Autoweek 's Richard Truett reports that General Motors, feeling squeezed by ever-tightening fuel economy standards and ever-rising gas prices, is considering offering a turbocharged 4-cylinder engine for the base trim of its upcoming 2010 (for this week, anyway) Camaro. Speaking at the NY Autoshow, GM Vice-Chairman and daily TTAC newsblog fodderman Bob Lutz said he feels that the RWD drivetrains available from the Solstice GXP and Sky Red Line would make an excellent fit in a Camaro. Of course, the last time GM tried the i4/Camaro recipe, we ended up with the "Iron Duke" in slower-than-molasses 1982 Camaro. It's not so much the number of cylinders or the power output that bothers me – indeed, a 260 HP Ecotec is more powerful than some V8's of yore – but the turbocharging. To me, American muscle means a big, lazy, rumbling naturally-aspirated torque bomber with even power and torque-curves. I don't think I could ever get used to a Camaro with the exhaust note of a Cobalt SS.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
They must have seen the specs on the Hyundai Genesis Coupe. The problem is that the “New/Old” Camaro is heavy and has poor aerodynamics, guaranteeing sub-par efficiency and sluggish performance with a small-displacement engine.
Too late, GM.
If Chevy turbocharges, they’ve lost their roots and they’re not authentic. If they don’t, they get slammed for being clueless about fuel economy.
Sheesh.
Camaro 3.0 TDI? 35mpg?
Shouldn’t that be “GM Mullets Turbo-4 for Camaro”?
Everyone forgets the types of cars that we had back in the 80s. You had 4 cylinder Mustangs and Camaros, stick shift Dodge Caravans and Explorers, and sub 2.0L 4 cylinders in small cars. Anyone remember when there were no V6 Japanese cars at all? I do. All cars were smaller – even the Big 3s – with smaller engines.
We have just gotten spoiled in the last 10 – 15 years.
Ya know, that 4.2L straight-six is just collecting dust. And I’ve seen footage of one hot-rodder did when the dropped that engine into a Chevy II wagon and slapped a huge turbo to it.
I know you’re reading this, Bob Lutz.
A turbo 4 in the new camaro is not revolutionary, it’s plain stupid. It’s too big for a whining 4 banger and who asked for a muscle car with no muscle. IMHO they should make it a V-8 car and be done with it. When they “mulled” puttinga V-6 in the Corvette years ago they nearly had a riot on their hands. Ford tried to replace the Mustang with the Probe, a FWD v-6 for a RWD V-8 car, and that idea was dropped.
Anyone remember the turbocharged four cylinder Mustang SVO from the 80’s? . I liked that car a lot when I was a kid, but it wasn’t a raging success for Ford. I agree that torque is a key ingredient in a muscle car, so as another commenter suggested, drop a diesel in that badboy!
@shaker: to add insult to injury, the Hyundai will likely get to market first, not to mention the Cobalt SS weighs a few hundred pounds lighter and will give its stablemate some serious, albeit FWD competition.
Yeah, but just think how it’ll sound with a fart-can muffler!
Darn it Frank, I almost spit coffee all over my computer!
Why don’t they go the old Grand National route and put a turbo V6 in? The I6 would be a good choice too IMHO with a turbo.
Add me to the list of people who think the straight 6 would be a great choice…and still allow the base model to be sufficiently distinguished from it’s lesser stablemates. Besides, I love straight-6s…shouldn’t that be reason enough?
The days of the V8 are numbered outside of specialty applications like large trucks. Advances in direct injection and turbocharging have made the V6 the new V8. And why not? Same power, more efficiency, better packaging add up to a compelling argument.
Nascent technologies like electric motors to spin up turbos at low RPM, camless engines, HCI, and lighter weight cars will probably lead to the I4 displacing the the V6 in, I don’t know, 8-12 years.
I agree with the straight six idea. Is there room in the engine compartment for it? The major reason we have all these V-6s is package size.
I hope they could do it.
I saw the new Camaro exactly 1 year ago at the New York Auto Show and was completely repulsed about the size of the car. I was really hoping to see a nice efficient package. Most dimensions are the same as the 69 except the width. By making the car wider it appears much larger.
I think the turbo 4 is a great idea except for the fact it looks like it might have too much car to haul around.
Acura had a similar idea in putting a turbo in the RDX. The problem is that in a heavy vehicle, the turbo is on all the time, killing mileage. My bet is that GM’s 3.6L V6 would offer similar mileage and power, with less complexity and cost.
If Honda — who probably knows more about internal combustion than anyone on the planet — failed, then what hope is there for GM?
The I-4 2.0 260 hp turbo engine from the HHR SS should be plenty fine to get the Camaro rolling on a base model. Sure, there will be some efficiency loss due to the weight of the vehicle — btw how much does the new Camaro weigh anyway?
AuricTech — hilarious.
Everybody go back and read the comments on any Dodge Challenger post. Some people castigate it because of the big V8 and the gas mileage that goes with it. Now they talk about putting a 4 banger turbo in the Camaro and some of you freak out like it’s sacriledge or something (scratches head).
My prediction: if they do this the engine will be bumped to 280 (or more). If they can keep turbo lag to a minimum and maintain durability it won’t be so bad. You can have a fast car and get halfway decent mileage to boot. Sounds good to me.
If you don’t like this, get used to it. Because that’s where the industry is heading thanks to 35 mpg CAFE.
Now they talk about putting a 4 banger turbo in the Camaro and some of you freak out like it’s sacriledge or something (scratches head).
TTAC has over 50 contributors all of which have their own opinions. The site isn’t intended to be a homogeneous collection of self-congratulatory opinions. Go read the point/counterpoint reviews of the Ford Mustang GT 500 for further evidence.
windswords :
My prediction: if they do this the engine will be bumped to 280 (or more). If they can keep turbo lag to a minimum and maintain durability it won’t be so bad. You can have a fast car and get halfway decent mileage to boot. Sounds good to me.
Bad news: at the bloggerfest, Lutz said the four would have to be de-tuned to… 200hp.
“To me, American muscle means a big, lazy, rumbling naturally-aspirated torque bomber with even power and torque-curves.”
So are you suggesting that American manufacturers continue to live in the past, or that you can’t stop?
It’s like all those folks who bemoan the loss of the ’57 Chevy Bel Air, with it’s fantastic V8 and great ‘style’ and value for it’s time. Hello? Impala V8 anyone? Or how about the new Malibu? What is it, they don’t have chrome bumpers, or they’re not RWD, or they don’t have carbs…? Does the fact that 5 decades have passed play any role in that ya think?
I agree, the big problem with a turbo 4 in a Camaro is that the people buying these cars want a muscle car sound in their muscle car. There’s a lot of nostalgia involoved in the purchase of a Camaro, Mustang, or Challenger. If it sounds like a rice rocket, it’s not going to appeal to the target audience, IMO.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If they only offer large displacement engines, they’re criticized for wasting resources and selling gas guzzlers. If they offer an efficient turbo four, then they’re violating the tradition of the pony car (and, by the way, one of the fastest Mustangs in the 1980s was the SVT with the turbo four).
The turbo Ecotec isn’t going to get the kind of economy numbers it gets in a Solstice/Sky, but it should still be OK.
By the way, the Camaro’s aerodynamics, or lack thereof, have far less to do with its fuel economy than its weight does.
I believe a turbo 4 is certainly a viable option but would personally vote for the turbo V-6 as a preferred choice. This car will most certainly follow the Mustang with various trim levels so, I say why not offer it. I’ve read alot of what is generated here and as far as GM goes, it’s a given they will never get a fair shake on this website regardless of what they do.
Robert Farago:
“Bad news: at the bloggerfest, Lutz said the four would have to be de-tuned to… 200hp.”
Dohlt! (slaps forehead). Ok I’m convinced, this is a bad idea.
ChrisHaak,
“Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.” Thank you for making the same point. Although if RF is right about the de-tuning then it seems like a waste.
turbo I6 is the best idea ever. the ford XR6 turbo and the FPV typhoon are awesome 270KW and with huge amounts of torque. if only you knew
WTF is the point of throwing a gas hog 4 pot turbo in a car that would get equal if not better mileage with an I6?? Look, Honda is using a great 4 cyl turbo in their RDX, and look at those crappy mileage numbers that thing gets. For some reason, unless it says “Saab” somewhere on the car, turbo charging does’t really get you a bump in fuel economy for more power.
More power = less mileage, with the exception of Diesel.
Bad news: at the bloggerfest, Lutz said the four would have to be de-tuned to… 200hp.
@Farago:
I was all set to join the welcome wagon for the turbo-4, but at this news…forget it. I don’t think 200hp will be enough to get this two-tons-o’-fun moving satisfactorily.
@Lumbergh21:
I don’t think the sound is a big part of it for the average buyer. I think the looks will draw them in, and the mileage will keep them there. The (lack of) performance of the lower models may be a deal-breaker for some, though.
Although if RF is right about the de-tuning [to 200hp] then it seems like a waste.
-windswords
At issue is whether Maximum Bob is right about the de-tuning. That is far from a given.
“Its must have v8”
“Its all about the torque”
Yet maybe, and I do mean maybe 1% to 2% of the fanboys making these statements will actually buy one of these things with gas at $3.50 a gallon and the “extra” insurance cost of the v8 model.
And you fanboys just sit and wonder why the big 2.8 are headed for the dumpster!
Now here is the joke, those new Hyundai RWD coupes equiped with 4cyl engines are going to be all over the place creating the “NEW” trend in “AFFORDABLE” RWD performance while these over sized, over-price, over-weight, dinosuars will do about as well as that new GTO thing did.
Trust me I lived throught the last hurrah of the Camaro and Firebird during the late 1980s. The extra power was great but the cost of such simple things like $1000+ for a set of Gatorback tires made your “affordable” v8 performance car not so affordable. Oh yeah and those things sucked back than with anything less than a v8 so what will be different today? Honestly can anyone point out any Camaro of any era in less than z28 trim that was desireable? I think not!
Not for nothing just about anyone who cares about performance cars in America loves the power and pull of a high torque v8, that is a given. But there are so many other factors that just kill that proposition, high insurance, cost of fuel, living with a cheaply built car, bigger (more expensive) parts, etc.
My generation did not turn to little Japanese cars just for the quality, it was also the ease of and lower cost of ownership that also helped.
You also ended up with a “real” car. Yeap I talking about a car with very good performance yet was still capable of being used like a APPLIANCE when need be.
With the “new” Camaro GM is going back to the same principals that caused these car to fail in the past. You a large, heavy RWD coupe that that actually have very limited interior space. IT is RWD with a powerful engine so it needs big performance tires for safety, and all-season HP tires do cost a nice bit of $$$$. It is also hard to see out of this thing. To get the big engine, transmission, brakes and suspension to handle the v8 power, quality must be sacaficed in other areas. But what does that do for you if you are not buying the big v8?
GM designs its cars backwards, they design and style the top of the line model first and than subtract to get the mid and base models. This is why GM base models look so damn bad and unappealing!
GM needs to sell many to regular mom and pop shoppers but the Camaro is really a one trick pony that appeals to very few.
I was just thinking of the 4 pot 1982 camaro when clicking this link and viola! there it is in the flesh. I bet they could get away with this car powered by the new ecotech motor. It is a far cry from the Iron Duke. Anyone remember the 1989 TTA (Turbo Trans Am) with 3.8L Turbo LC2 V6 from the Grand National. Faster than the V8’s of its day. I believe it led to the death of Sam Kinison on a winding road outside of Las Vegas…
One trick pony is exactly right, whatdoiknow1.
The thing people don’t seem to get about the I4 vs V8 is weight, not just fuel efficiency. You increase the weight of the engine and the whole rest of the car has to be bulked up to suit. What do you think that does to handling and price?
It amazes me that in 2008 these things still have to be explained.
Good Lord, I hope they do it. I have been wanting to transplant a turbo Ecotech into an old Impala for years. One day…
You have to remember that this is for the entry level car. Entry level Camaros have always sucked on performance, so the I4 turbo keeps that tradition. Even that said 200hp and 25+mpg is pretty good at the price point speculated.
Although my 97 Z28 gets a combined 20mpg with the 6sp and 285hp/330ftlbs LT1. Maybe 25 mpg’s isn’t that great.
shatdoiknow1: My generation did not turn to little Japanese cars just for the quality, it was also the ease of and lower cost of ownership that also helped.
You also ended up with a “real” car. Yeap I talking about a car with very good performance yet was still capable of being used like a APPLIANCE when need be.
All of those Japanese “real” cars – Prelude (and I owned a 2001 model), Supra, Celica, 240SX – are long gone, and show no sign of returning.
Meanwhile, the “outdated” Mustang soldiers on, and the Camaro will be back soon. It appears as though the one-trick ponies have more than a few kicks left.
Maybe my antipathy (or worse) towards the idea of a turbo 4 in a Camaro is because I see it as more of a niche car than a sales leader, and a big part of the cars “retroness” is the type and sound of the engine. Mustangs, the pony car sales leader for as long as there have been pony cars (ergo the name), went astray for a while, but for the most part, Mustangs sound like a Mustang. In a review of the Bullitt Mustang posted on this website last week, the reviewer pointed out the great sounding engine to much derision. While an engine sound may not sell a car, it is a part of that car’s persona, particularly this type of car, and the wrong engine and engine sound could very well cost a sale. I’m all for a turbo four in a Cobalt for instance. I’m all for 4 and 6 cylinder engines, turbo or naturally aspirated, for daily drivers. I just think that a “muscle” car like a Camaro should have some muscle. So, it’s not really a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” criticism of GM. It’s a case of recognizing your market and catering to it.
I might be wrong, but I think that the Camaro is appealing to people, mainly men, over the age of 35. It seems tome that if Camaro wants a bite of the Mustang pie they’ll need to have a car, like the Mustang, that has that throaty V8 rumble or at least something close. Even the base V6 Mustang is going to sound more like a muscle car than a whiny turbo4.
Finally, I do not have a bias against turbo charged or small displacement engines. I owned an Rx7, liked and nearly bought an Rx8, like the Mazdaspeed3, like the Honda S2000, and think the Ariel Atom is absolutely awesome, much more so than say a Veyron or other car with a large displacement engine. I saw a video on Jay Leno’s Garage of a Honda S600 and absolutely loved the look and sound of that car. Of the lot, I think the turbocharged 2.4L Ecotec in the Atom is the largest.
geeber :
March 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
shatdoiknow1: My generation did not turn to little Japanese cars just for the quality, it was also the ease of and lower cost of ownership that also helped.
You also ended up with a “real” car. Yeap I talking about a car with very good performance yet was still capable of being used like a APPLIANCE when need be.
All of those Japanese “real” cars – Prelude (and I owned a 2001 model), Supra, Celica, 240SX – are long gone, and show no sign of returning.
Meanwhile, the “outdated” Mustang soldiers on, and the Camaro will be back soon. It appears as though the one-trick ponies have more than a few kicks left.
Ok, Geeber let be honest here and break it down.
Toyota has no sports models, from a company that used to sell a Supra, Celica, MR2, an Corolla SR5 GT all at one time to zero sports cars is amazing, yet they keep growing and growing in the USA. I think that says more about us in the USA than Toyota.
As the the rest;
The Prelude was actually replaced by the RSX (since replaced by Civic Si)and the S2000.
The Mazda RX7 is gone but it was replaced by the RX8 and the Miata is still going stong.
The Nissan 300xz died but was born again as the 350z and the 300zx 2+2 does live on in the G37.
The Mitsu Diamondstars are gone but Mitsu came to the plate with the EVO. Like it or not the thing they call an Eclipse is still with us.
We can’t forget Subaru with its WRX and STi in addition to a Legacy GT.
To be even fairer Lexus does have the IS350 and IS-F.
Nissan has the killer GT-R coming in a few months.
There are also such cars like an Accord coupe that when equiped with a stick can be considered to play the role of the prelude. Lets also add in the Mazdaspeed3, recently departed Speed6 into the mix, not to mention the Sentra SE-R.
I think most of the Japanese performance cars grow two more doors to remain relevent in a changing world, neat trick err. Remember the majority were based off of simple FWD platforms to begin with.
Since we are talking about “Muscle power” why not add in all of those FWD v6 powered sedans that can all pull 0 to 60 in about 6 seconds flat!
BuckD: the SVO and T-bird Turbo were fun cars, but the Camaro will be much, much bigger and heavier.
Odds are the Iron Duke references are fitting. But the ‘duke didn’t need premium fuel to be efficient, and cars from the 1980s were much lighter than today’s counterparts.
The problem with a turbo-I6 is that it would eat into the more expensive=more profit V8 and I’m guessing Supercharged-V8 buyers.