[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Yup. Plus I'm puzzled by the simultaneous claims of better performance, MPG and price of the I4 over the V6. Apparently the I4 is magical, like unicorns or something.

I'm sure reality won't rain on that parade at all...

On the EPA cycle it is magical. Real world maybe not so much.

Mrs. Number 3's ATS with the 2.0T and AWD never gets much better than 27 or so on the highway........................of course that would be when I'm driving. but seriously, it will deliver better FE than the 3.6 V6 simply because when not boosted and cruising down the highway it is simply a 2 liter engine vs 3.6 liters.

[spikess581]

I do not understand people being upset at the option of a turbo 4 cylinder. The first gens had a straight 6 option, did that upset you also? If you do not like it do not buy it but let some one else make their own choice and be thankful that we can still get a big honking v-8 to play with!

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Number 3

On the EPA cycle it is magical. Real world maybe not so much.

Mrs. Number 3's ATS with the 2.0T and AWD never gets much better than 27 or so on the highway........................of course that would be when I'm driving. but seriously, it will deliver better FE than the 3.6 V6 simply because when not boosted and cruising down the highway it is simply a 2 liter engine vs 3.6 liters.

That of course is the magic of turbos. When you aren't using them you generally have the same FE as a NA engine with the same displacement.

Now, let's hear more details about the LGX. Is it going to have cylinder deactivation? Will it really be 3.6L? Any changes to the heads? There seems to be very little information available on this engine if they already have test mules using it.

[davidcroft]

Interesting that the TT V6 isn't in that lineup.

[*007]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Those of you claiming more Camaros somehow magically increases cost are missing the whole point. By offering marketable options, the idea is to attract sales outside the normal scope of Camaro sales. A muscle car may not normally attract import buyers, but a lightweight (Alpha) car with a boosted small displacement engine and aggressive styling will. That means that the Camaro will be able to sell to current buyers plus small displacement performance buyers. You already have Camaros or at least an interest which is why you're here. If you're commenting here, you don't have to agree. You're already a sold car.

I just want to suggest, possibly paraphrasing you, that many Camaro's are not bought as muscle cars, but as sporty cars.
At any rate, the boosted 4 cyl, if offered will be a good version (with the reduced weight car) in order to make MPG targets.
Also, its amazing that the TTV6 puts out the 435HP akin to the 1967 Corvette 427 big block Tri-powers too! Somehow it just seems like there may not be rating equivalence! It would be nice to drop a new TTV6 into an old 67 Vette and compare track times eh?

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by 1LE801

Stick with the LS3. Go on a diet! Gimme A Z28 with LEDs!

Why? LS3 is dead.

[v8]

I for one don't mind if they put a 4 cyl. in the new Camaro. I actually applaud the move if it can help with Cafe standards and help keep the price down on the V8 models.
I'm not interested in the 4 cyl. model, but if it makes the gen 6 cheaper for me to buy (V8 model) then I'm all for it.

Also if there is someone who really wants a 4 cyl. then why deny them?

[blake2010ss]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Why? LS3 is dead.

SS sedan.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by blake2010ss

SS sedan.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

SS is the last application for it and that's only because VF wasn't engineered for the LT-series.

LS3 is a dead man walking.

[blake2010ss]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

SS is the last application for it and that's only because VF wasn't engineered for the LT-series.

LS3 is a dead man walking.

I know... I was just being a technical smart ass lol. I agree an ls3 would be dumb...especially with what promise were seeing out of the lt1 in the stingray

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[shaffe]

I am kind of surprised by the amount of hate the I4 is getting. Now Ill try not to turn this into a Mustang thread, but the one Mustang forum I frequent, a surprising number of people there are very excited about the ecoboost in the mustang. Seems like they like idea of keeping their 5.0s or even the 3vs and getting the ecoboost as DD. I know a few guys have the focust ST with the 2.0 ecoboost and they love it. Love how it has just enough power and is sporty enough to be fun to drive while still giving decent MPGs, only problem is its wrong wheel drive. The ecoboost mustang would fix that.

[K1SSRSS]

4cyl Camaro

What is the 6cyl now going to be the SS, the LT1 the Z/28, and the LT4 the ZL1?

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by Number 3

On the EPA cycle it is magical. Real world maybe not so much.

Mrs. Number 3's ATS with the 2.0T and AWD never gets much better than 27 or so on the highway........................of course that would be when I'm driving. but seriously, it will deliver better FE than the 3.6 V6 simply because when not boosted and cruising down the highway it is simply a 2 liter engine vs 3.6 liters.

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

That of course is the magic of turbos. When you aren't using them you generally have the same FE as a NA engine with the same displacement.

Now, let's hear more details about the LGX. Is it going to have cylinder deactivation? Will it really be 3.6L? Any changes to the heads? There seems to be very little information available on this engine if they already have test mules using it.

Originally Posted by v8

I for one don't mind if they put a 4 cyl. in the new Camaro. I actually applaud the move if it can help with Cafe standards and help keep the price down on the V8 models.
I'm not interested in the 4 cyl. model, but if it makes the gen 6 cheaper for me to buy (V8 model) then I'm all for it.

Also if there is someone who really wants a 4 cyl. then why deny them?

As a proponent of the 4-cylinder Camaro's availability for a very long time, for the truly sensible reasons outlined (it IS an "EPA-dyno darling"), it also mirrors the realities of the modern worldwide market-ability of this car against its number 1 competitor...

Reason vs. emotion: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275580

I am confident Jamie Mayer and the good folks @ Chevrolet Performance Parts have (and will continue to develop) phased levels of performance upgrades (for those so inclined). I am sure those few with firsthand experience with Sky Redlines and Solstice GXPs, augmented with said upgrades, can fully assure you of "suitable performance".

For the rest of us testosterone-seeking V8ers, no expensive underarm supplements will be required when the somewhat-lighter LT1 and LT4 versions arrive at YourTown Motors, fall-'15 or so. And who knows what other surprizes for us performance-seeking Camaro comrades will await, as the Gen-6 moves forward...briskly and confidently!

BTW, this astute sharing from someone "in the know", 18 months ago, right here on camaro5 (no names to protect the inspired/engaged/knowledgeable):

"Actually one of the issues in early 5th Gen Camaro production was the higher than expected V8 sales. The percentage of fully loaded Camaro SS sales were much higher than anticipated. This has evened out a bit as the model years have passed. But it gave GM a new understanding of the Camaro market. Especially after a lot of work and planning went in to making the V6 and base models better cars that they were in generations past in an effort to bring in more kinds of buyers.

The key to the success of this Camaro and a reason why it got produced was the ability for GM to make higher profits on the base models and all models as lower production numbers. GM doesn't need to sell 100k Camaros just to turn a profit like the 3rd or 4th Gen were planned.

So unlike in generations past the base models are profitable and thus the necessity of large production isn't necessary. This business model allows for GM to expand the lineup and include a turbo 4 cyl or 2 V6's to keep the entry level costs into Camaro more attractive to younger buyers. A smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient Camaro helps with buyers and CAFE.

Camaro can't survive on V8 sales to smaller demographics. This will even be less the case in 6th Gen."

Believe this man...I doubted his "insight" into the Z/28, to my true-but-previously-unspoken regret...

.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by ztwentypoop

The things people, and a Federal regulations are demanding cars being built in the future are adding weight each generation. Unless GM goes down the road of using lighter/exotic materials, I would expect there [NOT] to be a big weight difference between the 5th and 6th generations. If there is, it's likely to cost the consumer more to get it.

What you're missing (or at least refusing to acknowledge) is that Alpha (regardless of which EXACT size the Camaro utilizes) is LIGHTER, inch-for-inch, than the previous Zeta-based platform. If the Camaro is ATS-sized exactly, it will weigh very close to what a '15 ATS Coupe weighs, engine-for-engine. Adding an LT1 to a V6 ATS Coupe WILL add some weight, perhaps as much as 200 lb. Perhaps less than that.

If the Camaro is slightly wider, and an inch or 3 longer, it'll weigh a few pounds more than an ATS. But it WILL weigh less than a CTS-versioned Alpha.

Which means the Camaro will weigh within pounds, either side, of the S550 Mustangs. Maybe less. Maybe the same. Probably no more.

Which means the Gen-6 Camaro, in ALL variants, will weigh LESS than current '14 Gen-5 Camaros.

FACT.

If it's some consolation for the Ford folks, out there, GM already did the heavy lifting (no pun) when they utilized the Zeta-based platform for the Gen-5 "Camaro-lac". IRS being the large weight-gainer. But "Camaro-lac" as a Z/28 is a pretty proficient car, no?

Camaro was NOT based on a cheap economy car, band aided into a sporty car. Never used a Chevy II platform. Gen-2 Nova was designed from Camaro, not the other way around. No Fairmont to Fox with. No Falcons to pluck feathers from...

Camaro has been the highlighted car. It's GREAT to see, now, that "sharing" with a world-class Alpha-based platform is ONLY a "good thing". Just as your Mustang will share its skeleton with Lincoln...which has been the plan for a long while...