Coupes in general aren't as "practical" as 4-door sedans and such, and I don't expect them to ever be that practical. Certainly not to the extent that performance absolutely must be bred out of them in order to get there. What's your point here?

And I still don't get why you or anybody else would refuse to buy a V8 SS Camaro solely because of the existence of an I4-T version. Talk about shots fired and feet :iono: . . . . neither you nor I would have to buy such a version, and it's highly unlikely that either of us ever would.


Norm[/QUOTE]

Not sure if I ever really have a point...lol....Just that if there is a "trend" of any kind going on here, the addition of an I-4 is more than "just another option" that you don't have to buy if you don't have to...It points to a direction of "let's be like Honda", or "let's build the Camaro more practical" to appeal to the masses...smaller and just enough is perhaps the way to increase sales of the Camaro....Not very appealing to me, even if the car still has a v-8 option...

I always thought all Camaro's were in the same family...but don't think we need to "adopt" an I-4...lol

Entire thread:

I don't think we will have much trouble convincing them of anything...

This weekend a CNN news anchor tried to get Bill Nye the "Science Guy" (with only a mechanical engineering degree, which makes him an expert on climatology) to tie Winter Storm Nemo to "Climate Change". Hilarious stuff! But it gets better...

Later in the interview when the topic switched to the near miss of the Earth by asteroid 2012 DA14, the anchor attempted to get him to blame close encounters with near Earth asteroids on global warming.

These luddites will believe anything. We can tell them that the population in china is growing so rapidly that we need to stip mine the rockies to counter balance the mass of all the population on the opposite side of the Earth, otherwise the Earth will be in danger of tipping over.

The green lemmings will flood the rockies with pick axes and bare hands, to help strip-mine the oil and minerals, believing that they are saving the planet from capsizing.

If we play it right we can get them to put all the oil and ore into our trains and we can haul it off and sell it and get richer than Al Gorzeera. The irony will be delicious!

For the record, I wouldn't want to see a normally aspirated I4 Camaro either. Now that would be an ill-advised Honda wanna-be move.


Norm

lol...and for the record...I hope the best for Camaro's future...Perhaps some of us got spoiled with this Gen5/modern "muscle-car" thing....and are hoping against hope that it doesn't end...I think it's a miracle these days that anything close to the old days of muscle cars ever even happened in the first place...

....All good...Just hoping GM and Camaro doesn't screw up this car and its reputation in pursuit of a few more dollars and potential customers...etc., etc.,....

You're wrong.

And a little lower on the power scale becomes unacceptable to many. See the Challenger.

But the point you ignored was that the I4 is a step down from the current 6 cylinder. There's no benefit for a Camaro buyer to get one with an I4 over a V6. None. Now, if you're talking about a potential smart car buyer, steer them towards a Cruze, Volt or what have you. But don't change the Camaro. It will ruin it.

Straw man argument.

No one asked for a 4 cylinder Camaro. So why are we getting one?

If older models are better than the new models, I won't buy a new model. Simple as that.

He's also part of the problem. By falling for the propaganda he is actually perpetuating it and spreading it to people on forums and probably in real life.

What ever happened to critical thinking? Are people that brainwashed that they can't see reality anymore?

What everyone SHOULD be doing is pushing back against those who would try and strangle our energy supply, instead of accepting their lies as inevitable truths.

Instead of "So yes, I'd bet the farm, mine, my families and my friends that gas will hit 5 or 6 per gallon in the not too distant future."

You SHOULD be saying: "if gas will ever hits 5 or 6 per gallon, I will do everything in my power to unseat any incumbent who voted to make this happen, regardless of their affiliation. I will also boycott every company that promoted this either directly or via their politburo advertising."

We're talking about the low end of the power scale to begin with, where people don't care much about exactly power there is. I'm pretty sure that holding the power to weight ratio constant while dropping both power and weight slightly would not bother those folks one bit. They aren't enthusiasts who might actually care about "the numbers".


Please acknowledge that there is a significant difference between an I4 and an I4 turbo. I've already said in so many words that I consider a NA I4 to be a non-starter (and been implying as much from the get-go). For the people shopping at the entry 300-ish HP level, how you get that 300-ish HP and 275 or so torque is less important than getting there in the first place.

I am NOT suggesting a 200 HP four of any description, even though it seems people keep misunderstanding that.


Please feel free to suggest a better way to separate a lower-slung sporty coupe from stand-up-tall vehicles of any other description. My point is that people who strongly favor either one of those aren't likely to be happy owning the other (actually, they'd probably just shop elsewhere).


Dunno. Rules that neither you nor I have anything to do with or any real influence over?

But one more time <sigh>, neither you nor I have to buy one, if/when it comes out. Nor do you have to feel that the V8 version you do buy is somehow any less satisfactory because a version that you wouldn't ever want exists. Just let those "lesser sub-models" be "other cars I would never buy" and leave it at that. It isn't that hard.


I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I might actually agree. I know that if I needed a ~40 mpg commuter car that I would not be shopping new for it. Not in anybody's store.


Norm

You drive a Mustang Norm, of course you want the Camaro to be a 4 cylinder:laugh: (just Kidding)

lol...Not just that, I don't know why he's willing to put up with all this grief of trying to explain everything...lol...Thanks Norm...lol

Remember a few decades ago they would show video of Chinese cities and everyone was on bicycles? Now they are all in cars. While decades ago almost all Americans drove cars, but now we are being told bicycles are a much better alternative.

Close. In 2010 Congressman Hank Johnson actually said he worried that stationing 6,000 more Marines on the island of Guam might cause it to "tip over and capsize". It's not just the luddites who are idiots, apparently it's the ones running the show as well.

Video of Hank Johnson asking about Guam tipping over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

That's EXACTLY who I was thinking of when I described the climate alarmists. These people are making decisions that affect our cars and our lives. Someone has to put a stop to this madness.

Bold statement there.

Would you be able to state what you think I am wrong about?

Chinese auto market going to 30 million units? I've seen that from GM and from a Ford document discussing their global asperations?

That having the Chinese market and an Indian market growing while ours is not? Check the data. We are well below historical volumes and eve when it recovers fully we will be no more than where we've been years ago.

Wrong about the fact, yes fact, that Tar Sands require one more step to produce oil than simpl pumping out of the ground? Or that Shale requires another step again?

Just curious. I've been reading reports on this for years and just wondering how they are all wrong.

Or are you just being hopeful...................cuz even I hope all of this is wrong. It's just that without something strange happening a future world of cheap gas isn't likely in our future.........at least until no one uses gas anymore.

Now if in the future, China discovers oil all bets are off. They just haven't yet.

So how do you envision a world where oil is in much much higher demand but Canadien Tar Sands and Rocky Mountain shale somehow stay cheap?

We can—actually, I'm sure we will—bicker about this for weeks. Please remember that offering a high-performance version of a 4-cylinder engine with forced induction does not require you to purchase it. This would be an option granted to those who want the unique styling of a Camaro above all else.

Start thinking outside of the Camaro-Mustang-Challenger rivalry. GM is winning this rivalry now, but GM doesn't have a product to compete with some of our low-displacement import competition. An Alpha Camaro will weigh less and therefore be a perfect fit for that market with the right pricing and engine options. Camaros will still be available in the traditional V6 and V8 arrangements for the long haul in order to compete with our traditional domestic rivals and to bring enthusiasts what we expect of our favorite car. Of course, not everyone is an enthusiast. Some of these people are just customers wanting something different, and I know a lot of people that want a cool car but don't care how much power it has. A version with a 4-cylinder turbo makes sense for them.

I did notice that a lot of arguments against any 4-cylinder turbo are coming from the V8 crowd. You guys are the heart and soul of high-performance GM drivers, but you are not the market for any 4-banger. Keep that in mind. If you want a 6thgen, then you'll be able to buy one with a V8, as usual. Think of the 4-cylinder model as a stepping stone to convert some ricer kids into real American performance machines. It starts with hot styling, and then they join Camaro5, and ultimately they're so enamored with how awesome Camaro enthusiasts are that they want to show up to a future Camaro5Fest with the V8 they've dreamed of owning since getting their 4-cylinder turbo. It's just something to consider.

At the rate we are going one day workers in Chinese factories will be driving in to work in new Camaros and Mustangs, while the parking lots in American factories will be filled only with EVs and bicycles.

I don't mind 4cylinders by the way, I just don't like the idea of the Camaro becoming an econo-box, or even a Honda. If the doom Sayers are right then high gas prices and Govt regulations will turn these cars into sad sack watered down AMC Pacer versions of themselves. I'm old enough to remember the '70s and how Govt regs turned the best muscle cars in the world into catalytic converted 5.7L V8 145 HP having dishrags. I just don't want 2014 and '15 to be like '74 and '75! Where a 4cylinder turbo is the best we can hope for. They did it once, they may do it again. I swear by all that's holy, if they make a turbo 4 Z28 I'll never buy Camaro again.:(

Turbo 4 > v6. The naturally aspirated v6 is on the way out in my opinion. The 4s can make more torque earlier and are more flexible as far as packaging is concerned. The v6 just doesn't make as much sense anymore. A 2.5l DI turbo could easily make as much power as the current v6 with more torque and a flatter power curve while getting better fuel efficiency when out of boost. It would be very cool also if GM were to bring back the stage kits they offered on the cobalts.

I really don't think Turbo 4rs are significantly more fuel efficient than NA V6s. And why compare FI V4s to NA V6s? Why not compare their torque and power to other FI engines? Turbo V6 or Turbo V8? Once you start boosting things it's just a matter of money anyway.

There's a reason our market is not growing... and instead of bickering about what China and India are going to do to our prices, let's say you instead focus your attention on getting rid of the radicals with their boot on the throat of the car companies and oil companies and the economy in general?

If we were not de-industrializing the country with these crackpot ponzi energy schemes, Ford and GM would not be looking elsewhere for business.

A lightly boosted V6 will run circles around a lightly boosted I-4, so the I-4 will need more radical components to handle higher boost just to keep up with the V6. That means for the same level of performance you will shell out more money for the I-4, and have less headroom to tune it because it will already be pushed closer to the limit just to feel like a mildly boosted V6.

Why is it that everyone who claims how a boosted I-4 is so awesome acts like an I-4 is the only engine that gets better with boost?

I call BS on this one. How much experience do you have with boosted 6 and 4 cylinders? Again, you miss the power:weight ratio.

I read your posts, and you do make people think, but on this, I call BS.

You seem to have answered your own question. Unless for some reason cost isn't an important determining factor for GM.

Radical components? Most of the factory turbo 4s run hypereutectic cast pistons just like a lot of the n/a engines, but with lower compression. Besides that the turbo 4 will have 2/3 the internal components of the 6 by definition. 2/3 the pistons, valves, rods, 1/2 the head(s), less exhaust piping, etc. GM's LNF has hypereutectic pistons and there are dozens of folks pushing 320+whp out of them with just a tune and exhaust. GM even offered upgrades to around 300hp that maintained the warranty. I don't see why anyone would compare turbo 4 and turbo 6 when it comes to factory equipment as cost difference is going to be significant. GM isn't going to compare an n/a v6 and a turbo v6 directly for the same trim level because the cost difference is too great, but a turbo 4 can cost about the same and offer better performance with packaging advantages. A turbo 4 like the LNF could replace the current v6 without adding cost while offering greater torque at an earlier rpm and higher efficiency.

Of course you can boost engines of any cylinder count or arrangement. That's not the point here.

It's about ways to achieve a satisfactory amount of power and torque for the entry-level end of the Camaro line. Traditionally, this has been done with NA sixxes, but that's not the only way those power and torque targets can reasonably be achieved.


On other engine configurations and boost.

We already have a boosted V8, and there is no V10, V12, or whatever above that for the LSA to be competing against. Nothing more to discuss here.

Given the resistance to turbo-4's solely on the basis of cylinder count, this thread probably shouldn't get hijacked down any forced induction V6 detour . . . the resulting uproar once people figured out what would then be at stake would make the opposition to fours of any description sound like crickets chirping in the night.


Norm

It's only fair to point out that there are a lot of people in China, and GM saw this as an opportunity to get into a market before a culture of buying cars became mainstream. As a result, GM has expanded into an untapped business market. It has nothing to do with Camaros. It has to do with expanding the sales end of a big business.