[HDRDTD]

I've said it before.

As long as it produces enough HP and Torque, I could care less about HOW they do it.

2-cyl, 3-cyl, 4cyl, 6-cyl, 8-cyl, AAA Batteries,
All of the above,
Or just a whole bunch of hampsters.

[Taintedveins]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

I've said it before.

As long as it produces enough HP and Torque, I could care less about HOW they do it.

2-cyl, 3-cyl, 4cyl, 6-cyl, 8-cyl, AAA Batteries,
All of the above,
Or just a whole bunch of hampsters.

Give me some watch batteries and a flux capacitor and i'm game >

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Lee123

If they put out a Camaro that gets 40 mpg it will be a completely different car than what we have. It would have to be about 2,000 pounds lighter for a start. And it's sure not going to have 300 HP unless they come up with some truly amazing new technology in the next couple of years.

I had a turbo 4 car that came with 263 HP, a Mazda Speed3. It was fun but it averaged about 20 MPG in a mix of city and highway. GM can no doubt build a car with a 300 HP turbo 4, or a car that gets 40 MPG but one car isn't going to have both.

Why would it need to be less than a ton? There's a handful of cars that are roughly 500 lbs lighter than the Camaro that get around 40 mpg on the highway, and then there are almost as many that are 1000-1500 lbs lighter that top out in the mid 30's. Weight doesn't factor into highway mileage very much. City is a different story, but at constant (or near constant) highway speeds weight only manifests itself as a component of rolling resistance, which itself is a fairly small part of the overall picture. Aerodynamic drag, engine efficiency, and gearing play much larger roles.


All that said, I don't believe that we'll see a 40 mpg Camaro until at least the 7th generation. I also don't believe we'll see a 300ish hp turbo 4 in the Camaro any time soon either. It would make far more sense to use an efficient little V6 in the Camaro than to use a turbo4. It would cost less (in terms of per-unit price as well as engineering costs), while giving similar performance (in both acceleration and fuel economy). I don't have a problem with 4 cylinder cars, but to me the only place for a high output turbo 4 is when it becomes too problematic to use a V6 (such as simplifying the engine lineup to 4 cylinder only). If there is going to be a V6 and a V8 anyways, I just don't see the point.

[SSGUNNER]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

You're right - all that's gonna happen -- just as soon as John, Cheryl, Al and I do a break-dance on Jefferson Avenue in front of the RenCen.......



Believe nothing that you read in the media about any next-gen Camaro......

(.......Hmmmmm......I think I've said THAT at least 17,000,232 times in the past.....---and I was right 17,000,231 times....)

Thank you sir. I dont believe that junk either.

[paultheman2007]

i am glad i got my v8 no way will i get a 6gen with a 4cyl turbo unless the car looks just blow me away. i always believed muscle cars should be 8cyls.

[need4spd]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I say take this with a grain of salt.

But I will say that I hope GM doesn't lose the V6 in the Camaro. Why not develop it just like the ATS which should be the same platform the next Camaro rides on. It already has a Turbo 4 and a V6, so why not offer that in the Camaro? V6 riding on that lighter platform with a modern transmission should easily be capable of low to mid 30s mpg on the highway. Not to mention also capable of mid to low 5 second 0 - 60 and mid to high 13s out of the box. Throw some simple bolt ons on there and you have a V6 that is nearing the capability of a modern SS L99

That leads me to my 2nd thought. 35mpg city and 45 highway on a turbo 4?????? No way will I believe it until I see it. There is no such thing as a turbo 4 with 300+ HP that can get close 40 combined mpg. If GM really can pull this off (and I don't think anyone can pull it off right now) well then props to them and I see why they'd offer a turbo 4 with those kinds of numbers. Holy geez...



...anyways GM if you are listening. Give us options. Let us pick a strung out 4, a strong 6, or the new 5.x liter DI V8.

why not a turbo v6.

[motorhead]

I generally only believe these things when I see TRAN post them. The rest is for entertainment value only. I can see this thread is no different.

[=Stephens=]

I think it would be a great idea, then my wife can have a Camaro with good gas mileage, not too much power and still have the great looks of a Camaro.

But seriously it would have to be an affordable price for someone to spend on a 4 cylinder. I don't really think they need to do that, Chevy already has plenty of 4 cylinder cars on the market as it is. Why tarnish the name of Camaro with a 4 cylinder?

[Lee123]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Why would it need to be less than a ton? There's a handful of cars that are roughly 500 lbs lighter than the Camaro that get around 40 mpg on the highway, and then there are almost as many that are 1000-1500 lbs lighter that top out in the mid 30's. Weight doesn't factor into highway mileage very much. City is a different story, but at constant (or near constant) highway speeds weight only manifests itself as a component of rolling resistance, which itself is a fairly small part of the overall picture. Aerodynamic drag, engine efficiency, and gearing play much larger roles.

You're right. I should have quoted the OP's statement more fully and written "34MPG in the city & 47MPG on the highway." Instead I averaged it out and just said 40. My point was, and still is, that any car that will get that gas mileage (the 34MPG in the city & 47MPG on the highway) will bear little resemblance to the Camaro we drive today.

[ShnOmac]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

Believe nothing that you read in the media about any next-gen Camaro......

Are you implying that the press would make things up just to sell media????

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Lee123

You're right. I should have quoted the OP's statement more fully and written "34MPG in the city & 47MPG on the highway." Instead I averaged it out and just said 40. My point was, and still is, that any car that will get that gas mileage (the 34MPG in the city & 47MPG on the highway) will bear little resemblance to the Camaro we drive today.

Ah, I had forgotten what the OP said. We're both guilty. And we both agree, more or less.

In that case ... 34/47 isn't happening as a Camaro windowsticker for a loooong time. It might hit that for CAFE calculations eventually (which are far more generous than the advertised number), but even then those sorts of numbers would put it in the same ball park as the Cruze Eco today. And for reference, the Cruze Eco is a fwd 'efficiency tuned' 1.4L turbo4 with an underbelly pan and active grill shutters to reduce high speed drag, reduced weight, taller gearing, and lower rolling resistance tires. Even if GM did that to the Camaro, the 'turbo4' that it has would be making roughly half the power claimed in the OP.

[Cam#7]

Originally Posted by meissen

Here's something about the 2013 Camaro you can believe - it's still going to be a 5th gen.

That's pure speculation and has not been confirmed !!!!!!

[jshaf]

soon as I read it I knew it wasn't true, there working on a twin turbo V6 engine, why develop such a great set up to not use it in the camaro?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

.........when Al, Cheryl, John, Meissen, and myself do a 'Rhumba' on Jefferson Avenue in front of the RenCen...........

It could be in 1 year, or 2 years, or 3 years from now, but you do realize that one day the information will ultimately have to come out and you will be obligated to start dancing.