Ever heard of IMO also known as in my opinion? Like it's already been said, there's a V8... LS3 or L99... why do they need a 4 cylinder or a 6 cylinder in a MUSCLE car when they have the V8?

IMO, some people want the looks of the "muscle car" but don't care about performance.
Some can have their v8s and the rest can have their smaller engines. Everyones happy.
Some people will argue that a real truck doesn't run on gas. Don't like a 4cyl, buy the v8.

a V6... fine... but a 4 cylinder... that's just dumb.

Z-28 = turbo 4 cylinder engine. I knew they were saving that nameplate for a reason. :sm0:

Bonanza7;5876150]The Solstice 2.0 turbo was a blast to drive. I got the NA version since I did not trust the turbo for longevity. I am a flight instructor, and fly far better turbos in the planes. They are not reliable. After talking to some owners who have had them for awhile, seems the 2.0 is pretty good. If they get rid of the fat, it might be a good alternative.[/QUOTE]

The hundreds of millions of miles driven by the diesel community (2 million of them attributed by my trucks) would beg to differ. Most turbo reliability issues occur when incompetent quack jobs install ridiculously shiny hair dryers which in turn transforms the turbo or block into an A.E.D. (Accidental Explosive Device):yikes:

What's your Camaro have in it, V6 or V8 ?

I don't have a Camaro, but it will have a V8. I hope that was an attempt at being funny.

One of my buddies would say that Camaro's are already turbo'd.. it's right here:

He pointed to the alternator on my friends G6 once and said it was a turbo :p

Times are changing and CAFE standards are only going to get tougher.

I just don't like the idea of a 4 Cylinder in a Muscle car, makes me think of a Cobalt or a Civic or something, not a Camaro.

I personally think Chevy might be shooting themselves in the foot with that one, but time will tell.

Because without the less expensive, less thirsty engines...there would be no V8 for the rest of us, because the car wouldn't exist. The old "muscle car", and even the old "pony car" boundaries are irrelevant today.

Simply put, the Camaro doesn't have the luxury of being a low-volume seller like the Corvette. It MUST sell...and the market has shifted to a group of performance buyers much more tolerant of 4 & 6 cylinders. It just so happens that these engines, combined with lower weight and better aerodynamics also increase fuel economy...and that plays to the companies desire to meet CAFE.

If it performs well (this isn't the 80s, and anyone not living under a rock should be able to accept that a 2.0T lighter Camaro WILL perform well...see ATS, Regal, Cobalt SS Turbo, Sky Redline, etc...)....looks good, and it appeals to the market, why the heck not? :D

IMVHO - if there's still the V8 option for those who want it (and there will be)...then there's really nothing to complain about. :thumbsup:



EDIT: I've said it for the better part of a year now - if you want to see how a xxxxxxxx - Camaro would perform...look no further than the Cadillac ATS. In this case, look at the 2.0T version that everyone's raving about, and that's in a sedan. ;)

Probably if they add a 4 cyl to the "line-up" of awesome-just-like-every other-car-on-the-road 6th Gen Camaro, he won't ever get one at all...lol

To make the car viable so those that want the V8 can get one. If the Camaro was limited in the 5th gen to just a V8 we would be lucky that it would make it for a 6th Gen.

I guess sometimes I forget to realize that there is a Corvette that only offers a V8 making the Camaro incapable of taking that position in the market :rolleyes:

That made no sense. If they made a 4 cyl, I would just not get the 4 cyl and I never said they're just like every other car on the road. troll fail?