5.3 V8 DI 400HP as the BASE V8
04-19-2008, 12:20 AM
#17
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
Other forms of the 5.3L are in trucks and they have plenty of torque. The one in my truck didn't have a problem towing my 96 Impala SS. Add direct injection (and maybe increase the compression ratio) and a 6 speed auto and you won't have to worry about low end.
I've been hoping that GM would release new engines in the Camaro. I made a thread about that a long time ago...
04-19-2008, 11:48 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 307
Id be very happy with that.
That being said, I hope there is alot more they are not telling us.
In that thread where those mules were spotted in the hotel parking lot, there was a Lumina with the Camaro drivetrain. It had all that equipment on the hood that supposedly monitored individual cylinder activity. At least thats what they told the guy that took the pics.
If they were just throwing an LS3 in there, you wouldnt think they would need to get that in depth in the development right? Or maybe thats what they always do, I have no idea, just some wishful thinking I guess.
04-21-2008, 08:01 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
Really?
Have any of the credible sources on this site ever mentioned a Gen V 5.3L DI V8 as a possibility for the Camaro? No. Have they even hinted at it? No.
And as for the turbo 2.0L going into the Camaro, I direct you here:
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...54#post5257154
That's a credible source if I ever saw one.
Have any of the credible sources on this site ever mentioned a Gen V 5.3L DI V8 as a possibility for the Camaro? No. Have they even hinted at it? No.
And as for the turbo 2.0L going into the Camaro, I direct you here:
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...54#post5257154
That's a credible source if I ever saw one.
04-21-2008, 03:50 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Anyways, by '11 they'll be in trucks.
04-22-2008, 10:54 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tree huggin', Bug eatin' Crapifornia
Posts: 84
IMO, the more GM can do to come out with as many new components on this car the better. I think a potential buyer would find a vehicle with fresh/new engines and chassis more appealing than a recycled car (i.e. Challenger.) If they can introduce at least an LS3 as a base V8, I think that would be great. It sounds like a D.I. V8 isn't going to be ready for a couple more years, so the "fresher" the introductory car is, the better.
04-22-2008, 11:13 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 150
1000 pounds difference from the Impala SS?
Other forms of the 5.3L are in trucks and they have plenty of torque. The one in my truck didn't have a problem towing my 96 Impala SS. Add direct injection (and maybe increase the compression ratio) and a 6 speed auto and you won't have to worry about low end.
Other forms of the 5.3L are in trucks and they have plenty of torque. The one in my truck didn't have a problem towing my 96 Impala SS. Add direct injection (and maybe increase the compression ratio) and a 6 speed auto and you won't have to worry about low end.
I was trying to say that I'm not sure the LNF turbo 4 has the torque necessary to move a Camaro and still retain the desired economy.
Talking about the V8 in the Impala, I can't believe there's any point in taking a set up specifically engineered for cetain FWD applications and re-engineering it for RWD use, particularly when there are RWD V8's that already meet the required parameters without re-design.
04-23-2008, 02:14 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
Sorry- I screwed that post up badly. I was thinking about the turbo 4 in the Cobalt and comparing Cobalt SS curb weight to the (assumed) Camaro.
I was trying to say that I'm not sure the LNF turbo 4 has the torque necessary to move a Camaro and still retain the desired economy.
Talking about the V8 in the Impala, I can't believe there's any point in taking a set up specifically engineered for cetain FWD applications and re-engineering it for RWD use, particularly when there are RWD V8's that already meet the required parameters without re-design.
I was trying to say that I'm not sure the LNF turbo 4 has the torque necessary to move a Camaro and still retain the desired economy.
Talking about the V8 in the Impala, I can't believe there's any point in taking a set up specifically engineered for cetain FWD applications and re-engineering it for RWD use, particularly when there are RWD V8's that already meet the required parameters without re-design.
And can't you get a 5.3 in the (RWD) Silverado? I don't know why GM couldn't build a 5.3 for the Camaro from stuff thats already in the parts bin.
But I don't think GM can build a gen IV 5.3 that is materially better than the DI 3.6 without adding either forced induction or DI & real VVT.
04-23-2008, 04:15 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 150
I used to think it did, but with a 300 horse V6 laying around I can't see a business case for that, a mid 300 5.3, and a 400 horse 6.something V8.
The only thing that really makes sense from a cost and regulation perspective is some variation of the DI V6 and some variation of the LS3.
But again, I'm very ready to be wrong about both of those.