04-16-2013, 08:22 PM | #631 |
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
|
I hope it doesn't weigh in @ 3,600lbs..... According to Cadillac's website on the ATS, which the 6th Gen Camaro will be based,,,, the 2.0L ATS weighs in @ 3,373... ATS 3.6L weighs in @ 3,461lbs... some i am hoping the 6th Gen weighs in at around 3,400lbs....if we are lucky maybe less....
One reason i think the base 6th Gen will have a Four banger is due to the fact of the much reduced weight... Maybe "optional" 4cyl or 6cyl motors as base.. I would love to see the New V-8 LT motor in a 3,400lb 6th Gen Camaro, that will be sweet.... |
04-16-2013, 08:39 PM | #632 | |
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6 Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
04-18-2013, 02:29 PM | #633 |
Drives: 12 MP4-12C, 16 Quattroporte Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Working
Posts: 707
|
How are you so sure that an ecoboost 4 would be more expensive than the v6 option they would offer? The cars you are referring to for which the Ecoboost is an added cost vs the v6 use the 3.5l duratec which is significantly older, less efficient and less expensive than the 3.7l duratec that is the base engine in the Mustang. The only car with both the 3.7 and 2.0t is the Edge and the 2.0t model is cheaper. They are different trim levels, so it isn't a direct drivetrain comparison, but it's still the only 3.7 vs 2.0t.
|
04-18-2013, 06:55 PM | #634 | |
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0 Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
|
Quote:
You are wrong about the 3.5L vs. 3.7L. Both are from the "cyclone" engine family that began to be phased in around 2007-2008, and are for the most part identical except for a small difference in bore, and both feature the same thoroughly modern technologies, like Ti-VCT. I think you are thinking of the Duratec 3.0L from the previous gen Fusion and Escape, 96-07 Taurus, and 05-07 Five Hundred, which was a completely different engine from the current V6s, and is no longer used in anything.
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive." . 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon) |
|
04-19-2013, 05:52 PM | #635 |
Drives: 2006 Crownline Join Date: May 2012
Location: .
Posts: 700
|
For power that's why.
I got a four cylinder being built none of you people want to mess with, bring it on!! |
04-19-2013, 06:51 PM | #636 |
Account Suspended
Drives: '14 1LE soon Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 59
|
I'm not a fan of this 4 cyl Camaro idea at all. Frankly there are plenty of cars on the market to fill that demand. A Camaro is a Camaro for a reason. Take the big engine out and it's not a Camaro anymore. Kind of like automatic transmission for muscle cars ... I don't get it.
I'll stick to the big engine so I can hear the purr. |
04-19-2013, 09:00 PM | #637 |
Teenage Dream Camaro
Drives: A Visually Stunning Camaro Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,722
|
The v8 is a four cylinder, until they engage, then it goes to all eight cylinders.
__________________
White shoes at the black show
|
04-20-2013, 12:04 AM | #638 |
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0 Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
|
Where are you getting four from? I count ten in that picture.
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive." . 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon) |
04-20-2013, 09:16 AM | #639 |
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
|
I'm starting to think this is entirely generated from the high revving ricer crowd who want the Camaro to be an Evo. It started out with everyone talking about mpg, like the proponents were all hankering for a hybrid or smart car version. Then it became the twin turbo HiPo torque monster version. (Which I don't believe will be any cheaper or get better mpg than a NA DI V6.)
The HP is about the same so why do it? Because Ford might? If your ford jumps off a bridge... They just made an LS7 Z/28 Camaro. The guys and gals on the design team of this car CARE what it is in keeping with its history. When I said what if they made a 4 banger Corvette, everyone said-- IMPOSSIBLE! That's different... This here is the best selling sports car in America in the last few years, why make a turbo 4 cylinder version that outperforms a V6 and approaches the V8 and change the image of the car from an American muscle icon to a ricey 4 cylinder grocery getter?!
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
|
04-20-2013, 10:36 AM | #640 |
Drives: 2010 Yellow/Black 2SS LS3 Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Burl., ON.
Posts: 249
|
|
04-20-2013, 12:27 PM | #641 |
Drives: 2006 Crownline Join Date: May 2012
Location: .
Posts: 700
|
|
04-20-2013, 02:21 PM | #642 | |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,213
|
Quote:
This thread has a lot of people reacting as if the question was "why would anyone want a Camaro if it only had a 4 cylinder". I agree, you will likely see V8s in Camaros in the "near" future. A lot of geopolitical crap and added government regulation beyond a 50+ MPG CAFE could easily change that though. But there have been a lot of Camaros sold over the years that didn't have a V-8 of any displacement. Some were even 4 cylinders. And frankly, someof the 6 cylinders weren't much to speak of either. 3.8L pushrod comes to mind. That didn't make them any less a Camaro. And keep in mind that the current 3.6L makes more HP than a lot of the old V8s. So the original question was NOT eliminating V8s. It was adding a 4 cyclinder to the choices. But I'm not sure you really mean a lower weight Camaro (if that happens) and a 270 to 300 HP Turbo charged 4 cylinder is a grocery getter. ANNNNND to keep beating the dying horse, I'm also sure you don't think any early 80's Camaro with any V8 choice available represents "American Muscle". At least I'm pretty sure you don't mean that. Cuz I remember the day when the Chevy Citation with the HO V6 was faster than a Camaro with that sweeeeeet 145 HP V8. Soooooooo let's ask this question, maybe a different thread. Who would want a 2.5 L Turbo charged V8 in their Camaro? Is it HP, displacement or simply the number of cylinders that make it a Camaro? It would probably rev to 8,000 rpm easily and simply extracting numbers in a linear fashion from the current 2.0L T should make a respectable 350 HP.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
04-20-2013, 03:26 PM | #643 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
Those who may want a V6 option should be the ones that worry...myself included. I feel that is the engine in most danger of not making a come back in this car.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
04-20-2013, 04:41 PM | #644 | |
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
|
Quote:
They also don't compare to DI V6s. I'm talking about now. No mid 70's engines compare to now, Priuses can beat some of them on a drag strip. It will be the same with us 50 years from now. I am not interested in or advocating comparing 4 bangers to engines almost 50 years ago, nor am I saying that only V8s are Camaros. It's just easier to discount me if you believe that. I owned a V6 prior to the SS and I am comparing V6's to 4 bangers. Modern DI V6's tuned for performance. What I said earlier is I think the Turbo 4 is NOT cheaper nor better mpg cost, and about the same power as a good NA DI V6. So tell me about that, not the condescending part about whether I think a HiPo turbo 4 in a light weight modern car with modern rubber and suspension could outrun an old 80's Iroc Camaro. As for what I believe is a grocery getter-- the I4 in the Impala and Malibu come to mind... Be careful what you wish for.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|