formula79

Again..with a 300 HP V6..do we really need a turbo 4? I really think they could be tuned to get similar gas milage. The 3.6L should be able to get 33+ in a lighter car. Plus you won't have to flog the hell out of it to get performance.

My wife had a MazdaSpeed6, and the thing was fairly annoying because it was gutless untill you flogged it..then all hell broke loose. I know someone is gonna say "But you can tune them to respond more linear"..however I still prefer and NA or superchaged motor.

Z284ever

If that's the case, great. But the pressure will REALLY be on to capture every last mpg on at least some Camaro model. I mean, who knows. The 3.0L V6 was developed to gain an mpg or two over the 3.6. In real practice though, it didn't deliver the mpg goods.

I think if in the end, a 2.0L 4 cylinder can deliver no better FE than a 3.6L V6, then you've got yourself an argument. If the V6 comes up afew mpg's short in comparison, then - well, you know what will happen.

HuJass

Just a quick question here.
What's the percentage split in production of the current V- 6 and V-8 Camaros?

teal98

Everything I've read on the subject indicates that they turbo 4 has a significant advantage on gas mileage, due [simplifying here] to fewer pumping losses and less friction. Can you point to any serious discussion (not anecdotes or opinion) to the contrary?

super83Z

I said no special editions.

jg95z28

Neither were "special" editions. There were 10x more Firebird Sprints that Camaro Z/28s in 1967.

SharpShooter_SS

That wouldn't take much with only 602 z/28s, while not special edition, Z/28s were "special" in that they wouldn't appeal to everyone.

guionM

Short of shooting an e-mail to a specific few people at GM, it's hard to locate those numbers independently. It's almost as if those numbers are a state secret.

While the car was hot, up to 84% (1st few months) of them were SS models. Now that the frenzy has worn off, V6 sales have been growing.

I'd have to send out an e-mail, but my off-the-wall guess is that V8s still account for about 70%, give or take a few percent.

Unsettling if I'm correct, because that's about what the 4th gen's sales split was.... and we all know what happened with that car.

Plague

MazdaSpeed6 is 3600 lbs. Advertised 0-60 in 6.2, but it appears some autorags go it in 5.4 Not exactly a slouch. But it did have short gears and a short final drive ratio.


I don't think you can have the 3.6L DI V6 provide 33 mpg highway, unless you are going to have terrible gearing in the process. 2.4L DI engine in the Malibu gets 33 mpg highway. It weighs 3400 lbs. How much do you expect the next Camaro to weigh?

super83Z

Wrong
Percentage with V-8 pulled from this site

02- 59.4%
01- 43.6%
00- 44.9%
99- 41.3%
98- 36.4%

I know there was a disclaimer in the OP but come on. The 2010 was split 60/40% V-8/V-6 respectively.

Z284ever

33 mpg might be possible with a 3.6L. It'd be tough, but with a lighter car, and some tweaks, and as you said, soft gearing, skinny tires, etc. The question though, is if 33 mpg is enough for the base model. Maybe it won't be.

HAZ-Matt

It's hard to say without data on the engines, but I think it would be doable in a car of that approximate weight depending on the final gear and more importantly the aerodynamics. Hopefully the Camaro has less drag than a Malibu.

A turbo-4 might start to look more attractive if the car moves down in weight. My only question is what turbo-4 would they use? Which are still in production, or rather which will be in production in several years from now?

Z284ever

It's looking likelier that a turbo 4 will be the base engine. I have no idea on what power level it'll be tuned for. If it's in the 260-300 hp range it'll be a hot little car, especially for a base model.

I wonder how feasible a Family 0 1.6 turbo might be? Or if it could actually get better FE than say a 260 hp 2.0L turbo?

guionM

You are correct re 4th gen numbers and as I said, I have no info on the 5th gen numbers, but I will now get them.

However, I did say "up to 84% sold were V8s", and when they first went on sale that number stands accurate. Yes, the huge majority was bought by enthusiasts and those who wanted to be the 1st on the block.

But between customer orders and dealer demos, 84% is the number I have at the start of 5th gen sales, and therefore stand by for that time.

What the sales breakdown is from there overall, I'll get back to you.

Guessing that the next Camaro will be about 300-400 pounds lighter, I'm not convinced a turbo-4 would make the base Camaro a "hot little car". It's not the horsepower, but the torque that makes or breaks the fun factor.

Sure, you can gear it up for quickness, but then you not only will have an engine reving like a maniac due to extremely short gearing, but you also will have to deal with increased NVH and a potential drop in fuel economy.

However, the latter may not matter. One of the key advantages to a small turbo engine making the horespower of a larger one is that the computer can be programed to ace the EPA testing cycles by controlling when and how much boost and under what driving conditions that boost and which transmission gear is used during each part of the cycle.

I'd expect Ford Ecoboost buyers who do anything more than drive with a very light foot on the pedal to get nowhere near the fuel economy that the EPA gets in it's test cycles.

Z284ever

Sure it would. I said IF it gets a 260-300 hp version.

But I wouldn't rule out more than one turbo 4 in Camaro's line up. Look at the Regal. It's got an optional 220 hp, turbo 4 as a midlevel, fuel efficient choice and later this year, the GS is coming with a 255-ish (+) hp version of that motor, which will be tuned for lots of low end torque. I've been told by someone who's driven a GS prototype that it's pretty fast and fun, even pushing almost 3900 pounds of it's AWD glory.

Imagine that GS motor in a 3400, RWD, 6th gen, base Camaro.