[KarFan]

I'm not surprised that some feel there shouldn't be a turbo 4 Cyl engine option.

But other than the feeling that a 4cyl doesn't belong in a Camaro or muscle car I don't see much in the way of substance to support what reads like just a opinion likely from someone outside of the target 4 cyl demographic.

What's the harm of having a turbo 4 cyl as an option besides the V6 and V8?

What if the 6th Gen engine choices were cut to turbo 4 and V8? Would that change anyones opinion?

[Knight_Rider]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

They claim a lot...but I hold the opinion that GM's powertrain is the best, by far, in the entire Industry. Their engines are generally more power & fuel efficient, more reliable, cheaper to fix, and much smarter than most other engines on the road.

I don't know other manufacturer's testing procedures...but I would bet money that they make GM's methods look ridiculous and over-complicated by comparison. Which, I personally, consider a good thing in many cases.

!

Completely agree on your first point. You might be surprised how similar the testing is however. I can't speak for any other OEM's but having worked as an engineer for both Ford and GM I will say both have similar product assurance processes. Although Ford does tend to cut corners during development. Ford is constantly looking to drive down development cost and the low hanging fruit is development and validation testing. I see it every day.

Back on topic, check these links out if you haven't already. Covers the GM Gen V LT1, and LT4.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/10/...ction-and-afm/

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/09/...rful-than-zl1/

I have no idea what GM is developing, but check out some info on the Mustang:

http://mustangsdaily.com/blog/tag/2015-mustang/

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I didn't ignore it, it's not relevant.

Does selling a 4 cylinder Camaro instead of a 4 cylinder Cruze (or insert any other non-muscle car here) improve fleet fuel economy? My guess is no.

But, by selling 4 cylinder muscle cars you do have a real good chance of messing up your muscle car sales. So we got that going for us...

It sure is relevent.

CAFE means that the overall average of the the cars sold by the manufacturer must be a certain number.

That means that the more cars they can sell with a higher mileage regardless is it's a Silverado, a Camaro, a Spark or a Cruze the better, to offset the number of vehicles they sell that don't get such great mileage.

If they don't sell enough of the higher mileage vehicles, they wont be ABLE to offer the Camaro's we want with the V8's.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by KarFan

What's the harm of having a turbo 4 cyl as an option besides the V6 and V8?

None....IF....the price of the V6 isn't artificially jacked way up to make room for a more expensive "base" engine underneath it, or to "encourage" buyers to not get the better engines (like Ford did with the 2010 Fusion in making the lesser of its two V6s a $2500 standalone option).

Originally Posted by KarFan

What if the 6th Gen engine choices were cut to turbo 4 and V8? Would that change anyones opinion?

That's the assumption I'm basing most of my gripes on.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I didn't ignore it, it's not relevant.

Does selling a 4 cylinder Camaro instead of a 4 cylinder Cruze (or insert any other non-muscle car here) improve fleet fuel economy? My guess is no.

But, by selling 4 cylinder muscle cars you do have a real good chance of messing up your muscle canr sales. So we got that going for us...

It means for every V8 camaro sold they would have to increase the sales of cruzes, sonics, sparks, malibus, and anything else they sell just to make up for it. at least having a 4 cylinder camaro would give people another CHOICE!
I am done with you guys. You are just going to have to accept the fact it's going to happen at some time to keep the Camaro viable in the future. As you can see with other cars being redesigned each one is coming put with smaller engine options. The Camaro will have that happen also.

[HDRDTD]

It surprises me a bit to hear everyone dislikeing the idea of a 4 cylinder engine option to get better gas milage (even though it may very well have close the performance they're used to) and to provide a more affordable Camaro for those that don't need a ZL1 when we already have that situation with the current V6.

Offering a V6 with perfectly adequate performance and great gas mileage as they do today is no different than offering a Turbo-4 in the next generation.

Put the Turbo-4 in the 1LS, giving a low-end option to compliment the 2SS with perhaps the new LT1 V8.

What's wrong with that.?

Don't get me wrong, I still love the V8, after all I traded my 2011 2SS/RS Vert in on a 2013 ZL1 Vert, but I see nothing wrong at all with offerring a Turbo-4 AS LONG AS THE PERFORMANCE IS STILL THERE.

[jdenotter]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

It surprises me a bit to hear everyone dislikeing the idea of a 4 cylinder engine option to get better gas milage (even though it may very well have close the performance they're used to) and to provide a more affordable Camaro for those that don't need a ZL1 when we already have that situation with the current V6.

Offering a V6 with perfectly adequate performance and great gas mileage as they do today is no different than offering a Turbo-4 in the next generation.

Put the Turbo-4 in the 1LS, giving a low-end option to compliment the 2SS with perhaps the new LT1 V8.

What's wrong with that.?

Don't get me wrong, I still love the V8, after all I traded my 2011 2SS/RS Vert in on a 2013 ZL1 Vert, but I see nothing wrong at all with offerring a Turbo-4 AS LONG AS THE PERFORMANCE IS STILL THERE.

Noone likes the idea behind cause noone wants their car to sound like this.... https://www.youtube.com watch?v=CzGf...e_gdata_player

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

It surprises me a bit to hear everyone dislikeing the idea of a 4 cylinder engine option to get better gas milage (even though it may very well have close the performance they're used to) and to provide a more affordable Camaro for those that don't need a ZL1 when we already have that situation with the current V6.

Offering a V6 with perfectly adequate performance and great gas mileage as they do today is no different than offering a Turbo-4 in the next generation.

Put the Turbo-4 in the 1LS, giving a low-end option to compliment the 2SS with perhaps the new LT1 V8.

What's wrong with that.?

Don't get me wrong, I still love the V8, after all I traded my 2011 2SS/RS Vert in on a 2013 ZL1 Vert, but I see nothing wrong at all with offerring a Turbo-4 AS LONG AS THE PERFORMANCE IS STILL THERE.

Turn the argument around: How many Chevy cars can we buy that have a V8 engine?

[Russell James]

As long as it has a V8 with no AFM, 450ish hp, stick shift, retro styling, a bit smaller/lighter than the 5th gen... I'll be interested and don't care what the base engines in lesser models are.

Don't care about all the smaller engine talk, just hoping there is a variant of the LT1 V8 without AFM for the stick shift Camaro.

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Turn the argument around: How many Chevy cars can we buy that have a V8 engine?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying not to offer the Camaro with the V8, by all means do so even though you might have a gas guzzler tax to deal with like we do with the ZL1, I'm just saying I see nothing wrong with offering a high performance Turbo-4 in the lower models.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

You are just going to have to accept the fact it's going to happen

To paraphrase, this is how its gonna be whether you like it or not, because the lawyers and accountants are gonna design the cars, not the engineers. Thanks for reminding us of the Roger Smith days.

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

It surprises me a bit to hear everyone dislikeing the idea of a 4 cylinder engine option to get better gas milage (even though it may very well have close the performance they're used to) and to provide a more affordable Camaro for those that don't need a ZL1 when we already have that situation with the current V6.

Offering a V6 with perfectly adequate performance and great gas mileage as they do today is no different than offering a Turbo-4 in the next generation.

Put the Turbo-4 in the 1LS, giving a low-end option to compliment the 2SS with perhaps the new LT1 V8.

What's wrong with that.?

Here is what is wrong with that. A turbo-4 will likely cost more, not less than a N/A V6, so that blows the value argument. The turbo-4 has 53 less horsepower than the V6, so that blows the performance argument. Getting 3.3% better mileage on premium gas that costs 12% more than regular blows the save money on gas argument.

The turbo-4 is more efficient argument itself is a dubious one as well. The ATS 2.0T gets a 31 mpg rating. The Camaro 3.6L gets a 30 mpg rating. Put the same V6 into a lighter, more aerodynamic 6th gen Camaro, and that likely becomes 31-32, with superior performance. Turbo engines also tend to miss their rated numbers by more than N/A engines. They are efficient within the light-footed idealized EPA tests, but in the real world where people actually use the gas pedal, not so much. Just ask the Ecoboost crowd.

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

Keep in mind, I'm not saying not to offer the Camaro with the V8, by all means do so even though you might have a gas guzzler tax to deal with like we do with the ZL1, I'm just saying I see nothing wrong with offering a high performance Turbo-4 in the lower models.

There is nothing about the V8 that inherently forces a gas guzzler tax. That is a result of the way GM designed it, not the number of cylinders. I can name a certain supercharged V8 with 80 more horsepower that has no gas guzzler tax.

[2ssx2]

This argument will rage on. They are making 4cl LNF Blocks hold over 800hp. GM Could easily put 400 plus hp into a Camaro that is 500lbs lighter and still get the same reliability and by the way my Cobalt sounds bad ass. All I did was remove the cats and put a 3'' stainless down pipe in its place. 6 bolts 150 smackers later.

Go to zzp performance web site or go do some research on the cobalt forum. Muscle and performance are no longer linked to cylinder size. Block heads

If the sound bothers you record your V8 at WOT hook it to a good sound system in the trunk connect it to the throttle in puts at the ECU and bam you go supa dupa fast and sound amazing.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Here is what is wrong with that. A turbo-4 will likely cost more, not less than a N/A V6, so that blows the value argument. The turbo-4 has 53 less horsepower than the V6, so that blows the performance argument. Getting 3.3% better mileage on premium gas that costs 12% more than regular blows the save money on gas argument.

The turbo-4 is more efficient argument itself is a dubious one as well. The ATS 2.0T gets a 31 mpg rating. The Camaro 3.6L gets a 30 mpg rating. Put the same V6 into a lighter, more aerodynamic 6th gen Camaro, and that likely becomes 31-32, with superior performance. Turbo engines also tend to miss their rated numbers by more than N/A engines. They are efficient within the light-footed idealized EPA tests, but in the real world where people actually use the gas pedal, not so much. Just ask the Ecoboost crowd.

IF Chevy decides to keep the turbo four at its current power level, then I agree with you for the most part. I hope to see the V6 as well. But here is how I see it happening:

If Ford releases a 310+HP turbo 4 in the next Mustang as they are rumored to be doing, then I see Chevy looking to counter that with their own 300+ HP turbo 4. Its not like getting past 300 is all that difficult. If the power is over 300 (and the torque will likely be around that as well) then it is difficult to justify the V6 from a performance standpoint. Your other points about cost and mileage still hold merit though.

Now, I can see the V6 coming if they make the turbo 4 have under 300 horse. Then there is plenty of room for it in the performance category (The V6 should have 330+ HP) and offer the V6 model at a competitive price with Fords turbo 4 Mustang.

I do want to point out one thing nobody has brought up, and that is 8 speed autos. By the time the 6th gen rolls around, it will for sure have a 7 or 8 speed auto doing a couple things. One....increasing highway mileage. Two...making the car even faster than it would be already with the lower weight. With the combination of less weight and an 8 speed, I see no reason why 32-35 MPG highway, and mid 5 second 0 - 60 and mid 13 second 1/4 miles wouldn't be possible (unless they gear it really high as well).

Bottom line for me....in any case I hope to see a V6 offering! Baring some turbo 4 with magical performance, I'd prefer the V6. But I definitely see the case for the turbo 4 and I'm sure it will arrive.

[Cruuzin LV]

Having owned a WRX and a Camaro SS... 4cyl turbo excites me. No it doesnt have the V8 sound however the performance is there and dollar for dollar turbo engines yeild better performance gains with aftermarket parts than N/A engines. example: 1000 plus bucks for a cam shaft and you may get 40hp or so. 1000 bucks for a bigger turbo and you could easily double that....