Why A Four-Cylinder 2016 Chevy Camaro Is A Brilliant Brand Move: Opinion Desk

View Comments

• What do you think about GM making a turbo sport coupe version of the Cruze? That would seem more in line with making a counterpart to offerings from Ford, Volkswagen, Scion, et. al.

  • GrandAm I agree with you as most ppl do. With Pontiac and Saturn being gone, a second coupe option besides the Camaro in the Chevy line up would be great. (we are not gonna count the Vette for this conversation's purpose)

    Basically now it looks like the Camaro is covering all that (coupe +2.0 turbo & also covering the pony car range in the V6 and V8) in the upcoming 6th generation- which in a way is bummer, since there will most likely not be a Cruze coupe in the foreseeable future.
    We also cannot totally blame the Camaro 4 cyl for no Cruze coupe as unfortunately coupe sales have been on the constant decline.

    • The real issue with a Cruze is this. FWD has it's limits putting power down. Weight transfer is horrid and unloads the front tires making it difficult to hook up the car. This is why FWD drag cars have wheelie bars. They need to hold the front down and keep the weigh on the nose. It is simple physics.

      If you add AWD it adds cost and weight to the car. Most performance AWD cars cost as much as a Camaro.

      Now a small RWD platform with a Turbo would be cheaper to build get better MPG and hook up well using all the power you can send. The problem is no RWD platform yet.

      I love my HHR SS with 300 HP. But it just does not like to grip under launch. Even rolling launched the tires break loose. GM performance did a good job on the suspension as Mark Steilow did the work. He Is the same engineer who did the Z/28 too.

      I love the OPC Opel but then again cost comes in as it is not cheap either.

      We can still talk about the youth but Insurance is a major problem and that also needs to be considered as does cost.

      I hope when GM gets the other lines sorted out they can revisit this and do something for us the enthusiast. We are the minority so we will be the last to be addressed.

• I totally disagree. A hugely overlooked fact is that the V6 takes regular gas and the 2.0T takes premium (without delivering much/any improved fuel economy). So, over the lifetime of the car, it's both cheaper and more exhilarating to get the V6.

  Also, turbo 2.0 4's are not that great. They lack the low end grunt of a 3.5-3.8 V6 - both power and sound. Maybe a 2.0T is ok on a malibu or cadillac ATS, where that's normal for the segment, but an american muscle car needs low end grunt and growl. I recently test drove the BMW 328i and that engine is nothing special under normal city-driving throttle. Maybe when you floor it on a highway on-ramp it'll pull, but it definitely has a huge "thrill" gap from 1-1.5k rpm, where normal people do a lot of driving. Especially with an automatic transmission - you rarely go over 2k rpm. Under 1.5k rpm it drives like a 2.0L 4.

  • Megatron what you have posted has some mis information here. As an owner of a 3.6 V6 and a LNF Turbo I can give you first person experience here.

    The 2.0 can is a Premium Recommended which means you can use premium or regular fuel. The engine is not a Premium Required. You lose about 20-25 HP on regular. So no you do not have to run premium.

    As for MPG the Turbo will get a few more MPG then the V6. Most people find that the ratings for the Turbo are skewed a bit. Most who own the LNF find their MPG is much higher than the EPA rating. I see 25 City and 32 Highway even with the Turbo upgrade. Not sure why the GM numbers are much lower but I am far from the only one seeing better MPG than the V6. I drive it like I stole it too. The Upgrade also gave me 1-2 more MPG too. This was confirmed with the GM Perform ace Divisions driveline engineer.

    As for Low End grunt most V8 engines would kill to have torque as low as my 2.0. Also they never see a flat torque curve as my 2.0. From 2000-5300 I see 315 FT LBS the entire run. Yes the chart on the torque is as flat as a table.

    I can hit the gas and spin the Pilots rolling all the way up to 50 MPH.

    Now also note the GM upgrade will make the engine premium required but with the MPG I get the cost is small. I see 23 PSI with no issues and the engine is still under the full GM warranty even with the kit.

    The fact is with the set up I have if I can get the wheels to hook the car will run high 13's in the quarter and 160 MPH top end. 0-60 around 5 sec. Traction is a major issue here even with Launch Control.

    The only real issue is I would much rather see this engine in a RWD as the FWD is limited with the transfer in weight as it unloads the front wheels. With more traction of RWD it should eve be easier to extract the performance.

    Might also note since my transaxle is limited with engine management due to strength the torque is only 315 FT LBS. Now in a Manual Solstice the same tune will carry 340 FT LBS with no issues with the 2.0 at 2000 RPM to 5300 RPM.

    the fact is I was not a fan of Turbo cars in any way. I still hate FWD and never cared for the HHR in any way shape or form. But a test drive of the SS model sold me so much so that I had to one. I come from a performance back ground having owned many small block and big block cars in stock and modified form. This car is so much fun to drive it ranks as one of my favorites.

    My Last big block was in a 72 GMC Sprint SP. If lined up with HHR SS it would see nothing but tail lights.

    With RWD and a proper transmission the Camaro should be a satisfying car. If GM does not want to up the power on the 4 they do need to offer the tune kit as the car with over 300 HP will be very satisfying and very economical to buy and drive. I Ponder the limit is because the 4 can put the same power out as the 6 more economically and until then they will limit the power till the 3.6 is replaced or gone.

    Unless you have owned or driven much in a 2.0 you really don't understand. I used to be the same way based on past turbo engines but the new Eco DI turbo is a different animal.

    Today my MPG is great and I have more power than the car an handle. It drives like a regular small engine when I want and one step on the gas unleashes a animal.

    • Scott, you are totally correct about the gas and IT'S VERY NOTICEABLE too. If I run premium in my 2015 Camaro, there is a very noticeable performance gain.

• GM desperately needs a four-cylinder that produces more than 300hp/torque. What they have in their LTG 2.0L isn't bad, but considering this particular application there's no reason why it should be producing less than 300hp/torque. An entry level Camaro with a 300+ hp/torque 2.0L turbo better justifies the higher starting price than what they currently have. I'd actually consider one if such was the case; I personally think GM's turbo 4 is better than their NA V6. The NA V6 just doesn't cut it for me......There should be a TT V6 option for the Camaro since GM's gotta have a V6, but considering the hefty pricing such an engine would command I see why there's no TT V6 on the table.

  Now since GM won't produce a sporty hatchback for the Chevrolet brand, this is a golden opportunity for them to consider one for the Buick brand. Such a car could do wonders in attracting younger buyers to the brand, in addition to expanding the Buick lineup with more unique vehicles.

  • Don't worry, Putting this engine in the Camaro all but guarantees that the aftermarket will finally get behind a GM turbo 4 - unlike in the past.

    • I have a 2010 2.0L turbo 4 with 260hp. Added a GM stage 1 kit boosts it to 290hp. I would guess with the improved 2016 2.0L turbo 4 with 275hp will also have a performance kit to boost it 30+hp or more too.. Without kit you run regular fuel, with kit you have to use premium fuel. My car has launch control with no-lift-shift and my car screems. I can manage slightly faster time not using lauch control. I would imagine the Camaro would have the same options. Btw my FWD car produces 340hp now, and people laugh at me until I out run them, SO, I GET THE LAST LAUGH!

• While I do see GM's cost saving point of not creating a separate line for the LTG Camaro, I still believe they missed the boat on execution. All early reviews I have come across still point to a car that was designed for the V8 and got stuck a turbo 4 to compete with Ford's turbo mustang and also to be able to comply with CAFE standards. I hate to say it but Ford actually went the opposite direction they built a stout entry car designed around proven turbo engine, THEN put the V6 and V8 versions together.
  The entry Camaro handles just like an entry Camaro. Not like a turbo coupe from one of the various other cars this article mentions targeting. From reports the suspension is nothing special, designed to be cheap and comfortable versus matching the LTG's promised performance. Also while Megatron mentioned the LTG requiring Premium, this isn't entirely true. The LTG is designed to run on normal 87. However, you won't see the stated power levels without running premium.
  What got the crowd talking about the 130R was the promised lightness of the vehicle along with the turbo engine. Essentially a rebirth of the Kappa (Saturn Sky, Pontiac Solstice) size car, but with a usable trunk for traveling. Most of those I have talked to who were excited to buy such a car, have now moved on and the appeal of a "dumbed down" Camaro doesn't appeal to them.
  Sorry, but unless GM comes out with a higher horsepower version or a "track pack" version for the same entry price point. I don't think they will see any movement of the LTGs

  • I hate to say it, but that's the "feel" I get in the trenches as well. I love the concept of a great turbo 4 in a light sexy new Camaro. But I think you hit the nail on the head with the current driving impressions. V8 brute, brawler chassis, saddled with a sport compact motor, seems to be the general consensus. Unlike the 2.0T in the Rustang, which is turning out to be the American Silvia/240SX of current sports cars.

    I hope the aftermarket comes to the rescue or GM has some "special packages" in the works, because it would be a shame for a great GM 4 cylinder engine to fall flat on the market once again because GM didn't understand the youth performance angle.

• I love the new Camaro but I disagree with the author's reasoning. The Camaro is just too big to attract "the guys and gals who grew up in the heyday of sport infused imports." Those younger drivers who lust after a Volkswagen GTI aren't likely to be attracted to the new Camaro -- it's a huge car by comparison. I agree that the 4 cylinder Camaro is a good move. But I think it's more a response to ever-tightening fuel economy standards and, of course, the Mustang Ecoboost. I would love to see a Code 130R from Chevy, a void not filled by the new Camaro.

• Well here is the deal.

  GM originally wanted a smaller RWD coupe with the turbo 4. The problem was they had no small platform for what they wanted to do readily available so it would have to be adapted from the Alpha or created all new.

  This was an issue as it would have to sell in numbers enough to produce a business case. With no other models planned at this time and the fact that the small RWD Turbo coupes already on the market struggling number wise GM Could not approve this business case. Al Oppenhieser was fighting for the smaller car and keep the Camaro V6 and V8 till the case was rejected and then he had to back track his comments.

  The Camaro is not a bad platform just not as good as it could have been with a smaller coupe. So while it is not as good as it could have been the Camaro is not a total crash and burn.

  I do expect that we will see more things like the SS and Solstice Turbo Upgrades offered as this can add up to 55 HP with little than a change in Maps and a computer flash.

  I think moving forward if a full plan can be made for a sub Alpha with more models and more applications globally we may see it revisited. Who knows that could be a Gen 7 Camaro as well as other models then.

  As it is the lineup as it is will be very competitive. They got the order right vs Ford as the V6 needs the power it has as the modifications for more are more difficult. The 4 is much easier to add power and it will take up to 400 HP with no internal mods. Even then the parts are there to finish the job up to 500 HP in street form with no issue. Study the tuner book GM has on the Ecotec it list just how far the LNF can go and the other turbo engines are pretty much the same and will also do as well or better. It may be interesting to see what some will do.

  I would love to see Chevy Performance do some cars to show what all the Turbo 4 will do.

  • Too bad the business case wasn't good enough for GM to keep The Pontiac Solstice (Kappa) rwd platform around.

    • Grant it was not so much a business case with the Kappa but it really was not a platform that was designed to be anything but a cramped roadster.

      GM did not have the money to do it to the point they should have and many compromises were in the Kappa. It could never have been a coupe or sedan with a back seat unless you put a ton of money in it and then you should just redesign it anyway.

      The kappa used a lot of parts too from other cars that are no longer in production.

      I know what you mean but the fact is using it was never a consideration.

      If it was more flexible that for sure would have been a consideration.

      This idea is not totally dead. I expect as time goes on and CAFE continues to rise there will be a smaller platform and it will be better planned and leveraged out globally. That will let it be used to look at this again in a couple years.

  • I agree entirely Scott, My fingers are crossed that the "youth market" will indeed be swayed by these 2.0T "bone throws" GM and Ford are putting out there. The GM Ecotec is easily one of the best motors GM has done in the last few years. And next to nobody jumped on it...and rightfully so, it was ALWAYS saddled with a severely compromised chassis.

    With this new Alpha Camaro; hopefully the Z/28, ZL1, 1LE, SS, trickle down will make up for the handling short comings and the 2.0Ts tuning potential can be finally exploited to the fullest.

    • Jz I really don't expect the youth market to pick up much as these cars are too expensive to insure and buy anymore for the youth.

      I fully expect that they will go to the youth as they get older. GM needs a performance model that gets good MPG and is cheaper than the Camaro. There is a lot of non youths that would take to this but the key is one to get them to drive a turbo and see it is not like the old SVO Mustang turbo or even the GN as todays turbo is much better yet.

      Second for more power they need to get the power to the rear wheels. AWD would work but a good system adds money and weight. They need to keep it simple. Once over 300 HP they have done good work to help with torque steer but you still have trouble putting the power to the ground. Like I said my HHR SS can spin the tires at up to 50 MPH because of the power and the weight transfer.

      The weight transfer is horrid as for every reaction there is a equal and opposite reaction. This puts the weight on the rear wheels and unload the front. This is not good for performance. Engine management helps hook it up but it also slows the car down.

      I hope they can revisit this once Cadillac goes to fill a need for a smaller RWD car. This would really help pay for a new platform that could be used well into the future. Also base a small CUV on it too.

      I really see a hybrid segment coming in where we will get some tuner guys and some muscle car guys showing interest in the Mustang and Camaro Turbo cars. They will be perfect for drifting with the torque they can produce at low speeds.

      They also may show at the drag strip too as they can do a lot. John Lingenfelter was using a stock Eco block and Eco head up to 1500 HP before he broke the head.

      The key to all this is marketing. The first Camaro took off because GM marketed what all you could do with it. Hot Rod took the first one in California and did it all helping drive interest and Vince Piggins was key to making sure the parts were available from GM and worked with others like Edelbrock to make sure they could also supply the market.

• GM COULD MAKE A DIESEL CAMARO FOR ALL I CARE!!!!!!

• Sacrilege? GM made a 4cylinder Camaro over 30 years ago. Camaro Berlinetta. Nothing to brag about but they still made it.

  • The difference today is that the 2.0T is worlds away from the Iron Duke. 30 years of 4-pot powertrain engineering can do that.

    Another difference is that unlike the Berlinetta's, I actually want a 2.0T 6th gen.

• Two things, 1) just people they are young doesn't mean they haven't listened to the beach boys and 2) scion isn't being bought by "millienials" no matter how much Toyota tries. Otherwise I agree with Rex, this has to do more with CAFE regulations than hoping to sell into a different demographic, though they will take it if it hits.

• Cafe is part of it as we will see a reduction in the number of V8 cars at some point and they need to move these sales to other powertrains.

  Expect the cost of the V8 to continue to rise and it will help limit sales but retain income. Then they will have to build on the smaller powerful engines to maintain volume.

  We will have performance but we will see this segment change over the next ten years.