NEWS: Dual-mode muscle car? GM may develop hybrid Camaro
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
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:
Note that the torque is not flat all the way across, and in fact peaks over 4000 rpm.
Last edited by JakeRobb; Feb 4, 2008 at 02:50 PM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
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!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
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
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?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
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.
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.
)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.
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
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
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.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
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.
That's the super-simple explanation. I don't have the background to go into more detail.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,801
From: South Bend , IN
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 
Thats just my off the beaten path opinion .
Thats just my off the beaten path opinion .
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
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!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 238
From: Los Angeles, Ca
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.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 73
From: Tulsa, Oklahoma
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
"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.
It may not be too late.
Tomorrow (or whenever your state votes) go out and vote for Mitt Romney.
There's a short article in the new MT on what each candidate drives.