Sad
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Why use a supercharger on the V6 when the aluminum 3.6L in the CTS puts out over 250hp/250tq? Less weight than the old iron block 3800 and more power than the GTP version.
How much do you people think the next V8 Camaro should weigh? 3400 even? The V6 would weigh a bit less 
I think an Camaro RS package with this engine and the Z/28 suspension/interior would be awesome that would totally thrash the lesser imports.
It should definitely be good for mid-low 14s and 0-60 in under 6 seconds 
[i]from Car and Driver:
GM's all-new global V-6 gets its first showcase in the CTS, and it carries virtually every currently fashionable engine technology. The aluminum-block engine puts 60 degrees between its cylinder banks and incorporates a structural oil pan; the intake and exhaust cams are chain driven and hooked to a continuously variable phasing system; the plastic intake manifold uses a two-stage variable-volume plenum; each spark plug has its own coil; the throttle is electronic; there's enough computing power aboard to run the Social Security Administration; and the CTS runs on regular gas. What it all amounts to, says Cadillac, is 255 horsepower at 6200 rpm (35 more horses than the 3.2-liter, 54-degree iron-block V-6 still used in manual-transmission CTSs) and 250 pound-feet of torque at just 2800 rpm (32 more pound-feet than the 3.2). At least at first, the only transmission available with it is GM's 5L40-E five-speed automatic.
The global V-6 will also be standard in Cadillac's new nearly-an-SUV SRX that is based on the same Sigma chassis architecture as the CTS and will power the ritzy Ultra version of the Buick Rendezvous. Turbocharged and direct-injection versions of the new engine in displacements ranging down to 2.8 liters are under development and will soon show up in Saabs and Opels. After that, even GM likely doesn't yet know how many more applications it can find for this engine family.
With its thick torque curve, the new V-6 is a better match for the automatic than the lackluster 3.2 and runs in near silence. The V-6 doesn't have the velveteen eagerness of a BMW straight-six or the edgy zing of the Acura 3.2TL Type-S's VTEC engine, but it does have an appealing nonchalance about its work. A better exhaust note—any exhaust note—would add to the car's personality. We didn't get a chance to strap on the test gear, but the '04 CTS will surely be quicker from 0 to 60 mph than the 3.2-and-automatic combination. Somewhere around 6.8 seems a reasonable 0-to-60 performance estimate for the '04 automatic CTS. Next year expect Cadillac to do the decent thing and offer the 3.6 with a five- and maybe six-speed manual.
GM's all-new global V-6 gets its first showcase in the CTS, and it carries virtually every currently fashionable engine technology. The aluminum-block engine puts 60 degrees between its cylinder banks and incorporates a structural oil pan; the intake and exhaust cams are chain driven and hooked to a continuously variable phasing system; the plastic intake manifold uses a two-stage variable-volume plenum; each spark plug has its own coil; the throttle is electronic; there's enough computing power aboard to run the Social Security Administration; and the CTS runs on regular gas. What it all amounts to, says Cadillac, is 255 horsepower at 6200 rpm (35 more horses than the 3.2-liter, 54-degree iron-block V-6 still used in manual-transmission CTSs) and 250 pound-feet of torque at just 2800 rpm (32 more pound-feet than the 3.2). At least at first, the only transmission available with it is GM's 5L40-E five-speed automatic.
The global V-6 will also be standard in Cadillac's new nearly-an-SUV SRX that is based on the same Sigma chassis architecture as the CTS and will power the ritzy Ultra version of the Buick Rendezvous. Turbocharged and direct-injection versions of the new engine in displacements ranging down to 2.8 liters are under development and will soon show up in Saabs and Opels. After that, even GM likely doesn't yet know how many more applications it can find for this engine family.
With its thick torque curve, the new V-6 is a better match for the automatic than the lackluster 3.2 and runs in near silence. The V-6 doesn't have the velveteen eagerness of a BMW straight-six or the edgy zing of the Acura 3.2TL Type-S's VTEC engine, but it does have an appealing nonchalance about its work. A better exhaust note—any exhaust note—would add to the car's personality. We didn't get a chance to strap on the test gear, but the '04 CTS will surely be quicker from 0 to 60 mph than the 3.2-and-automatic combination. Somewhere around 6.8 seems a reasonable 0-to-60 performance estimate for the '04 automatic CTS. Next year expect Cadillac to do the decent thing and offer the 3.6 with a five- and maybe six-speed manual.
I think an Camaro RS package with this engine and the Z/28 suspension/interior would be awesome that would totally thrash the lesser imports.
It should definitely be good for mid-low 14s and 0-60 in under 6 seconds
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Why are you guys worried that a supercharged V6 option would sell TOO well???? Good Lord guys, isn't this what Camaro needs???? SOMETHING to attract people to the Camaro who otherwise may not have bought one...something cheaper than the b*lls-out V8 Z28 yet still sporty, fun, and potential to make faster? The car would not be a threat to a stock Z28 on the street or at the strip. There's no way GM would just dump V8's for strictly supercharged V6's....the logic is flawed! Obviously Ford sells a butt-load more V6 Mustangs than V8's, in similar fashion they sell more V8 GT's than supercharged V8 Cobras, yet they all co-exist. Why? There's plenty of people like us who won't accept a V6 pony car, supercharged or not. If there are more who'd love the option of an upgraded base motor, why wouldn't you go after that group too?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 581
From: New York, NY
Originally posted by AdioSS
Why use a supercharger on the V6 when the aluminum 3.6L in the CTS puts out over 250hp/250tq? Less weight than the old iron block 3800 and more power than the GTP version.
How much do you people think the next V8 Camaro should weigh? 3400 even? The V6 would weigh a bit less
I think an Camaro RS package with this engine and the Z/28 suspension/interior would be awesome that would totally thrash the lesser imports. It should definitely be good for mid-low 14s and 0-60 in under 6 seconds
Why use a supercharger on the V6 when the aluminum 3.6L in the CTS puts out over 250hp/250tq? Less weight than the old iron block 3800 and more power than the GTP version.
How much do you people think the next V8 Camaro should weigh? 3400 even? The V6 would weigh a bit less
I think an Camaro RS package with this engine and the Z/28 suspension/interior would be awesome that would totally thrash the lesser imports.
It should definitely be good for mid-low 14s and 0-60 in under 6 seconds
). To me, the 350Z and the G35 are the ideal midrange cars that a Camaro RS should be. But they have an extra 40hp more than the CTS 3.6L. If you use a supercharged or turbocharged V6/I5, you can create enough power to compete. Also, supercharged and turbocharged motors are easy to modify and would create a good aftermarket on the mid range model, which would help to create more fame in the model. I suggested also that GMPD have dealer installed upgrades available if the customer chooses to purchase one. This would also create fame for a midrange Camaro among the 25-30 year old group. I believe the SS and Z28 should target the 30+ crowd. The midrange and base need to sell a LOT to make the SS and Z28 feasible.Now I think about it, scratch what I wrote in my previous post. Kill off the base model I wrote up. Make it only RS, SS, and Z28. The RS with a supercharged 3.5 should be base model.
guionM- Sorry for saying 350Z so much. I know the G35 is more Camaro than the 350Z, but the 350Z to me screams more "Camaro" to me than the G35. It might be because of the G35 sedan
. I like the G35, but to me 350Z ius more Camaro erven though it only has two seats.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by AdioSS
Why use a supercharger on the V6 when the aluminum 3.6L in the CTS puts out over 250hp/250tq? Less weight than the old iron block 3800 and more power than the GTP version.
Why use a supercharger on the V6 when the aluminum 3.6L in the CTS puts out over 250hp/250tq? Less weight than the old iron block 3800 and more power than the GTP version.
Remember, these motors are detuned to let their FWD transaxles live. The supercharged 3800 is a low budget hotrodders dream. In a RWD platform...it could create a whole new and popular segment.
Call it the SS.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 403
From: Pittsburgh Pa USA
I don't think the base model Camaro, with an RS package (S/C with some apperance options) should worry about taking on G35's, 350Z's. It should be an entry level camaro that can hold its own in its price range, and beat the RSX-S's, V-6 Stangs, ect type of cars. The upper level sports cars ought to be left to the Z-28's, and SS's. Z-28 being the standard V-8, and SS being a S/C V-8 with some other goodies.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post