That's sort of what I thought, but then I've been hearing that the turbo now is more of a factor at all speeds, not just when you "get on it"...that they are more reliable than before...dunno...but if you gotta get your foot into it to feel the turbo, probably kills any economy...

That's about how they work. Under normal driving you only have a moderate loss of economy due to the exhaust driven compressor.

But the smaller Turbos, under 1.5L you are simply getting equivalent performance to the base engine. Using Cruze/Sonic as the example you can get the same HP in either a 1.4L Turbo or a NA 1.8L. But the Turbo is the higher FE engine. So in this case you aren't getting any more driving performance.

So it really is about the equivalency the Turbo adds. Look at the 1.6L Turbo GM uses on Opels. That is still not quite the HP as the new NA 2.5L GM has in the Malibu and ATS. But it will get better FE.

Ford uses this even more. They have a 1.6L Turbo they put in the new Escape and Fusion. In the Escape that is 178 Hp which is actually higher than the base 2.5L and also gets better FE. Then they add the 2.0L T as the top end choice at 240 HP. The 1.6L T is the best for FE.

Brother in law had one of those Iron Duke 4 cylinder Camaros. Long on looks, short on performance.
I think some of us are envisioning an entry level car, with crank windows, manual locks, and no a/c. A Camaro XFE.

I'd love a camaro with manual locks, windows, no AC, no Onstar and came with 550+ N/A HP for 30k. A REAL street brawler!

I'm with you man.

Let's keep Pony Cars what they are. We've all seen the numerous V8 vs V6 arguments, but the fact is both sides have to agree to the simple fact: Those engines were both there from the start. You could get a 1964 1/2 Mustang with a V6 or a V8, and you could get a 1967 Camaro with a V6 or V8. Neither car had a 4-cylinder option. You want a 4-banger, fine. But dont call it a Camaro because its not. Do what Ford did in the 1980s with the Probe. Design a new model car for those clamoring for a 4-cylder Pony Car. But remember, the Ford Probe was a failure.

There were no V6's in the first gens, in fact they didn't exist at all ...

There were no I-4s in any of them, either.

The 1967 Camaro had a 6-cylinder option.
http://www.firstgencamaro.com/1967.html

So did the 1964 1/2 Mustang.
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/64-65.shtml

I see you're playing semantics, but I think everyone (including you) sees my point.

Maybe if they had a turbo 4 back then they would have???

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

So did the Vette and T-Bird ... Your point is what ? You don't like it so nobody should have it ...

FYI ... I didn't have to Google it, I was alive and well back then.

My point is exactly what I said it was. If GM wants to have a 4-cylinder option, design a new model like Ford did with the Probe, but dont call it a Camaro.

The point also is you said it didn't exist, I was alive then too so? Instead of making a snarky comment, how about he was right on a well known Camaro fact?

How many 4 cyclinder engines did Ford or GM even offer in the 60's?

GM had the 153 CID four as far back as 1962 as the entry level engine for the Chevy II/Nova. Essentially half of a SBC 307 and not the 151 CID Iron Duke's predecessor.

Keep in mind that the Chevy II/Nova chassis also received inline sixxes - as well as the L79 350HP 327 which made for a car that you'd have been smart to not underestimate. Friend of mine had one of those little beasts back in the day.


I think SlingShot's point is that if you're going to talk about 1960's sixxer motors, at least identify the configuration correctly. Lancia and maybe a couple other European makes and Buick excepted, nobody was fitting V6's to cars, so generically calling all sixxes "V6" makes people sound like teenage to 20-something newbies to cars.


Kind of separately, Ford did play around with a turbo 2.3L four in the Fox chassis, but the technology was too advanced for most of the market and too far short of "mature" at the time. Being maybe a little better than the H6 Corvair or the V8 Buick turbocharging efforts in the 1960's still didn't mean it was good enough or that the market was really ready for it.


Norm

My bike is only a 2 cyl but will destroy my ZL1 in a race :facepalm: :D :happyanim:

Note that technology wasn't ahead of it's time, Ford just wasn't there yet. A friend of mine who worked on the Buick 3.8L Turbo told me they had been contacted by Ford looking get some help with the engine you mention because they weren't able to get it done. May not be fact, but I believe the guy. GM was pretty far ahead in the mid 80s in this regard.

what's power-to-weight?

Either you weren't paying attention, or your memory is (putting it as politely as I can) fading.

The 1955-1957 T-Bird only came with a V8. (292 in 1955, 292 or 312 in 1956, and 292 or 312 in 1957 w/optional factory Supercharger)

You should have googled it.

WRONG. You could get a 200ci I6. *Inline*, not V. My Dad had one.

In what respect? Have you ever driven a Probe? I drove one for 18 years before getting my Camaro. Ford was afraid it would take sales away from the Mustang, for good reason, and that was its only failure. Even with a 2.5 V6 it was a beast. There is more to a car than straight-line acceleration. If I could buy a brand new Probe I'd swap my Camaro in a heartbeat. It was the best balanced, best handling car I have ever owned in 40 years of driving.

Sales. The car was a failure. It was only around 8 model years, and in it's last year it was the worst selling Ford vehicle of that year.

FYI, Ford was not afraid it would take away Mustang sales, as it was touted as a possible replacement for the Mustang. But Mustang fans complained about its FWD and lack of a V8 (gasp!!!), so Ford created a new model and thus the Probe was born.

And it matters not how good the car performed in calling it a failure. If we are going to judge a product's success not by units sold, profits, increased market share, etc, but only by performance, then you would have to call Betamax a success.

Betamax was awesome! I saw both of the movies made for it.:sm0:

doubtful

The Mustang SVO was a limited-production version of the Ford Mustang sold from 1984 to 1986, during which time it was the fastest, most expensive version of the Mustang available. Although it departed both physically and mechanically from any prior version of the Mustang, it held the same spot within the lineup, both in terms of performance over "lesser" variants and in prestige, as had variants such as the Shelby tuned and "BOSS" Mustangs of the 1960s and 70s.


Still ultimately concerned with issues such as fuel consumption and emissions, SVO engineers opted to pass over the venerable production 4.9 liter V-8 in lieu of an updated, turbocharged, and stronger version of Ford's 2.3 liter inline four, originally used in the Pinto. Endowing the engine with an advanced, computer controlled fuel injection system and an intercooled turbocharger system helped push power output to 175 horsepower, fairly high for the time. In addition, a "fuel grade" switch was added to the dash, allowing the driver to adjust the vehicle's performance level depending on if premium or standard grade fuel was being used. A factory installed Hurst shifter was made standard in order to improve feel and quickness. With fine tuning and the addition of a new water-cooling system, power output rose to 200 horsepower (149 kW) for 1986 (205 horsepower (153 kW) for 439 85.5 SVOs). Also the 1986 SVO had new "aero" headlights. These headlights were designed for the 1984 model, but regulations would not allow them to be used until the mid-1985 update. The vehicle's standard Borg-Warner 5-speed manual transmission was updated then as well, receiving revised gearing to match the new 3:73 rear end ratio,

Some of the best economy cars made were in the early sixties with the Ford Falcon and the Chevy Nova....They didn't sell, so to speak...Customers wanted more hp, performance, etc., and weren't that interested in "economy"...

Interesting now how an I-4 Camaro is discussed and compared with the Pinto and other cars that were a "joke"...Hope that doesn't become the case with the new Camaro I-4, same breath as Honda, Hyundai, etc.. but as you can see, memories die hard...lol

I also can't help but think of the future horrors in these forums...lol...Once the ricer crowd starts with their intellectual input, and arguing with muscle car fans...God help us all...lol

If 4 cylinder turbo is so great, swap out your LS3 for one. You could easily fit it in there. If I get you the 4 will you give me that nasty 6.2 liter V8 from your SS?