[6spdhyperblue]

Originally Posted by Aquarius

Well, seeing as the average car has 180-200 horsepower, and the V6 Camaro has 335 horsepower, I consider the 4 cyl.'s 275 horsepower to be anemic for an American sports car in 2022. Especially when the V8 Camaros make upward of 455.

Now, just because I hurt your feelings because you own a 4-banger-with-turbos does not mean you have to be an "internet badass" and spew insults from behind a keyboard. Everyone has an opinion. You do not have to agree with an opinion, but be respectful while doing so.

The cars run about what ls1 4th gens ran but get 8 more mpg in the city. The 4 and 6 run good in these cars plus give a agile handling with the lighter front.

[10mm]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

lol get your head out of your ass. In what world is 275hp anemic?

When it has a curb weight of 3400#

[Seniorrs]

Only way I would get a turbo 4 is if was an incredible deal.Get manual trans. and get free limited slip. All 3 engines will run on 87. All 3 engines will run best on premium.

[6spdhyperblue]

Originally Posted by Seniorrs

Only way I would get a turbo 4 is if was an incredible deal.Get manual trans. and get free limited slip. All 3 engines will run on 87. All 3 engines will run best on premium.

Is that true? I thought they say the v6 can run 87 and do not say the same for the others

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Seniorrs

Only way I would get a turbo 4 is if was an incredible deal.Get manual trans. and get free limited slip. All 3 engines will run on 87. All 3 engines will run best on premium.

This is not really how anyone should be viewing this.

First, the V6 only requires 87. Running a higher octane will do NOTHING for the performance of the engine. Period.

Second, while the T4 and V8 -may- be able to run on 87, there WILL BE a serious drop in performance and operating the engine under a heavy load ("driving it hard") can ultimately damage the motor. In situations where at least 91 octane isn't available, you -can- put 87 in the tank to be able to drive the car until you can put the correct fuel in it.

[Msquared]

Guys, the V6 manual runs 1/4-mile times of about 13.8 at 103mph, and the 2.0T runs it at 14.0 at 100mph. The acceleration performance between the two is very close. And again, with the 2.0T you're a tune away from going much faster than the V6. This whole line of reasoning that the 2.0T is "anemic" is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ember1205

Second, while the T4 and V8 -may- be able to run on 87, there WILL BE a serious drop in performance and operating the engine under a heavy load ("driving it hard") can ultimately damage the motor. In situations where at least 91 octane isn't available, you -can- put 87 in the tank to be able to drive the car until you can put the correct fuel in it.

The drop in performance will not be "serious" and it won't damage the engine at all. If you understand how modern engine management works, then you understand the ECM will control ignition advance and boost pressure (in the 2.0T) to ensure that detonation does not occur. And for the same reason, I bet you dollars to donuts that the V6 also gains some power and economy by running premium.

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

I have the 2.0 Turbo in my 2015 Malibu (the same turbo 4 as in the Camaro). My malibu is also listed at 3600lbs, about the same as a Camaro.

The 2.0T Camaro with manual transmission weighs about 3300lb, the lightest current Camaro you can buy by a significant margin.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Msquared

The drop in performance will not be "serious" and it won't damage the engine at all. If you understand how modern engine management works, then you understand the ECM will control ignition advance and boost pressure (in the 2.0T) to ensure that detonation does not occur. And for the same reason, I bet you dollars to donuts that the V6 also gains some power and economy by running premium.

The actual drop in performance will be directly related to the actual drop in octane levels of the fuels. The computer will continuously monitor ignition and adjust timing within the allowable ranges based on the monitoring. But, that's the thing that needs to be accounted for: RANGES.

The computer does not simply keep backing the timing off until things are ok - it can only go so far. And the actual octane of the fuel combined with the overall quality of it can and do absolutely put the motors at a point where the engine will not fire correctly and damage can (and likely will) be done if one persists in running it this way. This isn't to say that you're going to blow your engine up if all you can get is 87 and you need a few gallons to get home (and you drive the car easy).

There is NO gain in performance on a motor designed to run on 87 when you run higher octane fuel in it for the exact same reasons as above. This is an absolute myth.

This is all directly purely at stock / untuned engines.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by ember1205

The actual drop in performance will be directly related to the actual drop in octane levels of the fuels. The computer will continuously monitor ignition and adjust timing within the allowable ranges based on the monitoring. But, that's the thing that needs to be accounted for: RANGES.

The computer does not simply keep backing the timing off until things are ok - it can only go so far. And the actual octane of the fuel combined with the overall quality of it can and do absolutely put the motors at a point where the engine will not fire correctly and damage can (and likely will) be done if one persists in running it this way. This isn't to say that you're going to blow your engine up if all you can get is 87 and you need a few gallons to get home (and you drive the car easy).

There is NO gain in performance on a motor designed to run on 87 when you run higher octane fuel in it for the exact same reasons as above. This is an absolute myth.

I'm sure there's a range of timing and boost that establishes some limits, but we're talking about completely solid state ignition systems here that really don't have limits - the only limits are what's entered in the calibration tables. The boost level obviously has mechanical limits, but they are very wide. It can also adjust when it injects fuel into the chamber, so on any DI engine knock is inherently better controlled anyway. The difference in knock performance between 87 and 91 octane is not that wide. It's easily within the limits of adjustment for the 2.0T. My 15-year-old VW that also had a 2.0T with DI and it was run on 87 octane fuel for a significant chunk of its very long life. At 215k miles, it was still running great when it met an unfortunate end due to a curb that jumped out at it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. This isn't 1978, and modern engine management is immensely capable.

But let's put all that aside and assume your premise that the 2.0T will die a very early death if you run it frequently on 87 gas. If that's the case, then fill it with premium and enjoy the better fuel mileage. In the end, the higher cost of premium will be cancelled out by the better mileage, so who cares?

[koolkat68]

I own a LT1, and when cruising down the road at 70, I get 30 mpg on the instant mpg checker.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by koolkat68

I own a LT1, and when cruising down the road at 70, I get 30 mpg on the instant mpg checker.

I guarantee you that you aren't getting that mileage for real. The mileage displayed in on my M6 SS is 2-3mpg more optimistic than the real life consumption measured with the odometer and gas pump meters.

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Guys, the V6 manual runs 1/4-mile times of about 13.8 at 103mph, and the 2.0T runs it at 14.0 at 100mph. The acceleration performance between the two is very close. And again, with the 2.0T you're a tune away from going much faster than the V6. This whole line of reasoning that the 2.0T is "anemic" is ridiculous.


The drop in performance will not be "serious" and it won't damage the engine at all. If you understand how modern engine management works, then you understand the ECM will control ignition advance and boost pressure (in the 2.0T) to ensure that detonation does not occur. And for the same reason, I bet you dollars to donuts that the V6 also gains some power and economy by running premium.


The 2.0T Camaro with manual transmission weighs about 3300lb, the lightest current Camaro you can buy by a significant margin.

My 2015 Malibu is the higher LTZ trim level with an automatic trans.

[Malbjey]

Originally Posted by Aquarius

Well, seeing as the average car has 180-200 horsepower, and the V6 Camaro has 335 horsepower, I consider the 4 cyl.'s 275 horsepower to be anemic for an American sports car in 2022. Especially when the V8 Camaros make upward of 455.

Now, just because I hurt your feelings because you own a 4-banger-with-turbos does not mean you have to be an "internet badass" and spew insults from behind a keyboard. Everyone has an opinion. You do not have to agree with an opinion, but be respectful while doing so.

Originally Posted by 10mm

When it has a curb weight of 3400#

0-60 in the mid 5s range is not 'anemic' even by modern standards. Again, you guys have no basis in reality. The turbo 4 Camaro is one of the fastest cars in its price range. You could get one in the low 20K range pre-covid. The price per performance shits on most other cars.



The V6 Camry and Accord Sport, cars with similar 0 to 60 times, start at least 6K more MSRP. But realistically the price difference was even larger pre-covid.



And it's stupid to compare a Turbo 4 Camaro to a V8 Camaro. Why? Just because they both have the Camaro name? You're comparing cars with a huge price difference and completely different engines.



The V8 pony cars are exceptions in their price range. You're paying for big engines (and performance) with Fisher Price interiors. You're so caught up in that you don't know wtf is going on with other cars outside of your bubble.

[Silent_H_]

Originally Posted by 10mm

tossing around a V6 1LE M6 sounds like fun

I can confirm this is true.

I think for reliability and personal preference on power delivery/sound the V6 wins. But I'm pretty sure the 4 has more torque.

[Seniorrs]

I put 18k on my v6 manual ran only 87.Then went to 89. Ran better.Now at 20k running 93.Pulls from low rpm better,smoother at high rpm ,stronger. Maybe more noticeable with manual trans. Mpg 25.6 to 27