There are rumors about a 2.0L Turbo Camaro, but it was also mentioned that this engine would cost more or as much as the 3.6L V6.

So could GMs new Direct injection 2.3L 4 cyl. be a worthy option?

• The engine is rumored to put out 208-230HP
• It would cut ~200lbs. from the V6 Camaro weight. This is based on the weight savings in the Saturn Aura when you step down to the 2.4L from the 3.6L.
• 33mpg - That is what the Malibu/Aura get out of the 2.4L. Those cars are 34xx lbs. but they also don't have direct injection.

This would make a great base engine for the Solstice coupe, but I'm not sure how it would sell in a Camaro. If you bought the I4 Camaro you are buying for looks and not performance. Then again the 1993-1995 Camaro only had a 160HP 3.4L

 

If you want to move 100k units a year, you damn right you need people who are buying for looks and not performance.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

That's not a bad option at all. A torquey direct injection 4 (especially if it is putting out 230HP) sounds good for a look-at-me cruiser. Especially since the 6 can't crack 30MPG highway. A 30+MPG, decent performing 4-cylinder Camaro would be fine.

People forget that third gens had an 88HP Iron Duke as the base engine when they were introed. And there were a LOT of them sold.

 

I think that engine is something GM definitely should consider.

Granted, I probably wouldn't buy it, but if GM is trying to attract new customers, that engine being available would help a lot.

 

Uh... not really. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe it was less than 5,000 a year for two years (three?) they were offered. Low power and lack of sales I believe are what killed the Iron Duke in a 3rd gen Camaro.

That is not to say that today's Ecotecs can't work. I agree that GM needs to consider a 4 cylinder Camaro. However it needs to be an entry level vehicle and it needs enough hp and torque to make the car at least "sporty". In that sense, as close to the 300hp of the 3.6L V6 is probably going to be necessary. After all, we don't want this car to be referred to as a Slomaro.

Going back to what I said in an earlier thread... start with the Camaro LS and offer a turbo 4 "tuner" package. Additionally, for this to succeed, I wouldn't make it available on the heavier convertible.

 

I fully support a 4-cylinder version of the Camaro, if the business case makes sense and if marketing doesn't feel like it will hurt the overall image of the car.

 

I would rather support the LNF then a regular 4cyl engine. This is still a performance car, and people will be looking at that. If you make a 4cyl car that you cant really mod, then I dont see the point. Modding will be a BIG part of the 4 and 6cyl cars IMO. While some people might want it for teh fuel econ, I think that having a LNF in there could easilly give people the performance satisfaction that they are looking for.
Not sure about teh weight loss vs the 3.6 when adding all the turbo equipment though.

 

I am all for it. Make it a compelling entry level package, with 200+ hp and 30+ MPG and I think that they will be a big seller, especially if you can keep them in the low 20's to start. The built in safety features of the F5 should help with the insurance rates, the killer for most young adults. The styling is there, what a great entry level opportuity to get the newest buying generation into a Chevy. A 4 cylinder Camaro with great gas mileage and equivalent horsepower to a v-6 Mustang!

 

I think the Camaro is just too heavy to get any decent mileage out of a 4 cylinder. It would probably be on par or worse than the 6 because the engine would always be taxed. The solstice can only get 30mpg with the turbo 4, add 6-700lb's more and I think that would just be too much strain for the motor. Plus a turbo 4 would need premium, unless we're just talking NA 4 cylinders.

 

Odd thing is the while the Solstice says "premium fuel", GM's mpg numbers for the HHR SS are based on "regular". Also keep in mind the Solstice only has a 5spd. I'm not suggesting that the 6spd will make up the difference, I'm just saying we really don't know.

 

smartest thing said in this thread.

 

Internal combustion engines are actually more efficient when they are running under load.

Not to say that a given engine uses less fuel on more load, all other things being equal... but a smaller engine running at a higher load will use less fuel than a larger engine running at a lower load to do the same amount of work.

 

Like the V6 Dodge Dakota rated 1mpg worse than the V8.

 

For a given output the smaller engine will have its throttle open wider reducing pumping losses. It will also have smaller oil & water pumps and reduced friction because it has fewer and/smaller cylinders.

The problem is that they not quite as fun to drive.