Continued: Lutz mentions engine options for Camaro -- 4 cylinder turbo a possibility

[iPODFAN11]

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0/1023/CARNEWS

quote from article: "But Lutz also said the 260-hp turbocharged engine gave little benefit compared with the 300-hp 3.6-liter V6 that is the new Camaro's base powerplant."

Yes, yes, in the article it DOES say a t-4 is on Lutz's wishlist BUT, the car is too heavy for that t-4 to do anything in terms of fuel economy + performance.

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by iPODFAN11

Oh looky, no Turbo-4 for you!!

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0/1023/CARNEWS

quote from article: "But Lutz also said the 260-hp turbocharged engine gave little benefit compared with the 300-hp 3.6-liter V6 that is the new Camaro's base powerplant."

Yes, yes, in the article it DOES say a t-4 is on Lutz's wishlist BUT, the car is too heavy for that t-4 to do anything in terms of fuel economy + performance. (who wants a slow z28 anyway )

thanks. I knew I had read a quote some where before. . .

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by iPODFAN11

Oh looky, no Turbo-4 for you!!

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0/1023/CARNEWS

quote from article: "But Lutz also said the 260-hp turbocharged engine gave little benefit compared with the 300-hp 3.6-liter V6 that is the new Camaro's base powerplant."

Yes, yes, in the article it DOES say a t-4 is on Lutz's wishlist BUT, the car is too heavy for that t-4 to do anything in terms of fuel economy + performance. (who wants a slow z28 anyway )

That's the same set-up that's in the Cobalt SS so I have no idea why GM would want to offer it in a Camaro that is 1,000 pounds heavier. It wouldn't make any sense to offer both products.

[Mr. Wyndham]

From the same article:

"A fuel-sipping Camaro is still on GM's wish list, though. Lutz pointed to a new 216-hp, 2.0-liter Ecotec Turbo four-cylinder engine that debuts in the new Vauxhall/Opel Insignia as a possibility for the Camaro."

If they used this engine for the car, it would still be a peppy ride (see: below), and would slot very nicely as an entry-level engine for kiddies wanting to get into a Camaro for cheap. Thus bumping the V6 up to more of a mid-level model (which I personaly think it's worthy of). The Turbo-4 engine could probably offer 29-30mpg hwy which seems to be the magic number lately...

I think we should lookout for more info on this...it's very important that GM puts out a fuel-sipping Camaro; and I think they know that.

*peppy ride: this engine in the Camaro would return a pwer/weight ratio equivilant to the cobalt LS...which is a quick little ride based on my experience.


EDIT: I also moved some posts from the Z28 thread to here...

[Chevyrocker]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

From the same article:


If they used this engine for the car, it would still be a peppy ride (see: below), and would slot very nicely as an entry-level engine for kiddies wanting to get into a Camaro for cheap. Thus bumping the V6 up to more of a mid-level model (which I personaly think it's worthy of). The Turbo-4 engine could probably offer 29-30mpg hwy which seems to be the magic number lately...

I think we should lookout for more info on this...it's very important that GM puts out a fuel-sipping Camaro; and I think they know that.

*peppy ride: this engine in the Camaro would return a pwer/weight ratio equivilant to the cobalt LS...which is a quick little ride based on my experience.


EDIT: I also moved some posts from the Z28 thread to here...

Yea but from a price point, it wouldn't work. A 2008 Cobalt SS is about $23,000. If that's where the base model V6 is going to come in, they would have to sell the 4 banger turbo for even less if it's the entry level Camaro. There's no way a Turbo 4 Camaro would cost less than a Cobalt, so I just don't see it happening.

[Mr. Wyndham]

A turbo-4 Cruze should start well below an SS Cobalt: as in between the Cobalt and the base Malibu. And I think this Camaro would start a little higher than the Cruze....

The way I see it; turbocharged engines aren't just for performance anymore. This 216hp Ecotec that the article mentioned sounds like it was engineered for fuel economy. I'm not saying it's still not a comparitively expensive engine; but what you're saying sounds along the lines of "There's no way we can get a sub-25k V6 Camaro, because the CTS DI is 36k.".......

[Wm Holden]

("keeps reading")