[90503]

Originally Posted by SupportGeek

Not quite true, its been seen here for example, in this video with Michael Tung, drifting around.



It looks impressive, even though its just a 4 banger.
I definitely want to try one out when they are available, but I want the V8. Still, I bet its fun to throw around.

...Nice...Well at least there is one so far....Surprised it's not in camo....lol...

[SupportGeek]

Originally Posted by 90503

...Nice...Well at least there is one so far....Surprised it's not in camo....lol...

I gotta say, having a job drifting cars around all day would be great wouldn't it?

[90503]

Originally Posted by SupportGeek

I gotta say, having a job drifting cars around all day would be great wouldn't it?

I think they will sell like hot-cakes....I don't buy the "low-profit" argument...They will be identical to the V-6 except for the motor....and the V-6 is a whopping 1500 more?....There's plenty of profit in the T-4s....

[2000Firehawk]

Originally Posted by Number 3

You just described the V6.

A 2.0T higher than 300 HP is a hand grenade.

Hmmm... No
I've been beating on my, 350hp 2.0T automatic HHR SS , for 6 years now...
I drive it, like I stole it....
My last 2 passes down the quarter mile were back-to-back, 12.33 ETs,
with zero cool down, between those 2 runs...
30,000 miles, & no problems at all...

I'm torturing the 4t45e automatic, with 1.7 second 60' times, on slicks...

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2000Firehawk

Hmmm... No
I've been beating on my, 350hp 2.0T automatic HHR SS , for 6 years now...
I drive it, like I stole it....
My last 2 passes down the quarter mile were back-to-back, 12.33 ETs,
with zero cool down, between those 2 runs...
30,000 miles, & no problems at all...

I'm torturing the 4t45e automatic, with 1.7 second 60' times, on slicks...

Ummmmm yep. Guaranteed it wouldn't pass GM's durability tests. As I said, just because it lives for your driving doesn't make it durable. Just means yours ain't broke.

GM tried it and couldn't make it live. That's why the GMPP recall resulted in 295

[Boilermaker128]

Originally Posted by laborsmith

Doesn't need a tune but the correct short ram intake and by pass valve and you will have sufficient pssssh to turn heads. Of course, little or no power boost unless tuned, but definitely enough pssssh to make it worthwhile.

Laborsmith

I won't go back to BPV now that I've been BOV. It's simply amazing and gets a ton of attention. It would be my first mod once warranties up for the 2.0T. Really makes other drivers second guess themselves if they're acting cocky around you. And you won't feel the need to speed and spin tire to showoff when you can just blow off with a tiny bit of boost.

Originally Posted by Number 3

You just described the V6.

A 2.0T higher than 300 HP is a hand grenade.

No, Just no. As proven by the LNF's long ago. Plenty of 300WHP/350tq running around with 200,000km+(Me at 205,000). Its just a mild 91octane tune with an intake and downpipe. It's still extremely reliable. You have to worry when you get off the stock turbo.

[Davy_Baby9]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ummmmm yep. Guaranteed it wouldn't pass GM's durability tests. As I said, just because it lives for your driving doesn't make it durable. Just means yours ain't broke.

GM tried it and couldn't make it live. That's why the GMPP recall resulted in 295

GM sold Stage 1 kits for the LNF's back in the day that would raise the HP/TQ to well over 300 at the wheels, still under warranty.

[Davy_Baby9]

I bet the 4cyl outsells the v6 2-1, at least. Should make some decent power too. Not a bad deal for what the car will be capable of. Stage 1 tune, downpipe, intake, would make for a fun daily driver.

[Goblue1313]

Originally Posted by Number 3

It just removes a level of complexity from the initial launch. It's also an indicator that GM doesn't expect the I4 to be a huge seller. And it also probably fits with the ramp up to full production.

Oh, and it is likely the least profitable of the 3 engines so no real need to hurry on that, but that's more of a guess.

I think you may be off the mark on both of those points. If GM did not think the 2.0T would sell and sell well at that then why would they expend the extra capital in development and add the complexity to the production process if they couldn't sell enough 2.0T versions to recoup the expense? Also, how do you figure the 2.0T is less profitable than the V6? The engine has been developed and is CURRENTLY in production in multiple GM vehicles. This would make it the MORE profitable engine. The V6 is a brand new design that will be used in the Camaro and new 2016 Cadillacs but otherwise has not even made it to a dealership yet. Covering the cost of developing a brand new engine and having it produced in a limited volume (compared to the existing produced number of 2.0T) would make this a LESS profitable engine. It would make some sense then to try to tap into the initial sales surge that will come when the Gen6 hits the dealers to move more of the costlier V6s because there won't be any other choice on the low end of the Camaro price scale.

I believe profitability and it's better impact toward meeting the rising CAFE standards and positives weighing heavily in the 2.0T's favor. I love the bigger displacement engines as much as anyone else here but look at the car landscape and small displacement turbocharged engines are the direction all manufacturers are going. I think the 2.3EB and the 2.0T will become this generations small block V8's. Ford is betting on that and looks like GM will be right there with them.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Goblue1313

I think you may be off the mark on both of those points. If GM did not think the 2.0T would sell and sell well at that then why would they expend the extra capital in development and add the complexity to the production process if they couldn't sell enough 2.0T versions to recoup the expense? Also, how do you figure the 2.0T is less profitable than the V6? The engine has been developed and is CURRENTLY in production in multiple GM vehicles. This would make it the MORE profitable engine. The V6 is a brand new design that will be used in the Camaro and new 2016 Cadillacs but otherwise has not even made it to a dealership yet. Covering the cost of developing a brand new engine and having it produced in a limited volume (compared to the existing produced number of 2.0T) would make this a LESS profitable engine. It would make some sense then to try to tap into the initial sales surge that will come when the Gen6 hits the dealers to move more of the costlier V6s because there won't be any other choice on the low end of the Camaro price scale.

I believe profitability and it's better impact toward meeting the rising CAFE standards and positives weighing heavily in the 2.0T's favor. I love the bigger displacement engines as much as anyone else here but look at the car landscape and small displacement turbocharged engines are the direction all manufacturers are going. I think the 2.3EB and the 2.0T will become this generations small block V8's. Ford is betting on that and looks like GM will be right there with them.

You completely missed my point.

I said it was likely a less profitable model not a non profitable model. Also said it was likely going to be the lower volume model. But without the financials it's difficult to tell, but spidey sense tells me both are true.

It has nothing to do with getting the money back, they will. But GM will ramp up volumes through late fall into the winter. And if you are ramping up why ramp up with units that are even slightly less profitable.

Also keep in mind GM was well ahead of Ford in the 2.0T. GM had the first 4 cylinder DI turbo engine and beat Ford to market. Their stronger marketing gives people the idea GM was behind. They weren't.

I never said they wouldn't sell enough or they wouldn't recoup then investment. I merely stated the V6 and V8 models would be more popular and that is likely why GM would do the I4 slightly later.

If you had 3 engines and could launch 2 which 2 would you pick?

[2000Firehawk]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ummmmm yep. Guaranteed it wouldn't pass GM's durability tests. As I said, just because it lives for your driving doesn't make it durable. Just means yours ain't broke.

GM tried it and couldn't make it live. That's why the GMPP recall resulted in 295

https://zzperformance.com/ecotec/
ZZP has been at the fore front ,of the aftermarket GM 2.0T development, & has 'tested', the 'durabilily', limits.
I believe that they said that 600 hp ,is the limit, on the very 'robust', GM 2.0T.

There's a lot of 'head' room, in all engines.

[RenegadeSS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ummmmm yep. Guaranteed it wouldn't pass GM's durability tests. As I said, just because it lives for your driving doesn't make it durable. Just means yours ain't broke.

GM tried it and couldn't make it live. That's why the GMPP recall resulted in 295

We'll my cobalt SS\SC is putting down 378 to the wheel with 333 torque, and I drive it like I stole it also. The only problem I've ever had was my temp sensor going bad. I've owned it since new, and now have 127k on the clock. Still going strong. I also have the foam cast block, not the sand cast that his HHR\SS enjoys. Don't count out the LTG just yet.

[NASTY99Z28]

Originally Posted by Number 3

You just described the V6.

A 2.0T higher than 300 HP is a hand grenade.

No not really. There's a good gap in weight and probably balance with the t4 over the v6. A hand grenade? Really? Never knew that engine to come apart easy and at such low power levels. I'm pretty sure it'll live with bolt ons and more boost.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

I'm not sure we should make inferences about the durability of the LTG based on the LHU or LNF. It is an entirely new engine with a new block, rotocast heads and so on.