Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Apex Paul
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

5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions General 5th generation Camaro topics not covered by other subforums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-04-2008, 04:35 PM   #1
VictoryRed08
 
VictoryRed08's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Cobalt LT2,
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario
Posts: 224
Turbo-4cyl 2010 Camaro Thoughts

Hey guys,

I am avidly awaiting the arrival of the new camaro, I feel in love with the camaro lineage the first time I laid eye on the 1969 Camaro.

I had some thoughts on the new Camaro with regards to a turbocharged four cylinder version of it (basically using the same engine as the Cobalt SS/TC) for practicability in today's times. Now before everyone freaks out on how this isn't a Camaro w/o at least the V6 300hp etc hear me out.

We live in a world with high gas prices, they may be low now, but we all know it will spike back up to $1.50/L next summer. For obvious reasons a four cylinder makes a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. I being a recent college grad, sitting in a relatively low paying job trying to climb the corporate ladder, live on a budget. I want to buy this car i really do, as we all do, but will the loan, insurance and the added gas bill just adds up too high.

Sure the camaro isn't what some people call a commuting car but why not? I want something that looks amazing and delivers a fun ride with a low gas price tag.

Also, this provides a unique selling point for the Camaro, something that the Mustang and the Challenger are not offering, Fuel efficient "muscle" cars. Which in order to survive in today's market, a "muscle" car must have fuel efficiency (hence things like Active fuel management, flex fuel etc in bigger engines).

Those are just my thoughts
VictoryRed08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:38 PM   #2
radz28
Petro-sexual
 
radz28's Avatar
 
Drives: Ultra-Grin
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Crapramento, Crapifornia
Posts: 13,039
WELCOME!

We've discussed this a lot before, but I think it is a great idea and that it would be more of a reality now than ever. With our CEO in Washington right now trying to get money, I think any show of GM bringing efficient cars to the market is a positive thing and definately couldn't hurt. It seems like Washington has had Detroit chasing their tales with all this CAFE rubbish - they want better crash protection, therefore cars weigh more, but then they get all bent when that weight brings economy down. Anyhoo, I think it's a great alternative and think it has a really good chance now.
__________________
"...What IS true: We anticipated that this would happen - we are never finished - and yes, Ford DOES deserve to win now and then. To think that GM can come out with a car to make ford throw in the towel is simply foolhardy..." - fbodfather
radz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:43 PM   #3
The_Blur
Moderator, USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 11VR2SSA6
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NAS Pensacola
Posts: 13,780
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
The big problem with the LNF (2.0L turbocharged Ecotec) being installed in a Camaro is that it would be more efficient to just buy a Cobalt SS TC. The fact is that there simply isn't enough torque to make the Camaro fun to drive that way. It was rumored that one might exist, but the LLT V6 is a far better alternative. The possibility of a turbocharged V6 or I6 could be the future of the Camaro if CAFE remains in place. It will still dominate if that happens, but any LNF Camaro would have to be less efficient than it is now for the feel of muscle to be behind it. This idea has effectively been scratched.

I should add that the Cobalt SS TC is already faster than a Camaro LS, so it just doesn't make sense to create even more overlap between the brands. Redundancy is waste.
__________________
The_Blur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:46 PM   #4
boxmonkeyracing
juggernaut
 
boxmonkeyracing's Avatar
 
Drives: VRSCF, 2011 SS vert
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: kenly, nc
Posts: 3,345
Send a message via AIM to boxmonkeyracing Send a message via Yahoo to boxmonkeyracing
First welcome.


Now the topic. At what point do u start losing efficiency because the engine isn't big enought to push this car around and deliever such gas prices.

One thing people need to understand not always will a 4 banger be a good choice for this. If memory serves me right they put the turbo 2.0 in a iver and the benefits weren't any better then the di v6. So to me that means that gm doesn't currently have a 4 banger strong enough to offer what u want.

Also my 4th gen z28 got 27-28 on the highway. Is that not fuel efficient? I think it is. But u tell me.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
We do not want to use the Z28 moniker on a car that does not deserve this hallowed name.
boxmonkeyracing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:47 PM   #5
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,343
It is a valid point, gas prices will be on the rise once the economy starts recovering and people will be back to looking for hybrids and electrics again. Honestly if they could get an electric engine with about the same performance as the 300 HP V6 to cost the same, I would be interested (provided the US had an infrastructure set up for it at the time). However, researchers have been playing with heat trapping material to recycle waste heat from the engine and exhaust, as well has improved fuel injection systems that have given SIGNIFICANT efficiency increases. These new materials and products can by applied to almost any current and past vehicle, making it a very attractive prospect.
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:49 PM   #6
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxmonkeyracing View Post
First welcome.




Also my 4th gen z28 got 27-28 on the highway. Is that not fuel efficient? I think it is. But u tell me.
Really? Wow, that is impressive!
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:53 PM   #7
zebra
just can't seem to leave
 
zebra's Avatar
 
Drives: your mom wild!!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: cold & windy
Posts: 11,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxmonkeyracing View Post
Also my 4th gen z28 got 27-28 on the highway. Is that not fuel efficient? I think it is. But u tell me.
i've seen guys with 5.7 and 6.0 vettes also getting close to 30mpg on the highway. smaller engine don't necessarily mean better. i've talked to two guys who swapped the 350s in their trucks to 454s and got better mileage because the more powerful engines weren't working as hard to propel the vehicles. like they said above, i doubt a turbo 4 could efficiently move a 3800+ lb car
__________________
zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 04:59 PM   #8
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 96 S-10 LS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 16,412
lets see a 3.6 L 300HP v6 with 27MPG highway, or a 2.0L 260HP 4, with 28MPG.. worth it...NAAAAA
28 MPG is highway on a Sky Redline, which weighs less than the Camaro... I know the transmissions are different and gearing would be but I don;t think it would get 30 MPG, which to me would be worth the difference.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 05:13 PM   #9
blaSSt
 
blaSSt's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 Synergy, & more
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 442
Who says the 2.0 TC ECOTEC in a Camaro will get better gas mileage than the V6?

The Cobalt SS/TC is rated 30 MPG hwy. in a 2975 lb. car. with a small CDA (coefficient of drag x area)

The Camaro LS/LT weighs 3750 lbs. And will get an estimated 27 MPG hwy. It will have a larger front area don't know about CD.

The engine will have to work harder (take more power and gas) to move the heavier car with the larger CDA thus dropping the mileage to something less than 30 in a Camaro powered by the ECOTEC.

Might still be somewhat higher but likely only pocket change.
__________________

........06 TB SS...............98 Camaro SS.........07 Cobalt SS......................09 ZR1
On the internet - Anything is possible, especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
COTW 10/4/10 SOLD

Last edited by blaSSt; 12-04-2008 at 05:27 PM.
blaSSt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 05:14 PM   #10
MerlinZero
Big Orange
 
MerlinZero's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 1,170
As stated in other posts. the Turbo 4 is not a real pheasible option for the Camaro. the mass of the camaro would cause the engine to be constantly utilizing the turbo charger and thus reducing its efficiency and its effectiveness in increasing the MPG of the car. I believe scott at one point said they weren't going to go this route due to the issues being presented.

What I'd like to see is a 1.4L turbo Cruze next year..... or Turbo Diesel cruze
MerlinZero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 05:34 PM   #11
radz28
Petro-sexual
 
radz28's Avatar
 
Drives: Ultra-Grin
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Crapramento, Crapifornia
Posts: 13,039
Foot inserted into mouth...

What about for perception sake? Okay, let's say it's certified a couple MPG better city and one or two better on the freeway, but I think more people will hear four-cylinder than us enthusiasts hear turbocharged four-cylinder. I'm just playing Devil's advocate
__________________
"...What IS true: We anticipated that this would happen - we are never finished - and yes, Ford DOES deserve to win now and then. To think that GM can come out with a car to make ford throw in the towel is simply foolhardy..." - fbodfather
radz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 05:39 PM   #12
ponycrusher21
 
ponycrusher21's Avatar
 
Drives: the passenger seat
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: awesometown,tn
Posts: 371
or......wait for it..........WAIT FOR IT..........CAMARO HYBRID!!!!!
__________________


Ponycrusher 21
ponycrusher21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 05:39 PM   #13
boxmonkeyracing
juggernaut
 
boxmonkeyracing's Avatar
 
Drives: VRSCF, 2011 SS vert
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: kenly, nc
Posts: 3,345
Send a message via AIM to boxmonkeyracing Send a message via Yahoo to boxmonkeyracing
Quote:
Originally Posted by radz282003 View Post
Foot inserted into mouth...

What about for perception sake? Okay, let's say it's certified a couple MPG better city and one or two better on the freeway, but I think more people will hear four-cylinder than us enthusiasts hear turbocharged four-cylinder. I'm just playing Devil's advocate
And how many will believe it gets 10x better mpg then the v6 and v8 just because it's a 4 banger?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
We do not want to use the Z28 moniker on a car that does not deserve this hallowed name.
boxmonkeyracing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 05:46 PM   #14
Legend
Hello!
 
Legend's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 JSB Z06!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,624
Efficiency vs size says to me anyway, not an option.

Several have said it...while the 2.0 Ecotec is an awesome engine, the weight of the Camaro will rule out any gains. The engine will be working harder and less efficient most of the time!

The V6 is the best option for a fuel saving Camaro.

Plus...a Camaro with a 4 banger just doesn't sound right at all...even one that has a turbo!
Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:26 PM   #15
Vash


 
Drives: 00 Blazer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,128
The car would of needed to be designed around it. They just revamped the Cobalt SS anyway with it's boosted 4 banger.

Hard to get past 27 hwy anyway unless you have gimpped performance.
Vash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:26 PM   #16
CamaroSpike23
Mr. Nitpicky
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,856
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
4.5L V-8 turbo diesel....
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
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 Bulldogwinters View Post
Read that link that Spike posted, it'll tell you everything you need to know.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.
"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 12-04-2008, 06:31 PM   #17
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,775
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
GM's already done calculations, if not tried it. I remember Bob Lutz saying that there was barely any improvement in fuel economy, just a much more sluggish Camaro.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

My Cars: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE, 2000 Ford Ranger XLT (State-issued)
Extended Family: 2013 GMC Terrain SLE, 1998 GMC Sonoma SLS Extended Cab

FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:43 PM   #18
MerlinZero
Big Orange
 
MerlinZero's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am Legend View Post
Efficiency vs size says to me anyway, not an option.

Several have said it...while the 2.0 Ecotec is an awesome engine, the weight of the Camaro will rule out any gains. The engine will be working harder and less efficient most of the time!

The V6 is the best option for a fuel saving Camaro.

Plus...a Camaro with a 4 banger just doesn't sound right at all...even one that has a turbo!

Hey, ya never know though..... it....*snicker* "worked" for the fox back mustang in the 80's HAHAHAH oh god hell yeah 4 banger with posi-traction...
it was the shit

MerlinZero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 06:59 PM   #19
GrnMchin
Not easy being Green
 
GrnMchin's Avatar
 
Drives: 67 Nova SS
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponycrusher21 View Post
or......wait for it..........WAIT FOR IT..........CAMARO HYBRID!!!!!
Maybe a even better alternative then the 4 banger. If you can keep the weight down and the technology improves.
GrnMchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 07:20 PM   #20
taz
Taz
 
taz's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 RS/SS Camaro
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 534
V6 with AFM?

I think adding a 4 banger should drop the weight of the car. But I doubt it would make much difference in gas mileage. I cant picture a camaro w/o at least a V6. Do they have AFM for the V6? Drop down to 3 cylinders while cruising? Might bring up the gas mileage.
taz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 07:29 PM   #21
CamaroSpike23
Mr. Nitpicky
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,856
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz View Post
I think adding a 4 banger should drop the weight of the car. But I doubt it would make much difference in gas mileage. I cant picture a camaro w/o at least a V6. Do they have AFM for the V6? Drop down to 3 cylinders while cruising? Might bring up the gas mileage.
it would be harder to balance the rotating assy deactivating 3 cyl on a v-6

id say you could do 2 at most
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
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 Bulldogwinters View Post
Read that link that Spike posted, it'll tell you everything you need to know.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.
"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 12-04-2008, 07:44 PM   #22
Hylton


 
Hylton's Avatar
 
Drives: fanboys and ass kissers crazy.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 7,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponycrusher21 View Post
or......wait for it..........WAIT FOR IT..........CAMARO HYBRID!!!!!
Oooooo..........you're the man!
__________________
"BBOMG - More than just a car show.... It's an experience!"
Hylton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 09:01 PM   #23
StoutFiles
 
StoutFiles's Avatar
 
Drives: Black/Black 2SS/RS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 733
Quote:
I want something that looks amazing and delivers a fun ride with a low gas price tag.
If this price tag isn't low enough for you then I'm sorry, but the Camaro is currently the best deal you're going to find.

Quote:
I want to buy this car i really do, as we all do, but will the loan, insurance and the added gas bill just adds up too high.
Well then, you'll just have to wait. I hope someday you can afford one.
StoutFiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 09:17 PM   #24
camaro5


 
camaro5's Avatar
 
Drives: Off Into The Sunset
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cape Coral, Florida
Posts: 4,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz View Post
I think adding a 4 banger should drop the weight of the car. But I doubt it would make much difference in gas mileage. I cant picture a camaro w/o at least a V6. Do they have AFM for the V6? Drop down to 3 cylinders while cruising? Might bring up the gas mileage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
it would be harder to balance the rotating assy deactivating 3 cyl on a v-6

id say you could do 2 at most

Yo Yo - Check this out:

Quote:
The Accord Sedan’s V-6 features the latest generation of Variable Cylinder Management™ (VCM) technology. This system can activate and deactivate the engine’s cylinders as needed to meet the demands of both acceleration and fuel savings.

When maximum torque is required, all six cylinders are firing. During steady cruising speeds , VCM shuts down one bank of cylinders. In this mode, the audio system’s Active Noise Cancellation™ (ANC) function generates out-of-phase sound waves to cancel out any undesirable noise that may be due to the harmonics of 3-cylinder operation.

As cruising speed increases the engine moves to a 4-cylinder mode for extra cruising power. To help keep engine vibration from reaching the cabin in every mode, active engine mounts automatically adjust their firmness to help absorb energy. The transition between the three operating modes is nearly seamless and goes unnoticed by the Accord’s passengers.
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-...px?feature=vcm

That last sentence - "The transition between the three operating modes is nearly seamless and goes unnoticed by the Accord’s passengers."

Is pure BS! There are so many complaints about how horrible the VCM (AFM, DOD) is in customer reviews, you would not believe it.

Like all AFM applications, Honda only uses it on automatic trans cars.
camaro5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2008, 09:34 PM   #25
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,775
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
The LZ8 3900 V6 engine found in the Impala has AFM. I think it was discontinued for this model year though.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

My Cars: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE, 2000 Ford Ranger XLT (State-issued)
Extended Family: 2013 GMC Terrain SLE, 1998 GMC Sonoma SLS Extended Cab

FenwickHockey65 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CAMARO WIKI Tran Wiki 47 02-19-2014 03:23 PM
Answeres to questions I have stumbled on dieseldave24v 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 13 02-23-2009 06:56 PM
Automobilemag.com: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro - Q&A Scotsman 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 23 10-12-2008 12:13 AM
Lutz says GM considering 2.0-liter turbo for Camaro 13F20 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 28 09-19-2008 05:19 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.