Great point. I love the look of Leno's car. But as you say, adding weight, cost, complexity to get LS3 power seems counterproductive.

 

It became a moniker when they put a badge on the outside of the car. Z51 is just an RPO code, but all of those other Z-codes are monikers too.

 

Would you have felt this way about the GN's and T-types?

 

How does a 20+ year old car have anything to do with a Camaro? Yes the GN would smoke its Monte Carlo SS counter part but how hard was that with a 180 HP carbed 305 in the SS?

With the efficiency of the LS3 and the power/tourqe it produces unless the 3.6 twin turbo offers more HP (like the 3.8 in the GN did) over the LS3 you have gained almost nothing in weight or HP and lost tourqe. Turbo's, coolers, piping and related hardware will not be light. I would be surprised if GM could push the 3.6 much past 425hp and still offer a 5yr powertrain.

 

I really liked my Lumina Z34 from a fun to drive standpoint. The 3.4 made good power, and the suspension was well setup. Reliabilty was a lot less stellar. Had a Z34 badge as well.

 

It would be good for GM/Camaro to have this engine purely on the basis that the Mustang will have one.

Besides, I'm sure GM could use the TT V6 engine in other applications.

 

Ah....the good old Z24. I had a Sunbird with the "Handling and Performance" package. 3.1 5spd. God that thing was fun to drive.

Long live the J-Body!!!!!!!

 

LS3 = 16c/24h
L99 = 16c/25h
3.6 A6 = 18c/29h

They claim the twin-turbo 3.6 gets the same mileage as the non-turbo V6 when you go light on the throttle, yet gives the same performance as the V8 (Let's assume L99 as its ~400hp). If that is in fact true, I'd seriously consider it if were within $1000 of the 2SS MSRP. As for added weight, I suspect it would be about the same as an LSA Camaro.

 

That's generally true for turbo cars. If the turbo isn't spooled up, the engine behaves very much like it would with no turbo at all. Don't forget, however, that turbo engines are generally lower compression than NA engines, so a turbo 3.6L at light throttle still wouldn't be as efficient as a non-turbo 3.6L under the same conditions.

Direct injection allows significantly higher compression ratios, so this penalty isn't what it used to be, but it still exists.

 

What would the penalty be though? 5-10%? That's still better than the L99 V8. I'd imagine at cruising speed on the highway the penalty would be less than city driving, so maybe the difference in highway mileage is negligible. (Never owned a turbo so I'm not that familiar with them other than what I've read.) Still, it is an intriguing proposition.

 

I disagree. I think it would have a really fat tourqe number with the six being turbo charged. Example... Buick Grand National it had a little 231-6 that had a single turbo with a small intercooler (1986-87) had 355 foot pound of tourqe

 

What do you think it has to do with it? Look at how hallowed the GN still is as you pointed out 20 years later. I bet a twin turbo car would make just as big if not a bigger splash. Who mentioned the Monte Carlo?

 

I agree...it may not appeal to most Camaro faithfuls, but it could possibly attract a whole new crowd. If gas prices were to sky rocket again I'm sure its MPG figures would make it more appealing as well.

If there were to do this I'd like to see it have ~ 375 hp and priced a couple grand under the 1SS

 

Consider that a TT V6 may cost a couple of grand more than an LS3 to produce.

 

Well, typical FI compression ratio is 8.0-8.5:1. GDI lets you go a little higher: LNF's is 9.2:1.

Typical high-performance NA compression ratios are 10.5-11:1. LS3 is 11.3, LS7 is 11.0. GDI again lets you go higher: the DI 3.0L is 11.7:1, and I believe I've heard of other engines running as high as 12.5.

If I understand the physics involved correctly, increases in compression yield roughly linear increases in power -- 10% more compression should get you 10% more power.

Doing the math based on the numbers above, compression is roughly 20% lower on the FI engines than on the NA engines, so that would equate to a roughly 20% decrease in light-throttle power.

I'm not sure if decreases in power correspond linearly with decreases in efficiency, especially during part throttle situations, but that's how I understand it.

Now, even at part throttle, the turbo would still be spinning, doing some of the work. Nothing major, but you might gain back one or two percent of that lost power.

So, the point is, a turbo DI 3.6L at part throttle cruise might be getting 15-20% lower fuel efficiency than an NA DI 3.6L in the same car.

As a working example, I have a 1987 Grand National with the 3.8L Turbo, and a 1993 Buick Regal with the 3800 Series 1. Obviously there are lots of other differences to account for, but the engines are the same displacement and fairly closely related. The '93 gets 3-5mpg better in any given situation, and is quite a bit peppier off the line (assuming no brake torquing) and the difference is noticeable immediately upon throttle tip-in. Give the GN two seconds for the turbo to spool and it becomes an entirely different story, but that's not the point.