GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,021 Posts
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/18/camaros-turbos-mpgs-and-the-underappreciated-v8/

I couldn't agree with this article more, except to say that my LS2 get's 28 MPG on the interstate with cruise set at 80MPH!

Camaros, turbos, mpgs and the underappreciated V8
Posted May 18th 2008 11:41AM by Alex Nunez
Filed under: Opinion/Editorial


The GMnext blog has a post up that talks about the potential viability of a low-displacement turbocharged motor -- the direct-injected 2.0L Ecotec turbo, specifically -- in upcoming GM cars, including the Camaro. Let's talk about this a little. The breathed-upon Ecotec delivers 260 horses and 260 lb-ft of torque, and if you've driven, say, the Sky or Solstice equipped with it, you know just how ballsy it really is. It's more powerful (but less torquey) than either V8 offered in the '87 IROC-Z that I thought was so cool back during high school. The turbo four might well be a nice solution in a future iteration of the Camaro, but is the fuel economy argument for it as rock solid as it might seem on the surface?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,732 Posts
That's a good point. I mean look at the G8. It gets 24 MPG highway with the 6.0. At best it would get 28 MPG with the 2.0T. And with direct injection the 4 cylinder advantage would be even smaller.

Honestly, I'm not really against the idea of a 4 cylinder Camaro. Some people really don't want these cars for the performance. But I don't see the point if it isn't going to make the car significantly more efficient or affordable. I think slapping on the new 2.2 VVT would make more sense. Especially if it gets DI and HCCI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I agree with you I-Love-Pontiac, however I could identify with the article because I owned a Sky Redline. That 260 HP turbo 4 was a screamer, but like the article said, the Sky was lighter. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what the general does. Maybe if they can squeeze more power from it and with the block itself being lighter it will make a difference. I'm sure the reason my Vette get's the milage it does is because the car itself is lightweight and the engine has so much power, at 80 MPH it's loafing along at 1800 or so RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts
How about just an eflex with a 500tq 300 hp electric motor that gets45 mpg? The matching 4 door volt would be the family choice.

The look very similar, same launch year. GM is up too something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
The small-block can get great economy on the highway, even in suburb driving, there's no doubt. However, in the city they aren't very efficient as they get idle on eight cylinders and consume more accelerating. If they could program AFM to idle and stay in 4-cyl. mode longer and add it to the LSx engines it would help, but so would VVT, DI and BAS+.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,686 Posts
Actually fuel economy with a V-8 in the city really only suffers if you are doing jack rabbit starts (as most people probably do).

I-4s get good MPGs in the city simply because they cant jack rabbit start unless you get a hot I-4 motor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,963 Posts
Smaller displacement, direct injected, advanced ohv V8's will be the future of Camaro and any other V8 cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
Smaller displacement, direct injected, advanced ohv V8's will be the future of Camaro and any other V8 cars.
Agreed. A 4.9L V8, like the motor in the Denali XT concept (AFM, DI, VVT), paired with a properly ratio'd TR6060 trans would do wonders in a Camaro (heck, even all the Zeta car's, or a top motor in the Lambdas or Alphas, midrange in all the trucks, and possibly a between-V6 DI and V-Cadillac engine). Bump it up about 0.1L, and you could have the return of the original 302 Z/28 :D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,021 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I think there are a whole lot of options left and 4 cyl cars are not the only way to achieve high MPG cars. I just hope we don't see a return of 200 HP Corvettes! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
#1) 2.4L mileage = DI 2.0L T mileage
#2) Lets assume Camaro will weigh the same as a Malibu.
#3) Malibu 2.4L w/ 6 speed gets 32mpg hwy.
#4) So Camaro 2.0L Turbo with 6 speed auto should be able to get about 32mpg hwy (EPA rating) vs. probably 24mpg with a LS3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,663 Posts
I think a 4 in the Camaro would really tarnish it's muscle car image. A 3.6L V6 where the base (and volume) should be and a toned down Corvette V8 for the GT.

People aren't going to buy Camaros for fuel economy, don't do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
MPG vs Weight and Displacement is interesting....I did a 42 mile run that varied in some top and go and rural highway with speeds not exceeding about 60 mpg. No interstate...my 08 Avalanche with the 5.3 got 19.2, my 08 CTS with the 3.6DI got 24.4, and my 03 Vette, automatic no less, got 29.6 (with one stoplight race LOL).....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I think a 4 in the Camaro would really tarnish it's muscle car image. A 3.6L V6 where the base (and volume) should be and a toned down Corvette V8 for the GT.

People aren't going to buy Camaros for fuel economy, don't do it.
Having purchased my first Camaro in 1975, with all the passion I have for the mark, I'm dead-set against the four cylinder turbo. It just ruins the muscle car image as dinkak says.
So count me in with the V8 heritage group. My fondest memories have always been
with Z28's with the seductive sound and awesome torque and power which a four cylinder
can't meet. Forget about the 1-2 mpg advantage with the turbo four, it's just ridiculous
to even consider it in a Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
People aren't going to buy Camaros for fuel economy, don't do it.
If someone wants a sporty attractive looking 30mpg car why take Camaro off there list? Most people buy a Camaro for the sporty look. V8 performance buyers are the minority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,703 Posts
I think a 4 in the Camaro would really tarnish it's muscle car image. A 3.6L V6 where the base (and volume) should be and a toned down Corvette V8 for the GT.

People aren't going to buy Camaros for fuel economy, don't do it.
I'm with this guy. The Camaro is a sports car, not a people mover. You buy it for the performance, not MPG. Just like you should buy a truck for it's towing/carrying capabilities, not it's MPG.

A 4 banger would be a disgrace in the Camaro. If you're concerned about MPG, buy a Prius.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
When your moving 2 tons of automobile, I don't think it matters what you have under the hood. GM must learn to reduce weight in every model it offers. I agree a 4-cyl. would tarnish the image of the Camaro. I would never buy one.

I would hope GM is looking to move the F-body to Alpha. Then all the talk of smaller engines would seem more realistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,501 Posts
When your moving 2 tons of automobile, I don't think it matters what you have under the hood. GM must learn to reduce weight in every model it offers. I agree a 4-cyl. would tarnish the image of the Camaro. I would never buy one.

I would hope GM is looking to move the F-body to Alpha. Then all the talk of smaller engines would seem more realistic.
How badly has the Camaro image been tarnished since it already had a 4 cylinder during its 3rd generation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,838 Posts
With today's gas prices and everyone concerned about the environment, I really think the "old school" muscle car is pretty much dead. In order to keep these nameplates alive in today's standards, they must evolve them. I really think that the next Camaro and Mustang should be somewhat smaller and more sport oriented. Big V8's aren't going to do it anymore. Put a turbo charged 4 in one of these isn't going to tarnish its image. Gotta think of Darwin here, survival of the fittest, and to survive you have to evolve.

I would love a small version of the Firebird to come back to be Pontiac's halo car. The Solstice would still be the brand's roadster, but the Firebird could go against the 370Z's and RX-8's out there. Pontiac really needs to take back their performance heritage or they won't have any creditablity left in that area. And to do that, they can't rely on V8's. There are much more efficient ways of performing without having V8's under the hood.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
The 4-cyl. advantage in regular mixed driving should be the main concern, not what MPG the V8 can get going downhill with a good tailwind at 55 on the highway.

As a supercharged 3800 "27MPG HWY" Bonneville driver who rarely saw mixed MPG higher than 20 and lives far outside of the city, I'm skeptical of claims of the highway number as indicative of real fuel economy numbers. I only ever saw those numbers on very long or cross country trips with the cruise control on.

My 4-cyl. Forenza Wagon's numbers on paper are not radically higher than my Bonneville's, but when it says 29MPG HWY, it's not a stretch. I get around 27MPG mixed, and 19MPG mixed in my Bonneville. That's a huge difference from what's on paper.

There's the matter of a contant temptation to floor it in any vehicle with easy power off of the line (like my SSEi), sometimes without even thinking, which always hurts fuel economy. Few Camaro drivers accelerate like Grandma. That may or may not be a problem for the 4-banger as well, but I'm thinking those who buy the 4-cyl. will have at least a slightly different driving style from the V8 guys.

The way I drive, if my car delivers what feels like easy quick acceleration, I take advantage of it. If the car screams in protest at 4,000RPM when punched, I lay off and smoothly accelerate.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top