Not Done Yet: Lutz says 'perhaps' to twin-turbo Camaro
11-18-2009 | 12:36 AM
#31
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Not to dispute what you are saying, but the Ecoboost 3.5L gets the same, or better EPA mileage, than the same vehicle with the naturally aspirated engine.
Since the EPA mileage is what counts, it could give Camaro owners the chance to have their cake and eat it too............ especially when CAFE gets much tighter.
Since the EPA mileage is what counts, it could give Camaro owners the chance to have their cake and eat it too............ especially when CAFE gets much tighter.
11-18-2009 | 07:50 AM
#32
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Not to dispute what you are saying, but the Ecoboost 3.5L gets the same, or better EPA mileage, than the same vehicle with the naturally aspirated engine.
Since the EPA mileage is what counts, it could give Camaro owners the chance to have their cake and eat it too............ especially when CAFE gets much tighter.
Since the EPA mileage is what counts, it could give Camaro owners the chance to have their cake and eat it too............ especially when CAFE gets much tighter.
And we cannot dispute the fact that, even while lugging around 4,839 pounds, the Flex GTDI feels as powerful and torque-rich as a V8. The Flex GTDI also delivers on the other EcoBoost promise of fuel economy that resembles that of a normally aspirated V6. At 16 mpg city and 22 mpg highway, the GTDI delivers identical fuel-efficiency to the standard all-wheel-drive Flex. That's what's known as a win-win.
How is that possible? Well, the direct-injection system brings with it some fuel economy improvement compared to the port-injected normally aspirated V6. But Ford has also fitted the Flex GTDI with the 3.16:1 final drive that normally comes with the front-wheel-drive Flex instead of the 3.39:1 ratio that helps the normally aspirated all-wheel-drive Flex feel not too leaden. The Flex GTDI six-speed automatic shares its gear ratios with the transmission in the non-turbo Flex. It's been a bit beefed up compared to the standard unit, though, to handle the additional torque.
How is that possible? Well, the direct-injection system brings with it some fuel economy improvement compared to the port-injected normally aspirated V6. But Ford has also fitted the Flex GTDI with the 3.16:1 final drive that normally comes with the front-wheel-drive Flex instead of the 3.39:1 ratio that helps the normally aspirated all-wheel-drive Flex feel not too leaden. The Flex GTDI six-speed automatic shares its gear ratios with the transmission in the non-turbo Flex. It's been a bit beefed up compared to the standard unit, though, to handle the additional torque.
11-18-2009 | 08:04 AM
#33
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
Of course, taller gears make it even more sluggish in those part-throttle situations we're talking about.
11-18-2009 | 08:07 AM
#34
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,482
From: ohio
I think that the Z24 Cavalier was, for its entire lifespan, a Zxx-worthy upgrade. The early Z24s with the 3.1L V6 and the 5-speed manual were a blast to drive! The later Z24s ('98+) weren't as torquey, but they were better in pretty much every other way.
The automatic-only Z26 Beretta and Z34 Monte Carlo might be a different story -- I never had any direct exposure to either of those -- but I'd argue that most people don't even remember those. For that matter, most people don't even recognize "Z28".
That doesn't even address the fact that the Zxx moniker is used for lots of different stuff. Z51 = performance suspension option, but never a badge. Z66 = street suspension for trucks, seen as a badge on Silverados and Avalanches. Z71 = off-road suspension for trucks. What GM has been consistent about is that Zxx is an RPO code indicating an optional suspension package. Sometimes there are other components that come along with that package, and sometimes there aren't.
The automatic-only Z26 Beretta and Z34 Monte Carlo might be a different story -- I never had any direct exposure to either of those -- but I'd argue that most people don't even remember those. For that matter, most people don't even recognize "Z28".
That doesn't even address the fact that the Zxx moniker is used for lots of different stuff. Z51 = performance suspension option, but never a badge. Z66 = street suspension for trucks, seen as a badge on Silverados and Avalanches. Z71 = off-road suspension for trucks. What GM has been consistent about is that Zxx is an RPO code indicating an optional suspension package. Sometimes there are other components that come along with that package, and sometimes there aren't.
11-18-2009 | 11:06 AM
#36
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
11-18-2009 | 11:10 AM
#37
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
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.
11-18-2009 | 02:56 PM
#39
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Where there any pictures of the interior of the Dusk? All I saw was the outside...
Edit: I found 1...can see part of the door & the seats...
Last edited by 95redLT1; 11-18-2009 at 03:01 PM.
11-18-2009 | 07:48 PM
#41
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
I'd take the Dusk with either a TTV6 or the L99 myself.
11-19-2009 | 12:01 PM
#42
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
Just like what happened with Mustang, in the end it'll come down to either a V8 or a TTV6 but not both.
When you consider the added cost and complexity of a TTV6 vs an OHV smallblock - the TTV6 had damned well better put down some substantially better FE and performance numbers to be viable. I don't think it can.
We see what's happening within the Ford camp with the Mustang and the Ec oboost V6's. Both the base GT version and Shelby GT350 version will will be replaced with the "Coyote" V8 in the GT and The "Roadrunner" V8 in the Boss.
A turbo V6 Camaro is an interesting idea. But frankly, I don't see alot of people forking over a hefty price premium to get comparable or diminished performance to the LS3/L99.
When you consider the added cost and complexity of a TTV6 vs an OHV smallblock - the TTV6 had damned well better put down some substantially better FE and performance numbers to be viable. I don't think it can.
We see what's happening within the Ford camp with the Mustang and the Ec oboost V6's. Both the base GT version and Shelby GT350 version will will be replaced with the "Coyote" V8 in the GT and The "Roadrunner" V8 in the Boss.
A turbo V6 Camaro is an interesting idea. But frankly, I don't see alot of people forking over a hefty price premium to get comparable or diminished performance to the LS3/L99.
11-19-2009 | 01:30 PM
#43
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
Just like what happened with Mustang, in the end it'll come down to either a V8 or a TTV6 but not both.
When you consider the added cost and complexity of a TTV6 vs an OHV smallblock - the TTV6 had damned well better put down some substantially better FE and performance numbers to be viable. I don't think it can.
We see what's happening within the Ford camp with the Mustang and the Ec oboost V6's. Both the base GT version and Shelby GT350 version will will be replaced with the "Coyote" V8 in the GT and The "Roadrunner" V8 in the Boss.
A turbo V6 Camaro is an interesting idea. But frankly, I don't see alot of people forking over a hefty price premium to get comparable or diminished performance to the LS3/L99.
When you consider the added cost and complexity of a TTV6 vs an OHV smallblock - the TTV6 had damned well better put down some substantially better FE and performance numbers to be viable. I don't think it can.
We see what's happening within the Ford camp with the Mustang and the Ec oboost V6's. Both the base GT version and Shelby GT350 version will will be replaced with the "Coyote" V8 in the GT and The "Roadrunner" V8 in the Boss.
A turbo V6 Camaro is an interesting idea. But frankly, I don't see alot of people forking over a hefty price premium to get comparable or diminished performance to the LS3/L99.
But think about how nice a 400+ hp TTV6 would fit into a CTS or the Alpha for Caddy. That could be a place to split the costs.
I think there is always room in the Camaro lineup for a TTV6. What we don't know right now is how many V8 buyers wanted the power but also wanted a bit more mpg. I think if priced just under the 1SS a TTV6 would be a very attractive choice. Not to mention that some enthusuasts ears perk up when word of GM offering a turbo V6..
11-19-2009 | 01:52 PM
#44
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
But this is why I think IF GM were to go forward with the TTV6 they would be on to something. So far your right it's been V8 or power adder V6. And certainly cost has been the major factor in that.
But think about how nice a 400+ hp TTV6 would fit into a CTS or the Alpha for Caddy. That could be a place to split the costs.
I think there is always room in the Camaro lineup for a TTV6. What we don't know right now is how many V8 buyers wanted the power but also wanted a bit more mpg. I think if priced just under the 1SS a TTV6 would be a very attractive choice. Not to mention that some enthusuasts ears perk up when word of GM offering a turbo V6..
But think about how nice a 400+ hp TTV6 would fit into a CTS or the Alpha for Caddy. That could be a place to split the costs.
I think there is always room in the Camaro lineup for a TTV6. What we don't know right now is how many V8 buyers wanted the power but also wanted a bit more mpg. I think if priced just under the 1SS a TTV6 would be a very attractive choice. Not to mention that some enthusuasts ears perk up when word of GM offering a turbo V6..
For one, look at this poll I posted in the Future Vehicle section: https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=720008
Generally, it's a tough sell to get people to pay more for something unless there is percieved value.
A turbo V6 ATS or CTS would be very, very interesting though.
11-19-2009 | 05:27 PM
#45
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
I don't disagree. I'd love to see GM develop a TTV6 package for any number of applications. I'm just saying that it might be difficult for it to coexist in a Camaro line-up with an available Gen IV or Gen V V8.
For one, look at this poll I posted in the Future Vehicle section: https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=720008
Generally, it's a tough sell to get people to pay more for something unless there is percieved value.
A turbo V6 ATS or CTS would be very, very interesting though.
For one, look at this poll I posted in the Future Vehicle section: https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=720008
Generally, it's a tough sell to get people to pay more for something unless there is percieved value.
A turbo V6 ATS or CTS would be very, very interesting though.
What I'm saying for the TTV6 is that it's not the top choice. I think as long as GM has a V8 in their lineup it should be standard on the Vette and the top choice for the Camaro. However I think a TTV6 would be a great mid line engine. Something in between the base V6 and the V8.
Just think if the TTV6 was available in the Camaro right now for say $29,999 and was rated at 395hp but with mileage closer to the N/A DI V6. I think a lot of L99 buyers and some LS3 buyers could be swayed to a slightly less powerful but better mileage and cheaper TTV6 Camaro. It's a HP and MPG choice in a Pony car that Ford or Dodge don't offer and something that even some enthusiasts would be interested in.