Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
SDPC
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-27-2009, 09:17 PM   #15
z28camaro2471
C5 Member #227
 
z28camaro2471's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaros
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyman 08 View Post
A smaller engine in a heavier car is not going to be as efficent.. Sorry But I have to disagree with you the HHRSS and the Cobalt SS weigh about 1000 pounds less than a Camaro.. Putting that engine in the Camaro will just cause it not to be a very efficent package...
Exactly. To further exaggerate the point, a 1200 CC motor may be perfect for a motorcycle but it isn't going to work in a car.
z28camaro2471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 10:15 PM   #16
SSOOCH
Camaro SL,UTs
 
SSOOCH's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS/RS #16429
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Jordan, UT
Posts: 7,355
I love you guys!
SSOOCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 10:35 PM   #17
Tal
 
Drives: Old
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: OK
Posts: 727
Comparisons of the 2.0 ecotec to the iron duke are pure nonsense, that's like equating the LS3 with Chevy's old 262 V8 engine (barely over 100 hp and under 200 lb/ft for those not familiar with that particular wonder engine of the 70's). As for the weight, the Camaro is not nearly 1000 lbs heavier. The HHR SS has a curb weight of 3,300 lbs (a few less for manual, a few more for auto), the LS is not even 500 lbs over that. That 500 lbs is substantial though and GM has said that it's enough to make the I4 inefficient for this Camaro. So yes the I4 doesn't make sense and won't happen, but let's not get carried away with exagerating the reasons why.

As for a smaller V6 on the LS, if let's GM lower the entry price substantially then 255 HP would seems ok for the LS IMO. It's not something I personally want to buy but GM needs to sell cars to more people than just me.
Tal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 11:04 PM   #18
Silver Streak

 
Silver Streak's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 Cobalt SS/TC
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Smyrna Bch. Florida
Posts: 1,449
Send a message via AIM to Silver Streak Send a message via MSN to Silver Streak
It is an awesome lil engine, but I think you'd be in the boost constantly, and it would just kill the engine way to soon and have pretty bad fuel mileage to boot.
Silver Streak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 11:11 PM   #19
ArcAngel


 
ArcAngel's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 Black Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manalapan-NJ
Posts: 2,872
Send a message via AIM to ArcAngel
what if they twin turbo'd the 4 and reduced say 300 of that 500 lb difference, would that work?
__________________
Through HIM you believe in GOD, who raised HIM from the dead and Glorified him..
ArcAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 11:21 PM   #20
Camaro_Corvette
36.833283,-76.021958
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,390
Nope, I would demand the camaro to be well within the range of 3100-3400 lbs before I would even consider it a good idea...
__________________
I am seriously never serious vv V vv Next order of business
Camaro_Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 12:31 AM   #21
lil_chef
Banned
 
Drives: 2010 Mustang GT
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 1,823
if they are looking for fuel efficiency why not diesel? i dont think putting a smaller engine in the camaro would lower its price enough to justify its purchase over the current 6 cylinder
lil_chef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 12:33 AM   #22
ArcAngel


 
ArcAngel's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 Black Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manalapan-NJ
Posts: 2,872
Send a message via AIM to ArcAngel
Diesel would be fantastic!!! imagine the torque outta that sumbitch!!!!
__________________
Through HIM you believe in GOD, who raised HIM from the dead and Glorified him..
ArcAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 07:15 AM   #23
marticus24
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 595
I don't care what they put in it, as long as the LS3 (or better) is always available , anything less isn't even a consideration for me.
marticus24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 08:42 AM   #24
CamaroSpike23
Truth Enforcer
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,827
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcAngel View Post
Diesel would be fantastic!!! imagine the torque outta that sumbitch!!!!
check out the Diesel Camaro threads.
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
A group as a whole tends to be smarter than the smartest person in that group until one jackass convinces everyone otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelmanSS View Post
Post count is truly an accurate measure of how cool someone is on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Norris View Post
I piss excellence
and fart awesomeness
"You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overflow View Post
But not all people were born awesome like you, Spike.
CamaroSpike23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 08:45 AM   #25
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy/2007 Ford F-150
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 33,936
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
I could swear that GM already stuck the 2.0L Turbocharged ECOTEC I-4 into the Camaro and said that it barely achieved better fuel economy than the 3.6L and was just sluggish as hell.

Although they could always go with the 3.0L V6 in the '10 Buick LaCrosse and '10 Chevrolet Equinox.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2007 Ford F-150 XL SuperCab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 09:49 AM   #26
Robert91RS

 
Robert91RS's Avatar
 
Drives: Everywhere
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 852
My problem with all these ideas is this, GM is using a 300 hp 3.6 V6 so that the majority of the cars buyers can get a LS or LT and be happy with their purchase rather than being ridiculed for having the V6. For the first time we can show the V6 Camaro some respect and now we're talking about chopping its balls off? I don't like it. If a 23k starting price isn't good enough nothing will be because you won't be able to make a 3.0 that gets 35mpg.
Robert91RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 01:54 PM   #27
ArcAngel


 
ArcAngel's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 Black Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Manalapan-NJ
Posts: 2,872
Send a message via AIM to ArcAngel
Damn Libertyforall1776 you sound like me!! Are you a freemason as well?
__________________
Through HIM you believe in GOD, who raised HIM from the dead and Glorified him..
ArcAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2009, 02:10 PM   #28
The_Blur
Rock Chalk
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: Demon Super Sport
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,688
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
R&T is just stirring the pot. GM isn't going to do anything this stupid.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.