Lutz: GM mulls 4-cylinder engine for new Camaro
03-19-2008 | 10:34 PM
#47
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,647
From: Jupiter, FL
03-19-2008 | 11:10 PM
#48
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,372
From: Kilgore TX 75662
I expect people to bash GM for trying to sell a 4 cylinder Camaro for more money than the V6 Mustang.
Somebody was wondering how much the V6 weighs compared to the V8? I'd have to say that the V8 is at least 1/3 heavier
I'm hoping that a direct injected V8 is available to go with the DI turbo 4 and V6.
Somebody was wondering how much the V6 weighs compared to the V8? I'd have to say that the V8 is at least 1/3 heavier
I'm hoping that a direct injected V8 is available to go with the DI turbo 4 and V6.
03-19-2008 | 11:57 PM
#49
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 873
From: Chicago Burbs
No thank you.. When there is a lighter Cobalt available that will go faster and get better fuel mileage with the same engine. Doesn't make sense at all to me...
If the V6 is going to get 25mpg on the highway, I am also no longer interested.. My LS1 does better than that.
This sounds like alot of mis-information and errors...
If the V6 is going to get 25mpg on the highway, I am also no longer interested.. My LS1 does better than that.
This sounds like alot of mis-information and errors...
03-20-2008 | 12:02 AM
#50
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
The Cadillac 3.6L DI motor is rated on 87 octane as far as I know, and the owners manual simply states "regular 87 octane or better." The non-DI motor manuals says something to the effect of run 87 octane for normal driving and 89 or better for performance or towing.
I don't think the Camaro would lose 44HP from the Caddy motor.
Anyway, I have some other thoughts on the article and a few questions. The mileage for the V6 does not seem very impressive to me. My 2000 3.8L was rated at 19/28 and was an auto. Anyone know what that would be in the new mileage standard? I think the manuals were 20/29. Also I do doubt that the turbo ecotec is going to be much different than the V6 in the real world, but it would be an interesting engine choice either way.
I agree with some of the concerns over the statements Lutz made, and I am slightly confused. Obviously the base car needs to have strong sales and should be the one that pays for the program, like in the Mustang sales model. But I am wondering how "premium" this base car is really supposed to end up being. Is the V6 Camaro now in competition with the 350Z and the Mustang GT? Or is it still below those but just a bit above the base Mustang?
I don't think the Camaro would lose 44HP from the Caddy motor.
Anyway, I have some other thoughts on the article and a few questions. The mileage for the V6 does not seem very impressive to me. My 2000 3.8L was rated at 19/28 and was an auto. Anyone know what that would be in the new mileage standard? I think the manuals were 20/29. Also I do doubt that the turbo ecotec is going to be much different than the V6 in the real world, but it would be an interesting engine choice either way.
I agree with some of the concerns over the statements Lutz made, and I am slightly confused. Obviously the base car needs to have strong sales and should be the one that pays for the program, like in the Mustang sales model. But I am wondering how "premium" this base car is really supposed to end up being. Is the V6 Camaro now in competition with the 350Z and the Mustang GT? Or is it still below those but just a bit above the base Mustang?
03-20-2008 | 12:28 AM
#53
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
From: Dallas
With them saying the V8 will have cylinder deactivation, I fear the V8 offered will be the L76 with 361hp that is in the G8 GT....
If you have not taken time to learn about the Turbo 4 cylinder in the Solstice/Sky, do so. It is one heck of an engine. and I'm a hardcore V8 guy.
For me, though....I pray that the top level Camaro will have the supercharged 6.2 found in the Caddy CTS-V for 2009....
If you have not taken time to learn about the Turbo 4 cylinder in the Solstice/Sky, do so. It is one heck of an engine. and I'm a hardcore V8 guy.
For me, though....I pray that the top level Camaro will have the supercharged 6.2 found in the Caddy CTS-V for 2009....
03-20-2008 | 01:10 AM
#56
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
The Camaro needs to be more than just a muscle car. These are different times than when the Camaro was conceived and served for 35 years it was never asked to be multi role vehicle. Now it will be. We will get our excess hp V8 and our standard issue V6 for the masses but there is no reason why the Camaro can't be a CAFE asset to GM over a liability. The 4 cyl offers a new direction and potential new sales for the Camaro while giving GM a potential break on CAFE requirements for everyone sold.
More sales means more development and more options for the Camaro. For those who want the top performance model to be a true beast. Sell base model cars by the thousands and the top model will be a more aggressive and the Camaro overall will be better.
More sales means more development and more options for the Camaro. For those who want the top performance model to be a true beast. Sell base model cars by the thousands and the top model will be a more aggressive and the Camaro overall will be better.
03-20-2008 | 01:18 AM
#58
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,381
honestly im ok with everything lutz said. a 4 cylinder camaro would be fine, expecially a turbo one pumping out more than the base v6 stang and charger.
base camaro: i4t, 260 hp $21k (mustang starts at 19,490)
RS: v6, 300-305 hp $25k
Z28: LS3 430 hp $30k
SS: LSA SC 500 hp $40k+
I dont know sounds reasonable to me. (please note that those are just random pull them out of my *** figures)
base camaro: i4t, 260 hp $21k (mustang starts at 19,490)
RS: v6, 300-305 hp $25k
Z28: LS3 430 hp $30k
SS: LSA SC 500 hp $40k+
I dont know sounds reasonable to me. (please note that those are just random pull them out of my *** figures)
Last edited by 0toinsanein5.4sec; 03-20-2008 at 01:24 AM.
03-20-2008 | 02:10 AM
#59
2010 Camaro Moderator/Disciple
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,087
From: Chester, NY
as posted in another thread =
CALM DOWN..........................
Until you've been inundated with the media (which isn't a bad thing....) you can't understand what happens during an 'interview'
.......a lot of what was said today was taken out of context.
We aren't completely stupid....the new Camaro MUST be priced competitively............
A premium could be as little as $50..................
4 cylinder?
Well........here's an interesting fact: The Federal government passed a LAW...but they have NOT written the rules...........so we know that we have to hit 35mpg as an average by 2020.........BUT --- no one knows the route -- or what the rules are...........
You can BET that EVERYONE in the industry is looking at alternative powertrains..........
Meanwhile........the 4 cylinder isn't in the 'official' plan at this point in time....so CALM DOWN....................
Until you've been inundated with the media (which isn't a bad thing....) you can't understand what happens during an 'interview'
.......a lot of what was said today was taken out of context.
We aren't completely stupid....the new Camaro MUST be priced competitively............
A premium could be as little as $50..................
4 cylinder?
Well........here's an interesting fact: The Federal government passed a LAW...but they have NOT written the rules...........so we know that we have to hit 35mpg as an average by 2020.........BUT --- no one knows the route -- or what the rules are...........
You can BET that EVERYONE in the industry is looking at alternative powertrains..........
Meanwhile........the 4 cylinder isn't in the 'official' plan at this point in time....so CALM DOWN....................
03-20-2008 | 03:02 AM
#60
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 238
From: Los Angeles, Ca
Wait a minute. I Just thought of something. Lutz said we would get a 300+ HP V6 and now is telling us we are going to get a 260 something HP camaro. This does not make any sense at all. If you look at it, the Traverse is getting 281 HP ! Something doesnt seem right. Can someone make something of this. I wish we could just call up Lutz and ask "Lutz, whats the deal ?" LOL