GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 81 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,113 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
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


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Bring It GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,391 Posts
I would rather have a V6 putting out 350 horses than a turbo 4-cylinder putting out 260!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,874 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,197 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,874 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,125 Posts
May this happen, & may this come to the US sometime SOON.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,285 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,686 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
Is this the same set up as the GXP/Redline Kappa's? Those weigh in at 2948lbs, The G8 V6 weigh's 3885lbs . Solstice gets 19/28, what kind of numbers would we see in a 3600-3700lb Zeta? Cannot be much better than the 17/25 the G6 in V6 gets and it would require premium. What kind of numbers do the Kappa's get when driven hard because I would guess the engine would be working harder to move a Camaro/G8/Commodore than it does a Kappa.

All this talk of needing the Zeta's to be more fuel efficient, why isn't GM doing 2 mode in them? A BAS+ setup? A v6 cylinder deactivation system, doesn't the Accord have this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
I'm trackin' with TJ95GAGT.

Solstice GXP 2.0 turbo w/auto is rated at 19/26 MPG and weighs 2976 pounds.
G8 Base 3.6 w/auto is rated at 17/25 MPG and weighs 3885 pounds.

Someone want to explain to me how the turbo 2.0 will beat the 3.6 in fuel economy when placed in a car nearly 1000 lbs. heavier than the Soltsice? Same goes for Camaro which won't be too much lighter than G8 or Commodore.

I wouldn't bother with a 4 in a large car. Regardless of how much power it makes, it just has to work too hard to get good fuel economy. You would have to flog it like you were driving an S2000 to keep up with traffic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I've been pondering how a decent, modern 2.4L 4 cylinder would do wonders for GM. A modern unit that makes no apologies to anyone. It would have the availability of VVT, produce between 135 and 150kW (180 - 200 bhp) similar to the Honda 2.4 with it's lower powered American Accord version or the higher powered version we get in the Accord Euro.

The possible applications are huge: Epica, Aura, Malibu, top-line Astra, Captiva, Antara, G6, Solstice, Sky, Vue, Commodore/Lumina/G8, Insignia, Zafira, BLS, BRX, possible Hummer H4, various Saabs (turbo-charged of course!) and even a de-tuned version for commercial applications like Colorado (and Rodeo replacement), Vivario.

A 2 litre version could also be produced, along with different valve gear, turbo or non-turbo versions and a Saab variations as well. All from one family. Similar to what's be done with the HF V6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
I'm trackin' with TJ95GAGT.

Solstice GXP 2.0 turbo w/auto is rated at 19/26 MPG and weighs 2976 pounds.
G8 Base 3.6 w/auto is rated at 17/25 MPG and weighs 3885 pounds.

Someone want to explain to me how the turbo 2.0 will beat the 3.6 in fuel economy when placed in a car nearly 1000 lbs. heavier than the Soltsice? Same goes for Camaro which won't be too much lighter than G8 or Commodore.

I wouldn't bother with a 4 in a large car. Regardless of how much power it makes, it just has to work too hard to get good fuel economy. You would have to flog it like you were driving an S2000 to keep up with traffic.
You guys get my point. I think too many of us are getting excited by "260hp", "turbo" and "4cyl" in a Commodore/G8/Camaro without really thinking about how the engine will perform in a heavier car.

I'm not bashing the idea, I think its worth developing for sure. I just think its not as easy as shoehorning the engine in and thinking we can have our cake and eat it too (good MPG and power).
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Top