The LS1 is still being used down in Australia, but is no longer offered in anything in the USA. The truth is, while the USA doesnt always get the best models, it typically keeps all the top model motors. They're just recently starting to get LS2 motors as a standard in some models in Oz. The L76 motor is slated for the G8, but the specs dont match what Pontiac is saying the car will have. The L98 however, does.

The LS3motor isnt slated to get the AFM in the Corvette, but I expect it will happen on anything else the LS3 goes into. It's simply not a choiceanymore, with the government MPG mandates. I dont know thatit will for sure happen after year 1, but GM has set a precedent for doing it before....so anything could happen. I will most definitely agree that tolose MPG would hurt the car if a motor switch occurred. However, the LS3 is actually an improvement both in HP and efficiency over the LS2.

The Saab model is an enigma to me, as they're using theLS2.....but I dont know why...

The LS4 hasbeen a rumor on a ton of the GTO and Camaro boards. While I dont think it will happen, I could see the potential with it. Most of the talk has revolved around an LS4 supercharged motor....


No matter what Chrysler does, the biggest issue is going to be the slushbox transmissions and the sheer weight of this car. While I am completely aware that the Camaro may also be on the heavy side, I dont think it will be as bad as the Challenger. That's purely speculative as this point though. The other thing to consider is this, the LS3 will put out 436hp, more then even the SRT-8 Hemi motors.....so at best the Challenger will be behind in the HPrace right off the bat. Why stop at the LS7 however? 505hp.....or use the non supercharged Corvette motor going into the new Cadillac CTS-V (550-600hp). GM has the pony car war back on track, as well as does Chrysler. I truly hope Chrysler pushes the envelope myself.

I'm stoked about this myself. The reality is this, if we can create performance with cheaper alternative fuels, and do it in a way to make it cheap for all people, then the automakers will make the switch for good. I hope this works out and I seriously want to see how these perform. Surprisingly, the high compressions dont concern me so much, because GM has always seemed to run high compression engines and they tend to perform extremely well.

 

Okay, let me understand what you're saying. You believe that the G8 will actually get the L98 because of the engine output numbers, right?

I agree that they really don't have a choice with those new fuel economy standards slated for 2020, even though its 13 years away, its best to optimize the fuel efficiency now so then they can do with the best they have right now and improve upon it. I know the LS3 is without a doubt an improvement on hp & tq, but when you say efficiency are you referring to fuel efficiency or power efficiency (more power per fuel economy)? The reason why I ask is according to the EPA ratings on the Vette, the fuel mileage is exactly the same despite the mild displacement boost and slightly lower compression ratio (most likely due to having the VVT system) when comparing the same fuel economy standards to each other.

Now when you say LS4, do you mean that it could have a supercharger attached to the AFM 5.3L? I would think that it would not produce that much extra power than a LS3, let alone a LS7 unless this thing will have so extremely high boost. I also would think that the fuel economy would drop significantly to at least the LS3 level if not the LS7 level.

I'm guessing what you mean by "slushbox transmissions" is the MB W5A580 used in the LX models. That could be an issue, the only thing is the sources I have say it will have a Tremec of some sort for a manual choice and will probably useasimilar manual transmission as the Camaro. The only thing I'm going to say about the weight issue and the advantage that GM might have in the automatic arena is the STS-V is not all that much faster than the SRT-8. Granted there is a150 lbs weight differencefavoring the SRT-8, the Cadillac has most of the remaining advantages(rated at 44hp & 19 ft-lbs of tq more), closer ratioed transmission with an extra speed. On top of this the STS-V has a axle-ratio advantage of 3.23 combined with the first gear ratio of around 4.02 is significantly shorter than the 3.07 axle-ratio and 3.59 of the W5A580 giving the Cadillac the advantage. According to most reviews like this edmunds one, they are pretty close.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=115983
http://www.cadillacfaq.com/stsfaq/ts...-07-30-023.pdf

I mentioned before about a secret engine rumor and from what I have been told, they might offer a 6.5L engine (and that was not a misprint on my part, it is supposed to be a different engine than the 6.4L).I have heard this might offer VCT or something along those lines. Anything beyond that, I really don't know and can't confirm either way. I also hope Chrysler pushes the envelope. This muscle car war is certainly enjoyable to watch, I hope to see it continue as long as it can go.
Well hopefully this is the case.Now, I don't mean this as any brand bashing so please don't take it this way, but my experience with GM hasn't been as positive, nor has many people I have known with the exception of the 3800 engine and the other varients of that Buick engine line. It makes me nervous when I see GM putting a compression ratio that high on an aluminum engine. It makes me question how they will last in the long-term (200K and beyond).

BTW, do you knowwhat V6 they will usein the Camaro?

 

Not just the output numbers, but also the fact that the L98 is a newer model version. Both the L76 and L98 have AFM.


Yes, I do mean a S/C attached to the 5.3L motor. Consider this, at 303hp the car still already gets between 23-30mpg city/highway. While I think its more rumor then truth, a S/C'd 5.3L motor could very well produce 360hp, and still manage roughly 25mpg. Pontiac has been doing that in the Grand Prix GTP's for years. (3800 V6 block and supercharged 40-60hp gains). Granted, this is a 100hp difference over my current car (2004 GTP 260hp 3800 Gen 3) but it could be done and still manage to get 22-27mpg. It all really depends on how well the AFM would perform.



Well how long will it be for the LX car owners are screaming for a manual Charger or 300? The reality is Dodge & Chrysler both have really not performed up to par on giving their customers what they want. I'll believe it when I see it, but I truly do hope that the Challenger gets a quality manual transmission, because then the potential for the LX cars is thru the roof. I just hope that its not a really crappy Tremec, similar to what went into the Pontiac GTO. That was a joke of a manual tranny.

Normally, I'd agree with you. However, the LS motors are simply proven. They've been abused, raped, and trashed repeatedly.....and they've held up quite well. The 3800 block is ridiculous when it comes to raw power.....and its actually capable of V8 numbers fairly easily.

As for a V6....it will probably be the new 3.6L 252hp motor that's in the current Pontiac G6 coupe. Although, I could very well see GM deciding to opt for no V6 model and put the LS4 in it as the base model motor. Increased MPG, good base for power (compete with the Mustang GT out the gate in a base model) and insurance would still be lower then a supercharged V6.

Since the Challenger will hit the streets first, GM may play it by ear and see how it sells with/without a V6 option. Honestly though, GM doesnt really have a good HP V6 motor that's all motor, so I wonder if they'd risk putting a S/C'd motor in as a base option.

 

After looking more closely, it does appear to be the case. I guess the press releases on it using the L76 are a mistake as the L98does have higher output and according to some sources the L76 lacks AFM.

I would think this could cause a problem with the AFM. On top of this, the fuel economy ratings on the 5.3L in the Impala SS started out at 28 mpg on the hwy, then dropped to 27 mpg hwywhich matched the initial ratings for the Grand Prix's equivalent GXP model. Considering that the supercharger caused the fuel economy to drop by 2 mpg on the 3800, I would anticipate that the fuel economy would probably be around 25 mpg hwy under the old standards using an automatic. NowIcan only speculate as the L98's fuel economyhasfueleconomy.gov and other sources lack the necessary info let alone to be able to compare using the old ratings, but I would estimate that the L98 would offer similar fuel economy to 1 mpg less than the normal LS4 as the non-AFM LS2 got 27 mpg hwy with the Vette with the 6-speed auto. I would estimate that the AFM would makeup the weight difference between the two and if not it would only lose 1 mpg. All in all, I don't see the advantage of this move. I think it would be a more expensive approach and receive roughly the same mileage or lower going SC.

Granted,and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but the concepts never showed a manual option and I don't recall their being any references to them getting one. The Challenger Concept had the manual and other factors such as the engine output on some of the rumored versions would be too grate for the W5A580. I read once that the torque limit on that transmission was not all that much higher that what the 6.1L puts out. My of the rumors Ihave read have stated that the Challenger will receive either the T-56used in the Vette, pre-08 Viper, F-cars, CTS-V, etc.or the new TR-6060 found in the new Viper and many upcoming cars.

Well time will tell how they hold to the higher compression.You've obviously known plenty of people who have had goodluck while I have seen the opposite Hopefully more people have had the experience that you have observed.

I could see either one of those happening. The 3.6L is going to be used in the G8 and would make sense from that approach. I would think that it would be a mistake not to offer a base V6. As nice as being able to say you have a standard V8 would be, I can only see problems with pricing and insurance. Even if the fuel mileage would be better than the Mustang's V6 and GT versions, to help them meet the standards Istill believe a V6 is a better approach. The only thing is I would not use the 3.6L for this. For some reason, that engine gets really losy fuel mileage, plus I don't think it makes sense to use that type of engine on a Camaro. The 3.9L makes more sense to me given that they have AFM and the fact that it gets better fuel economy than the 3.6L.I would normally say go with the SC 3800, but since that would cause insurance issues combined with the fact that GM has alreadygotten rid of that choice and is planning to foolishly drop that engine line instead of upgrading it, I mustplay with the deck I am givenBetween the two engines, the 3.6L is more powerful but I would think that the 3.9L's power characteristics would be more inline with what the Camaro needs and it still is more powerful than the Mustang's 4.0L.

I agree with you that GM doesn't have a goodV6 right now.I have heard shady things aboutboth engines. The 3.6L isn't that powerful despitethetechnologythat has been put into it, it needs the Direct-Injection version to be more competitive with the current market, plus its a fuel hog. The 3.9L isn't all that great either and only gets decent mileage, though lower than what the 3800 did, even when equipped with AFM. Had Ibeen incharge, I would have axed the 60 degree family and given the AFM andVCT to the 3800 since it has a strong reputation forhaving excellent low end torque,execellent fuel economy, and benchmarking strong reliability. I would haveused thesmaller High Featureenginesfor any models that could not accomidate the90 degree set up on the 3800. Had I been incharge, I would probably offer the standard 3800 for the fuel economy and cost crowd with a low cost upgrade for the S/C modelfor those who want more power, but not the V8.

 

If I'm not mistaken, it was originally reported to use the L76 version, but that was on the concept. As we all know, that info changes like the weather. Also too, if you look up info on the Concept, you'll see that it differs from what they're talking in production too.


I completely agree with this, but again it's mostly speculation and rumor.

Sorry, I didnt explain that right. What I was trying to get across was that if you offer a manual option on the Challenger (which if it didnt, would kill it) then Chrysler would have no excuse as to why they cant offer one in the LX cars.Once these owners see this, you know it will happen. I, for one, wouldnt buy an LX car without a manual option. It's just ridiculous to have a 350-400hp car and have a slushbox transmission. Looks like they'll get the TR-6060 according to Wiki (cant believe it but they're usually pretty good on being accurate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremec_...0_transmission

Coincidentally, look at another car on that list.....the Pontiac G8...(only further supports my theory that the G8 is going to get a high output or performance motor) The TR-6060's can support in stock form roughly 600hp, but can be built for more..


As for the 3.9L V6, its probably not going to work. The Monte Carlo has been shut down for now, possibly discontinued. All the W-Body cars are switching over to the 3.6L V6 and some are being completely switched to RWD. Also, I could only confirm production vehicles for use with the 3.9L until 2008. I think you are right though, the 3.9L would probably be the best viable option of the car motors.

I'd think the4.2Lstraight 6cyl from the Trailblazer would be a much better fit for the V6 option, and I dont see why it wouldnt fit under the Camaro's hood.

(LL8) 4.2L V6 - 291hp/277ftlbs of torque...

I seriously doubt it would ever be used, but it would be a better option then the 3.6/3.9L motors.

 

Very true. I remember them saying that about the concept and wikipedia still claims that the 08 model will have the L76 even though their description of the L76 that will go into the G8 is practically identical with the L98. Probably will be the L98, they just haven't put two and two together yet. In short, I believe we see eye-to-eye on this one.

I'm glad to hear that about that issue. In all truth that is pretty much what we are doing at this point in the debate.
I agree that if the Challenger does not recieve a manual it will really hinder the success. That lousy MB unit is a joke. From what I have observed and read, it yielded no advantages over the old 42RLE which is just a RWD version of what I have with a few mild upgrades (Variable Line Pressure) in either performance or fuel economy despite its extra ratio. In some cases, it appears that the 4-speed is actually superior, which is quite sad considering that the ultradrive transmissions are by no means quick shifting transmissions.

I don't know if you could completely say that the LX cars would have to get it. As much as I would like to see them offer a manual, I don't see them ever offering the LX cars with a manual. Even though the 300 and Charger are muscle sedans, they are still selling very well despite having that MB transmission. Although the market segments are without a doubt similar, I don't think it would lead to the LX cars failing like it could for the Challenger. The 300 appeals more to a luxury segment which normally prefers an automatic and the Charger is still being marketed as a fun family car. The hard core enthusiants will go for the Challenger due to the manual. Having said this though, I completely agree that they should offer the manual as it would increase popularity from those who don't buy the LX cars because of that transmission. That is one major red flag that might keep me from ever getting an LX car. I also acknowledge that luxury-performance cars such as the CTS-V do offer manuals, but it isn't quite as bad a necessity as it is for thepony car/muscle car segment. In that market, it is expected. In the full-sized/luxury market it is unusual, but would create a competitive advantage nonetheless. Hopefully, the MB units will be replaced by one of those dual-clutch autos when they perfect the design.

I'm not going to debate against you for 5 secs that the G8 won't get a hirer output engine than the L98. It is quite obvious that they will offer a higher output model. The 6.0L version is only a GT which is Pontiac's mid-level version, there is no way they will not offer a GXP model on this car especially since this is going to be their flagship sedan. If the G6 gets a GXP, you can bet your last penny thata muscle sedan will get a GXP performance model; however, I have my doubts that it will have an output similar to what the CTS-V will have. If GM were to do this, it would cannabalize the sales of that and the STS-V. It would make these models way too similar and the price would be much, much lower to where many people would be satisfied with the Pontiac's version despite have a few less options and a little lower quality interior (which the gap in that category continues to decline as well thanks to the effort that Lutz has been putting into these models).
Inoticed this as well; however, I have notread anything that stated for an absolute fact that the 3.9L will be dropped. I have read this unfortunately about the 3800 for the middle of next year,but nothing either way on the 3.9L. I have trouble believing that GM will completely abandon this engine after they just invested the money for the AFM on it just last year.

The Atlas engine is certainly an original idea. The more I think about it, the more I: like it. The only problem I can see happening is some would be turned off by the fact that it is a straight-six.Unfortunately, the likelyhood of GM doing that is about as likely of Chrysler doing what I want them to do for a V6 option for the Challenger (take the 5.7L and make a V6 out of it like they did the 3.9L and 3.7L from the 5.2L and 4.7L, keep the MDS and add VCT). I would say that the Atlas engine would be a better choice than the "High Feature" or "High Value" (I swear every time I think of that name I think of Wal-Mart's generic brand label "Great Value). There is a rumor that the Challenger might either get a 3.6L Phoenix or maybe even a 4.0L Phoenix after having the 3.5L for a year or two. If Chrysler uses either of those two engines, especially the larger Phoenix, they might need the Atlas engine to stay competitive.

BTW, do you have any clue on why the 3.6L and 3.9L (version without AFM) get such lousy fuel mileage?

 

speaks for its self.

 

Man, great debate... but my guess is this will be more a "bean counter" decision than a horsepower war. Yes, there is always the advantage of "bragging rights" but both of the auto manufacturers need to sell A LOT of their cars in a $3 / gallon world. I will bet that the production versions of the SRT8 or R/T (6.1) Challenger and the Z-28 version Camaro will be in the 400-450hp range maximum, especially with CAFE standards getting ever tighter. The weight question is key as well as gearing. The GM models in my mind have had traditionally more aggressive gearing overall which also unfortunately leans in their favor. I'm just hpoing the Challenger has an "option" for 3:55 or great axle gearing to "bring us home!"

 

I agree, good debate. But in the end I feel like a lot is based on speculation. Nothing is known for certain yet about the Challenger production... right? As far as engine specs, etc. well just have to wait. Based on looks though, I'm a Challenger fan myself. I think they pulled off the "old school"/ modern look perfectly (in the concept). I guess well just have to wait to see the production....

 

there is no arguement here....the challenger will hands down, beat the pos gm product any day...