Q&A with Al Oppenheiser on turbo 4 cylinder Camaro

fradaj · 07-09-2015, 12:52 AM

Q&A with Al Oppenheiser on the 4 cylinder turbo Camaro

It was inevitable, the 2016 Chevy Camaro had to have a four-cylinder engine. The archrival Ford Mustang packs a spunky 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-banger, and everyone from BMW to Subaru uses four-cylinders to great effect to power their sports cars. Now it's Chevy's turn. Again.

The Camaro ran the infamous Iron Duke four-cylinder with 88 to 92 horsepower in the 1980s. It was a fuel-economy play at a time when performance was not a priority. After the 1970s muscle-car era, output even for the V8s didn't top 200 hp again until the mid-'80s. Thankfully for enthusiasts, things have changed dramatically in the last 30 years.

The gen six Camaro will offer a 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder with 275 horsepower. It's the standard engine, slotting below the 335-hp V6 and the 455-hp V8. But don't mistake the new I4 for an Iron Duke encore. Camaro chief engineer Al Oppenheiser called it a "rock star" and said cars equipped with it feel lighter than V6 models. The four-cylinder (295 pound-feet at 3,000-4,500 rpm) also summons more torque in quicker fashion than the V6 (284 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm). Chevy expects the Camaro to hit 60 miles per hour in "well under six seconds," according to press materials. The Mustang EcoBoost (310 hp, 320 lb-ft) clocks times in the low to mid five-second range.

"We're not doing it just so we have one," Oppenheiser said. "We're not doing it because like in gen three you're forced to do it because of fuel economy. We're doing it because it belongs in the car. It has a distinct character."

Speaking with Autoblog recently at the Detroit Grand Prix racecourse on Belle Isle, Oppenheiser said he expects the I4 to attract a younger crowd to the Camaro and will put up stiff competition against the V6 for sales. "I've read blogs where younger folks won't buy a Camaro because it doesn't have a 2.0-liter turbo or a turbocharged four-cylinder," he said. "So we're going to excite them."

While we talked a lot about four-cylinder engines, Oppenheiser also elaborated on the V6 (It's pretty damn good, too. We drove it.) and the new Alpha platform that the Camaro borrowed from Cadillac. Here's the rest of our edited conversation.

Autoblog: Talk a little bit about the four-cylinder – the first turbo four-cylinder ever for Camaro. Do you have any idea what the take rate's going to be?

Al Oppenheiser: I think it's going to surprise a lot of people. It's actually a fun car to drive. It's got a really good balance of turbo noise and exhaust note. We don't offer the valve exhaust on that because we didn't want to chase a turner-car sound. This is a more refined sixth gen. We wanted to make sure that there's a no-excuse four-cylinder. I've spent hours in it. It's kind of funny because I was misquoted a few years ago about as long as I'm the chief there'll never be a four-cylinder Camaro, which I never said, but it kind of took on this identity on the Internet. And so, now for me to say, this thing's a rock star – a four-cylinder – I can't wait till we get you guys to drive it. You feel a lot of power, 275 horses. But it feels lighter even than the six. It just feels more nimble. It's a no-compromises car because you can buy a four-cylinder, but you can do the trim levels and get the leather seats and get all the options.

We think there's a distinct four-cylinder customer. I think a segment of this four-cylinder buyer will be the kids that saw Bumblebee from day one and have grown up with four-cylinder cars like the Cruze and even HHRs and Cobalts. I've read blogs where younger folks won't buy a Camaro because it doesn't have a 2.0-liter turbo or a turbocharged four-cylinder. So we're going to excite them. I wouldn't be surprised if the four and the six battle each other for penetration into the segment in how many we'll sell.

AB: It sounds like you're trying to sell it on its merits.

AO: Absolutely. We're not doing it just so we have one. We're not doing it because like in gen three you're forced to do it because of fuel economy. We're doing it because it belongs in the car. It has a distinct character.

AB: Tell us about the new platform? Why did you decide to go with Alpha?

AO: We looked at the sixth-generation Camaro after the first year of the fifth-generation Camaro as part of the normal development process. The big thing for us is we wanted to take advantage of Alpha's structural efficiency, and the biggest thing is we're starting with at least a 200-pound weight reduction. We've got a chance to take what they've done so well with the Cadillac products (CTS, ATS) and make a Camaro out of it.

We wanted to take advantage of this lightweight, efficient, and structurally superior architecture. In a sense, remove the stigma of mass from the Camaro. I'll give you an interesting thought here: The Mustang went from solid axle to independent rear suspension. Engineers know that you're going to add about 150 pounds to do that. Just the physics of IRS. We go from fifth gen to sixth gen, still have IRS, but we have a 300-pound weight reduction on the V6 to the V6. So somehow we were able to do it.

AB: So the V6 to V6 is 300 pounds lighter?

AO: Yes. That's why we say more than 200 [pounds], because you've got to start talking about all of the models. So the V8, we say is over 200 [pounds lighter] to its predecessor. The V6 is actually closer to 300. It's just under 300 to its V6 predecessor.

Link to article:

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/08/2...r-oppenheiser/

ULTRAZLS1 · 07-09-2015, 01:32 AM

Very nice.

More confirmation of 200 lbs plus for ss and near 300 for the 4 and 6 models.

ilirg · 07-09-2015, 02:33 AM

Love it, can't wait to see what the haters have to say when the official weights are confirmed.

Z28sr2fast4yall · 07-09-2015, 07:08 AM

Oh man!! I can't wait!!! Over 200 lbs from the v8-v8... Gonna be a fun car to drive...

Waiting46 · 07-09-2015, 07:45 AM

Waiting for someone to try to say that it lost 200 lbs 2015 v8 to 2016 v6 again

IOMike · 07-09-2015, 09:26 AM

AB: So the V6 to V6 is 300 pounds lighter?

AO: Yes. That's why we say more than 200 [pounds], because you've got to start talking about all of the models. So the V8, we say is over 200 [pounds lighter] to its predecessor. The V6 is actually closer to 300. It's just under 300 to its V6 predecessor.

Crow has been served. Time to eat it (especially the Mustang fan boys).

FenwickHockey65 · 07-09-2015, 09:35 AM

Mustang6G will still find a way to spin this.

Iroc_Z28 · 07-09-2015, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Mustang6G will still find a way to spin this.

Happening as we speak

NASTY99Z28 · 07-09-2015, 10:10 AM

Well they did say over 300 and now its "closer" to 300 so that raises an eyebrow. At what point are they rounding up? 251lbs and up is closer since you round up past half way? Sorry but that isnt the same thing. If you wanna drop numbers than hit those numbers not wait a few months and say we we got close.

As for the v8 I'm still on the fence. I really hope they aren't comparing a bare bones v8 to a fully loaded v8. Then saying oh well we dropped 200lbs. Sorry but until we get a few scaled I'm gonna hold some doubt because let's face it GM has lied before. Hopefully my doubts are put to rest and GM is truthful.

AZCamaroFan · 07-09-2015, 10:20 AM

very interested to drive the 4 and 6

huggercamaro21 · 07-09-2015, 10:47 AM

Those guys at Mustang6 are talking about how its going to be heavier than the Mustang. That it will be 3,850 lbs. I can't wait until they release weight.

xgnxs · 07-09-2015, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28

Well they did say over 300 and now its "closer" to 300 so that raises an eyebrow. At what point are they rounding up? 251lbs and up is closer since you round up past half way? Sorry but that isnt the same thing. If you wanna drop numbers than hit those numbers not wait a few months and say we we got close.

As for the v8 I'm still on the fence. I really hope they aren't comparing a bare bones v8 to a fully loaded v8. Then saying oh well we dropped 200lbs. Sorry but until we get a few scaled I'm gonna hold some doubt because let's face it GM has lied before. Hopefully my doubts are put to rest and GM is truthful.

They always said at least 200. With the 4 and 6 they said closer to 300. The 4 is probably the closest to / more than 300. I don't know if they ever said more than 300. I, like many, have assumed that it's a "model-to-model" comparison. It would be real cheap to weigh a 5th gen fully loaded 2SS against a bare bones 6th gen 1SS. It's possible that's what they did, but I really doubt it. I fully expect a no option 6th gen 1SS to weigh at least 201 lbs less than a no option 5th gen 1SS. Once you start adding options and whatnot I'm not sure how that'll stack up. You can't compare a 6th gen SS with MRC to a 5th gen since no 5th gen SS was ever optioned with MRC.

Time will tell, but I don't think Chevy / GM is resorting to sneaky tactics to claim weight loss. People are just doubting because the mustang ended up gaining weight.

huggercamaro21 · 07-09-2015, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xgnxs

They always said at least 200. With the 4 and 6 they said closer to 300. The 4 is probably the closest to / more than 300. I don't know if they ever said more than 300. I, like many, have assumed that it's a "model-to-model" comparison. It would be real cheap to weigh a 5th gen fully loaded 2SS against a bare bones 6th gen 1SS. It's possible that's what they did, but I really doubt it. I fully expect a no option 6th gen 1SS to weigh at least 201 lbs less than a no option 5th gen 1SS. Once you start adding options and whatnot I'm not sure how that'll stack up. You can't compare a 6th gen SS with MRC to a 5th gen since no 5th gen SS was ever optioned with MRC.

Time will tell, but I don't think Chevy / GM is resorting to sneaky tactics to claim weight loss. People are just doubting because the mustang ended up gaining weight.

Nailed it. I can see a fully loaded 6th gen with MRC being 125ish pounds lighter than a fully loaded 5th gen. That MRC is heavy.

Curr · 07-09-2015, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASTY99Z28

As for the v8 I'm still on the fence. I really hope they aren't comparing a bare bones v8 to a fully loaded v8. Then saying oh well we dropped 200lbs. Sorry but until we get a few scaled I'm gonna hold some doubt because let's face it GM has lied before. Hopefully my doubts are put to rest and GM is truthful.

This is what worries me. Stripped out 16 1SS is 200lbs lighter than a fully optioned 15 2SS... I mean you'd think that would be an obvious thing NOT to do but stranger things...

07-09-2015, 12:52 AM	#1
fradaj Drives: RS Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Florida Posts: 1,037	Q&A with Al Oppenheiser on turbo 4 cylinder Camaro Q&A with Al Oppenheiser on the 4 cylinder turbo Camaro It was inevitable, the 2016 Chevy Camaro had to have a four-cylinder engine. The archrival Ford Mustang packs a spunky 2.3-liter EcoBoost four-banger, and everyone from BMW to Subaru uses four-cylinders to great effect to power their sports cars. Now it's Chevy's turn. Again. The Camaro ran the infamous Iron Duke four-cylinder with 88 to 92 horsepower in the 1980s. It was a fuel-economy play at a time when performance was not a priority. After the 1970s muscle-car era, output even for the V8s didn't top 200 hp again until the mid-'80s. Thankfully for enthusiasts, things have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The gen six Camaro will offer a 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder with 275 horsepower. It's the standard engine, slotting below the 335-hp V6 and the 455-hp V8. But don't mistake the new I4 for an Iron Duke encore. Camaro chief engineer Al Oppenheiser called it a "rock star" and said cars equipped with it feel lighter than V6 models. The four-cylinder (295 pound-feet at 3,000-4,500 rpm) also summons more torque in quicker fashion than the V6 (284 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm). Chevy expects the Camaro to hit 60 miles per hour in "well under six seconds," according to press materials. The Mustang EcoBoost (310 hp, 320 lb-ft) clocks times in the low to mid five-second range. "We're not doing it just so we have one," Oppenheiser said. "We're not doing it because like in gen three you're forced to do it because of fuel economy. We're doing it because it belongs in the car. It has a distinct character." Speaking with Autoblog recently at the Detroit Grand Prix racecourse on Belle Isle, Oppenheiser said he expects the I4 to attract a younger crowd to the Camaro and will put up stiff competition against the V6 for sales. "I've read blogs where younger folks won't buy a Camaro because it doesn't have a 2.0-liter turbo or a turbocharged four-cylinder," he said. "So we're going to excite them." While we talked a lot about four-cylinder engines, Oppenheiser also elaborated on the V6 (It's pretty damn good, too. We drove it.) and the new Alpha platform that the Camaro borrowed from Cadillac. Here's the rest of our edited conversation. Autoblog: Talk a little bit about the four-cylinder – the first turbo four-cylinder ever for Camaro. Do you have any idea what the take rate's going to be? Al Oppenheiser: I think it's going to surprise a lot of people. It's actually a fun car to drive. It's got a really good balance of turbo noise and exhaust note. We don't offer the valve exhaust on that because we didn't want to chase a turner-car sound. This is a more refined sixth gen. We wanted to make sure that there's a no-excuse four-cylinder. I've spent hours in it. It's kind of funny because I was misquoted a few years ago about as long as I'm the chief there'll never be a four-cylinder Camaro, which I never said, but it kind of took on this identity on the Internet. And so, now for me to say, this thing's a rock star – a four-cylinder – I can't wait till we get you guys to drive it. You feel a lot of power, 275 horses. But it feels lighter even than the six. It just feels more nimble. It's a no-compromises car because you can buy a four-cylinder, but you can do the trim levels and get the leather seats and get all the options. We think there's a distinct four-cylinder customer. I think a segment of this four-cylinder buyer will be the kids that saw Bumblebee from day one and have grown up with four-cylinder cars like the Cruze and even HHRs and Cobalts. I've read blogs where younger folks won't buy a Camaro because it doesn't have a 2.0-liter turbo or a turbocharged four-cylinder. So we're going to excite them. I wouldn't be surprised if the four and the six battle each other for penetration into the segment in how many we'll sell. AB: It sounds like you're trying to sell it on its merits. AO: Absolutely. We're not doing it just so we have one. We're not doing it because like in gen three you're forced to do it because of fuel economy. We're doing it because it belongs in the car. It has a distinct character. AB: Tell us about the new platform? Why did you decide to go with Alpha? AO: We looked at the sixth-generation Camaro after the first year of the fifth-generation Camaro as part of the normal development process. The big thing for us is we wanted to take advantage of Alpha's structural efficiency, and the biggest thing is we're starting with at least a 200-pound weight reduction. We've got a chance to take what they've done so well with the Cadillac products (CTS, ATS) and make a Camaro out of it. We wanted to take advantage of this lightweight, efficient, and structurally superior architecture. In a sense, remove the stigma of mass from the Camaro. I'll give you an interesting thought here: The Mustang went from solid axle to independent rear suspension. Engineers know that you're going to add about 150 pounds to do that. Just the physics of IRS. We go from fifth gen to sixth gen, still have IRS, but we have a 300-pound weight reduction on the V6 to the V6. So somehow we were able to do it. AB: So the V6 to V6 is 300 pounds lighter? AO: Yes. That's why we say more than 200 [pounds], because you've got to start talking about all of the models. So the V8, we say is over 200 [pounds lighter] to its predecessor. The V6 is actually closer to 300. It's just under 300 to its V6 predecessor. Link to article: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/08/2...r-oppenheiser/

07-09-2015, 07:08 AM	#4
Z28sr2fast4yall Drives: 83z,86z,90rs,91rs,92rs,94z,95rs,95z Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Nc Posts: 324	Oh man!! I can't wait!!! Over 200 lbs from the v8-v8... Gonna be a fun car to drive... __________________

07-09-2015, 09:35 AM	#7
FenwickHockey65 General Motors Aficionado Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2020 Colorado Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 37,371 View My Garage	Mustang6G will still find a way to spin this. __________________ 2023 GMC Canyon Elevation 2020 Chevrolet Colorado W/T Extended Cab (State-issued)

07-09-2015, 10:10 AM	#9
NASTY99Z28 Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9 Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Florida Posts: 1,277	Well they did say over 300 and now its "closer" to 300 so that raises an eyebrow. At what point are they rounding up? 251lbs and up is closer since you round up past half way? Sorry but that isnt the same thing. If you wanna drop numbers than hit those numbers not wait a few months and say we we got close. As for the v8 I'm still on the fence. I really hope they aren't comparing a bare bones v8 to a fully loaded v8. Then saying oh well we dropped 200lbs. Sorry but until we get a few scaled I'm gonna hold some doubt because let's face it GM has lied before. Hopefully my doubts are put to rest and GM is truthful. __________________ I like my woman like my milk shakes, THICK!!!!

07-09-2015, 01:32 AM	#2
ULTRAZLS1 Drives: 14 Silverado LTZ Z71, 16 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jackson, Michigan Posts: 4,407	Very nice. More confirmation of 200 lbs plus for ss and near 300 for the 4 and 6 models.

07-09-2015, 02:33 AM	#3
ilirg Drives: 2011 Camaro 2ss Join Date: May 2013 Location: nj Posts: 1,559	Love it, can't wait to see what the haters have to say when the official weights are confirmed.

07-09-2015, 07:45 AM	#5
Waiting46 Drives: 1981 silver corvette,Hyper Blue 2SS Join Date: May 2015 Location: Ohio Posts: 625	Waiting for someone to try to say that it lost 200 lbs 2015 v8 to 2016 v6 again

07-09-2015, 09:26 AM	#6
IOMike Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: MN Posts: 1,267	AB: So the V6 to V6 is 300 pounds lighter? AO: Yes. That's why we say more than 200 [pounds], because you've got to start talking about all of the models. So the V8, we say is over 200 [pounds lighter] to its predecessor. The V6 is actually closer to 300. It's just under 300 to its V6 predecessor. Crow has been served. Time to eat it (especially the Mustang fan boys).

07-09-2015, 10:20 AM	#10
AZCamaroFan Camaro6 2016-2018 Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix Posts: 18,450	very interested to drive the 4 and 6

07-09-2015, 10:47 AM	#11
huggercamaro21 Sales Manager for Chevy Drives: Tahoe RST Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 1,313	Those guys at Mustang6 are talking about how its going to be heavier than the Mustang. That it will be 3,850 lbs. I can't wait until they release weight.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password