So what displacement with the base V8 be?

Z28x · 10-25-2006, 11:08 AM

I already read from reliable sources that the 5.3L won't make it into the Camaro and I've also heard that they won't use the LS2 or any other 6.0L either. A 425-450HP 6.2L LS3 will be in the Z28 or what ever top Camaro, but what will the mid level engine (base V8) be if GM doesn't plan to use the 5.3L or 6.0L. A detuned 6.2L doesn't sound like s smart move. It is just too big and thirsty for that crowd.

Have things changed? Holden is using Gen IV 6.0L L98 which are L76's without the DoD. A 370HP L76 DoD 6.0L would make a great base V8. I'd also like to see what the LS4 could do with a less restrictive exhaust setup and maybe a little more aggressive cam. For me the base V8 should be all about the perfect mix of fuel economy with 350HP+

Z/28lover · 10-25-2006, 11:22 AM

NOBODY KNOWS YET.

Read around the forum.

FS3800 · 10-25-2006, 11:26 AM

or maybe the LS3 camaro will be the top model for the first couple model years.. perhaps called SS.. and the Z/28 will come out later with the LS9

i admit this is not based on any facts or inside information.. it's just what i hope will happen

P.S.. the base model will have a 300+hp 3.6L HF V6 with direct injection

kissel · 10-25-2006, 11:47 AM

Well we will see what happens....if they don't come out with something that has some balls I won't buy it. For me this car is not going to be a daily driver. I am willing to go up to 45K for a high HP new camaro. I would prefer that it be a special model that you would have to order, SS or a Z28. (Limited production, high horsepower, heavenly optioned). Anything less than that I will either buy another 1st gen, prob a conv or do the Goodmark conv buildup with a crate. I have been waiting to see what GM comes out with. All comes down to what they come up with.

It would be nice if they would put the Z06 motor in in....maybe I am dreaming......but in order to sell the production numbers they are shooting for they will still need the 6 cyl grocery getter...

IMHO they will still need to have the optional 9.0L.....

OctaneZ28 · 10-25-2006, 12:02 PM

Methinks either 6.0L or 6.2L

Casull · 10-25-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctaneZ28

Methinks either 6.0L or 6.2L

Why is everyone discounting the 5.3L has there been reliable information stating that it will in fact not be a 5.3 in the entry level V-8? This option would seem to me to make the most sense in terms of offering a powerful V-8 that competes with the current Mustang GT at a very affordable price. They need to keep the entry level's price as low as possble to hit their sales quota

OctaneZ28 · 10-25-2006, 12:14 PM

5.3L would be a possibility, but to my knowledge there are no new 5.3L engines in the pipeline for RWD car applications.
Just because an engine has more displacement and more power doesn't mean it costs a ton more to make.

JakeRobb · 10-25-2006, 12:17 PM

Maybe they'll bring back a 5.7L engine?

Casull · 10-25-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctaneZ28

Just because an engine has more displacement and more power doesn't mean it costs a ton more to make.

Maybe not if you are considering ONLY the cost of raw material and man hours to manufature it; however when you examine the costs associated with R&D and engineering of a new engine, then the costs are high. If a company wants to utilize economies of scale (which every company seeks to exploit) then it would make sense to use the 5.3L which has already had the engineering costs absorbed. The more you can spread out those costs, the cheaper the product becomes.

Z/28lover · 10-25-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casull

Maybe not if you are considering ONLY the cost of raw material and man hours to manufature it; however when you examine the costs associated with R&D and engineering of a new engine, then the costs are high. If a company wants to utilize economies of scale (which every company seeks to exploit) then it would make sense to use the 5.3L which has already had the engineering costs absorbed. The more you can spread out those costs, the cheaper the product becomes.

Yes maybe, but you also have to keep in mind that we are talking about the LSx series engines here...They are already engineered, and have already been through years of R&D. So in theory, no matter which LS engine they choose(if thats the route they go), then one engine probably isnt going to cost more than the other.

Now if your talking LS7, or any other hand built. Then yes, it gets to be more expensive.

The 5.3 has gone through R&D, but so has every other LSx engine we know of. So i doubt they will use the 5.3 when they can just use a detuned version of the LS they will have as the higher power version. That would save more money than using 2 completley different engines.

graham · 10-25-2006, 01:32 PM

They could go with that "327" gimmic again with the 325 inch 5.3L like they did in the trucks.

jg95z28 · 10-25-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casull

Why is everyone discounting the 5.3L has there been reliable information stating that it will in fact not be a 5.3 in the entry level V-8?

I thought the Saleen quote debunked the idea of the 5.3L V8 being a possibility.

I would be surprised if there were more than three engine displacements available in the first year of production. (Two of which would be V6s.)

jg95z28 · 10-25-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham

They could go with that "327" gimmic again with the 325 inch 5.3L like they did in the trucks.

The "327" was a gimmic?

The 327 was a standard displacement in its day. If anything, at the time, the "350" was a gimmic only found in the SS.

Z/28lover · 10-25-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg95z28

The "327" was a gimmic?

The 327 was a standard displacement in its day. If anything, at the time, the "350" was a gimmic only found in the SS.

Ya, my 5.7 liter is really a 346. So its not a 350 like its claimed.

graham · 10-25-2006, 01:47 PM

The "327" as in what the dealer brochures used to advertise as the 5.3L motor. The size was 325.