2010 - 2015 Camaro Technical Discussion All 5th Generation Camaro technical discussion that doesn't fit in other forums

So what displacement with the base V8 be?

Old Oct 28, 2006 | 12:28 PM
  #31  
FS3800's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted by stars1010
I have it straight from the horse’s mouth on a digital recorder that the 5.3L will not be used.
prove it

j/k... i don't think a 5.3 will be used either.
Old Oct 28, 2006 | 01:01 PM
  #32  
Casull's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 336
From: Indianapolis
Originally Posted by stars1010
I have it straight from the horse’s mouth on a digital recorder that the 5.3L will not be used.
I probably should have clarified my argument. I was not arguing that the 5.3L would be used. I was arguing that it would in NO WAY be more expensive for GM to use it.

Sorry if I was unclear.
Old Oct 28, 2006 | 01:27 PM
  #33  
stars1010's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,121
From: Houston
Originally Posted by FS3800
prove it
If I even released that tape I prob wouldn’t be posting here and more seeing how I would be on the run form the black Suburbans the rest of my life.

Originally Posted by casull
I probably should have clarified my argument. I was not arguing that the 5.3L would be used. I was arguing that it would in NO WAY be more expensive for GM to use it.

Sorry if I was unclear.
Oh no prob
Old Oct 28, 2006 | 03:34 PM
  #34  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Probably 6.2.
Old Oct 28, 2006 | 09:16 PM
  #35  
305fan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by FS3800
prove it

j/k... i don't think a 5.3 will be used either.
how about 4.8L? I dislike the idea of a 6.2L as entry level V8
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 09:33 AM
  #36  
FS3800's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted by 305fan
how about 4.8L? I dislike the idea of a 6.2L as entry level V8
why? really, it costs just as much to put a 6.2L in there as it does a 5.3L... the engines probably cost just as much to produce as well, or at least will after the engineering and design of the engine is paid for..

basically what I'm saying is, it seems most of the people who don't want the 6.2L as the base v8 say that because they think it'd be too expensive compared to something like the mustang's base v8.. but I'm pretty sure price would not depend on the displacement or horsepower of the engine

ultimately i think that if they did have two different v8 engines it might cost more for them because they'd have to engineer the car, and the production line, to handle two different engines
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 09:43 AM
  #37  
97z28/m6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
Originally Posted by FS3800
why? really, it costs just as much to put a 6.2L in there as it does a 5.3L... the engines probably cost just as much to produce as well, or at least will after the engineering and design of the engine is paid for..

basically what I'm saying is, it seems most of the people who don't want the 6.2L as the base v8 say that because they think it'd be too expensive compared to something like the mustang's base v8.. but I'm pretty sure price would not depend on the displacement or horsepower of the engine

ultimately i think that if they did have two different v8 engines it might cost more for them because they'd have to engineer the car, and the production line, to handle two different engines
*more HP
*worse mpg



i'd like to see the 5.3 used and then have a stand alone option for the 6.2.
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 09:50 AM
  #38  
FS3800's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted by 97z28/m6
*more HP
*worse mpg



i'd like to see the 5.3 used and then have a stand alone option for the 6.2.
from what I've heard the LS4 gets pretty similar mpg to the LS2 and LS7
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 10:02 AM
  #39  
97z28/m6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
Originally Posted by FS3800
from what I've heard the LS4 gets pretty similar mpg to the LS2 and LS7
which vehicle has two or more of those engines?
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 10:04 AM
  #40  
FS3800's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted by 97z28/m6
which vehicle has two or more of those engines?
well on separate vehicles, sure.. but.. i have heard the LS4 guys bitching that they aren't getting nearly the mpg that the EPA rates em at, and i hear the LS2/7 guys always bragging about getting better than EPA..
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 07:29 PM
  #41  
Casull's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 336
From: Indianapolis
When was the last time the same motor was not used in both the Z/28 and SS models in one variation or another?
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 11:00 PM
  #42  
305fan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by FS3800
why? really, it costs just as much to put a 6.2L in there as it does a 5.3L... the engines probably cost just as much to produce as well, or at least will after the engineering and design of the engine is paid for..

basically what I'm saying is, it seems most of the people who don't want the 6.2L as the base v8 say that because they think it'd be too expensive compared to something like the mustang's base v8.. but I'm pretty sure price would not depend on the displacement or horsepower of the engine

ultimately i think that if they did have two different v8 engines it might cost more for them because they'd have to engineer the car, and the production line, to handle two different engines
perhaps but I am not refering to cost

Just the way I see things with a base Camro V8 going head to head against a Mustang GT, in terms of price and performance. It would not take 6.2L to match or slightly exceed the hp of a Mustang
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 11:02 PM
  #43  
stars1010's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,121
From: Houston
I would expect to see the NA 6.2L in the SS and the blown version in the Z28.
Old Oct 30, 2006 | 06:52 AM
  #44  
flowmotion's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by FS3800
why? really, it costs just as much to put a 6.2L in there as it does a 5.3L... the engines probably cost just as much to produce as well, or at least will after the engineering and design of the engine is paid for..
Marketing?

Base model = 5.something
Top shelf model = 6.something

6 > 5 = better upsell potential.
5 < 6 = Doesn't guzzle as much gas.

Keep in mind that 90% of the potential customers don't actually care how fast it is or how much horsepower or MPG it really has.
Old Oct 30, 2006 | 08:09 AM
  #45  
95firehawk's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 694
From: Brighton, IL
Originally Posted by 305fan
how about 4.8L? I dislike the idea of a 6.2L as entry level V8
A DOD 6.2L V-8 would get just as good gas mileage as a 4.8 with more power on tap. Anything smaller than a 6.2 would be pointless.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 AM.