241Kw V6 Camaro

[soop]

Huh?
Since when do basic princibles of physics not apply in America?

 

[ari666]

with the all the fuel eco and emissions **** thats going on lately turbo cars are going to only get more popular.

i am having difficulty grasping why you think turbo cars are efficient. lower CR usually means they are more sluggish around low rpm, which is where an engine spends most of its life in traffic.

an efficient engine (as people have already stated) is one that delivers good solid power at lower rpm. you use more fuel stopping and starting a 1.3 turbo than you would a 454 BBC if the cars weighed the same.

 

[soop]

Not really.
static CR is redundant once there is positive pressure in the manifold. If you match the final drive to put the engine in its peak torque for as long as you can then it will be at its most efficient.

Both engines in the same chassis, the BBC will still use more fuel, simply because its bigger.

 

[kuzman89]

Huh?
Since when do basic princibles of physics not apply in America?

Err.. how is that physics? It's consumer attitude. If they didn't sell well as ari66 stated above then BAM, poor consumer attitude. I wasn't talking about the Volumetric efficiency so sorry if it seemed that way.

 

[soop]

Yeah, thats how it seemed. lol

I can understand why Americans were averse to turbo charged cars. They'd spent four decades with big powerful V8's. Much the same as this country. Who wants a buzz box that you have to rev to high hell?

 

[ari666]

Not really.
static CR is redundant once there is positive pressure in the manifold.

correct, and at what rpm will it achieve its positive pressure? turbo cant make pressure by magic.

 

[soop]

correct, and at what rpm will it achieve its positive pressure? turbo cant make pressure by magic.

I dunno what RPM it will be at, I dunno what sort of turbo/cam/engine management.
Even if its peak torque was at 4000rpm you could use a really short final drive and it'd be there all day without issue. It isn't going to use more fuel just because its doing 4000rpm. With a shorter dif ratio you also reduce load/effort it takes to get to X rpm.

 

[monkeys437]

There is already a twin turbo and a single turbo alloytec in the GM line up. When I worked for Holden 2 years ago they were making single turbo alloytecs for overseas markets alongside the commodore engines. Whether that means theres any hope of Holden investing in putting one in the commodore is another story

 

[Tsunamix]

The torque figure for this v6 suggests it's going to be all revs, no grunt.
I mean the stocker 3.8 ecotec gave these numbers
Maximum power: 147 kW @ 5200 RPM
Maximum torque: 304 Nm @ 3600 RPM
The super 6 at the factory gave these numbers
Maximum power: 171 kW @ 5200 RPM (on PULP (Premium Unleaded))
Maximum torque: 375 Nm @ 3000 RPM (on PULP)

No more torque, just a greater rev range. In fact - lifting the rev range on the super 6 to 6600 would yield 217Kw.

 

[RazzaCaine]

no more torque? theres a 70nm difference in the torque there at a 600 rpms lower.... thats a massive difference.