Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
04-01-2008 | 01:23 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
From:
Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
Check out the date....it's tomorrow already! Cool.
Our base model is baddest in terms of HP! (please no power to weight ratios)
Yeah. That's something to brag about....sort of...kinda ....
Our base model is baddest in terms of HP! (please no power to weight ratios)
Yeah. That's something to brag about....sort of...kinda ....
Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
5:00AM Wednesday April 02, 2008
By Alastair Sloane
General Motors is considering using a 195kW four-banger from the Pontiac Solstice in a new Camaro model.
General Motors is considering using a 195kW four-banger from the Pontiac Solstice in a new Camaro model.
The legions of American muscle car fans are in mourning - rising fuel prices have forced General Motors to consider using a four-cylinder engine as an option in its new Chevrolet Camaro.
The drivetrain under consideration is the turbocharged 195kW 2-litre unit used in Stateside GM models, the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadster.
GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz said at the New York motor show that if fuel prices continued to climb, a four-cylinder Camaro could see production.
GM plans V8 and V6 versions of the Camaro coupe and convertible. The V6 version will be powered by the same engine used in the Cadillac CTS, a direct-injection, 3.6-litre quad-cam unit rated at 225kW.
But it would be detuned in the Camaro to deliver around 195kW and fuel usage of about 12 litres/100km (24mpg).
Those fuel figures would put the Camaro among best in class for a US performance car, he said.
GM has dropped plans to offer a low-priced, entry-level Camaro with one of the company's low-tech V6 engines. It will aim V6 and V8 versions of the Camaro at its chief rival, the Ford Mustang.
The base model Mustang uses a 4-litre V6 rated at 155kW. The base model Dodge Challenger, due to go on sale in the US in October, will use a 185kW 3.5-litre V6.
Most attention from muscle car enthusiasts in the US has focused on the Camaro V8, which is likely to be a 300kW version of the 6-litre unit used in the Holden Commodore.
It will have a cylinder cut-off system that shuts down half the engine when the car reaches cruising speed to improve fuel economy.
But Lutz says he thinks most buyers will opt for the V6 because the performance will be strong, especially mated to a manual transmission.
"Back in the old days, if you wanted a muscle car, to get a decent one, you had to buy the V8," said Lutz.
"And if you bought the V6, you got a fairly rough, unrefined pushrod engine with low horsepower and weasely performance.
"This time, the V6 in its own right is a very fast, very legitimate car."
Lutz says the lighter V6 gives the Camaro a nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution. "With the V6, it is not a heavy car. The Camaro will be a lively and engaging car," he said.
The Camaro is soon to go on sale in the US as a 2009 model, priced higher than the Mustang but "better equipped", says Lutz. The V6 Mustang coupe is priced from US$20,235 ($25,528). The V8 GT coupe begins at US$26,825.
"We are going to be above the Mustang," said Lutz. "We have a sophisticated suspension system and, frankly, a much nicer interior.
"We are not going to try and match the Mustang on price."
5:00AM Wednesday April 02, 2008
By Alastair Sloane
General Motors is considering using a 195kW four-banger from the Pontiac Solstice in a new Camaro model.
General Motors is considering using a 195kW four-banger from the Pontiac Solstice in a new Camaro model.
The legions of American muscle car fans are in mourning - rising fuel prices have forced General Motors to consider using a four-cylinder engine as an option in its new Chevrolet Camaro.
The drivetrain under consideration is the turbocharged 195kW 2-litre unit used in Stateside GM models, the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadster.
GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz said at the New York motor show that if fuel prices continued to climb, a four-cylinder Camaro could see production.
GM plans V8 and V6 versions of the Camaro coupe and convertible. The V6 version will be powered by the same engine used in the Cadillac CTS, a direct-injection, 3.6-litre quad-cam unit rated at 225kW.
But it would be detuned in the Camaro to deliver around 195kW and fuel usage of about 12 litres/100km (24mpg).
Those fuel figures would put the Camaro among best in class for a US performance car, he said.
GM has dropped plans to offer a low-priced, entry-level Camaro with one of the company's low-tech V6 engines. It will aim V6 and V8 versions of the Camaro at its chief rival, the Ford Mustang.
The base model Mustang uses a 4-litre V6 rated at 155kW. The base model Dodge Challenger, due to go on sale in the US in October, will use a 185kW 3.5-litre V6.
Most attention from muscle car enthusiasts in the US has focused on the Camaro V8, which is likely to be a 300kW version of the 6-litre unit used in the Holden Commodore.
It will have a cylinder cut-off system that shuts down half the engine when the car reaches cruising speed to improve fuel economy.
But Lutz says he thinks most buyers will opt for the V6 because the performance will be strong, especially mated to a manual transmission.
"Back in the old days, if you wanted a muscle car, to get a decent one, you had to buy the V8," said Lutz.
"And if you bought the V6, you got a fairly rough, unrefined pushrod engine with low horsepower and weasely performance.
"This time, the V6 in its own right is a very fast, very legitimate car."
Lutz says the lighter V6 gives the Camaro a nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution. "With the V6, it is not a heavy car. The Camaro will be a lively and engaging car," he said.
The Camaro is soon to go on sale in the US as a 2009 model, priced higher than the Mustang but "better equipped", says Lutz. The V6 Mustang coupe is priced from US$20,235 ($25,528). The V8 GT coupe begins at US$26,825.
"We are going to be above the Mustang," said Lutz. "We have a sophisticated suspension system and, frankly, a much nicer interior.
"We are not going to try and match the Mustang on price."
__________________
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
º¿º
~) 69.5 SuperBee
04-01-2008 | 01:58 PM
#2
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
Think about this for a minute. Ford already did this back in the mid 80's, it was called the SVO Mustang. Actually I don't think it's a bad idea for something like this. It will help sell these muscle cars in more volume so the guys(and gals) that like the V8 will(hopefully) still be able to get them. The reason it didn't last back inthe 80's was cheap fuel and V8's. It's a much more relevant concept today due to fuel costs. I have a feeling Ford will also install ecoboost engines in the Mustang in the near future. Dodge has the 2.4 turbo in the Caliber and that engine is a pretty good engine. It also puts out 285hp. A Challenger with this motor definitely wouldn't be an embarrassment to drive. Should be quicker and more fuel efficient than the base V6 we're getting now. Just a thought. I'm still getting the HEMI though.........
04-01-2008 | 03:10 PM
#3
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
I thought about that caliber engine going into the challenger too but it would end up costing more than the V6. The SRT-4 Caliber starts at around 24k. That's what the base challenger will be around but on a more expensive platform. I doubt anyone would pay more for a 4 cylinder challenger even if they gain 35hp.
04-01-2008 | 03:13 PM
#4
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
Skippy, in comparing to the Mustang, yes we have more base hp, but not this rumored Camaro and if GM uses the 3.6L V6, it is also doubtful.
1971Chall, although you are correct that fuel costs more now than it did back in the 80s, I have to disagree that this will work this time around. People tend to prefer NA engines to turbocharged in muscle cars. That is why the past attempts of using a smaller engine and boosting it did not catch on since GM also tried this with a V6 back when gas was expensive. The other thing is GM would be wiser to use one of their V6 engines to provide the best of all three worlds (cost, hp/tq, and fuel economy). By using the turbo I4, they will not be able to get any better fuel economy than their V6s can do. The power band will not be as consistent throughout the line like a NA V6 will, they will not last as long as a V6 in durability, and will more than likely cost more since they already feature GDI and a turbo which adds to the cost significantly over a V6 they would use. I also think that GM risks cannabalizing the sales of the Solstice and Sky by offering the same basic powertrain in another coupe at potentially a lower price that is roomier.
Although it might sound good on paper, the SRT-4 engine in the Challenger probably would not be a good idea. The engine is not a torque producer and may be disappointing in a car of this weight, also I would tend to believe that considering all the technology that is in that engine would boost the price above what the 3.5L costs. Plus it might hurt sales of the SRT-4, though it probably isn't as likely since the Caliber is a four door compact station wagon. What I think would be a wiser idea for Chrysler to do is eliminate the 3.7L V6 line and replace it with a V6 version of the Hemi. If they could utilize the MDS and use it in the Dodge version of the LX based cars like the Charger and Challenger, we would have the best of all worlds (fuel economy, hp/tq, price, etc.). Turbo I4s should stay in smaller and lighter cars, and V6s and V8s should stay in larger cars in my opinion.
1971Chall, although you are correct that fuel costs more now than it did back in the 80s, I have to disagree that this will work this time around. People tend to prefer NA engines to turbocharged in muscle cars. That is why the past attempts of using a smaller engine and boosting it did not catch on since GM also tried this with a V6 back when gas was expensive. The other thing is GM would be wiser to use one of their V6 engines to provide the best of all three worlds (cost, hp/tq, and fuel economy). By using the turbo I4, they will not be able to get any better fuel economy than their V6s can do. The power band will not be as consistent throughout the line like a NA V6 will, they will not last as long as a V6 in durability, and will more than likely cost more since they already feature GDI and a turbo which adds to the cost significantly over a V6 they would use. I also think that GM risks cannabalizing the sales of the Solstice and Sky by offering the same basic powertrain in another coupe at potentially a lower price that is roomier.
Although it might sound good on paper, the SRT-4 engine in the Challenger probably would not be a good idea. The engine is not a torque producer and may be disappointing in a car of this weight, also I would tend to believe that considering all the technology that is in that engine would boost the price above what the 3.5L costs. Plus it might hurt sales of the SRT-4, though it probably isn't as likely since the Caliber is a four door compact station wagon. What I think would be a wiser idea for Chrysler to do is eliminate the 3.7L V6 line and replace it with a V6 version of the Hemi. If they could utilize the MDS and use it in the Dodge version of the LX based cars like the Charger and Challenger, we would have the best of all worlds (fuel economy, hp/tq, price, etc.). Turbo I4s should stay in smaller and lighter cars, and V6s and V8s should stay in larger cars in my opinion.
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
04-01-2008 | 03:36 PM
#5
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 1
From: China Grove NC.
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
A 4 cylinder has no business in a muscle car and a V-6 is just starting to be accepted. But for all purposes, I think the 5.7 fits well and gets mileage that is acceptable to most. With the MDS in automatic its a good choice for the muscle and gas compromise. If its just the looks and feel... then the V-6 is your car. But I'm torn between the 5.7 and 6.1. I need the 6.4 to put me over the top
04-01-2008 | 03:46 PM
#6
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
ORIGINAL: lear4406
A 4 cylinder has no business in a muscle car and a V-6 is just starting to be accepted. But for all purposes, I think the 5.7 fits well and gets mileage that is acceptable to most. With the MDS in automatic its a good choice for the muscle and gas compromise. If its just the looks and feel... then the V-6 is your car. But I'm torn between the 5.7 and 6.1. I need the 6.4 to put me over the top
A 4 cylinder has no business in a muscle car and a V-6 is just starting to be accepted. But for all purposes, I think the 5.7 fits well and gets mileage that is acceptable to most. With the MDS in automatic its a good choice for the muscle and gas compromise. If its just the looks and feel... then the V-6 is your car. But I'm torn between the 5.7 and 6.1. I need the 6.4 to put me over the top
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
04-01-2008 | 10:15 PM
#8
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,755
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
ORIGINAL: RLSH700
... People already scream murder when they hear that a V6 will be offered in a muscle car despite the fact that straight and slant sixs that were very slow were offered in these pony cars from the beginning ...
... People already scream murder when they hear that a V6 will be offered in a muscle car despite the fact that straight and slant sixs that were very slow were offered in these pony cars from the beginning ...
04-02-2008 | 06:04 AM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
From: East Valley AZ
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
A fact I noted some time ago that when the Challenger was last released more V6's were sold then V8's. I think that will be the situation again.
04-02-2008 | 06:44 AM
#10
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
RE: Four-cylinder Camaro - the miserly muscle car
Good points guys. I guess it sounded intriguing for a moment but RLSH700 I would have to agree with the weight thing and overall longetivity. The car would really have to be about 4 - 500lbs lighter to get the same effect. Cost of the turbo motor would also be a consideration. I don't believe this would hurt sales of the Caliber or on the GM end the Solstice/Sky/Cobalt. Different classes of cars. If the 3.5(Maybe the upcoming Phoenix motor) would get some updates you potentially have a 30mpg(highway) car even at the current weight. Direct injection and a 6 speed trans(both manual and auto) would go a long way toward this. Again, I like my V8 and will get a HEMI for sure and I agree it fits the concept of this car better. Just looking at the different ideas so the car can sell in some volume to keep it going. This being an enthusiast board most will want the performance. There are a lot of people out there that like the style but are not interested in maximum performance, just a stylish cruiser.