http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/573/exposed-2010-chevrolet-camaro/;_ylt=AsSK6o3N919hW5oJKINPUsvWn414

In light of increasing gas prices, a crash program has been initiated to study the feasibility of offering the 260-bhp turbocharged 2.0-liter four (used in the HHR SS and Cobalt SS) as a possible base engine to replace the 3.5-liter V-6. However, that engine may not be offered until the 2011–2012 model year.




Camaro with a 4 cylinder, how many people are gonna freak?

260 hp is more than many years of Camaro's ever had!

It's a wild concept, this 4-cylinder Camaro, but not too crazy...back in the day, both Camaros and Mustangs, as well as many other cars that had high-performance iterants, were available with inline 6 as a base engine. Undoubtedly, today's inline 4 is the equivalent of yesterday's inline 6.

It's a wild concept, this 4-cylinder Camaro, but not too crazy...back in the day, both Camaros and Mustangs, as well as many other cars that had high-performance iterants, were available with inline 6 as a base engine. Undoudtedly, today's inline 4 is the equivalent of yesterday's inline 6.

Actually, some 80's Camaros had 4-cylinder engines also... Known as "iron dukes".

We used to call them iron pukes for their habit of dumping the bottom end out if pushed.

After seeingthese Ecotec enginespowering a 200+MPH dragster @ over 1400 HP just a few weeks ago, I beleive this can be pulled off quite easily, but it better have a recharge plug for me to charge at my home, if they want me to buy one. I cannot be duped into supporting this continuum of fossil fuel addiction any longer. I find it unbelievable that Detroit has all these new muscle cars on the horizon, as gasoline breaks daily records fro price. I guess they all forgot about 1973, the first muscle car extinction, when tthey found the public wouldn't buy muscle cars with de-tuned engines for a slight increase in mileage. " We crash, We burn, but seldom learn"

The Camaro isn't going to tip the scales far from where our HHRs are. I think it's a smart move to use the 2.0 turbo engine in the new Camaro. One test drive will tell you that the performance is there, and with less front weight in a rear drive configuration......should handle VERY WELL. Lets see, capable of low 13 second 1/4 mile....top speed of 140+.....probably 1.0g on the skid pad and able to knock down 25 mpg....sounds like a winner to me.

GM did something similar back in the early 90s when they put the Quad 4 into the Grand Prix.It bombed.

The mustang had a turbo 4 back in the 80's. I dont see any problem with the idea, especially in todays market.
Unless of course its mine. V8 or nuthin. :steering:

In today's market, where US gas prices are finally forcing people to consider the reality of fuel economy, this could have an entirely different meaning.

Possible scenario:

"You mean I could style in a new Camaro, but still get 25 MPG? Hell yeah, where do I sign?"

The mustang had a turbo 4 back in the 80's. I dont see any problem with the idea, especially in todays market.
Unless of course its mine. V8 or nuthin. :steering:
Heh, funny you should bring up the good old 2.3L Turbo SVO. I have one we now call the "SV8":

http://www.chevyhhr.net/gallery/files/1/7/8/8/mustangwheelienotractor.jpg

http://www.turbosystem.com/auto/V-series/P1010021.JPG

What can I say? We had two SVO's of varying quality, so we took all the best parts for the one, and then shoveled some spare 5.0 stuff into the remaining shell, and of course, added a turbo (no engine is complete without one!). Fun car :thumb:

There used to be a local guy that ran a silver Pinto with a turbo 2.3 and a C4 in it. He was a regular at the old Palmdale LACR dragstrip (closed down last year). He was known as "turbo joe" and that Pinto ran low 10s and 130 mph.........run after run after run.

Smaller engines with turbos are the next thing. Rumar has it GM will start using a turbo V6 as the base engine in Silverados, Tahoes, Sierras and Yukons.

I'm just trying to figure out what is the point of putting the 4-banger in the car when a 4.8 liter V8 with Active Fuel Management could achieve the same efficiency in a less complex package. Horsepower is no replacement for torque and people buy ponycars for torque.

I think it's just a rouse to get the rice crowd excited about the new 'maro. Gimme a small-block any day of the week.

There used to be a local guy that ran a silver Pinto with a turbo 2.3 and a C4 in it. He was a regular at the old Palmdale LACR dragstrip (closed down last year). He was known as "turbo joe" and that Pinto ran low 10s and 130 mph.........run after run after run.
I know him! As of late, it's been a tube-chassis Focus Wagon with a turbo Zetec engine...fast too!

Smaller engines with turbos are the next thing. Rumar has it GM will start using a turbo V6 as the base engine in Silverados, Tahoes, Sierras and Yukons.
They may as well...Ford's already anoounced the same thing, and the thugs even stole my screen name for it too!

Horsepower is no replacement for torque and people buy ponycars for torque.

I think it's just a rouse to get the rice crowd excited about the new 'maro. Gimme a small-block any day of the week.

A muscle car just aint a muscle car without at least a V8 in it, IMHO.

big engine + loud low-throaty exhaust = musle car.

I still get a kick out of the "enzyte" comercial... whare the guy says "...Ive got a V6, so its a big motor..."

I like the look of the new Camaros, but if it doesnt have an "8", and "8nt" gettin it.

I see the benefits of the 4 cyl, however, the demographic that is most likely to purchase the Camaro grew up when all the Camaro had was a V8.
I dont think gas prices are QUITE to the point where it would be a big seller. If you are buying the Camaro for the looks, or handling, then you wouldn't need the bigger engine per-say.

the "Active Fuel Management" is a cruel marketing rouse, so you can tell your wife that your new V8 muscle car is environmentally friendly and good on gas. My 06 Impala SS had this poor excuse for "economy" that supposedly suts down 4 cylinders while you're rolling along. You would get better economy by dropping it into neutral. Most of the time, while idling at lights, the engine is in full V8 mode, only drops to 4 while cruising downhill on highway speeds. My Impala was rated at 18/28MPG, I avereged 13/20 MPG in NJ.

the demographic that is most likely to purchase the Camaro grew up when all the Camaro had was a V8.
There was never a model year in which only a V8 was offered in the camaro. Either 250 I-6 or later V6 weer available every year. Most have all been replaced by V8s, but there were many sold as 6 cyl cars. V6 mustang outsell their GT bretheren and have for decades. Why? Chicks dig 'em, don't want a V8 and the insurance is less, never mind fuel costs.

Simply, smaller engines, hybrids, turbos, etc are all the future.

The mustang had a turbo 4 back in the 80's. I dont see any problem with the idea, especially in todays market.


As long as they're not as abysmally stupid with pricing as Ford was with the SVO Mustangs - as I recall they were sold at the same price (or close to the same price) as the 5.0 GT's. The average consumer ate the higher fuel consumption for the chance to have a V8, rather than take the fuel economy and pay virtually the same price - hence why the SVO didn't escape the mid '80s.

Actually I think they were significantly more than the 5.0 mustangs. However, they had Koni adjustable suspension, modified hood, lightened parts and other goodies. The balance and handling were much better than a GT.

Yep, four-wheel discs too, and five-lug hubs! It was a premium vehicle, actually a very fascinating car for its day.

It was a very cool car, but at a very awkward time. Today's market is a quite different climate, and the LNF turbo four-cylinder in a Camaro would be the base engine, so no...this iteration would not follow in SVO's expen$ive footsteps.

Actually I think they were significantly more than the 5.0 mustangs. However, they had Koni adjustable suspension, modified hood, lightened parts and other goodies. The balance and handling were much better than a GT.

Exactly why the SVO died. The average U.S. muscle car consumer didn't particularly care how suspension and handling affected performance: all they wanted was a big engine that went fast. If the SVO had been released fifteen to twenty years later (around the time of the import tuner boom) it would have done much better.

I'm confident that if the LNF is the base engine for Camaro that it will find a following. Like Desert says, its all about pricing it right. A turbocharger and an intercooler have GOT to be less expensive than four more cylinders and another head! And if the LNF helps the CAFE averages to make Camaro more possible, then by all means, BRING IT!

If they do this I will be all over the camaro, trust me I dont care if it has hamsters in it if its making 260hp I will be on it like white on rice. I know what modding does to a decent fuel effeicent V8 had one in my GTO. Yeah if I could keep my foot out of it I would average 24mpg now unfortunately I couldnt keep my foot of it and was blessed with a mileage averaging 13mpg. So bring on the 2.0L if they can keep it at a decent price they might finally outsell the V6 Mustang plus having a RWD 2.0L in something other than a roadster would make me lay my money down right now.

If they do this I will be all over the camaro, trust me I dont care if it has hamsters in it if its making 260hp I will be on it like white on rice. I know what modding does to a decent fuel effeicent V8 had one in my GTO. Yeah if I could keep my foot out of it I would average 24mpg now unfortunately I couldnt keep my foot of it and was blessed with a mileage averaging 13mpg. So bring on the 2.0L if they can keep it at a decent price they might finally outsell the V6 Mustang plus having a RWD 2.0L in something other than a roadster would make me lay my money down right now.
Hallelujah! Can I get an AMEN?

the Mustang SVO was the turbo 4....had no problem, and is actually quite popular amoung 80's collectors...

I see absolutely NO problem with GM using a 2.0 turbo in the new Camaro...might actually make some non-Camaro fans become fans...

lets face it...the turbo 4-cyls are VERY popular amoung the younger crowd anyway...and when the Mustang/Camaro "pony car" wars hit the streets in the 60's...the youth market was the target market anyway...

as long as there is aftermarket support, I think a Turbo-4 is a great choice...I am a gearhead but even I know a good idea when I see it/hear about it.

I'd be up for that too... fuel here is at about $1.30/L, if I get a car to enjoy/have fun with, I want to be able to drive it whenever I want without cringing when I take it out. A 2L Turbo would make it a daily driver for me, and with an oppertunity to have a little fun.

The North American market has got to have some shake up in it... I shouldn't have to go to the imports to get decient fuel economy in a small to mid sized car. GM needs a Jetta/Mazda 3 killer... They need a Malibu sized car that's sporty, quick, reliable, and economical to drive.

You can get an awful lot of power out of these Ecotec engines. Check out this link http://tunersource.gmblogs.com/Racer-Tech/gm-sport-compact-performance-build-book/104742-enginehandbook-complete-web.pdf

Roush has already built up some Ecotecs for boats, can you wait for the Roush Camaro?

the catch is many die-hard GM (especially Camaro) fans will say "they sold out...they ruined the Camaro"

well, lets see...

the Impala is FWD
the Monte Carlo is FWD with a V6


...seems logical to me...RWD turbo charged 2.0 ecotec motor in the Camaro...
they can handle the government's strict emission standards, keep production costs low, and open their doors to a whole new market...AND compete with many of the other FWD/AWD boosted cars...

the catch is many die-hard GM (especially Camaro) fans will say "they sold out...they ruined the Camaro"

well, lets see...

the Impala is FWD
the Monte Carlo is FWD with a V6


...seems logical to me...RWD turbo charged 2.0 ecotec motor in the Camaro...
they can handle the government's strict emission standards, keep production costs low, and open their doors to a whole new market...AND compete with many of the other FWD/AWD boosted cars...

The biggest issue with the Camaro fans is mullet/redneck factor, where as most of them with their third gen camaros think they are big and bad cause of their V8s but they dont realize that most of their monster V8s make a whopping 190HP. Now im not saying I know everything about cars cause I dont know anything but what I do realize is people that think they know everything especially the mullet/redneck type dont even care to learn. So good for GM thinking about putting a turbo 4 in there cause the tuning crowd will eat up this car like crazy (if its priced right) because the capabilities of this engine.

The V6 camaros really never had a big performance following so I think this will be good.

the last gen Camaro's were cranking out some serious numbers. I am a 1320 freak(1/4 mile) and race regularly...a very good freind of ours had a stripped down 25th anniv. model...a A/T at that...and that sucker was one VERY fast production car for the price.

so there is plenty of truth to be said for the V8 Camaro's last hurrah. up until 2005, Ford had nothing for it except the Cobra...and that had a supercharger on it.

so GM has to be very careful with this long-awaited return...

their timing couldnt BE any worse with the 'welcome back' issue. I can tell you this...the redneck/mullet crowd aint hockin the mobile home to step in to a brand new Camaro, that's for sure...GM should realize this.

Most of the 01-02 camaro's I know of get better that 25 hwy. and thats a stock Z28 with 310 hp not 190. Most of my modifications made my fuel economy better. cat back, intake, headers, I was getting 28-29 hwy until I put in a different cam, and valve train changes. now I can get 26-27 mpg hwy. If I drive in 6th and go the speed limit. But with 400+ horse power why would I do that. When I want fuel economy and family transport thats what the hhr is for

My wifes '07 Honda Pilot has more horsepower and torque than three of my previous Corvettes had (I think my "butt dyno" says it's even quicker to 60...LOL). It gets better fuel milage also. If Chevy wants to make a Camaro with a turbo/SCed 4...then WTG GM. Now, on the other hand, my '02 Z06 had 405HP and avg. about 25-26 mpg. on the highway...so, I know that V8s still have a future...fo sho!

I had a 81 camaro in highschool with a 265 cu.in. V8...made about 130hp and got 16 city and 20ish highway....LOL what a turd! Modern technology is far superior and the way us older guys think is what got the EPA invoved in the first place.

well, lets see...

the Impala is FWD
the Monte Carlo is FWD with a V6


One word... Pontiac Le Mans (OK, that's 3 words)

http://www.mckenzieauction.com/1992PontiacLemans0404.jpg


Actually, some 80's Camaros had 4-cylinder engines also... Known as "iron dukes".

I don't think so, Tim. Smallest GM ever offered was the L26 230ci in 67-69. Also, the "Iron Duke" was a Pontiac motor first built in 1977 (RPO, strangely enough, was LS6... obviously not to be confused with the LS6 454 of Chevy fame.), and wasn't even remotely similar to the Chevy 153 4-banger.

1982 and 1983 camaros were indeed available with 4 cylinder engines. i don't recall their displacement, but i know they had them. the first two years of the third gen (i'm a bit of a 3rd gen freak). not saying i know everything about camaros, but i do indeed know for a fact they had them, a friend in high school had one, and we plotted long and hard on putting an LT1 in it, until it got wrecked. may have been a slow piece of junk as it was, but it was in great shape, and would have been great for a swap, until it met a drunk driver, in a early 90's F150. and the 4 cylinders in them are commonly referred to by the 3rd gen community as our "iron duke", i believe it was in referrence to the iron duke you mentioned, not sure, as i don't own one so i don't concern myself too much with them. i see them called that a lot on the thirdgen.org forums though.

Here you go: http://www.thirdgen.org/1982-chevy-camaro

Here you go: http://www.thirdgen.org/1982-chevy-camaro

I'm eating my words (with a nice Chianti) re the 4-banger now.

Yonash, re "Iron Duke," give this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Iron_Duke_engine) a read for a succinct description.

There was never a model year in which only a V8 was offered in the camaro. Either 250 I-6 or later V6 weer available every year. Most have all been replaced by V8s, but there were many sold as 6 cyl cars. V6 mustang outsell their GT bretheren and have for decades. Why? Chicks dig 'em, don't want a V8 and the insurance is less, never mind fuel costs.

Simply, smaller engines, hybrids, turbos, etc are all the future.

I could be wrong, but I think 1975 Camaros could only get a V8! :)

Edit, shoot. One I6, two V8s. Sigh.

Mine was a V8 RS.... perfect for a 17 year old.

I could be wrong, but I think 1975 Camaros could only get a V8! :)

Edit, shoot. One I6, two V8s. Sigh.

Mine was a V8 RS.... perfect for a 17 year old.

Here's all the info you may ever need to know for a 75 at:

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/camaro75.php

6 cylinders have always been the base engine.

Except in the early 80's where the Iron Duke 4 cylinder was offered a couple years.

GM did something similar back in the early 90s when they put the Quad 4 into the Grand Prix.It bombed.

Yeah, but I had an '89 Grand Am with that Quad 4 HO and 5 speed...that little car kicked ass! I embarrased many a teenage Camaro/Mustang driver with the 'wifes' car...

Lasts months issue of motor trend featured the camaro. It said that the base 6 Cylinder was outputting 304hp and getting 27mpgs. I say dont screw with that. Thats phenominal gas milage out of a engine that outputs 304hp. Though I love the 2.0 turbo ecotec, I just dont see putting it in the camaro to increase a couple of mpgs if that.

Chevy has had a bad history of selling cars with small motors in them. People just don't seem to like things like small motors in large cars no matter how much HP the engine might have. I don't see it happening especially with what would be needed to make a FWD motor work in a RWD car.

I don't see it happening especially with what would be needed to make a FWD motor work in a RWD car.

Someone forgot to tell the Solstice designers!

The future RWD cars GM has planned will be lighter and only have 4 an 6 cylinders. If they make the cut. Things change everyday anymore around GM.

The Tubo 4 would be a hard sell in a 3800 pound Camaro. GM is waiting to see how the V6 is accepted as it is. In the past the Camaro V6 never did as well as the Mustang. They may have made the changes needed to make it a appeling package finally.

Can you imagine the amount of mods that will come out for this set-up if it gets dropped in a Camaro!!!!!

The question would be would the Camaro ones fit the HHR engines?

They did make a good stage kit to fit the Solstice and HHR but it did not work on the Cobalt?