next gen camaro four-cylinder ?

[mikeSS]

i hope they make a 4 banger camaro, it would be funny to it how much hate people would get LOL

[Nightfall]

Originally Posted by mikeSS

i hope they make a 4 banger camaro, it would be funny to it how much hate people would get LOL

it would be amuseing

[The IOM Ninja]

Originally Posted by bmorecam

I might be wrong about the v6 vette rumor but regardless, I understand everyone has their opinion and one can choose to do whatever they want with their hard or easy earned money, but making a decision to purchase a car beacuse of sound is crazy. I can care less how GT-R sound in real life, give me that GT-R twin turbo monster anyday over an SS.

but I everyone's opinion even if I think that person just got finished smoking an oz of crack in 5 minutes lol. This is not specifically towards you ninja

I completely agrees with not buying it just because of the sound but I also wouldn't buying because of the way it looks. To me buying a car has to be an experience go full out or go home. In the sense that the car has to have the Power, Looks, Sound and most recently an Incredible Interior. I clearly chose the SS because of the first 3 things. But I agree to not buy a car just because it falls short by one thing is not a good enough reason.

Originally Posted by mikeSS

i hope they make a 4 banger camaro, it would be funny to it how much hate people would get LOL

I can see it now haha

"Why don't I get the same respect SS owners get?"

"Why do people laugh when they hear I have a 4 banger Camaro?"

"Is my I4 Camaro a Muscle Car?"

any my personal favorite

"Well Turbo 4's are making the kind of power Naturally Aspirated V8's were making 50 years ago"

[greenrail]

Geez, so many comparing the old "Iron Duke" as an example of what we would have if GM places a four in the next gen Camaro. That's just plain silly. It is like saying the LS3 is the same as the original small block 265.

Goodness, this is 2011, not 1982 or 1955.

[Nightfall]

Originally Posted by greenrail

Geez, so many comparing the old "Iron Duke" as an example of what we would have if GM places a four in the next gen Camaro. That's just plain silly. It is like saying the LS3 is the same as the original small block 265.

Goodness, this is 2011, not 1982 or 1955.

a muscle car IMO is a big car with as big a motor you can shove in it. Two door (sometimes four wont debate that) and body styleing. A pony car is get a mid to full sized car. Shove as big as a motor as you could shove into one. Then make it bigger then that . There is somethings that define though out history what a muscle/pony car is. And a tiny motor is not one of them.

And yeah yeah its 2011 SO? Somethings are just timeless and already well defind what they are ment to be. You can't just rewrite the book on history just cause you feel like it. Witch is what you people saying a 4 banger camaro is "ok".

[Bonanza7]

The turbo 4's, or turbo anything, have a problem: They don't last.

[DGthe3]

Somehow, I missed this thread the other day.

Originally Posted by rs-lt-camaro-

I hope GM sticks with v6 and v8 for the next camaro but it is possible that they could use a tc four-cylinder like the one in the regal gs it has 270 horsepower and 295 lb-ft which is not bad for a 4 cylinder. I bet they could even get 300 hp and 300 lf-ft out of it by 2015. they could do this to get better fuel economy while keeping performance and appeal to a wider range of consumers like the ones looking at the 2.t genesis.
what do you guys think ?

Here's the problem ... the V6 Camaro costs about the same in gas as the 2.0L turbo in the smaller Genesis. Sure, the T4 gets slightly better city mileage but since it takes premium gas, you immediately lose that benefit. Cut a Camaro down to that size & its 323 hp V6 would make it at least as efficient as the 210 hp (!?!) Genesis, yet using less costly regular gas. On top of that, to go with a turbo4 in the lineup means that there will be additional costs (more components, more complexity, more testing, etc) for something that provides minimal (if any) benefit. Best place for a turbocharged 4 banger is under the hood of a car that can't accept a NA V6.

Likewise, the best place for a turbo6 is under the hood of a car that can't accept a NA V8. Figure, a T6 would be a couple mpg worse than its naturally aspirated counterpart. In the Camaro, this would mean about a 17/27 or 17/28 rating. Not bad, and it seems like a half decent improvement over the LS3 & L99. But those V8's are getting replaced with direct injection engines in the not to distant future and that, along with other improvements, will probably net a couple mpg gain. So for a gen V V8 in the current Camaro, you'd be looking at ... 17/26 or 17/27. Wait, isn't that almost the same as what I estimated the turbo6 at? Add to that the fact that the turbo6 (compared to a V8) will almost certainly be heavier (small block V8s are surprisingly light) & more expensive (small block V8s are also pretty cheap), while producing less power, just to get pretty much the same fuel economy makes me think that GM would be foolish to offer such an engine in the Camaro.

Originally Posted by IamJacksCamaro

Since the plan is that the next Camaro will be much lighter, a four cylinder as a base engine sounds like a great idea.

Define "much lighter" because all those claims that is going to loose 300 or 400 lbs are pretty much just wishful thinking. Expect 100, be grateful if you get 200.

Originally Posted by need4spd

I will go for a twin turbo v6 that will run to 560 horses like the nissan gtr

GM won't offer such an engine in the Camaro. Think 350-400 for a turbo6 in the Camaro. Why? Because its is much, much easier (and therefore cheaper) to get those sort of numbers out of a V8. And since when has the GTR had 560 hp? Last I heard the 2012 was onlly up to 520.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Will the 6th gen have a V8? Yes.

Will the 6th gen have an I-4? Yes.

Again, the denial expressed by so many of you is pointless. It isn't going to change anything.

And Mustang is supposed to follow the same formula too.

You sound awfully sure about a car that is several years away. Remember back in 2007 when the base 2009 Camaro was supposed to be offered with a 250 hp V6? Or how about a supercharged 2011 Z28?

Originally Posted by liquidsmoke

I don't know, to me a huge engine that also has huge power isn't really impressive to me. It's basically just brute force, and doing what it's supposed to do. But a 4 banger that's pumping out v8 power ( natural or not ) is, at least to me. If not for the power numbers, but that it can handle it also.

Using boost is much more of a 'brute force' method than displacement is. You are literally forcing more air into the engine (thats why its called 'forced induction'). Keep turning up the boost and you can pretty much make as much power as you want.

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Actually, there are several turbo I4s that don't require premium gas. An example is the Chevy Cruze. If you want to push the boost and make more power you will need premium, but I don't think anyone is saying an I-4 for some future Camaro would be a 1.4L engine. A 2.5L with the right intercooler, CR and tune could run 87 octane and still make decent power if it uses the latest technology.

Sure, they could build a turbo4 like the 1.4 and scale it up to 2.5L or so. And at that point, you'd be looking at around 245 hp. But I'd be willing to bet that a V6 (especially a smaller one tuned for fuel economy) could get better mileage for less money.

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by greenrail

With the technology available nowadays, that's highly unlikely.

A 300 hp turbo, four is readily achievable.

With CAFE rolling up to 54.5 MPG in 2025 it may be achievable but likely won't happen. All the E85 credits, differences in EPA ratings vs. real world economy and sliding economy scales by volume isn't in the world aren't going to change the fact that NO conventional gas engine on the US market today averages anywhere close to 54.5 MPG. What that means is sub-compacts will likely have to average at least in the mid-60s and cars like the Camaro will have to be in the 40s. 13 years isn't a long time so ask yourself where is the economy going to come from? The answer to that question is what scares me as a performance car enthusiast much less a Camaro owner. Think things like de-tuned engines, smaller vehicle platforms all combined with expensive hybrid powertrains. The death knell of the performance car is at hand.... Who knows maybe in 40 years people look back at cars today like they did with the original muscle cars, maybe they be efficient and exceed the performance of today's cars.

[aron77]

My first car was an 82 firebird with a four cylinder and there was not nearly enough power to pull that car plus it just feels neutered. If they could just improve the mpg on the v6 then that would be a great thing. I'm only averaging 21+ with at least 80% highway driving so there is plenty of room for improvement. I could drive it like a little old lady but I was getting 24 in my 98 firebird so I lost a nice chunk.

[The_Blur]

There are a lot of hardcore enthusiasts here, and that passion is what makes Camaro5 a great place.

Of course, Chevrolet wants to make those hardcore enthusiasts happy, but the company is a business that thrives on profits and happy shareholders.

In order to have a happy company with the resources to make our proud, racecar-driving community happy, GM needs to produce cars that mainstream buyers will purchase.

We want more power. Most people want a great look and feel and don't care about the power.

Basically, if GM makes something that isn't traditionally Camaro material, I can guarantee that it will earn the Camaro nameplate.

[esperman]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Yes it will.

I very much doubt the 6th Gen will weigh less than 3600 lbs, and not have a V6 base engine.

[KSCamaro]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

With CAFE rolling up to 54.5 MPG in 2025 it may be achievable but likely won't happen.

The technology already exists.
The problem is getting car manufacturers out of bed with the gas and oil industry and USING what is available.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by KSCamaro

The technology already exists.
The problem is getting car manufacturers out of bed with the gas and oil industry and USING what is available.

Complete & utter BS. If there were any sort of magical technology that OEMs could use that doubles or tripples or quadruples the fuel economy, they'd use it instead of investing BILLIONS into hybrids & other very expensive methods of reducing fuel consumption.

Fact is, any of those 'super carburetors' or water cars or whatever other 'silenced technologies' fall into 1 of 2 catagories: they either don't worked, or they never existed.

[esperman]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Complete & utter BS. If there were any sort of magical technology that OEMs could use that doubles or tripples or quadruples the fuel economy, they'd use it instead of investing BILLIONS into hybrids & other very expensive methods of reducing fuel consumption.

Fact is, any of those 'super carburetors' or water cars or whatever other 'silenced technologies' fall into 1 of 2 catagories: they either don't worked, or they never existed.

we don't need to change the engines....just diversify the fuel and fuel source. Butanol made from crude or biomass could power every gasoline & E85 flex fuel engine, and a nice percentage of diesel engines as well. Also biofuels like B20 and E85 using better feedstocks than what is primarily used now (corn for ethanol, soy for biodiesel..the 2 worst crops btw).

Also, Chevy has been offering GNG/gasoline cars for years in Europe. Why not here??

I've said it before - who cares if your car gets 50 mpg if theres an embargo or rationing of gasoline??

I drove an advanced hydrogen/gasoline flex fuel BMW 7 series....the idea of a natural gas/gasoline version (not too mention a couple million dollars price difference) never seemed to cross BMW's mind. dumb