Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-2013, 11:51 AM   #785
shine2013
 
shine2013's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Memphis
Posts: 379
It's smart though. Opens up the car to a different demographic and with the right turbo the car will move pretty quickly. IMO 4 and 6 cylinder Camaros=sports cars. 8 cylinder Camaros=Muscle cars.

If you want GM to keep making a muscle car then be glad they're going this route.
shine2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 12:38 PM   #786
Airmaster
Go Gators!
 
Airmaster's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 Camaro and '97 Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 817
If GM can do something similar to what Mercedes has done with their turbo 4 there is NO reason why a 4 cylinder shouldn't be in the next Camaro....

355 horses and 332 lb-ft, and a hell of an exhaust note...

(Here's a random youtube video where you can hear the exhaust)



GM already has done 290 horses / 340 lb-ft with a manufacturer's tune in an otherwise stock Cobalt SS. Those numbers honestly make for a better option than our LFX.

Just look at a recent Motortrend article where the 2.0L CTS outruns the 3.6L CTS to 60 and through the 1/4 mile. All the while with a better exhaust note too... everyone knows our V6 doesn't have the greatest tone under exhaust.

2014 Cadillac CTS4 2.0T 2014 Cadillac CTS 3.6 2014 Cadillac CTS Vsport
BASE PRICE $46,025 $54,625 $59,995
PRICE AS TESTED $65,345 $67,470 $60,095
POWER (SAE NET) 272 hp @ 5500 rpm 321 hp @ 6800 rpm* 420 hp @ 5750 rpm*
TORQUE (SAE NET) 295 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm 275 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm* 430 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm*
ACCEL 0-60, MPH 6.0 sec 6.3 sec 4.4 sec
QUARTER MILE 14.5 sec @ 93.5 mph 14.7 sec @ 96.7 mph 12.8 sec @ 111.9 mph
BRAKING 60-0, MPH 115 ft 111 ft 98 ft
LATERAL ACCEL 0.81 g (avg) 0.85 g (avg) 0.94 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.8 sec @ 0.65 g (avg) 26.7 sec @ 0.66 g (avg) 24.7 sec @ 0.78 g (avg)
EPA ECON (CITY/HWY) 19/28 mpg 18/29 mpg 17/25 mpg
REAL MPG (CITY/HWY) 20/30 mpg 18/32 mpg 20/27 mpg
*SAE certified
__________________
Airmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 02:13 PM   #787
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkillsam View Post
The LS1 in a top-spec 01-02 Camaro/Trans Am was making 345HP/345TQ while more easily attainable models were still 325/335.

Compared with 278TQ for the 3.6 HF, not exactly a good comparison, thought I owned both 4TH gen V8 and 5TH gen V6, the V6 does pull almost as good thanks to the 6-speed auto.
And the LS6 made 405HP/405TQ.
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 02:49 PM   #788
walter78
 
walter78's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 RS (2LT) CRT w/ Blk Rally Strp
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 14
They could also use the 3.5L I5 w/ Turbo, but the cost would be close to the V6. I had a 04 Colorado, CAI, Flowmaster EX, & TB spacer (totaled Feb/2011). It ran great, sounded nice, and could keep its own against other V6s and some V8s who could not drive. Also got 22MPG city and 27HWY towing a 1700LB load from GA to KS in the summer running AC.
walter78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 05:43 PM   #789
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
IMO GM is doing it for European sales (since Europe doesn't like big displacement engines), but I think they'd have a lot more success putting the engine in a car built for small displacement TT.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 07:37 PM   #790
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LE...Drove: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 27,580
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
IMO GM is doing it for European sales (since Europe doesn't like big displacement engines), but I think they'd have a lot more success putting the engine in a car built for small displacement TT.
Just curious - do you consider the ATS Cadillac a "car built for small displacement"?
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Twice Before You Post.
...Anxiously waiting to order a silver "Z"...

Mr. Wyndham is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 07:51 PM   #791
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
Just curious - do you consider the ATS Cadillac a "car built for small displacement"?
Could be, I just don't know enough about it. I suppose you're making a point about the 2 cars sharing the same chassis.

The Camaro and the ATS aren't in the same market segment. IMO it passes strange that they would share the same power plant. I could see other (and good) cars sharing a 4 cylinder with the ATS, but a 4 cylinder Camaro seems as strange to me as a 4 door Camaro.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 07:57 PM   #792
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LE...Drove: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 27,580
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Could be, I just don't know enough about it. I suppose you're making a point about the 2 cars sharing the same chassis.

The Camaro and the ATS aren't in the same market segment. IMO it passes strange that they would share the same power plant. I could see other (and good) cars sharing a 4 cylinder with the ATS, but a 4 cylinder Camaro seems as strange to me as a 4 door Camaro.
Fair point.

That is the reason I asked. The engine can perform in a car as light as the ATS. It is possible the Camaro version would be a few pounds lighter still...they *could* position the 6th generation car with a turbocharged 4 cylinder against the likes of the scion/subaru car (brz/frs). If it looks good - it could do well in that market and swell the Camaro's repertoire without bastardizing its performance heritage.

There is some research indicating that a sizable portion of buyers actually hold a turbo four-banger in high regard as a sporty engine option....

Just food for thought...it's my opinion, only.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Twice Before You Post.
...Anxiously waiting to order a silver "Z"...

Mr. Wyndham is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 01:26 PM   #793
The_Blur
Rock Chalk
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: Demon Super Sport
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,687
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Could be, I just don't know enough about it. I suppose you're making a point about the 2 cars sharing the same chassis.

The Camaro and the ATS aren't in the same market segment. IMO it passes strange that they would share the same power plant. I could see other (and good) cars sharing a 4 cylinder with the ATS, but a 4 cylinder Camaro seems as strange to me as a 4 door Camaro.
It's certainly not unfair to see a 4-cylinder Camaro as strange. At one point, seeing anything above 4 cylinders was strange, and so was racing cars, and so now is making a move in the direction of small displacement.

It doesn't matter how many cylinders a car has. When we look at some of our beloved V8 Camaros, they put out as little as 140 hp—rating, not through the wheels—and they certainly weren't performers. Keeping that in mind, it stands to reason that any Camaro faster than those would be worthy of the name. Furthermore, we need to see numbers that don't deal with cylinders. No one cares if you drive a V8. How fast is it?

Now, let's look at how the Camaro fits into the performance market. Not all of these products are intended targets of the Camaro, but try thinking about it from the mindset of a company that wants to increase its market share. Adding competitive markets to the Camaro's repertoire could add significant appeal and increase market share. Some of the below categories may overlap in horsepower numbers, quarter mile times, or other qualities, and that is why they are lumped together.

Camaro ZL1 vs. Mustang GT500 vs. Challenger/Charger SRT8 vs. M5 vs. CTS-V vs. Porsche Panamera
Camaro 1LE vs. Mustang Boss 302
Camaro SS/Chevrolet SS vs. Mustang GT vs. Challenger/Charger R/T vs. 370Z vs. Genesis vs. Taurus SHO vs. M3 vs. CTS-Vsport
Camaro V6 vs. Mustang V6 vs. Challenger V6 vs. Genesis vs. CTS
no adequate GM rally-style 4-cylinder competitor vs. Lancer EVO vs. Impreza WRX STi
no adequate GM 4-cylinder performance coupe vs. BRZ/FR-S
no adequate GM 4-cylinder small RWD roadster vs. Miata vs. Z4
no adequate GM compact vs. Focus ST vs. Civic Si vs. tC vs. Mazdaspeed 3
no adequate GM subcompact vs. 500 Abarth vs. Cooper S

I could continue comparing cars and researching competitors, and I know some are missing, but why do that? I've made the point that GM has entirely neglected the 4-cylinder performance segment. The Sonic RS is a Sonic with a body kit, not a performance package. There is no Cruze SS. There is no Malibu SS or Impala SS, so the Taurus SHO is not facing adequate volume when competing with the overpriced Chevrolet SS. There's nothing to fight with the rally niche. In fact, nothing GM produces for the US market would succeed in WRC racing competitions, which is phenomenally disappointing given the success of the Cruze in European racing.

Internationally, GM does fairly well at least competing in 4-cylinder performance with the Cruze. Unfortunately, GM has entirely given up the "win Sunday, sell Monday" concept despite the competitiveness of its products.

In summary, any 4-cylinder Camaro on the lightweight Alpha platform is a perfect fit to compete in a different segment without interfering with the competitiveness of established trim levels. Instead of buying underperforming imports like the FR-S, this gives interested buyers the opportunity to purchase the better designed, better built, and better performing Camaro in a package that allows modest performance and fuel economy not previously available by a serious domestic RWD competitor.

Really, what's the harm in offering that?
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 04:03 PM   #794
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
IMO GM is doing it for European sales (since Europe doesn't like big displacement engines), but I think they'd have a lot more success putting the engine in a car built for small displacement TT.
A 4 cylinder will enable more sales in Europe (and Asia the bigger car market). However, our elected leaders have enacted a thing called CAFE. CAFE alone in the U.S. market is driving the 4 cylinders and hybrids.

By 2025, CAFE is well North of 50 mpg. And worse, the smaller cars footprint the higher the number.

By 2017, the Camaro has to be at 36.3 and the Corvette needs to hit 40 mpg. Anyone wonder why the C7 was saddled with AFM?

The Camaro isn't likely to hit 36.3 without a 4 cylinder. It's pretty much that simple.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 04:21 PM   #795
Coy
 
Coy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 1SS 1LE BVM
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 84
Glad the option will be there for people that want it, and I have no problems with GM doing what they have to to keep the Camaro or any of their performace cars around, but I am definitely not interested in purchasing a four cylinder performance car of any kind.
Coy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 04:39 PM   #796
OperativeXIV
 
OperativeXIV's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Summit White 2LT/RS
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
It's certainly not unfair to see a 4-cylinder Camaro as strange. At one point, seeing anything above 4 cylinders was strange, and so was racing cars, and so now is making a move in the direction of small displacement.

It doesn't matter how many cylinders a car has. When we look at some of our beloved V8 Camaros, they put out as little as 140 hp—rating, not through the wheels—and they certainly weren't performers. Keeping that in mind, it stands to reason that any Camaro faster than those would be worthy of the name. Furthermore, we need to see numbers that don't deal with cylinders. No one cares if you drive a V8. How fast is it?

Now, let's look at how the Camaro fits into the performance market. Not all of these products are intended targets of the Camaro, but try thinking about it from the mindset of a company that wants to increase its market share. Adding competitive markets to the Camaro's repertoire could add significant appeal and increase market share. Some of the below categories may overlap in horsepower numbers, quarter mile times, or other qualities, and that is why they are lumped together.

Camaro ZL1 vs. Mustang GT500 vs. Challenger/Charger SRT8 vs. M5 vs. CTS-V vs. Porsche Panamera
Camaro 1LE vs. Mustang Boss 302
Camaro SS/Chevrolet SS vs. Mustang GT vs. Challenger/Charger R/T vs. 370Z vs. Genesis vs. Taurus SHO vs. M3 vs. CTS-Vsport
Camaro V6 vs. Mustang V6 vs. Challenger V6 vs. Genesis vs. CTS
no adequate GM rally-style 4-cylinder competitor vs. Lancer EVO vs. Impreza WRX STi
no adequate GM 4-cylinder performance coupe vs. BRZ/FR-S
no adequate GM 4-cylinder small RWD roadster vs. Miata vs. Z4
no adequate GM compact vs. Focus ST vs. Civic Si vs. tC vs. Mazdaspeed 3
no adequate GM subcompact vs. 500 Abarth vs. Cooper S

I could continue comparing cars and researching competitors, and I know some are missing, but why do that? I've made the point that GM has entirely neglected the 4-cylinder performance segment. The Sonic RS is a Sonic with a body kit, not a performance package. There is no Cruze SS. There is no Malibu SS or Impala SS, so the Taurus SHO is not facing adequate volume when competing with the overpriced Chevrolet SS. There's nothing to fight with the rally niche. In fact, nothing GM produces for the US market would succeed in WRC racing competitions, which is phenomenally disappointing given the success of the Cruze in European racing.

Internationally, GM does fairly well at least competing in 4-cylinder performance with the Cruze. Unfortunately, GM has entirely given up the "win Sunday, sell Monday" concept despite the competitiveness of its products.

In summary, any 4-cylinder Camaro on the lightweight Alpha platform is a perfect fit to compete in a different segment without interfering with the competitiveness of established trim levels. Instead of buying underperforming imports like the FR-S, this gives interested buyers the opportunity to purchase the better designed, better built, and better performing Camaro in a package that allows modest performance and fuel economy not previously available by a serious domestic RWD competitor.

Really, what's the harm in offering that?
Excellent analysis! Doesn't trying to spread the Camaro through so many market niches - going all the way from sub $20,000 mini to a $78,000 Porsche, dilute the brand a bit though? I would think anything south of where you have the v6 Camaro listed would be more the territory of the Code 130R - just as likewise anything north of the ZL1 is Corvette territory.

-

I don't mind the idea of a V4 as long as it has reasonably good performance. If a V4 can put out comparable performance to a V6, then I don't see why there should be *too* much of an issue. That being said my next Camaro will probably be a V8...

Does adding a very fuel efficient V4 to the family mean that it can cover cars like the ZL1 as far as CAFE is concerned? I don't quite understand the technicalities of these regulations. If a V4 means that the Gen 6 ZL1 can still have a great V8 boosted to over 600 HP, then by all means please add them!
__________________
Yeah, the logo is off center. :/
OperativeXIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 08:21 PM   #797
Airmaster
Go Gators!
 
Airmaster's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 Camaro and '97 Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 817
^^It'd be an I4 not a V4. V4's are not commonly used in production cars.

But the rest of what you're saying I understand, a strong powered 4 cylinder could pretty much replace the V6, or at least supplant the normal V6 and allow for a turbo V6 to slot in between.

Regardless of it all, it NEEDS to be a performance 4 cylinder, not some naturally aspirated 2.5L making 200 horses (like what is in the ATS), needs to make well north of 250 to truly be considered.
__________________
Airmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:43 PM   #798
camaro-dreamer
 
camaro-dreamer's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Porsche 981S
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
no adequate GM rally-style 4-cylinder competitor vs. Lancer EVO vs. Impreza WRX STi
no adequate GM 4-cylinder performance coupe vs. BRZ/FR-S
no adequate GM 4-cylinder small RWD roadster vs. Miata vs. Z4
no adequate GM compact vs. Focus ST vs. Civic Si vs. tC vs. Mazdaspeed 3
no adequate GM subcompact vs. 500 Abarth vs. Cooper S
Most of those market segments sell far too few cars to justify the R&D expenses for GM to produce a new entry. The compact segment, on the other hand, needs to be an area where GM takes note. I would argue that they could populate that segment with an Opel Astra GTC OPC, not a camaro.
camaro-dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.