Wow. I just read 4 pages of going back and forth and it feels like I wasted that part of my life. Adding engines adds cost. 3 Engines is a LOT in one car, but is totally acceptable. 4 is starting to push it.

1)Whichever V6 gets better fuel economy. Use that one. You only need one v6. If it has "too much" power, detune it a little and make sure it uses 87 octane. 270hp-290hp should be more than enough.

2)Whichever v8 gets better fuel economy. Use that one. 370hp vs 425hp. IF the L76 gets 2-3mpg better in both city and highway, its a no-brainer. I'm sorry, but 370hp is a LOT of power for 90% of the drivers out there, and I'd bet most would rather have the mpg over the ~55hp. I know I would.

2a)Offer an aftermarket package for the v8 that gives it an exhaust/intake crap for "performance" that gives it more of a muscle car sound and feel, boosting performance and the like. Same as the LS1 SS had.

3)Then make a *****-nilly top end model for nutcases that want all the ***** in the world. They dont care about fuel economy, they only care about performance.

Why is this still an issue?

 

Am i the only person that thinks the V6 doesn't need to have gobs of horsepower? 230 - 250 would be fine for MOST people. If you want power you buy the V8. If you want the looks and good fuel economy, you get a V6...if your concerned about power... then you get a V8. IMO 280+ hp out of a base V6 is just overkill....thats LT1 V8 territory. The V6 needs to be priced as low as possible...280+ hp V6 is just over kill and will make the car cost more then it needs to be. Remember, you need to think about the NON-enthusiasts...they will be the majority buying the V6.

Edit: Fuel economy should be the MAIN concern on the V6 IMO.

 

The only reason that I think the base 6 will end up at more than 250 HP is because that's where the whole market is going. The 6 in the new Accord will be 250+ and that's an ACCORD!

I agree that 250 is plenty for a 6, and that a person should buy the 8 after that, but I think that the market is going to push the V6 number up by the time the Camaro comes out.

 

Man, i remember back in the day thinking the 200hp 3.8L in my dads GP was one powerhouse of a V6

 

I think there are many factors that go into one's decision than just that. I mean, most people probably would like the power of a V-8 but do not want to assume the added costs associated with increased insurance rates and fuel costs.

"If you want power you buy the V8. If you want the looks and good fuel economy, you get a V6...if your concerned about power... then you get a V8."

You make it sound as though they are mutually exclusive of one another. Like a person that wants power doesn't care a drop about fuel economy, which I don't think is the case. There are plenty of people who would love the power of a V-8 mixed with the cost of ownership of a V6.

With that said, I don't think a 280+ hp V6 is a good BASE V6, but I do think if they can offer a performance V6 on top of the base V6 it would be great! I mean, use the cheap to produce pushrod 3.9 V6 for the base V6 and the new 3.6L DI V6 ~300hp as the performance V6! This way you appeal both groups: those that care solely about looks and fuel economy as well as the people who want V-8 performance at a V6 cost of ownership.

 

I hear that! If you would have told people back then that today V6s would be putting out 300 hp people would have thought you were crazy!

 

hmm...when was the lat time there were 2 V6 engines in a Camaro? Hmmm...never! It's just a bad idea. people who want more froma V6 can step up to the 5.3L V8!

 

Actually in the mid 90's (around '96 I think) the 3.8 V6 was an option above the base V6. Though I think that was just for one model year, then the 3.8 became the base in the next model year.

 

yes that was an overlap. 3800 ran laot cleaner IIRC

It wasn't really planned that way just ended up happening.

 

Except thatit doesn't sound like there will be a 5.3L v8 in a 5th gen.

Give the 5th gen a 280hp v6. No one is killing themselves in the v6 Accord, and that carries only a slightly worse power to weight ratio than a hypothetical 280hp v6 Camaro does if it tips the scales in the 3700lb ballpark.

The v6 Camaro is still supposed to be a sporty car. Don't punish people who don't get the v8 to suffer having non sporty performance.

 

I guess so if you are assuming there will be a 5.3L V8 even though we have been told multiple times that there will not be.

You can easily argue that they can just do away with an entry level V8 if they use a high performance V6 leaving the 300+hp V6 and then the jump to the LS3.

Eitherway it is all meaningless speculation until we hear confirmation on the engine options. Personally I don't really care because I will be taking mine with an LS3 .

 

The original 1967 Camaro could be ordered with the base 230 cid L6 or the optional 250 cid L6.

 

thats whyat the grin was for--being sarcastic. I am still holding out hope though. IMO, a 5.3L would get significanly better mileage then a detuend 6.2L.

We won't know until we get offical specs from GM

 

Cost? Nah, wouldnt be that bad. The LX cars have 4 engines, 2 6's and 2 8's. Spread the cost not only with Camaro, but ALL types of Zeta cars, and you are good.
If Chrysler can do it, GM can do it.

 

I have no problem with 2 6s and 2 8s for a Camaro, although I know that is not what you are implying. Wasn't that GM's initial plan for the Camaro? An engine lineup that looked something like:

3.9 OHV v6
3.6 DOHC v6
6.2 OHV v8
6.2 OHV v8 (blown possibly?)

It was my understanding from reading these boards that the only difference in the lineup now is that the 3.9 is dropped.