Here is an Aussie speed mag's article comparing two VW DI 2.0s, one turbo charges and one NA. http://autospeed.com/cms/A_109931/article.html and here is the conclusion:
It appears that because they are so modest, factory turbos produce some boost at low enough RPM & load that they can reduce pumping losses at cruise. I imagine that there is a synergy with the DI ultra lean burn mode.

 

That's a really good read. Thanks for that.:thumbsup:

I'm up for that, Turbo everything!!

Seriously, though...I think (I did before, but that article reinforced it) that a Turbo, or hopefully twin turbo V6 can do nothing but good for the Camaro, and GM in general.

 

they should put in GM's next gen diesel. 4.5 (I think)V8 supposedly 25% better fuel economy than similar power Gas V8.
Or why not the V6 diesel that will be showing up in GM cars in a few years?

 

I think the new 2.9 Diesel would be a great option for a "green" Camaro.

However, I also wonder why they can't substitute or add a turbo 4-cylinder. They've got outstanding motors...maybe the cost is too much to adapt to RWD applications and testing would cost too much?

Gas isn't getting any cheaper, and if this car has to survive on volume, you've got to be able to sell to the people who want a little performance but don't want a big 300+hp motor, even if it's a V6.

 

If you are thinking of the Turbo 4 in the Cobalt SS & HHR SS, it is was in the (RWD) Sky Redline and Solstice GXP first so RWD shouldn't be a problem.

The possible problems I see are:

• The Camaro might weigh too much to feel "sporty" with 260hp (I hope not).
• The LNF probably costs too much to put in a base Camaro.

 

Well, as for a turbo-6, I was hoping my business would be in better shape right now because I would already have a catera 6 on a stand with boost on it to develop a kit for the Camaro.

A 450 hp turbo 6 from the aftermarket or a 375 hp turbo 6 from GM would not be far fetched. However the previous mention of quicker spooling twin turbos is spot on. If you look at the power curves of a TT vs a single turbo, you'll see a huge difference. A single turbo maxed out will make little to no boost at low end, then about 2500-3500 will skyrocket up. If you have smaller twin turbos you may sacrifice peak hp numbers but you can make loads more power from as low as 1400 rpm. So, the TT car with less peak power will make more power along the entire power range except where the single turbo surpasses it towards the top end. I'd rather have two small turbos any day over one large turbo. Also, a TT camaro 6 with factory hp of 375 should be able to be tuned for over 450 without breaking a sweat. Add in a diet and a strip show on the inside, and you're looking at a real beast. Turbos teamed with DI though, seem to make a lot more power than standard fuel injection. This is partly due to the fuel slightly cooling the intake charge as it enters the CC and the fine misting effect of the DI vs the ability of the fuel to condensate through the intake runners.

You know GM has to be looking into it, Ford has already stated that the Mustang may get the eco-boost TT V6 with up to 425 hp. A Camaro V6 with tt, DI, a free flow intake, full exhaust system and agressive tune will surely be a car to really put the EB Mustang in it's place. Plus free flow exhaust and intake will actually improve fuel economy.

 

I would bet that they are looking at a turbo V6. I would not be the first time in a Camaro. Since I'm a second gen guy, I focus here. In 1972, Chevrolet engineers experimented with Schwitzer turbocharger on a 6-cylinder Camaro. The end result was that time to 60 was cut by 4.1 sec. It also added 19 mph to the 1/4-mile time. (data from 'The Great Camaro").

 

they do now....

2.3 DI going into some 2009 models.
est 200-230HP

 

That was a great link somebody posted and GM is working on a 1.4L turbo that will help a lot of vehiles have both performance and fuel economy.

I wanted to ad something about the VW/Audi/Skoda 2L FSI Turbos and this also holds true with the Turbo diesels VWs:
One of the reasons they don't either offer automatics with these engines, or when they do, their resale is lower than the manuals, is that these trannys simply were not designed to handle this kind of torque in these applications.
A lot of the autos are failing at 40K miles.

 

Edit: My internet connection is so slow that it allowed me to post twice!

 

Where are you getting your information? From my understanding and experience, that's completely untrue. The previous and current gen Audi A4 paired with the 2.0L FSI comes with a 6-speed auto that holds up remarkably well--especially since the 2.0T doesn't actually put out much torque (225ft/lb).

The DSG pairing with the 2.0T has been remarkably solid as well. Granted, the DSG is not an automatic in the traditional sense (no torque converter), so I'm not sure if that counts in your world or not.

These vehicles have always been offered with automatics, and comparably equipped, the automatic versions sell for more in the used car market. The availability of *good* manual transmissions in these vehicles comes from the European market which typically demands more fuel-efficient powertrains, which has historically been vehicles equipped with manual transmissions.

 

I had to register to post. I have been lurking to try to get as much info as I can but I had to chime in to relay some information that I had seen in the latest issue of Car and Driver. So that is what I know. NO mention of a turbo 6, which would be great. Maybe a turbo 4 on the horizon...

 

Yeah Turbo's don't need big Cubic inches.I like the 3.8 Liter V-6.Thats all you need at the track and on the street.

 

I agree, the 3800 w-bodies replaced with single turbos still spin out of the hole. Power is made everywhere.

 

Adding a turbo usually increases the engine's efficiency, ie, mileage, due to thermo gains. I don't recall the specifics, but I got into a debate with a much smarter friend of mine that had an Esprit turbo. His argument for the efficiency of the turbo's convinced me to buy my own Esprit. A supercar that got 28mpg was hard to argue with. I've owned a few other turbos and I would surely consider a turbo in the Camaro as a performance alternative, though I would prefer it be a V6 due to the weight of the car.