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 11-20-2013, 09:27 AM   #813
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
No, it won't. It will simply come down to CAFE. The V6 won't get the Camaro where it MUST be. Has little to do with what Al wants or what Al says to a bunch of enthusiasts.
Camaro fuel economy is going to improve due to the lighter body anyway. GM's never going to get the Camaro into the 37 mpg range and shouldn't try. They should sell sports versions of extremely fuel efficient cars instead.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 09:33 AM   #814
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 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Camaro fuel economy is going to improve due to the lighter body anyway. GM's never going to get the Camaro into the 37 mpg range and shouldn't try. They should sell sports versions of extremely fuel efficient cars instead.
Yes but so will the Mustang b/c it should be a tad lighter. My concern is not about MPG solely, but about comparing the two cars. I still want a good V6 but I'm not oblivous to the power a turbo 4 can produce.

What will GM say if they only offer a 6 but it isn't as quick nor as efficent as Ford's 2.3 turbo 4?? (I'm just making assumptions here...of course we don't know that for sure)

I do agree that trying to reach mid to upper 30s MPG is probably something that won't happen.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2013, 06:32 PM   #815
oklapike
 
oklapike's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 45th Anniversary SS Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
I wonder if Chevy is looking to offer a larger turbo 4 cylinder instead of the 2.0? I don't know what they would offer to compete with the Ford 2.3 engine.
I know I've mentioned it before (maybe even earlier in this thread), but I wouldn't mind seeing GM develop a turbo version of the 2.5L that's in the ATS, Malibu, and Impala.
oklapike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2013, 04:59 AM   #816
dgriddick
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro SS/RS
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Vriginia Beach
Posts: 338
Just plain wrong..
dgriddick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2013, 08:01 PM   #817
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,403
...Interesting that Ford went with an I-4 in their Mustang (and apparently have it "above" the V-6 in performance)...And the new Mustang came in "heavier" than many had anticipated...

...I'd say it would be a pretty safe bet Camaros will have an I-4, and a much lighter car to put it into with the 6th Gen...should be interesting...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2013, 11:29 AM   #818
Trekkie
 
Drives: Toyota Camry Hybrid
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 95
Send a message via ICQ to Trekkie Send a message via AIM to Trekkie Send a message via MSN to Trekkie Send a message via Yahoo to Trekkie
I know the V8 roars nice and loud but I've driven a number of 4 banger turbos over the last 15 years and prior to that I was probably pretty biased in favor of the big iron.

In a decently balanced car between weight + motor a four banger is a lot of fun, and there are a lot of people outside the US of A that love them. There's a lot less of us buying cars here in the US compared to the rest of the world too and they don't want big V8s.

Every time I go over to Europe I get mocked occasionally when they find out I'm american about our driving habits.

I give as good as I get though, when I remind them when they 'can't believe we drive' when I explain that every christmas I drive 2200 miles round trip at Christmas and ask them how far that takes them. They think 120 miles is a 'horribly long trip'.
Trekkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2013, 05:48 PM   #819
ChevyShark10
 
ChevyShark10's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LT "Desi" (CGM/black)
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: East TN
Posts: 87
The way they're building engines now an I4 Camaro doesn't seem too outta the picture. But us V6ers already take enough crap for not having the big boy... not too sure how a 4 banger would sell, even if it were turbo'd or whatnot. Doesn't sound very muscle-y lol.
ChevyShark10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2013, 06:20 PM   #820
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: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Camaro fuel economy is going to improve due to the lighter body anyway. GM's never going to get the Camaro into the 37 mpg range and shouldn't try. They should sell sports versions of extremely fuel efficient cars instead.
First, simply look at the FE of the wonderful ATS. It doesn't get better FE than the current Camaro with the same V6 engine. So not much there. City FE is impacted by mass, but aero takes over for highway.

And you are missing the point. GM doesn't get to chose to not meet 37 mpg they are required to meet 37 mpg as defined in the new regulations. That is the new CAFE law. OEMs no longer get to balance the fleet like they used to. It's based on the footprint of the car (wheelbase by track).
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2013, 08:34 PM   #821
annibal7
 
Drives: 2012 victory red 2ls
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: irwin pa
Posts: 11
Does anyone think it's funny that all of the people slamming us 6 cylinder camaro owners are forgetting one thing? Our modern day little six is putting out just as much horsepower if not more than V8 camaros of earlier years. I looked at an 8 myself, but thought it was pretty stupid to buy a V8 automatic with 400 horsepower for $40,000 plus when I could get a V6 for $25,000 with 323 horsepower stock and put a few mods on that to damn near hit that 400hp. Just saying...... And I saved myself 15 grand.
annibal7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2013, 08:44 PM   #822
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by annibal7 View Post
Does anyone think it's funny that all of the people slamming us 6 cylinder camaro owners are forgetting one thing? Our modern day little six is putting out just as much horsepower if not more than V8 camaros of earlier years. I looked at an 8 myself, but thought it was pretty stupid to buy a V8 automatic with 400 horsepower for $40,000 plus when I could get a V6 for $25,000 with 323 horsepower stock and put a few mods on that to damn near hit that 400hp. Just saying...... And I saved myself 15 grand.
Sorry a few mods (bolt ons) are not going to get you almost 400 HP. Also the v8 makes a lot more TORQUE! It's not just about a peak HP number.
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2013, 08:44 PM   #823
77rs
 
Drives: '13 SS/RS conv. RY
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Cape May County, N.J.
Posts: 521
My new '77 RS with the biggest motor (350) only put out maybe 170 horses! I thought it was powerful!!
77rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 02:31 PM   #824
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
And you are missing the point. GM doesn't get to chose to not meet 37 mpg they are required to meet 37 mpg as defined in the new regulations. That is the new CAFE law. OEMs no longer get to balance the fleet like they used to. It's based on the footprint of the car (wheelbase by track).
No, you're missing the point. No Camaro fan's looking forward to an economical Camaro. That's the government who is, not the fans. This is a fan site. Go to welcometogovernmentbullshit.gov and post on their forums if you're looking for a pat on the back for turning Camaros into Civics.

Same goes for FenwickHockey65. Both of you guys are trying to make us enjoy the epic BS coming down the pike in the car industry, and it's not going to happen.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 02:39 PM   #825
Tomash
 
Tomash's Avatar
 
Drives: (black 2SS Camaro), Suzuki SX4
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Poland
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by annibal7 View Post
Does anyone think it's funny that all of the people slamming us 6 cylinder camaro owners are forgetting one thing?
The only thing funny here is giving a damn about what other people think about the car you own and love.

I'm finalizing the process of buying my gen5 (the stars are right -- here in Europe it's an expensive car, available only in 2SS version) but I don't have any problems with people driving V6 versions. And I won't have a problem with people driving R4 Camaros. Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with hybrid (hope that word doesn't trigger banning here) Camaros, provided they still perform in the 300hp+ range.

Just because someone cares about fuel economy in their daily driver shouldn't condemn that person to buying a Civic or Corolla.
__________________
http://tomash.soup.io/ -- lots of awesomely funny stuff from all over the internets
http://tomash.wrug.eu/ -- personal homepage & techblog
Tomash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2013, 06:55 AM   #826
mickss

 
mickss's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro LS-M6 67 Chevelle Wgn
Join Date: May 2009
Location: .
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
No, you're missing the point. No Camaro fan's looking forward to an economical Camaro. That's the government who is, not the fans. This is a fan site. Go to welcometogovernmentbullshit.gov and post on their forums if you're looking for a pat on the back for turning Camaros into Civics.

Same goes for FenwickHockey65. Both of you guys are trying to make us enjoy the epic BS coming down the pike in the car industry, and it's not going to happen.
And your point would be what exactly? Number 3 and FenwickHockey65 are VERY knowledgeable car people and they are not given to "Epic BS" just facts as they stand. I understand your view of the Government and the EPA setting fuel standards but also understand too that fossil fuel supply as it stands today is also a matter of national security too. The worlds supply of fossil fuel is not unlimited, at some point it will diminish and be gone, but I suppose it`s live for today and screw the future, let the next generation worry about gas. If I can get performance and fuel economy I don`t care if it`s a 2,4,6,8 cylinder or hybrid. There are some on this forum who seem to believe that the V8 is the end all be all only engine that should be in the Camaro, well it`s not, there will come a time when that thinking will have to change, so enjoy what you have while you are able to.
mickss 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 03:41 PM.


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