Joined
·
6,652 Posts
4 Cylinder Turbo BAS+ Camaro in the way?
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Joined
·
5,569 Posts
I know some people will say a 4cyl doesn't belong in a Camaro, but if gas prices are over $4 - I think the Camaro will need a very efficient option (30+mpg). Maybe they could bump the 2.0 up to 2.2-2.4 to help on the low end.
I totally agree it is time that we leave our mindset of V8 for the power because honestly gas prices are high and are not going down, and besides all that power does nothing for you it's not like you can drive extremely fast!!! We don't have an autobahn or autostrada here with a no speed limit left lane. Almost all our highways are speed limited so, what does that extra power do beside suck up gas. Please don't give me the merging into traffic crap..they do it all over the world with small displacement engines we can here!!!
Joined
·
8,864 Posts
I see no problem with offering the turbo 4 or BAS+ in the Camaro. Not everyone wants a v8 and a Camaro that gets 30+mpg would sell great -- a case of having your cake and eating it, too. And with 260hp/260 lb-ft it won't be lethargic, unlike the 4 bangers in Camaros of old. It'll move decently well. All one has to do is look at the anemic engines from the 80s to realize a 260hp turbo Camaro will be a great seller and a great idea.
Joined
·
8,864 Posts
Nearly triple: 90*3 = 270. the Turbo-4 has 260.
And I remember those Camaros. They sold a lot of them but they were anemic. We called them secretary specials.
Joined
·
272 Posts
They'll sell to the same sort of buyer who buys a V6 Mustang. The style of the car, but with the sensible engine option. And still, 260hp is still more then any of the 3rd Gem F-Bodies had, for the most part. I think only the very last of the GTA Firebirds had 270-280 hp.
ARCANGEL - It's not about using the power on the road, and those who drive like that don't need a car like this. It's about the weekends, and the pure joy of that kind of car. You bought the SS I'd imagine for the power over the base Cobalt, yes? We buy things with excess power for the joy of it. For the weekend warriors and the enthusiest. And, for some, the bragging rights.
Plus nothing has that V8 rumble.
ARCANGEL - It's not about using the power on the road, and those who drive like that don't need a car like this. It's about the weekends, and the pure joy of that kind of car. You bought the SS I'd imagine for the power over the base Cobalt, yes? We buy things with excess power for the joy of it. For the weekend warriors and the enthusiest. And, for some, the bragging rights.
Plus nothing has that V8 rumble.
Joined
·
9,268 Posts
A interesting way to have our cake and eating it too unless some folks decide to go with a unexpected twist....a Duramax turbo-diesel Camaro
Now, if we could find a way to allow turbo engines to use regular fuel instead of premium to save some bucks or allow them to be flex-fuel to use E85 since E85 allow higher compression and octane then premium and it less costly then premium.
While an excellent idea, I highly doubt a turbo 4 (even with BAS) is going to get 30+ mpg in the Camaro... The Sky Redline (which weighs < 3000 pounds) only manages 28mpg with a stick, and 26mpg with an auto....
The BAS in the Malibu only improves fuel economy by 2mpg over the regular 4.... So that means a hybrid sky would get something like 30mpg even, however that car weighs more than 600 pounds less than the camaro, so I doubt the camaro will see the same kind of fuel economy numbers....
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
That is kind of the entire point of cars like the Camaro though. Being able to accelerate fast (not necessarily exceeding the speed limit) is enjoyable. There will also probably be a number of Camaro owners who take their car to a track so they can enjoy the extra power in a controlled, safe manner.
Now this isn't to say that I don't agree that a 2.0L DI Turbo engine couldn't be a good option, I was just pointing out that technically by your bolded statement's logic, no one needs to build cars with more than 120-180 hp, b/c you never really need more than that.
Depending on the state of tune of the 3.6L that we might be getting, the Direct Injection Turbo eccotec might even make more hp and tq (it makes more than the non-DI 3.6L in the Malibu), and if you've ever looked at the dyno charts for the 2.0L engine, it has very good power through the entire rev band, including the low end, thanks to its dual scroll turbo and excellent vvt system.
The Sol/Sky are lighter than the Camaro and don't seem to have terribly better highway mileage than other LS1 powered vehicles when equipped with manual transmissions (It is not uncommon to see even 30mpg with a 6 speed equipped LS1 Corvette or F-Body). This could be due to several things though, I've never driven a Kappa, so I don't know from experience, but I've heard the gearing isn't that great on it, and I know a lot of the parts were shared w/ the 355's (rear end, transmission?), so that could be something that hurts the Kappa's mileage that could be rectified to allow the 2.0L excellent mileage in the Camaro. Another thing to consider that this same engine in the Cobalt SS Turbocharged gets right about 30 highway mpg, and the Cobalt is much lighter than the new Camaro will be. So I think that getting better mileage than the Cobalt without totally neutering the Camaro via gearing might be pretty hard to do. It also has again, a different transmission and final drive ratio, so a lot of this is speculation, but it's fun and its really all we can do at this point.
Either way, having the 2.0L as an option doesn't prevent someone from getting the V8, and the 2.0L Turbo will be making a lot more power than the last 3800 v6 F-body cars. Having a small displacement turbocharged engine might also broaden the appeal of the new Camaro, in addition to providing a higher efficiency alternative to someone who might otherwise not chose a Camaro, there are also lots of enthusiasts that prefer smaller forced induction engines.
Joined
·
18,522 Posts
The most powerful 3rd gens from the factory were 245 hp
A turbo-4 sure doesn't sound "reasonable" it sounds more like some screamer engine that needs a stick.
Joined
·
9,759 Posts
I'd be interested in seeing what a turbo-4 Camaro would actually get as far as fuel economy goes, the SKY and Solstice performance models aren't exactly something to brag about. And what's the power band like on that motor? Don't you have to rev the hell out of it to get that 260hp?
Plus, having the extra power just for fun and (yes, I'm going there) being able to quickly merge in heavy traffic is nice too.
A speed limit on a road doesn't actually LIMIT your speed, just throwing it out there.
Plus, having the extra power just for fun and (yes, I'm going there) being able to quickly merge in heavy traffic is nice too.
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Dyno charts for the LNF can be seen here:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/e... Library/Ecotec/2008 LNF/2008_20L_LNF_Sky.pdf
Kinda peaky as far as hp goes, but the tq is at real close to maximum from ~1500-5.5krpm, I'd say it has a pretty impressive tq curve.
Compare that to the LY7 3.6L here: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT Library/HFV6/2008_36L_LY7_G8.pdf
I think it compares favorably. I tried superimposing the graphs using MS Paint skills but it was annoying to get the scales to line up right zoom wise in the PDF. Either way it looks like the LNF has more peak hp/tq, and doesn't really lose out on area under the curve. I would never suggest the LNF should replace a good 'ol Gen IV or Gen V V8, but it could make an interesting alternative to the 3.6L. Now if we end up with the DI 3.6L (LLT) in the CTS, then thats a different ball game, as it easily has the LNF covered in HP and TQ (but LNF gas mileage would probably be better).
Isn't there talk of a ~300hp Solstice coupe based on the LNF also? If we got a Direct Injection Turbo I-4 closer to 300, it might sound even more promising.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/e... Library/Ecotec/2008 LNF/2008_20L_LNF_Sky.pdf
Kinda peaky as far as hp goes, but the tq is at real close to maximum from ~1500-5.5krpm, I'd say it has a pretty impressive tq curve.
Compare that to the LY7 3.6L here: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT Library/HFV6/2008_36L_LY7_G8.pdf
I think it compares favorably. I tried superimposing the graphs using MS Paint skills but it was annoying to get the scales to line up right zoom wise in the PDF. Either way it looks like the LNF has more peak hp/tq, and doesn't really lose out on area under the curve. I would never suggest the LNF should replace a good 'ol Gen IV or Gen V V8, but it could make an interesting alternative to the 3.6L. Now if we end up with the DI 3.6L (LLT) in the CTS, then thats a different ball game, as it easily has the LNF covered in HP and TQ (but LNF gas mileage would probably be better).
Isn't there talk of a ~300hp Solstice coupe based on the LNF also? If we got a Direct Injection Turbo I-4 closer to 300, it might sound even more promising.
Joined
·
9,759 Posts
Oh wow, I really like that torque curve...
Fuel economy would probably suck in a big car (compared to the Kappa roadsters) like the Camaro though...
Joined
·
3,019 Posts
I think with a Turbo Four and the BAS+, you could probably get something like 27 mpg city / 34 mpg highway from a Camaro. If so, I would definitely buy one.
Joined
·
21,460 Posts
So offer the V8 for extreme Camaro enthusiasts (who are also filthy rich and can afford to pay for the gas).
Offer a V6 for those who still want performance but not a heart attack at the pump.
And offer the Turbo I-4 with BAS+ for those who want an awesome car and awesome fuel economy as well.
Works for me.
Offer a V6 for those who still want performance but not a heart attack at the pump.
And offer the Turbo I-4 with BAS+ for those who want an awesome car and awesome fuel economy as well.
Works for me.
Joined
·
9,759 Posts
Wait wait wait, isn't that the plan? To have a V8, V6, and I4?
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Not sure if 27/34 would be doable or not. The cobalt SS gets 22/30 with the same engine in a lighter car, but no BAS+ so it might make up the difference. I'd say anything mid 20s and in the 30 range highway would be pretty good for a car that will probably be fairly heavy, and decently quick with 260hp/tq.
Unless the V6 offered is the DI v6, seems like having both the V6 and the I4 would be a bit of an overlap. The non-DI 3.6L doesn't really seem to have anything over the LNF, and it would likely get worse economy. Seems like if they wanted an engine in the ~300 hp range, a 5.3L V8 might be a better option, since it is likely cheaper to produce and makes similar power w/ better area under the curve. Mileage would probably be good too, since the V8's love idling along in high gear getting mpg in the 30s.
Anyways, to me it seems that it should be the I4 or the V6, not both. I wouldn't be opposed to an I4 cranking out closer to 300hp like the one talked about in the Solstice Coupe though
Unless the V6 offered is the DI v6, seems like having both the V6 and the I4 would be a bit of an overlap. The non-DI 3.6L doesn't really seem to have anything over the LNF, and it would likely get worse economy. Seems like if they wanted an engine in the ~300 hp range, a 5.3L V8 might be a better option, since it is likely cheaper to produce and makes similar power w/ better area under the curve. Mileage would probably be good too, since the V8's love idling along in high gear getting mpg in the 30s.
Anyways, to me it seems that it should be the I4 or the V6, not both. I wouldn't be opposed to an I4 cranking out closer to 300hp like the one talked about in the Solstice Coupe though
Joined
·
21,460 Posts
I think. I'm just justifying all the engine options for my own benefit.
Joined
·
3,019 Posts
The current BAS system gets somewhere between a 5-15% increase in mpg's, and the BAS+ system will have an increased electric motor power rating for more electric assist, along with lithium ion batteries, so I think a significant increase in fuel economy should be expected.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
