How about this? V8 standard base engine

AdioSS · 01-14-2006, 12:59 AM

We all know that the V6 "base" cars are the big sellers. I'm wondering why the base engine even needs to be a V6? GM Powertrain has such a wide V8 arsenal that ranges from the 4.8L LR4 to the big 7.0L LS7. I could definitely see an aluminum block and DOD/AFM & VVT equipped 4.8L V8 as the standard engine. It has the same small bore as the 5.3L with a shorter stroke, so the block used in Trailblazer would work since it already has DOD. It has the ability to get the same fuel economy ratings as Ford's V6 Stang. Look at the 1/2 ton trucks for an example. A 4.8L V8 A4 Silverado is rated at 16/21mpg compared to a 4.2L V6 A4 F150's rating of 16/20. Add DOD/AFM and a 6 speed automatic transmission to the 4.8L and you are sure to get even better economy. While cruising on 4 cylinders it would be getting similar mileage to what a 2.4L Ecotec gets.

Look at the specs of the current LR4. 285hp@5200/295tq@4000 on 87 octane. Compared to the V6 engines in this class, that is dang good.

I consider the Nissan VQ35 to be at the top of the line and it is making 287hp@6200rpm/274lb-ft@4800rpm with the automatic and 300hp@6400rpm/260lb-ft@4800rpm with the manual.

The current Stang base engine makes 210hp@5250/240tq@3500. It is rumored to be getting a lot more than that soon.

The Charger's base engine makes 250hp@6400/250tq@3800.

It has got to be easier for assembly and certification to have all the engines in a model externally identical. I say the same about the transmissions also. The base model can benefit from 6 speed autos and manuals just as much as the higher end models.

The only thing (that I can see) that the V6 has going for it is the reduced weight.

One more thing that is on my mind is the complaining about DOD/AFM. Why not have a switch for it? ON/AUTO/OFF There are times when I would like to drop half my cylinders to pick up a few MPG. When gas prices skyrocket on holiday weekends, after a disaster, etc. just switch over to 4 cylinder mode all the time. Millions of cars get around with 140ish horsepower all the time.

Switch it to AUTO and have it operate as normal. And have it switched OFF for the folks that are paranoid.

And to compliment the DOD, have adjustable mufflers like the Z06. They close off and get really quiet when in 4 cylinder mode. Open it up for V8 mode above a certain RPM. Have the baffles hooked up to the switch also.

RussStang · 01-14-2006, 01:07 AM

I don't think it is a bad idea, but I think alot of the guys on here are going to scream bloody murder about not having a v6 at all, regardless of the businesss case made for it.

turbo96z28 · 01-14-2006, 01:18 AM

2 things are wrong with having a base V8:

1. puplic perception. no matter how good any V8's fuel economy is, there are still plenty of people that wouldn't buy it just because it's a V8. if a parent wants to buy their kid a graduation gift, they'd be more likely to get a Mustang for the simple fact it has a V6 if the Camaro's only engines are all V8s

2. insurance companies. V8s cost more to insure plain and simple.

this has been a hot topic around here for a long time. i can see both sides of it, but i think logically, the V6 has to be there.

jg95z28 · 01-14-2006, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo96z28

2. insurance companies. V8s cost more to insure plain and simple.

Actually that's not true. I used to believe that myself, until I checked on the insurance for my 17 year-old stepson. For a 1996 Mustang V6 it was exactly twice the cost of a 1996 Mustang GT V8.

Yeah, that's what I said, "You've got to be kidding me." The insurance company couldn't explain why either, "that's just what it is."

I agree with you on the public perception part though. As long as Ford sells a V6 Mustang, GM will have to sell a V6 Camaro.

turbo96z28 · 01-14-2006, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg95z28

Actually that's not true. I used to believe that myself, until I checked on the insurance for my 17 year-old stepson. For a 1996 Mustang V6 it was exactly twice the cost of a 1996 Mustang GT V8.

Yeah, that's what I said, "You've got to be kidding me." The insurance company couldn't explain why either, "that's just what it is."

I agree with you on the public perception part though. As long as Ford sells a V6 Mustang, GM will have to sell a V6 Camaro.

i guess times have changed.

when i was 17 (9 years ago), it cost more for any V8 F-body then it did for a V6.

i guess the amount of claims plays into it to an extent, and the average age of the owner.

the only thing i could think that would explain a V6 Stang costing more than a GT is more sub-25 kids have V6 cars than V8s.

HAZ-Matt · 01-14-2006, 04:03 AM

Insurance rates are calculated by the amount they have to pay out for that demographic in that car.

I agree with the stigma thing. You probably can't have a V8 base car because too many people would be afraid of it.

routesixtysixer · 01-14-2006, 09:57 AM

I doubt an aluminum-block 4.8 or 5.3 is any heavier than a iron-block 3.9. I know that my 01 Formula curb weight was listed as the same as a V-6 Firebird with the iron-block 3.8. And a LSx is probably no more expensive (possibly cheaper) than the competition's overhead-cam aluminum-block V-6's. I think it makes sense economically and would be a great advantage to market a minimally-equipped V-8 sporty car that gets as good, if not better, mileage than the competition. That said, it'll never happen; perception is everything and the perception is that V-8's get bad mileage and are expensive to buy, own and operate.

Jason E · 01-14-2006, 10:01 AM

A base V8 will never, never, never, ever happen. I thought this was obvious by now...

And for those of you who want a V8 anyway, why do you care if a V6 is base?

R377 · 01-14-2006, 10:16 AM

Insurance and image are definitely the big hitters.

Also, having a base V6 makes it easier to charge a premium for the V8, even if the manufacturing costs are more or less the same (think CTS and CTS-V). If you want a base Camaro to start at $23k and it already has a V8, how many people are going to want to pay $5k just to get a bigger V8? Being able to charge a lot more for things like this that don't actually cost a lot more to produce, plays a big part in making the business case for the car.

merlinsteele · 01-14-2006, 10:17 AM

I've mentioned this before, and I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm not much of a gearhead, so what would be the diff in size and weight between a large V6 and small V8? Look at Ford's 4.6, which is what I have in my F150; maybe GM could do something similar but give it better gas mileage, as I keep hearing that they can do.

As far as perception goes, couldn't GM market it as a 'small' but tough V8? How could this be spun to work? Hmmm...

Honda Hunter · 01-14-2006, 10:42 AM

I like the way you think. Wont happen though.

RhinoSS · 01-14-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg95z28

Actually that's not true. I used to believe that myself, until I checked on the insurance for my 17 year-old stepson. For a 1996 Mustang V6 it was exactly twice the cost of a 1996 Mustang GT V8.

Yeah, that's what I said, "You've got to be kidding me." The insurance company couldn't explain why either, "that's just what it is."

I agree with you on the public perception part though. As long as Ford sells a V6 Mustang, GM will have to sell a V6 Camaro.

to insure me on m '02 SS it is VASTLY more expensive than the v6 model. It is the same for my 16 year old brother as well.

I'm sure different insurance companies, and to a lesser extent, the area of the country you live in, have an effect on the insurance rate.

94Camaro_Z_28 · 01-14-2006, 11:10 AM

My Camaro Z28 costs me $28/month full coverage. My V6 Pontiac Sunbird costs me $59/month full coverage. They both have the exact same coverage, the same deductable, the same status(driven daily). I go through State Farm, have been with them since I started driving 6 years ago. No wrecks, not a single ticket...and it shows. I'm 21....so I thought these rates were stupid low...

5thGen · 01-14-2006, 02:58 PM

I think the reason you say make the V8 base, is because deep down you want to pay less and get the V8.

If they had (very hypothetical) a no-cost option to go from the V6 to the 4.8L V8, you would not care at all. And if it was under 1000 to go from the base to the 5.3L V8, you wouldn't care much either.

Statistically, yes, the V8 will be less to insure. jgZ28, I understand if you got a single quote making it less for the V8 than the V6, but that does not cover all sub-25 dirvers in all v6/v8 cars. It also could have been a mistake. Comes down to someone typing in the wrong info. Then again, with so few sub-25 drivers insured on the V8, the V6 will have many times more accidents, if they go by those numbers, the V8 will drop while the V6 rises.

The V6 is a necesity. If they offer base V8 with 250 hp, they will be laughed at and ridiculed as having to have a V8 to make less power than a six from nissan or toyota. Having a 250 hp smooth 6 though, will be seen as competitive.

the 5.3L in the new Tahoe gets an EPA est. 21 highway. THat is in a 3 ton vehicle that is much less aerodynamic. I have no doubt this same set up applied to the 4.8L block in the camaro would yield great results, however the view of the public, and the insurance companies will mandate that a V6 be base.