March19
It's not secret Chevrolet will offer a V6 version of its 2010 Camaro to rival the V6 Mustang, but General Motors said on Wednesday it might go even further, offering a four-cylinder engine — no, that's not a typo — in the new Camaro, too.
The motor under consideration is the 2.0-liter turbocharged I4 found in the Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Red Line, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told Automotive News. Delivering 260 horsepower, the engine is no slouch. That said, it will be interesting to see if GM can quite literally sell the idea of a four-banger in a muscle car.
The V6 Mustang delivers just 210 horsepower, and the V6 Dodge Challenger will offer 250 — that means the four-cylinder Camaro would actually be more powerful than both those models. The V6 Camaro, on the other hand, will deliver 306 horsepower via the same engine as the Cadillac CTS.
And how will the Camaro line compare to the Mustang in terms of pricing? "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."
I use to own a 93 Mustang 4 cylinder in high school. Back then Ford only offered V-8 and 4 cylinder in Mustangs, no V-6. I remember a lot of people would ask me if it's a 5.0 or 4 Cylinder. I think it might be a good think for Camaro, more sales and I don't think it will hurt the muscle car image because it didn't hurt Mustang. About the price being higher than Mustang, I don't have a problem with that since you get independent suspension and more power. A lot of consumers including me have a budge of between 30 and 40 thousand for a new car, but not willing to spend 50 thousand for a car like Corvette. I am buying a new Camaro even it is offered in 4 cylinder but I will order a V-8.
Wouldn't be the first time a Camaro had a 4 cylinder.
Should broaden market appeal if they can get a substantial MPG separation between the Mustang with the 4 cylinder. Not the muscle car image but there is a new generation of drivers out there that will take the 4. Heck, it may even be a hit with the tuner crowd as much as the V8 will be with the 40 and over crowd.
Good and bad, the good is the tuning options available for the Ecotec engines strap on a GT28/30 snail and a good tune and thats an easy 330+ I-4 engine. The bad is if the chassis weighs more than 3500 ilbs. Although A4s,Evos and Scoobies prove how strong a 2litre I-4 can be. The Japanese have had powerful I-4 engines for decades so the idea isnt new just American culture has been about V8s, and didn't accept 4 cylinder performance until the import scene in the 90s with Hondas I-4s helping revitalize the auto industry. Not to mention cleaner and better mpg V8s are appearing in the industry slowly, there is a trend already moving to smaller engines. I find it ridiculous that cleaner burning 4 cylinders are regulated more than V8s for emissions in the US.
Yeah I don't believe it will hurt the image per se, but the 4 cylinder version will likely be scoffed at by the V8 guys. I've always liked Mustangs, and I've owned two Fords, but if I were a Mustang owner, I'd be annoyed seeing Mustangs EVERYWHERE (90% of which are V6 models). So from a marketing point I understand their move to offer a 4 cylinder on Chevy's part because I guaran-damn-tee you'll see them everywhere. They'll really have to do something to distinguish the V8 version, or the people who drop top dollar on them will be upset they're not "above the crowd" enough. Just a theory.
Seems like a great idea, not like it's a run of the mill 4 cylinder either. They should actually throw that line up of engines into something less retro too.
I guess the 4 banger will be for girls & posers. I thought that was the 6 bangers shit detail.
I am sick of the crapamaro I pretty much hate it now. If this thing does ever make it onto the streets I won't even give it a look.
It might actually make sense to do this, but I think it'd have to get really great gas mileage—like 35+ on the highway—AND it'd have to be nice to drive. If it feels like a slug, that'll ruin the car. If they make it "lively" to drive, with quick responses and reflexes, it'll sell. But I've driven 4-cylinder Mustangs in the way past, and they were really pathetic cars; they always felt like they'd really rather NOT be made to move the car, and that's not a good feeling.
Let me start my Thank You's, CAFE, GWB aka Duh bya, Al Gore, California, and those cooky tree huggers for killing the modern automobile as we know it. Camaro with a 4, give me a break.
I agree with you, 400horseSS. Assholes. Global warming is bull.
The Camaro is turning out to be a phantom automobile. Always spoken about ……..but never seen.
oh… Chevy is really going with those headlights huh?! What happened to the concepts?
Hey Madcapp the smallest motor in a Camaro is the 2.8 v6, there has never been a 4 in a Camaro until………….
400horseSS your wrong there has been a 4 cylinder camaro. it was a 2.5l in the eighties. Should do some research befor you correct someone…..esp when your wrong.
Just as the Cobalt SS Turbocharged made news on LLN, now I see that GM is considering putting the LNF 2.0L turbo in the Camaro???
LLN did point out the fact that the 2.0L Turbo with 260hp and 260ft. lbs of torque is more than the 210hp offered in the V6 Mustang and the 250hp with the Magnum V6 in the Challenger which lol is kinda sad.
While I think the 3.6L V6 will be good for putting out 250-260hp and make it competitive among the Mustang and Challenger, if using this engine instead or as an option can make the Camaro even cheaper then I say go for it.
It's sorta funny that when I see Mustangs, I usually make fun of the owner or driver if it's a V6. So what am I going to do when I see a 4cyl Camaro? Well seeing that it's having the light weight LNF engine that I hear can make over 300hp without changing the internals, If GM offers a 19k-23k Camaro with this engine then looks like I'll be getting one.
ok strike my comment about the 250-260hp V6 I forgot they are using the 306hp 3.6L that's going in the new CTS,
ss4life i agree it puts the others to shame, but for a 4 banger, i hope they offer it even cheaper then 19k
my bad anyclearer it was the 2.5l "iron duke" and im sure it was a screamer with 90hp.
There is no substitute for cubic inches. Turbo's are crap, and turbo power is bullshit.
They in fact did make a 4 cylinder Camaro back in the 80s, it made a whopping 90hp@4000. All you guys who bitch about new regulations and standards really have no clue. They do nothing but force automakers to IMPROVE, we would all still be in caves if our ancestors had the same logic skills as you morons.
i cant wait to see the first head to head test with the mustang……and the 4 banger camaro shits on the v6 stang……..and the 6 cylender camaro shits on the mustang gts.
it will be a good thing for chevy. since the new cafe laws require manufacturers to have at least 35mpg…from what i remember…this would be good for gmc. smart move!
CAFE is the only reason they would consider this. Too bad it would be the nail in the coffin for this model.
Try to convince the largest buyer demographic of this car (hint: Baby Boomers) to pay a higher price than the Mustang for an inline 4 - turbocharged or not. Can't wait to see how the marketing department field's that one.
And so we enter a new era of CAFE-crippled automobiles. Welcome to the mid-70's all over again.
v6 mustangs and are gonna get smoked by an i4 camaro.
Hey a turbo 4 banger Camaro make good bussiness sense W 260hp and 260ftlbs torque sounds very strong and there are plenty of power parts in the new GM performance catalog already for this 4 banger.
How about this engine linup for tha Camaro
Turbo 2.2L I4 260 hp = Good insurance primium fighter,decent performance.
Direct injected 3.6L v6 306 hp Good for those who won't do a 4, but can't afford an 8
L76 6.0 V8 Flex Fuel, Active Fuel Managerment 361 hp GM should tune (better cam & heads are already available in house?) this to 390 hp for Camaro apps
LS3 6.2L V8 435 hp the SS option
LS7 ? ZL1 Shelby killer
LS9 ? GMPP after market kit only.
F*?K $4 gas, if GM builds it like this I come with my '99 Z28 keys in hand ready to trade.
What? no two stroke 1 cylinder with optional mulching attachment?
@Eddie Willers
Yeah did you ever consider WHY they had the iron duke in a muscle car? Its because all the 400hp+ V8's wouldn't pass new standards. It was a gigantic step backwards. The original CAFE killed the big torque big block and it hasn't come back. Small blocks are all well and good, but for anybody who's driven a big block, there really is no comparison. Just like all this ricer turbo BS will NOT replace small block V8s.
Eddie Willers- Look at vehicles in the 80's (generalizing here), and then come back and tell us cars were advancing solely because of CAFE. Auto makers are set back by 10 years, then in another 10 years they've improved with their technology, horsepower and ride, and then 10 years later CAFE smacks them in the face.
Aside from that, I would much rather have buyers/engineers of their cars pushing for development, rather than CAFE.
As an owner of a 1987 Thunderbird Turbocoupe, I can accept the idea of a turbo I4 Domestic sport coupe with a manual transmission. Just don't call it the Berlinetta again. I think they all ended up lawn ornaments or crusher fodder.
Oh, and we have to remember that it was Chevrolet who brought Turbocharged small displacement engines to the passenger car market first, back in '61. Yes deutschetouring1337, we had it long before Japan. It just happened at the exact same time as the muscle V8 craze, and we can't for get that ponce Nader building his career by killing off what could have made GM a world leader in fuel economy and high tech performance.
Like other's said above, this idea might work if they can keep the weight of the chassis down to under 3500 lb. Even then, the driving dynamics will probably leave something to be desired.
Turbo power is crap? That's ridiculous, it's the future of decent power in the auto industry. The CAFE rules have been set and we all have to live with them. Look for some bi-turbo (smaller and bigger snail) set-ups in the near future to improve driving characteristics of a smaller displacement engines.
People have to take a quick look back to 1967 at the base motor, and even a few optional ones, offered in the Camaro.
140-155hp straight six
210hp 327
It took a 4-bl and hi-comp to get that 327 to beat this new I4 with 275hp. Now factor in the weight of these engines and also that they were rated Gross power then. This four-banger makes more power than ANY Camaro made in the 80's, including the TPI 350.
Welcome to the new world, people.
The Corvair was amazingly ahead of its time; imagine an American, rear-engine layout, all-aluminum, turbo flat-6 in 1962. Who knows where performance automobiles would be today if it weren't for Nader [curse his name!]. Oldsmobile and Pontiac offered turbo engines from the 60s to 80s. Ford also offered the SVO Mustang with a turbo-4 with an 'awesome' 175HP, but it was still their top-of-the-line model for 1984 - 1986. Last, don't forget the awesome Turbo Buick V6 found in Grand National.
Since then turbo engines have come a loooong way. the biggest complaints, lack of torque and reliability, have been thoroughly addressed with new designs and tuning techniques. The GM LNF engine is one awesome little powerplant and is finding more and more applications throughout the range. Don't forget that GM can also count on Saab, who's been turbochargining engines, for design expertise.
While it's not a bad engine, I'm a little bit concerned about the strain this setup will pull on the engine. Can the I-4 really keep itself together when the driver burns out the tires at every stop? If GM doesn't get it right, they might get hurt seriously for their durability…
The SVO was over 200 by the end of the run, as the TurboCoupes were 190 in 87-88. More than the SO 302 was producing (155). Could you imagine how a modern Corvair would look today, and what kind of performance the Corsa would be boasting? An American Porsche, if I ever saw one.
It's a win-win. GM has the chance to make Mustang like sales of the Camaro and can still hold the performance crown in the pony car arena with an SS. It's not like it will cost them anything to put the LNF in there, in fact it would make the power plant even cheaper, as well as lowering costs of all cars on this chassis by having a high volume seller. And, of course, the CAFE bonus.
1c3d0g, I can tell you now, a robust turbo four will take the strain of a 3500lb car any day of the week, and will always enjoy burning the tires.
I have to stop commenting here.
Thank you oldraven and Global_Lightening for pointing out that single and most important fact. The 1961 Chevrolet Corvair. Chevy has indeed been turbocharging since 1961.
Also let me back up oldraven's comment and say that this LNF engine will easily take any abuse that's thrown on it. These 2.0L Ecotecs have pulled records for running the longest, over 24 hours I think in an Opel GT Speedster with like a 110mph average speed. Also many of the professional drag racers I dont' know what NHRAA class it is that race the "funny car" looking cobalt's are still using the 2.0L Ecotec and are making 800-1000hp on it with the aid of racing fuel and Nitrous. This engine can take it.
While I do think Lutz's last comment about matching the price of the Mustang scares me showing that it's going to be costing more than a Mustang. If GM at least prices a possible 4cyl Camaro at the same price of like the Cobalt SS Turbocharged 22,995 or even 18-23k. GMPP currently offers a wide range of re-inforced internals for the current 2.0L ECOTEC Supercharged that would let the engine easily handle 300-400hp.
SS4Life, good point. If GM's not careful, they may over-do it by putting this engine into too many platforms, and cannibalize sales in the process. The LNF is now found in the:
Cobalt SS
HHR SS
Pontiac Solstice (convertible and coupe)
Saturn Sky (convertible, possible coupe)
and now maybe the Camaro
That's a lot of overlap in the $20 - $30K price range. Why would someone choose between the Camaro and the Solstice? And would a FWD 500-lbs lighter Cobalt offer better performance for less $$$?
Will it have a special wing like the Mustang SVO?
Name it XR4TI.
Very good points global_lightning.
There is a lot of overlap as you are indicating. However I think depending on how GM were to price the possible 4cyl Camaro would that depend.
The HHR SS and Cobalt SS are FWD has a base price of $22,995
The Pontiac Solstice GXP is RWD has a base price of $28,465
The Saturn Sky Redline is RWD has a base price of $30,405
Both the HHR SS and Cobalt SS and Solstice GXP and Sky Redline are their respective twins.
However you now have a price gap of roughly $6,000 between the base of the $22,995 FWD HHR and Cobalt SS and the 28-30k Solstice and Sky.
I think GM would only be successful if they priced the LNF Camaro towards the bottom of that 6k gap. Somewhere between 22k and 24k.
They would have to keep it at least 3-5G above the cost of a loaded turbo Cobalt, but I don't see how any of those cars (other than the Solstice and Sky) are overlapping sales. No one looking for a five seat pony car will be cross shopping a two seat roaster/coupe. The same goes for a FWD compact vs. a RWD mid-size coupe. These are not in the same demographics.
I doubt it as the 2.0L Turbo Ecotec gets pretty bad milage in the lighter Sky and Solstice, so it would have really bad milage in a 3800lbs car.
To me…its not a muscle car if its not a V8. How would you feel driving around in a i4 Camaro and your friend is happily burning rubber in his Camaro SS or Z28 whatever the hell they will call the V8 model. If you want a 4 cylinder please don't buy a Camaro. If you need to save gas but like the camaro design save up money for the v8 and buy a Honda fit with. But I guess I can see a reasoning for all of these engines they are trying to whore the Camaro out like the Mustangs which you see on every corner.
Yeah, as I thought about it more I think the benefits of putting this engine in the Camaro are only good on paper. Yeah it will help CAFE standards but I think that's about where it stops. I considered the following.
The Cobalt SS achieves a 0-60 time of 5.7 and the Sky Redline achieves this in 5.2 (the Solstice GXP is 5.4) the only reason why I'm mentioning this is because with a 2991lbs curb weight for the Cobalt and a 3100lbs (approx) curb weight for the Sky Redline. The benefits of better balance and lighter weight help achieve this. I'm predicting the Camaro to weigh in at 3400lbs at the lightest if not more. So It would be highly unlikely if it could achieve a 0-60 time of under 6 seconds. Despite maybe cheaper insurance the 3.6L 306hp V6 that is already going in it should be enough.
and now I just saw BMan1113VR's comment and I too have heard the same for the Sky and Solstices' gas mileage. So in actuality it probably won't get much better gas mileage then the V6. At least not enough to really consider using this.
Unless GM's testing finds otherwise, I retract my position on giving the Camaro this engine. Keep it with the Cobalts and HHR's and Skys and Solstices.
The C6 Corvette weighs in at 3200 lbs, so your weight estimate for the Camaro is good. What's killing GM's performance is weight, not HP. When you compare these cars against the Miata and Civic Si, the Japanese cars are down on HP but weigh in at around 2500 lbs. They may be slower in a straight line but are quicker through curves, not to mention better MPG which is becoming a big issue for owners. GM really needs to get the lead out!
As others have stated, offering a Camaro four wouldn't be a first for this model.
The Camaro and Firebird came with GM's 90hp 2.5L "Iron Duke" four from 1982-85, I believe.
Hell, the Mustang came with a 2.3L 88hp four from 1974-93.
The engine they're considering, however, is nothing like those engines were. This one is the most excellent Turbo Direct Injection 2.0L, which makes 260bhp. The 5.7L V8 in the '96 Impala SS had the same amount of power this Turbo DI 2.0L does.
I think it'd be the perfect Camaro RS.
@global_lightening,
Well actually the Cobalt SS/SC was able to eat the Si on a track, so I doubt the better in every way turbo will fare worse. The Civic Si also doesn't get better f/e than a turbo Cobalt. Corvette is very lightweight and agile around a track. Lets not forget Camaro will be a full-size car and as such it can't be that light.
@inline6,
The LT1 produces far more torque though and didn't have spool up to make power. Oh and it ran on 87 octane, and didn't sound like a ricer. And its a 12 year old engine, not exactly fair to compare. Compare it to an LS3 if you want apples to apples. It would make a terrible Camaro, and not at all fit the car's image. using the DI-V6 as the base is sufficient. It'll be fast and get good f/e.
Considering the power produced by the v6 competion this turbo four banger should do just fine. As long as you get good power low on the rev range it should do just fine.
MerkMark, that was funny as hell. haha
good chevy is making sense now what an good line up of engines too bad ford though of it fist(ecoboost)
global_lightning, you got it right. if Camaro will not gain a lot of heft with 2L direct injection turbo it can be interesting car. More interesting then a V8, not on straight line but in handling department - weight distribution between 4 cyl and V8 is dramatic. Mileage would not hurt either. Solstice with turbo has better mileage then without due to direct injection. Of course it uses premium which negates the gain in cost.
Do any of you realize what GM is doing here. They plan to whore out the Camaro just like the Mustang but charge us more for it. At first the Camaro Concept was promised to compete against the Mustang GT. Now this move is going to force the price way up for the 400hp engine. Meanwhile a base Mustange GT is 26K. What all of you have failed to mention is that while GM has been dangling this concept in our faces for the last 2 years with Transformers and spy photos, Ford has been redesigning the Mustang. So that means all of these comparisons to the current Mustang mean Jack Shi# because by the time the Camaro finally comes out the Mustang will be new and improved.
Mustangs suck. The V6 Camaros are gonna be close in horsepower to the GT Mustangs, and the 4-banger Camaros are gonna have MORE horse that the V6 Mustangs….Good job General, johnnieB your an idiot…
AmericanMade
You sound like an uneducated Bush supporter. I did not say that I would buy a Mustang if I refered to them as whores. I am simply stating that obvious that you guys are comparing an outgoing car to one that GM has teased us with for far too long. I am sure Ford is smart enough to counteract(Not that I would buy one). Plus who cares if a V6 Camaro is close in horsepower to the current Mustang GT if it cost as much or more. You are being duped. Lets look at the real issue. Lutz just told you to pay more. GM is going back on a promise of a 400hp Camaro priced against the GT. Who's the idiot? Why don't you go play with the Easter Bunny
For the record I have been wanting a new Camaro since its debut and still do. I just see one of two problems if GM decides to make 4 trim levels. Problem 1 - The entry level price for the Camaro will be too low causing image confusion with Camaro Enthusiast and owners of the V8 (Which I hope to be) Problem 2 - The V8 would be priced WAY above the inital promise that GM stated at the Concept debut.
but the easter bunny doesnt come untill one more sleep….
It makes me wounder the age of the people who read Leftlane and leave comments after reading them. Like the comment by johnnieB, posted on March21 "Why don't you go play with the Easter Bunny." That is word for word what my son said to his sister when he was eight, but he had something else in there that got him in big trouble but thats another story. I like to ask, how old is everyone who uses this site?
For the Camaro. I think its a good idea. Now my wife might let me buy one, but it will be a IL4 awww.
We're all older and more educated than you, don't you know that Classic Auto?
"We're all innocent in this prison, don't you know that?" (Shawshank Redemption)
I wouldn't be ashamed of having to buy the 4 cylinder if I were you. Sounds like it's going to be putting out some pretty good horsepower and miles per gallon ratings, I'm sure the later of the two your wife won't mind.
Well then, how old are you then? Im 45 years old and have two kids. My son is 16 and my daughter is 17.
my heart says "hell no," but my head says "it makes sense because of CAFE."
Nader should burn. He's at the top of my dead-pool list!
Classic Auto
I respect your comment and it was a childish response to answer a childish comment(American Made). As for my age I am old enough to buy a V8 and pay for the gas(29). And if you have to ask your wife for permission to buy a 4 cylinder CAMARO then that sounds like a problem. Me and my wife went to a Auto Show this week and saw the Camaro. There are no split decisions in my house hold. My two sons will see how its done in a V8. To bad most people will confuse me for some kid who bought a 4 cylinder. I will have to step my game up and get a vet just to avoid from looking like the rest of the babies crying about f/e in a muscle car. Hey if you don't like it, get any car. Any other car. I worked hard so I can afford a true iconic muscle car. Not so I can blend with the sheep. Get a Camry for pete's sake.
well, you know. Mustang are thinking of using the same power. I thought it was funny that this would boost the 4 over their own 6. So I guess we are going to see the same thing happen to them possibly.
Now my opinion on it is just plain stupid, but with CAFE and for sales, it will work. I thought the 4 in the mustangs were stupid, so I have to say I think the same here. We will just have to wait and see really. But with the HP of the mullit car's 6 and 8. I am sure they will be over priced. So they need the 4. Or they will just die again.