[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Alright, I'll give you that one. And I guess with a little more thinking, I can probably come up with another example or two as well (all trucks).

I guess my line of thinking was in cars, not trucks, and more specifically, I was thinking of most of the 6 cylinders on the road today, which all seem to be in the 300 hp range, some above, but all weak on torque. You're right that they could tune them more for torque than power, but unless you are buying a pickup, that's getting hard to find.

Ultimately, where I am coming from is to say that it is refreshing that someone (GM in this case) still puts some focus on torque as well as horsepower in their performance cars, in a world where most do not. If GM wants to stick with the pushrod V8s in the Camaro and Corvette, instead of trading displacement for revs as much of the rest of the performance car world does, that's just fine with me. It gives them a unique selling point.

Since when is 250-280 ft-lbs of torque 'weak'? 10-15 years ago, the mighty supercharged 3800 was in that range. Most small V8s 10 to 20 years ago were in that range. And 30 years ago? Camaros & Mustangs wished they had that much torque on tap.

And before you say that they are high reving & peaky ... look at the actual power/torque curve of the LFX:


Look at that, practically a straight line from 2.4k through 7k, with a minor bump at 4800. Its making about 250 ft-lbs at 1600 rpm. Again, for perspective a 1984 Camaro managed 240 @ 2400 rpm (or 3200 if you got the high-output engine with 190 hp).

By pretty much any objective measure, these modern V6s are not torque weak. Yes, they make less torque than power but that doesn't mean they're weak on torque ... it just means that they are power-strong. About the only way to get them to make more torque than power is to cut the revs back and drop the power down by about 50 horses, giving you a 250 hp car making 270 ft-lbs. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the extra 50 hp.