New Camaro not a muscle car?
There's been quite a hubbub over Bob Lutz's remarks that the Camaro could potentially be offered with a four cylinder engine, an engine that would still have 260 horsepower. Hot on the heels of that revelation, Mark LaNeve, GM North America's vice president of sales and marketing, said of the new Camaro, "We won't position it as a muscle car. The mainstream positioning will be fuel economy, design and a V-6." While a V6 engine is to be expected as the base engine for the Camaro, positioning the iconic muscle... um, pony car as a fuel efficient choice will likely draw the ire from Camaro fanatics just as much as a 4 cylinder engine option does. But, the masses are going to have to get used to the blending of fuel efficiency and performance in almost every mainstream vehicle in the future.
[Source: Business Week]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Wildgoosechase73 7:55PM (3/21/2008)
It's time the pureists accept that it is a Brave New World.
Reply
Chris 7:44PM (3/21/2008)
260HP is plenty for a base sports car. For comparison, the top of the line Camaro in 1995 (Z-28) only had 275 HP. It did that with 4 more cylinders and 5.7L of total displacement.
Why would 260HP not be enough for a BASE model?
Also, Ford has mentioned the venerable Mustang will probably get a 4 cylinder in the next few years too.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/26/ford-spreading-the-ecoboost-love-to-the-mustang/
Reply
Dave 7:55PM (3/21/2008)
There has ALWAYS been an entry level Camaro that could not be described as a "muscle car."
260hp from an efficient, direct injected 4 cylinder is plenty for entry level.
I wonder if/when GM will convert the ecotec to HCCI. It seems like the turbo DI ecotec with GM's BAS mild hybrid system is only a few components (and a lot of software) short of being a DiesOtto.
Note the GM HCCI engine in this video:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/01/video-of-hcci-test-drive/
Reply
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater 12:55AM (3/22/2008)
Pony cars have always had a secretary-spec.. V6 Mustangs and Camaros sold a lot if not the majority..
Reply
The Luigiian 2:41AM (3/22/2008)
FUEL ECONOMY?! Are they serious? The V-6 equipped G8 returns 20 mpg, the same amount as a crewcab Chevrolet Colorado with a four cylinder engine. And that's overall mileage, for both. Unless they do some serious tweaking to that engine, it's not going to be "fuel efficient". 22 mpg, maybe. But in my opinion, it should at least be more efficient than a five-to six seat pickup truck.
It's not that I don't understand that the two vehicles have different purposes, but c'mon. If the Ford Mustang is fitted with the 3.5 liter 6 from the Taurus, it'll fetch 22 mpg, because although it's RWD, it'll be 300 lbs or more lighter, and probably lighter than this car too, making up for power loss in the process. Chevy had better get to work if it wants to position this as an "efficient" car.
Reply
Chris M 3:07AM (3/22/2008)
If they can keep the weight down, even a 260 hp could get respectable performance. After all, the Tesla Roadster gets 0-60 in 4 sec. with a mere 250 hp motor (and lots of torque).
Reply
tifosiotaku 12:55PM (3/22/2008)
2. "It's time the pureists accept that it is a Brave New World."
No. I've been lusting after a Camaro for all my life, and if I can't get it with a V8, I. Will. Be. Pissed.
Reply
Dad 2:02PM (3/22/2008)
"a four cylinder engine, an engine that would still have 260 horsepower"
A 4 cyl turbo would be awesome!
Reply
mike 3:19PM (3/22/2008)
I find it funny the guys at AutoBlog complain about 0-60 times.
0-60 in 12 or 8 seconds...
Yet, on the road, actually you know, doing 0-60 runs is hard.
Because, to do a 0-60 test you actually have to PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR FOR 8 SECONDS. That gives you 1 mpg, and there isn't enough OPEN ROAD available to hold your foot down for 8 seconds.
Secondly, most people think they're destroying the engine when they hear it SCREAM. But, they've GOT to BUY that V8 they'll never use.
People are funny.
Reply
Dave S 8:38AM (3/23/2008)
Its more about torque feel than hp speed - sounds like the perfect storm for a performance hybrid! Torque electrics downlow, and a 260hp 4cyl for the up highs. That'd be pretty hot.
Reply
AndyChuck 8:37PM (3/23/2008)
Mike said, "there isn't enough OPEN ROAD available to hold your foot down for 8 seconds."
Are you kidding me? Where do you live? New York City? I've got plenty of OPEN ROAD for that Camaro.
Reply
Dave S 8:43AM (3/23/2008)
Tifo - buy a classic! Buy a crate motor! But what you want is beyond the normal everyday use, skill level, needs, etc.. etc.. of the normal car buying public. It is a "perceived" need, not a real one, so if you have a real one more power to you - literally. Just don't ask GM to keep feeding the rest of their customers perceptions with more iron than they know what to do with.
Reply
MikeW 10:33AM (3/23/2008)
The G8 V6 only has an old 5 speed automatic. It should have the 6L50 6 speed automatic.
The Chevrolet Colorado only has an obsolete 4 speed auto, it also should have a 6 speed automatic.
A turbo 2.0 I4 should have a 6 speed stick, or 6 speed auto. and should return 18/27.
Reply
The Luigiian 2:37PM (3/23/2008)
Agreed with Mike W.
Reply
Speedzzter 12:43PM (3/25/2008)
"[T]o do a 0-60 test you actually have to PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR FOR 8 SECONDS. That gives you 1 mpg, and there isn't enough OPEN ROAD available to hold your foot down for 8 seconds."
"Secondly, most people think they're destroying the engine when they hear it SCREAM. But, they've GOT to BUY that V8 they'll never use."
Sorry, but I do "it" (PUT YOUR FOOT TO THE FLOOR) at least twice every day (except that in a "real car" it takes WAY less than SIX SECONDS to hit 100 kph.
Given the expected weight of the New Camaro, the Ecotec GDI Turbo will likely prove adequate if not overly exciting. Of course it's hardly a new idea (see, e.g. 1984-1986 Mustang SVO, 1987-1988 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe).
One suspects that the "Ecotec Camaro" is more about "import tuner" image and fuel economy window dressing than actual real world mileage increases (although it should be 2-3 mpg better in the city portion of the test cycle than a heavily-overdriven, naturally-aspirated V6/V8 of equivalent maximum output).
Reply
Bill 8:38PM (3/25/2009)
Before you start looking at the fire breathing, gas guzzling dinosaur Camaro, read this:
Tesla Roadster
Main article: Tesla Roadster
Tesla Roadster
Tesla Motors' first production vehicle, the Tesla Roadster, is an all-electric sports car. According to test results from an EPA certified laboratory, the car has a range of 221 miles (356 km). The company and reviewers state that the Tesla Roadster accelerates from zero to 60 mph (100 km/h) in less than four seconds, and has a top speed of 125 mph (201 km/h) (limited for safety). The cost of powering the vehicle is estimated at US$0.02 per mile.
The days of fossil fuel anything on wheels is OVER ! Period !!
Bill Gallagher
Reply