The 2014 Corvette Stingray Forum
News / Blog Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Chevrolet Corvette Stingray C7 Forum > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-21-2019, 11:24 AM   #6119
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 25,372
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 View Post
I'd guess New York, if not then it'll be a standalone event.
The industry trend is towards stand alone events, so I'd put my money on that.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
Originally Posted by FbodFather
My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors......
........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!
__________________

Camaro Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 02:30 PM   #6120
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 View Post
I'd guess New York, if not then it'll be a standalone event.
Really? I’d be pretty surprised if they reveal a SE C7, then follow it up with the C8 a few months later. That seems like a sure fire way to kill sales of the special edition.
__________________
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 02:38 PM   #6121
JerTM

 
JerTM's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS M6
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Really? I’d be pretty surprised if they reveal a SE C7, then follow it up with the C8 a few months later. That seems like a sure fire way to kill sales of the special edition.
There is always going to be the hoards of people that believe the "Last REAL Corvette, special edition" is going to be worth a bunch forever. Those people are the ones that will buy it. Personally I think the rear engine Vette will be just an all around better car.
JerTM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 01:16 PM   #6122
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Well....that's an ouch.

The Four-Cylinder Chevrolet Silverado Got Worse Fuel Economy Than the V-8 in Our Test

Sounds to me like the tests weren't run on the same day (temps/winds can make big difference so I wonder how much they considered this, or if they just decided it would make a good article...to heck with the details!) but maybe I missed something. That said, it still doesn't look good at all when your fuel efficient option is not really all that fuel efficient. I'm betting if the trucks were ran at 65 or 70 mph instead of 75, the tables may have been turned. (75mph around my area is pretty much the fastest anyone drives, so that seems a little fast to me, but I know its not in many other places)

Starting to wonder if this engine will be regarded as a fail? There is speculation the 2.7 might be perfect in the midsize trucks (which I kind of agree with...except for...) but if they can't squeeze any better mileage, or if it ends up being worse than the 3.6 (with its 4 cylinder mode) then I don't think GM will put the engine in those trucks either. So then you have a small but torquey engine that nobody wants in their FS trucks.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 02:05 PM   #6123
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Well....that's an ouch.

The Four-Cylinder Chevrolet Silverado Got Worse Fuel Economy Than the V-8 in Our Test

Sounds to me like the tests weren't run on the same day (temps/winds can make big difference so I wonder how much they considered this, or if they just decided it would make a good article...to heck with the details!) but maybe I missed something. That said, it still doesn't look good at all when your fuel efficient option is not really all that fuel efficient. I'm betting if the trucks were ran at 65 or 70 mph instead of 75, the tables may have been turned. (75mph around my area is pretty much the fastest anyone drives, so that seems a little fast to me, but I know its not in many other places)

Starting to wonder if this engine will be regarded as a fail? There is speculation the 2.7 might be perfect in the midsize trucks (which I kind of agree with...except for...) but if they can't squeeze any better mileage, or if it ends up being worse than the 3.6 (with its 4 cylinder mode) then I don't think GM will put the engine in those trucks either. So then you have a small but torquey engine that nobody wants in their FS trucks.
Old news, but if you buy a 1/2 ton with a turbo I4, I have serious questions for you...mostly, why not buy any other smaller truck, or other vehicle since you aren't buying an underpowered truck to haul or tow with.

Yes I tow and haul with mine, it sits otherwise and we take the wife's SUV.
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 02:20 PM   #6124
snizzle
Recalled user
 
snizzle's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 Camaro SS, '18 Colorado Z71
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-99SS View Post
Old news, but if you buy a 1/2 ton with a turbo I4, I have serious questions for you...mostly, why not buy any other smaller truck, or other vehicle since you aren't buying an underpowered truck to haul or tow with.

Yes I tow and haul with mine, it sits otherwise and we take the wife's SUV.
Probably because a small percentage of truck buyers actually do truck things in them. Comfortable family hauler, not capability.

This I4 only exists to play the EPA games. Same reason we have EcoBoast.
__________________

2012 2SS 45th AE LS3 M6

Borla ATAK Catback
Kooks Stepped LT Headers
CAI Intake
Hexvents
VMAX CNC Ported Throttle Body
RX Catch Can
Hurst Short Throw Shifter
Pfadt ZL-Spec Stage 3 Suspension
Forgestar F14
Tuned by Frost
snizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 02:29 PM   #6125
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by snizzle View Post
Probably because a small percentage of truck buyers actually do truck things in them. Comfortable family hauler, not capability.

This I4 only exists to play the EPA games. Same reason we have EcoBoast.
Right, which is why it is a dumb choice for that. I also believe it's dumb to even offer such an under-powered, hard on fuel, POS in the first place. Then again, I don't think too many humans are all that intelligent.
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 08:27 AM   #6126
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-99SS View Post
Old news, but if you buy a 1/2 ton with a turbo I4, I have serious questions for you...mostly, why not buy any other smaller truck, or other vehicle since you aren't buying an underpowered truck to haul or tow with.

....
Well...not really "old news". The earlier news was that the EPA mileage ratings weren't all that great, but the word was to wait and see what the real world mileage brings. Now we have a real world mileage test (the story posted yesterday) and it too, is not the best of results.

I'd argue the engine is not really so much underpowered. I mean, the 2.7 is likely a better running engine , than say...the 4.7 V8 that was in my 2005 RAM I had years ago. That thing was rated at 235HP and 300 TQ. Would you rather have that engine over the 2.7? Sure, longevity comes into question, and for many, that reason alone would be enough to go with a V8 over a turbo I4, but it is not really lacking in power for someone that wants a FS, but doesn't really plan to tow with it.

The disappointment is really just in the mileage itself.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)

Last edited by KMPrenger; 01-23-2019 at 08:40 AM.
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 08:36 AM   #6127
snizzle
Recalled user
 
snizzle's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 Camaro SS, '18 Colorado Z71
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,411
Not to mention the 5.3 is only a $1,400 option. I'd go for that in a heartbeat over the I4. 22 psi of boost in a 2.7 I4 might not be kind as it ages.
__________________

2012 2SS 45th AE LS3 M6

Borla ATAK Catback
Kooks Stepped LT Headers
CAI Intake
Hexvents
VMAX CNC Ported Throttle Body
RX Catch Can
Hurst Short Throw Shifter
Pfadt ZL-Spec Stage 3 Suspension
Forgestar F14
Tuned by Frost
snizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 08:52 AM   #6128
6spdhyperblue


 
Drives: 6th gen
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: US
Posts: 3,664
While the v8 is a good option the 4.3 is an excellent economical option that will take a beating for a long time and pull a load just fine. I really wouldn’t go with the turbo unless I had to

I always thought they’d boost it for their top dog tow pig
__________________
‘22 2SS 1LE M6 Summit White - RF, Flexfuel, LT2 intake, 95mm tb, ATI udp, VT ramair, full 28” dragpack - 11.68@122
‘16 1SS M6 LT2 intake + boltons on DR 11.0@126+ (Sold)
6spdhyperblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:05 AM   #6129
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicul15 View Post
While the v8 is a good option the 4.3 is an excellent economical option that will take a beating for a long time and pull a load just fine

I always thought they’d boost it for their top dog tow pig
4.3 is a dog - had one as a work truck for 2.5 years. Not to mention that my 6.2 gets better fuel econ (same crewcab 4x4 config).

The reason the Dodge 4.7 is better than the I4 Turbo is torque...and more importantly, having it available at lower RPM.

Any FI engine that needs boost just to maintain speed on the highway isn't going to be useful for anything - towing/hauling or fuel econ empty.

It's a terrible idea, always was, and won't help lower GM's fleet mileage like they hoped it might. Gamble failed.
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:06 AM   #6130
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
GMC HD Info Released:

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/01/...020-sierra-hd/
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:15 AM   #6131
6spdhyperblue


 
Drives: 6th gen
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: US
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-99SS View Post
4.3 is a dog - had one as a work truck for 2.5 years. Not to mention that my 6.2 gets better fuel econ (same crewcab 4x4 config).
Is it though? Beats the v8 in power output from not too long ago. IMO enough for an economical option today

The 6.2 requires premium octane, so it kinda doesn’t.
__________________
‘22 2SS 1LE M6 Summit White - RF, Flexfuel, LT2 intake, 95mm tb, ATI udp, VT ramair, full 28” dragpack - 11.68@122
‘16 1SS M6 LT2 intake + boltons on DR 11.0@126+ (Sold)
6spdhyperblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 11:13 AM   #6132
NW-99SS

 
Drives: 1999 Camaro SS M6 - SBE LS1
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicul15 View Post
Is it though? Beats the v8 in power output from not too long ago. IMO enough for an economical option today

The 6.2 requires premium octane, so it kinda doesn’t.
Like I said, I've operated both the 4.3 and 6.2s each for over 2 years, and simultaneously at that.

So yes, the 4.3 is weak, makes little low-end power, and must be held in higher RPM to extract any of that V8 equivalent power you speak of.

Have you driven either?
__________________
1999 Camaro SS 6M - SBE LS1
1963 Corvette GrandSport - ZZ502 4M
2017 Denali 1500 6.2
2017 Yukon Denali 6.2
NW-99SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fenwickhockey65, gm questions, questions

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.