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.

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.

Nader should burn. He’s at the top of my dead-pool list!

“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.

For the Camaro. I think its a good idea. Now my wife might let me buy one, but it will be a IL4 awww.

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

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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 $$$?

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.

I have to stop commenting here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aside from that, I would much rather have buyers/engineers of their cars pushing for development, rather than CAFE.