how can a camaro carry a V6... I dont get it. I mean come on, if its a camaro thats cherished, its gotta be an 8. theres no other way. thats the only way i would have it.

 

LOL. Here we go - another possible V6 flame war.
If you think having a V6 in a Camaro is bad, how would you like one of the Camaro or Firebirds with the 2.5L four cylinder? I have a friend who has one - it's a good little engine, but my gosh, not much in the way of power.

 

nah that doesnt even count. i am just saying... where ya from dude?

 

well dude, how are you on your camaro and firebird history. Infact, if you look at the f-bodies history, a six cylinder model has always been around. The inline six was the original concept, until second gens when the v6 was introduced, all the way down to the latest concepts. (now dead). A six cylinder model is a good entry level vehicle, and just think, if all firebirds that rolled off the lot were WS6 equipped trans am's at 36,000 dollars, how many do you think would sell? Just think, the f-body would have been dead long before now.

 

Well said, 85f-bird. Besides I enjoy letting the V8 guys maintain the rep. while I get the fuel milage. An' scaring Ricers - this one dude was show'n his *** cutt'n in an' out'a traffic w' his wing and his tin can muff. So I goosed it 'n pulled along side - and he totaly Hunkered Down in his seat and wouldn't even look n my direction. LOL

 

Lets see i get damn good gas mleges...im more reliable than a v8. Ill last amny thousand miles more.

Ive seen 6's roast 8s when done up right. Never judge an eninge by the amount of cylinders it has. Need i bring up the GN 3.8??? I am a v8 fan but you can do just as good with the 6.

 

Quote:

im more reliable than a v8

Care to explain that one?

305s have quite a rep.....

 

I remember one time at a racetrack when a bunch of SBC V8 guys were picking on my dads "little" inline 6 modified dirt car, until it got on the track. F-bodys had inline 6's even in the 70's I remember a guy in high school who had like a 76 Firebird Esprit that had a straight 6

 

sometime during the mid second gens (not sure of the year) the cars began being equipped with a v6 instead of the ole' inline. I'm not some huge v6 advocator of course, intending on doing a LS1-Lt1 swap within the next few years (need time to start gathering parts) but i do understand the purpose of having a v6 inside of a vehicle versus the v8 equipped cars......i guess if i could really have had it perfect, the base engine would have been a really small v8, like that 4.0L that olds was using for a while (think it found it's way into the shelby series one also...plus a supercharger of course) but, the world isn't perfect, and im equipped with 2.8 litres of excitement, but hey, least my car still looks damn good. :-d and i guess that'll be enough for me right now....giving it another shot of paint at christmas...house of color hopefuly, and adding the ground fx the car needs so desperately.

 

Easily, it bolts in. Why?

 

:sillylol:
tomp!

ok speaking as the owner of a V8 IROC, I was very happy with my V6 SC and would still be driving it if some jacka** hadnt totalled it. In fact I still have the complete power train for it and have been looking for an fbody that needs a transplant

 

Hmmm.... V-6 bad? As quoted earlier the 1989 Anniversary T/A with mandatory turbo V-6 would flat out, out-perform most (if not all factory) top of the line original V-8 T/A's produced to date. I don't intend to start a flame war, but it's the truth. ON AVERAGE a Firehawk will run mid 13's out of the box. That's not to mention a Turbo T/A ran a documented 171+mph top speed recorded at Indy in completely original set-up (it was professionally tuned w/air conditioning). A Turbo T/A with good/comparible aftermarket street tires (original Gatorbacks would be shot by now) ON AVERAGE will run consistant low 13's. The Firehawk will consistantly run mid 13's in the 1/4 mile but not by a whole lot and a Firehawk costs whole lot more.

I'd say not all V-6's should be lumped into the same group. Everyone forgets about the 20th Anniversary, or doesn't even know they exist. Long live the Turbo 231 CID V-6.

Before rebutting this with "I know this guy who ran XXX" and "I saw this original Firehawk run xxx" I'm talking averages.

 

Many good points.

The only thing I don't get: HP/TQ ratings.
L98 = 240hp/345tq
TTA = 245hp/345tq

L98 = mid 14's stock
TTA = mid 13's stock

Is this another classic example of GM lying about power ratings due to the big brother Corvette? Like, I love how GM says that the LS1 in Z28 trim puts out 305hp. If you go to ls1.com, people dyno there bone stock Z28's at 300rwhp! Is there some miracle in reducing power train loss there? I am thinking no... this is yet another case of GM lying abotu the F-Body power so people don't think it's as good as the Corvette.

Having that said... what's the real deal with the TTA then?

 

L98, you really hit the nail on the head with that. When the 1989 turbo trans am was introduced GM was using it's law that's still in effect. That no passenger vehicle (four passenger) can have horsepower equal to that of the same years corvette. Now, i beleve the L98 corvette was rated at 250-255 hp, so, to downplay the f-body model it was only supposed to have 245 hp, althogh when placed on dyno's people have found more than 300hp at the rear wheels, so yes. GM was technically lying about it. As my father remembers during the late 80's , watching several turbo trans ams' dusting corvettes left and right, and as he said, he can also remember watching the grand nationals do the same thing. As far as today concerend, motor trend i believe did a dyno test on all these stock cars, the mustang GT, Trans Am, Camaro, Corvette, and a bunch of other passenger vehicles. Think the mustang had something like 220RWHP, the Trans Am and Camaro rated at 305hp got 297 to the rear wheels, and....the beautifully sad thing, the corvette pushed 291hp to the back tires. So, the camaro/transam were actually out powering the chevy flagship, yet were rated at less hP. the corvette of course being rated at 350. How did motor trend describe it "apparently overrated corvettes and underrated transams".

 

"how can a camaro carry a V6... I dont get it. I mean come on, if its a camaro thats cherished, its gotta be an 8. theres no other way. thats the only way i would have it."

I kinda like my lil v6, although it is starting to seriously lag in performance now. I think it's a great starter car for young guys who aren't exactly ready for a really fast Z/28 or IROC right out of the gate, like I was. I do plan on getting a v8 soon though, just took too many rides in a v8, LOL. I didn't know the difference was THAT big! The v6 is great for mileage and without the high insurance, although, let's face it, the muscle-cars that are truly admired are the Z28's/IROC's and Trans Ams/ GTA's, and although the Turbo TA is the fastest thirdgen, there is nothing better to my ears than the rumble of a v8!!

On a different note, I never got this. During the 80's a Camaro could be had, with what, a v6, 305 TBI, a 305 TPI, or a 350, plus all the manual/auto choices, all in the same year. Why so many? The fourth gens on the other hand have what, a 3.4 or LT-1, or a 3.8 or an LS-1, what's up with that?

 

that's gm playing the insurance game. If they posted exactly how much hp the f-bodies were putting out, insurance companies would rape people even more than they do now for having a port car. I beleive it's one of the reasons they went from gros hp to net. still the same power, but less on paper and making the cars more insurable & thus, eaier to sell. and yeah, LS1's are grosly "underpowered" on paper that is

 

during the past many many many engine options were available in the cars, and that was just something that carried through into the third generation vehicles. By the time the fourth gens had rolled off the drawing board and onto the assembly line the idea was now that you should have two-three basic vehicles, v6 and v8. cut out all the options, and generalize the setup, and you'll turn out better...there are still otions though, they're just normally involved in, do you want the auto or the manual transmission. So you've got 3.8L auto/manual, 5.7L auto/manual. but that's about it. it's alittle sad in a way, being that originally there was no trans am, only a firebird, and when there was only a firebird, the best you coudl do was a big v8 motor in a firebird, now the only way for a v8 is with the transam, and the name firebird is nearly all but forgotten.

 

PAS, the company who assembled all the TTA's for Pontiac got 280/380 at the wheels. A tad bit higher than what was rated at the motor. 250/340

 

almost every muscle car originaly came with a 6 in the base modle, now you want to question something, ask why they put a 4 banger in there.

with power to weight a chevette is more of a sports car than a 4 banger aro/bird.

Ive owned a few stick chevetts that would flat out haul a$$.

 

i've seen dyno sheets of bone stock TTA's breakin the 300HP mark at the rear wheels..

and also to clarify the 3.8 NEVER came with a manual, it was tried...it was tested...it was laughed at...

Why do fbody's come with V6's? Some people want the looks but don't want the V8, don't want the higher insurance rates and sometimes more hassle of a V8...just think, if the 4thgens never had V6's they would've ended A LOT soon than '02...just a little food for thought...

 

I hate to hurt the v8 guys but they are OUT NUMBERED, 63% of the Camaros sold in the later years of the 3rd camaro had v6s, why don't you hear about them, well everybody thinks bigger is better. Me I care more about driveablity, i'm not a dragracer but, the other day I smoked a guy with a 35,000 dollar BMW, boy was he suprised. Thats what makes me feel good.

I think the 95-2002 ford mustangs they sell 74% v6 models and most of them are sold to women LOL

Again I don't want to hurt the v8 boys feelings but with out the v6 the CAMARO AND FIREBIRDS AND MUSTANGS, muscle cars would be dead. In 4th Gen Camaros I think 68% are sold with the v6s.

The only thing the v8 has over us is displacement, it has a worse balance ratio, weight is out of this world, and everytime your at a red light your going thru $$$$$$ in gas. Relibilty is the same, it's the same junk GM parts. Looking at that 305 in the junk yard makes me want to blow chunks, just one big HUGE block of iron, bullet proof YES but HEAVY for what it produces stock. 350 is nice performance and to show off but enjoy the poor handling push when racing on curvy roads. Yes the camaro will have the rep of the v8 platform for what it was made for but the v6 KEEPS THE muscle car bodies alive.

JUST WISH GM had come out with a better looking 4th gen camaro, 4th gen camaros are like wedges no lines so it became unpoplar but ford redid their mustang and it sells like hot cakes, GM as usall has their head in the mud.

 

what I don't understand is why do people think just because you have a V8 you're destined to get ****ty gas mileage, it's all about the tune of the car...I know quite a few people getting damn good gas mileage with their L98's....just dont' assume that because its a V8 its' a gas hog...

you are very right about the V6's outselling the V8's though...its what kept the fbody going for so long...

 

It's hard to compare the two models. Take into account that most v6 cars came with different gear ratios than their v8 counterparts. The inherent unbalance of all(yes all) 90* v6's and that a properly tuned 8 cylinder will get just as many mpg's(more cubic inches to evenly distribute the work) as a 6 cylinder. In the same sense though you gotta love a v6 that will wipe that **** eatin grin off of those pesky c5 owners' faces. Just food for thought......

 

dude ..i have a v6 and my 1/4 mile time is more
than enough to take on many V8s ..(mostly LG4s
and LO3s..because majority of the cars here have
that)...

 

Theres a little thing added to that engine called a TURBO, thats the same engine from the Buick GN....All u guys are saying ur V6's are able to run with V8's......and that costed how much extra money to get it to the point where an IROC is.....I have a 2.8L 89 RS Camaro and im sorry but its not fast...I like the mileage, but lets face the truth, its not the quickest of cars and really isnt worth the money to invest to make that 2.8L engine fast....thats just my opinion.....Im practically getting a 84 Firebird(500) handed to me with a 350 chevy engine in it so thats my plan.......89 camaro=daily driver.....firebird=weekend car,car to have fun in.....anyone else agree? Oh yea, my 2.8 with exhaust ran 18.0

 

My 1989 Chevrolet Celebrity Europsort with the 2.8MPFI was really really quick from 0-20mph... came off the line like a bat outta hell.

That car had the most reliable engine in it ever I think. The tranny died at 255,000 miles so we scrapped the car. At that point, the engine was still goin strong. What a shame.

As far as V6 or V8... the TTA is an unfair comparison becuase it is a performance V6 with a Turbo added whereas a 2.8MPFI is neither. But, as I always say... To each his own! If you can't afford the V8 insurance, or want the looks minus the headaches... then the V6 is for you. What I'm trying to say is...

 

yeah its unfair to group the 2.8 and turbo 3.8 in the same group, both serve WAY different purposes, granted this board is geared more towards the 2.8 and 3.1 i pop on here to check out the board and defend the V6'ers when needed

 

this is true. When I got the stb for the GP @ the dealership, I looked at the sticker of a new vete. It had milage listed better than the GP. WTF? Some people will say that the vette is sooo much lighter and all but still. that 8 must be really designed.

 

Actually, only one person with a 2.8 said he could run with V8's. THe other people with the 3.8's who say that CAN run with the V8's. No one even said that a 2.8 was fast in this post. No one said it was the quickest of cars. Who are you arguing with? The only thing we did argue about is the gas mileage, and you agree with us on that...so what the hell was the point of your post?

 

a 2.8 is fast with proper mods and it must be behin a well built 700r4 or even better a T-5

I dontk now about autos but my stick amazes me all the time. gears + RPMs = fun fun fun

 

The v6 is for those of us who havent been able to get an 8 for some reason but still want the awsome looks of a camaro. And the v6 is more reliable because you can make them last for 200,000 miles or so. My insurance wouldnt insure me on a v8 camaro when i was 16 just cause i was a new driver. So i got my 6 but fell in love with the car. It will have a v8 one day but untill them ima tune the heck outta the 6 and whoop on anyhting i possibly can. Displacement almost always meens more power potential but you can still get the lil 6 to crank it out.

 

i still don't understand how a V6 is more reliable than a V8....that statement does't fly with me...i've seen 350's last past 200K miles too....

 

fly89gta I agree it's just how good you take care of your Camaro, everything is relative and equal.

For those who say that v8 and v6 get the same fuel mileage just compare EPA tags, and those are under ideal conditions.....

 

V6 and V8 should be equal reliability with an EQUAL driver. If you had the same person drive a V6 camaro and a V8 camaro, and they drove them both exactly the same for the exact same purpose (say transportation to work) they should be equally as reliable.

The thing is, the type of person who wants a V8 wants it for a reason and tends to drive it much harder. This brings reliability way down. On the other hand, you have a person with a V6 who is mainly after the look so they don't tend to drive it like a racecar.

As for gas mileage: they say the new Z28's (LS1) will put out 18 city and 28 highway. There is no doubt in my mind that it can do this. But who is going to do that? Compare that with a Mazda Protoge. That car is something like 20 city and 30 highway... so you'd rather get the car that has double the power and gets virtually the same gas mileage right? Well the Z28 puts out that gas mileage using ultra low shift points and using the skip shift. The point is, nobody is gonna drive the Z28 in such a way that it is gonna put out that MPG.

The theme of the whole post: it all depends on the driver/owner and how they drive/maintain the car.

 

I agree; my 2.8 gets pretty bad gas mileage around town. Our v6's have to work harder (like was said) to do the same thing a V8 can, and just because the V8 is a V8 (with two more power strokes than a V6), it won't be as strained. Pretty much why if you took two cars, same weight, same engine size, same exact drivetrain & mods except for v6 and v8, the v8 would win- 2 extra power strokes. (And by "same weight" I mean adding weight to the V6 car.)

Same thing with insurance... insurance is high already in NJ, I don't think I'd notice the extra $200 or $300 from owning a v8.

And as for CDawg's running 18.0 1/4 with exhaust, that goes back to how the engine/trans was treated, and how many miles it has on it. My car with just an exhaust, in poor running condition, and a trans that blew a month later, ran 16.87 in the 1/4 back in '96. Last time I ran it, with all my mods, including a 3.73/posi/disc rear axle, it ran a best of 17.1. That 17.1 time also included about 100,000 miles more than in '96! Even with regular oil changes and non-abuse, cam lobes can wear down, and valves can gunk up.

 

Contrary to popular beleif the 3.8 turbo is only considered a high peformance engine because of the turbo. It's not like PAS ports and polishes the head, or it gets a better exhaust , or a lumpy cam. Take the turbo off of it and many a 3.1 RS will prolly smack it around. If you compare the two engines one a 60* and the other a 90* built to perform the 60* will make the same if not more power than the other.

As for reliability my first 3rd gen was an 87 IROC 305/5 speed, to make a long story short the 350 went in the 305 came out and became carbed for my buddy's 86 T/A that was wrecked on him. It then went into the 87 T/A he has now. It currently has well over, really well over 200K. It doesn't burn a drop and the performance is still as it was when it came outta my old car @ 96K.

And he beats the **** out of it.

 

Pete, at 8.0:1 compression on a N/A V6 i'd hope anything would smack it around lol

 

Good point I wont try out that experiment. It will be really embarassed to lose to a chevy sprint. haha

 

Didn't all V6's come with a cross drilled crank ?

 

People have many different reason's for getting a V6. I know i do. All that matters is that it's an F-body, and it's a chevy. Why all the fusin and a fightin, why can't we be friends

95 Camaro green w/ gold stripes
3.4L
flowmaster exaust

 

how's this:

"The Grand Prixs used to come with 455s, now only 231s. wtf?" :sillylol:

 

Only 200 to 300 bucks. dman your lucky prudental woulndt even insure me on a v8 when i first started driving 5 or so years ago. now the want in the nieghborhood of 500 some bucks more if i get a z. And ive got a perfectly clean driving record...no tickets..no accidents(my fault anyways)