V8 = prestige, and I don't think there is a substantial difference enough in efficency to warrant excluding a V8 in a car like Camaro or Mustang.

GM does pretty good with a big bore (runs nice and clean - crevice volume is the usual probelm with a big bore), IMO I'd destroke a V8 before I'd reduce the bore size, or you'd run into problems like Ford did with the craptacular bore spacing of the mod motor, you'd have to go with a multi-valve head to get the air in there. In factory trim IIRC the @v mod motor heads flowed something like 180 or 190 cfm. The 3v heads flow something like 230 cfm. put either head on a 3.70 bore (compared to the 3.55 bore)and they pick up 30 cfm from that alone. Go to a smaller bore and hurt airflow and then your not only looking at multi-valve heads but bigger cams to get the air in there.

 

I don't think you gain much with a smaller V8. Evidence is that you lose a lot more power than you gain back in fuel efficiency.

I agree that power improvements in a V6 or even 4 cylinder seems to be a lot easier than efficiency improvements in a V8. Note that the Hybrid Tahoe went straight to a 6.0L engine and did not bother with a 4.8 or 5.3l version.

 

Let's put it this way, if it can get 26mpg in the city, I'd be willing to get it. I don't need 400hp, 300 will do. Show me what kind of engine I should be looking for.


The muscle cars are the fourbangers guys, those are the cheap thrill vehicles of today.

 

A V6 of around 3.5 liters or a high boost turbo 4.

I don't know about 26 in the city -- you'd need to have a city with high speed streets and good traffic lights, I think

 

This is just my opinion, but I don't want a FI 4cyl, or a V6 in my Camaro. In my mind, Camaro is a musclecar. Musclecars have V8's. Not that the FI 4, or a V6 couldn't be a viable performer, but in a CAMARO, I'd wan't a V8. No right or wrong, that's just my buying criteria.

 

Thanks for the education!

What I was thinking, in Camaro speak, is that I would prefer a 300 HP AFM 5.3 V8 to a 300 HP 3.6 V6 .... I guess that doesn't really fit with the intent of this topic and a smaller displacement V8. My bad!

 

I4 or V6 technology is equally applicable to a V8, generally as was pointed out on this forum some months ago, engines are pretty much making the same amount of torque/liter, but differ in where peak torque and peak power occur in the rev range, generally I4 and V6 engines have employed smaller displacements (both bore and stroke) and overhead cam technology which has allowed them to rev higher and make gains in peak power by moving the powerband higher in the rev range (HP = ft/bs x RPM / 5252), there are effciency improvements by reducing the number of cylinders (by simple virtue of creating less friction), but when the engine is up to operating temperature, I doubt there are significant differences in the amount of power absorbed by the engine if its simply the addition of two cylinders on an engine that would share identical bore and stroke between a V6 or a V8.

If the engine is operating as effciently as possible, then the only way to gain an appreciable increase in fuel economy is to burn less of it, achievable only by reducing displacement or virtually doing so by reducing the number of revs required to reach a particular speed and/or cutting off cylinders, which is what GM has been doing.

 

Which of GM's V8s have that capability?

Which of the V6s?

 

Less friction and fewer moving parts with fewer cylinders. Lower cost, lower fuel consumption.

I believe there's a good reason for V6s mostly congregating in the 3.5-4 liter range and V8s tending towards high 4 liters plus in volume models where specific fuel consumption is very important.

The limiting factor on the DOHC V8s seems to be what will fit under the hood.

You may be right that a 3.6 liter V8 could be as efficient as a 3.6 liter V6. But since we don't see any, I have to say that I'm doubtful of that claim.

 

Although at some point in the future, the car is either going to have to adapt to new realities or go away. I'd rather see it adapt than go a way forever.

I think the next gen car is too big anyway.

 

I do not know at this point...

 

Two more cylinders doesn't automatically mean more fuel; displacement, and airflow efficiency(volumes) decides fuel needs. Each injector would just be squirting less fuel than they would for a V6.

Things to remember; smaller cylinders of a small V8 will probably shroud valves and kill power.
Where the same displacement V6 with 4" bores or larger could support up to 4 valves and breath phenominally better.
Maintaining a certain power level AND economy, with equal displacement, the V6 should be the winner under 5 liters.

 

I really dont know. What I would like to see is a way to cool the intake the way people do with Ice bags before making a 1/4 mile pass. That is to say if the power got from it is more than what it takes to cool it obviously.

 

5thgen69camaro, you mean like Ford's Supercooler?

 

Something like this?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5YAFMZyBPI4&feature=related