2010 camaro

[IwannaSportSedan]

I guess we'll find out, with the advent of the twin-turbocharged GT-R.

 

The 3.5 and 3.7 liter engines were not designed to be turbocharged from the factory. The GT-R's 3.8 engine IS turbocharged from the factory, and makes 450-500hp.

 

I'll bet you could blow up a non-turbo 2.5 boxer block by strapping an STI turbo to it, too. It isn't necessarily the same as the turbo-capable block.

 

Personally, I really like the drivetrain of the GT-R, (and liked the previous one, too) but I don't really like the interior or exterior of the car. I am not going to buy one, and I think the Fanbois of the GT-R are a bit off their rocker, but I think the Corvette boys are a bit, too. Great cars, both, maybe. But the greatest ever so far, and ever possible in the future, not so much.

 

But, to judge an engine that is engineered to be naturally aspirated and highly tuned at that, and then NOT being suitable for just slapping a couple of turbos onto, or a supercharger, isn't entirely fair. Turbochargers can blow up a LOT of non-turbocharged engines if they get strapped on.

 

The RB inline 6s were designed for, and factory equipped with turbochargers. There may have been problems re-upping the emissions certification of the RB design. AND producing a 3.8 V6 on some of the same toolings as the rest of the VQ engine line, with some changes for turbocharging is probably cheaper than continuing to build a unique engine for a single car model.

 

Since I know you are a big SBC fan, the Small Block V8 may be able to support forced induction (as long as it is properly built for it), but I'll bet some of the early versions aren't able to, and it has had more than 50 years of development, and it is also generally designed for high-torque truck applications, as well.

 

Compromises are made all the time. A big-chested robust V6 that could handle hundreds more horsepower than stock may not have been a priority for Nissan in the 3.5 and 3.7 iterations. That is why the 3.8 isn't just a 3.5 or 3.7, and why it is distinct.

 

Who knows what sort of weight penalty there is with a more robust engine that the aftermarket can have a whack at without blowing up. And with 3.8 GT-R engines entering the market, aftermarket tuners may have a better idea what NISSAN does to fortify the VQ for forced induction, and may make the aftermarket for the 3.5 and 3.7 VQ engines more effectively upgraded.

 

OR 3.8 blocks will become highly sought after upgrades for Z's and G's.

[05GT Guru]

I have seen quite a few 3.5 vqs with boost on 350zs that couldnt handle 700rwhp, the RB blocks could take 1400 at the crank. RB=Race breed for a reason i guess

[generalleeharvey]

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/generalleeharvey/IMG_1434.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/generalleeharvey/IMG_1431.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/generalleeharvey/IMG_1426.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/generalleeharvey/IMG_1427.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/generalleeharvey/IMG_1433.jpghttp://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/generalleeharvey/IMG_1432.jpg

[generalleeharvey]

This is when there was "no one" around the car...the motor is a gussied up LS2...it sounded LOUD when they fired it up in that metal show shed...

[05GT Guru]

I love ls motors

[underpowerd]

why must all the domestic throwbacks look like the vehicular equivalent of offensive linemen? all these almost cartoonishly burly figures not at all sitting right with me, especially when obviously married to the attempt to effect some nostalgia of truly soulful (and lean) classics. the goat is the only one that doesn't look like it just ate 4000 meatballs.

[05GT Guru]

I liek the new challenger and i cant wait to see what the new Trans Am will look like, as for the goat its a nice car with some balls, but i think the challenger and camaro look better. The GTO looks like a bigger meaner G6.

[Jerboa113]

OMG an actual interior shot! so far everything I have seen were artists renderings. I was about to say why is GM afraid of the inside of the new camaro? Maybe its not totally done yet or something..

 

I certainly dont hate the nissan v6s, they are very strong and come with years and years of awards. I just haven't been all that impressed on test drives of the product. I keep looking because it has gadgets, its affordable compared to BMW, and it has power numbers on paper. But it just doesn't give me a thrill.

 

 

I dont really have a legit reason to say ford is responsible for market problems, I just had one for 7 years and like to take stabs at them every now and then for that vehicle hehe.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Autoblog just posted that the Nissan GT-R is going racing in a racing series with a 4.5 liter, 500hp V8.

 

Tune that for the street, with VVEL on it, and put it in the G-series Infinitis as a competitor to the S4/S5, and the M3 2 and 4-doors...

 

That would be smokin'.

 

I wonder what an exhaust system, and a computer tune would do to spice up the VQ in the G... I am sure people have been doing that to the older models.

 

They aren't getting the same percentage gains as we turbo owners are, though, that is almost certain.

 

It is amazing how "feel" can make such a difference. The Legacy GT feels sporty, and gets sportier with a tune. Yet an Infiniti with more stock horsepower doesn't inspire as much...

 

Ease of revving, red-line, smoothness, etc.. can all have a perceptive effect, outside of the raw HP/Tq. numbers.

[ThatGuyDownUnder]

This article is a spin off from another article someone posted.

 

I just cant believe GM is pushing this car back to 2010.. The "new" Mustang has been out since I bought my LGT.. GM is 100% grade A certified FAIL on this one.. wait any longer and the 35mpg requirement is going to push their too little too late coupe right out of production. They're talking about waiting till 2011 to bring out the convertible version... I just cant believe our govt expects us to bail this company out of bankruptcy when they do stupid things like this. I mean what is the problem? The concept hasn't changed a bit since it was announced in 06.. they had one that ran and drove in the transformers movie. thats out on DVD now and the car STILL DOES NOT EXIST.

 

Here's the article:

 

http://www.edmunds.com/il/chevrolet/camaro/index.html#

 

 

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/miketrike2001/failboat.jpg

[SLegacy99]

NEW YORK -- General Motors is considering a four-cylinder engine for the new Chevrolet Camaro as a response to rising fuel prices.

Speaking on the sidelines of the New York auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said the drivetrain under consideration for the Camaro is the same high-performance one used in the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters. It’s a 2.0-liter turbocharged, direct-injected four-cylinder rated at 260 hp. Lutz said that if fuel prices continue to climb, the four-cylinder Camaro could see production.

GM has said it plans V-8 and V-6 versions of the Camaro but otherwise has been secretive. Lutz confirmed to Automotive News that the V-6 version of the Camaro will be powered by the same high-tech V-6 used in the Cadillac CTS. It’s a direct-injected, 3.6-liter four-cam V-6. In the CTS, the engine is rated at 304 hp.

Low-priced version dropped

In the Camaro, the 3.6 liter’s horsepower should be around 260, Lutz said, Fuel economy, he said, will be around 17 mpg city and 25 highway. That would place the V-6 Camaro among best in class for a performance car.

Lutz said GM has dropped plans to offer a low-priced, entry-level Camaro with one of GM’s low-tech V-6s. GM will position both the V-6 and V-8 versions of the Camaro as premium cars compared to the Camaro’s chief rival, the Ford Mustang.

The base model Mustang uses a 4.0-liter overhead-cam V-6 rated at 210 hp. The base model Dodge Challenger, due in the fall, will use a 250-hp, 3.5-liter V-6.

Most enthusiast attention has focused on the Camaro’s V-8 engine, which is likely to be a 6.0-liter with about 400 hp. Lutz said the V-8 will have a cylinder cutoff system that shuts down half the engine when the car reaches cruising speed. That will help it get better fuel economy.

But Lutz said he thinks most buyers will opt for the V-6 because the performance will be strong, especially when the engine is combined with a manual transmission.

“Back in the old days, if you wanted a muscle car, to get a decent one, you had to buy the V-8,” Lutz said. “And if you bought the V-6, you got a fairly rough, unrefined pushrod engine with low horsepower and weasely performance.

“This time, the V-6 is 260-odd horsepower, four overhead cams, very smooth and decent 0-to-60-mph times. And now the V-6 is in its own right a very fast, very legitimate car.”

We are going to be above Mustang"

Lutz said that with the V-6, the Camaro achieves a nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution: “With the V-6, it is not a heavy car. The Camaro will be a very lively and engaging car,” he said.

Lutz would not talk specifically about the Camaro’s pricing. The car is scheduled to go on sale next February as a 2009 model, but Lutz did say GM views the Camaro as better equipped than the Mustang, and the price will be higher.

The Mustang V-6 coupe has a base price of $20,235. The V-8 GT coupe begins at $26,825. Both prices include shipping.

“We are going to be above Mustang,” Lutz said. “We have a very sophisticated suspension system and, frankly, a much nicer interior. We are not going to try and match the Mustang on price. We are going to be premium-priced compared to the Mustang.”

[IwannaSportSedan]

Four cylinder, turbo or no turbo, is a bad choice for a car as heavy as a Zeta.

 

GM can say it isn't heavy, but it is going to be on the plus side of 3500lbs, not the minus side.

 

Legacy GT already gets complaints about turbo gas mileage and premium requirement. A "low end" Camaro isn't going to hack that. A non-turbo 4-cylinder is not even going to move the thing.

 

Any performance buyer is going to buy a V8. No other choice. You might have some wishful thinkers who like to think their V6 car is just as fun, but that is rationalization.

 

The four cylinder turbocharged Ecotec is not going to be a good pairing with a Camaro, it won't have an efficiency edge on the V8, it won't have the performance edge on the V8, nor the positive perception of the V8, and it won't have the efficiency/price edge on a good V6, either.

 

The fact that it is more than a year later than the Challenger, and likely after the refreshed mustang will be announced, also makes it a FAIL for GM.

 

Don't try to make the Camaro into anything other than it is. A big Zeta-chassis Muscle-Performance coupe. It isn't a Chevy version of the Solstice GXP, or Sky Redline. Just isn't.

[Jerboa113]

wow, well written.. and I agree.

[SLegacy99]

But for all you know Cheverolet might employ weight saving techniques like they did with the Tahoe hybrid to make it work. A 3300 lb. Camaro with a 260 DI engine wouldn't be so bad at all.

 

Legacy GT already gets complaints about turbo gas mileage and premium requirement. A "low end" Camaro isn't going to hack that. A non-turbo 4-cylinder is not even going to move the thing.

Keep in mind that there are some key differences here. The LGT is AWD, it lacks direct injection, and the Spec. B weighs 3500 lbs as well and its good fof 24 and hits 60 MPH in under 6. Its a different animal.

 

Or look at another DI turbocharged example. The 3500lbs FWD A4 gets 30 hwy mpg, though it is only puttting out 200hp. Ford is also claiming a 20% fuel economy improvement with their 2.0L turbo Explorer. Im not saying that a 2.0L turbo Camaro will be the greatest thing, but I think it has some serious potential and we shouldn't balk at a 4 cylinder muscle car.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Weren't you the one arguing with me that the Turbo Legacy GT would not be required if a H6 were in it's place a few weeks ago?

 

Turbo 4-cylinder engines are power engines in lighter cars. They don't really compete with 6+ liter V8s. And they aren't as efficient as a non-turbo V6. A non-turbo I4 would not be a good idea in a zeta chassis.

 

The G8 is a Zeta car. It is north of 4000lbs. The Camaro might be lighter, but I'm betting not 5-700lbs lighter.

[SLegacy99]

Weren't you the one arguing with me that the Turbo Legacy GT would not be required if a H6 were in it's place a few weeks ago?

 

Turbo 4-cylinder engines are power engines in lighter cars. They don't really compete with 6+ liter V8s. And they aren't as efficient as a non-turbo V6. A non-turbo I4 would not be a good idea in a zeta chassis.

 

The G8 is a Zeta car. It is north of 4000lbs. The Camaro might be lighter, but I'm betting not 5-700lbs lighter.

 

Yes, but this 3.6L is supposedly more fuel efficient that the 2.5L turbo. In this case, they are adding an engine option with the idea being fuel efficieny.

[SLegacy99]

It's no secret that automakers' lineups will have to change over the next several years — thanks to stricter CAFE standards — but it may be surprising to find out just how much those regulations will change the face of the automobile.

 

Perhaps the biggest indication to how much the automobile will change as we approach the 2020 CAFE deadline will be the Pontiac G8. Pontiac's newest sports sedan has been on the market for less than a month, but it's already considered a modern muscle car — thanks to the availability of a V8 engine. But just as Brian Shipman, Product Manager of the G8, told Leftlane, the requirements for a muscle car are changing. Shipman indicated that future G8s could be powered by a four-cylinder engine and Bob Lutz, General Motors vice chairman, also indicated that this could be the case. "It's possible that the G8 could be powered by a 1.6L engine without a sacrifice in performance," Lutz said. "That engine could get the G8's mileage into the 30 to 31 mpg range."

 

Lutz also said that GM is preparing to launch a version of the Buick Park Avenue — essentially a long-wheelbase version of the G8 — in China with the turbo 260 horsepower 2.0L unit from the Saturn Sky Redline and Pontiac Solstice GXP. The move is due to China's graduated taxation — which drastically increases on engines larger than 2.0L — but despite the engine being in a car that is "seemingly way to big," Lutz says the engine "felt just great."

 

But don't look for the G8 to switch to a turbocharged four-cylinder engine until the next-generation of automatic transmissions arrives. Because of the engines decreased displacement, more than six gears will be need to keep the engine in its powerband — meaning an eight or nine-speed transmission could be in GM's future.

 

9 speed tranny. Seems kinda outta control.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Yes, but this 3.6L is supposedly more fuel efficient that the 2.5L turbo. In this case, they are adding an engine option with the idea being fuel efficieny.

 

That is exactly my point. It WON'T BE EFFICIENT. It is too small and too high strung. Good for performance, but performance Camaro buyers are going to buy a small-block V8 car. No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs. Hands Down, make bank on it.

 

A turbo 4 is not a great paragon of efficiency. A V6/H6 can be better. I agree with you there.

 

I argued before with you that for the LEGACY (which doesn't have a turbo 6 or a V8/H8 option) that losing the turbo would be losing the performance engine that some of us want, because in the Legacy's case, the turbo is sportier and more tuneable than the more fuel efficient H6.

 

In the Camaro's case, it is the other way around. The performance engine is the V8. An I4 with a turbo drinks premium fuel, and just as fast or faster than a variable-displacement V8 or a modestly tuned 6-cylinder. The heavier the car is, the worse that will be. More throttle will be needed to move a heavier car, and that will drink even MORE fuel faster. A 9-speed transmission is only needed to keep a turbocharged engine on-boost more of the time. That means sucking down high-test gas more of the time. That is not efficient.

 

Less displacement and a turbocharger is an answer in some instances, but not all, and usually benefits from a lighter-weight car, where the engine can run off-boost well, without having to build boost constantly. Pumping that amount of air and fuel through the engine is better done with higher displacement, without forced induction, and it's need for richer mixture and higher octane fuel. Pair that with selective non-fire cycles, which some companies call variable displacement, and it gets significantly more efficient with larger displacement in a heavier car, rather than forced induction.

 

A low-revving-geared transmission behind a V8 engine will probably be more efficient than a turbo 4 that has to constantly build boost to provide enough torque. That will KILL efficiency.

 

A turbo 4 is a performance motor, not an efficiency motor, and heavier cars just make that point sharper.

 

As I've said on this topic on autoblog, this is a dynamic equation, not a static one. Less displacement doesn't always automatically mean more efficiency. Just like higher taxes does not necessarily mean higher government revenues. Lowering taxes can cause more taxable activity, and higher revenues from lower margins. Higher displacement under less load can be more efficient than lower displacement under more constant higher load demand.

[SLegacy99]

Oh Im not saying that the enthusiasts won't be buying the V8 versions. Im saying that younger buyers like myself would go for the cheaper, more economical turbo motor.

 

Turbocharging smaller motors appears to be working for Audi and VW and Fords got it on the way. I think we get something good here.

[IwannaSportSedan]

How many times do I have to say... Turbo I4s are not necessarily cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to feed, or more economical than a non-turbo V6 or under-stressed V8.

 

I am not the biggest fan of the small block chevy engine that has ever lived. But even I have to admit that 50 years of amortization and development, and enough torque to move a car easily without engine loading, is more efficient.

 

If you think you are the "younger buyer looking for the efficiency edge", you are not going to find it there!!!! you are going to be spending more money on more premium fuel that gets used faster. Even if Direct injection uses low-octane, more boost still uses more fuel.

 

Most of VW and Audi's turbo models either don't have V8 options, are purposefully trying to be more affordable than the S-grade V8 options yet still SPORTY, or are FWD, where V8 and bigger V6s are harder to package, and are lightweight enough that a four-cylinder isn't over-stressed when off-boost.

 

Most VW/Audis with turbos, and cars slated for the EcoBoost Ford engines are PERFORMANCE MODELS, not economy models.

 

You have argued that point before, why can you not see it now?

[SLegacy99]

Because I don't agree with you.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Then you have just thrown every argument you have ever made, out the window.

 

I AM REPEATING WHAT YOU HAVE SAID ABOUT LEGACYS BEFORE.

 

I AM MAKING YOUR POINTS about 6 cylinder engines being more fuel efficient than turbocharged 4s, while being nearly as powerful.

 

IF you can't even agree with YOURSELF, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I disagreed with you before, because you were talking about Legacy, and I didn't like your argument that the turbo 4 PERFORMANCE MOTOR should be replaced by an H6 in favor of efficiency, even if it has nearly as much power.

 

Now you are saying that a turbo 4 is more efficient, which isn't correct, and you said the opposite of, previously.

[SLegacy99]

No, my point about the Legacy was the it is pointless to offer a 256 hp 3.6L engine and a 243 2.5L turbo engine for such a small car company. And we already know that the 3.6L is more efficient than the 2.5L. Im failing to see how you bringing this argument up relates to a RWD Camaro offering a 260 hp turbo engine and a 300 hp V6.

 

So do I think that a 2.0L direct injected, turbo, 4 cylinder in a RWD car will be more efficient than a 2.5L turbo, 4 cylinder in an AWD car? Yes, yes I do. Keywords here: AWD, direct injection, 2.0L's of displacement.

[IwannaSportSedan]

KEYWORDS: HEAVY COUPE.

 

Smaller displacement, even with a turbo, has to pump harder (it is an air-pump after all) to move more weight. It is pure physics. It has little to do with which wheels drive the car.

 

the heavier the car and smaller the engine, the less efficient it will get. you can add DI, and a turbo, and get more power, but LESS efficiency, not more.

 

Forced induction makes a small engine behave like a bigger engine by artificially cramming more air and fuel into the engine's given volume. BUT, it correspondingly takes MORE FUEL. that is pure chemistry, again, not having much to do with which wheels drive the car.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Legacy is a fairly light car for it's class. 3400-3500lbs. The Zeta-chassis cars are heavier. The only one out right now is the Holden Commodore/Pontiac G8. A far bigger car than the Legacy, and at least 600 lbs heavier.

 

The 2.0 Ecotec turbo has 260hp/tq and is about 200lbs less than a fully-dressed small block. Even if the Camaro is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than the G8 on the same chassis, and is 3750lbs, about the same as the Mustang, G37, and lighter than the LX/Y Challenger, which is also based on a 4000+lb sedan chassis. I have a feeling it is going to weigh more than 3800lbs when all is said and done.

 

Even with the 2.0 turbo Ecotec, it would still weigh more than the Legacy GT, with a smaller displacement engine that requires boost more often to make that power number, and to move a heavier car. A non-turbo 2.4 ecotec engine makes 173 horsepower, and 167lb/ft of torque. a turbo 2.0 is going to make LESS than that while off-boost, due to lower displacement AND lower compression ratio. (even DI turbos can't run high static compression, merely a bit higher than non-DI turbo engines)

 

If you think that well under 200hp off-boost is going to move a heavy coupe, you are wrong. That means, to ramp power up by 100hp, to move that heavy coupe, is going to take more revs, boost, and fuel,

 

A non-turbo V6 makes more than 160hp and torque without boost, and doesn't need to rev as high to move the car, and doesn't require a turbo to feed more air and fuel. It runs under a lot less stress, and uses less fuel to move that weight.

 

A V8 does even better in that regard, and doesn't require aggressive driving to move the vehicle with authority, and has the torque for a highly-over-driven top gear. Big reason why Corvettes have a LOT more horsepower than Legacy, and get better mileage at the same time. Camaro is going to exacerbate that with more weight.

 

You seem to think that displacement and driveline are the only things that make the difference. There is much more to it than that.

 

A 2.0 DI turbo may be as efficient as a torquier 2.5 turbo without DI, simply by the efficiencies that DI brings. AWD may have a bit more driveline drag, but not THAT much. Vehicle weight plays a MUCH bigger role.

 

And I am not arguing that the camaro should have either a 2.0 or 2.5 turbo engine as a performance engine. The Camaro is going to be sold with a V8 as a performance engine, and no camaro fan is going to buy an ecotec turbo as a performance option in leu of a V8. That only happened in the early 80s when V8s were so castrated that a lightly-turbocharged I4 made as much or more power than a small V8, in a lighter F-body or Fox-Mustang. Camaros and Mustangs weigh almost a thousand pounds more today than they did in the early 80s, and V8s are NOT anywhere near as impotent as they were then.

 

I am arguing that ANY 4-cylinder turbo, especially the smaller the displacement, is going to be less efficient than a good V6 as a more economical alternative to the V8 performance engine, and more economical than a thirsty I4 Turbo, even the 2.0 DI turbocharged Ecotec, which is ONLY marketed by GM as a small-car performance engine, NOT a fuel-efficiency queen, because it isn't.

[SLegacy99]

KEYWORDS: HEAVY COUPE.

You're assuming that its going to be as heavy as its pal the challenger. I don't think it is. From what Ive been reading there is no reason why the 4 cylinder version couldn't weigh the same as the 3500 lb Spec. B.