teal98

If the Alpha is a small car, then an I4 turbo could work. That was the basis for my comment -- something more like a Hyundai Genesis Coupe, though I don't know whether that would be more successful. From what I can see, the Camaro is doing much better than the smaller Hyundai, which is nearly spot-on the size and weight of a presumed Alpha Camaro.

Of course, there is more to a sport coupe than just it's length, width, and weight, and I would expect GM to do a better job than Hyundai.

In any case, if an I4 turbo Camaro were to power the SS, I think it would have to undercut the WRX STi and Evo on weight, as they're AWD. You could argue over whether another name plate would suit such a car better. I don't get hung up on names.

teal98

Here's 185-200 pounds. I wonder which Camaro forum he's talking about. Maybe this is what happens when you have a strong steel IRS?

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...ml#post9554326

Z284ever

I think that was here on this forum. But it's not really comparing apples to apples. For example, that includes the weight of the stock Brembo brakes compared to the lighter and smaller 4th gen units he ended up using. Also, the removal of the IRS's cradle, which is a structural member. Alot of stuff like that...

I also doubt the pieced together solid axle rear suspension performs the same way as stock. Certainly a factory designed solid rear would have more links, more bracing, and of course structure added back somewhere to replace the lost rigidity from the removed cradle.

One last note. We shouldn't monolithically lump all live axles suspensions into one homogeneous group, (IRS either). Compare a NASCAR rear suspension to one from an old *****'s Jeep. Both live axles, but FAR different in design, complexity, sophistication and weight.

Z284ever

I'd think that a hot turbo 4, in a tidy, fun to drive, RWD package would hit a different niche than AWD sedans like the Evo and WRX STi.

For one, a turbo Ecotec Camaro SS would certainly cost a bunch less than the $34-$35K starting prices of the STi and Evo.

super83Z

Which is exactly how it should be measured(minus the Brembos). The cradle is not needed for a live axle and is part of the IRS. They didn't put the cradle there because they thought it looked cool. Other wise things like control arms, panhard bars, torque arms or whatever would just bolt to places similar to the cradle's mounting points.

If the frame is strong enough to have the cradle bolted to it, then it is certainly strong enough to handle mounts for a SRA's control arms.

Z284ever

The cradle is there for NVH reasons. You can design an IRS without a cradle if you want, (2004 GTO). But once you decide to go with a cradle it becomes a structural member of the car. It's engineered to bolt up the IRS, reduce NVH and add rigidity to the whole car. If you want to retain the same rigidity without the cradle, mass needs to be added back somewhere. I don't even want to think of what a shadetree SRA design does to the NVH characteristics of this car.

Like you said, they didn't add the cradle just to look cool.

jg95z28

Turbo 4 alpha = good idea

Turbo 4 Camaro = bad idea

SSbaby

Fixed it for ya!


I think we should be looking at the TT V6 before we consider a "performance" T4.

If it won't be a performance T4 then we should be questioning why we should have it in Alpha at all?

The point is that Alpha will be structurally solid enough to accommodate a stonking V8. If that is the case, then a T4 is really too small an engine for the chassis. Remember, the Alpha chassis will not be small if it's going to accommodate a V8.

If we're talking something like an RX-8 sized car with similar weight (i.e. 3000 lbs), I'd be more understanding... but Alpha cannot physically be that small or light if the V8 is included. Impossible even!

SSbaby

I'm assuming Mustang doesn't have the cradle either. Therefore, it doesn't have the reinforcement across the B-pillar nor a structural member across the rear like a cradle.

I wonder if Mustang would still be lighter if Ford adopted the cradle, IRS and other structural components that Camaro already has? They are roughly the same size dimensionally even if they don't quite look that way.

On the same point as my previous post, the 2014 Mustang cannot get much smaller (IMHO) than its current size if it is to accommodate the Coyote V8, which is already a tight squeeze in the 2011 Mustang's engine bay.

Therefore, I don't think that either Alpha or '14 Mustang will be as small as our discussion might allude to. Happy to be wrong though.

Z284ever

Why's that?

A 300-ish hp turbo 4 Camaro for around $25K (in today's money) would make a great entry level performance Camaro for LOTS of people.

Of course, it has to make some business sense too. For a whole bunch of people, the thought of an intercooled turbo 4 might make them reach for their checkbooks faster than the same power out of a normally aspirated V6.

But...

Would a 300 hp turbo I4 get better fuel economy than a 300 hp NA V6? What would be the cost of the T4 vs the NA V6?

I hear that a faction within Ford is really pushing for the Mustang to get a turbo Ecoboost as a base motor. Where Mustang goes, so does Camaro.

We'll see....

formula79

Yeah..thats a good idea. I mean the V6 Camaro is selling so well..and even smaller engine that costs the same because of the turbo will be better. Hell..maybe now Camaro can outsell the Genesis.

Oh...wait a minute.

V8 buyers care about having the most performance and will pay for it. The type of person who buys a 6 cylinder, or 4 cylinder Camaro has other top priorities besides performance. That development money is better spent catering to those other priorities..or not spent at all to keep price down.


In all seriousness..I would love to see a Lsx motor with a turbo. Tune it for ecomomy, and then make it turn into a monster when you get on it.

But I don't think the solution is so much in the powertrain as it is weight. The 4th gen used to touch 30mpg plus on the highway. The only reason a newer powertrain could not do that would be it is hauling around a heavier car.

Geoff Chadwick

Weight plays a much smaller role than aerodynamics (drag and frontal area). Sadly, while the drag coefficient is really low, the frontal area of the new cars is outrageous. GM is making the bet the Regal will survive with a 4 banger despite the weight, and I hope it works.

But for sticker reference...

A 1998 C5 M6 was rated 18/27 (21) and now 16/25 (19)
A 2003 C5 M6 was rated 19/28 (22) and now 17/26 (20)
A 2005 C5 M6 was rated 18/28 (21) and now 16/26 (19)

But the C6's with their larger engines just don't hit 30mpg like the smaller 5.7L did, while the window stickers are the same (YMMV). The 4th gens also had stupid aero and virtually no frontal area, where the 5th gen has the frontal area of a UPS truck or an old Freightliner.

Regardless, while I don't think a Turbo I4 is a good place for the 6th gen, it has good prospects for Alpha. There are many many BMW 3 series out there that have pretty sad horsepower numbers for a "sports coupe" or "sports sedan".
Having seen under the hood, it may look like a tight squeeze, but it looks to me to be better off than an LT1 or LS1 4th gen. That said, the Ford motor is HUGE in comparison to the LSx, and GM does not need such a large engine bay with some careful planning. Look at the 5th gen by comparison - plenty of room without space optimization! The BMW 3 series easily fits a V8 in such a "small" package. Maybe the 2014 Mustang can't get smaller - but maybe 6th gen Camaro CAN. The BMW 3 series coupe packs a lot of car (engine bay, trunk, interior) into some small exterior dimensions.

Heck, maybe do to limits of the widths of the suspension towers, alpha would rule out a DOHC V6 due to width and just have either a 400hp pushrod V8 or a 300hp turbo I4. Wouldn't that be something interesting...

jg95z28

Your theoretical alpha turbo 4 coupe, while not a bad idea on paper, should never be called Camaro. Period. End of discussion. That is not to say that Chevrolet doesn't need a sporty turbo 4 coupe. However the typical buyer in that market, probably doesn't care if its RWD, FWD or AWD. (Most probably would prefer FWD based on the current market.)

Camaro needs to be above the turbo 4 coupe and below Corvette. There's really no reason to offer a 300 hp turbo 4 when they already are getting more hp out of a V6, especially when this theoretical turbo 4 will probably need to run on 91 octane to get 300 hp which will raise the cost of ownership and probably hurt fuel economy as well.

As for Camaro following Mustang's lead... weren't you one of the people criticizing GM for playing follow the leader?

SSbaby

The space constraint is not at the top of the engine in the Mustang. It looks (to me) to be lower down at the header. What's the reason for the squished pipe here?



There is no problem with the Camaro's V6's packaging as it's an efficient 60* layout, irrespective of the size of it's DOHC heads. A 90* layout takes up more real estate. Luckily the Camaro V8 is an OHV layout, which negates the packaging issues of DOHC engines.

Z284ever

Interesting thought. But it'll package a V6. Cadillac made sure of it while the Ecotec only Alpha was still computer math.

Those are all good points. Like I said, in the end it would have to make good business sense - and just plain common sense. I think Buick's decision to run 3 different 4's in the Regal might give us some early clues as to where this might be going and how well it works.