camaro v6 eco worthy

[zf>allison]

Just a thought, I have my 1998 oldsmobile with a 3.8 v6 just got 31.7 mpg on my last tank. I'm sitting here wishing I had a stick shift, well u can get a 3.8 and a stick in a 90s camaro and cheap to. But are they worth messing with? I would think they would be fairly aerodynamic over the oldsmobile but really don't know that for sure, or maybe pick one up and swap in a smaller engine even or a little diesel?

[spacemanspif]

My sister had multiple v6 90s Camaros. I wish I had paid better attention to them when she did. She never got terrible mileage but can't give a number because she never checked MPG. Her's were all autos and may have been geared different than a manual. I'm not sure about 90s units but I know the 2000s ones with LS1s had something like a 3.23 rear gear, so they are already geared kind of tall unless the v6 got shorter gearing to try and make the v6 perform a little better off the line.

I think they are a good base, much like the Corvette is; both cars are quite sleek. Being rear drive, you should be able to put almost anything under the hood and with the use of a custom bell housing you should be able to keep all transmission related hardware stock.

[oil pan 4]

If you find a 90s V6 Camaro with 3.8L and a 5 speed and its cheap, there is likely several things wrong with it, usually related to neglect or people beating the crap out of it.
I believe the first year for the 3.8 was 1995 or 1996.

[zf>allison]

I think the epa according to Google was 29 on the camaro , but that's google. They are sleek I was thinking cheap as in 3 or 4k, found a few nicer ones. Was more wondering more than anything. Maybe a na 6.2 diesel would be cool. I met a guy that had a turbo 6.5 in one. He claimed 30 ish mpg it was basically stock

[nimblemotors]

I'd think they'd be a good choice, they can be had around here dirt cheap with problems.
The engine is tucked in pretty good, so not the easiest thing to work on.
One with a 5-speed, perhaps a 4-cyl swap isn't so hard, would have to research which ones might mate up, chevy typically not bad in that regard.
You can fit a geo metro 3-cyl with a samuri rwd transmission, or the 4-cyl tracker engine and trans.

[zf>allison]

I think the curb weight is 3500 pounds. My olds is 3400 I believe. Funny the engine is jammed in there, mine is pretty open in the olds. I wonder how a 4 cylinder would pull it around, or a small diesel.

[oil pan 4]

I don't think a 6.2L diesel will fit very well in a 4th gen Camaro.
I know it quite an undertaking to put a big block chevy in a 4th gen. The BBC and old chevy diesel are fairly close in size.

Nothing but the 3.8L mates up to that transmission.

The olds depending on the year can fit a big block chevy under its hood.

[zf>allison]

I've seen one with a turbo 6.5 and it was tight, he remote mounted the turbo under the rear of the car. The nice thing about that is is would probably get 30 or better and have power if u needed it still. I don't know what kind of power to weight ratio you have to have to not be overworking the engine the whole time, say like if u put a small 4 cylinder in it. In a few months I'm planning in getting into something that will do at least 50 with hipermiling tips, since my commute to work is so far.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Some random 4-cyl Diesel would be a nice powerplant for such project. There are a handful of Rangers and S10s converted to Diesel powered by Yanmar TNV88 engines out of refrigerator units, which are relatively cheap and efficient.

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

You can fit a geo metro 3-cyl with a samuri rwd transmission, or the 4-cyl tracker engine and trans.

Not sure if that would be so good regarding mileage. Suzuki mini SUVs are too low-geared, and the engines would take a load factor way higher than what they were designed for.

[Daox]

93-2002 Camero has a cda of 7.43 according to our wiki. Really not that stellar. Prius is 5.83, first gen Insight is 5.0. There are lots of good vehicles in the 6 range.