Camaro Engines? 4 Cylinder Turbo considered by Lutz

[Robert Hall]

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?

Not much point in cheering about an obvious decision, is there?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I'm not really opposed to having the OPTION of a 4 cylinder in the F5; especially given the export potential.

If it's executed correctly, it could be a fun car. That is; if the car isn't fat as hell.

Here's a whole new can of worms that I'll open up:

If the Camaro, a zeta sports car, can get by with a 4 cylinder as the base motor; why can't the rest of the zeta line? Why has the line up been narrowed and models been cancelled, unless for the sake of politics?

[Robert Hall]

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......

Cadillac probably warned Chevy not to go there... they wouldn't want the exact same engine and power used in the CTS to be in a much cheaper Chevy...

[Drew Dowdell]

Cadillac probably warned Chevy not to go there... they wouldn't want the exact same engine and power used in the CTS to be in a much cheaper Chevy...

Still, what about the 278 in the Lambdas?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

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.....

I think Lutz made a mistake there. If we have a Turbo 4 cylinder that puts out 260, what would be the point of having a DI V6 rated the same.

I'm not sure anyone can compete with the Mustang on price... The GTO couldn't and it performed better, the F4 couldn't and it was MUCH more performance for the $$$.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm not really opposed to having the OPTION of a 4 cylinder in the F5; especially given the export potential.

If it's executed correctly, it could be a fun car. That is; if the car isn't fat as hell.

Here's a whole new can of worms that I'll open up:

If the Camaro, a zeta sports car, can get by with a 4 cylinder as the base motor; why can't the rest of the zeta line? Why has the line up been narrowed and models been cancelled, unless for the sake of politics?

Truth.

especially with that Turbo-4 BAS-II waiting in the wings.

More torque at 1,000 rpm than the 3.6vvt and much better highway gas mileage and engine shut off at stop.... what's not to love?

[Drew Dowdell]

Not much point in cheering about an obvious decision, is there?

so we're not going to cheer when GM cans the DTS and produces a 7-series competitor?

[The O.C.]

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.

First of all, he stated it would be rated 17/25.

That's already what the (I'm assuming heavier) CTS with the full 300hp gets......so I don't get the "efficiency" excuse. Now if he claimed it would get something like 20/30, then that would be a difference I could see......

On the B-bodies......I'd have to argue LT1 engine option aside, Ford's fullsize sedans of that time were better cars. The B-bodies were barely changed underneath from the 1977 originals....

[The O.C.]

Cadillac probably warned Chevy not to go there... they wouldn't want the exact same engine and power used in the CTS to be in a much cheaper Chevy...

Don't tell me GM is still harboring that mentality? Didn't we already discuss this in another thread? That's a bull$h! excuse if I ever heard of one....and a STUPID decision for a corporation like GM to make.....(if indeed that's the reason.)

You don't see BMW worring that the 135i makes as much power and torque as the 535i (for twice the money...) Or that Lexus worries that the Camry V6 has as much power as the ES350. Or that Audi is worried about the Passat having even MORE power in it's V6 than the more-expensive A4....! (280hp versus 265hp.)

Edited March 20, 2008 by The O.C.

[Robert Hall]

Don't tell me GM is still harboring that mentality? Didn't we already discuss this in another thread? That's a bull$h! excuse if I ever heard of one....and a STUPID decision for a corporation like GM to make.....(if indeed that's the reason.)

I have no idea..just a wild guess..but if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised...

[The O.C.]

I have no idea..just a wild guess..but if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised...

I know....and I wasn't "bitching" at you, just expressing my frustration.

There's not a single person on this board that wouldn't LOVE a 300hp V6 Camaro.....and no one can argue the strength such car would have in the marketplace! But once again, we have more "dumbing down" of an important new GM product by the brainiacs in Detroit.....

Yeah....260 is nice.....but not segment-leading.....especially when there is no (seemingly) rational reason for it.

(edit: Yeah, if they said they were using the non-DI, 260hp version for cost reasons, etc., then I could understand that a bit more.....but they ARE going to the trouble of giving us the DI unit.....but with no more power than the non-DI unit.....)

The 2.0L turbo could be an interesting base-model alternative though....

Edited March 20, 2008 by The O.C.

[Robert Hall]

I know....and I wasn't "bitching" at you, just expressing my frustration.

There's not a single person on this board that wouldn't LOVE a 300hp V6 Camaro.....and no one can argue the strength such car would have in the marketplace! But once again, we have more "dumbing down" of an important new GM product by the brainiacs in Detroit.....

Yeah....260 is nice.....but not segment-leading.....especially when there is no (seemingly) rational reason for it.

(edit: Yeah, if they said they were using the non-DI, 260hp version for cost reasons, etc., then I could understand that a bit more.....but they ARE going to the trouble of giving us the DI unit.....but with no more power than the non-DI unit.....)

The 2.0L turbo could be an interesting base-model alternative though....

Maybe Chevy felt 300 hp for the V6 would be too close to their base V8 (the displacement and hp of which has yet to be announced, I think?)

[toesuf94]

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.

Mustang has a live rear axle versus the Camaro's IRS.

Mustang has less of an interior than we will reportedly get in the Camaro.

Those two items alone should bring the price point above the current Mustang. Personally, I am pissed that the Mustang is even in the target zone of the Camaro development. They should be targeting the BMW 3er, the Infiniti G35/350Z twins and other 'up market' coupes out there. The Mustang is not that great (while still an attractive package) and should not be a benchmark for the new Camaro, merely a stepping stone to walk over to get where the car needs to be. Hell, truth is, the Camaro should be aiming at the Nissan GT-R and spanking it for half the money!

I am intrigued by the 4 cylinder in this car, but my heart wants that V8.

[The O.C.]

Maybe Chevy felt 300 hp for the V6 would be too close to their base V8 (the displacement and hp of which has yet to be announced, I think?)

Well, we can most likely assume we'll be looking at, worst-case scenario, the 360hp V8 from the G8.....and more likely the 400hp version of the Corvette motor (from the G8 GXP) don't you think....?

[RBB]

I don't know that a Turbo DI I-4 will get much better mileage than an OHC V6. The 2.976 lb. Solstice GXP gets 19/26 City/Highway MPGs with this engine, and the estimated 3000lb New Cobalt SS gets 22/30 (see - FWD saves gas!!!11!1). I'd assume the approximately 3600 lb Camaro would get worse than the Solstice/Sky.

For comparison:

The 3630 lb. Saturn Aura with the non-DI 3.6L V6 gets 17/26 MPG.

The 2.3L DI Turbo I-4 powering the 3929 lb. Mazda CX-7 gets 18/24 MPG, and in the real world (not that it matters for CAFE), averages less than 20 MPG.

None of these directly corrolate - different drivetrains, transmission gearing, cD, etc. But they give you a decent idea, and based on that I can't see that a DI turbo I-4 will give you noticably better gas mileage than a good V6.

-RBB

Edited March 20, 2008 by RBB

[Robert Hall]

Well, we can most likely assume we'll be looking at, worst-case scenario, the 360hp V8 from the G8.....and more likely the 400hp version of the Corvette motor (from the G8 GXP) don't you think....?

Sounds reasonable. Maybe something like:

360hp V8 in an SS

400 hp V8 in a Z28

500 hp V8 (ZR1 or CTS-v motor) in a ZL1 or other top trim

[Drew Dowdell]

On the B-bodies......I'd have to argue LT1 engine option aside, Ford's fullsize sedans of that time were better cars. The B-bodies were barely changed underneath from the 1977 originals....

Huh? The panthers are ancient and were about the same age as the B-bodies at the time. The Fleetwood was easily better than the Town Car..... and as far as longevity... not much beats a b-body.

[The O.C.]

Mustang has a live rear axle versus the Camaro's IRS.

Mustang has less of an interior than we will reportedly get in the Camaro.

Those two items alone should bring the price point above the current Mustang. Personally, I am pissed that the Mustang is even in the target zone of the Camaro development. They should be targeting the BMW 3er, the Infiniti G35/350Z twins and other 'up market' coupes out there. The Mustang is not that great (while still an attractive package) and should not be a benchmark for the new Camaro, merely a stepping stone to walk over to get where the car needs to be. Hell, truth is, the Camaro should be aiming at the Nissan GT-R and spanking it for half the money!

I am intrigued by the 4 cylinder in this car, but my heart wants that V8.

Camaro will never be a car for GM to target highline import coupes. It never has, and never will be.

Let's be realistic about it.

Mustang will be, and should be, it's main #1 competitor. That's the way it's always been....and that's what I think you will see happen in the marketplace.

History has shown Camaro to be the better car (at least for the last two generations) with the better chassis.....IRS or not. But Mustang has consistently spanked the Camaro in the marketplace.

Time will tell if a new Camaro, with a superior chassis/suspension will reverse that trend. I just fear major problems if GM gets a "big head" about this car and tries to move it too far upmarket relative to Mustang.

[The O.C.]

Huh? The panthers are ancient and were about the same age as the B-bodies at the time. The Fleetwood was easily better than the Town Car..... and as far as longevity... not much beats a b-body.

But at the time, Ford did alot more upgrades to the basic chassis and suspension on those cars to keep them viable....not to mention things like more up-to-date interior and exterior styling changes....

I'm not an engineer....and don't have specifics....but peruse your old car rags and you'll see alot of feedback along those lines printed there. I even remember driving competitive Fords and Mercurys back-to-back with the Roadmaster when I worked there....and the Fords simply felt more "modern" when you drove them. (Again, excellent LT1 aside.)

[regfootball]

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

evo and sti fans would bemoan the lack of AWD

[Robert Hall]

evo and sti fans would bemoan the lack of AWD

True, different demographic. It would be interesting if GM would offer a compact, AWD performance sedan like the WRX/Evo but that's another story for another thread...

[Robert Hall]

But at the time, Ford did alot more upgrades to the basic chassis and suspension on those cars to keep them viable....not to mention things like more up-to-date interior and exterior styling changes....

I'm not an engineer....and don't have specifics....but peruse your old car rags and you'll see alot of feedback along those lines printed there. I even remember driving competitive Fords and Mercurys back-to-back with the Roadmaster when I worked there....and the Fords simply felt more "modern" when you drove them. (Again, excellent LT1 aside.)

The things I didn't like about the '90s B-bodies were the wierd tippy-toe look some had (wider body than the older B-bodies, but still with the old track) and the huge, deep dash and ginormous windshield...

I like the Panthers more overall...I'm pretty familiar with the '90s Town Cars (my dad had 2 of 'em) and they are pretty smooth and comfortable to drive (and I've driven a lot of the Grand Marquis and recent Town Cars as rentals in the last few years).

[regfootball]

wow, lots of emotion around here.

did chevy err in making the camaro zeta or should they have greenlighted a lighter alpha?

the 2.0DI with the weight will be tough. the turbo motor lacks the torque of the v6. it's a lighter motor, but by how much?

if the 4 cylinder was a 2.5...........

i think the DI v6 will come in around where it is in the 09 traverse. 280+ hp.

re: the mustang. Ford has decided the car needs to be affordable. GM may be screwing the pooch making the camaro too pricey.

Also, mustang may get ecoboost 4 and 6 cylinder motors. GM may end up with competition in lower priced mustangs with a turbo four and the ecoboost v6 with 375hp or whatever may come in cheaper than GM's norm. asp. v6.

I am glad, no pushrod v6's.

It does make you think, why can't they put a 2.5l turbo 4 in say, a G8? or other zeta.

Edited March 20, 2008 by regfootball

[Northstar]

The fact that the DI V6 is only going to make 260HP in the Camaro is very odd. The only explanation I can think of is if they can tune it for fuel economy. For instance, if they can take a 230HP version of the 3.6L and add DI and get better fuel economy than the non-DI 3.6 that makes 260HP. I don't know if that's possible, but it's the only reason I can come up with for it to only have 260HP with DI. And the 3.6 in the Camaro is the DI version, I am sure of it.

[SuperSport623]

maybe just super underrated....

[siegen]

I am completely surprised, the idea of a 4 cylinder in a muscle car I would have thought would elicit fairly severe criticisms from everyone and all reason would go flying out the window.

That being said, I think this is a bad idea.

Given the high boost of the 2.0L, and the high weight of the Camaro, I highly doubt it will be able to achieve the same FE as a 3.6L V6, while providing the same performance at all RPMs.

wow, lots of emotion around here.

did chevy err in making the camaro zeta or should they have greenlighted a lighter alpha?

the 2.0DI with the weight will be tough. the turbo motor lacks the torque of the v6. it's a lighter motor, but by how much?

if the 4 cylinder was a 2.5...........

i think the DI v6 will come in around where it is in the 09 traverse. 280+ hp.

re: the mustang. Ford has decided the car needs to be affordable. GM may be screwing the pooch making the camaro too pricey.

Also, mustang may get ecoboost 4 and 6 cylinder motors. GM may end up with competition in lower priced mustangs with a turbo four and the ecoboost v6 with 375hp or whatever may come in cheaper than GM's norm. asp. v6.

I am glad, no pushrod v6's.

It does make you think, why can't they put a 2.5l turbo 4 in say, a G8? or other zeta.

So it's not ok to use a turbo 4-cyl in a small crossover, but it would be ok to use one in a muscle car?

[PurdueGuy]

Given the high boost of the 2.0L, and the high weight of the Camaro, I highly doubt it will be able to achieve the same FE as a 3.6L V6, while providing the same performance at all RPMs.

Unless it were being used instead of the 3.6L, why would it need to provide the same performance?

[Drew Dowdell]

So it's not ok to use a turbo 4-cyl in a small crossover, but it would be ok to use one in a secretary car?

fixed.

Yes.

[regfootball]

I am completely surprised, the idea of a 4 cylinder in a muscle car I would have thought would elicit fairly severe criticisms from everyone and all reason would go flying out the window.

That being said, I think this is a bad idea.

Given the high boost of the 2.0L, and the high weight of the Camaro, I highly doubt it will be able to achieve the same FE as a 3.6L V6, while providing the same performance at all RPMs.

So it's not ok to use a turbo 4-cyl in a small crossover, but it would be ok to use one in a muscle car?

i guess i would lean to what you are saying. which i why i suggested alpha may have been a better camaro platform.

[pow]

I don't know that a Turbo DI I-4 will get much better mileage than an OHC V6. The 2.976 lb. Solstice GXP gets 19/26 City/Highway MPGs with this engine, and the estimated 3000lb New Cobalt SS gets 22/30 (see - FWD saves gas!!!11!1). I'd assume the approximately 3600 lb Camaro would get worse than the Solstice/Sky.

For comparison:

The 3630 lb. Saturn Aura with the non-DI 3.6L V6 gets 17/26 MPG.

The 2.3L DI Turbo I-4 powering the 3929 lb. Mazda CX-7 gets 18/24 MPG, and in the real world (not that it matters for CAFE), averages less than 20 MPG.

None of these directly corrolate - different drivetrains, transmission gearing, cD, etc. But they give you a decent idea, and based on that I can't see that a DI turbo I-4 will give you noticably better gas mileage than a good V6.

-RBB

Heavy turbocharged-four SUVs like the CX-7 and RDX don't make much sense, because their aerodynamic drag at highway speeds (where turbo engines have an efficiency advantage) kill fuel economy. The engines in the CX-7 and RDX are also on the big side at 2.3 liters.

FWIW, a 3500 lb VW EOS with a 2.0 TFSI gets 21/30 MPG, as does a 3750 lb Audi A4 cabriolet 2.0 TFSI. A 3600 lb A4 quattro gets 20/28. All of them get significantly better fuel economy than their 3.1 V6 FSI counterparts.

[cletus8269]

hmm me thinks a limited edition Aluminum Duke package is in order

[SuperSport623]

[2QuickZ's]

I like the turbo 4 cylinder for the base engine a lot. Here is how I could see it working out.

- Base 4 cyl. turbo - For the financially challenged younger person that wants a Camaro. It still offers lots of opportunity for modification and cheap horsepower.

- 3.6l DI V6 - For the person that wants the style of a Camaro and who will be happy with something that performs "adequately". Basically, someone that would never intend to modify the car for improved performance and is happy with what they get from the factory.

- LS3 V8 - For those that would never, ever consider a 4 cylinder to be a worthy engine for a Camaro. Want to mod the car for improved performance but can't afford the top of the line powertrain choice.

- LSA V8 - For those that have to have the top factory performer.

Overall, I think it would be an awesome powertrain lineup for this car! I've owned 3 Camaro's (1 2nd gen & 2 4th gens) and previously was not considering a 5th gen because I have no intention of selling my 17K mile original 2002 Z28. I could see a turbo 4 cyl. (or even a DI V6) as a daily driver, though!

A few additional comments:

- I doubt a turbo 4 cylinder will be much of a weight savings over either the 3.6 V6 or the LS3.

- As others have said, a DI V6 of only 260hp doesn't make any sense. Either save the money for the DI and offer the standard 3.6 or give us at least 300 hp.

Edited March 20, 2008 by 2QuickZ's

[Camino LS6]

The consensus among the Camaro faithful is that the 260 HP figure was a mistake, and the DI V6 will best 300HP. The story is just inaccurate, it seems.

Also, the Fbodfather has reacted to Lutz' statement about the Camaro/Mustang pricing issue by saying not to worry, it will be price competitive with Mustang.

So this may be much ado about nothing on both fronts.

[Z-06]

The consensus among the Camaro faithful is that the 260 HP figure was a mistake, and the DI V6 will best 300HP. The story is just inaccurate, it seems.

Also, the Fbodfather has reacted to Lutz' statement about the Camaro/Mustang pricing issue by saying not to worry, it will be price competitive with Mustang.

So this may be much ado about nothing on both fronts.

You know Uncle Bob sometimes gets confused and in turn confuses everybody.

I think this vehicle is going to be a hit with smaller displacement vehicles. I wish they keep the weight close to 3500-3600 lbs, not close to the Heavy Iron G8.

[CMG]

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.

I agree.

To compare "peak ratings" of a turbo 4 cylinder to a naturally aspirated engine won't tell the whole story IMO.

Imagine the low rpm capabilities of a turbo 4 BEFORE the boost gets up. Imagine off-peak turbo 4 cylinder performance.

I'm not going to say it's a "BAD" idea, I just hope the drivetrain is thoroughly tested in a vehicle at the same weight as the production Camaro ends up. It'll save alot of trouble in the long run....

There has been variable nozzle turbos in the past that tried to remove turbo spooling time in the past, going for fast response times at low engine speeds while still having a large turbo capability for top end power.

Turbos are powerful and fuel efficient, but a car of the Camaro's size will need a little more torque than a GLHS to get it moving with any kind of authority...?

[zhawk]

I am a bit concerned about the turbo 4 since I well remember the the Iron Duke. I am however, willing to wait and see what comes out and if the turbo 4 will move the new Camaro in some kind of respectable way.

[2QuickZ's]

I agree.

To compare "peak ratings" of a turbo 4 cylinder to a naturally aspirated engine won't tell the whole story IMO.

Imagine the low rpm capabilities of a turbo 4 BEFORE the boost gets up. Imagine off-peak turbo 4 cylinder performance.

I'm not going to say it's a "BAD" idea, I just hope the drivetrain is thoroughly tested in a vehicle at the same weight as the production Camaro ends up. It'll save alot of trouble in the long run....

There has been variable nozzle turbos in the past that tried to remove turbo spooling time in the past, going for fast response times at low engine speeds while still having a large turbo capability for top end power.

Turbos are powerful and fuel efficient, but a car of the Camaro's size will need a little more torque than a GLHS to get it moving with any kind of authority...?

In racing parlance, you are looking for area under the curve. Someone posted a graph earlier that compared the torque of a few GM engines, including a 2.4l turbo. I don't know where it came from or if it is accurate, but if it is, it looks like the 4 cyl turbo will do just fine. Here it is again so you don't have to go back a couple pages to find it. If they mate it with an auto trans, they could take a good bit of lag out of the picture by playing with torque converter stall speed.

Edited March 21, 2008 by 2QuickZ's

[loki]

In racing parlance, you are looking for area under the curve. Someone posted a graph earlier that compared the torque of a few GM engines, including the DI 2.0l turbo. I don't know where it came from or if it is accurate, but if it is, it looks like the 4 cyl turbo will do just fine. Here it is again so you don't have to go back a couple pages to find it. If they mate it with an auto trans, they could take a good bit of lag out of the picture by playing with torque converter stall speed.

now DI that 2.4 and torque should peak right close to 300ftlbs. and to make it economy, regular recommended and it'd drop to.. 290?

[2QuickZ's]

now DI that 2.4 and torque should peak right close to 300ftlbs. and to make it economy, regular recommended and it'd drop to.. 290?

Oops! I should have looked closer at the graph. You're right. It's a non-DI 2.4l shown, not the DI 2.0l.

[K.C.]

Truth.

especially with that Turbo-4 BAS-II waiting in the wings.

More torque at 1,000 rpm than the 3.6vvt and much better highway gas mileage and engine shut off at stop.... what's not to love?

I wondered the same thing about the Turbo DI 2.0 in the G8 and other possible Zeta cars. I think it would be a good base engine.

[CMG]

If they mate it with an auto trans, they could take a good bit of lag out of the picture by playing with torque converter stall speed.

One problem I see with that is gas mileage will suffer, of course.

I think I'll have to wait and see to believe..?

:AH-HA_wink:

[2QuickZ's]

One problem I see with that is gas mileage will suffer, of course.

I think I'll have to wait and see to believe..?

:AH-HA_wink:

It would suffer some around town but with a lockup like all of todays TC's have, I doubt it would suffer any impact in highway mileage. If the thing makes decent torque at 2500 rpm and up, a 2000 stall would probably work just fine. I wonder what stall is in the auto version of the Solstice GXP and Sky Redline? Any body have a graph of the HP and TQ curves of that powertrain?

[CMG]

It would suffer some around town but with a lockup like all of todays TC's have, I doubt it would suffer any impact in highway mileage. If the thing makes decent torque at 2500 rpm and up, a 2000 stall would probably work just fine. I wonder what stall is in the auto version of the Solstice GXP and Sky Redline? Any body have a graph of the HP and TQ curves of that powertrain?

The Solstice and Sky are LIGHTWEIGHTS compared to the upcoming Camaro, are they not? I'm not sure the stall will be chosen to compensate for bottom end if it ends up costing mpg ratings in any noticeable way... kind of a catch-22 situation? More mpg ratings vs decent bottom end power. Picking one or the other isn't the best scenario, creating a way to achieve both would be a better solution.

[Robert Hall]

The Solstice and Sky are LIGHTWEIGHTS compared to the upcoming Camaro, are they not? I'm not sure the stall will be chosen to compensate for bottom end if it ends up costing mpg ratings in any noticeable way... kind of a catch-22 situation? More mpg ratings vs decent bottom end power. Picking one or the other isn't the best scenario, creating a way to achieve both would be a better solution.

Yeah, the Kappas are sub 3k and the Camaro will be closer to 4k...?

[PurdueGuy]

Yeah, the Kappas are sub 3k and the Camaro will be closer to 4k...?

I wouldn't say sub 3k, they're right at 3k.

[2QuickZ's]

The Solstice and Sky are LIGHTWEIGHTS compared to the upcoming Camaro, are they not? I'm not sure the stall will be chosen to compensate for bottom end if it ends up costing mpg ratings in any noticeable way... kind of a catch-22 situation? More mpg ratings vs decent bottom end power. Picking one or the other isn't the best scenario, creating a way to achieve both would be a better solution.

I don't think the weight plays into picking the torque converter in this case since it is only being set up for driveability, not drag racing. All other things being equal, the turbo should spool and hit peak torque at about the same RPM in both cars. If there was a change, my guess is it would spool at a lower rpm in the heavier car due to more load on the engine but that is pure speculation on my part. Not to mention they can hopefully improve the plumbing in the larger engine bay to reduce back pressure. I agree it would be a catch-22 situation as far as fuel economy but I doubt a stall of 2k or less would impact it by any appreciable amount. I can almost guarantee you there are more than a few high strung 4 cyl. auto cars running converters with stall speeds in that range but I don't have any facts to back that up and am not really sure how to find out information like that!?!

[CMG]

I don't think the weight plays into picking the torque converter in this case since it is only being set up for driveability, not drag racing.

I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree, as a relatively heavy car with a small displacement turbo engine is going to have a converter with weight in mind if it's trying to do anything for bottom end performance. Call it drivability if you like.

Either the performance would suffer with a lower stall converter or mileage would suffer with a higher stall converter, it depends on how much GM is willing to go one way or another to make it work.

OR if they could come up with some sort of "new" solution....?

Variable nozzle turbos have been tried in the past, but not with huge success IMO. At least they TRIED to address mileage as well as power.

Edited March 22, 2008 by CMG

[loki]

totally back to the original statement. the 2nd gen BAS better be affordable and put on the 3.6L before this 4cylinder talk comes back... cause if "they" want "real" performance and economy, either look at 'balts or wait for the lightest weight Alpha

[The O.C.]

I'm guessing we'll have to agree to disagree, as a relatively heavy car with a small displacement turbo engine is going to have a converter with weight in mind if it's trying to do anything for bottom end performance. Call it drivability if you like.

Either the performance would suffer with a lower stall converter or mileage would suffer with a higher stall converter, it depends on how much GM is willing to go one way or another to make it work.

OR if they could come up with some sort of "new" solution....?

Variable nozzle turbos have been tried in the past, but not with huge success IMO. At least they TRIED to address mileage as well as power.

Well, my A4 has only 200hp from it's 2.0L turbo.....and it's a Quattro.....so the car is probably, what 3,500lbs?

I have NO issues with performance with the car. It scoots....and has plenty of midrange torque. I think C&D got one from 0-60 in 7.2secs.

With that in mind, 260hp in a new Camaro might actually be decent. I'm betting the Camaro will come in the 3,600-3,700 range. We might be surprised....if the 2.0L Ecotec turbo is anywhere near as driveable as the Audi 2.0T......

(edit: It could come down to transmission in a 4cyl Camaro.....my car is a 6-speed and feels quick. Auto-equipped 2.0Ts are decent, but much less sparkling.....)

Edited March 23, 2008 by The O.C.