NEWS: Dual-mode muscle car? GM may develop hybrid Camaro

Filed under: Coupes (http://www.autoblog.com/category/coupes/), Green (http://www.autoblog.com/category/green/), Cadillac (http://www.autoblog.com/category/cadillac/), Chevrolet (http://www.autoblog.com/category/chevrolet/), GM (http://www.autoblog.com/category/gm/), Pontiac (http://www.autoblog.com/category/pontiac/)
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/02/camaro_front_450-op.jpg (http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=759)

Buried at the end of an article from The Car Connection that discusses the future of General Motors' rear-wheel-drive expansion (or lack thereof) was an interesting canard. In an effort to lower the General's CAFE rating, GM has supposedly assembled a team to outfit the new Camaro with the automaker's dual-mode hybrid drivetrain. The rational behind outfitting a Camaro with a hybrid system might be sound from a fuel-economy standpoint, but offering a fuel-sipping pony car seems like the antithesis of what a muscle-bound coupe is all about.

The article goes on to say that our new CAFE standards have all but killed GM's planned RWD cars, and because the platform underpinning the Camaro was supposed to be utilized on these other vehicles, its costs can't be kept in check. That's likely going to cause the V8 Camaro's sticker to be higher than anticipated -- possibly encroaching on Corvette territory.

Both the Camaro and the Pontiac G8 will live on, but everything else is likely off the table. Rear-wheel-drive Chevys and Buicks are dead in the water, but Cadillac will soldier on with a RWD vehicle to compete in the ultra-luxury segment.

Gallery: Chevy Camaro Concept
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/12/x06cc_ch097_thumbnail.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/chevy-camaro-concept/120118/)http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/12/x06cc_ch089_thumbnail.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/chevy-camaro-concept/120117/)http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/12/x06cc_ch090_thumbnail.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/chevy-camaro-concept/120116/)http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/12/x06cc_ch094_thumbnail.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/chevy-camaro-concept/120115/)http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/12/x06cc_ch095_thumbnail.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/chevy-camaro-concept/120114/)

Read | Permalink (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/04/dual-mode-camaro-gm-rumored-to-be-developing-hybrid-pony-car/) | Email this (http://www.autoblog.com/forward/1105598/) | Comments (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/04/dual-mode-camaro-gm-rumored-to-be-developing-hybrid-pony-car/#comments)


More... (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/04/dual-mode-camaro-gm-rumored-to-be-developing-hybrid-pony-car/)

Super. Let's up the corporate tax and finish GM off. Ugh.

The author (I assume the Car Connection) of this offers a bunch of speculative garbage. No one is going to pay a corvette price for a v8 camaro. Why not just buy the corvette. GM developed this architecture and the US congress screwed them over. That is just the way business goes. They aren't going to sell any camaros if they jack up the prices to cover all architecture costs.

A hybrid option package would be a good way to extend the new Camaro's reach in the marketplace. Hybrids can be designed to offer lively performance. A V6 hybrid Camaro would appeal to quite a few ecology-minded buyers.

Ok I just do not undrestand something. What does the CAFE standard have to do with RWD cars. Why does increasing the gas milage kill RWD cars?????


Reb

ecology-minded

I don't think that's the word you wanted to use. :think:

:)

Ok I just do not undrestand something. What does the CAFE standard have to do with RWD cars. Why does increasing the gas milage kill RWD cars?????


Reb

Thats what I want to know! all this talk of CAFE killing RWD and I dont see why/how!?

Is a Hybrid powertrain even a viable option here? It would add $5-10,000 and who knows how many hundreds of pounds to a Camaro.

Personally, if I needed to go with a high mpg Camaro, I'd rather have a turbo Ecotec or a diesel over a hybrid any day.

Agreed Charlie. I think there are other alternatives that would suffice rather than hybrid.

Ok I just do not undrestand something. What does the CAFE standard have to do with RWD cars. Why does increasing the gas milage kill RWD cars?????


Reb

When they say RWD - they mean Zeta. Could be some backroom politics involved too.

But Zetas are heavy, and building hundreds of thousands of 2(+) ton sedans, no longer fits into GM's future plans. A new smaller lighter RWD architecture should be out by about '11.

The Camaro WILL once again fail if not priced properly. Another speculative "GM is dead" article. And yes, the high end V-8 will be a "high priced" Z28... we already knew that.

Here's the full original article.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=759

It's already been posted under the powertrain section.

I'm not at all opposed to a hybrid Camaro OPTION. I'll take MINE in as the most powerful traditonal V8 as I can get.

The sky is falling....


Have faith people, and don't take everything you read on the internet as the truth.

...reading the article again....

GM, though, is not in a position to absorb the roughly 1-mpg fuel-economy penalty that comes with building rear-wheel-drive passenger cars

...to me that statement implies there is an actual 1 mpg penalty automatically applied to any car that is RWD... that can't be right... can it? Or are they just assuming all rwd cars get 1 mpg less than a similar fwd version???

that is good news for hybrid buyers but i would not by a hybrid camaro

Is a Hybrid powertrain even a viable option here? It would add $5-10,000 and who knows how many hundreds of pounds to a Camaro.

Personally, if I needed to go with a high mpg Camaro, I'd rather have a turbo Ecotec or a diesel over a hybrid any day.
That's a good question, and possibly a good idea. Hybrid would definitely add price and mass to the car. It would only appeal to those who want a "make-a-green-statement" car and also want the style of a Camaro. How many of these folks are there?

If trying to save MPG, seems like they would also look into a diesel. The turbo 4... would be wildly out of place on a Camaro and would damage the Camaro 'brand' IMAO... plus would be too torque-anemic to give a hefty car like the Camaro an appropriate amount of get-up-and-go.

a hefty car like the Camaro

And that there is the problem....

Last time we had a Camaro the price difference between a Camaro and Corvette was $25,000. If there is only a $10,000-$15,000 difference I would probably just buy a used Vette.

The Camaro once had the 2.5L "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder. I don't think it sold well, and I think it had less than 100hp.

But technology has come a long way. The old 3.8 in the 4th Gen only had 200hp. The 2.0L turbo 4 in my GTI also makes 200hp, and still manages to get between 32-36 on the highway and 28-ish in town in a 3300lb car. GM has an even more powerful turbo 4 (LNF)...I don't see why they couldn't stick that in the Camaro to up their CAFE average.

I would think GM has a hybrid system they can put in the Camaro. We have yet to see all of the development done with Chrysler and BMW as only the two stage hybrids in the full size trucks. Rumor is there is much more to come.
To me the current hybrids are more marketing and feeling green than anything. If GM wants to market the Camaro that way I see no problem with it. If anything it will broaden the reach of the Camaro brand that could lead to extra sales. The Camaro already has a strong image and putting hybrid in that mix is something GM could use as futher evidence they are serious about fuel economy.

turbo 4... would be too torque-anemic
Since when is 260 lb-ft "anemic"? The turbo 4 used in the performance versions of the Solstice/Sky has 55 more horsepower and 30 more lb-ft than the 3800 used in 4th gens. Turbocharged engines in general have very good torque numbers.

And that there is the problem....
Can you please hold off on BS comments like that until we actually know how much the car weighs? :mad:

...reading the article again....



...to me that statement implies there is an actual 1 mpg penalty automatically applied to any car that is RWD... that can't be right... can it? Or are they just assuming all rwd cars get 1 mpg less than a similar fwd version???

It must be some mathmatically derived figure.
Like the statistical average between FWD and RWD cars.
If there is indeed a difference just because of the drive wheels, then they should use their engineers to erase that difference. That's what they pay them for.

All purely conjecture on the part of the author.

Oshawa will be a flex-plant -- so we'll be able to build other vehicles in that plant.

CAFE changes everything...........but right now, no one on the outside knows what we're going to do...........

that is good news for hybrid buyers but i would not by a hybrid camaro

I doubt any real Camaro enthusiest would by a Camaro Hybrid, but if it makes the car more of a global success, I'm all for it. I doubt to many real Camaro enthusiest would by a V6 Camaro either. ;) but I'm sure they will sell a buttload to someone.

I doubt any real Camaro enthusiest would by a Camaro Hybrid

I think that's narrow-minded of you. Does a Camaro enthusiast have to be someone who's particular about the exhaust note and/or fuel type? Or even the performance?

No, they don't. You can be enthusiastic about the car for whatever reason you want, and Joe Blow can be enthusiastic about it for whatever reason he wants. If your reasons aren't the same, that doesn't change the fact that you're both enthusiasts.

CAFE changes everything...........but right now, no one on the outside knows what we're going to do...........

There's only one presidential candidate left who understands the horrendous load and handicaps CAFE puts on carmakers, and that you can't improve productivity by increasing burdens on the productive. He's also the only one left who cares much about US automakers.
It may not be too late.
Tomorrow (or whenever your state votes) go out and vote for Mitt Romney.

There's only one presidential candidate left who understands the horrendous load and handicaps CAFE puts on carmakers, and that you can't improve productivity by increasing burdens on the productive. He's also the only one left who cares much about US automakers.
It may not be too late.
Tomorrow (or whenever your state votes) go out and vote for Mitt Romney.

I certainly will. I just have my doubts if he can win it all.

There's only one presidential candidate left who understands the horrendous load and handicaps CAFE puts on carmakers, and that you can't improve productivity by increasing burdens on the productive. He's also the only one left who cares much about US automakers.
It may not be too late.
Tomorrow (or whenever your state votes) go out and vote for Mitt Romney.
Amen to that. This also though, touches again on a factor that the article ignores (foolishly IMO). Politics. Presidents have some impact on CAFE. But Congress makes the law - and Congress will surely take a shellacking for the stances it has taken in recent years, during this election cycle. A new Congress could very well turn the new CAFE upside down, in response to public outcry. So in that sense the article is arguably premature.
And that there is the problem....
That's not "the problem". "The problem" is unrealistic attitudes by some in our political sphere and in the mainstream media, making it an act of pure evil to drill for oil in ANWR, to burn coal in clean modern power generation plants, or to stand up a new nuclear power plant in America. Are hefty fullsize pickup trucks a "problem" too? How about wildly successful (and hefty) new vehicles like the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia? Bottom line is, Americans demand their hefty vehicles to be that way, so they can have space to be comfortable and versatile, along with all the modern safety and luxury gear we expect.
Since when is 260 lb-ft "anemic"? The turbo 4 used in the performance versions of the Solstice/Sky has 55 more horsepower and 30 more lb-ft than the 3800 used in 4th gens. Turbocharged engines in general have very good torque numbers.
The turbo Ecotec is a great engine, but makes its torque up high, not down low like the LSx V8's.

Oshawa will be a flex-plant -- so we'll be able to build other vehicles in that plant.

It's good you pointed that out, it tends to not get enough visibility in all this. GM's got a lot of options in finding ways to meet these challenges, even if they do remain in place.

Since when is 260 lb-ft "anemic"? The turbo 4 used in the performance versions of the Solstice/Sky has 55 more horsepower and 30 more lb-ft than the 3800 used in 4th gens. Turbocharged engines in general have very good torque numbers.




While I love the Solstice and especially the Sky Redline, (came THIS close to trading in my 99 Trans Am for one about 3 months ago). The 2 main reasons I didn't? I REALLY want a Camaro convertible, and 2nd, the 260lb-ft of torque in the Redline and Solstice has NO grunt until high in the revs. I drove several of both, stick and auto, and just didn't want to part with my V8 Grunt. While I loved the car, I knew I'd regret the lack of torque. Now once it spools up and winds out, it is pretty quick, (although the best 0-60 time I could get out of one was around 6.5 by my stopwatch) About 1 second slower than claimed times. I know that it's not accurate, but it definately wasn't close to the 5.5 claimed. Perhaps when it is well broken in it might pull better numbers, but out of the box, no way. There isn't ANY torque to mention down low on those engines.

That's not "the problem". "The problem" is unrealistic attitudes by some in our political sphere and in the mainstream media, making it an act of pure evil to drill for oil in ANWR, to burn coal in clean modern power generation plants, or to stand up a new nuclear power plant in America. Are hefty fullsize pickup trucks a "problem" too? How about wildly successful (and hefty) new vehicles like the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia? Bottom line is, Americans demand their hefty vehicles to be that way, so they can have space to be comfortable and versatile, along with all the modern safety and luxury gear we expect.

Listen, I am far from a green weenie. I think that we should drill in ANWR. I think we should build more refineries. I think we should build nuclear powerplants. I think ALOT of people have a vested interest in propogating alot of disinformation regarding "global warming".

Hey,if someone thinks that they need a 6,000 pound, 11 mpg truck, to commute themseves to and from work everyday - well more power to 'em, it's a free country. Maybe not very efficient, but what the hell, who am I to say.

But the point here is, the Camaro. And if it were a somewhat smaller package, which could economically and attractively , (ie, NOT a hybrid or diesel), deliver a version(s) which gets 32-35 mpg - * AND THEY WERE FUN TO DRIVE* - Camaro would be in a MUCH better place right now, under current law. And, there is no denying the effects on performance, a somewht smaller package would contribute either.

The turbo Ecotec is a great engine, but makes its torque up high, not down low like the LSx V8's.

Where did you hear that? Do you have any experience with turbo motors at all?

http://www.dragtimes.com/images_dyno/11622-2007-Pontiac-Solstice-Dyno.jpg

The blue line is from a stock Solstice GXP on a chassis dyno. Note that the torque is pretty much flat all the way across the chart, and that it peaks around 2500 rpm.

Here's the dyno graph from my LS1:
http://homepage.mac.com/jakerobb/camaro/dyno.jpg

Note that the torque is not flat all the way across, and in fact peaks over 4000 rpm.

Yeah but I assume the fact that you have anywhere from 75-100 more lbft of torque with the LS1 anywhere on the curve makes it seem like it makes torque down low ;)

Yeah but I assume the fact that you have anywhere from 75-100 more lbft of torque with the LS1 anywhere on the curve makes it seem like it makes torque down low ;)

:)

Not the point, of course. A turbo Ecotec would be a fine powerplant for a Camaro. It's not for everyone, and there definitely needs to be an LS V8 in the line somewhere. My guess is that there will be at least two different LS V8's available in the 5th gen. We're all speculating about what other powerplants there might be!

I would like to see Plymouth or Buick come back as an all hybred brand.

Buick come back

Buick is still around. Do you mean Oldsmobile?

Plymouth isn't a GM brand. It's a safe bet that Cerberus won't be bringing it back.

Last time we had a Camaro the price difference between a Camaro and Corvette was $25,000. If there is only a $10,000-$15,000 difference I would probably just buy a used Vette.

LS1 to LS1...

2002 Z28 MSRP = $22,830
2002 Corvette MSRP = $41,680

difference = $18,850 .. not quite "$25,000"..

2008 Corvete LT1 MSRP = $46,100
$18,850 less than that = $27,250

heh thats actually close to what i would expect a base LS3 2010 Camaro would cost


Oshawa will be a flex-plant -- so we'll be able to build other vehicles in that plant......

so what exactly is a flex plant? will it be able to make cars that are on completely different platforms with different drivetrain layouts than a Camaro?.. for instance.. would this plant be able to make Epsilon (2?) cars along side the "Zeta" Camaros?

Listen, I am far from a green weenie. I think that we should drill in ANWR. I think we should build more refineries. I think we should build nuclear powerplants. I think ALOT of people have a vested interest in propogating alot of disinformation regarding "global warming".

Hey,if someone thinks that they need a 6,000 pound, 11 mpg truck, to commute themseves to and from work everyday - well more power to 'em, it's a free country. Maybe not very efficient, but what the hell, who am I to say.

But the point here is, the Camaro. And if it were a somewhat smaller package, which could economically and attractively , (ie, NOT a hybrid or diesel), deliver a version(s) which gets 32-35 mpg - * AND THEY WERE FUN TO DRIVE* - Camaro would be in a MUCH better place right now, under current law. And, there is no denying the effects on performance, a somewht smaller package would contribute either.




Take-it-easy. It was an inside joke referrencing a thread in the lounge.
Fair enough. Maybe we think alike on more than we know (EXCEPT on making the Camaro smaller :p )

Only thing though is, it's not just about the Camaro. It's about the whole energy independence strategy for the USA, and that debate is FAR from over.

Yeah but I assume the fact that you have anywhere from 75-100 more lbft of torque with the LS1 anywhere on the curve makes it seem like it makes torque down low
Jake is right about the Ecotec's Tq curve, on that I stand corrected. I think my objection is more like what you are referencing.

One other thing about the Ecotec, and on this I do have at least similar experience from my Grand Prixs. My 2004 GP GTP dyno'd at 250 hp with a 3.4 pulley and K&N. Due to my habitual leadfoot driving, I usually got MPG's in the low teens in city driving. But my 2005 GP GXP, with a 303 (crank) HP AFM V8, gets a little better than that. Both likely had about the same peak hp. Why am I getting better MPG? I'd venture there is 'no free lunch' for making power. Granted a turbo has far less parasitic power drag than the s/c on my old GTP. But having more torque makes a difference to the driver of a sporty car. And having AFM helps too... something not possible on a 4-cyl.

LS1 to LS1...

2002 Z28 MSRP = $22,830
2002 Corvette MSRP = $41,680

difference = $18,850 .. not quite "$25,000"..

2008 Corvete LT1 MSRP = $46,100
$18,850 less than that = $27,250

heh thats actually close to what i would expect a base LS3 2010 Camaro would cost
I think it would be more reasonable to predict the base LS3 Camaro's cost using percentages rather than using the difference.

In 2002, Camaro cost 54.8% of the price of a Corvette.

Using that percentage based on the price of a 2008 Corvette, it comes out to $25,251. Nothing wrong with saving two grand! :)

Of course, what I really want is for GM to price the car as reasonably as possible, without paying any attention at all to the price of a Corvette. It should be priced so that tons of people will buy it and so that they make enough money to pay for the car's development plus a reasonable profit.

One other thing about the Ecotec, and on this I do have at least similar experience from my Grand Prixs. My 2004 GP GTP dyno'd at 250 hp with a 3.4 pulley and K&N. Due to my habitual leadfoot driving, I usually got MPG's in the low teens in city driving. But my 2005 GP GXP, with a 303 (crank) HP AFM V8, gets a little better than that. Both likely had about the same peak hp. Why am I getting better MPG? I'd venture there is 'no free lunch' for making power. Granted a turbo has far less parasitic power drag than the s/c on my old GTP. But having more torque makes a difference to the driver of a sporty car. And having AFM helps too... something not possible on a 4-cyl.

You have to stay out of the throttle to get good fuel economy on any car. Your 303hp V8 requires less throttle to perform the same as your GTP, and so you end up getting better fuel economy to drive the same way.

That's the super-simple explanation. I don't have the background to go into more detail. :)

If GM does decide to make a hybrid camaro, you can bet there will be a battery mod section on this board :)

Should GM elect to have a economy minded option for the Camaro , the most prudent engine of choice wouldnt be a Hybrid . The new V6 diesel from the Commodore would make for a very unique option , it wouldnt be slow in the least and it would get better fuel economy than a 2mode . Then the V8 guys would need to watch out for the modded v6 diesel cars :lol:

Thats just my off the beaten path opinion .

:)

Not the point, of course. A turbo Ecotec would be a fine powerplant for a Camaro. It's not for everyone, and there definitely needs to be an LS V8 in the line somewhere. My guess is that there will be at least two different LS V8's available in the 5th gen. We're all speculating about what other powerplants there might be!
I totally agree. If I was in the market for a base car and it was offered with a turbo 4 or an NA V6 I might have a very difficult time passing the turbo car for the V6...

I dont think Id consider one.

If they could somehow do one like the tahoe getting 30 mpg with a turbo 4cyl and electric motor that handled acceleration maybe that got close to V8 performance... Hard to give up that V8 though.

Hey you know the Challenger will be intorduced in about 2 days at the CHI auto show, and that powertrain is going to be the same as the Charger, so if Dodge is not really doing anything to go "green", i dont think GM should worry either. What ever it is, i just hope the pricing stays competitive.

A couple of musings on this thread...

First off, for those asking about the issue with fuel mileage and rear wheel drive. There are two main issues. One is weight. Since the power train is spread through the length of the car it takes more material to transfer the power from the front of the car to the back of the car and more material to support those components.

The second main issue is that there is a loss of energy/efficiency in transferring power from the front of the car to the back of the car. Both the weight of the drive train components but also every transition point (gears, differential, u-joints) rob a bit of the efficiency from the system and there are more transfer points for a front engine, rear wheel drive car than for a front engine, front wheel drive car.


As far as a hybrid Camaro goes... If it was reasonably cost effective and gave some worth while gains in economy for in town driving then I'd consider it. I'm thinking a lot of the technology for the SUV and Truck hybrids could be utilized (but I could be wrong).

Beyond that, unless I'm mistaken there is a different standard for engines running alternative fuels than for gasoline. So maybe that's why GM is buying into some E85 developement stuff. I don't know the specifics of CAFE well enough to know if a flex fuel vehicle would classify for the same alternate economy standards as a pure E85 vehicle, but if not, then if there is a serious push to make E85 available enough that cars could be configured to run it only, then there could be an option to keep the high performance rear wheel drive architecture alive and make it E85 only. It doesn't have to happen this week or anything, so there is some time to ramp things up. Plus an engine tuned to run E85 that isn't also compatible with gasoline should run notably better than a flex fuel version.

It will be interesting to see what happens down the road and I'm not too worried about what will happen just yet.

When they say RWD - they mean Zeta. Could be some backroom politics involved too.

But Zetas are heavy, and building hundreds of thousands of 2(+) ton sedans, no longer fits into GM's future plans. A new smaller lighter RWD architecture should be out by about '11.

V6 Rear drive Commodore is actually a few pounds lighter than a V6 front wheel drive Impala LTZ.

Last time we had a Camaro the price difference between a Camaro and Corvette was $25,000. If there is only a $10,000-$15,000 difference I would probably just buy a used Vette.

Unless you prefer a back seat.


I doubt any real Camaro enthusiest would by a Camaro Hybrid, but if it makes the car more of a global success, I'm all for it. I doubt to many real Camaro enthusiest would by a V6 Camaro either. ;) but I'm sure they will sell a buttload to someone.

You almost sound like those same people who destroyed the last Camaro:
"Why spend money making the base car better when we can simply add more horsepower and sell more of them!" ;)

There's only one presidential candidate left who understands the horrendous load and handicaps CAFE puts on carmakers, and that you can't improve productivity by increasing burdens on the productive. He's also the only one left who cares much about US automakers.
It may not be too late.
Tomorrow (or whenever your state votes) go out and vote for Mitt Romney.

Bill Clinton oversaw fewer new automotive regulations than under Reagan. Safe to say he'll be his wife's key advisor. McCain isn't an enemy to cars. Ironically, Obama (the candidate that seems to be attracting the most liberals) drives a Hemi powered Chrysler 300C. Guliani doesn't even own a car!

There's a short article in the new MT on what each candidate drives.

V6 Rear drive Commodore is actually a few pounds lighter than a V6 front wheel drive Impala LTZ.


Yeah, but the Impala SS weighs 3790 lbs and the G8 GT weighs 3995.

...and all to fight non existent global warming......


Vote Republican, or at least anti-liberal!



:mad:

Buick is still around. Do you mean Oldsmobile?

Plymouth isn't a GM brand. It's a safe bet that Cerberus won't be bringing it back.

Yes thats what I meant.

Its painfully obvious this is the direction the govt wants us to go. But we no longer lead, we follow.

If cerberus could create a successful buisness model, Gm could find the way to make the most money off it...

quote from gunioM "You almost sound like those same people who destroyed the last Camaro:
"Why spend money making the base car better when we can simply add more horsepower and sell more of them!"

I don't consider most V-6 Camaro owners to be "Enthusiest". That's MY definition.

quote from gunionM "Bill Clinton oversaw fewer new automotive regulations than under Reagan. Safe to say he'll be his wife's key advisor. McCain isn't an enemy to cars. Ironically, Obama (the candidate that seems to be attracting the most liberals) drives a Hemi powered Chrysler 300C. Guliani doesn't even own a car!"


Bill Clinton had the pleasure of dealing with a REPUBLICAN Congress, maybe that is why fewer CAFE regulations in his terms. You have more to fear from the likes of Nancy "stepford wife" Peloci than whoever is president. Unless said president is Hillary, then there is PLENTY to fear.

I'd take a turbo Ecotec Camaro over a hybrid anyday!

Just a few mods and it'll blow by V6's like an LS? car...I've seen a 1,000hp Ecotec turbo engine with supposedly a stock bottom end, drag racing!

Here's an article about it:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Enth...247.A5482.html


Aside from the “why,” the question is, how?

by Fred Staab

Related Articles:
GM Wooing the SEMA Crowd by Gary Witzenburg (11/4/2002)


In order to create the 1000-plus horsepower, GM called on two high-performance principles: mass quantities of fuel and air. A lightly tweaked stock head casting with aftermarket stainless valves mounted gulps the atmosphere through a custom fabricated aluminum intake manifold. Eight fuel injectors spray a methanol fuel fog back to the cylinders. "At 1000 horsepower, we run about 1200 POUNDS an hour of fuel through the motor, so four nozzles were just not enough," says O'Blenes. GM dug into its parts bin for the throttle body selecting a stock unit from a 5.3-liter V-8 GM truck. Ignition is handled by an off-the-shelf aftermarket MSD 7 system designed for a small-block Chevy.

But the biggest power adder of them all comes in the form of a quick spool up eight-inch diameter T4 Turbo charger provided by Innovative Turbo Systems. Pressurizing this 2.0-liter engine, the Turbo, with inlet air chilled by an ice-water-filled intercooler, squeezes 40 pounds of boost into the cylinders. The result is big-block race V-8 power without the displacement or speed-robbing weight.

Nuther one:..
http://media.gm.com/news/releases/011029_drag.html

Hmm, am i looking at something wrong here or do people keep saying to put the turbo 4cyl from the solstice(which gets sub 30mpg). In a camaro that will weigh much more? Im sure Gm is trying to build more cars closer to 30mpg or above it and the turbo 4 would be going in the opposite direction.

All purely conjecture on the part of the author.

Oshawa will be a flex-plant -- so we'll be able to build other vehicles in that plant.

CAFE changes everything...........but right now, no one on the outside knows what we're going to do...........

Sounds like you and GM have an offset backfield, 3 wide receiver set, double reverse, 40 yard post patern on 3rd and 12 play up your sleeve. ;)

Hmmm... H/28 :think:

Sounds like you and GM have an offset backfield, 3 wide receiver set, double reverse, 40 yard post patern on 3rd and 12 play up your sleeve. ;)

As long as it works out like that 3rd and 5 play the Giants pulled out of their a$$es with about a minute to play in the Superbowl, it should work great. :D

Hmmm... H/28 :think:

Someone needs to dig out the 1993 Motor Trend issue that first tested the 1993 Z28 and read the last paragraph in the article. Anyone have it and can scan it?

Someone needs to dig out the 1993 Motor Trend issue that first tested the 1993 Z28 and read the last paragraph in the article. Anyone have it and can scan it?

I have it, but would be tomorrow at the earliest that I could scan it.

I have it, but would be tomorrow at the earliest that I could scan it.

Please do if you can, I just hope I am thinking of the right article. I think I am. It is somewhat related to the topic of this thread if I have the right one. At the time, the paragraph I am thinking of generated images of life like the Jetsons, a humorous stab at what a "next Camaro" may be like. Now, while not exact, it might have been closer than I thought back in 1993.

As long as it works out like that 3rd and 5 play the Giants pulled out of their a$$es with about a minute to play in the Superbowl, it should work great. :D

With Bob Lutz at quarterback, I have no doubt he can elude sack after sack while making the completion into tripple coverage. With Ed Welburne at wide receiver, I have no doubt he can make the catch with his helmet :D

With Bob Lutz at quarterback, I have no doubt he can elude sack after sack while making the completion into tripple coverage. With Ed Welburne at wide receiver, I have no doubt he can make the catch with his helmet :D

And let's hope that Ford doesn't throw the challenge flag. :D

Please do if you can, I just hope I am thinking of the right article. I think I am. It is somewhat related to the topic of this thread if I have the right one. At the time, the paragraph I am thinking of generated images of life like the Jetsons, a humorous stab at what a "next Camaro" may be like. Now, while not exact, it might have been closer than I thought back in 1993.

*slaps forehead* I forgot the magazine today. If I go home for lunch (very good chance) I'll try to remember to bring it in. Sorry for the delay.

Personally, if I needed to go with a high mpg Camaro, I'd rather have a turbo Ecotec or a diesel over a hybrid any day.Ditto! :D

Please do if you can, I just hope I am thinking of the right article. I think I am. It is somewhat related to the topic of this thread if I have the right one. At the time, the paragraph I am thinking of generated images of life like the Jetsons, a humorous stab at what a "next Camaro" may be like. Now, while not exact, it might have been closer than I thought back in 1993.

I've looked and can't find the magazine. I know I have it, but the wife has a bad habit of "cleaning up" my stuff, and then forgets where she puts things. :mad:

It is not that big of a deal. I will just summarize it.

The 1993 Camaro Z28 was really impressive for the day, despite the crap slung at the F-bodies in their later years but the same magazines that once praised them. They had their reasons. I believe that the final sentence of the first 4th gen Z28 review that Motor Trend did said something to the effect of "What will Chevrolet bring in the next incarnation of the Camaro? A Hydrogen/28?" Something like that. It always stayed with me and I remembered it again with the the hybrid talk.