Rumorpile: Is This The 2014 Corvette's Rear End?

The proper way to offer an alternative here is to create a smaller RWD sportscar with a turbo 4. The overall envelope of Corvette has no room for a forced-solution V6 version.

But a "mini-vette" could accomplish everything those wishing for this want, in a far more competent way.

Some people compensate with piston counts while others are more secure in pure power results.

In this day and age proper performance can be found in 4-6-8-10-12 cylinders. The only thing the smaller 4 hurt in is sound.

Even the Great Enzo Ferrari also did well with 4 and 6 cylinder engines.

A mini Vette is a waste of time. How many limited segment 2 seaters does a volume value leader division need?

As I see it the more options available on the Vette the larger segment of the buying public it can reach. They have already shown this with the ZR1 as few of the present Vette buyers can afford this but I am sure it has picked up buyers that normally would have never bought a Vette.

If a mini-vette is a waste of time, then a V6 in the actual Vette is a larger one.

A small sportscar could do a better job of being less-expensive, lighter, and more affordable. If that can't be justified, then a bastardized Corvette surely can't. The larger car could never achieve the same results as a purpose-built smaller car could.

Round peg/square hole is never a very good answer.

Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

Agreed on all counts, however, TTV6 gives an option for those who want it and to reduce bad press against the car. As much as I want the core DNA of Corvette not to change, it needs volume from turkies (people) who think the car is inferior because of not having a "high-tech" engine. The car needs to cater the core Corvette customers, and new breed for its survival.

Not a diehard Corvette fan, but I'm not aware of "bad press" due to the current engine. Any negative commentary WRT having an IBC withers immediately in the face of its performance, so those are NOT remotely potential Corvette buyers, just stone-throwers; their minds are not going to be changed. Also not aware that the Corevtte's 'survival' in in question.

There was a LOT more weight to bad press for the Corvette in the late '70s, when it had 180 HP and couldn't get out of its own way. Today it's nothing but semantics.

Corvette survival is in question, if not for C7 certainly for the C8. One reason I know it is in question is because the base price of the car has gone up by $7,000 since the C6 came out. Z-06 has jumped by $11,000. The volume is about fourth of what it was in 2007. GM has to make money somewhere.

I would personally see it as an affordable sports car that could beat cars four times its price, which an American dreamed of owning rather than a competitor to European snob mobiles where cost of heated optional seats is $1,000. And if it takes to get cold turkeys as customers for its survival, then so be it so as long there is still a hardcore DNA existing in this vehicle .

The proper way to offer an alternative here is to create a smaller RWD sportscar with a turbo 4. The overall envelope of Corvette has no room for a forced-solution V6 version.

But a "mini-vette" could accomplish everything those wishing for this want, in a far more competent way.

That is the best option. By having a cheaper and smaller platform mate for the Vette, you have economy of scales. But if the status quo stays for the Vette, we may not see the C8 and that worries me as a Vette fan the most. I will go a step further, if you do not like the TTV6 option then let Cadillac have a try again on the car and use TTV6 with similar power as the LT1 for base engine - give it a GT characteristics rather than a track machine ability to compete with SL head on. Have a TTV8 as the other engine V series and you have a pricier version to cover the Vette.

One more thing I forgot in the car - I would not mind seeing a diesel V8 Corvette that shows GM has balls and can think outside the box.

But a "mini-vette" could accomplish everything those wishing for this want, in a far more competent way.

That is the best option. By having a cheaper and smaller platform mate for the Vette, you have economy of scales. But if the status quo stays for the Vette, we may not see the C8 and that worries me as a Vette fan the most. I will go a step further, if you do not like the TTV6 option then let Cadillac have a try again on the car and use TTV6 with similar power as the LT1 for base engine - give it a GT characteristics rather than a track machine ability to compete with SL head on. Have a TTV8 as the other engine V series and you have a pricier version to cover the Vette.

One more thing I forgot in the car - I would not mind seeing a diesel V8 Corvette that shows GM has balls and can think outside the box.

Now, these two ideas have merit!

I expect the TT V6 to play a major role in the new Alpha Camaro. They will build the engines image there and I expect in the ATS V.

The last thing GM needs is another 2 seat car when they have not even got the Malibu right.

What the hell does Malibu have to do with anything?

And, all I did was note a more logical way to achieve what some imagine to be beneficial about this hypothetical V6 Corvette. And a way that would better achieve those ends.

I think you know it is a superior approach.

As I roll all of this around in my head, it is becoming clear to me that a small RWD sportscar really makes a lot of sense for Chevy. Today, Chevy has Corvette and Camaro and that's it for performance. There is nothing in the lineup which has anything to offer to young, less well heeled enthusiasts. That, and the fact that Corvette and Camaro buyers want the V8 despite a competent V6 in the Camaro, Chevy looks like a one-trick pony. Corvette and Camaro have their identity tied up with the V8 in an inextricable way, and attempts to create enthusiasm for lesser engines in these two cars while expecting to draw in younger enthusiasts really are doomed from the start. The cars just aren't suited for it.

But a car designed to do this job from the start wouldn't carry any of that baggage. It could be designed without any intention to use more than a hot 4cyl. turbo, the price could be kept well-below both "C" cars, the fuel economy would be dramatically higher, and the car would be very tossable and fun to drive. That is a formua for attracting young buyers which would actually work.

So adding another low volume V6 sports car would be a good idea when they have other high volume cash flow generating models that needs fixed? Yep that is logical. There are bigger fish to fry at Chevy before we worry about how to do a seperate V6 sports car.

If Chevy already had all their ducks in a row yes it would be a good idea but I think you can agree Chevy and GM has more important things on their to do list for now.

Logical Idea in a perfect world yes, realistic for GM to do now no.

Like it or not the Vette people are avoiding the V6 as long as they can but even they know they will have to look at alturnitives in the future. The fact is there is not a sports car company out there this side of the million dollar cars that is not looking at all the options.

Some touching up of the front end and this could definitely fit the bill.

So adding another low volume V6 sports car would be a good idea when they have other high volume cash flow generating models that needs fixed? Yep that is logical. There are bigger fish to fry at Chevy before we worry about how to do a seperate V6 sports car.

If Chevy already had all their ducks in a row yes it would be a good idea but I think you can agree Chevy and GM has more important things on their to do list for now.

Logical Idea in a perfect world yes, realistic for GM to do now no.

Like it or not the Vette people are avoiding the V6 as long as they can but even they know they will have to look at alturnitives in the future. The fact is there is not a sports car company out there this side of the million dollar cars that is not looking at all the options.

Three points:

1) My position is an alternative to the foolish idea to mess with Corvette. What the timing might be, or where it would fit into the priority list for GM isn't something I have addressed.

2) I have never subscribed to the idea that GM is so inept that they can't develop cars simultaneously - in fact I see that as nonsense.

3) Done properly, this could be a volume product.

Some touching up of the front end and this could definitely fit the bill.

Yes, yes it would.

Oh, and hyper?

Not a V6 sportscar, but a turbo 4 sportscar.

Light ,nimble, and inexpensive.

As for the TTV6, since it seems that they intend to build it, perhaps it should be Cadillac/Buick only.

It fits those brands better.

As I roll all of this around in my head, it is becoming clear to me that a small RWD sportscar really makes a lot of sense for Chevy. Today, Chevy has Corvette and Camaro and that's it for performance. There is nothing in the lineup which has anything to offer to young, less well heeled enthusiasts. That, and the fact that Corvette and Camaro buyers want the V8 despite a competent V6 in the Camaro, Chevy looks like a one-trick pony. Corvette and Camaro have their identity tied up with the V8 in an inextricable way, and attempts to create enthusiasm for lesser engines in these two cars while expecting to draw in younger enthusiasts really are doomed from the start. The cars just aren't suited for it.

But a car designed to do this job from the start wouldn't carry any of that baggage. It could be designed without any intention to use more than a hot 4cyl. turbo, the price could be kept well-below both "C" cars, the fuel economy would be dramatically higher, and the car would be very tossable and fun to drive. That is a formua for attracting young buyers which would actually work.

Basically a BRZ competitor. Yes, GM does not have anything in its stable, but that Code 130 suddenly becomes worthy. Yes two turbos 1.6 and 2.0 with 200 and 300 hp, respectively should suffice. Camaro can take over at that point.

The new Camaro will be this car as the Alpha based car will see the Turbo 4, V6 [poss TT] and V8. The Camaro will evolve as the market is changing as we have seen with other makes like the BRZ and where the Mustang already is heading.

The Camaro as it is now will be the last of the large heavy so called pony cars. The ATS performance is only a hint at where the Camaro will start.

I really think we all have seen the last of the R130. While some loved it just as many also hated it. I feel they were testing the waters and it just was not embraced enough to carry it over as the Camaro.

Imagine if they did carry it over like this with a Mustang looking like an Aston or Jag. Not good.

coupe

RWD

=no sales. niche model. maybe 15-20k units, and cannibalize camaro sales too. Chevy needs to fix their malibu line, the equinox line soon, and needs a small crossover. they need to make those products top notch.

chevy would do best to downsize the camaro a bit, keep the base car priced right, make it habitable inside, and make it right with the times. build on the equity they have of the camaro line. i would go so far to say that AWD should be an option on a small percentage of camaros.

chevy already has the camaro and corvette and soon the SS. Gearheads and RWD fans don't need much else.

There really is little demand for cheap chevy versions of BRZ's, 240sx's, 1 series.

I expect the TT V6 to play a major role in the new Alpha Camaro. They will build the engines image there and I expect in the ATS V.

The last thing GM needs is another 2 seat car when they have not even got the Malibu right.

EXACTLY. They need to knock the Malibu out of the park, preferably with an all new chassis and platform. GM has never demostrated that they can build a top in class car in the best selling segment in the US.

Some people compensate with piston counts while others are more secure in pure power results.

In this day and age proper performance can be found in 4-6-8-10-12 cylinders. The only thing the smaller 4 hurt in is sound.

Even the Great Enzo Ferrari also did well with 4 and 6 cylinder engines.

A mini Vette is a waste of time. How many limited segment 2 seaters does a volume value leader division need?

As I see it the more options available on the Vette the larger segment of the buying public it can reach. They have already shown this with the ZR1 as few of the present Vette buyers can afford this but I am sure it has picked up buyers that normally would have never bought a Vette.

the solstice was a mini vette. look at how many hundred thousand that sold.

the solstice was a mini vette. look at how many hundred thousand that sold.

Irrelevant. First, it came as a convertible only, not coupe, yet it sold close to 20,000 units a year, second only 1,350 coupes were made before GM killed Pontiac.

coupe

RWD

=no sales. niche model. maybe 15-20k units, and cannibalize camaro sales too. Chevy needs to fix their malibu line, the equinox line soon, and needs a small crossover. they need to make those products top notch.

Camaro is on target to sell 85,000 models. Not all of those 15-20k units of this small car will be Camaro cannibalization. Assuming only 50% of those, you still have Camaro selling ~75,000 units per annum. When Camaro goes on alpha you are looking at good platform sharing with ATS, CTS and a possible Buick anyways. So yes there is a room for a smaller two seater car with 4cylinder and turbos only to compete directly with BRZ, Miata and now S2000. Camaro because of its very history and heritage is not a competitor for all those.

That market as a whole is worth about 100,000 cars annually, (if you include 370Z and Genesis), 20% market share is not bad. Plus this needs to be a global car, not US only car. There is not one GM car fitting that bill.

Linear processing - get Malibu right then - needs to stop as GM has capability to parallel process and produce gem of a products. Malibu's team failed, push them to fix it, while others work on getting different cars out, how difficult is that?

The new Camaro will be this car as the Alpha based car will see the Turbo 4, V6 [poss TT] and V8. The Camaro will evolve as the market is changing as we have seen with other makes like the BRZ and where the Mustang already is heading.

The Camaro as it is now will be the last of the large heavy so called pony cars. The ATS performance is only a hint at where the Camaro will start.

I really think we all have seen the last of the R130. While some loved it just as many also hated it. I feel they were testing the waters and it just was not embraced enough to carry it over as the Camaro.

Imagine if they did carry it over like this with a Mustang looking like an Aston or Jag. Not good.

How much is Camaro going to shrink? 24 inches in length, 11 inches in wheelbase, and 6 inches in width? Because then and then only it will be a BRZ competitor. Given it is on alpha, you are looking at a footprint similar to ATS, which means shrinking by 8, 3 and 4 inches in those dimensions, respectively. That still leaves room for a small, fun, tossable vehicle beneath the Camaro.

And you may call it huge, but the car is within 2 to 3 inches of its nearest competitor Mustang. And unless Mustang goes extremely tiny, I do not see Camaro going as small as the ATS. I expect it to be saving weight without too much sacrifice in the footprint.

I do not have the exact measuments but it should be inbetween the ATS an new CTS. It also will lose 475-600 pounds depending on the model and engine used.

Just losing the Zeta will lose a lot of weight but either way I would like to think of the Camaro being just a little shorter and norrow. I just hope they can package the interior better than the ATS. For some reason they lose space on the inside vs the BMW and a smaller trunk too.

The Camaro should be shorter narrower than the present CTS coupe but will be wider than the ATS.

As for volume 2 seaters as explained by a GM marketing manager. He stated most have a 5-7 year life. Sales plunge and it is difficult to keep them alive with out a lot of investment that is difficult to secure on a low volume line. If Pontiac had not died the Solstice was not for much longer anyways. The only lower cost two seaters of any volume in this country to live long lives were the Vette and Miata. The Vette pretty much get a free pass because it is a Icon like a Harley. Even then sales are dangerously low last year and this year. Hard to make a buisness case even for an Icon if it has a hard time selling just over 10,000 units. In otherwords the C7 could not come soon enough.

The Miata is a case of good marketing and global sales. They change special trims often and colors not unlike what GM has been doing with the Camaro too.

coupe

RWD

=no sales. niche model. maybe 15-20k units, and cannibalize camaro sales too. Chevy needs to fix their malibu line, the equinox line soon, and needs a small crossover. they need to make those products top notch.

chevy would do best to downsize the camaro a bit, keep the base car priced right, make it habitable inside, and make it right with the times. build on the equity they have of the camaro line. i would go so far to say that AWD should be an option on a small percentage of camaros.

chevy already has the camaro and corvette and soon the SS. Gearheads and RWD fans don't need much else.

There really is little demand for cheap chevy versions of BRZ's, 240sx's, 1 series.

I expect the TT V6 to play a major role in the new Alpha Camaro. They will build the engines image there and I expect in the ATS V.

The last thing GM needs is another 2 seat car when they have not even got the Malibu right.

EXACTLY. They need to knock the Malibu out of the park, preferably with an all new chassis and platform. GM has never demostrated that they can build a top in class car in the best selling segment in the US.

My whole point is they did at one time show they were class leading in the classes that count years ago with the Caprice, Chevelle and Nova but have yet to repeat that in the years since.

GM still needs to get their Sh*t together and make a rock solid line up with the Cruze, Malibu and Impala. Once they do that they can play with the odd bits they have always been good at.

Right now the Spark, Sonic and Cruze are near or class leaders. All they need to do is update the Cruze as it already is getting. Fix the Malibu and then market the Impala properly. I think they have a chance to get the house in order but they do not need to be distracted by other low volume issues right now. GM should be able to do more than one thing right at a time but of late has yet to prove it.

I have a hard time seeing why GM needs a 2800 pound coupe as an cheap corvette alternative. The c7 will only be a couple hundred pounds more. Anything like a code red basically eats into the exact same people Chevy would have looking at base camaros. Just make a cheap base corvette to bring in new buyers to keep corvette healthy for the future. Make the next camaro affordable too.

Next camaro should basically be packaged like a 3 series coupe in size and room and weight. Camaro needs to lose pounds Ina huge way.

To suggest it be between an alpha ats and cts would be about right.

I hope gm doesn't get super obsessed with coupes again. They really don't sell. Camaro sells because it was off the market for 7 years and the design is unforgettable.

I will say this, a code red Chevy might be as good a business case as a cruze coupe may be, and would be dynamically more fun, but it would be way too narrowly focused due to its RWD. BMW can't hardly sell 1 series coupes in great numbers and partially because there is a 3 series coupe. I sure hope they don't try a Buick alpha coupe. A regal coupe is maybe the only other coupes gm could justify building and I don't even think that would sell. Before any other coupes besides the ATS, GM would be far better off importing the Astra 3 door. 3 door Astra would resonate more with young buyers than practically anything else gm would build off alpha in 2 door form.

I don't think the 130 is dead yet. It wouldn't be making the auto show rounds again this year if it were. It probably has more than a few supporters in GM's upper management. Either it ends up growing slightly in size and mass and morphs into the next Camaro, or it stays as is (save for a '14 Impala front end) and becomes Chevy's entry RWD funmobile. A car like the 130 would do really well overseas, where gas taxes and displacement taxes would limit the Camaro's market penetration. It'd be pretty easy to throw a lion on the grill and send a few to Australia as the Torana.

I get the feeling it will be sharp...

I don't think the 130 is dead yet. It wouldn't be making the auto show rounds again this year if it were. It probably has more than a few supporters in GM's upper management. Either it ends up growing slightly in size and mass and morphs into the next Camaro, or it stays as is (save for a '14 Impala front end) and becomes Chevy's entry RWD funmobile. A car like the 130 would do really well overseas, where gas taxes and displacement taxes would limit the Camaro's market penetration. It'd be pretty easy to throw a lion on the grill and send a few to Australia as the Torana.

This is the sort of thinking I hope is still alive at GM.

z and Camino, I am not sure how to invite ppl to join a Facebook page, but there is one I belong to in reference to the Code130RS. You're welcome to join I'm sure.

I love the shoebox look of the Code, it is pure Chevrolet... from '55, to '64-'65 Chevelle, '66-'67 Nova, H-body Monza coupe, and on to the '78-'81 Malibu coupe, it is essential Chevrolet... but it is NOT a Camaro. The Code 130RS could be produced in coupe, sedan, shooting brake or even ute, while remaining a 4-cylinder only model. This is NOT a Camaro, it has possibilities beyond what a Camaro can be, and I view it as a fantastic opportunity to come to market with something only Chevy could do, trading on heritage, yet opening up to a whole new generation.

Camaro should remain a bit larger, with V6 and V8 engines. A Camaro can only be a coupe or convertible. And that is a great thing.

Code has no such restriction.

The issue with the 130 is it is either a love hate kind of car. The repsonse to it has been very divided at best.

The issue I have with the car is not the parts of it's styling as each one is nice but put them together and they just do not look like they all belong on the same car. A old 67 Nova had more flow to it.

While I am not in favor of two Apha Coupes in the Chevy line up there is one thing to consider. Now the Camaro will be shared with the ATS and CTS line they can now afford to sell fewer Camaro's. There will be no need to try to push 100,000 units to keep the line viable. With this in mind we could keep the Camaro a V8 and TT V6 car and do a second Alpa car as a NA V6 and 4 cylinder car. Lets face it GM has always had issues pushing a V6 car even with 325 HP.

Too bad the public is so brain washed that they can not drive RWD in the snow as a small RWD Malibu would be a cool thing. Too many will avoid it as they have been convinced RWD does not work in the snow. AWD would help sell this but would also push the price into Buicks area too.

One thing to consider is if they were to do another Apha coupe for Chevy I would expect a sedan too. Too many lost sales just with a coupe. Love em all you like but they are still a limited sale vehicle.

I saw a rare CTS coupe yesterday and told the wife it is a same they so not sell more of them than they do as it is a very striking car. I just hope they do something as stylish for the ATS or new CTS at some point.

Point is, there's room for new possibilities here (as Hyper just pointed out).

Variants are cool because they can make the same nameplate appeal to many tastes and needs.

While I think the demand for AWD is a bit overstated around here, Alpha has the capacity to offer it. In fact, that capacity should probably be there for most architectures going forward. That said, it shouldn't be a mandatory feature.

As for the 130R specifically,. the design has done nothing but grow on me since I first saw it. Even so, I'd love to see if Alpha can go even smaller (if only with a concept) to get a notion of its flexibility limits. A swoopy body in the Corvette roadster tradition would be great to see. The idea that Alpha can morph itself from something like a Kappa at one end of the spectrum to a Sigma sized entry at the other is fascinating - I'd like to see it demonstrated. A 130R-derived lineup of variants sounds quite good to me, I am a huge advocate of multiple configurations from a single nameplate/platform.

I think the Code 130 is a great looking car as is, I would take one in a heartbeat as long as I was comfortable driving it. I'm so used to full size cars I even felt cramped in a last gen Grand Prix rental a few years back. But getting back to the Code, I think it's a great relief to see a classic three box design on a car again in this age of "4 door coupes" and everything with sweeping rooflines ending nearly at the edge of the deck lid.

Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

When the LSx V8s can best that, it doesn't look too impressive.

Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

When the LSx V8s can best that, it doesn't look too impressive.

The LSx V8s are in full size AWD sedans? Did I miss a press release?

Properly dialed in Twin Scroll Twin Turbo V6 could give the Vette a new line on customers with amazing power and fuel mileage.

If it could deliver the fuel economy with the power - so far TTV6s haven't shown the capacity to do that.

One or two miles per gallon isn't a significant enough advantage to make this a viable idea.

The Ecoboost V6 does pretty well in the F-150 when you keep your foot out of the boost. Heck, I got 27mpg out of an AWD MKS Ecoboost. The naturally aspirated model does no better on fuel economy and had a lot less power on tap when needed.

Some have a lot to learn on these engines and to understand they are only at the take off point of where they can go vs the V8 is nearing the point were it has it's limits with present technology.

Snide remarks aside, the truth is that V6s don't offer much (if any) fuel economy gain over V8s.

That's the point.

They are no solution.

Snide remarks aside, the truth is that V6s don't offer much (if any) fuel economy gain over V8s.

That's the point.

They are no solution.

and as I've pointed out... you are wrong about the fuel economy.

Show me.

Show me in cars/trucks that also offer a V8.

Then, take a look at cars that offer a 4 and a V6.

If a hot 4 is offered, the V6 starts to look pointless.

If a V6 can't offer at least 5MPG over the same vehicle with an 8, what good is it really?

Sorry, but I just see V6s as overlap offerings.

From owners manuall of the 3.5l ecoboost V6:

"Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of 87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty applications such as towing a trailer."

Most people aren't taking into account the significant hidden costs associated with turbocharged engines in general. Though they can run on regular, premium is required to achieve the manufacturer's performance and econony specs. in the case of the f-150, if you're not willing to pay the extra money at the pump, you degrade the ecoboost's performance such that the v8 becomes a better option - same performance, the same (or better) economy, and lower costs to operate and maintain.

Yep.

And if you look at FWD cars, a 4 that makes 300HP is the most you need. With the ill-effects of power beyond that point, what good would a hot V6 do?

I'm not talking about Turbo-4 v. N/A V6... that's a big duh. And as such, I question why you think the same theory doesn't apply to Turbo-V6 v. N/A V8.

Ford F-150 4x4:

Ecoboost V6 - 16 City / 21 Highway

5.0 V8 - 14 City / 19 Highway

300hp 4 cyl? There isn't anything like that in production currently AFAIK. Sounds like it would be dreadful...loud, vibrating, short shelf life.

I'm not talking about Turbo-4 v. N/A V6... that's a big duh. And as such, I question why you think the same theory doesn't apply to Turbo-V6 v. N/A V8.

Ford F-150 4x4:

Ecoboost V6 - 16 City / 21 Highway

5.0 V8 - 14 City / 19 Highway

Because I see 2MPG under ideal conditions as a wash.

No real benefit.

Look, I get that most cars are engineered for V6s. What I question is if that makes sense moving forward. In almost any case, there is a 4 or an 8 that arguably makes more sense for the application. I don't think that a V6 should be immediately eliminated from production, but I see logic in phasing it out of future designs.

300hp 4 cyl? There isn't anything like that in production currently AFAIK. Sounds like it would be dreadful...loud, vibrating, short shelf life.

Ask Hyper about his 290HP four.

Ecoboosts do better than EPA under "ideal conditions"

There was a time when a V6 out-powered a 4 dramatically while besting V8 economy significantly. Now, however, the 4 encroaches via power output while the V8 encroaches via economy. I just don't see much room for the V6 going forward.

V6s are generally smoother and quieter than a 4, so I see that as an advantage.

V6s are generally smoother and quieter than a 4, so I see that as an advantage.

Which is why I'd make them Cadillac/Buick exclusives - they don't belong at Chevy.

That, and Buick's tradition of Turbo V6s, along with the "clamor" for DOHC engines at Cadillac.

I'd do the breakdown this way:

Chevy: N/A aspirated and turbo 4s and eights with a good, solid N/A V6 where justified (trucks/Camaro/Impala)

Buick: N/A and turbo 4s and 6s

Cadillac: all high-end configurations available

GMC: same as Chevy, with maybe a special Turbo V6 offered

I see this as a more logical distribution of powerplants and a strengthening of brand identity.

Camino sorry if you took that as a snide remark it was not directed at you only but it was a blanket statment on many who really have not lived with a modern Turbo engine. I used to think the same way till I owned and lived with one and now I understand what is possible now. In the past you would have to put my cold dead body behind a 4 cylinder turbo and today I love it. Things have changed that much.

Ok lets address some comments here. 300 HP in the Eco is not an issue. The only think that limits my Turbo is the 315 FT-LBS the 4 speed tranny can handle. There on many people today running this combo with pushing up to near 400 HP and no issues. If you take a look at what GM recomends power wise on the LNF Turbo they only recomend changes to the rods and pistons at 400 HP. Many of the parts are well suited for much much more power in stock form.

Second it is no louder than stock and durability is covered under the GM 5 year 100,000 mile warranty. I know of many that have gone well into the 6 figures with no issues.

As for Fuel the stock settings are Premium Recomended not Required. This is no different than my 3800 SC Seried III. The only difference you notive is the loss of about 20-30 HP and lower boost. Note MPG in my Turbo or SC engines were the same no matter what.

As for viberation? Why would it viberate any more at 300 HP? This statment shows a lack of understanding of how far these engines have come.

The think to note it while I know some V8 applications can get higher Highway MPG the do taper off fast around town and if driven anything but easy they do use much more fuel.

Noted with my Eco Turbo that driven hard daily it will return 23-24 City MPG in winter and 25-26 MPG City. Yes this is includes launches where I see boost levels at or near 23 PSI. So this is not some hypermile trick.

Also note the GM Turbo Upgrade I installed moved me from 250 HP to 290 HP and added 1-2 MPG City and Highway. This was not only confirmed with other owners but I also confirmed it with Bill Duncan the GM driveline engineer who developed the Upgrade kit. He and his staff are already at work with similar kits for the present Turbo engines on the market and this time they have better transmissions and more RWD vheicles for them. Note the Solstice with my kit would do 340 FT-LBS.

The kit is only a change in two MAP sensors and a Computer flash. I paid $300 for the increase and install to bump up my performance.

As for the added cost? On average it may cost me $1 to $2 max a week more since the kit make the engine Premium Required. Note I only used Premium anyways. At least this way I could chose what fuel and how much pefromance.

As of now I agree with a FWD the 300 HP give or take a little is about right just due to the lack of traction. The FWD unloads the front end with the weight transfer and it can be a challange to hook up the tires. I have even has tire spin at 50-55 MPH. in dry and 60 MPH in damp conditions. Note this was with Pilots that were not the best grip anyways. But it is fun just punch the gas at 35 and let the tires rip. Thank God for Launch control on this vehicle. The only flaw with my vehicle is the FWD and the lack of traction. The torque steer is pretty well under control on even grip surfaces.

Note my Vehicle is not any lightweight either at 3200 pounds. 14 flat in the 1/4 is easy and if you can get traction 13's are possible. Some of the guys with stacked tuning are in the 12's and high 11's with slicks.

One key to all of this is the DI. The one trick everyone needs to learn with DI is how to get the MPG. This trick should work with the V8 too. The key is off gas time. The engine if it has larger amounts of low end torque will help get the car up to speed faster and you off the gas pedal. If you are coasting the fuel is cut off all together. This was explained to me by BIll Duncan of GM. He said even if you put it in neutral you will not cut the fuel off but left in drive it will shut the fuel down and this is where we pick up a lot of miles. It is something GM learned while doing the Turbo engines.

As for MPG today any company that can pick up 1-2 MPG with more than good power will sell their left nut for it. Lets face it they are building 3 cylinders because they want to. MPG is hard and expensive to come buy and each MPG gain cost more and more per ever MPG you step up. Things are tough now and will only get worse as the average goes higher. As the average get higher you will be able to buy the powerful V8 cars but you had better have a full wallet. There will not be many and they will not be cheap.

I see the Turbo V6 now as only a start of what they can do. Not all of it will be massive power but it will also be used for low torque bands to get the feel and the cars moving and then let the lesser power keep them rolling. GM already showing us this with the new 1.6 Turbo.

The only real down side to all of this is more parts that could go bad but today most of these parts are being built to levels that they need to be. GM learned a hard lesson with the non water cooled and cheap turbo T types they did in the past that never lived more than 35,000 miles.

Note too the Turbo V6 will be like the V8 and will be limited to only a handful of vehicles. It will never be a wide use engine. The Turbo 4 will make up 70% of the market at some point and we also will see an increase of the 3 cylinders over time. The V8 is as big now as it will ever be again. So if you got em smoke em.

This is not a GM move but a market wide move as they are all moving in this direction.