 300+hp motor, even if it's a V6.

I think the new 2.9 Diesel would be a great option for a "green" Camaro.

However, I also wonder why they can't substitute or add a turbo 4-cylinder. They've got outstanding motors...maybe the cost is too much to adapt to RWD applications and testing would cost too much?

Gas isn't getting any cheaper, and if this car has to survive on volume, you've got to be able to sell to the people who want a little performance but don't want a big 300+hp motor, even if it's a V6.

If you are thinking of the Turbo 4 in the Cobalt SS & HHR SS, it is was in the (RWD) Sky Redline and Solstice GXP first so RWD shouldn't be a problem.

The possible problems I see are:

The Camaro might weigh too much to feel "sporty" with 260hp (I hope not).
The LNF probably costs too much to put in a base Camaro.

Well, as for a turbo-6, I was hoping my business would be in better shape right now because I would already have a catera 6 on a stand with boost on it to develop a kit for the Camaro.

A 450 hp turbo 6 from the aftermarket or a 375 hp turbo 6 from GM would not be far fetched. However the previous mention of quicker spooling twin turbos is spot on. If you look at the power curves of a TT vs a single turbo, you'll see a huge difference. A single turbo maxed out will make little to no boost at low end, then about 2500-3500 will skyrocket up. If you have smaller twin turbos you may sacrifice peak hp numbers but you can make loads more power from as low as 1400 rpm. So, the TT car with less peak power will make more power along the entire power range except where the single turbo surpasses it towards the top end. I'd rather have two small turbos any day over one large turbo. Also, a TT camaro 6 with factory hp of 375 should be able to be tuned for over 450 without breaking a sweat. Add in a diet and a strip show on the inside, and you're looking at a real beast. Turbos teamed with DI though, seem to make a lot more power than standard fuel injection. This is partly due to the fuel slightly cooling the intake charge as it enters the CC and the fine misting effect of the DI vs the ability of the fuel to condensate through the intake runners.

You know GM has to be looking into it, Ford has already stated that the Mustang may get the eco-boost TT V6 with up to 425 hp. A Camaro V6 with tt, DI, a free flow intake, full exhaust system and agressive tune will surely be a car to really put the EB Mustang in it's place. Plus free flow exhaust and intake will actually improve fuel economy.

I would bet that they are looking at a turbo V6. I would not be the first time in a Camaro. Since I'm a second gen guy, I focus here. In 1972, Chevrolet engineers experimented with Schwitzer turbocharger on a 6-cylinder Camaro. The end result was that time to 60 was cut by 4.1 sec. It also added 19 mph to the 1/4-mile time. (data from 'The Great Camaro").

Assuming the base NA V6 is the Direct Injected one....would it? Problem is, GM doesn't have a NA Direct Injected I-4 from which to judge.

they do now....:yes:

2.3 DI going into some 2009 models.
est 200-230HP

That was a great link somebody posted and GM is working on a 1.4L turbo that will help a lot of vehiles have both performance and fuel economy.

I wanted to ad something about the VW/Audi/Skoda 2L FSI Turbos and this also holds true with the Turbo diesels VWs:
One of the reasons they don't either offer automatics with these engines, or when they do, their resale is lower than the manuals, is that these trannys simply were not designed to handle this kind of torque in these applications.
A lot of the autos are failing at 40K miles.

Edit: My internet connection is so slow that it allowed me to post twice! :eek:

That was a great link somebody posted and GM is working on a 1.4L turbo that will help a lot of vehiles have both performance and fuel economy.

I wanted to ad something about the VW/Audi/Skoda 2L FSI Turbos and this also holds true with the Turbo diesels VWs:
One of the reasons they don't either offer automatics with these engines, or when they do, their resale is lower than the manuals, is that these trannys simply were not designed to handle this kind of torque in these applications.
A lot of the autos are failing at 40K miles.

Where are you getting your information? From my understanding and experience, that's completely untrue. The previous and current gen Audi A4 paired with the 2.0L FSI comes with a 6-speed auto that holds up remarkably well--especially since the 2.0T doesn't actually put out much torque (225ft/lb).

The DSG pairing with the 2.0T has been remarkably solid as well. Granted, the DSG is not an automatic in the traditional sense (no torque converter), so I'm not sure if that counts in your world or not.

These vehicles have always been offered with automatics, and comparably equipped, the automatic versions sell for more in the used car market. The availability of *good* manual transmissions in these vehicles comes from the European market which typically demands more fuel-efficient powertrains, which has historically been vehicles equipped with manual transmissions.

I had to register to post. I have been lurking to try to get as much info as I can but I had to chime in to relay some information that I had seen in the latest issue of Car and Driver. The LS3 will be the stud in the corral. Will the L99 be the Z28 and the LS3 be the SS? We'd bet yes, although no one at Chevy will say yea or nay right now. They also refuse to discuss the rumor of a possible future turbo four. Ditto hybrids. So that is what I know. NO mention of a turbo 6, which would be great. Maybe a turbo 4 on the horizon...

Yeah Turbo's don't need big Cubic inches.I like the 3.8 Liter V-6.Thats all you need at the track and on the street.

Yeah Turbo's don't need big Cubic inches.I like the 3.8 Liter V-6.Thats all you need at the track and on the street.

I agree, the 3800 w-bodies replaced with single turbos still spin out of the hole. Power is made everywhere.

Adding a turbo usually increases the engine's efficiency, ie, mileage, due to thermo gains. I don't recall the specifics, but I got into a debate with a much smarter friend of mine that had an Esprit turbo. His argument for the efficiency of the turbo's convinced me to buy my own Esprit. A supercar that got 28mpg was hard to argue with. I've owned a few other turbos and I would surely consider a turbo in the Camaro as a performance alternative, though I would prefer it be a V6 due to the weight of the car.

You can get a 400hp V8 a whole lot cheaper than a turbo V6 making 400hp. One of GM's goals is to keep Camaro affordable

so im a vw tech and the FSI 2.0t vw motor which is now the TSI motor are 90% auto or dsg out of every car in the shop i see at the most 1 manual 2.0t do to the fact the the 6speed dsg gets beter mileage then the manual, and its faster to with its .1 sec **** times and the 2.0t gets 30 highway miles. when the base 2.5 only gets about 27 highway

I agree that a production turbo V6 isn't a good idea for the new Camaro. The LS series V8s are cheaper to build than a Turbocharged Intercooled V6 that could get the same amount of HP.

Another option for a mid-level Camaro would be for a DOHC V8 based off the 304hp V6, with VVT, Direct Injection & DOD. Say roughly 4.8-5.0 liters, with 375-400 hp. This should make it so there's a V8 Camaro that can get 26-27 mpg on the highway, instead of just 24-25 mpg with the 6.2 liter V8.

And a Turbo Diesel V6 or V8 is definitely a Bad Idea. Turbo Diesels are basically Torque monsters with RPM that never exceed 5,000. Yes they may get better MPG than a normal gas engine - but the HP is less than in the 304hp V6 engine. So performance would suffer for it. And the Camaro is a Performance car. A better option make the Camaro a Hybrid - which would maintain it's current performance - yet enable the car to improve it overall fuel economy by about 25%. That would allow it to have roughly the same as a Turbo Diesel V6.