|
06-18-2008, 10:38 AM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Premium Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 8,506
|
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.
|
|
|
|
06-18-2008, 12:47 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 802
|
I'd buy it. 
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CR97WS6
If you want to buy something else then do it, but you'll be jealous when that 5th gen passes your @ss and all you can do is drool!
|
.................................................. ..........................................
"Keep the Faith."
|
|
|
|
|
06-18-2008, 12:52 PM
|
#3
|
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 8,314
|
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.
__________________
2002 NBM Camaro Z28 M6 - best ET 13.21, best MPH 108.9, best 60' 2.14 - 325hp/343tq - Lid, Corsa, SixSpeedsInc T56, Pro 5.0 w/ short stick, 17x9 wheels
1987 Buick Grand National - best ET 13.66, best MPH 101.5, best 60' 2.08 - 253hp/334tq - 93 chip, RJC, meth, Hooker catback, 160 t-stat, shift kit, no-hop bars
|
|
|
|
|
06-18-2008, 02:18 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Confederate States of America
Posts: 548
|
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.
__________________
Forget gold, the next currency will be lead!
|
|
|
|
|
06-18-2008, 02:45 PM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mi
Posts: 718
|
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!
__________________
Current Ride's
92 Z28 1LE Z03 LC2
98 Z28 Bone Stock
89 TTA #1025
Past Rides
89 TTA #1415
89 TTA #891 RIP
81 TTA Nascar
91 TA Vert T5 WS6 G92 LB9
Last edited by metal; 06-18-2008 at 05:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-18-2008, 05:02 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: united states
Posts: 385
|
Put me down for one
__________________
Future 2010 Camaro Owner
Old Rides:
Silver 1998 Firebird Formula WS6 M6 Sold
Silver 2000 Firebird V6 14.76 @ 91.98 Sold
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2008, 02:13 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 908
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2008, 02:33 PM
|
#8
|
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 8,314
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by STOCK1SC
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?
__________________
2002 NBM Camaro Z28 M6 - best ET 13.21, best MPH 108.9, best 60' 2.14 - 325hp/343tq - Lid, Corsa, SixSpeedsInc T56, Pro 5.0 w/ short stick, 17x9 wheels
1987 Buick Grand National - best ET 13.66, best MPH 101.5, best 60' 2.08 - 253hp/334tq - 93 chip, RJC, meth, Hooker catback, 160 t-stat, shift kit, no-hop bars
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2008, 02:41 PM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 2,552
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Why would it be faster?
|
Because of the blow off valve noise. 
__________________
Jason Dove
'95 Dark Metallic Purple Z-28 on '98 Z-28 Rims
383 w/9.5:1 compression, LT4 MTI Ported Heads and Intake, CC305, 12 Bolt and an M6 Swap.
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2008, 07:25 PM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-24-2008, 07:29 AM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Confederate States of America
Posts: 548
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
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.
__________________
Forget gold, the next currency will be lead!
|
|
|
|
|
06-24-2008, 03:37 PM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron91RS
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-24-2008, 08:29 PM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hemlock, Mich.
Posts: 321
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-25-2008, 03:19 PM
|
#14
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 81Z28355
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-25-2008, 03:28 PM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 802
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CR97WS6
If you want to buy something else then do it, but you'll be jealous when that 5th gen passes your @ss and all you can do is drool!
|
.................................................. ..........................................
"Keep the Faith."
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.
|
