06-23-2014, 04:15 PM | #71 |
[COTW 1/6/14]
Drives: 2017 1LE Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Scott AFB/STL
Posts: 2,004
|
wait i thought they said there will NOT have a 4cylinder turbo...
|
06-23-2014, 04:26 PM | #72 | |
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06 Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,129
|
Quote:
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread |
|
06-23-2014, 05:01 PM | #73 |
Drives: 2019 ZL1 Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 488
|
An LT4 in a new ZL1 and I might be trading mine in. All depends on the interior room compared to the current car.
|
06-23-2014, 05:49 PM | #74 |
Drives: 2013 CRT 2SS/1LE; 2016 Colorado Z71 Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 648
|
I'm surprised at everyone hating on the 4-cylinder here...I mean, did you really think that GM wasn't going to add one for the 6th gen? Ford did it and GM has to respond...if they introduce a line-up with only the V6 and V8, then C&D, MT, and other outlets would jump all over GM for not having a more fuel-economic engine as an option. And it also allows for more high-end power in the Camaro, since it will raise the average MPG for the Camaro with the impending CAFE regulations. And so what if GM is adding it as an option? It's not like they're forcing everyone to buy a 4-cylinder...
We have enough in-fighting on this forum between the V8 and V6 crews, I'd really not like to see it get worse with the I4 crew coming in. Onto other topics: Someone mentioned the order of the engines before; I don't know if that necessarily has any correlation to their power. I just read them as increasing in number of cylinders/displacement: I4, V6, V8, SCV8. I wouldn't read into it too much as there's a chance Chevy will go the same route as Ford. We'll wait and see. My big thing from this is that the freakin' LT4 is apparently in the 2016 line-up! I was expecting the LT1 SS to be top-dog for a year before introducing a ZL1 successor. Now we get the chance to see a 650 HP, 650 lb-ft monster of a Camaro!
__________________
|
06-23-2014, 05:58 PM | #75 | |
|
Quote:
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
__________________
2010 Camaro 2SS/RS LS3
1093/1066 416, AGP 6262, E85, Cam |
|
06-23-2014, 06:01 PM | #76 | |
145lb Powerlifter
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Conshohocken, PA
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
The V6 fuel efficiency is below the CAFE standards, and the V6's outsell the V8's what, 5:1? Sales of Camaros would plummet in general because far less people are interested in buying a V8-only car ~$4/gal gas, not to mention the significant initial cost increase. With so many less Camaro's sold, it would benefit your "regulations" argument - which isn't an argument to begin with, it's a straw man. The fact is the less options that exist, the CHEAPER the car is to build. It doesn't matter if GM sells it for more - that is called margin. If GM introduces a 4 cylinder Camaro, one of two things will happen: 1.) The overall cost of the Camaro will INCREASE and GM will absorb the loss, taking a smaller margin to keep prices from increasing and keeping sales volume higher. 2.) The overall cost of the Camaro will INCREASE and GM will pass the increase costs onto the consumer, raising prices significantly. The truth will probably be somewhere in between - GM will probably take a smaller margin AND prices will increase a bit to the consumer in hopes that the 4 cylinder option increases volume sales, leading to a higher net profit due to a larger gross sales figure to tap into. Either way, introducing a whole new motor is increasing the production costs. 8% of $2 million is more profit than 10% of $1.5 million. If you're going to cut your margin, you better be able to make up for it in sales. IMO, a 4 cylinder Camaro is a big mistake because the increased sales will not cover the cost of R&D'ing a car that doesn't fit AT ALL. A turbo 4 banger does not belong in a muscle car, and I think the public will realize this.
__________________
|
|
06-23-2014, 06:06 PM | #77 | |
145lb Powerlifter
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Conshohocken, PA
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
I'm praying this is just BS and there will be no turbo option.
__________________
|
|
06-23-2014, 06:16 PM | #78 |
General Motors Aficionado
Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2020 Colorado Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 37,371
|
From what I understand, the turbo has been locked in and has been for months now.
__________________
2023 GMC Canyon Elevation 2020 Chevrolet Colorado W/T Extended Cab (State-issued) |
06-23-2014, 06:17 PM | #79 |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS 6MT Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Westchester, New York
Posts: 3,715
|
IMO they pushed the limit too far with the V6 engines, making them big to squeeze as much HP out as possible. They should have made a smaller, ~3.0L V6 from the get go with a single turbo. That would get great gas mileage and please the tuners. Way more power to be made out of a V6T than a Turbo 4. The current V6s engines are basically maxed out from the factory. Getting a V6 stock turbo means the manufacturer generally built redundancy strength in so there is a lot on the table.
|
06-23-2014, 06:17 PM | #80 | |
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6 Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
I totally think your instincts are RIGHT with the respect to the Camaro as it now exists... it's relatively big, heavy, muscle-car-ish kind of vehicle... and a 4 cylinder engine just seems wrong for it. BUT we're talking about the next Camaro, and I haven't seen it yet. If it's a smaller, lighter, sportier sorta car, then maybe it'll work. They say that the ATS 2.0T isn't half bad. If basically we're just talking about that with a Camaro skin, maybe it'll be a huge hit. Give 'em a chance. I'm not going to prejudge things at this point. |
|
06-23-2014, 06:19 PM | #81 | |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS 6MT Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Westchester, New York
Posts: 3,715
|
Quote:
|
|
06-23-2014, 06:25 PM | #82 |
Drives: 2010 ZR1 "Satan" Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Norco, CA
Posts: 1,183
|
News Flash!
Scientists have discovered that over 90% of car buyers don't know squat about engines. They do not want to open the hood, and do not care what is under it. Even Camaros. The following is NOT intended to be an insult, but... I drove a 2014 V6 Camaro on Saturday. If you think a turbo 4 sounds like ass, then you'll really hate the NA six-banger. It was fun to drive, and comfy, but that six didn't sound like a muscle car engine. More like farm machinery. YET... The base Camaro is the bread and butter. And always has been. If the base becomes a turbo four, the base will sell. It sounds better, but that's not why. Most people get plenty of power from all modern engines. The GM Ecotec turbo makes more power than most of the 454 ci Big Blocks did. Yes indeedy. And nobody was crying about how slow their 454 Chevelle was with it's whopping 235HP (1973). People are HAPPY with the Prius powertrain. Holy cow. And the Camry. Most people are buying a Mustang or Camaro for it's looks, and it's youthful image. It's only us crazys that think a Camaro with an automatic or sixbanger is a crime against nature.
__________________
2002 Z06 "Blue Meanie" 11.36 ET
2003 Z06 in progress 2009 CTS-V "Spooky" 12.36 ET, bone stock at 1600 mi. Rainy day in Sacramento. Sadness. 2010 ZR1 "Satan" no times yet. 2013 Volt SCCA Solo2 #771 HS3. And a bunch of Duramaxes. |
06-23-2014, 06:42 PM | #83 | ||
Drives: 2012 45th Anniversary SS Coupe Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 522
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-23-2014, 06:57 PM | #84 | |
Drives: 2010 ZR1 "Satan" Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Norco, CA
Posts: 1,183
|
Quote:
It's an upscale Chevy Volt with a tuning bump. I love my daughter's Chevy Volt. It will kick to the curb all the other pretenders. It violates a 2014 Prius so bad that you could be charged with rape. It puts up a pretty good show against a lot of FWD "performance" cars. With me at the helm, I was cutting about the same AutoX lap times with the Volt as I did with our CTS-V (556HP). Seriously. I'm not an expert, but I don't totally suck either. The ELR could have been SO GOOD. GM knows Electric. They KNOW 4-banger. But why they had to do that to the ELR is beyond comprehension. WHAT where they thinking? That a Luxury Volt would be a show stopper? ARE YOU HIGH???? They should have learned their lesson with the Cimarron. You can't sell an econobox to a Caddy buyer by dressing it up. To sell the ELR, all they had to do was to put the i4 Turbo in as the backup engine, and all would be OK. But to kill the Tesla, they needed to put a second traction motor in the rear. It would have increased the price about $15,000 to bump to i4 Turbo + 2nd traction motor, but it would have had 420++ HP. And killed the Tesla.
__________________
2002 Z06 "Blue Meanie" 11.36 ET
2003 Z06 in progress 2009 CTS-V "Spooky" 12.36 ET, bone stock at 1600 mi. Rainy day in Sacramento. Sadness. 2010 ZR1 "Satan" no times yet. 2013 Volt SCCA Solo2 #771 HS3. And a bunch of Duramaxes. |
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|