Bring Back the 327 Camaro
Scott,
Welcome to GM High-Tech Performance. It is always good to have fine young men with their fresh, intelligent new perspective on hot rodding cars.
I write to you today to put forth an issue I hope can be addressed with the new Camaro. While I am happy that we have the Camaro back on the scene, I would like to campaign (and to recruit editors like yourself) for a small-displacement V-8 (4.8 or 5.3) in the stock-body Camaro. The 6.2L SS is a brute from the videos I have watched and it makes me oh-so-happy to know that they will be out there spanking Mustangs and Challengers, but it is much more car than needed for my daily 120-mile commute back and forth to work.
So now you may be thinking, well buy a 1LT car, it gets good gas mileage and looks good getting you there. But that is the problem, with me at least, as I am old-school (47), and will not drive a six-cylinder car.
Byron Ely
Via Email
Thanks and sorry to disappoint, but although I can appreciate your need for better gas mileage, I don't see adding a 4.8 or 5.3L as the solution to your problems. I think the direct injection, overhead cam V-6 is a great motor, and if GM can't manage more than a 4-5 mpg (highway) improvement over the 6.2L LS3/L99-I am not too confident that some LS4 5.3L variant would do any better (especially given the fifth-gen's weight), or at least not enough to warrant the cost of making this engine available. Case in point, in the current Impala SS the LS4 makes 303 hp and is rated by the EPA at 16 mpg city, 24 mpg highway-pretty much identical to the 6.2L Camaro. Without a gas/electric hybrid motor, I don't know that the General could have done any better in improving efficiency.
My advice to you, Byron, would be to buy an SS, try to cut some weight out of it, add a few bolt-ons to increase efficiency, and to get a custom tune. Aside from stroker motors and power adders, I've found many aftermarket mods such as exhaust and intakes noticeably improve gas mileage. It makes sense when you consider the goal of their design is to improve the engine's efficiency in delivering and removing air, fuel, and gas from the combustion chamber. A custom tune on LS2 GTOs has been known to yield more than a full point of improvement in air/fuel ratio, leaning out the mix closer to a more ideal 13:1 (naturally aspirated). With such a heavy car, this improvement can be noticed literally by watching the fuel level (let alone measuring the mileage per tank). I'd bet good money you could expect the same improvement on the new Camaro.
LS Wonderment
I just read the article in the May 2009 issue, "Unearthing Power." I greatly appreciate seeing an article on the Trick Flow heads. I was wondering what the horsepower and torque was with the original PRC heads before the valveguides wore out. The test showed a gain of 50 horsepower, but the PRC heads had worn-out valveguides. I am thinking about purchasing a set of Trick Flow heads for my C5 and an aftermarket cam. The question is what was the gain between the PRC heads when they were first installed and the Trick Flow heads. Thanks for your help.
By the way, I just started buying your magazine and really enjoy the articles.
Thanks,
Jim Lawson
Wheelersburg, OH
According to owner Kevin DiOssi's best recollection, his SS made around 412 rwhp after first installing the PRC heads, which [to his excitement] was the first time he managed to break 400. At the time, this was a very respectable dyno sheet for an automatic. In fact, Texas Speed/PRC heads and cams have always made excellent power whenever we have tested them. Due to the condition of the heads (as you said), we were not able to get an apples-to-apples comparison nor did we hope to. Both heads are excellent products, and either would be a great choice. Our reason for choosing the TFS heads was that simply we had never used the 215s before, and this seemed like a great opportunity. Given the dyno results, we were obviously glad that we did.
Mail
Please send all letters to: scott.parker@soRC.com, or mail to: GM High-Tech Performance, 9036 Brittany Way, Tampa, FL 33619. All letters are presumed for publication and GMHTP reserves the right to edit all letters.