Chevrolet News:2018 Chevrolet Corvette To Sport A 6.2L DOHC V8

[Drew Dowdell]

46 minutes ago, hyperv6 said:

Drew your argument thst at part throttle that the 2.0 does not have said power or torque applies to any engine, 

What count is what it can do when called upon at 1800 to 5300.

Again, that is not how people drive. No one drives at full throttle all the time.

I'm not coming to this position rashly.... 4 - 5 years ago I thought Turbo-4s were the bees knees and would likely replace most V6es (the latter still likely to be true, to my dismay).  Heck, I've even argued with @smk4565 about a Turbo-4 being the base engine in the CT6 because 0-60 times looked comparable to larger displacement naturally aspirated cars. I even argued that Ford should have kept the Crown Vic / Town Car in production just for Cab/Limo duty but swapped in the 2.0T since it makes the same or better horsepower anyway.  All of the above is true at max throttle, but in partial throttle situations, the story changes. 

Take two engines, one 2.0T and one 4.6 N/A, both the same horsepower and torque peak ratings. Open both throttles to 1/4... and the net result is that one engine is a V8 and the other engine is a naturally aspirated 4-cylinder because there is little to no boost happening at that throttle position. And in that situation, the 4.6 will be putting out more torque than a 4-cylinder of less than half the displacement.  This is where a Regal or Fusion will feel labored and the driver will goose the throttle more, while grandpa in the DTS isn't even trying and is just effortlessly gliding along. 1800 RPM in a 2.0T at 1/4 throttle and you're getting maybe 100 lb-ft. if you've got a little boost going on... 1800 rpm in a Northstar at 1/4 throttle and you're getting 150 or better. It's why even my boat anchor 5.0 Olds with 145hp feels effortless (before it runs out of gears and breath) compared to my 138hp 1.4T Buick.

The only time the extra displacement is a disadvantage is in the city when idling and highway cruising when lower power is needed.... but the availability of cylinder deactivation, auto-stop, and possible coming of skip-fire largely negate that disadvantage. 

What I'm saying is... there is still no replacement for displacement...

[ccap41]

based off the noises my ..former.. 2.0t made at partial throttle there was definitely boost being made between 1800-2500rpm where I accelerated mostly. Obviously it was not max boost but I could hear it spooling through my intake. 

[hyperv6]

Drew based on your argument then a V8 would really seldom be needed as at lower speeds the same HP is needed to move a car along a 30 MPH. 

My only point is that the ability of a new modern engine with force induction and VVT can give it the ability to make power on demand at lower RPM and over a wider RPM range. 

With the older engines and single cam the ability to change the timing and take advantage of higher compression and other tuning is limited. 

My point is if you can do all this on demand in a range of 1800-5300 RPM on 2 liters what can you do with 4.0 liters or even 6.2. 

No I am not WOT leaving the light but If I choose I can make more torque or reach max torque at a lower speed and over a wider range. 

And drop the N star as we may have thought it was cool when it came out but it really was a boat anchor. Also technology in the last 8 years has rendered it as modern as a Model A. 

[Stew]

My VW makes boost at partial throttle, given with the manual transmission i do have control over where i let the RPMs climb to.  An interesting note.  In my 2WD 4.7 HO/5 speed Dakota that is modified I have to shift out of 5th going over some of the mountains here while in 6th in the Beetle I do not have to downshift and even have some juice in reserve.  That seems to be a great effect of it having some boost built even though I am only at enough throttle to hold a steady speed.  Also, FI vehicles are also less effected by elevation.  That said I am still a huge fans of NA engines and thinks certain cars would stick with these (Vette being one) instead of smaller turbo motors.  Sometimes it is all about the character of the vehicle he engine is in. 

[Drew Dowdell]

The only reason I'm using the N* as an example was because of its similar peak horsepower and torque to the 2.0t. My modern comparison choice is the 6.2 V8 verse the 3.6tt, but far fewer people have experience driving either or both of those.

 

[FordCosworth]

52 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The only reason I'm using the N* as an example was because of its similar peak horsepower and torque to the 2.0t. My modern comparison choice is the 6.2 V8 verse the 3.6tt, but far fewer people have experience driving either or both of those.

 

Peak figures may be close. But the torque below peak in the 2.0T is superior to that Northstar, throttle opening vs throttle opening. 

[smk4565]

But why make an NA V8 when you can make a twin turbo V8?  For a Cadillac or mid engine Corvette or whatever they will use the new V8, adding turbos would be better.

[regfootball]

no point to NOT turbo charge anything anymore these days especially a car like this

[hyperv6]

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The only reason I'm using the N* as an example was because of its similar peak horsepower and torque to the 2.0t. My modern comparison choice is the 6.2 V8 verse the 3.6tt, but far fewer people have experience driving either or both of those.

 

Drew it is as simple as this. I can hit peak HP at a lower RPM and at will in a wider range than a single cam engine without VVT.  In fact I can hit higher numbers than some with 4 more cylinders.

Apply this technology from the 4 cylinder delivering this kind of performance profile to 4 more cylinders putting out 150 per liter and it can tell you how far you can push the HP up and how drive able the car is. 

Trust me no one will be disappointed in the feel as you call it. Even in a NA version for a base car it could do many things and even spread the power band out along with a 10 speed tranny that will keep it in the sweetest spot regardless of the speed. 

We have many tools today to let cars do things no though possible many years ago. My little wizz bang engine puts out numbers a GN never saw and much less survived less modifications. Apply this to other engines and you will find much more tuning available and yes GM will use it. 

My take is the 6.2 is a NA engine and will put out a lot of power with a wide torque band. Cadillac will do much the same at 4.0 and TT. 

Either way the push rod is nearing the end I am sad to say, It has gone farther than anyone has ever considered but the EPA regs are going to kill it. Also global displacment taxes in this global auto market is in play hence the TT 4.0 Cadillac vs the NA 6.2 Chevy. 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

This isn't pushrod v. DOHC.... this is Displacement v. Turbo. 

The 6.2 Pushrod is roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today. Now add DOHC to it.... it's going to blow the 3.6TT out of the water.   Of course a 6.2TT will be awesome, I'm not denying that... there is no 12 cylinder 12 liter N/A engine out there that would be the power equivalent to such a beast. 

I'm saying that in the case of the family car... a 2.0T is not all it is cracked up to be as a V6 replacement.  There is less power and no gain in fuel economy.  

[ccap41]

There is more torque by a mile though. And in the usable rpm range as well.

[Drew Dowdell]

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

There is more torque by a mile though. And in the usable rpm range as well.

That... would be incorrect.  There may be more torque at points, but certainly not by a mile and certainly not overall either.  This is ATS 2.0T v. ATS 3.6 V6 . In the Turbo, see that steep cliff up front? The V6 is almost never under 200 lb-ft of torque.  However, again, these are full throttle dyno pulls.  Take away most of the boost and the curve for the turbo will be very different..... just because you're at 1700rpm on either engine, does not mean you're getting 260 lb-ft... but on the turbo that will be especially true since boost will be lower.  As boost drops, so does torque.   On an engine that does not rely on boost for its torque, the effect on torque at part throttle will be lesser.  It is worth point out that in spite of the similar outputs of these two engines, the V6 is about .75 seconds faster to 60. 

 

I really wish we could get a part throttle dyno pull on these two for comparison. 

[FordCosworth]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

This isn't pushrod v. DOHC.... this is Displacement v. Turbo. 

The 6.2 Pushrod is roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today. Now add DOHC to it.... it's going to blow the 3.6TT out of the water.   Of course a 6.2TT will be awesome, I'm not denying that... there is no 12 cylinder 12 liter N/A engine out there that would be the power equivalent to such a beast. 

I'm saying that in the case of the family car... a 2.0T is not all it is cracked up to be as a V6 replacement.  There is less power and no gain in fuel economy.  

" The 6.2 Pushrod is roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today. Now add DOHC to it.... it's going to blow the 3.6TT out of the water "

I'm sure you have proof, right? 

As it stands right now, the Raptor 3.5TT tune HP is equivalent to a 6.2 OHV, yet it's torque is superior ( peak and RPM range )...

Then there is the Ford GT 3.5TT...

And your 6.2 DOHC " blow out of the water " is pure speculation at this point. ( see the MB M 156 and M159 engines for a measuring stick ).

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, FordCosworth said:

" The 6.2 Pushrod is roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today. Now add DOHC to it.... it's going to blow the 3.6TT out of the water "

I'm sure you have proof, right? 

As it stands right now, the Raptor 3.5TT tune HP is equivalent to a 6.2 OHV, yet it's torque is superior ( peak and RPM range )...

Then there is the Ford GT 3.5TT...

And your 6.2 DOHC " blow out of the water " is pure speculation at this point. ( see the MB M 156 and M159 engines for a measuring stick ).

I'm doing a comparison inside specific companies.  I was sticking with GM for the moment because of the similarity of the output of their 3.6TT and the 6.2 liter.   The 6.2 is a pushrod and it already matches the output of the 3.6TT.... so yes, I can be fairly confident that a 6.2 liter DOHC will out perform a 6.2 liter pushrod otherwise there would be little point for GM to do it, thus blowing the GM 3.6TT out of the water. 

[Drew Dowdell]

25 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

" The 6.2 Pushrod is roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today. Now add DOHC to it.... it's going to blow the 3.6TT out of the water "

I'm sure you have proof, right? 

As it stands right now, the Raptor 3.5TT tune HP is equivalent to a 6.2 OHV, yet it's torque is superior ( peak and RPM range )...

Then there is the Ford GT 3.5TT...

And your 6.2 DOHC " blow out of the water " is pure speculation at this point. ( see the MB M 156 and M159 engines for a measuring stick ).

But... if you insist... I can pick on Ford.

The brand new 2.0T offers a lot less horsepower in standard tune in the Fusion than the 10 year old 3.7 did in the Mazda 6.  The 3.5 V6 in the Edge is a big step up from the 2.0T.

Sure, there is still the 2.3... but then you've just added displacement, which is the bulk of my argument that there is no replacement for.... also, my multiple experiences in the 2.3 powered mustang convertible have shown very poor fuel economy for a 4-cylinder. 

[FordCosworth]

52 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But... if you insist... I can pick on Ford.

The brand new 2.0T offers a lot less horsepower in standard tune in the Fusion than the 10 year old 3.7 did in the Mazda 6.  The 3.5 V6 in the Edge is a big step up from the 2.0T.

Sure, there is still the 2.3... but then you've just added displacement, which is the bulk of my argument that there is no replacement for.... also, my multiple experiences in the 2.3 powered mustang convertible have shown very poor fuel economy for a 4-cylinder. 

 

I didn't insist anything. I showed some fallacies in your comment.

You said " brand/mfg specific ", therefore I left as is.

If you like,  I can play your petty little game Drew...

Edited December 29, 2016 by Drew Dowdell
fixed broken quotes

[Drew Dowdell]

My argument is that there is no replacement for displacement in cars that are driven normally... and you cite the Raptor and GT as counter examples..... the reason you resort to those is that you can't refute my argument using normal vehicles...... logical fallacy indeed.

I'm specifically limiting this to vehicles that can conceivably be considered average family vehicles... not specialty Hi-Po trucks and supercars limited to runs of under 1000 units. I'm looking for satisfaction in driving for a normal driver... we are repeatedly told that Turbo-4s offer better fuel economy and power to a V6.... that is largely proving to not be true in normal driving. 

It's a simple comparison.... Taurus 2.0T or 3.5 V6.  Explorer 2.3T or 3.5 V6.  ATS 2.0T or ATS V6. CTS 2.0T or CTS V6.  I know which of each I would choose... and why. 

[Drew Dowdell]

And the reason I'm limiting it to these vehicles is because over the most recent year or three that I've been testing these vehicles, I've been finding the Turbo-4s to be largely underwhelming compared to a V6 counterpart.  The driving satisfaction just isn't equal.  V6es pull better and usually get about equal highway MPGs. So why are we being forced into these underwhelming products by manufacturers and being fed lies to do it?

[surreal1272]

29 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

 

I didn't insist anything. I showed some fallacies in your comment.

You said " brand/mfg specific ", therefore I left as is.

If you like,  I can play your petty little game Drew...

Actually he was comparing one GM motor to another GM motor and you took it upon yourself to interject Ford motors into this when it wasn't a part of his initial comparison. 

[FordCosworth]

7 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

My argument is that there is no replacement for displacement in cars that are driven normally... and you cite the Raptor and GT as counter examples..... the reason you resort to those is that you can't refute my argument using normal vehicles...... logical fallacy indeed.

I'm s... not specialty Hi-Po trucks and supercars limited to runs of under 1000 units. I'm looking for satisfaction in driving for a normal driver... we are repeatedly told that Turbo-4s offer better fuel economy and power to a V6.... that is largely proving to not be true in normal driving. 

It's a simple comparison.... Taurus 2.0T or 3.5 V6.  Explorer 2.3T or 3.5 V6.  ATS 2.0T or ATS V6. CTS 2.0T or CTS V6.  I know which of each I would choose... and why. 

your words...

" roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today "

I cited 2 examples of TT V-6's that are more than what GM has..ouch...

Now you're saying something about " specifically limiting this to vehicles that can conceivably be considered average family vehicle " in a thread about a 6.2L DOHC that will definitely not be in ANY family sedan, but will likely be in a Mid Engine Supercar?

 

 

 

[surreal1272]

6 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

your words...

" roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today "

I cited 2 examples of TT V-6's that are more than what GM has..ouch...

Now you're saying something about " specifically limiting this to vehicles that can conceivably be considered average family vehicle " in a thread about a 6.2L DOHC that will definitely not be in ANY family sedan, but will likely be in a Mid Engine Supercar?

 

 

 

Maybe you missed the part where he stated "3.6" in that TT remark. Last time I checked, Ford did not make a 3.6L TT, hence him (again) referring to only a GM motor. 

[Drew Dowdell]

9 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

your words...

" roughly equal to the most advanced 3.6TT today "

I cited 2 examples of TT V-6's that are more than what GM has..ouch...

Now you're saying something about " specifically limiting this to vehicles that can conceivably be considered average family vehicle " in a thread about a 6.2L DOHC that will definitely not be in ANY family sedan, but will likely be in a Mid Engine Supercar?

 

 

 

Really? Neither of the Fords have cylinder deactivation nor auto stop.  GM has the only Turbo-6s with both of those technologies. Getting raw power is just dialing up the boost, using better metal, and using stronger bolts. Ouch is right. 

You must have missed the 95% of this thread where I was comparing the GM 2.0T to the Cadillac Northstar.  In nearly every post, I've had to make the statement "in normal driving".   I'm largely unconcerned about the 6.2 DOHC because it's not going into a "normal" vehicle unless it ends up in the Escalade or CT6 also... even then, those are a lot less normal than what I'm talking about here.  The only reason I bring up the 6.2 DOHC is because it is certainly going to out-perform the 6.2 pushrod and the 6.2 pushrod equals the performance of the 3.6TT. 

 

Still... Edge 2.0t or Edge 3.5 V6. just off the lot... no mods.... Which one will provide greater driving satisfaction for you?

 

[FordCosworth]

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Really? Neither of the Fords have cylinder deactivation nor auto stop.  GM has the only Turbo-6s with both of those technologies. Getting raw power is just dialing up the boost, using better metal, and using stronger bolts. Ouch is right. 

You must have missed the 95% of this thread where I was comparing the GM 2.0T to the Cadillac Northstar.  In nearly every post, I've had to make the statement "in normal driving".   I'm largely unconcerned about the 6.2 DOHC because it's not going into a "normal" vehicle unless it ends up in the Escalade or CT6 also... even then, those are a lot less normal than what I'm talking about here.  The only reason I bring up the 6.2 DOHC is because it is certainly going to out-perform the 6.2 pushrod and the 6.2 pushrod equals the performance of the 3.6TT. 

 

Still... Edge 2.0t or Edge 3.5 V6. just off the lot... no mods.... Which one will provide greater driving satisfaction for you?

 

Raptor has auto stop/start. The GT may or may not. Gen 2 EB 3.5TT is both DI and Port Injection. Ford has the only Turbo-6s with both of those technologies...ouch is right.

Of the two, I prefer the Edge 2.0T. And that was the less advanced 2015's. Still looking to test 2017's and specifically the 2.7TT Sport. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

Please... Port and direct injection? A Toyota Avalon has that... next you'll tell me it has a water pump too....

[FordCosworth]

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Please... Port and direct injection? A Toyota Avalon has that... next you'll tell me it has a water pump too....

Please... MDS/DoD? A 12yrs old Hemi has that....

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, FordCosworth said:

Please... MDS/DoD? A 12yrs old Hemi has that....

Please... Turbo? a 60 year old Oldsmobile has that. 

[FordCosworth]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

Please... Turbo? a 60 year old Oldsmobile has that. 

Really? 

So did the 1917 Liberty V-12. And before that, Renault has varying success with Turbos

[ccap41]

29 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

My argument is that there is no replacement for displacement in cars that are driven normally... and you cite the Raptor and GT as counter examples..... the reason you resort to those is that you can't refute my argument using normal vehicles...... logical fallacy indeed.

I'm specifically limiting this to vehicles that can conceivably be considered average family vehicles... not specialty Hi-Po trucks and supercars limited to runs of under 1000 units. I'm looking for satisfaction in driving for a normal driver... we are repeatedly told that Turbo-4s offer better fuel economy and power to a V6.... that is largely proving to not be true in normal driving. 

It's a simple comparison.... Taurus 2.0T or 3.5 V6.  Explorer 2.3T or 3.5 V6.  ATS 2.0T or ATS V6. CTS 2.0T or CTS V6.  I know which of each I would choose... and why. 

I know I'm comparing 2 generations but fairly comparable.. 3.0V6 in the last gen Escape and the 2.0T in the current Escape.

Both 240hp.

V6 Tq: 223lb-ft

1500lbs towing

19/25 mpg(FWD)

2.0T Tq: 270 lb-ft

3500lbs towing

22/30mpg(FWD)

The Explorer is the only one of those I would take the N/A V6 over the turbo mill. N/A V6's...blow. Maybe the Taurus as well.. but I just hate the Taurus so much I would never even consider this old as F one that is out now. My argument would be there CAN be replacement for displacement and it varies a lot on the application and intent.

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

I know I'm comparing 2 generations but fairly comparable.. 3.0V6 in the last gen Escape and the 2.0T in the current Escape.

Both 240hp.

V6 Tq: 223lb-ft

1500lbs towing

19/25 mpg(FWD)

2.0T Tq: 270 lb-ft

3500lbs towing

22/30mpg(FWD)

The Explorer is the only one of those I would take the N/A V6 over the turbo mill. N/A V6's...blow. Maybe the Taurus as well.. but I just hate the Taurus so much I would never even consider this old as F one that is out now. My argument would be there CAN be replacement for displacement and it varies a lot on the application and intent.

I'm not denying that the 2.0T is an improvement over the old old Vulcan 3.0.... but the old 3.0 is not an example of today's technology... even the 3.5 and 3.5 are not that current.  A modern 2.0T v. a Modern V6 around 3.5-3.7 liters?  I'll take the V6 thanks. 

I continuously get equal or better fuel economy out of the V6es than I do out of the 4-cylinder Turbos that are supposed to replace them... and I get better power delivery as well. 

6 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

Really? 

So did the 1917 Liberty V-12. And before that, Renault has varying success with Turbos

I never said Olds was the first. Nor the Avalon (though I think it might have been). Nor the Cadillac.

 

However, port and direct injection in the same engine is not some gigantic technological leap forward. It is using an older technology to enhance fuel economy and low speed engine operation.  It's the tech equivalent of a direct drive water pump.

Getting Turbo to work right along side of cylinder deactivation is challenging... and then there is the auto stop to consider. 

[ccap41]

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm not denying that the 2.0T is an improvement over the old old Vulcan 3.0.... but the old 3.0 is not an example of today's technology

I can understand this point.

 

5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 A modern 2.0T v. a Modern V6 around 3.5-3.7 liters?

Yeah... I'm just not a huge fan of V6's in general. I'd rather the 4cyl turbo in most applications.

[Cmicasa the Great]

I get what Drew is saying.. in current technological terms I really didn't see much of a difference in the power output from the LT1 versus the LF4.  Performance-wise the ATS-V is 464HP and 445lb while the Camaro is 455/455. In tests that I've seen the ATS 0-60 is 3.8 sec and the SS 4.0 to 60. Even if one discounts this either direction.. they are extremely similar, almost interchangeable. The need for the smaller displacement in the Caddy was because of international markets. 

[ccap41]

54 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I get what Drew is saying.. in current technological terms I really didn't see much of a difference in the power output from the LT1 versus the LF4.  Performance-wise the ATS-V is 464HP and 445lb while the Camaro is 455/455. In tests that I've seen the ATS 0-60 is 3.8 sec and the SS 4.0 to 60. Even if one discounts this either direction.. they are extremely similar, almost interchangeable. The need for the smaller displacement in the Caddy was because of international markets. 

What're the mileage rating differences? 

[Cmicasa the Great]

29 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

What're the mileage rating differences? 

Camaro 17/28 and  ATS-V 17/24.. again the ATS probably has more drag due to styling and the Camaro is about 100lbs lighter

[hyperv6]

Wow this argument really has degraded.

the fact is this engine is coming as there is no avoiding it. The Corvette team has never come with a new model with anything less than what we already had since 1984.

We also have seen the results of not continuing to advance a product in the global market in the Viper. 

GM is one of the few who could pull this off. 

I have read many post on the web and it is even worse with some other in the cheese and whine crowd. They are telling tales of $500 oil changes and complaining they just now could afford to buy a DOHC ZR1? If that was the case they could not have bought a ne Vette since the 80's.

One said that it was impossible to make a low cost mid engine sports car. I guess he forgot they sold nearly 400k of them even saddled with a poorly managed and funded program.

People need to get over their hurt feelings and let this unfold as it is properly funded and in good hands that will make sure the car and its legacy is protected for this model and future models. 

As it is they have taken the engine and layout as far as they can with pending and future issues. Even the hybrid assist is on the table as it may be the only way they keep a V8 in the car.

It is time to trust Tadge and crew as they to this point have only given us the best Corvettes ever and do not take lightly the need to protect the car and keep it relevant in a global market.

They could just as easy just keep making the same thing and retire when the car finally dies.

Edited December 30, 2016 by hyperv6

[Drew Dowdell]

I absolutely support the 6.2 DOHC.... the more options the better.   I'm only hoping that it also goes into something in the Cadillac lineup too... maybe a 2-seater sports car or some variants of the CT6 line... or even just the Escalade would be nice. 

[hyperv6]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I absolutely support the 6.2 DOHC.... the more options the better.   I'm only hoping that it also goes into something in the Cadillac lineup too... maybe a 2-seater sports car or some variants of the CT6 line... or even just the Escalade would be nice. 

You just need to let this play out as there are many options here.

We now know Chevy has the 6.2 coming and we know Cadillac has a TT 4.0 in the works. 

Now how will they do this? Well it could be several ways.

They could do a similar block and share but make each version distinct to each division.

The Chevy coul be based on ther already available DOHC set up from Mercury Marine made for the GM engine. The did the Mercury deal once before and the engine they have now is not even near what it could do.

Odds are a better funded GM will do this in house and two different engines fir each division.

No matter what has any new Corvette platform dropped the ball since 1984? No and that is why the C8 will move the heritage forward as the others.

People bitched when the pop up head lamps went away, yet no one complains today and we have better lights. They complained the tail lights were not as round as they used to be yet today no one complains. Change the engine and move it they will complain till the lap times and reviews come in.

[ccap41]

13 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Camaro 17/28 and  ATS-V 17/24.. again the ATS probably has more drag due to styling and the Camaro is about 100lbs lighter

Interesting.. 4mpg highway is a big difference. I'd also assume the ATS-V is geared differently, more aggressively.

[Cmicasa the Great]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Interesting.. 4mpg highway is a big difference. I'd also assume the ATS-V is geared differently, more aggressively.

Perhaps... But I still have more faith in the weight and drag argument.  

[ccap41]

10 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Perhaps... But I still have more faith in the weight and drag argument.  

100lbs is negligible at highway cruising but I would agree with increased drag.

[smk4565]

If they are making a 6.2 liter engine for a mid engine car, why on earth doesn't it have 12 cylinders?  

[Drew Dowdell]

The ATS-V does better than the EPA rating on the highway... There would need to be a significant difference in aero for that amount of fuel economy difference and I just don't see it. For reference, a 707hp Charger Hellcat, also with an 8speed auto, all of the aerodynamics of a brick, and a lot more weight gets just 2mpg less on the highway. 

My guess is that you're just into the boost more on the ATS.

[surreal1272]

7 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

If they are making a 6.2 liter engine for a mid engine car, why on earth doesn't it have 12 cylinders?  

Here's the bigger question you should be asking. Why on earth does it need 12 cylinders?

[Drew Dowdell]

8 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Here's the bigger question you should be asking. Why on earth does it need 12 cylinders?

Exactly

[Cmicasa the Great]

8 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Here's the bigger question you should be asking. Why on earth does it need 12 cylinders?

Its his way of putting GM down... That is the way of his world

[surreal1272]

19 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Its his way of putting GM down... That is the way of his world

Oh I know and it was meant as a rhetorical statement because there is absolutely no need for a 12 cylinder at all. That's just for people who want to wave their money dicks around with nothing to really show for it. 

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

If they are making a 6.2 liter engine for a mid engine car, why on earth doesn't it have 12 cylinders?  

Because that's completely unnecessary ..and CAFE.. Unlike those Euro companies GM sells Vettes in very good numbers.

57 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Oh I know and it was meant as a rhetorical statement because there is absolutely no need for a 12 cylinder at all. That's just for people who want to wave their money dicks around with nothing to really show for it. 

Especially when all of the recently tested AMG 65's are slower than the AMG 63's because too much power.

Worthless without traction.

Edited December 30, 2016 by ccap41

[ccap41]

What's funny is his beloved Mercedes barely even competes in the performance spectrum against GM's V Series or Z06.

ATS-V beats the C63 S and M3 in the 1/4 mile and to 150mph

ATS-V: 19.8sec to 150mph

C63 S: 23.7sec to 150mph 

M3: 23.3sec to 150mph

Comparo

Need another comparo?

'Nother Comparo

Still quickest, brakes the best, and "dusted" the M3 and C63 in their skidpad as well.

[Cmicasa the Great]

6 hours ago, ccap41 said:

What's funny is his beloved Mercedes barely even competes in the performance spectrum against GM's V Series or Z06.

ATS-V beats the C63 S and M3 in the 1/4 mile and to 150mph

ATS-V: 19.8sec to 150mph

C63 S: 23.7sec to 150mph 

M3: 23.3sec to 150mph

Comparo

Need another comparo?

'Nother Comparo

Still quickest, brakes the best, and "dusted" the M3 and C63 in their skidpad as well.

Whoooooah whoooooooah Whoooooah.. but the C63 has. supposedly, a better User Interface and entertainment system.. of course my motto remains... FUCK Mercedes

[ccap41]

17 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Whoooooah whoooooooah Whoooooah.. but the C63 has. supposedly, a better User Interface and entertainment system.. of course my motto remains... f@#k Mercedes

But but but.. Cadillac doesn't have a V12! 

[smk4565]

8 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Here's the bigger question you should be asking. Why on earth does it need 12 cylinders?

Because 12 cylinders is better than 8.  The Lambos and Ferraris have them.