RUMOR: Hyundai Genesis Coupe to get a 5.0L V8

I'd agree with you at least in the first part, but I don't see GM actually doing it. They should have responded to the new Mustang revisions by now and they haven't.

o_O the car hasnt even entered its second year of production yet, and i believe is outselling the mustang by a ridiculous margin.
 
o_O the car hasnt even entered its second year of production yet, and i believe is outselling the mustang by a ridiculous margin.

Sorry, the Mustang is outselling the Camaro again.

The only reason Camaro sold more for the last year was because everyone knew the new engines were coming for the Mustang and delayed their purchases. The Camaro still has the traditional problems that reduce its potential for volume sales - poor outward visibility and giant blind spots.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with you at least in the first part, but I don't see GM actually doing it. They should have responded to the new Mustang revisions by now and they haven't.

Actually, it's been confirmed that the Camaro will get a new interior for the 2012 model year...pretty quick turn-around on the one issue everyone agrees was the 2010 Camaro's biggest fault. It took four years for Ford to put a good interior in the current-generation Mustang. So I'd say GM is being responsive on this issue.
 
Actually, it's been confirmed that the Camaro will get a new interior for the 2012 model year...pretty quick turn-around on the one issue everyone agrees was the 2010 Camaro's biggest fault. It took four years for Ford to put a good interior in the current-generation Mustang. So I'd say GM is being responsive on this issue.

OOooh! A new interior! That's certainly going to help the fact that the car is a giant overweight pig - and it drives like it; the SS weighs in excess of 300lbs more than the GT and it's significantly slower despite more power. The giant blind spots don't help either.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Especially since they could resolve the problems (effectively) with more power and a bit more work on the suspension. It's not like they don't have more powerful engines ready to drop right in. But hey, gotta protect that Corvette sale at all costs, right?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, the Mustang is outselling the Camaro again.

The only reason Camaro sold more for the last year was because everyone knew the new engines were coming for the Mustang and delayed their purchases. The Camaro still has the traditional problems that reduce its potential for volume sales - poor outward visibility and giant blind spots.

o_O the car hasnt even entered its second year of production yet, and i believe is outselling the mustang by a ridiculous margin.

And that is the problem with beliefs... they are rarely ever based on fact or reality :p
 
it's significantly slower despite more power.

Well, if you mean 0-60 times by "slower", that has a lot to do with gearing/axl ratios, too. the GT with the optional ratio drops down HUGE amounts of torque compared to the Camaro, which makes it thirstier. I know, I know...that shouldn't matter, but sadly, to some, it might.
 
Well, if you mean 0-60 times by "slower", that has a lot to do with gearing/axl ratios, too. the GT with the optional ratio drops down HUGE amounts of torque compared to the Camaro, which makes it thirstier. I know, I know...that shouldn't matter, but sadly, to some, it might.
If you want fuel economy go buy the v6. Keeps the production numbers up and the v8's a little less expensive.
 
Well, if you mean 0-60 times by "slower", that has a lot to do with gearing/axl ratios, too. the GT with the optional ratio drops down HUGE amounts of torque compared to the Camaro, which makes it thirstier. I know, I know...that shouldn't matter, but sadly, to some, it might.

The out of the box standard ratio GT is faster to 60 than the SS.

And about fuel economy...
Picture+93.png
 
So pretty much the same, than.

And that is the problem with beliefs... they are rarely ever based on fact or reality :p

Well it had been outselling it for something like 8 or 9 months in a row, so i didnt exactly pull that statistic out of my ass... but i admit i was incorrect.
 
Last edited:
And historically, the period of time when V8 torque was always greater than horsepower was... wait for it... when the V8s were tuned for smog and fuel efficiency rather than power, starting with the 'breathing through a coffee stirrer' smogger V8s of the mid 70s.

2000 LS1 here, dynoed 312 hp and 330 tq. I suppose the lazy 2.72 gearing could have an effect.
 
*digs through boxes of time slips and tuning graphs (im in the middle of moving) to show off his pointless e-penis*

My (bolt ons) 1995 motor is putting out:
285 RWHP @ 5300 RPM
326 Torques @ 3200 RPM

I dont know where this "70's smogmobile" talk is coming from, but "you know the problem with beliefs" :D
 
Last edited:
Annnd you've bolted on the wrong stuff, because your 1995 engine could be putting out 300 horsepower at the rear wheels, easily. When most people (and factories) mod those things, the horsepower goes up a lot and the torque goes up a little. Strangely, a build with the same torque as you, but 345hp will go a LOT faster than what you have. Well, strange if you believe in your theory. Not strange to the rest of us.

Remember upthread, where argatoga pointed out that his 150hp, 280lb/ft Town Car was a lot slower than his 245hp, 280lb/ft XJ despite similar weights? Yeah, point still stands.

Also, the LT1, as interesting as it is, is absolutely a smog motor. It's an adaptation of the Gen I small block and certainly isn't a clean sheet design, having carried over much of the rotating assembly, for example. It wasn't until the LT5 and the later LSx engines that GM stopped making V8s adapted to smog purposes and had an engine purpose-designed to comply with emissions *and* make power. Prior Gen I and II smallblocks are all built off that chain of development that started with the 265 in 1955 and proceeded through the mangling emissions controls from the 70s forward. None of them were optimized to make power and have good emissions from the get go and they were all modified and adapted to changing conditions rather than having GM start over with a clean sheet (which most other makers did). So, yes, your LT1 is still a smog motor, as is my XK6 engine and my father's 6L V12. My VG30 and AJ16 aren't.


You should perhaps read this: http://www.allpar.com/eek/hp-vs-torque.html

There's also the old saw: Torque gets you moving, horsepower gets you down the highway.
 
Last edited:
And when you change your cam, unless you put a truck or RV cam in, you will notice that your engine won't be 'proper' by your standards any more - assuming you put a good one in and build properly with all the supporting bits. It will have more horsepower than torque.
 
I'll chime in and say that torque while awsome rev range and a more level power band is better. I own a quintessential smog car, a 1990 Chevy Camaro RS 305 V8--with 170bhp and 255tq. Its great 0-60mph! That's it. Wonderful noise, awsome tire shredding torque crummy overall acceleration. It handled in corners better than being quick in a straight line. Don't get me wrong, I love my Camaro but prefer the lighter SVT Focus and my old 5th gen Prelude more on average in a daily basis. And at the track my SVT Focus would eat the Camaro for breakfast.

Now on topic, I'd be curious to see the power to weight difference between the V6 and the new V8 on the Genesis coupe. And also makes me wonder why Hyundai didn't use twin turbos on that awsome V6?
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something here, or is this a completely useless argument? "More Horsepower than torque." What you really mean is more horsepower than pound/feet of torque, so it's completely arbitrary and up to the measuring systems...
 
Am I missing something here, or is this a completely useless argument? "More Horsepower than torque." What you really mean is more horsepower than pound/feet of torque, so it's completely arbitrary and up to the measuring systems...

While the argument may be useless, they're not arbitrary numbers - HP and torque are related. Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lb) * RPM / 5252.
 
If that's true, all engines with the same hp would have the same torque as well and you just pointed out yourself that that is not the case. Eh?
 
I know the concepts are related, it's just that the comparison dependent on the measuring system. Go to Europe and now you're comparing newton-meters to kilowatts and the "power = torque" mark is in a completely different place.
 
Top