Homepage Garage Wiki Register 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


AWE Tuning


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-16-2013, 08:22 PM   #631
mr02Z/28

 
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....
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 08:39 PM   #632
MikeT
 
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr02Z/28 View Post
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....
In theory, the alpha Camaro could weigh less than the ATS because a Cadillac presumably includes some "luxury stuff" like soundproofing materials that could be dispensed with in a non-luxury vehicle that will likely start with an MSRP of $10,000 less. On the other hand, perhaps the ATS uses some lightweight metals and parts that would be too expensive to put in a Camaro? I don't know. Maybe it'll more or less be a wash, and the ATS weight figures will basically be what we'll see in the Camaro.
MikeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:29 PM   #633
trademaster
 
Drives: 12 MP4-12C, 16 Quattroporte
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Working
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Explain to me how it won't happen, assuming the new 4 will be base. How does a turbo-4, which will be more expensive than the V6, enter the lineup and not affect V6 and V8 pricing.....unless the 4 will be an extra cost option.
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.
trademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:55 PM   #634
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
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.
The Ecoboost 4 is an added cost option over the V6 in the Taurus, Edge, and Explorer already. On the trim levels both are offered on, the 4 is a stand-alone option, not part of any particular option package. On the Edge, the 3.7L is unique to the low volume, top of the line Sport trim.

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)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 05:52 PM   #635
james347
 
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!!
Attached Images
 
james347 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 06:51 PM   #636
Palutz59
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.
Palutz59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:00 PM   #637
AmericanMuscleCars
Teenage Dream Camaro
 
AmericanMuscleCars's Avatar
 
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
AmericanMuscleCars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 12:04 AM   #638
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by james347 View Post
For power that's why.

I got a four cylinder being built none of you people want to mess with, bring it on!!
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)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 09:16 AM   #639
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
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...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 10:36 AM   #640
Beehave
 
Beehave's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Yellow/Black 2SS LS3
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Burl., ON.
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by james347 View Post
For power that's why.

I got a four cylinder being built none of you people want to mess with, bring it on!!
We are passionate about our motors!
Beehave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 12:27 PM   #641
james347
 
Drives: 2006 Crownline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: .
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Where are you getting four from? I count ten in that picture.
Sweet! More power!!!
james347 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 02:21 PM   #642
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
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?!
Well the original question was why would anyone want one. The reason would simply be they want Camaro style, handling and character with decent performance and better fuel economy.

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
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 03:26 PM   #643
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Well the original question was why would anyone want one. The reason would simply be they want Camaro style, handling and character with decent performance and better fuel economy.

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.

Yeah I think many responses in this thread are just way over-reacting. There will still be a V8 in the next gen, and thus, the Camaro image is not tarnished.

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!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 04:41 PM   #644
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Well the original question was why would anyone want one. The reason would simply be they want Camaro style, handling and character with decent performance and better fuel economy.

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.

Mid 70's and 80's Camaros (all American muscle at the time was fairly anemic due to the very same CAFE problems we are having now. And of course I know that those early slow catalytic converter having 145 HP sporting V8s don't compare to 4 bangers now.)

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...
revychevy 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 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.