CAMARO6

CAMARO6 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)
-   2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155)
-   -   No 4 cylinder for the 6th Gen Camaro. (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329009)

Apex Motorsports 11-20-2013 07:17 AM

No 4 cylinder for the 6th Gen Camaro.
 
Via: GMAuthority.com

Camaro Chief Al Oppenheiser: Next-Gen Camaro Will Not Offer A Four-Cylinder

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/...76045839_n.jpg

In a bid to offer a more refined, efficient, and nimble car that will be competitive not only in North America, but in Europe as well as in other parts of the world, Ford has said it will offer a turbocharged four-cylinder engine in the next-generation 2015 Mustang. This has led to speculation that General Motors will follow suit and offer a four-banger in the next-gen 2015 (or 2016) Camaro.

According to AutoGuide, a four cylinder engine option will not find its way under the hood of the next Camaro, at least not if Camaro chief engineer Al Oppenheiser has anything to do with it.

“We’re not following Ford”, Oppenheiser told AG during the 2013 SEMA show. “As long as they’ll pay me to be the chief engineer, I’m going to fight for every horsepower I can and every cylinder I can,” he said. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars will jump from an average of 27.5 MPG, where it has been since 1990, to 37.8 MPG by 2016. This mandated increase is forcing automakers to downsize engines, some of which have been removing two cylinders while adding forced induction such as turbo-charging. As such, some V8s are being replaced with turbo-charged six-cylinders, and naturally-aspirated six-cylinders have been eschewed in favor of boosted fours.

For its part, General Motors is no longer offering a six-cylinder engine in the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu or Buick Regal, opting to solely offer powerful turbo-charged four-bangers. But The General has also been able to avoid downsizing its engines in its all-new full-size pickup trucks such as the 2014 Silverado and 2014 Sierra. Instead of downsizing, GM elected to engineer an all-new eight-cylinder engine line called EcoTec3 with a host of modern technologies such as direct injection, variable valve timing, and active fuel management, also known as cylinder deactivation. By contrast, cross-town rival Ford has fully embraced the downsizing trend, and is experiencing a great degree of success with its EcoBoost four- and six-cylinder powerplants.

Oppenheiser addressed the possible future demise of V8 engines, saying that, “In the future, something I don’t think the public realizes yet, there may be a day when nobody, Ford, Chrysler or GM has a V8, or if they do it would be a very highly-priced V8 because you’ve got to add your whole stable of cars and come up with a fuel economy number”.

He also added that downsizing the car or the engine too much will stray too far from what the Camaro is all about, and make people question whether the car should continue on.

“We’ve established what the Camaro is. And if the Camaro ceases to become a Camaro, you’ve got to consider, do you take Camaro out in the future.”


SUKXOST 11-20-2013 07:30 AM

WINNING!

Al for President!

45thAnniversary2SS 11-20-2013 07:37 AM

Smart man. Very interesting regarding the future of the V8. Wonder how far out he is talking about? 10 years? 20 years? I feel as though they will be almost gone (not being mass produced) in 10 years.

shine2013 11-20-2013 08:04 AM

Like what I just read. Guess that means they'll be introducing one of those concept cars they debuted a few years ago to get the BRZ market?

Sikoriko 11-20-2013 08:15 AM

wow those are some deep pockets

KMPrenger 11-20-2013 09:25 AM

A discussion about this is going on in the "Why would anyone want a 4 cyl 2016 camaro" thread. Personally I'm not sure I believe him. Sure...I do believe he would fight for what he says, but I don't think the decision is ultimately up to him on what engines go in the next Camaro...so I wouldn't take this as some sort of confirmation.

As for some food for thought I'd like to post up what I mentioned in the other thread:

Quote:

Hrmm...surprising. Ford will definitely be going with the new 2.3 which was recently unveiled for the Lincoln MKC which has 270HP and 300TQ in that vehicle. For the Mustang it will likely make 290ish HP and 320ish TQ. Pretty sure they will offer the V6 as a bas engine.

I wonder if Chevy is looking to offer a larger turbo 4 cylinder instead of the 2.0? I don't know what they would offer to compete with the Ford 2.3 engine.

I think Chevy will still offer a V6, but unless their new "LGX" V6 can put out 300ish TQ it will never be able to compete in 0 - 60 and quarter mile runs with the 2.3 turbo from Ford. The turbo's TQ will peak much sooner and be greater. I do believe the V6 could have the advantage at the top end over the 2.3 turbo b/c it would likely have a 30 - 40 HP advantage, but it would be playing catch up from a dig every time. From a roll the two would be pretty competetive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 (Post 7200634)
So if Al gets his way, Camaro will stay with a 6/8 cylinder powertrain.

It'll come down to how good the new LGX is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 3 (Post 7200648)
No, it won't. It will simply come down to CAFE. The V6 won't get the Camaro where it MUST be. Has little to do with what Al wants or what Al says to a bunch of enthusiasts.

We need to know more about this supposed LGX 6 cylinder.

Honda makes a pretty nice 60 degree V6 with cylinder deactivation...so what if this new LGX has that tech? In that case, GM has argued already with the new "ecotech" V8s that the reason it did not reduce engine size is because they performed better when in eco (4 cylinder) mode.

Assuming this, GM could end up going with a slightly larger displacement V6 than the current LFX 3.6 which means we could see peak HP and TQ well above the LFX 323/278, but yet it could return mid 30s on the highway when in "eco" mode. If they were smart, they'd disable the eco mode when you throw the car in sport mode or something like that so you have 100% power available all the time without hesitation.

That said, no high revving V6 will match the low end torque of a turbo 4 cylinder, but if they can get the output to 340+ HP they should have a good 30 - 40 HP advantage on top to brag about.

I'm no expert on modern engine tech, but the LFX is already running with all the modern goodies that the new V8s have, so aside from adding cylinder deactivation to the engine I don't know what else they could go that would add considerably more power or efficiency. The cam-less, sparkless engines are years out still. I also realize doing cylinder deactivation in a 60 degree engine versus a 90 degree like the V8s is a tough order....but as I said above Honda is doing it pretty successfully.


2010-1SS-IBM 11-20-2013 09:31 AM

Glad to see someone at GM doesn't have their head up their ass.

DGthe3 11-20-2013 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 7201782)
A discussion about this is going on in the "Why would anyone want a 4 cyl 2016 camaro" thread. Personally I'm not sure I believe him. Sure...I do believe he would fight for what he says, but I don't think the decision is ultimately up to him on what engines go in the next Camaro...so I wouldn't take this as some sort of confirmation.

As for some food for thought I'd like to post up what I mentioned in the other thread:

If its not up to the chief engineer, then who gets to decide?

Apex Motorsports 11-20-2013 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 7201782)
A discussion about this is going on in the "Why would anyone want a 4 cyl 2016 camaro" thread. Personally I'm not sure I believe him. Sure...I do believe he would fight for what he says, but I don't think the decision is ultimately up to him on what engines go in the next Camaro...so I wouldn't take this as some sort of confirmation.

The public may not know any details about the 6th Gen yet but, believe me, Al and company are well into 6th Gen development. If he is making public statements about how he won't allow a 4 cylinder into the 6th Gen I would wager that the drive train decisions have already been locked in and he is saying everything he can without getting himself into trouble.

Bhobbs 11-20-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGthe3 (Post 7201813)
If its not up to the chief engineer, then who gets to decide?


The government when they keep increasing the MPG requirements.

SS4life 11-20-2013 10:52 AM

For us camaro owners i think that ending the mass production of these cars could be a huge plus in value terms, keeping the miles along with wear and tear of these cars will sky rocket their value within 30 years, if production is ended in the near future. I plan to keep mine forever, so these terms would be a benefit to me.

Apex Motorsports 11-20-2013 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhobbs (Post 7201983)
The government when they keep increasing the MPG requirements.

Keep in mind the CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It doesn't mean that every car you make has to meet or exceed it. GM has cars like the Volt, ELR, and all the Eco models pulling the average up so the CAFE standards are hardly a death knell for the V8 at GM. Take notice that the EcoTec 5.3l in the new Silverado makes more power and gets better fuel economy than the Ford EcoBoost V6.

DGthe3 11-20-2013 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhobbs (Post 7201983)
The government when they keep increasing the MPG requirements.

Last I checked, CAFE didn't doesn't require that V6s be replaces with turbo4's.

Al says that GM doesn't have to follow Ford, and that the Camaro can't get too much smaller & still be a Camaro. Reading between the lines tells me that GM is almost certainly working on a small FRS/BRZ type car, or possibly a little 2 seater like the Sky/Solstice. Either way, its a car that would be 4 cylinder only and be more efficient than a Camaro could hope for.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.