Trim Levels, Pricing, Configurator For '16 Camaro Revealed!

[Drew Dowdell]

The 2.3 probably feels faster than the 5.slow of the old days, but it won't sound like it.

 

I'm not against the 2.3 in principle, I just wouldn't want one myself. 

 

And Hyper..... DSF should bring even more FE to the 5.3. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

For the record, when I mentioned feel.....I was referring to that low end pull from the torque.

 

 

Kind of thought that was a given.

I certainly never mentioned sound.

 

Anyway, I think we are all clear on this.

Back to camaro, shall we......

[oldshurst442]

Thanx Drew....THAT was MY point...and I believe El K's too...hence the Craps and Blackjack references for this so-called argument/discussion...and the links that provide proof that the Brits...also prefer the V8 sound over a turbo 4 and to hell with petrol prices...

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon in Eu, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a desired  benefit as well.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Wings4Life

[oldshurst442]

I sometimes feel playful when I discuss things...and when I get this way...my discussions border on the trolly side...but its all in the name of fun...hence why I post dumb unrelated pics and refenrence them to my "discussion"...and its made for EVERYBODY's enjoyment...so...please...enjoy.

 

PS: dont misunderstand though...there is a message that I want to pass...and in this case...Id rather a 5.3 liter V8 for a Camaro over a supercharged 6.2 640 horse ZL-1 Camaro and a 275 horse turbo 4...and even lass...the V6...yup...Id rather the turbo 4 Camaro over the V6...

 

(yes I know...Ford's actual marketing strategy...I did say I feel playful...and trollish... )

 

Why I would rather the 5.3?

 

327 cubic inches of naturally aspirated V8 fun...

 

 

Its the Challenger Hellcat that I want stupendous amounts of supercharged horsepower...

 

As for the Mustang...that flat plane crank Voodoo V8 hits the spot..,.

Edited September 20, 2015 by oldshurst442

[Drew Dowdell]

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a benefit as well.

 

Honest question to the powertrain engineer.  If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true),  Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same,  wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

[oldshurst442]

For the record, when I mentioned feel.....I was referring to that low end pull from the torque.

 

 

Kind of thought that was a given.

I certainly never mentioned sound.

 

Anyway, I think we are all clear on this.

Back to camaro, shall we......

low end torque from a turbo 4 cylinder and low end torque from a naturally aspirated V8...even when equal amounts at same RPMs STILL does not FEEL the same...and  sound IS part of that equation...but NOT the whole story...my god dude...and YOU are supposedly from the Motor City...

[oldshurst442]

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon in Eu, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a desired  benefit as well.

I hear you on that...however...for a second time...

 

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/brits-are-proportionally-buying-more-v8-mustangs-than-americans-99184.html

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/u-k-kicking-americas-butt-when-it-comes-to-ford-mustang-v-8-take-rates/

 

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/08/ford-mustang-v8-a-favorite-among-uk-buyers.html

 

 

High petrol prices in the EU... It sure did not deter...

That V8 feel and sound seems important to some...no matter how much pull an ecoboost 4 cylinder has at low RPMs with said benefits of fuel economy...

Edited September 20, 2015 by oldshurst442

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a benefit as well.

 

Honest question to the powertrain engineer.  If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true),  Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same,  wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

 

 

The amount of fuel used is dependent on many, many variables.

But on a dyno, where many of those variables are not there, here is what I know;

 

A 2.5L I4 engine humming along at idle will use roughly half the amount of fuel as a 5.0L V8 with the same bore / stroke.

Simple physics, half the injectors and plugs combusting about half the amount of fuel and air mixed. 

 

Now there is no NA I4 than will match a modern V8 in power, at least at similar rpm's....so we have to now consider boosted engines, or high rpm's to get close.  That's where it gets tricky, and yes, more fuel is added and eventually, under full load and matched power, the amount of fuel used for both become closer and closer....but never will they match.  Not with secondary systems assisting to match power levels.

 

So, to my point about fewer I4 emissions,  we can expect similar increases with matched power, but again, 4 combustion systems working hard versus 8....will ALWAYS yield less byproduct emitted.

 

So part of the benefit of GTDI that we all seem to ignore, is that under normal daily use for 99% of the time, it emits far less pollutants.  Which is a good thing.

[El Kabong]

Mustang is now a global car and because of that, the I4 Turbo is a must.

 

And Mustang already offers several V8 engines.

The last time I checked (in Top Gear Magazine, possibly-I do forget the source), the RHD Mustang had moved roughly 2,000 units. If accurate, the old Probe was a better representative of the global sport coupe. More interesting was the take rate of the V8: I believe that the Richard Hammonds of England are snatching them up at a greater take there than here... roughly 40% in fact.

And if by "several" engines you mean "one that lags the LT1 in power and one that revs to the moon but lags the LT1 in torque," then yes, you are correct.

Also disconcerting was the EB's performance at Lightning Lap, where it couldn't beat a Mini around VIR despite an as-tested price of 38 large. Ezra Dyer was particularly cruel in his column that month.

Now, since I downvoted you already for deviating from the thread topic (your rules, I believe ), I look forward to your downvote, complete with explanation why :D

...also, the 327 Camaro would completely rule, both in the performance AND sales charts. Ford's middle engine isn't that good.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Mustang is now a global car and because of that, the I4 Turbo is a must.

 

And Mustang already offers several V8 engines.

The last time I checked (in Top Gear Magazine, possibly-I do forget the source), the RHD Mustang had moved roughly 2,000 units. If accurate, the old Probe was a better representative of the global sport coupe. More interesting was the take rate of the V8: I believe that the Richard Hammonds of England are snatching them up at a greater take there than here... roughly 40% in fact.

And if by "several" engines you mean "one that lags the LT1 in power and one that revs to the moon but lags the LT1 in torque," then yes, you are correct.

Also disconcerting was the EB's performance at Lightning Lap, where it couldn't beat a Mini around VIR despite an as-tested price of 38 large. Ezra Dyer was particularly cruel in his column that month.

Now, since I downvoted you already for deviating from the thread topic (your rules, I believe ), I look forward to your downvote, complete with explanation why :D

...also, the 327 Camaro would completely rule, both in the performance AND sales charts. Ford's middle engine isn't that good.

 

 

 

Imagine then just how many they will sell, when they exporting the RHD Mustangs, that they just started building.

[oldshurst442]

They will probably sell many...kudos to Ford...but Im also willing to bet that the V8 take rate will mirror that of the U.K.'s...

 

So much for ecoboosting the hype of...ecoboost...

[El Kabong]

It won't even sell that well. You heard it here first.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

They will probably sell many...kudos to Ford...but Im also willing to bet that the V8 take rate will mirror that of the U.K.'s...

 

So much for ecoboosting the hype of...ecoboost...

 

 

Sooooo, just to be clear olds, you have concluded that a successful and planned take rate for I4 GTDI in Europe, as well as a successful V8 take rate......means that EcoBoost marketing in the US is a failure, or even in Eu.

 

Ok.

 

I don't follow that logic at all, especially if Ford is selling exactly what they planned, but W/E.

Edited September 20, 2015 by Wings4Life

[oldshurst442]

 

They will probably sell many...kudos to Ford...but Im also willing to bet that the V8 take rate will mirror that of the U.K.'s...

 

So much for ecoboosting the hype of...ecoboost...

 

 

Sooooo, just to be clear olds, you have concluded that a successful and planned take rate for I4 GTDI in Europe, as well as a successful V8 take rate......means that EcoBoost marketing in the US is a failure.

 

Ok.

 

I don't follow that logic at all, especially if Ford is selling exactly what they planned, but W/E.

 

Ecoboost in the US is a success?

 

Sure it is!!!

 

When all you do is just slap a turbo on each and every engine you offer in the US and call it an ecoboost...

 

But yeah...W/E...I just like to be unique...I say whatevs...

Edited September 20, 2015 by oldshurst442

[El Kabong]

The thing is, the EB engine is barely adequate for North American Mustangs (C/D once again had to put 93 Octane in the Lightning Lap car, putting he boots to Ford's claims about recommended fuel again), never mind Yurp.

The car will sell, in niche numbers, to Germans who like Budweiser and Brits who remember Galaxies in the BTCC races of yore. But after that... pffffffft. It's too large, it's barely faster than a Focus RS to 60, and it can't handle.

But now, let us clear out palates of the riff-raff from Dearborn, and talk about a REAL pony car

Edited September 20, 2015 by El Kabong

[hyperv6]

Sorry folks...

 

But but we are talking about a forced induction engine versus a naturally aspired one...

Turbo charge or supercharge a V8 or a V6...

 

Here...this is what a SUPERCHARGED V8 looks like...

 

 

 

I understand Hyper...

 

But at the end of the day...its still a 4 cylinder under the hood...sure 300 horses...Id rather have 300 NATURALLY ASPIRATED horses in V6 or V8 form...

Not to sour up what the ecoboost 4 Mustang or turbo 4 Camaro are all about....its a helluva an achievement for both vehicles...however...

Dont try to sell me up on it...

 

Id rather an LT1 or LS1 from the 1990s than either 4 pot...

That is just me...

 

Im excited to see both of these 4 cylinder versions of both cars what they could do...

I understand the different and WELCOME both marketing strategies...however...at the end of the day...a NTAURALLY ASPIRATED 5.3 liter V8 is what Id rather than ANY version of the Camaro...again...that is just me...

 

But dont tell me...no matter what upgrades you do to a turbo 4 cylinder car...that it feels like a V8...because it doesnt...

It may be as fast...faster...but it definitely doesnt NOT feel like a naturally aspirated V8...

 

As with the Hellcat on top....yeah...if Im gonna go down a forced induction road...Id rather a suercharged Hemi please...not an ecoboosted 4...

But again the Hellcat will not be around long. Smoke em while you can buy them.

The 4 is going to be a major part in the future. You start promoting it now not 10 years from now when you need it.

It is simple we have three engines with three diverse attributes and three engines that appeal to three different kinds of buyers. What is wrong with this? We will have a second SC V8 soon there is nothing wrong with any of this.

[hyperv6]

The thing is, the EB engine is barely adequate for North American Mustangs (C/D once again had to put 93 Octane in the Lightning Lap car, putting he boots to Ford's claims about recommended fuel again), never mind Yurp.

The car will sell, in niche numbers, to Germans who like Budweiser and Brits who remember Galaxies in the BTCC races of yore. But after that... pffffffft. It's too large, it's barely faster than a Focus RS to 60, and it can't handle.

But now, let us clear out palates of the riff-raff from Dearborn, and talk about a REAL pony car

Have you really spent any time with a Turbo DI engine of 300 HP? I have and I would hardly call it adequate. Is it an SS or GT? No but do you see that emblem on it. My Turbo will run tight with some 13 Sec V8 cars if I can get it to hook up. FWD suck but the engine can deliver times better than many big blocks of the past.

[oldshurst442]

Why OCNBLU?

 

Why you downvote?

 

Is it NOT the truth that Ford uses that as their marketing tour de force...

 

Is it NOT the truth that Lincoln's version was Twin Force at several auto shows  but ultimately FoMoCo went with ecoboost as well?

 

You know...OCNBLU...you might not like what I say....but it IS the truth...

 

And THAT is why I hate this downvoting stuff....because some of us let emotions rule our thoughts rather than reality...and hide behind the downvotes...

 

 

Dont worry though...you dont wanna discuss...the discussion will come to you...its like in Soviet Russia...

I bring discussion to you...

Edited September 21, 2015 by oldshurst442

[El Kabong]

The thing is, the EB engine is barely adequate for North American Mustangs (C/D once again had to put 93 Octane in the Lightning Lap car, putting he boots to Ford's claims about recommended fuel again), never mind Yurp.The car will sell, in niche numbers, to Germans who like Budweiser and Brits who remember Galaxies in the BTCC races of yore. But after that... pffffffft. It's too large, it's barely faster than a Focus RS to 60, and it can't handle.But now, let us clear out palates of the riff-raff from Dearborn, and talk about a REAL pony car

Have you really spent any time with a Turbo DI engine of 300 HP? I have and I would hardly call it adequate. Is it an SS or GT? No but do you see that emblem on it. My Turbo will run tight with some 13 Sec V8 cars if I can get it to hook up. FWD suck but the engine can deliver times better than many big blocks of the past.

Perhaps you didn't see the earlier posts where I mentioned that Ford's not particularly honest about the fuel requirements for this car and that, in this application, it cannot keep pace around VIR with a Mini that had a sale price of several thousand less. All independently verified by C/D, and all pointing toward my antipathy for this particular car/engine combo.

Once again, let's not forget: THIS IS NOT THE BASE ENGINE.

Also, once again a big shout-out to the downvote-happy whiny butts :D

Edited September 21, 2015 by El Kabong

[oldshurst442]

 

Sorry folks...

 

But but we are talking about a forced induction engine versus a naturally aspired one...

Turbo charge or supercharge a V8 or a V6...

 

Here...this is what a SUPERCHARGED V8 looks like...

 

 

 

I understand Hyper...

 

But at the end of the day...its still a 4 cylinder under the hood...sure 300 horses...Id rather have 300 NATURALLY ASPIRATED horses in V6 or V8 form...

Not to sour up what the ecoboost 4 Mustang or turbo 4 Camaro are all about....its a helluva an achievement for both vehicles...however...

Dont try to sell me up on it...

 

Id rather an LT1 or LS1 from the 1990s than either 4 pot...

That is just me...

 

Im excited to see both of these 4 cylinder versions of both cars what they could do...

I understand the different and WELCOME both marketing strategies...however...at the end of the day...a NTAURALLY ASPIRATED 5.3 liter V8 is what Id rather than ANY version of the Camaro...again...that is just me...

 

But dont tell me...no matter what upgrades you do to a turbo 4 cylinder car...that it feels like a V8...because it doesnt...

It may be as fast...faster...but it definitely doesnt NOT feel like a naturally aspirated V8...

 

As with the Hellcat on top....yeah...if Im gonna go down a forced induction road...Id rather a suercharged Hemi please...not an ecoboosted 4...

But again the Hellcat will not be around long. Smoke em while you can buy them.

The 4 is going to be a major part in the future. You start promoting it now not 10 years from now when you need it.

It is simple we have three engines with three diverse attributes and three engines that appeal to three different kinds of buyers. What is wrong with this? We will have a second SC V8 soon there is nothing wrong with any of this.

 

Oh...I understand all of that...nothing wrong with that...

 

However...we are still in the NOW!!!

 

We havent reach Doomsday just yet...so...If I wanna poke fun at ecoboost 4s and turbo ecotecs and wax poetic about V8s that COULD STILL be bought in 2015....then so be it!!!

[hyperv6]

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a benefit as well.

 

Honest question to the powertrain engineer.  If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true),  Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same,  wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

The mileage is in most cases just a little better but generally they can do it with out cylinder drop and other tricks. As for emissions it generally better with multi valve. That was the whole reason many companies went to it in the first place. It is about volumetric efficiency.

In most multi valves they can place the valves in more places to move more air than one large Intake valve. Ferrari had gone to a 5 valve just for this. I am not sure their new turbo still has 5 but it was for efficiency mostly in emissions.

This is what I was taught in collage. The engine is an air pump and the more efficient the air flow the more efficient the engine is. The added valves just opens the door to be better at controlling the flow. Add VVT to it and it makes it all that more efficient in both areas. Add DI you can better control the flow and placement then add a Turbo and you can cool the cylinder and add more compression and more boost.

I run 23 PSI on pump gas with no issue and with full GM drivetrain warranty.

Now that they have added the VVT to the V8 push rod it has gains some in this area but with two cams you can even get a little more out of it with 4 valves. No one thought it could be done but GM has done it. But yet they still have to drop cylinders. I expect more 6 and even some 4 cylinders to get cylinder drops as they really are getting desperate

Anyways with my Turbo even driven hard I easily beat the EPA number driving it hard. 25 City and 32 Highway.

One thing many people do not consider is if you leave a DI engine in gear and lift off the gas the engine cuts the fuel off not matter what engine. Coasting gains much in MPG. The GM engineer said the trick with the turbo engines are they have so much low end torque they can get off the gas sooner and gain much more MPG.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a benefit as well.

 

Honest question to the powertrain engineer.  If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true),  Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same,  wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

 

 

The amount of fuel used is dependent on many, many variables.

But on a dyno, where many of those variables are not there, here is what I know;

 

A 2.5L I4 engine humming along at idle will use roughly half the amount of fuel as a 5.0L V8 with the same bore / stroke.

Simple physics, half the injectors and plugs combusting about half the amount of fuel and air mixed. 

 

Now there is no NA I4 than will match a modern V8 in power, at least at similar rpm's....so we have to now consider boosted engines, or high rpm's to get close.  That's where it gets tricky, and yes, more fuel is added and eventually, under full load and matched power, the amount of fuel used for both become closer and closer....but never will they match.  Not with secondary systems assisting to match power levels.

 

So, to my point about fewer I4 emissions,  we can expect similar increases with matched power, but again, 4 combustion systems working hard versus 8....will ALWAYS yield less byproduct emitted.

 

So part of the benefit of GTDI that we all seem to ignore, is that under normal daily use for 99% of the time, it emits far less pollutants.  Which is a good thing.

 

 

But that's the point I'm getting at.  If you can make a Turbo I4 and a V8 use the same amount of fuel, don't the emissions levels roughly match as well? If you're only burning a certain amount of fuel and the combustion process is equally advanced, then the emissions should be the same, no?  I have a reason for asking the question that way.

[Drew Dowdell]

Why OCNBLU?

 

Why you downvote?

 

Is it NOT the truth that Ford uses that as their marketing tour de force...

 

Is it NOT the truth that Lincoln's version was Twin Force at several auto shows  but ultimately FoMoCo went with ecoboost as well?

 

You know...OCNBLU...you might not like what I say....but it IS the truth...

 

And THAT is why I hate this downvoting stuff....because some of us let emotions rule our thoughts rather than reality...and hide behind the downvotes...

 

 

Dont worry though...you dont wanna discuss...the discussion will come to you...its like in Soviet Russia...

I bring discussion to you...

 

Your protests appear to be directed at the wrong person...... and please... how about we just ignore the voting for a bit. 

[daves87rs]

I'm just happy that we still have go fast toys, whether they be 4 or 8s.

 

 

You only have to look at places like California to realize it will be a matter of time when everything will drive like a go cart....

 

 

 

Big picture here boys, big picture.....

[oldshurst442]

 

Why OCNBLU?

 

Why you downvote?

 

Is it NOT the truth that Ford uses that as their marketing tour de force...

 

Is it NOT the truth that Lincoln's version was Twin Force at several auto shows  but ultimately FoMoCo went with ecoboost as well?

 

You know...OCNBLU...you might not like what I say....but it IS the truth...

 

And THAT is why I hate this downvoting stuff....because some of us let emotions rule our thoughts rather than reality...and hide behind the downvotes...

 

 

Dont worry though...you dont wanna discuss...the discussion will come to you...its like in Soviet Russia...

I bring discussion to you...

 

Your protests appear to be directed at the wrong person...... and please... how about we just ignore the voting for a bit. 

 

OK...But I still dont like it...

 

And Im sorry OCNBLU...

 

it must be Burnt valve LS7  then!!!

[El Kabong]

Re: the boosted four question: Drew, FWIW the only variable I can see in that little riddle is that boost pressure won't be constant, but compression ratio will. That may mean more rapid fluctuations in ignition temps and thus NOx production. Besides that, I will admit to a bit of puzzlement.

Edited September 21, 2015 by El Kabong

[El Kabong]

...oops, another idea just came to me: what if they need to use extra gasoline in the DI system as an evaporative cooling aid for the extra temperatures the boost generates? The RUF Yellowbird CTR was notorious for this.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

 

 

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a benefit as well.

 

Honest question to the powertrain engineer.  If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true),  Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same,  wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

 

 

The amount of fuel used is dependent on many, many variables.

But on a dyno, where many of those variables are not there, here is what I know;

 

A 2.5L I4 engine humming along at idle will use roughly half the amount of fuel as a 5.0L V8 with the same bore / stroke.

Simple physics, half the injectors and plugs combusting about half the amount of fuel and air mixed. 

 

Now there is no NA I4 than will match a modern V8 in power, at least at similar rpm's....so we have to now consider boosted engines, or high rpm's to get close.  That's where it gets tricky, and yes, more fuel is added and eventually, under full load and matched power, the amount of fuel used for both become closer and closer....but never will they match.  Not with secondary systems assisting to match power levels.

 

So, to my point about fewer I4 emissions,  we can expect similar increases with matched power, but again, 4 combustion systems working hard versus 8....will ALWAYS yield less byproduct emitted.

 

So part of the benefit of GTDI that we all seem to ignore, is that under normal daily use for 99% of the time, it emits far less pollutants.  Which is a good thing.

 

 

But that's the point I'm getting at.  If you can make a Turbo I4 and a V8 use the same amount of fuel, don't the emissions levels roughly match as well? If you're only burning a certain amount of fuel and the combustion process is equally advanced, then the emissions should be the same, no?  I have a reason for asking the question that way.

 

 

But they don't use the same fuel, and thus not the same emissions.

Sure, under full load they might come close, but that is a tiny, tiny fraction of the time.   

So under normal uses, 99% of the time, half the combustion chambers will produce less emissions.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

 

With gasoline prices between $6 and $10 dollars per gallon, I think it is safe to assume many people care about fuel economy.

And with 4 cylinders roughly half the emissions of 8, I hear that is a benefit as well.

 

Honest question to the powertrain engineer.  If two engines of two different cylinder counts are using the same amount of fuel per mile (assume that it is true),  Also assume that things like combustion chamber and fuel delivery are the same,  wouldn't those two engines have the same level of emissions?

 

 

The amount of fuel used is dependent on many, many variables.

But on a dyno, where many of those variables are not there, here is what I know;

 

A 2.5L I4 engine humming along at idle will use roughly half the amount of fuel as a 5.0L V8 with the same bore / stroke.

Simple physics, half the injectors and plugs combusting about half the amount of fuel and air mixed. 

 

Now there is no NA I4 than will match a modern V8 in power, at least at similar rpm's....so we have to now consider boosted engines, or high rpm's to get close.  That's where it gets tricky, and yes, more fuel is added and eventually, under full load and matched power, the amount of fuel used for both become closer and closer....but never will they match.  Not with secondary systems assisting to match power levels.

 

So, to my point about fewer I4 emissions,  we can expect similar increases with matched power, but again, 4 combustion systems working hard versus 8....will ALWAYS yield less byproduct emitted.

 

So part of the benefit of GTDI that we all seem to ignore, is that under normal daily use for 99% of the time, it emits far less pollutants.  Which is a good thing.

 

 

But that's the point I'm getting at.  If you can make a Turbo I4 and a V8 use the same amount of fuel, don't the emissions levels roughly match as well? If you're only burning a certain amount of fuel and the combustion process is equally advanced, then the emissions should be the same, no?  I have a reason for asking the question that way.

 

 

But they don't use the same fuel, and thus not the same emissions.

Sure, under full load they might come close, but that is a tiny, tiny fraction of the time.   

So under normal uses, 99% of the time, half the combustion chambers will produce less emissions.

 

 

Well what I'm getting at is that not all V8s use all 8 cylinders all the time. The GM and Chrysler V8s are capable of using only 4 cylinders at cruise right now.  At a 65mph cruise, the Suburban is a really big 4-cylinder vehicle... and it is an effective method of providing power and fuel economy...I've done multiple trips in Suburbans and gotten 22 - 23 mpg. That's the same fuel economy I've gotten out of an Expedition Ecoboost but with more horsepower and torque, and without having to use premium fuel (I get in the high teens MPG in the same Expedition if I use regular gas)

 

So, while the Suburban can run on 4-cylinders today, GM is working on getting them to run on as little as two cylinders in the near future.  

 

Thus my question.... if you can get a 4-cylinder turbo and a variable displacement, naturally aspirated 8 cylinder to use the same amount of fuel under a given load, is there any difference in the emissions of those two engines?

[hyperv6]

Drew lets put it this way if the MPG and Emissions were just as good in a V8 do you really think they would spend billions on two entirely new engines?

The V8 with cylinder drop is still more V8 than 4 cylinder. Also they are no longer the simple cheap small block of the past.

Also with the new turbo engines they often have more low end torque. Like I stated get it up to speed faster with the more torque and get off the gas sooner. That is how the GM performance driveline engineer explained it to me.

If the V8 was the superior engine for all application it would be the engine in all the applications. Also the issues with less weight are now real as GM has removed much weight from the 4. That is where much of the Malibu weight loss came from.

Now in performance applications and trucks the investment is still worth it. But yet while some want to live in the now MFGs have to worry about 10 years and beyond.

You have some legitimate questions and I think you do know the answers and are just looking for conformation.

I am anything but anti V8 and you know that but to make sense of this you have to say or point out some unpopular things to some people. Again like I like to say this is big picture. The thing that surprised me the most is how Ford made the move as early as they did. As it has gone things went smoother than I had expected. God knows I would have hated to be the one that made the call to put a TTV6 in a truck. That to me was a much greater risk than Aluminum in many ways.

Also we lust factor in that the V8 is running out of things that can be done to it to extend MPG. GM has done a great job with what they have done but how much more can be done?

On the other hand the smaller engines are at the beginning of their runs and still have many things that can be done.

In the future we will see engines get stupid small and most all will have a turbo sitting somewhere on it.

You put a Turbo on a BMW to look like you have advanced technology. You put a Turbo on a Cruze because you are trying to meet fuel and emissions goals. I don't thing GM really even publicize the Turbo all that much and most people may not even know they have one.

I think you can get my point. You may not agree but why else would they spend all this money on more and more smaller engines? Answer that one.

[hyperv6]

...oops, another idea just came to me: what if they need to use extra gasoline in the DI system as an evaporative cooling aid for the extra temperatures the boost generates? The RUF Yellowbird CTR was notorious for this.

It does not evaporate. It turns into a vapor as it has to do to compress. Unless you found a way to compress liquids. The last time I tried that I broke a piston.

The cooling is just a part of vaporizeation and the fuel never leaves the cylinder. They do the same thing on the new LT engines even with out the turbo. Putting cooler fuel in the cylinder drops the temp but uses no extra gas. That is the whole point of DI along with placement of the fuel and specific amounts in the cylinder.

I'm just happy that we still have go fast toys, whether they be 4 or 8s.

 

 

You only have to look at places like California to realize it will be a matter of time when everything will drive like a go cart....

 

 

 

Big picture here boys, big picture.....

This is the most intelligent post on this whole thread. Thank you.

[El Kabong]

Drew lets put it this way if the MPG and Emissions were just as good in a V8 do you really think they would spend billions on two entirely new engines?

Because you can't fit a V8 in a Sonic, and you shouldn't put a V8 in an Impala.

The V8 will survive. It may require hybridization and/or turbocharging to do so. But it will.

[hyperv6]

Drew lets put it this way if the MPG and Emissions were just as good in a V8 do you really think they would spend billions on two entirely new engines?

Because you can't fit a V8 in a Sonic, and you shouldn't put a V8 in an Impala.

The V8 will survive. It may require hybridization and/or turbocharging to do so. But it will.

Oh we will have v8 engines but they will very limited and very expensive.

Big picture!

If the v8 held that much mpg potential we would not even have a sonic.

[Guest wings4life]

Whatever trick you throw at 8 cylinders to squeeze more fuel out of it (cyl deactivation, Atkinson cycle cam timing, more gears, etc.) you can do the same exact thing with 4 cylinders.  And on top of that, the growing and evolving synergies offered through secondary systems like boosting & DI, that offering compounding of benefits, have a lot of growing yet to do.  Big NA engines have their place, but they have little room for further improvement in both power and economy.  Not without radical cost thrown at it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Whatever trick you throw at 8 cylinders to squeeze more fuel out of it (cyl deactivation, Atkinson cycle cam timing, more gears, etc.) you can do the same exact thing with 4 cylinders.  And on top of that, the growing and evolving synergies offered through secondary systems like boosting & DI, that offering compounding of benefits, have a lot of growing yet to do.  Big NA engines have their place, but they have little room for further improvement in both power and economy.  Not without radical cost thrown at it.

 

there are a lot more skip fire options in a V8 than in a 4-cylinder... it's harder to make a 4-cylinder with deactivation smooth.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Whatever trick you throw at 8 cylinders to squeeze more fuel out of it (cyl deactivation, Atkinson cycle cam timing, more gears, etc.) you can do the same exact thing with 4 cylinders.  And on top of that, the growing and evolving synergies offered through secondary systems like boosting & DI, that offering compounding of benefits, have a lot of growing yet to do.  Big NA engines have their place, but they have little room for further improvement in both power and economy.  Not without radical cost thrown at it.

 

there are a lot more skip fire options in a V8 than in a 4-cylinder... it's harder to make a 4-cylinder with deactivation smooth.

 

 

huh?

V8 to V4 is same as I4 to I2 in terms of reduction proportionally, and although I can't go into details, the future of cylinder deactivation will include idle speeds.  Currently, GM allows for deactivation in higher gears only due to NVH.  That problem is going away in the near future.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Wings4Life

[El Kabong]

Look.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard about the demise of the V8 engine I could buy a dozen cars that had them. I give the companies the benefit of the doubt.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

Whatever trick you throw at 8 cylinders to squeeze more fuel out of it (cyl deactivation, Atkinson cycle cam timing, more gears, etc.) you can do the same exact thing with 4 cylinders.  And on top of that, the growing and evolving synergies offered through secondary systems like boosting & DI, that offering compounding of benefits, have a lot of growing yet to do.  Big NA engines have their place, but they have little room for further improvement in both power and economy.  Not without radical cost thrown at it.

 

there are a lot more skip fire options in a V8 than in a 4-cylinder... it's harder to make a 4-cylinder with deactivation smooth.

 

 

huh?

V8 to V4 is same as I4 to I2 in terms of reduction proportionally, and although I can't go into details, the future of cylinder deactivation will include idle speeds.  Currently, GM allows for deactivation in higher gears only due to NVH.  That problem is going away in the near future.

 

 

V8 to V4 is easier to do than I4 to I2 for balance and NVH reasons. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

^

 

If you say so.

Truth is, I4 to I2 is not that far away.

[hyperv6]

Look.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard about the demise of the V8 engine I could buy a dozen cars that had them. I give the companies the benefit of the doubt.

And yet who would have ever considered as little as 25 year ago 4 cylinder engines would hold 85% of the market after coming off an era that the V8 held the vast majority of for several decades?

I never said there would never be one. Note how I stated they will be offered in less vehicles and they will be much more expensive. You can even see that is how things are working out today. Give it 10 years and more regulations and few people will be able to afford one.

At some point I also expect the Corvette to receive an second engine option with less than 8 cylinders. It won't be right away but the time is coming.

I do not say this with happiness but the hand writing is on the wall. When Ford is going to sell a TTV6 car for $400,000 and not even offer a V8 is very telling of where this is going.

So far on the Hemi front no one from Chrysler has posted a denial to the loss of the Hemi. I would think if it were false they would have said they had plans for the future and that was not one. Sergio is out of so much money only if they merge with someone willing to save the Hemi may be the only hope. Sergio can not afford to save it himself as of now.

[hyperv6]

I'm just happy that we still have go fast toys, whether they be 4 or 8s.

 

 

You only have to look at places like California to realize it will be a matter of time when everything will drive like a go cart....

 

 

 

Big picture here boys, big picture.....

Thank you Dave this is the most intelligent post in this thread.

[hyperv6]

^

 

If you say so.

Truth is, I4 to I2 is not that far away.

Well as of now the tricks on engines with less cylinders are more difficult like Drew has pointed out. The same will happen when the V8 drops to 2 cylinders.

BMW as of now does not drop cylinders because of the inline engine.

I think you may see a I2 engine before they cut too many cylinders. We already have I3's now.

The whole key to the small engine vs the large engine is this.

This is the deal for the future. The positive pressure engines will thrive. Even the Z06 engine benefit by this to a point. They do have to use power to run the supercharge which is a lttle more than a turbo loses in exhaust flow. The key is be it a 6.0 or 2.0 you are putting more air in and with just a little more fuel create more power. At the lower end while driving easy the turbo just sits there and spins not hurting a thing. When called upon it delivers the fuel. It also can avoid much of the EPA testing issues with the way the test are run for MPG.

Where we see the greatest change will be more systems like the new Malibu that has part Volt and part ICE Malibu. This will be an option now but as prices drop it will be found on most cars. Sale of engine stop will be greater too. They do not want to say it but theses system will be hard to avoid if you do not like them. The last hold outs will the Camaro and Corvette.

[El Kabong]

Look.If I had a dollar for every time I heard about the demise of the V8 engine I could buy a dozen cars that had them. I give the companies the benefit of the doubt.

And yet who would have ever considered as little as 25 year ago 4 cylinder engines would hold 85% of the market after coming off an era that the V8 held the vast majority of for several decades?I never said there would never be one. Note how I stated they will be offered in less vehicles and they will be much more expensive. You can even see that is how things are working out today. Give it 10 years and more regulations and few people will be able to afford one.At some point I also expect the Corvette to receive an second engine option with less than 8 cylinders. It won't be right away but the time is coming.I do not say this with happiness but the hand writing is on the wall. When Ford is going to sell a TTV6 car for $400,000 and not even offer a V8 is very telling of where this is going.So far on the Hemi front no one from Chrysler has posted a denial to the loss of the Hemi. I would think if it were false they would have said they had plans for the future and that was not one. Sergio is out of so much money only if they merge with someone willing to save the Hemi may be the only hope. Sergio can not afford to save it himself as of now.

A few counterpoints:

The demise of the V8 in mainstream passenger cars was brought about as much by the space advantages of FWD as anything else. And as I alluded to, a FWD pushrod engine is not a particularly bright idea.

Similarly, Ford's engine choice for the GT is not a particularly bright idea, driven more by marketing shills than anyone who actually has a clue about Ford's performance heritage. There's a reason they're only planning to sell a couple hundred per year-there probably aren't that many takers out there.

The Corvette can all but score 30mpg with a non-hybrid smallblock in a 3300-pound car. There's still plenty of wiggle room, both in vehicle development and regulatory fine print.

Mopar is Mopar. They will sort things out, or not. The Hemi is just one piece of that puzzle.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

And as I alluded to, a FWD pushrod engine is not a particularly bright idea. 

 

Correction.... a FWD 90 degree V6 isnt the best for packaging.  60 Degree pushrod V6es are fine. 

[El Kabong]

True, mostly.

Those supercharged Grand Prixs were pretty squirrelly too tho

[Drew Dowdell]

True, mostly.

Those supercharged Grand Prixs were pretty squirrelly too tho

 

that has absolutely zero to do with the valve train layout. 

[El Kabong]

Alright, alright, I forgot to put in the "V8" part of my point. Pushrod V6 engines CAN work well in FWD cars.

But the S/C 3.8 was a rough diamond. Even as a guy who used to bolt them together I'll say that.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I had a Buick Regal SC and my kid drives a Series III Grand Prix.

 

Not squirrelly at all, especially with TC.

 

And a lot of suppliers are rushing to supply electric super chargers and electrically controlled turbo waste gates to the industry.

Lots of advantages to both.

[El Kabong]

Sometimes you turn the traction control off. Then you have a more realistic idea of what the limits of FWD are.

Computers can make Mario Andrettis of us all. The layout helps determine at what power level that will occur.

Edited September 21, 2015 by El Kabong