Last year, chief Camaro engineer Al Oppenheiser said Chevrolet is “not following Ford” in offering a turbocharged four-cylinder engine option in the next-generation Chevrolet Camaro. We’re inclined to believe Oppenheiser, but we still had our doubts. It turns out we were right in our skepticism if a new report from Autocar is to be believed.
The reason we doubted the Camaro would be offered solely with V6 and V8 engine options is that it would give Ford a clear competitive advantage. If you wanted a smaller, more efficient turbo engine in your rear-wheel drive pony car, you would have to pick the Mustang, and we know Chevy doesn’t want that happening.
Autocar does not name sources or say where they learned the information, but according to them, the sixth-gen Camaro will come with a 2.0-liter four-cylinder turbocharged engine producing 268 horsepower and 295 lb-ft of torque. Those figures are awfully close to the 272 horsepower and 295 lb-ft put out by the LTG turbo four in the ATS.
If the rumors are correct, the four-cylinder in the Camaro will be slightly less powerful than the 300 horsepower and 305 lb-ft the 2015 Mustang’s 2.3-liter four-cylinder will reportedly produce. However the Camaro’s low weight, which will be achieved in part by pinning it on the lighter Alpha platform, should help it remain competitive with the four-cylinder Mustang in terms of performance.
In addition to the turbocharged four-cylinder, Autocar also said a twin-turbocharged six-cylinder option may be on deck as well. So far the 420 horsepower, 3.6-liter twin-turbocharged LF3 V6 has remained exclusively a Cadillac powerplant, but it seems plausible the engine will be offered as a more efficient performance alternative to the V8 ‘SS’ variant of the car.
Comments
It is logical
Platform Cadillac and also Cadillac engines
I think this new Camaro will only Corvette engine in its Z / 28; and may be the Stingray 6.2 V8 but with turbo 550 HP
Regards from Spain
Sigh….well GM, you can’t let the Mustang carry the title of “most fuel efficient” vehicle in the segment, nor can you allow them to steal sales. I see the logic, but it still sucks!!! Don’t get me wrong. The Camaro getting a turbo 4 is good in regards to fuel economy. It’s just that Al Oppenheiser and the Camaro crew now look like idiots for putting their foots in their mouths by making such a statement! Hopefully this article is proven to be wrong….Putting that engine into the Camaro will undoubtedly turn it into an indirect competitor of the ATS Coupe.
Well here is what I suspect is in play here with what all that has been leaked.
Al did say no 4 Turbo but the deal was there have been two parties at GM on this concept. One wanted a Turbo 4 in the Camaro and a FWD coupe/hatch with a performance option based on the Cruze. The other group wanted a small RWD coupe on a sub Alpha platform and use the Turbo 4 in it.
They have been trying to get the RWD approved but with the sales of the Toyota and Subaru coupes and the Hyundai coupes being disappointing for each company the good guys like Al at GM had a tough time making a business case.
I never heard the results of the fight but believe this is our answer of who won. Sadly I suspect the FWD won out here.
Now I think the numbers they post here may be off. At least I hope they are off as the Turbo 4 will need to see at least 300 HP. Even with the weight loss the new Car with a Turbo will be at least 3400 pounds or more. I drive a 300 HP eco now that is moving 3200 pounds and I would hate to see any less HP in a Camaro with more weight.
I would not be surprised with a TT V6 option at some point as GM will not leave that engine in such low numbers in the Camaro. As time goes on the V8 will get more expensive and the V6 will be sold at a lower price to try to move the public to more acceptance of the smaller engines.
For the Camaro and Mustang to survive going into the future they need to expand to selling more smaller engines as they can not keep going on with the V8 selling in 75% of the cars.
The auto industry as we know it will change radically In the next ten years and so will all the models. Just look at what we see in the super car market now and this will filter down to the smaller and cheaper cars at some point.
I am sure the Camaro will remain and it will always be fast but it remains to be seen how it makes power in the future.
Scott, in the long term Camaros, Mustangs, Vettes, and every other sports car will continue to sell with V8,10,12 and turbo what-evers for as long as the ICE exist.
The whole point of those cars is excess and performance. Fuel efficiency is a non factor. The Camaros and Mustang sell better than any of the smaller “more efficient” coupes on the market as it is. So your statement is patently false.
There is no need to phase in smaller engines to force the public to accept them. If the public isn’t willingly buying them, that means they don’t want them – as proven with hybrid tech. Besides, GMs V8s are already more efficient than most of the smaller performance V6s on the market and even many four cylinder performance engines.
You act as if modern advances in fuel efficiency and technology are some how incompatible with larger engines. Just a casual look at whats on the market today proves that to be completely false.
Need I remind you, that even now, the GM small block V8 is one of the most produced engine designs in the world. They build over a MILLION a year. Large displacement engines aren’t going anywhere. They will just get better.
Don’t be so certain. At this point nothing is a given here and all the card are on the table.
Who ever though we would see the day where a Ferrari would be sold with out a manual gated shifter and an electric assist system.
Hell the McLaren is a V6 too.
We will have performance but I would not be shocked to see some major changes in how it is made.
Who ever though one of the strongest sellers at Ford would be a F150 with a Turbo V6 and that is with it costing $1200 more dollars than the V8.
No need to force them to buy if you price them out of the market.
Just look at the market 10 years ago and could you imagine some of what is selling today, Tesla, Volt, Turbo F 150, $50K half ton pickup trucks. Hardly a RWD car on the market anymore. Now look forward and see the greater regulations to come and invision what the MFG face now.
It was just a couple years ago GM said no hybrid Vette but today they are looking into it.
With the market only a small percentage of it being V8 and shrinking each year there is a tipping point.
I do not say these things because I like it but I say it based on the many challenges the engineers are expressing and the markets reactions to the new technologies.
Brother I hope you are right but it is not looking good for it to come to pass as you expect.
We may have a V8 but who will afford it?
I’ll believe it when I see it. We already had a definitive answer from some one high up in GM. Now we are to believe a magazine’s source-less speculation?
Umm hmm yeah…
Well often where there is smoke there is a fire.
I would think the same if I had not heard about the two faction fighting FWD and RWD for a small coupe. If the Toyota had been a run away hit I think it had a chance at GM. But with the slow sales on all the small RWD coupes that do not have the name Mustang or Camaro on it I feared it had little chance.
Something FWD and based on a new Cruze would be much less of a risk and much easier to sell as a non performance car. So many of the brain washed masses think they have to have FWD in the winter anymore.
To commit enough money to a new small RWD platform would need be a sure thing in sales. Right now that formula is not a sure thing by any means I am sad to say.
But if they can get the weight of the Camaro turbo to 3400 pounds and 300 HP it would make for a fun cheap package. I love the torque in my eco as even the LT does not have a torque curve as flat. Toss in a kit with 3 bar maps and a dealer flash to pop it to 350 HP for those who are ok with Premium Required and it could be fun. The Eco Solstice with the standard tranny had 340 FT LBS of torque and no durability issues. The Auto and FWD Turbo applications were limited to 315 FT LBS due to the older automatic trannys. They just can’t go past 320 FT LBS.
Note too I am getting the feeling with some of the photo’s the new Camaro has a more raked fall away on the rear window. I looks like it may be closer to that red concept drawing we saw from the ex GM Guy we saw posted here. It would not be fully like that car but the real window has that jive going under the camo if you look under the fake window. This leads to a longer green house and more rear seat room.
With the longer wheel base it is possible.
I see your point, but the FR-S/BRZ twins are a terrible reference. The market for those cars is one created entirely by the import performance scene – specifically illegal drifting in Japan. There is no way anyone should have expected the FR-s to sell like hot-cakes in the US. At best it would have been a moderate success. But performance in the US is all about power, flash and style. The FR-S/BRZ deliverers on none of that.
And neither did the Chevy 130R. These are cars for pure unadulterated driving enthusiast. who care about precision, balance, control and heel and toeing. These cars are far too focused and narrow in their objectives to appeal to even a majority of car enthusiast, never mind the public at large. The only comparable car in the segment is the Miata. And it’s a success because of the “roaster element”. Also it was and is intentionally marketed as merely a cheap fun convertible.
The fact that it’s excellent to drive (in manual) is a “wink wink” bonus to true driving enthusiast; not the sole purpose of the car – from a marketing point of view.
Lastly, NOBODY wants a small Touge racer form Detroit. Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda do it better and hail from culture that invented it. What is a car company from Detroit gonna know about such things. Inversely no-one wants a muscle car from Japan.
I really wanted a 130R type car from GM, but the fact of the matter is it was a concept that was dead in the water from the get go.
The small RWD at GM was not dead but did have an up hill battle. It also was a car more targeted at the enthusiast as the average buyer wants FWD today.
The Toyota is a perfect example as that is what the cars target was as was the Hyundai.
The fact is the small RWD is a limited market and mostly performance. GM could do it but at what cost. Even the imports are not faring well. Because of this it is tough to make a business case for a couple billion dollars for a new platform.
Good ideas often get passed over as they either are difficult or impossible to make money with. They may make a neat car but it still has to pay it’s way.
First off stop with the Muscle car. It died years ago. This is a performance market and the cars have all evolved into cars that do all things well and not just go.
Some Americans need to wake up and learn that todays performance is true all dimensional performance and not just like the old days. Hell my present daily beater turbo 4 will kick the ass of my old Chevelle SS and my GMC Sprint SP big block. Also it will stop and turn vs. their lumbering. I loved those cars but I would not want a new car to drive like them.
If GM wants to sell lots of these cars in Europe, then a 4 cylinder turbo is a must. In Europe, cars are taxed based on CC ratings, so a 4 cylinder car will be much cheaper than the same car with a V6. Final price to the European consumer might be more of an issue than any fuel economy advantage the 4 cylinder turbo may have, so as long as the V6/V8 options are available here in North America, then no one should complain
But no one in Europe buys Mustangs and Camaros anyway. And the few who do are rich, because they are the only ones who can afford it anyway.
Chevy needs to let Europe be. Opal and Vauxhal, have that region covered. GM needs to give them good Europe specific product and let it be. As we already know, GM can barely run those two brands right. And they are established European brands. Last thing they need to be doing is forcing Chevy in a saturated market with no real prospects for growth in the first place.
I kinda get Chevy in China, but Europe? Yeah what ever.
I have a hard time believing the V8 would disappear from the SS.
It will be in the 6th gen but as of now almost anything goes beyond that.
You have high CAFE standards now and Washington is already pushing for higher numbers even before they get this one sorted out.
The technology is good but not that good to get a 50 MPG V8 yet. The real trouble is with all the tricks they will use it will complicate things to the point they will be so much more expensive to repair.
We are see a revolt on 911Porsches right now. People are driving up the prices of the air cooled versions as they are so much cheaper and easier to repair and maintain. The new models are great till they get old or break and then even the people who can afford to buy them can’t afford to repair them.
The only thing for certain is we will have performance cars but just how they work is anyone’s guess in 10-15 years.
It’s a great idea, but it could unintentionally compete with the ATS Coupe like Jamel said previously. I think this would be the perfect engine lineup for the Camaro:
LS-LT 2.0t I4 with 290HP and 300-315LB-FT
LT-LTZ 2.8t V6 with 330HP and 340-355LB-FT
SS 6.2L V8 with 460HP and 465LB-FT
Z/28 5.3t V8 with 525HP and 535-550LB-FT
ZL1 6.2sc V8 with 620HP and 630-645LB-FT
A downsized turbo engine hasn’t always been proven to be better in fuel economy, but electrification has been proven to do so.
If done properly most smaller turbo engines can and will get better MPG. Just depends a lot what it is in and how much mass it is dealing with.
I can beat on my Turbo all day and get no less than 25 City and 32 Highway with 300 HP. The mass of the vehicle is the critical issue here for a small engine to get MPG over a larger engine. Also the smaller engine does not need all the tricks like cylinder drop etc.
Anyways the news from Cadillac may negate feared loss of a smaller RWD coupe at Chevy.
Well… I would just like to say that I do not believe that Chevy will have the 4 cylinder. Chevrolet does keep tradition alive most of the time. Chevy will put a V-8 with the technologies in the Corvette, with the Active Fuel Management and Cylinder Deactivation. and have the V-6 base. Chevy doesn’t jerk off as much as the Ford guys.. Ford put a 4 cylinder in the Mustang before and Chevy has not.
Those who think that smaller and more efficient engines can’t compare to older engines of yesterday should go out and rent one of the newer V6’s or I4s. I rented a Malibu with an I4 turbo a few days ago to do a road trip to Montana. Averaging 80 MPH, I got more than 34 MPG without ever babying it! The power out of this thing was nothing short of phenomenal. In passing situations, it pulled me into my seat like my old 70’s Road Runner! Transmission shifts were firm and respectable under throttle.
My brother has a 1st year SKY turbo. It is a 4 cylinders turbo producing well over 320 HP with torque curve that would make any v8 out of the muscle car era envious at more than 300 Ft-Lbs!
The power achieved from this new breed of engine is done through a better understanding of reaction kinetics, advanced injection technology and better engine computers with faster control loops.
I look forward to the day when we allow methanol to be used as a fuel that is easily produced for about 60 cents a gallon and capable of compression ratios exceeding 17:1 for even greater efficiency (which if done right equates to more power).
I LOVE then changes going on at GM today and look forward to a more nimble, more powerful Camaro.
Just have to talk the wife into the necessity of yet another car! 🙂