It's not clear to me how much AFM helps with DI. My understanding is that the main point of AFM is to avoid pumping losses, but with DI, such losses are already much reduced (one of the reasons it's more efficient). It's the same with BMW's valvetronic or Nissan's VVEL. I'm interested to know if I've got this wrong.

But to your main point, which is not to give up on V8s, I'd like to see the V8 continue. For all the good it will do, I'll sign your petition

 

Me three!

 

While GM's V6 turbo programs are on again/off again, it would seem prudent to package protect Alpha for any future developements regarding turbo V6's, now that V6's are part of the program.

A V8 obviously is abit longer than a V6. But a normally aspirated smallblock wouldn't require an intercooler up front, and even at 60 degrees, I'm pretty sure the 4V heads of the HFV6 make it wider than an LSx.

My feeling is, that once Caddy insists, (as it is), that a V6 is necessary for Alpha, things start potentially looking better for packaging a smallblock. Of course, mission creep on an architecture is a dangerous thing as it relates to mass and size, so I hope GM treads carefully and thoughtfully here.

At any rate, it's my impression that a V8 fits in Alpha, but issues with it really relate more to poor weight balance rather than actual packaging. Of course, that may only have been the case when Alpha was strictly an L-4 program - something which it is apparently not anymore.

 

Actually, I was sort of hoping that the discussion would focus more on possible base engines.

So what should it be? A NA GDI 2.3L or a turbo 1.6/1.8/2.0/2.1?

 

But isn't a V8 about the same length as an L4 with RWD?

With Alpha I'd say engine bay length would be less critcal than engine bay width when one assumes an L4 will fit.

 

A 6th gen would be a serious discussion in a couple month though, within GM.

The 5th gen is probably.. what, 95% "whatever it is going to be?"

I think it was 1991 when the third gen smallblock got thumbs up for full scale development however the LT1 hadn't been placed in a vehicle for sale yet.

 

The V8 is longer, because each bank is offset. Plus, there is less space to either side for components, due to the width of the V8.

 

Is this a 'what would we like question' or a 'what makes sense question'? In either case, I'd want to know approximate weight of the base car and approximate power/tq. In the latter case, I'd need to have some rough idea of cost.

If I were to wing it, I'd suggest that a 2 liter turbo tuned for efficiency (230hp?) would be more than enough for a base model. In fact, a 1.6 might even be enough.

It sounds like turbos are the way to get the best efficiency with GDI, so the N/A engine doesn't seem as good an option. If it's a lot cheaper, it could be better for a base model due to a lower price point.

As I read what I've typed and your OP, this sounds a lot like the Genesis Coupe, though a bit lighter.

 

How fast should a base model Camaro accelerate?

In 1967, a base model with the I6 and Powerslide probably did 0-60 in around 14 seconds and a 1/4 mile in 19+.

The 2010 model will the fastest base model ever, with 0-60 in less than 7 and a 1/4 in the mid 14s.

I think the answer to this question dictates the base engine.

My take is that a base model doesn't need to be in the 14s, and that 15.5-16 is fast enough, with a 0-60 between 8 and 9. Then offer two steps (in volume models) instead of 1, with each step taking about 1-1.5s off the 1/4 and 0-60.

 

If the presumption is that the base models gets 35 (+) MPG, I'd have to agree, solidly in the mid-15's is fast enough.

And if the next step up gets you over 30 mpg and 14.0 seconds flat in the 1/4 mile, I think that's great too.

 

I have this thing about bringing up ideas of a 6th gen before even the final calberations on the 5th gen are even done. It seems pretty silly to me.

The 6th gen Camaro isn't going to come around before the middle of next decade. That's 6 years from today. It was a mere 3 years ago that Chrysler 300s and Magnums were burning up the charts, SUVs were selling like gangbusters and small cars needed to almost be given away to keep factorys making them running. Therfore, it's a little strange not to mention an exercise in uselessness to start a discussion about a car even before it's predecessor is even in final validation, let alone the assembly line.


Since said that discussion of the 6th gen is obviously useless at this point, how about a reality check to start.


Like last time, you are going to need to make choices and compromises. What are you willing to sacrafice in order to get what you want.

Although some of you refused to accept it last time, there is no such thing as magic pixie dust that's going to magically give you everything you want at no additional weight & no additional cost. Horsepower means more weight or more cost because more components are going to have to be stronger and heavier. This includes the body, the drivetrain, the brakes, cooling, suspension. Everything.

Secondly, if one had to choose which person was a crackpot and the choice was between a company in which whose intrest and benefits was to make a vehicle as light as possible within budgetary constraints and another person who constantly ranted that that company wasn't trying hard enough to make a car light while offering no examples from other car makers under similar cercumstances, the choice wouldn't be very difficult. Car companies have armies of people alot smarter than any of us whose entire life studies and work is devoted to making the best possible within guidelines (guidelines designed to make cost goals which in turn make cars both affordable, sellable, and profitable). In short, you have to accept that the engineers of the car company in question know what they are doing.

Finally, one has to remember that cars are made for specific segments and customers. They also have to appeal to as broad of a market as possible regarding that segment as well as bring in new people to that segment in order for that vehicle to have a solid future. When you start adding on or changing items of that vehicle, you start screwing with it's purpose. The new 5th Camaro is more G35 than it is Mustang. Both in layout and in price. It's decidedly upmarket in both catagories. Next step up is low end BMWs and an even higher price.


In any discussion of a future vehicle, one needs a jump off point. The jump off point should be the 5th gen Camaro. Yet only a few of people here have driven or even rode in the new Camaro... and even then, it was in still unfinished prototypes. The rest of us are simply looking at some early specs, looking at some pictures, and rendering judgement as to what the next Camaro should be. In other words, we're ignorant of the 5th gen, yet here we sit with the gaul to say what we want on the 6th gen.

Let's wait till we actually get the 5th gen and then discuss what we'd give up or change on the 5th gen as a basis for the 6th gen.

I dunno...... it would seem pretty logical to me.

 

People are just trying to have a little fun here. Speculating on future potential cars and lineups is something most of us enjoy doing.

 

True, and I understand that. But going back the same amount of time to 2000 or even 2001 and looking at the posts (and photoshops) of what the 5th gen Camaro should be and what was wanted, today it all seems like alot of wheelspinning.... and at the time, we even had a car in production as a starting point.

I know it's all done in fun, but so is alot of things said at internet sites where noone knows what they're talking about and 99% of the posters know less than the average newbie here.

I wouldn't mind having a 6th gen conversation after the 5th gens been out and most everyone has had a chance to see enough of them and read enough about them (and perhaps, even drive one) before we start setting up a demand or even want list for it's successor.

Talking about a 6th gen before the 5th gen's even on the assembly line reminds me of those people who still think a Honda VTEC can take out a LS1. It's based on thin air instead of something of substance.

I'm thinking perhaps a little too logical I guess.

 

Come on Guy, discussions like this are fun, interesting and....yes...relevant.

This site has 4 dedicated forums for the 2010 Camaro and and an additional ELEVEN sub-forums for it. If we want to discuss powertrain options beyond that in this teeny tiny corner of the internet, so what?

Okay, why don't we talk about this...

The 2010 Camaro will probably be highway rated at 23 MPG on the V8 and 26 MPG on the V6.
Passenger car CAFE standards will be 31.2 MPG in MY 2011, 32.8 in MY2012, 34.0 in MY2013, 34.8 in 2014 and 35.7 in MY2015.

Do you really think discussions like these are illogical?

 

With all the talk and pictures of the 5th gen; it feels as if I've already owned one for several years.It's time for some new blood and a 6th gen talk is good to me!....How long before its out?.