[doc7000]

Originally Posted by Indydriver

Camaro Chief Engineer Al Oppenheiser is vehemently anti-4 cyl. The CAFE regs do not yet require it so why would Chevy deviate from the very successful formula of base six, SS V8 and supercharged ZL1??? I doubt we'll see a Z28 soon because the 505hp NA is going away.

Yea, the 2.0T is likely to go into the 2016 Camaro regardless.....

Honestly I can't think of a good enough reason why not to offer that engine in the 2016 Camaro. Sure Al isn't the biggest fan of putting a 2.0T I-4 engine in a Camaro however especially if the new car is light enough I think they will be passing up another demographic to add as Camaro customers.

We still do not know what the 2016 Camaro will weigh, however if they can make a 2.0T Camaro nearly as light as the ATS coupe it would be a monster of a vehicle.

[Indydriver]

Originally Posted by doc7000

Yea, the 2.0T is likely to go into the 2016 Camaro regardless.....

Honestly I can't think of a good enough reason why not to offer that engine in the 2016 Camaro. Sure Al isn't the biggest fan of putting a 2.0T I-4 engine in a Camaro however especially if the new car is light enough I think they will be passing up another demographic to add as Camaro customers.

We still do not know what the 2016 Camaro will weigh, however if they can make a 2.0T Camaro nearly as light as the ATS coupe it would be a monster of a vehicle.

It won't weigh as little as my 3150 lb Mazdaspeed3 with 263/280. So, it won't be as entertaining as that car. Plus, with an underpowered four cylinder car you get major power hits when you do things like turn on the a/c. I hate that. Is a T4 significantly cheaper than a V6? I doubt it. It will also get poor gas mileage because you'll have to lean on it hard to get that much mass moving. I just don't see it.

[trashmanssd]

the more I see the more I like. But you truly never know to you see it in person to true scale and texture.

[Burt]

Originally Posted by Indydriver

It won't weigh as little as my 3150 lb Mazdaspeed3 with 263/280. So, it won't be as entertaining as that car. Plus, with an underpowered four cylinder car you get major power hits when you do things like turn on the a/c. I hate that. Is a T4 significantly cheaper than a V6? I doubt it. It will also get poor gas mileage because you'll have to lean on it hard to get that much mass moving. I just don't see it.

You have to remember, the Camaro with a 2.0T will have much better balance and a lower cg than a Speed3, put power down Bette, and not torque steer. I've driven an ATS with the 2.0T and while it's no SS, it's not wanting for power. It should be a very entertaining car.

[ferrarimanf355]

I'd also imagine that GM wouldn't just leave the 2.0T as-is, they may have put in better internal components so that the boost can be increased a bit to get to 300 horsepower, and give tuners a better platform to start off with so GM can compete better with the Mustang EcoBoost.

[sjmautoprod]

Sure, because every tuner jumped on the V6.

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by ferrarimanf355

I'd also imagine that GM wouldn't just leave the 2.0T as-is, they may have put in better internal components so that the boost can be increased a bit to get to 300 horsepower, and give tuners a better platform to start off with so GM can compete better with the Mustang EcoBoost.

With the LGX making 335BHP I don't think that the 2.0T engine will be aimed at the ecoboost Mustang... although if they can push it to 300BHP roughly they can make a argument that it can beat the ecoboost Mustang even though you have a 335BHP V-6 model.

[Angrybird 12]

I am thinking if they do put the 2.0 in the Camaro it will be the standard engine in the LS models, maybe with a V6 option, and the V6 will be standard on the LT models.

[ferrarimanf355]

Originally Posted by doc7000

With the LGX making 335BHP I don't think that the 2.0T engine will be aimed at the ecoboost Mustang... although if they can push it to 300BHP roughly they can make a argument that it can beat the ecoboost Mustang even though you have a 335BHP V-6 model.

Well, the post above you says it all, the tuning options for the current V6 models aren't all that hot. It looks like mostly air intakes and exhausts, not much in the way of headers or forced induction.

Conversely, the tuning options for a turbo four could be great. Look at the EcoBoost Mustang, or any recent sport compact from Asian, European and/or American make.

If GM foregoes a turbo four for the new Camaro, I wonder if they have any tuning options on the table for the V6. After all, even though it would be nice if every Camaro had a V8, the reality says that the other engine options will make up a good portion of sales.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Indydriver

Camaro Chief Engineer Al Oppenheiser is vehemently anti-4 cyl. The CAFE regs do not yet require it so why would Chevy deviate from the very successful formula of base six, SS V8 and supercharged ZL1??? I doubt we'll see a Z28 soon because the 505hp NA is going away.

Is he, now? That's an awful bold statement...

I believe there is a difference between personal preference, and professional engineer...

Nevertheless - let's try to keep this discussion about the unveil event itself, as I'm sure there are plenty of other threads already going about the viability, probability, and likability of a turbo-4 Camaro...

[396ssrat]

What does it really matter which engine option is available? What's more important is which engine option is NOT available. If you don't like a 4 cylinder option don't buy it. Some folks buy the car simply based on style and the basic Camaro might be inviting to them. Some parents would happily buy the base car for their college going kid knowing they will be using it for transportation only.

[Fraxum]

Here is the big difference between the turbo 4 and a NA V6.

The Mustang Ecoboost with a tune, Tires, and a little lightening can run 11s. How would you do that with a NA V6? The Ecoboost is a step up from the NA V6. Recently I rented a BMW 528i and if you did not lift the hood you would never know the cylinder count. And even though the BMW was a big heavy car, it felt a little bit quick with a good torque spread and was showing over 30 MPG on the highway.

Just like Global Warming, the turbos are coming and already here.

[ferrarimanf355]

Yeah, didn't mean to derail the thread... sorry...

Visibility, well, since it's established that the design will be evolutionary according to spy shots, I'm assuming the blind spots will be the same. Does this mean that GM will get around this with tech features like blind spot assist, lane keep assist and parallel parking assist?

[doc7000]

Originally Posted by ferrarimanf355

Yeah, didn't mean to derail the thread... sorry...

Visibility, well, since it's established that the design will be evolutionary according to spy shots, I'm assuming the blind spots will be the same. Does this mean that GM will get around this with tech features like blind spot assist, lane keep assist and parallel parking assist?

visibility can be improved by shrinking the A pillar and B pillar.