I really don't want to be shot! I in no way claim to give a rats-@$$ about being green, other then with envy, or being sick. I am just trying to work out how exactly how to keep the Camaro viable beyond the CAFE-era.

In watching a TOP GEAR episode last season (12) I realized that a solution exists for GM and Camaro and that is a direct-injection twin turbo diesel V6 engine for the LS model!

I will try to find a link to the episode soon but in it 3 diesel powered European cars, a 3-cyl VW Polo, a V6 Subaru Legacy wagon, and a twin turbo V6 Jaguar XF (I think) had to drive 700+ on ONE tank of gas and all 3 cars did it, with the Jaguar averaging 53 mpg!

The Camaro would benefit enormously from this I think, allowing it's V8 brethren to continue to flourish in these pseudo-Orwellian times. Just check out the new BMW 335di's review to begin to grasp the potential for power and fuel economy a diesel V6 would have in the Camaro.

 

the 2.9L V6 turbo diesel that was in the CTS Coupe concept would work very well for the Camaro, but the 4.5L V8 version would be a lot more fun If the chassis is strong enough for the LSA, then it would be strong enough for the diesel V8.

The V6 was quoted at making 250hp and 406ft-lbs.
The V8 was quoted at making 310hp and 520ft-lbs.
The LSA is SAE rated at 556hp and 551ft-lbs in the CTS-V.

 

Precisely my point!

 

i'd love one. if these guys can so can GM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pydH...eature=related

 

I remember the idea of a diesel Camaro being talked about a couple years ago. I know it's not very, um, "traditional", but it would be a good, fuel efficient alternative . And gobs of torque .

 

Torque is over-rated....until you multiply by rpm, that is.

Wonder what we call that?

 

You won't be shot! I and a few others suggested a while back of using a twin turbo version of the 4.5L Duramax V8 GM had in development. (Similar in size to the LSx series, so it should fit under the hood.) We haven't heard much of the next gen Duramax in a while though. Does anyone know if its been shelved in light of GM's current financial situation and the move away from trucks and large SUVs?

The "tree hugger" in me wouldn't mind a biodiesel Camaro, provided it had enough... UMPH!!

 

Hmm, when I had my '81 Z28 with a 383 stroker and 2.56 gears, it still accelerated like a bat out of hell .

I wonder what helped that?

 

How quick was it? Would it not have accelerated quicker with more gear? Of course, how much (or for how long) would depend on how many rpm you could multiply that torque by.

Torque is awesome....but is much more useful (in performance applications) when multiplied by rpm. That's one really good reason why a 335 lb/ft torque LS1 is far better than a 345 lb/ft L98 350. Know what I mean?

 

but a diesel will be fuel efficient too unlike that L98.

 

My bio-diesel Camaro will run on absolutely nothing but Whale Blubber!!! Those Japanese whalers better get it in gear damnit!!!

 

That's hilarious.
I am going to try Extra Virgin Olive Oil in mine. That way my garage will smell nice.

 

It could still spin ~6000 - 6500 RPM, AND it made torque ... you do the math .

Absolutely. But the fact is, the L98's ran out of breath by ~4000 RPM .

Any idea how high one of these new diesels can rev? At ~520 lb-ft of torque, that's significantly more than the 345 lb-ft of the L98. Couple that with high gears to compensate for lower RPM's, and it's still a winning combo, IMO .

 

5000-5500 would be my guess.

 

Easy math....torque * rpm / 5252. Piece of cake.

My point exactly - it made its power at a very low rpm, thus while those cars "felt" very good from a stoplight, they were quite slow compared to those cars that made that kind of torque a couple thousand rpm higher (demonstrated by the difference in HP between the old L98 and the LS1).

Yes, it would pull a trailer through the hills without even breaking a sweat! Would probably get phenomenal gas mileage too (and believe it or not, that's important to me). If it can make that 520 lb/ft up in the 3000-4000 rpm range, and then drop off at a reasonable rate, then you've certainly got my attention.