Charlie stole some of my thunder on some thoughts I was already putting together. (I guess we agree more than we disagree.)

In my opinion some folks are jumping the gun prematurely and placing the cart before the horse. In designing the next generation Camaro, you’re limited to the spatial requirements of the passengers and cargo inside the vehicle. Therefore we are limited in how compact we can make the passenger compartment and still make the vehicle comfortable to use. Furthermore safety requirements are getting stricter each generation. While many of these requirements are vast improvements, unless exotic materials are used, which would increase costs; one cannot avoid the addition of more weight into the equation. So we’re limited to modifications to the platform and body of the vehicle to reduce weight.

Unless you replace the customary rigid frame and chassis with for instance a monocoque design, you’re not going to reduce the overall weight that significantly. While this solution has worked well for manufacturers like Lotus, it does not work well in building affordable vehicles. Therefore even if a lighter platform can be developed, it is not going to be significantly lighter than the platform used today, unless more expensive and lighter materials are used. So how big would you have to build that V6 to replace the V8 in a slightly heavier 2010 Camaro?

Furthermore, while the argument to build lighter more nimble coupes powered by big V6es sounds good on the surface, is it really the best, or for that matter, the only solution? Would a 3.6L V6 be any more efficient than say a smaller V8 and still provide solid performance? Why not develop smaller displacement higher efficiency V8s with Active Fuel Management? Wouldn’t it be easier to sell enthusiasts on the idea of a forced induction 4.7L V8 with 400hp verses a forced induction 3.6L V6 with 400hp if both were equally efficient? I’m not saying such a V8 is available today, however why can’t one be developed by the time CAFE kicks in?

We’re selling the engineers at GM short when we assume that they aren’t already working on solutions to these problems or that they aren’t capable of finding the solutions. As an engineer, I’d welcome the challenge of trying to design a 500hp V8 that got 35-mpg. Any engineer who would turn down that challenge is in this business for the wrong reasons.

 

It would be nice, but I would not want to see significant weight or size added to the I4 or V6 versions for that. If they can package a different front end and upgraded drivetrain/brake/suspension/body reinforcements for the V8 version, then I think that's great. It'd cost you, but you'd probably be getting 425+ hp.

Of course, they first have to approve Alpha!

By the way, did people notice the comment from Bob about a Zeta-Ute/pickup being very lightweight compared to the current Silverado?

What if Zeta survives as a light duty pickup that gets much better mileage than the full-frame alternatives? The V6 version is lighter than all but the Ranger, I think.

 

Check this:



http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums...howtopic=22183

 

Based on available evidence, I think it's safe to say that a large V6 is more fuel efficient than a small V8 of the same displacement.

Optimizing for a 300hp V6 over a 400hp V8 probably saves around 400 pounds. No question, the V8 is faster, but the V6 is fast enough for most. You could build a 300hp V8 instead if you don't mind losing a few percentage points in fuel economy and adding a bit of weight (which would make it a bit slower, etc.). Remember that a V8 of the same displacement as a V6 will still be longer and wider and have more parts than the V6, so you need a longer, wider engine bay. To keep the same accelerative performance with a V8, you'd need more like 320hp and then you're yet a bit heavier.

Then there's cost -- such a V8 would be made in much lower volume than the V6, since it's for a boutique product.

I just don't think it works except for low volume vehicles where cost is relatively unimportant (like Corvette).

 

I never suggested they would be the same displacement. However I did say that the weight savings wouldn't be significant enough to replace a V8 with a V6 and still get the same performance. Sure even a small V8 is going to have its drawbacks in efficiency, even with AFM activated. However those that desire such vehicles aren't neccessary concerned with that and would probably be willing to pay for a "penalty" for an opportunity to have a V8 in their Camaro. I know I would.

 

Okay. The issue is that for 300hp (moving to 350hp, it seems), a V6 is just a better answer than a V8. Just like 200hp today is better with an I4 than a V6.

Then you have the need for higher fuel mileage, and lighter cars.

Put together more power from V6s and need for lighter cars, and I see a future for V8s only in premium cars and larger trucks.

This is a good thing, really. In the early 60s, only the smallest American cars had a 4 cylinder, and they were all of the 15+s 0-60 20s+ 1/4 mile variety (some of them broke the 1/4 mile about the same time they hit 60). Most lower end cars had an inline 6 that would have a lot of trouble breaking into the 18s for a 1/4 mile. Then you had a lot of V8s that really very powerful either.

Remember the base V8 in the '66 Barracuda had 180hp gross, and the Mustang had 164, IIRC. These cars would break the 1/4 in around 18 flat. The high performance Barracuda had a 235hp 'Commando' V8, and it needed nearly 17 seconds for the 1/4.

Today, a 4 cylinder Camry would leave that high performance V8 '66 Mustang or '66 Barracuda for dead. No one is demanding a 200hp V8 Camry (or 200hp V8 anything else). You *could* build one.

 

And yes, I know that there was a 383 variation of the Barracuda sold in small numbers. But it was not a well-balanced car, and you wouldn't build something like that today.

 

I hope they do KILL the Camaro for good before they are eco tech engined eclipse sized cars. GM wants to make a new car with that setup, more power to them. Might even be a cool car, won't be a Camaro.

 

It propbably wouldn't be as small as an Eclipse. Probably slightly smaller than Epsilon - say around 3 series sized. Why wouldn't that be a Camaro? Because of an available Ecotec?

 

The more power you get out of any engine, 4, 6 or 8 cylinder, the more likely you are to negatively impact fuel mileage. The trick is build a more efficient engine. Lowering emissions can also improve power. All I'm saying is if 300hp is your target, don't automatically assume 6 cylinders is better than 8 in terms of fuel mileage.

I also cannot think of one American car in the early 60's that came with a 4 cylinder engine. Can you?

 

The Pontiac Tempest was available with a 3.2l i-4.

 

Thanks. I had forgot about the Tempest I-4.

 

No, an available Eco Tec is fine, I mean an Eclipse sized car with no v-8 option.
Eco Tec has to be better than the iron duke.
Might actually draw younger kids into it, given the cred that mill is developing.

 

What's your point? Ditch big motors? Right that's a good idea! Oh wait don't Corvettes get pretty good gas mileage, oh it must be because they are light! But lets ignore the other sports cars that weigh the same or less, make less hp, and get worse mileage. eg. the Z06 has more than *double* the hp of the S2000, *triple* the torque, and makes more torque idling then the S2000 does in it's peak @ 7000 rpm and almost the same mileage (16/26 vette vs 18/25 s2000) while weighing 270 lb more.

LSx based V8's suck.

 

It wouldn't be a Camaro because its 3 series sized, duh! We've heard that tired rant before Charlie. We all know how you long for a 3 series sized Camaro. Why don't we leave the 3 series competitor for Pontiac, hey?