07-29-2013, 04:06 PM | #729 |
Piss on economy! I know it's , but Bugatti has this nice little contender in production now...
1000+ hp and enough tourque to slow the rotation of the planet! http://www.caranddriver.com/photos-1...e-photo-370743
__________________
Live in peace but defend it...Embrace it but never take it for granted...
|
|
07-29-2013, 10:47 PM | #730 | |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong I had the GMPP kit in my Sky Redline. 290 in a sub 3000 pound car was pretty nice.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
07-29-2013, 10:59 PM | #731 |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
This guy.....in all complete seriousness.....would very much want a stout turbo 4 cylinder Camaro as a daily driver to replace the Cobalt. I can't think of very many "regular cars" that look half as good as Camaros do. That alone would sell me.
|
07-30-2013, 12:18 AM | #732 | |
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
|
Quote:
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
|
|
07-30-2013, 01:33 AM | #733 | |
Retired from Car mfrs....
Drives: 2LT RS/HR-V Join Date: May 2013
Location: /Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 10,048
|
Quote:
It's not all of a sudden in 2025, you'll have a 4 cyl in 5 years in the camaro....or less....v8s will be gone soon too.....just watch..... |
|
07-30-2013, 06:50 AM | #734 | |
corner barstool sitter
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
|
Quote:
Devil's advocate . . . the idea that 4 cylinder engines suffer lower amounts of internal friction losses benefits performance in addition to fuel economy. Roughly, more cylinders = more rings = more friction, as anybody who has ever paid attention while assembling an engine would be aware. Without looking at anything else (I know that'll be hard for more than a few folks here), what's not to like? Norm |
|
07-30-2013, 10:56 AM | #735 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
2.5L RWD / Auto – (3315/ 1503) 2.0 Turbo RWD / Auto – (3373/ 1530) 2.0 Turbo RWD / Man – (3403/ 1543) 2.0 Turbo AWD / Auto – (3543 / 1607) 3.6L RWD / Auto – (3461/ 1570) 3.6L AWD / Auto – (3629/ 1646) So with that in mind, I see no reason why a turbo Camaro shouldn't be in the 3,3xx range. also, the Camaro will likely be a bit more "stripped" than the Cadillac, so losing enough weight to get into the upper 3,200 lb range looks entirely possible to me. Now is the Camaro ends up riding on the longer Alpha wheelbase, well then it could end up being a bit heavier. Consider this: Lets say my numbers from above are correct. Doing basic mods like exhaust and such will drop another 25 to 50 lbs easy. A few other simple changes could have you at 3,200 lbs. Now, lets say the car is making 320 TQ (super easy for a turbo 4 banger even without tuning in many cases). Now you have a car with a ratio of 10lb per 1 foot lb of torque. Compare that to the 3,850 stock SS, which has a TQ ratio of about 9.1. Not too shabby.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) Last edited by KMPrenger; 07-30-2013 at 11:06 AM. |
|
07-30-2013, 09:26 PM | #736 | |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
Keep in mind the Z/28 only saves 100 pounds over the base car all in. The big weight save is compared to the other Z. And when you quoted 3200 I assumed you meant from GM. Also I believe the GMPP kit put the 2.0T at 290/320 so yes that is already achievable. Just have my doubts about the weight.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
07-30-2013, 09:32 PM | #737 |
Drives: 2012 45th Anniversary SS Coupe Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 522
|
If there's one thing the turbo four going into the new Camaro is not is a Prius engine. Right now, today, it makes 272 hp @ 5500 rpm and 260 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm (with a totally flat curve to 5500 rpm) in the ATS. I'd bet that by the time this engine makes it in the 6th gen Camaro that output will be in the neighborhood of 290 hp and 280 lb-ft. That output in a lighter car should easily beat the performance of the current V6.
|
07-31-2013, 10:19 AM | #738 |
Drives: 2014 1SS yellow 6spd Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: apple valley ca
Posts: 37
|
Interesting discussion, my first thought was the old iron duke 4 cyl found in early 80's camaros. I remember as a teenager first seeing one in the junkyard and being amazed that a camaro had a four cylinder in it of any sort. With today's engines and capabilities, I say why not though, like several others have mentioned.
|
07-31-2013, 10:43 AM | #739 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
2.0 Turbo RWD / Auto – (3373/ 1530) Yes I will agree with you that getting down to a flat 3,200 may be a stretch. But I feel getting into the high3,200 range from the factory is not. From there, the average modder will be able to drop 25 - 50 more lbs without even trying hard....more for the serious guys (but most serious guys go straight for the SS so we likely won't see many guys doing serious weight savings on the turbo 4 version...then again I could be wrong.) I have faith
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
07-31-2013, 10:56 AM | #740 |
Drives: 2013 RS M6 Join Date: May 2012
Location: Potomac Falls VA
Posts: 111
|
Look, I love V8's as much as the next guy, have owned so many, I am truly embarrassed to list all. However, I tire of the constant chest-pounding the SS crowd does on this, and other boards. When I had my 5.0, the Mustang mantra was, "go big, or go home"......here it's "if you want real power"....yada, yada.
I admit, one of the main reasons I bought the LFX was the technology/potency of the engine per cu/in, relative to mileage, cost, etc. The fact of the matter is engines will get smaller. They will have to create power with less fuel, less weight, and less pollution, period. Turbo's will become the norm. I have driven a few turbo cars (owned a Genesis coupe for a short time - not an example of a powerful turbo - but it was a decent car), and I think they are pretty nifty. I am quite happy with my smaller-motored Camaro, and think GM has given us a jewel of an engine. Technology wise, it excels, and is great platform. Dare I say, more advanced, and efficient than the V8. The turbo 4 they are planning on using will likely pick the ball up from there, and to be honest....I look forward to it. Maybe then the asinine responses such as "should have saved enough money to buy a V8" will stop. They don't resonate with old guys like me.....who BTW buy cash, and have not carried a car payment for decades. Bring on the 4's, 6's....hell whatever. Now, a Camaro with only e-drive might wierd me out a tad....but there are a few Tesla's in my neck, and I don't see anyone picking a fight. They are bad-a**.
__________________
2013 Black RS - M6 - Elite CC - K&N Typhoon Intake
|
07-31-2013, 05:30 PM | #741 |
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
|
2016 Camaro 2.0T weighing in @ 3,265lbs. (my guess)
2016 Camaro SS = 3,470lbs. (another guess) lol |
07-31-2013, 06:16 PM | #742 |
Account Suspended
Drives: #1 CAMARO FAN Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Rockford IL.
Posts: 656
|
I see no reason that chevy could not trim the weight down to a reasonable 3,000 lbs or less.
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|