Modern Camaro Forums banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
As we slowly get closer to the release of the 5th gen, we speculate on the V8 options. We are familar with the LS3 performance and potential, but what if we get the L76. We have looked to the G8 for a lot of answers such as suspension, weight, quality, or just the zeta in general, but what if the engines are the same. Will we expect this kind of performance>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHJUuxDKsy8

If you do the math, (kilowatts x 1.34) that car only made 308.2 hp to the wheels stock. At least the L76 is overrated from 360 some to 388hp at the flywheel, but my thing is, thats about 80rwhp from the LS3. How is would a Camaro hold up to a Challenger or a Mustang with 390hp?

I hope this isnt the case. Im not knocking on the L76, I hope better number come out for it. I like to see G8s kick ass, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRrk2bVgOKY&mode=related&search=

^that one is a little better but it had a CAI, tune, and 3'' catback. 245 kilowatts = 328rwhp for that one.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Personaly I think the Camaro will hold up dam good to the base model comp. But I have to say that if it does come with that motor I might jump ship or look into a C6 with a LS3 in it. I'm just likein what I'm hearin about LS3. Plus I think that might be the first time in a long time that the F body or Z body didn't have the motor that's in the Vette.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Im hoping for the LS3 badly too, but I like to see some better numbers with this L76. I havent heard of GM guys running L76s, but I have heard of them using L91s. If someone knows some good or bad info on this, I like to here it...for worst case scenario of the L76 coming in the car.

If the Holden runs 12.89 with bolt-ons, then Im guessing a 12.6 with a bolt-on Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Ok i was postin from my cell phone before so I couldnt see the videos.
The motor thats in the G8 is still a 6.0 right?
So the only differnce from that motor and the LS2 is that fact that it has DOD or what ever they call it.
Then I could see it havin some nice gains on it.
Unless Im missin somethin.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Well the L76 is a different engine from the LS2. But, yes it is a 6.0L. The L76, L92, LS3, and LS7 share a similar head design (non-cathedral port design). The L76 is a nice engine, but not my cup of tea. Im not fond of a engine of the same displacement of the LS2 with less power but with superior head design. From my understanding that head design works best on engine with over a 4.000'' bore, hense the dynamic results of the LS3 and L92. I could be wrong, but I never touched nothing newer than a LS2, and that was rare for me.

I know it a PITA to post and read forum on a cell sometimes. I have a Moto Q and I prolly look pissed and psycho in public trying to post on here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
Well the L76 is a different engine from the LS2. But, yes it is a 6.0L. The L76, L92, LS3, and LS7 share a similar head design (non-cathedral port design). The L76 is a nice engine, but not my cup of tea. Im not fond of a engine of the same displacement of the LS2 with less power but with superior head design. From my understanding that head design works best on engine with over a 4.000'' bore, hense the dynamic results of the LS3 and L92. I could be wrong, but I never touched nothing newer than a LS2, and that was rare for me.

I know it a PITA to post and read forum on a cell sometimes. I have a Moto Q and I prolly look pissed and psycho in public trying to post on here.

Well, if you run the LS2 on 87 octane like the L76 runs on..it'd probably get close to the same numbers.



 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,153 Posts
Personaly I think the Camaro will hold up dam good to the base model comp. But I have to say that if it does come with that motor I might jump ship or look into a C6 with a LS3 in it. I'm just likein what I'm hearin about LS3. Plus I think that might be the first time in a long time that the F body or Z body didn't have the motor that's in the Vette.
You really need to research your history a little more before you say stuff.

First, in the last 25 years, Camaro's have historically received an engine AFTER the Vette (with the exception of Crossfire, and that was a dismal failure), with very few years of crossover.

Second, Z-Body's are Corvairs (and more recently Saturns). Needless to say, they have NEVER had a Vette's engine.

Quote: "I think the Camaro will hold up dam good to the base model comp." Not sure what to make of this statement. V-6 to V-6? V-8 to V-8? I guess it doesn't matter, but why state the obvious. They're not going to build something that wouldn't dominate it's class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Well the L76 is a different engine from the LS2. But, yes it is a 6.0L. The L76, L92, LS3, and LS7 share a similar head design (non-cathedral port design). The L76 is a nice engine, but not my cup of tea. Im not fond of a engine of the same displacement of the LS2 with less power but with superior head design. From my understanding that head design works best on engine with over a 4.000'' bore, hense the dynamic results of the LS3 and L92. I could be wrong, but I never touched nothing newer than a LS2, and that was rare for me.

I know it a PITA to post and read forum on a cell sometimes. I have a Moto Q and I prolly look pissed and psycho in public trying to post on here.
I got that one Audiovox phone the one with the key board under it. Damm thing can be nerve rackin some times. But any ways I just dont like that DOD stuff. Dont get me wrong if your lookin to save gas then go ahead. And Im also being told by a good tuner that they can turn it off with the press of a button. I dont know if that motor comes in the Camaro and my tuner says he can retune it so its running back on 91 octane and the power goes back up then maybe it will still be worth it. But then again is still has a smaller cam doesnt it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Well, if you run the LS2 on 87 octane like the L76 runs on..it'd probably get close to the same numbers.
Compression is a little factor:
LS2=10.9:1
L76=10.7:1

A higher octane tune would prolly help but those cars in those videos most likely tuned for 93. If you run closer to 11:1 ratio then its better to use a higher octane to reduce knock and detonation issues. I would run mid grade at least with the L76 anyway. But basically, higher octane requirements dont always necessarily mean more hp, but that can allow flexability to change in timing because the risk of detonation is reduced (while maintaining a good A/F ratio).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I got that one Audiovox phone the one with the key board under it. Damm thing can be nerve rackin some times. But any ways I just dont like that DOD stuff. Dont get me wrong if your lookin to save gas then go ahead. And Im also being told by a good tuner that they can turn it off with the press of a button. I dont know if that motor comes in the Camaro and my tuner says he can retune it so its running back on 91 octane and the power goes back up then maybe it will still be worth it. But then again is still has a smaller cam doesnt it.
Well that would be something I would have to look up. But my understanding is that due to head design, typical comparisons between small to large cams on cathedral vs. non-cathedral isnt as easy as cathedral vs. cathedral headed engines. For example, if someone built a iron block 427 with cathedral heads (ported LS6, LS2, AFR, etc) with comparable flow of the LS7 head, that person couldnt go off the cam specs for a LS7 and expect exact results of the LS7. (Havent seen many head designs that can out flow a stock Ls7 head, but just for example) I could be wrong. Im not saying that either head is better or worse, but a difference in results occur. On other forums, guys built 402 with L92 head and dyno mild numbers. But this isnt due to inferior product or person; but due to the fact research is still going on. As for me, I going to use a shop proven cam like LGs or see what TSP comes up with, to install in either the LS3 or L76. They look to be making good progress.
I wish I could give better info, but im new to the GM world. I spent (wasted) too much time in ford's modular realm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
You really need to research your history a little more before you say stuff.

First, in the last 25 years, Camaro's have historically received an engine AFTER the Vette (with the exception of Crossfire, and that was a dismal failure), with very few years of crossover.

Second, Z-Body's are Corvairs (and more recently Saturns). Needless to say, they have NEVER had a Vette's engine.

Quote: "I think the Camaro will hold up dam good to the base model comp." Not sure what to make of this statement. V-6 to V-6? V-8 to V-8? I guess it doesn't matter, but why state the obvious. They're not going to build something that wouldn't dominate it's class.
I didnt even see your post here for a min.
First off I started that sentence with I THINK meaning I wanst sure. Its clear that your are so thanks for the damm history lesson again. I said Z body just because there was a thread and in it people were thinkin what should they call the new 5th gen and Z body came up. The tittle to the thread is talkin about 2 V8's so what the hell do u think im talkin about when it comes to comp. I have to say in the short time that ive been on here I have grown sick and tired of u. Stop going out of your freakin way to correct me or prove some kind of screwed up point.
To prove my point u made one post out of this whole thread and it wasnt about the f... subject again. It was directed at me so we can get off topic. U enjoy tryin to pick on me or somethin I think
If we ever have a 5th Gen meet we will see if your man enough to do it in person.

Sorry Octane but if he keeps commin at me ill keep answerin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Well that would be something I would have to look up. But my understanding is that due to head design, typical comparisons between small to large cams on cathedral vs. non-cathedral isnt as easy as cathedral vs. cathedral headed engines. For example, if someone built a iron block 427 with cathedral heads (ported LS6, LS2, AFR, etc) with comparable flow of the LS7 head, that person couldnt go off the cam specs for a LS7 and expect exact results of the LS7. (Havent seen many head designs that can out flow a stock Ls7 head, but just for example) I could be wrong. Im not saying that either head is better or worse, but a difference in results occur. On other forums, guys built 402 with L92 head and dyno mild numbers. But this isnt due to inferior product or person; but due to the fact research is still going on. As for me, I going to use a shop proven cam like LGs or see what TSP comes up with, to install in either the LS3 or L76. They look to be making good progress.
I wish I could give better info, but im new to the GM world. I spent (wasted) too much time in ford's modular realm.
I enjoy havin some one to talk to about this because there is alot that I dont know. I actully had to go here to find alittle more info
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0705_chevrolet_ls2_l92_cylinder_heads/index.html

^^^ Had to look there to see what you were talkin about with the heads. For those who want to jump in and make comments:bat:

Judeing by what was posted in this thread the L76 doesnt look as bad as what I thought. Im still gonna shoot for that LS3 but if the Camaro does have the L76 we will still be able to make the kind of power that most of us are lookin for. And that makes me :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
I enjoy havin some one to talk to about this because there is alot that I dont know. I actully had to go here to find alittle more info
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0705_chevrolet_ls2_l92_cylinder_heads/index.html

^^^ Had to look there to see what you were talkin about with the heads. For those who want to jump in and make comments:bat:

Judeing by what was posted in this thread the L76 doesnt look as bad as what I thought. Im still gonna shoot for that LS3 but if the Camaro does have the L76 we will still be able to make the kind of power that most of us are lookin for. And that makes me :D
No problem. My curiousity pulls me to this car. L76 or LS3, even though still pushrod, are remarkable, innovational, and interesting engines. I dont know the half of the stuff for these new engine but im learning with every here.

I havent found good or reliable results of cam specs or hardcore proof of what i believe i know so far, but I figure if someone should know it would be the brother from down under. This idea led me to G8 boards. They know they are getting the L76 and I learned that the HSV (maybe a future GXP for us?) prolly will get a LS3. So who knows. I like someone to give me some answers with details. I cant sleep now, the curiousity is up. Here's a link to a relates to this topic:

http://www.g8board.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Like this guy said

Tuning, the L76 is tuned to run on 87 octane, the LS2 is tuned to run on 91. So a cam and a tune for high octane should make this thing into a beast.

Thats what I was also told. I do want to know what the L92 heads on that motor flow. I wonder if there slightly reworked for that car?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Like this guy said

Tuning, the L76 is tuned to run on 87 octane, the LS2 is tuned to run on 91. So a cam and a tune for high octane should make this thing into a beast.

Thats what I was also told. I do want to know what the L92 heads on that motor flow. I wonder if there slightly reworked for that car?
Far as I know the LS3/L92/L76 share the same casting.(I have the flow numbers in the Tech Section) So flow numbers should be the same. As for a tune with higher octane that could help but in one video 340s is the number made with tune and bolt-ons. I would guess a cam would wake it up. But Im having a time with finding the specs of the stock cam. I mean with better flowing heads over a LS2, same displacement and a mild lowering of compression from the LS2, I just have a hard time seeing those low numbers compared to stock GTO dyno pulls ive seen. The G8 is heavier than a GTO, but doesnt make the power a GTO even with bolt-ons and the G8 runs a 12.8. (Faster than the average GTO) I just dont get it. I like some cam specs. That cam must be mild for the engine or something.

All curiousity aside, if GM is reading this.....I still want my **** LS3.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
As gain potential is decent for the L76 in the VE SS or G8 (I own a Mustang GT full bolt-on/tune and barely feel it, so I know suck gains); I still beg GM for the LS3. The LS3 is a reasonable engine for a mass production car I think and the standards are high in 2009 for the Hp wars. Here's how I see it:

Stock vs stock
L76-308hp< LS3-390hp

Bolt-on vs stock
L76-328hp< LS3-390hp

Bolt-on vs Bolt-on
L76-328hp< LS3-425hp

With cam i doubt the L76 will be near 500hp like the LS3. I think the gains over base numbers with a cam will be more with the L76 due to mild stock form. But still I think everyone in the end wants to start with more to get more. But if S/C or turbo was to be immediate option after purchase, I can see that lower compression helping out a little, but Im planning NA for the first couple of years.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
I got that one Audiovox phone the one with the key board under it. Damm thing can be nerve rackin some times. But any ways I just dont like that DOD stuff. Dont get me wrong if your lookin to save gas then go ahead. And Im also being told by a good tuner that they can turn it off with the press of a button. I dont know if that motor comes in the Camaro and my tuner says he can retune it so its running back on 91 octane and the power goes back up then maybe it will still be worth it. But then again is still has a smaller cam doesnt it.
Disabling DOD is very simple, anyone could do it. Having DOD on the car really helps GM be able to have higher HP larger displacement engines and still meet fuel millage requirements and avoid gas guzzler taxes. I want DOD for sure for that reason.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
Far as I know the LS3/L92/L76 share the same casting.(I have the flow numbers in the Tech Section) So flow numbers should be the same. As for a tune with higher octane that could help but in one video 340s is the number made with tune and bolt-ons. I would guess a cam would wake it up. But Im having a time with finding the specs of the stock cam. I mean with better flowing heads over a LS2, same displacement and a mild lowering of compression from the LS2, I just have a hard time seeing those low numbers compared to stock GTO dyno pulls ive seen. The G8 is heavier than a GTO, but doesnt make the power a GTO even with bolt-ons and the G8 runs a 12.8. (Faster than the average GTO) I just dont get it. I like some cam specs. That cam must be mild for the engine or something.

All curiousity aside, if GM is reading this.....I still want my **** LS3.
Better transmission?
The Silverado's better trans helped it kicked Ford's dual-turbo'd ass in the HD shootout..so trans makes a big difference. :p



 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top