Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
The fear isn't in the offering of a turbo-4 as base engine in addition to the V6, it is that it will be the only non SS, or ZL1 engine, with the V6 option going away entirely. Strictly on paper numbers aren't everything, particularly in this segment of cars. Many of us prefer the characteristics of N/A engines over turbo engines, and the sound of the 6 cylinder engine to that of the 4.
Furthermore, you'll never convince me that a turbo 4 will be anything more than roughly equally efficient as a V6, but for more money with an extra possible failure mode down the road. And if they offer both turbo 4 and V6, you'll never convince me that they won't raise the price of the V6 to make room for a more expensive turbo 4 beneath it.
PS...thanks for getting us back on topic...this was falling apart into a "complain about logistics of forum" thread for a while there.  |
I look at the ATS (hopefully the same underpinnings as the 6th-gen Camaro)...the specs show:
2.5 I4 (202 hp)...3315 lbs...22/33 mpg
2.0 T4 (272 hp)...3373 lbs...20/30 mpg
3.6 V6 (321 hp)...3461 lbs...18/26 mpg
Now - it is worth pointing out that the heavier V6 Camaro 2LS (designed expressly for maximizing fuel economy) has a mpg rating of 19/30. I don't know why there's such a large difference. But IMO...that could be taken to mean that Cadillac didn't squeeze as many miles per gallon out as they could have being luxury oriented, and that their V6 model is supposed to be performance, while ours (Camaro) is more for economy. Perhaps then, the 6th-gen Camaro (using the same engines and similar weights) COULD get 2-3mpg higher than a similarly-equipped ATS?
All speculation at this point - but as #3 pointed out, I think it's very clear that the tried-and-true GM 2.0L turbo 4 is more efficient than the high performance 3.6L V6.
By the way....where did this idea that the V6 would disappear come from?
In my dreams...I see a Turbo 4 LS, V6 LTs, and V8-powered SSs, Z28s, and ZL1s...If the current car was a little more aerodynamic and not as heavy, it might have already had a Turbo 4....But it wasn't designed for this option...
the Alpha platform was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Repeat warning - The Camaro has already had a 4 cylinder option. The Camaro has already had a crappy 145 HP base V8 engine and the optional engine went way up to 165. If there is a 4 cylinder so be it.
GM already learned the lesson of putting the 3.0 L V6 in a few cars and it was not well received. But the reason it wasn't well received you may ask? No better FE in the real world than the 3.6 L V6 which offered much better driveability.
If there is a 4 cyclinder then it will have to deliver real world FE noticeably better than a V6. If not it will bomb.
But I maintain there is room for a stylish RWD coupe with a 270 HP 4 cylinder engine AS LONG AS GM FIXES ALL THE KNOWN FAULTS OF THE CURRENT CAR. That means great visibility that isn't sacrificed for styling. Great trunk space and liftover that isn't compromised for styling and interior features and ergonomics that aren't sacrifice for $$$.
Rember why the 2002 model died? Anyone? Bueller? The base model sold like crap. It had a horrid V6 option. No trunk. It had horrid ergonomics and ingress/egress was maybe the worst thing since the C4 Corvette. What it had was T-tops and a decent V8 which just like today's car makes a lot of the compromises worth it.
If you don't have a GREAT base model the guys that think the Camaro is only a V8 will feel like you did around 2004.
|
We need to step away from our need for performance for just long enough to realize the importance of offering a really good inexpensive, economical, attractive, and "fun" (not necessarily fast) base model(s) for the masses.
The only point I think I might argue, 3...is that I think the design is what sells this 5th-generation car...if some compromises (stress "some") in visibility, or convenience are needed to achieve another awesome look...then that is a worth-while trade-off, imo.