Camaro Engines? 4 Cylinder Turbo considered by Lutz

[hyperv6]

With Cafe changes GM looks to be crambling the engine line up since last year and here is what Luts said.

By RICHARD TRUETT, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS

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 V8 and V6 versions of the Camaro but otherwise has been secretive. Lutz confirmed to Automotive News that the V6 version of the Camaro will be powered by the same high-tech V6 used in the Cadillac CTS. It’s a direct-injected, 3.6-liter four-cam V6. 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 V6 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 V6s. GM will position both the V6 and V8 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 V6 rated at 210 hp. The base model Dodge Challenger, due in the fall, will use a 250-hp, 3.5-liter V6.

Most enthusiast attention has focused on the Camaro’s V8 engine, which is likely to be a 6.0-liter with about 400 hp. Lutz said the V8 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 V6 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 V8,” Lutz said. “And if you bought the V6, you got a fairly rough, unrefined pushrod engine with low horsepower and weasely performance.

“This time, the V6 is 260-odd horsepower, four overhead cams, very smooth and decent 0-to-60-mph times. And now the V6 is in its own right a very fast, very legitimate car.”

'We are going to be above Mustang'

Lutz said that with the V6, the Camaro achieves a nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution: “With the V6, 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 V6 coupe has a base price of $20,235. The V8 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.”

[ZL-1]

Well, given the competition's current V6 specs (Mustang 210hp/240lb-ft & Challenger 250hp/250lb-ft), the turbo I4 might be an interesting alternative at 260hp/260lb-ft.

Even more interesting, the turbo I4's specs on pontiac.com are 260 hp [193.9 kW] @ 5300 rpm, 260 lb-ft of torque [351.0 N-m] @ 2500–5250 rpm, so that torque is usable throughout most of the rev range.

[AAS]

With Cafe changes GM looks to be crambling the engine line up since last year and here is what Luts said.

By RICHARD TRUETT, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS

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.

Interesting, but will it have enough torque to not lose too much mpg in the city?

GM has said it plans V8 and V6 versions of the Camaro but otherwise has been secretive. Lutz confirmed to Automotive News that the V6 version of the Camaro will be powered by the same high-tech V6 used in the Cadillac CTS. It’s a direct-injected, 3.6-liter four-cam V6. In the CTS, the engine is rated at 304 hp.

Cool... 304 hp (maybe more by debut?) V6 sounds good...

Low-priced version dropped

Only one V6, oh well!

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 V6 Camaro among best in class for a performance car.

Wait, what happened to the 304 hp DI version mentioned above?

Lutz said GM has dropped plans to offer a low-priced, entry-level Camaro with one of GM’s low-tech V6s. GM will position both the V6 and V8 versions of the Camaro as premium cars compared to the Camaro’s chief rival, the Ford Mustang.

...

But Lutz said he thinks most buyers will opt for the V6 because the performance will be strong, especially when the engine is combined with a manual transmission.

That answers the V6 with a stick questions.

...

“This time, the V6 is 260-odd horsepower, four overhead cams, very smooth and decent 0-to-60-mph times. And now the V6 is in its own right a very fast, very legitimate car.”

Again, what happened to only one V6 being the 3.6 DI?

...

[AAS]

Well, given the competition's current V6 specs (Mustang 210hp/240lb-ft & Challenger 250hp/250lb-ft), the turbo I4 might be an interesting alternative at 260hp/260lb-ft.

Even more interesting, the turbo I4's specs on pontiac.com are 260 hp [193.9 kW] @ 5300 rpm, 260 lb-ft of torque [351.0 N-m] @ 2500–5250 rpm, so that torque is usable throughout most of the rev range.

Cool... that answers my first question

[ZL-1]

Cool... that answers my first question

I was wondering if, on a larger engine bay like the Camaro, that same engine can breathe a little better and be tuned higher...

[lakefire]

how about three engines:

The turbo 4 producing 260

the 3.6 producing 310

and the 6.0 producing 400

[hyperv6]

One thing to remember is the Eco is going to be offered at 300 HP in the near future. Also the engine can be pushed to 320 with no changes to block, heads, pistons, rods, etc.

GM also has better castings already being used in the SAAB.

[NOS2006]

THE 6.0 LS2 IS OUT OF f@#kING PRODUCTION. IT'S NOW THE 6.2 LS3!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I had to get that out.

I'm looking at:

3.6L -- 250-260 HP

3.6 DI -- 320 HP

6.2 LS3 -- 430 HP

SC 6.2 LS8 -- 525 HP

[NOS2006]

One thing to remember is the Eco is going to be offered at 300 HP in the near future. Also the engine can be pushed to 320 with no changes to block, heads, pistons, rods, etc.

Wrong you are. The LSJ and LNF pistons are rated right around 300 HP. The 5 speed in them are also very weak and just about at their break point.

Edited March 19, 2008 by NOS2006

[Z-06]

2.0 DI T -- 260-275 HP

3.6 DI -- 320 HP

6.2 LS3 -- 430 HP

SC 6.2 LS8 -- 525 HP

Fixed

[K.C.]

I love this idea. The I-4 would be lighter for better handling and have good power, and decent fuel economy. I'm on board with this. I hope this comes to fruition.

[ocnblu]

Not a bad thought, imo. Besides some sort of economy advantage, it might make the car appeal to a broader audience. Let me put it this way: this engine is now much more attractive to me with this beautiful car wrapped around it. It will sound funny, though, in a car like this.

I am not happy to hear GM hinting at a price higher than Mustang, however. This just seems like somebody trying to "de-emphasize" this car, like they're trying to make it less attractive by slapping a higher price tag on it. Troubling news.

[hyperv6]

Wrong you are. The LSJ and LNF pistons are rated right around 300 HP. The 5 speed in them are also very weak and just about at their break point.

I am not wrong, Just reporting what GM quoted in an artical I read. Tell them.

Also at the last couple SEMA shows GM has touted up to 320 HP with just their bolt on parts.

I am sure the launch control in the Cobalt will be adapted to the Solstice and other cars to protect the trannys.

For the most part I don't care as I will not be buying a Camaro 4 cylinder.

Edited March 19, 2008 by hyperv6

[Z-06]

THE 6.0 LS2 IS OUT OF f@#kING PRODUCTION. IT'S NOW THE 6.2 LS3!!!!!!!!!

Frank, what is in the G8 GT?

[Northstar]

Frank, what is in the G8 GT?

L76

Camaro will have the LS3. I'm 100% positive because I have proof of it. A turbo 4cyl is definitely something to consider. However, when the Camaro moves to Alpha this may be a better option. Zeta seems rather big, but I guess it has 260/260 so it may be fine.

[loki]

Frank, what is in the G8 GT?

or the hybrid yukon/tahoe/silvy... this could make the engine cheaper, is the scale can handle more units needed. but the hardcore people may not buy one if it can't have the 'vette 6.2L, AFM or not.

if a 4Cyl gets "mandated" why can't it just be a thoroughly updated 2.4L /turbo.... it'd be much better at the weight the camaro will prolly come in at. ..unless they have to throw in the 2gen BAS for more <2k torque or they'll just add that to the 3.6L...right?

the only difference this will have from the 70's - 80's...is the "huge" power gains in the small engine world... <v6's ...oh wait, and the much better v8 diesels...same being, lack of small diesels.

[Blake Noble]

Hmmm ...

I'm not totally against the idea of the DI 2.0L Turbo going under the hood of the Camaro, but I really don't see it performing all too well given Zeta's rather porky weight. But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong, however I am getting those '80s blues.

Anyway, the V6 model still shouldn't be that much more than the four-banger model, regardless if they both are options on the spec sheets.

Edited March 20, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Robert Hall]

THE 6.0 LS2 IS OUT OF f@#kING PRODUCTION. IT'S NOW THE 6.2 LS3!!!!!!!!!

Uh...ok...what's the difference besides 0.2 litres?

[pow]

That's great news... a turbocharged 4-cylinder is definitely preferable to a low-output pushrod V6. It seems like the Camaro's powertrain options will be world class.

I also like how they're going one above the Mustang. With its modern styling, independent rear suspension, advanced engines, and nice interior, the appeal of the Camaro will be broader than just the retro muscle car crowd. In V6 form, this could be a sophisticated 3-series coupe competitor, and a lightweight turbo I4 version could appeal to the Silvia/Trueno/RX7 import/drifter/GT4 generation.

[NOS2006]

Uh...ok...what's the difference besides 0.2 litres?

It's a completely different engine w/ about 60-70 HP difference.

[Camino LS6]

This worries me a bit.

I'm not sure that a 4cyl. Camaro can sell well enough, no matter the output.

It just isn't a comfortable fit for the nameplate.

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I do worry about it succeeding. Perhaps a Camaro that is the analog of the old Mustang SVO 4cyl. might work - a total package as opposed to a simple driveline swap.

Uncharted waters.

[Blake Noble]

You know, I really can't keep from thinking of that wrought-Iron hunk of crap ...

Edited March 20, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Camino LS6]

You know, I really can't keep from thinking of that wrought-Iron hunk of crap ...

Yeah, that's part of the reason this worries me.

[Robert Hall]

Yeah, that's part of the reason this worries me.

Well, the turbo 4 they have today is worlds apart from the '80s junk. This is time to think outside the box... I like the idea of a turbo dieselV6 or V8 Camaro, but Lutz seems set against diesels in the US..

Edited March 20, 2008 by moltar

[Blake Noble]

Well, the turbo 4 they have today is worlds apart from the '80s junk. This is time to think outside the box... I like the idea of a turbo diesel Camaro, but Putz seems set against diesels in the US..

Oh, don't get me wrong. The 2.0 DI turbo would be a nice base engine if the Camaro were riding on a much lighter rear-drive platform (i.e. Alpha) and I wouldn't and couldn't really complain, regardless of the Iron Duke failure of the 1980s. However, the F5 comes to us on Zeta, which is a honestly great platform that, as bad as I hate to admit it, has one and only one true fault: it's not exactly a featherweight for it's class. I just ... can't see any four-banger working out all too well in any Zeta car.

Edited March 20, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[PurdueGuy]

I would think 260hp/260 torque (or higher, as mentioned earlier in this thread) ought to be able to do alright even in a heavier car, unless the torque curve is just craptastic (which hasn't seemed to be the case in articles I've read regarding the Kappa turbos...)

Perhaps people get too hung up on the # of cylinders? 4cyls have come a LONG way since the 80's...

[Robert Hall]

Oh, don't get me wrong. The 2.0 DI turbo would be a nice base engine if the Camaro were riding on a much lighter rear-drive platform (i.e. Alpha) and I wouldn't and couldn't really complain, regardless of the Iron Duke failure of the 1980s. However, the F5 comes to us on Zeta, which is a honestly great platform that, as bad as I hate to admit it, has one and only one true fault: it's not exactly a featherweight for it's class. I just ... can't see any four-banger working out all too well in any Zeta car.

It's going to have to be torquey, definitely....I figure the Camaro will probably weigh 3600lbs, minimum, maybe? With V8 it will pushing 4k no doubt...

[PurdueGuy]

Solstice is 3,000lbs and scoots with 260hp. That's .086666... hp/lb. If they can push it to 300hp and the car weighs 3600lbs, that's .08333... hp/lb. To have equal hp/lb as the Solstice GXP, it would only need 312hp. Again, as long as the torque curve isn't crappy, that's doing pretty darn well, IMO, especially for a base engine.

204 hp would put it even hp/lb with the base Solstice, BTW. The 260hp setup would put it somewhere between base & gxp solstices, which still isn't bad for a base engine, I wouldn't think...

Edited March 20, 2008 by PurdueGuy

[SuperSport623]

the idea seems ok, but i agree with YJ and Camino that thoughts of the Iron Duke are dancing in my head, unsettling thoughts indeed....

[Blake Noble]

You know, I'm not going to worry about it to the point where it starts to wrinkle my forehead.

If we do see the Eco DI Turbo under hood as the base engine, the 3.6 DI won't bring some outlandish premium over it, should you decide to buy it instead. In the end, I guess a test-drive will prove if the four-banger is adequate enough, if we see it. But I have my many reservations that it would actually be up to the task.

Edited March 20, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Camino LS6]

I'm less worried about the ability of the car to move well than I am about its ability to sell well.

Keeping the Camaro alive is what this is all about.

[Blake Noble]

I'm less worried about the ability of the car to move well than I am about its ability to sell well.

Keeping the Camaro alive is what this is all about.

Can't say I disagree. The chances if we see an F6 Camaro after this F5 depend on how well the F5 sells, you are right. Global sales are on the Camaro's side this time, though, as North America will share this one with Australia, Europe, and so on where as the previous generations didn't have such a luxury.

I can't exactly see a four-cylinder F5 Camaro setting on the lots collecting dust, however. I think some people who want the car but still want respectable mpg ratings will go for it. But then again, I don't see it accounting for a large portion of the sales base, either. I see that as the six-cylinder model's role, regardless of the availability of the four-cylinder. I know that the Iron Duke didn't last very long in the F3s; it was gone by '87 I think, due to poor sales. Who's to say history won't repeat itself?

Edited March 20, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Z-06]

I'm less worried about the ability of the car to move well than I am about its ability to sell well.

Keeping the Camaro alive is what this is all about.

That argument holds water only if all the Camaro sells comes from ex-Camaro owners and they despise the set up.

The car may grab some attention to the teenagers whose parents will not have money for a Vee Six or some pretenders who will buy the car for looks and not for its capabilities or even first time import converts who want to save money on gas. I think the idea is worth trying. If it bombs the first year GM can discontinue it. 2.0T DI is a very capable engine, and if you want RWD V-8 to be saved then we should accept these adjustments. I am pretty sure I am not going to buy one with a 4-cylinder but someone else will certainly and if that saves my V-8 I would give that sacrifice.

[Camino LS6]

That argument holds water only if all the Camaro sells comes from ex-Camaro owners and they despise the set up.

The car may grab some attention to the teenagers whose parents will not have money for a Vee Six or some pretenders who will buy the car for looks and not for its capabilities or even first time import converts who want to save money on gas. I think the idea is worth trying. If it bombs the first year GM can discontinue it. 2.0T DI is a very capable engine, and if you want RWD V-8 to be saved then we should accept these adjustments. I am pretty sure I am not going to buy one with a 4-cylinder but someone else will certainly and if that saves my V-8 I would give that sacrifice.

No argument, just concern.

[Z-06]

No argument, just concern.

The concern should not hold any water. Just relax and shag one more time in the name of the G8 ST.

[Robert Hall]

That argument holds water only if all the Camaro sells comes from ex-Camaro owners and they despise the set up.

Hopefully, when the production version is out, we won't hear all the whining from the old farts that it doesn't look just like it did 40 years ago (which is what happened with the GTO).

[Z-06]

Hopefully, when the production version is out, we won't hear all the whining from the old farts that it doesn't look just like it did 40 years ago (which is what happened with the GTO).

Oh some Alzheimer cult members will still Bitch despite having no memory of their beloved 69 'Maro.

[Robert Hall]

Oh some Alzheimer cult members will still Bitch despite having no memory of their beloved 69 'Maro.

And of course, our delusional, trapped-in-a-past-from-before-his-time Sixty Eight will continue ranting for years about the B-pillars..

[Z-06]

And of course, our delusional, trapped-in-a-past-from-before-his-time Sixty Eight will continue ranting for years about the B-pillars..

Does he belong to the Alzheimer club too? Although I have to say that his rant sounds like a Beethoven symphony compared to the character who rants GM and humps Boobs Move Weiners. He will be bitching about Camaro before everybody.

[loki]

That's great news... a turbocharged 4-cylinder is definitely preferable to a low-output pushrod V6. It seems like the Camaro's powertrain options will be world class.

I also like how they're going one above the Mustang. With its modern styling, independent rear suspension, advanced engines, and nice interior, the appeal of the Camaro will be broader than just the retro muscle car crowd. In V6 form, this could be a sophisticated 3-series coupe competitor, and a lightweight turbo I4 version could appeal to the Silvia/Trueno/RX7 import/drifter/GT4 generation.

compared to the now mustang... yes, but what if it got the 3.7L and the rumored boss 5.4L w/ ~390 hp? then they could still use an eco boost engine if they had to as well... seems like powertrain wise it could come down to tranny options. the 'maro will still beat it performance wise and be nicer all around.... but i think they could be fairly equal to how the past ones stood up to each other.

[Northstar]

The 4cyl would get sales from people that would otherwise not even consider the car, I think. WRX and EVO fans, for instance.

[Robert Hall]

The 4cyl would get sales from people that would otherwise not even consider the car, I think. WRX and EVO fans, for instance.

Which would be good for GM, I think...they need to expand their customer base, rather than relying on previous customers...

[Drew Dowdell]

OMG.... you all need to stop.... think.... then post.

All of you clutching your pearls need to remember this graph.

I think the Camaro will do just fine with the Turbo-4..... I would even go so far as to day GM should ditch the 3.6 and put the Turbo-4 BAS-II system in there.

...and that's coming from a 3.6 lover.

[Z-06]

I think it is a win win situation.

1. More sales from converts

2. Good image in the minds of greenies.

3. 2.0 DI T will actually increase the fuel efficiency compared to 3.6 VVT. Both 3.6 VVT and 3.6 DI have almost same fuel efficiency.

4. It is not anemic like the Iron Block.

[C.H.U.D.]

Let's face it - the Camaro (and RWD in general) need this option for CAFE viability. As long as the big guns are available and the four has decent output, I'm all for it.

[Drew Dowdell]

additionally....

want more power = add more boost

muuuuch easier to do with a turbo.

[Robert Hall]

Let's face it - the Camaro (and RWD in general) need this option for CAFE viability. As long as the big guns are available and the four has decent output, I'm all for it.

Yes, 25k 4cyl Camaros would definitely help to offset a couple thousand 500hp top-of-the-line models...

[The O.C.]

I'm surprised you guys haven't bitched more over the 260hp rating of the D.I. 3.6L in the Camaro.

WTF is up with that? Why detune it for a car as important as the Camaro? AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH! If it's truly the DI engine, then why not the full 300+ hp like it makes in the CTS...?

Both cars are RWD.....so I can't see the driveline bleeding off any power.....and I can't imagine the Camaro having a more restrictive exhaust system than the CTS...?

This makes NO sense to me. Can't be fuel economy either.....isn't the DI CTS rated at 17/26? Can't be cost....isn't the direct injection the "costly" part of going from non-DI to DI...?

Remember....at 260hp, we don't have THAT big of an advantage on the Challenger V6.....and Ford has already comfirmed that the MCE Mustang ('09 too?) gets the 3.5L or 3.7L....giving it power and refinement on par with a 260hp Camaro.....

A 300hp V6 Camaro, on the other hand, would be a segment leader.....not just a competitor......

And I'm not sure I'm buying Lutz' rationalization of the pricing strategy.....being more than the Mustang. We'll have to see HOW much more.....but GM risks pricing itself out of the market. Mustang has built quite a name and reputation since the current generation came on the market. We need to be able to hit them right where it counts. If I remember correctly, the last F-bodies were notorious for being more expensive than the Mustang.....and look what ultimately happened to them in the marketplace.....and THEY were the superior products at the time....more stylish, faster, etc. But that couldn't keep them from extinction.....

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm surprised you guys haven't bitched more over the 260hp rating of the D.I. 3.6L in the Camaro.

WTF is up with that? Why detune it for a car as important as the Camaro? AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH! If it's truly the DI engine, then why not the full 300+ hp like it makes in the CTS...?

Both cars are RWD.....so I can't see the driveline bleeding off any power.....and I can't imagine the Camaro having a more restrictive exhaust system than the CTS...?

This makes NO sense to me. Can't be fuel economy either.....isn't the DI CTS rated at 17/26? Can't be cost....isn't the direct injection the "costly" part of going from non-DI to DI...?

Remember....at 260hp, we don't have THAT big of an advantage on the Challenger V6.....and Ford has already comfirmed that the MCE Mustang ('09 too?) gets the 3.5L or 3.7L....giving it power and refinement on par with a 260hp Camaro.....

A 300hp V6 Camaro, on the other hand, would be a segment leader.....not just a competitor......

And I'm not sure I'm buying Lutz' rationalization of the pricing strategy.....being more than the Mustang. We'll have to see HOW much more.....but GM risks pricing itself out of the market. Mustang has built quite a name and reputation since the current generation came on the market. We need to be able to hit them right where it counts. If I remember correctly, the last F-bodies were notorious for being more expensive than the Mustang.....and look what ultimately happened to them in the marketplace.....and THEY were the superior products at the time....more stylish, faster, etc. But that couldn't keep them from extinction.....

They must have tuned the DI for efficiency rather than performance. 260hp is only 5 more than the non-DI 3.6 in the CTS.

Yes the f-bodies were more stylish and performed much better than their Ford counterparts.... but the same could be said of the B-Bodies too and look where they ended up.

[Drew Dowdell]

I"m actually surprised there is no cheering of GM/Lutz for dropping the pushrod V6 option. Seriously guys... for people who harp on pushrods as much as you do... this slipped by you?