Back To The Future: Four-Cylinder Holden Commodore On The Way?

[JoeT]

A Four-Pot Commodore?

Barry Park
24 March 2008
www.drive.com.au

The first four-cylinder version of the Holden Commodore in almost 30 years could soon roll off production lines.

In the same week as motorists have faced petrol prices reaching $1.50 a litre at the pump, General Motors, Holden's US parent, has announced it is considering adding a four-cylinder engine to the Chevrolet Camaro, a Commodore-based muscle car developed in Australia for the US market.

The 2.0-litre engine slated for the Camaro, which uses a turbocharger to increase its performance, produces more power and torque than a brand-new base-model 3.6-litre Commodore V6.

Click here to continue article

Pontiac G8 To Use Four-Cylinder Engine?
Lutz: GM Considering Four-Cylinder Turbo Camaro
Confirmed: Holden Commodore Turbo-Diesel To Be Released Within 18 Months
New Holden Boss Wants Hybrid Commodore & Captiva Range

[ZHDesign57]

Bring It GM.

[91Saturn]

The 2.0-litre engine slated for the Camaro

Not to beat dead horse, but mere talk from Lutz about the possibility that this engine could be used Camaro is a long way from being "slated."

[GMusa]

I would rather have a V6 putting out 350 horses than a turbo 4-cylinder putting out 260!

[ZHDesign57]

Originally Posted by GMusa

I would rather have a V6 putting out 350 horses than a turbo 4-cylinder putting out 260!

Well, they have already confirmed the HF V6 used in the CTS for the Camaro, but the Turbo 4-cylinder would make a nice engine for the Camaro for both fuel economy and getting sales. The engine would make a strong case for a lower priced Camaro and capture younger buyers.

[Quickening]

Makes you wonder why they don't slip this bad boy into the 9-3 range. Could make the cars fly since they are so much lighter than these beasts.

[CamaroCrazy]

The LNF is great and I think 260hp out of a 4 cyl is solid, but........a few questions:

1. Will a 3800lb Camaro overwhelm a 2.0L turbo, taxing the engine and reducing the fuel economy? (Yes, I really do think the Camaro is going to be that heavy)

2. Doesn't the LNF run on premium? Whats the benefit of better fuel economy if you end up having to pay more for less fuel?

[chevydlrmn]

using different technology sources is importsnt for the life of the product as well as the image of the company.

[gopedxr7]

i love the idea of the 4 cylander motor. but i did not consider weight in the equation. but if i were to buy the camaro and that motor was availiable with a manual tranny i would buy it. i am stuck in traffic most the time and never go above 45mph for months.

Alan

[Bravada]

If they build a four-cylinder VE and NOT sell it in Europe, I believe GM is totally out of their minds...

[Quickening]

Originally Posted by CamaroCrazy

The LNF is great and I think 260hp out of a 4 cyl is solid, but........a few questions:

1. Will a 3800lb Camaro overwhelm a 2.0L turbo, taxing the engine and reducing the fuel economy? (Yes, I really do think the Camaro is going to be that heavy)

2. Doesn't the LNF run on premium? Whats the benefit of better fuel economy if you end up having to pay more for less fuel?

Often the thing that most supporters of Turbo's do not bring up. Granted in smaller cars you can afford to pay for the premium gas because the turbo gets you the speed you want yet returns great mpg. Before the EPA revision in 08, the 2.0T of Saab was rated 24/31 or 32. I easily reach 32, 33 and once even 35. Now its only rated at 29...I've never ever gotten that low on the highway.

But yeh, if the Turbo is suppose to be the base engine, I agree, people are going to find the engine having some problem hauling this large car be it the Commodore/G8 or Camaro. Which will make the Turbo be in constant use and the mpg will plummet.

[377Z]

May this happen, & may this come to the US sometime SOON.

[ctaylorzl1]

Originally Posted by CamaroCrazy

Doesn't the LNF run on premium? Whats the benefit of better fuel economy if you end up having to pay more for less fuel?

Yes it does use premium! But if premium is only a 20 cent premium over regular, and you only fill up 14 gallons. Then you only spend a extra $2.80 per fill up. I'm sure the difference in fuel economy is a much bigger deficit, than the difference between regular and primium gas. Whats a extra 2 and a half or 3 bucks??? If a extra 3 bucks at the pump gets you a extra 5-7mpg, you should be very happy to pay for permium cause it totally works in your favor!

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by CamaroCrazy

The LNF is great and I think 260hp out of a 4 cyl is solid, but........a few questions:

1. Will a 3800lb Camaro overwhelm a 2.0L turbo, taxing the engine and reducing the fuel economy? (Yes, I really do think the Camaro is going to be that heavy)

2. Doesn't the LNF run on premium? Whats the benefit of better fuel economy if you end up having to pay more for less fuel?

If you ignore the fact that its a 2.0L engine and look at the fact that its a 260BHP and 260ft-lb engine and ask yourself why is a 260BHP motor ok for the Cadillac CTS a 3,800 pound car but not ok with the Camaro. Also considering that past V-6 Camaro's were not 300BHP motors but 200BHP or less this would give you a 60BHP boost. The real worry is with turbo lag on the motor as its probably not making much power without the turbo working.

[Kamshaaft]

Originally Posted by Quickening

Often the thing that most supporters of Turbo's do not bring up. Granted in smaller cars you can afford to pay for the premium gas because the turbo gets you the speed you want yet returns great mpg. Before the EPA revision in 08, the 2.0T of Saab was rated 24/31 or 32. I easily reach 32, 33 and once even 35. Now its only rated at 29...I've never ever gotten that low on the highway.

But yeh, if the Turbo is suppose to be the base engine, I agree, people are going to find the engine having some problem hauling this large car be it the Commodore/G8 or Camaro. Which will make the Turbo be in constant use and the mpg will plummet.

Definitely something that would be taken into this 4 cylinder consideration by the blokes at Holden. Maybe they could further develop and use an 'on demand' bypass supercharger instead of this half arsed AFM stuff.

But I don't see what the engine lineup for Holden would be if they took in a 4 cylinder (While the 4 banger would have the bad image of 1979's 4 pot Commodore if sold domestically, it could be a great idea for European export along with the V8)..

It will all make the relatively new Alloytec look redundant, especialy as the Diesel V6 proposal eclipses it and the 4 cylinder turbo would make the same power.

It woud be great to have all these options but just not possible with such a small market, so it really does need to go to Europe too.