Filed under: New York Auto Show, Coupes, Sports/GTs, Green, Chevrolet


A four-banger in a Camaro! Blasphemy you say? Could be, but what four-pot are we talking about? In this case, the General's car czar Bob Lutz suggests that the new 2010 Camaro due next February could offer the same 2.0 liter direct-injected engine used in the Saturn Sky Redline, Pontiac Solstice GXP and the SS versions of the Chevy HHR and Cobalt. Before dismissing the turbo-four immediately, consider the top-of-the-line engine options the Camaro offered after the last oil-embargo-driven doomsday. In '72, the big block 402 engine offered just 240 horsepower; in '73, the Z28 was equipped with a 245-horse 350 and by '75 the hottest option underhood made only 155 horses. Ouch. The 2.0 being considered for the Camaro punches out 260 horsepower, and based on our time with the engine, you feel each of them as you run up towards the redline. The next step-up will likely be a version of GM's 3.6, as offered in the CTS and G8, also making around 260 horsepower.

Other Camaro tidbits mentioned by Lutz: it will be priced higher than the Mustang, as GM sees the Camaro as a higher-end offering. Specifically, Lutz suggests that the Camaro will feature a much better interior than the 'Stang, along with its inherently better independent rear-suspension arrangement.

Perhaps a bigger question to ponder is how bad will the performance industry be impacted by new fuel efficiency standards along with the ever-tightening emissions regulations. Just so long as carmakers such as GM continue to offer engine options like their 2.0 liter DI four-banger, the performance drop-off won't be nearly as drastic as it was back in the mid-70s. Thank God for that!

Gallery: Chevy Camaro Concept


[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd]
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments


More...

I just can not picture a 4 banger in a camaro... Even if it is a turbo...

__________________


Ron
2001 Pontiac Firebird
3.8L V6 Vroom Vroom
Just purchased, so no mods yet

It happened in the early 80s and that one wasn't a turbo.

and they got rid of it... lol Just isn't right to have a 4 banger in it.. Of course some people would say that about 6s too...

__________________


Ron
2001 Pontiac Firebird
3.8L V6 Vroom Vroom
Just purchased, so no mods yet

I can understand a six for the "fuel" economy aspect. They did make a very valid point though about the power output of the current 4-banger technology versus the V8 technology of the late 70s. It's pretty bad when a four cylinder (turbo) or not puts out as much HP as a motor three times its size. Honestly though, I don't see this being very fuel efficient considering the weight of the car. The Camaro is going to be a heavy car with all of the safety and electronics. The question is, will it be too heavy for a turbo four-banger.

I think instead of doing a turbo'd 4 banger they should work on a turbo 6, like in the 89 Trans Am. Then again the whole "more efficient fuel economy" thing about a V6 is bullcrap.

__________________

"What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time? Wouldn't you consider that to be insane?"
-Steve Buscemi as Garland Greene in Con Air
www.fquick.com/firebirdphil