[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Beehave

Or because they want some MPG's Maybe a Camaro Ghia..

Don't you mean Berlinetta?

[Beehave]

[QUOTE=fielderLS3;6413023]Don't you mean Berlinetta?

Yes....How true...Provided it has a landau roof, and T bars..... Who is Berlinetta?

[Beehave]

I discovered the meaning...I knew I liked it for some reason

"The original meaning for berlinetta in Italian is “little saloon”."

[trademaster]

More appropriate than the Mustang II



I'll say it again: A new 2.3-2.5 DI turbo in the Camaro could easily make more power than the current v6 with a broader torque curve. In a lighter chassis a 330-340hp I4 with a twin-scroll turbo making peak torque before 3,000rpm would be one fun little pup, would romp all over the v6 and would respond much better to modification. How that is a negative to some is beyond me; as if the sound of a v6 is some glorious song to be cherished and protected. Take your car to the local road course and see what some of the I4/H4 cars can do. You will be surprised.

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

....LOL, I guess,.... however the Corporate 4 turbo will get great fuel economy, and will be a nice base engine despite moronic commentary such as yours...., just sayin....

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by trademaster

More appropriate than the Mustang II



I'll say it again: A new 2.3-2.5 DI turbo in the Camaro could easily make more power than the current v6 with a broader torque curve. In a lighter chassis a 330-340hp I4 with a twin-scroll turbo making peak torque before 3,000rpm would be one fun little pup, would romp all over the v6 and would respond much better to modification. How that is a negative to some is beyond me; as if the sound of a v6 is some glorious song to be cherished and protected. Take your car to the local road course and see what some of the I4/H4 cars can do. You will be surprised.

You are being optimistic with 330-340hp, and on your displacement estimate. If it happens, it will most likely be a 2.0L in the 270 range or so, because the whole point of having this engine will be fuel economy, and a larger displacement, highly tuned version would defeat that purpose.

And yes, as others have said, an Evo and Subaru WRX are fast at the track...but those are $30-$40K cars. They are not comparable to a base Camaro, but to the Camaro SS, (both on price and fuel efficiency). If those engines really were that great, they wouldn't have to be in significantly smaller, lighter cars with significantly more dollars spent on the chassis, just to break even with the Camaro performance wise.

[trademaster]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

You are being optimistic with 330-340hp, and on your displacement estimate. If it happens, it will most likely be a 2.0L in the 270 range or so, because the whole point of having this engine will be fuel economy, and a larger displacement, highly tuned version would defeat that purpose.

Why is that optimistic? The Mustang is already confirmed to be getting a 2.3l so I can't see why we should assume the Camaro wouldn't see an engine of comparable displacement.

As for power, all roads point to the 2.3 in the Mustang making over 300HP since the same engine is anticipated to make over 320HP in the next Focus RS. Everyone is expecting over 300 from the ecoboost 4 so shouldn't we expect similar #s from GM? More power in a turbo engine doesn't necessarily mean less fuel efficiency in normal driving because when cruising the bypass valve is open and the car is out of boost. Until you get into boost, the tune for a given engine with a 16g and with a 30r will be almost identical despite the second doubling the power output of the first once in boost.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

And yes, as others have said, an Evo and Subaru WRX are fast at the track...but those are $30-$40K cars. They are not comparable to a base Camaro, but to the Camaro SS, (both on price and fuel efficiency). If those engines really were that great, they wouldn't have to be in significantly smaller, lighter cars with significantly more dollars spent on the chassis, just to break even with the Camaro performance wise.

The evo and wrx have poor fuel efficiency because they have full time all wheel drive with multiple differentials and their gearing is stupid short. That's also why those sedans are able to compete on track with much more powerful cars. Their engines are pretty outdated though, the Subaru motor has remained pretty much the same since before the 2005 Mustang was released and the first Transformers movie.

Look at the Hyundai Genesis turbo for gods sake, it gets 31mpg highway with a 274hp 2.0l turbo weighing in at 3,500lb and doesn't even utilize DI which would help in both output and efficiency. You don't think by 2015-2016 that Ford and GM will be able to top 300hp with DI turbo engines, probably with larger displacement? DI alone could bump that Hyundai engine to 300hp. HYUNDAI! I think you are underestimating GM and Ford big time.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by trademaster

Why is that optimistic? The Mustang is already confirmed to be getting a 2.3l so I can't see why we should assume the Camaro wouldn't see an engine of comparable displacement.

As for power, all roads point to the 2.3 in the Mustang making over 300HP since the same engine is anticipated to make over 320HP in the next Focus RS. Everyone is expecting over 300 from the ecoboost 4 so shouldn't we expect similar #s from GM? More power in a turbo engine doesn't necessarily mean less fuel efficiency in normal driving because when cruising the bypass valve is open and the car is out of boost. Until you get into boost, the tune for a given engine with a 16g and with a 30r will be almost identical despite the second doubling the power output of the first once in boost.

I would be surprised if the base Mustang put out 320hp from a turbo-4. The Focus RS may do it, but Focus RS hardware is not going to be hitting dealer lots at base Mustang price levels. So unless the performance:dollar ratio, the traditional selling point of the Mustang and Camaro for decades, is going to the wayside, I don't see it.

The efficiency problem I see with massive boost is it forces a lower compression ratio. That reduces efficiency. It also forces the use of premium gas, which itself is demanding more or a premium than it used to.

The main argument supporting replacing the V6 with this highly tuned turbo-4s is supposedly to save money by saving gas. But the problem is, they cost a lot more upfront, use about the same fuel, but with a higher per gallon cost, and a much higher potential of expensive repairs down the road, that all taken together, ends up costing the buyer a lot more while not offering a whole lot in return.

Just because something is more complex and expensive to produce does not mean it is better. Anyone can over engineer something with enough resources. Real engineering talent often means finding simpler and more cost effective solutions to problems.

Originally Posted by trademaster

Look at the Hyundai Genesis turbo for gods sake, it gets 31mpg highway with a 274hp 2.0l turbo weighing in at 3,500lb and doesn't even utilize DI which would help in both output and efficiency. You don't think by 2015-2016 that Ford and GM will be able to top 300hp with DI turbo engines, probably with larger displacement? DI alone could bump that Hyundai engine to 300hp. HYUNDAI! I think you are underestimating GM and Ford big time.

That Hyundai engine is direct injected, I thought. The N/A engines in most of Hyundai's cars are, why wouldn't the turbo be?

All I have to say about the Hyundai engine is this. First, the mileage number is suspect, given that this is the same company that is now sending gas cars to all of its recent customers for as long as they own their recent purchases after they got caught lying badly about their fuel economy numbers.

Second, that 2.0L turbo Hyundai engine has a record of significantly under-performing its power rating (For example, in a comparison about a year ago, a supposedly 274hp Sonota Turbo managed only a 7.5 0-60 and a quarter in the 15s en route to losing a drag race to a Camry Hybrid).

Third, what is so impressive about a 274hp engine getting a 31 mpg rating in a 3500 lb car? I can get 30 mpg on the interstate with a 412 hp engine in a 3600 lb car...without direct injection.

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by trademaster

More appropriate than the Mustang II



I'll say it again: A new 2.3-2.5 DI turbo in the Camaro could easily make more power than the current v6 with a broader torque curve. In a lighter chassis a 330-340hp I4 with a twin-scroll turbo making peak torque before 3,000rpm would be one fun little pup, would romp all over the v6 and would respond much better to modification. How that is a negative to some is beyond me; as if the sound of a v6 is some glorious song to be cherished and protected. Take your car to the local road course and see what some of the I4/H4 cars can do. You will be surprised.

You gonna switch out your Maserati for a chevy Spark? It's got a 4 banger!

[revychevy]

The Malibu and the Impala are both sporting these 4 cylinder engines. I'm not impressed. They don't run with Evo's. That's what the 4 cylinder Camaro will be. A slow grocery getter that pretends to be a Camaro. Might as well make it a hybrid while you're at it, and give it low rolling resistance tires

[90503]

A 4-cyl Camaro....I've watched and posted in this thread from day-one and think it's time for me to share my "deep thoughts" and current feelings on this "topic"...lol...

In light of the Z/28 debut....Performance themed auto-show recently...and that we are still in the 5thGen....I agree that an I-4 seems like a "what the hell could they be thinking" sort of thing...

Like many of you, I think an I-4 would be a disaster....in this Gen5 Camaro, that is...

I don't think there is any room for complaint that Chevy has not fully satisfied the desires of the modern muscle car era, in fact gone above and beyond with the ZL-1 and now an LS7 Z/28...The Gen5 line-up has expanded, not for the 4-cyl, grocery getter crowd, but instead for the performance, retro, enthusiast (hard-core and everyone else)....

We all hope this will continue into the 6thGen...and I'm sure it will, but perhaps not to the extent that we have seen with the 5th...What more can be done, really?

The 6th Gen will be on a different "plat-form"...I have come to believe, that an I-4 will "work" with that set-up...Should it be done?...Short answer, yes. It will not be a 5thGen car...This I think is what we have trouble getting our minds around, envisioning a 4cyl, that is in something other than what we drive now with the 5thGen...Chevy has not, and will not put a 4-cyl into the 5th Gen...No big news there, but overall, I think that the real "miracle" is that we have only seen power and performance increases with the 5th Gen in this day and age...That we haven't seen engine down-sizing is this gen is the real story, and that is more the exception than the rule...

I think it's a necessary move for Chevy and GM to include an I-4 in the next gen, with all the inevitable pressures that determine what types of cars must be built for the industry to even remain viable...

On the flip-side, wouldn't a car that could handle an I-4, be an awesome beast with a large V8 in it?...We will get that in the 6thGen as well...

...Maybe I'm getting mellow in my old age, but if Chevy comes out with an I-4 in the next gen, we really can't or shouldn't complain seeing what they did with the 5thGen...

"Have a Nice Day"....lol...

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by revychevy

You gonna switch out your Maserati for a chevy Spark? It's got a 4 banger!

I missed that....that's why he is biased toward the sound of an I-4....been driving a flat-plane V8 too long.

[Lee123]

Guess I'm getting mellow, too, because I sure don't care if they decide to make one. I wouldn't buy a Camaro with anything but a V8, but that's just me and if others want one they should make it.

A couple cars back I had a Mazda Speed3. It was a 264 HP Turbo 4 in a car that looked like a little Mazda 3 hatchback. It was a fun little car and pretty fast. But it was a LITTLE car. That same engine in my Camaro wouldn't be much fun.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Lee123

Guess I'm getting mellow, too, because I sure don't care if they decide to make one. I wouldn't buy a Camaro with anything but a V8, but that's just me and if others want one they should make it.

Would you care if offering the Turbo-4 meant a price increase on the V8?