5th Gen 4cyl???

Not sure how much this has been talked about, but how do you think the Camaro would sell/be looked upon if its base engine was the 2.0L Turbo from the Solstice GXP? It fits perfectly in the spot where the V6 would go, 260hp and 260 lb/ft. Personally, im not advocating this, but it seems like it would give the base car a very different flavor than the base Mustang. Im just curious as to what the fuel economy would be with it hauling around 3600lbs or more of Camaro heft compared to 3100lbs or so of GXP heft

It's probably too expensive for a base car...

Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention price in that post. Yeah, it would probably be a little more expensive than a run of the mill V6, but maybe not if they are sharing the costs across the Solstice GXP, Aura Redline, and Camaro.

Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention price in that post. Yeah, it would probably be a little more expensive than a run of the mill V6, but maybe not if they are sharing the costs across the Solstice GXP, Aura Redline, and Camaro.

But what's the point? 99% of the people who buy base-model camaros won't even know what a turbo really is, much less need or want one over a HO V6 that makes equal or better power.

But what's the point? 99% of the people who buy base-model camaros won't even know what a turbo really is, much less need or want one over a HO V6 that makes equal or better power.

some people on this board have a very strange view of base car buyers.

Why would we even want to go down that road again with the Camaro? It was done once and I think it was a sad day for all muscle cars when Chevy and Ford put 4 cylinder engines in their pony cars.

It's not going to happen so speculating about it is kind of pointless.

I'd rather have 2 turbos on the V8!! :) :eek: :D

That would save me the dilemma on rather to sell my 2000 Twin Turbo SS or find somplace to store him for special occasions. I really hate the idea of selling the car. But garage will only accomadate so many vehicles.

Ah decisions, decisions.
:D

some people on this board have a very strange view of base car buyers.

Yes they certainly do.

Hey guys, do you think Chev might come out with a N/A rotary motor for the Camaro? Then have the option of adding a turbo? That might make sense.....

:irk:

Although cool, a turbo ecotec isnt feasible. Cost-wise and packaging-wise. An efficient, appropriately powered, quality V6 is exactly what the base car needs under the hood.

A rotary motor for the Camaro? I definitely think not, and as far as a 4 cylinder, I wouldn't be buying one of those. I'm buying a v-8 anyways, but I don't think many people would buy the 4 cylinder at all. Think about it, do you really want to hear a 5th gen camaro with a fart cannon on it? Because that's what you're asking for.

But what's the point? 99% of the people who buy base-model camaros won't even know what a turbo really is, much less need or want one over a HO V6 that makes equal or better power.

The point is, GMs V6 doesn't make more power than the 2L Turbo Ecotec. In fact, NONE of GM's V6s make more power than the Ecotec...not even the turbo V6. Weight savings, better gas mileage, better power makes sense - to some.

With that said however, I personally wouldn't be interested in a 4 banger Camaro. Even if the 4 banger made 300 hp. I don't know how the general public might react though.

At least it may help add appeal for the ricer crowd. What an interesting concept, you could have the Z28 SS and the Z28 Type R. Then you could have the rice vs. muscle car debate with the same car!

A turbo 4 would definitely be interesting. I would probably rather have one than a V6, but I'm not sure it would be the best way for GM to go.

Not sure how much this has been talked about, but how do you think the Camaro would sell/be looked upon if its base engine was the 2.0L Turbo from the Solstice GXP? It fits perfectly in the spot where the V6 would go, 260hp and 260 lb/ft. Personally, im not advocating this, but it seems like it would give the base car a very different flavor than the base Mustang. Im just curious as to what the fuel economy would be with it hauling around 3600lbs or more of Camaro heft compared to 3100lbs or so of GXP heft

Can't have an engine like that as base, and it's the wrong engine for a Camaro.

Beyond the price factor that's already mentioned, the purpose of a turbo is to produce more power in a smaller engine. There is no real advantage in fuel economy. This is great for a small lightweight Solstice where space and weight is at a premium, but miscast in a vehicle as large as a Camaro.

Ford had a turbo-4 in a Thunderbird in the 80s, and even it was a little miscast. Despite that this Thunderbird was far narrower and quite a bit lighter than the new Camaro will likely be.

dont forget the svo stangs....

Are you guys sure GM won't put a rotary motor in the new Camaro? I think this is something GM should seriously consider......

Are you guys sure GM won't put a rotary motor in the new Camaro? I think this is something GM should seriously consider......


You mean like the many Rotary Corvette Concepts that failed through the late 60s all the way to the early 80s?

There is no way they'll market a base Camaro that needs premium fuel.

Can't have an engine like that as base, and it's the wrong engine for a Camaro.

Beyond the price factor that's already mentioned, the purpose of a turbo is to produce more power in a smaller engine. There is no real advantage in fuel economy. This is great for a small lightweight Solstice where space and weight is at a premium, but miscast in a vehicle as large as a Camaro.

Ford had a turbo-4 in a Thunderbird in the 80s, and even it was a little miscast. Despite that this Thunderbird was far narrower and quite a bit lighter than the new Camaro will likely be.


Why not cast it against the 4cyl turbo mustang? It handled better then the GT but cost more.

UMM have any of you just thought about what it would be like to hear a camaro with a fart can on it?

Nooooooooooo. Can just imagine all the ricers talking about how they blew away a Camaro 4cyl. Cylinder deactivation is about as close at they get to 4cyl. Want an econobox? Go buy an Optima.

Nooooooooooo. Can just imagine all the ricers talking about how they blew away a Camaro 4cyl. Cylinder deactivation is about as close at they get to 4cyl. Want an econobox? Go buy an Optima.
The turbo four would perform close to if not better than the current V6's in stock form, and would likely be quite a bit quicker with a little money in mods.

The turbo four would perform close to if not better than the current V6's in stock form, and would likely be quite a bit quicker with a little money in mods.
Do I need to say this again? There is no way that the engine they choose for the base Camaro will require premium fuel.

Maybe I have to connect the dots for you? The turbo four you're recommending requires premium fuel, as do all the other turbo fours that make enough horsepower to be a viable option for GM to choose as the base Camaro engine.

Exactly.

Do I need to say this again? There is no way that the engine they choose for the base Camaro will require premium fuel.

Maybe I have to connect the dots for you? The turbo four you're recommending requires premium fuel, as do all the other turbo fours that make enough horsepower to be a viable option for GM to choose as the base Camaro engine.
Let me connect the dots for you.

03-16-2006 11:48 AM
A turbo 4 would definitely be interesting. I would probably rather have one than a V6, but I'm not sure it would be the best way for GM to go.
I'm sorry that was too subtle. I do not think the turbo Ecotec should be the base motor.

Nooooooooooo. Can just imagine all the ricers talking about how they blew away a Camaro 4cyl. Cylinder deactivation is about as close at they get to 4cyl. Want an econobox? Go buy an Optima.
There is a marked difference between a turbo four and a naturally aspirated one. This difference was pointed out in my next post:

The turbo four would perform close to if not better than the current V6's in stock form, and would likely be quite a bit quicker with a little money in mods.
All of which is likely to be true. And yet there is still no endorsement by me for the turbo Ecotec as the base motor.

Looking for a 4 banger, go buy a Cobalt.

What about a rotary?;)

A turbo 4 would make a lot of sense for those who want a very light front end (AutoX, poss road racers, drifters??). But, as interesting an engineering exercise as that would be, ain't gonna happen.

As a note to all those fart cannon comments, set it up so it sounds more like the SRT-4 motor, those tend to be deeper sounding with a lot of off throttle burbling.

What about a rotary?;)
Diesel. :)

Diesel. :)
Throw in a big turbo with the Alison 6 speed auto and you got yourself a deal, overseas at least.

So the turbo rotary base Camaro is going to be diesel? That is awesome!
I wonder how much hp it will make?

a v-tech rotary!

HAZ-Matt, I didn't mean for my post to be addressed directly at you -- I meant it for everyone.

A four-cylinder Camaro is a terrible idea at any trim level.

I am genuinely surprised that most people (not just on these boards) seem to have forgotten that there was a 4-banger Mustang in the 80's.

What about a rotary?;)

Yeah I think a rotary would be HOT. :D

HAZ-Matt, I didn't mean for my post to be addressed directly at you -- I meant it for everyone.

A four-cylinder Camaro is a terrible idea at any trim level.

I am genuinely surprised that most people (not just on these boards) seem to have forgotten that there was a 4-banger Mustang in the 80's.

It surprises that people have no clue about the Iron Duke F-bodies of the 80s either. :)

It surprises that people have no clue about the Iron Duke F-bodies of the 80s either. :)

Its probably best to forget about the Iron Duke's existence.

V6 owner bought for looks and style.

V8 owner bought for performance

It surprises that people have no clue about the Iron Duke F-bodies of the 80s either. :)
Well, I guess I have no clue. Care to fill me in?

Diesel. :)

Careful. After Audi kicked everyone else's butt at the Sebring 12-hour this weekend, performance diesels may be the wave of the future. ;)

V6 owner bought for looks and style.

V8 owner bought for performance

AND/OR V6 owners buy the base because its the cheapest and that is what they can afford.

It surprises that people have no clue about the Iron Duke F-bodies of the 80s either. :)
It's called "Selective Memory Syndrome" :shock: ...

Best regardSS,

Elie

My buddy had a 4-cylinder Firebird, 4-speed (manual), there is no way to accurately describe how much it sucked. 92 savage, tire-burning horsepower, simply underwhelming at any RPM. His car did not last very long, so it has been a long, long time since I have seen it, but I think it was an 83 or 84 model.

Yeah, I don't think they offered the 2.5L Iron Duke after 84, or 85... I'd have to go back to www.thirdgen.org and look up the numbers. But I think the server is still down... :(

There's also the small problem with that ecotec four GM has. It's about the noisiest blasted four since the Datsun B210. I mean, it really sounds crappy. I'd rather see a turbo six instead of a turbo four.

It just so ridiculous. A four in a 3500lb car. Thank goodness it'll never happen.

AND/OR V6 owners buy the base because its the cheapest and that is what they can afford.

Thank you.

A mass produced 6 cylinder would be much cheaper than a specialty motor like the turbo ecotech. And for the base car, you need to keep prices down to compete. That alone would probably scratch the possibility of a turbo 4.

Plus, Camaros heritage is with V6's and V8's. Lets try and keep it that way :)