For the first time in history, the Chevrolet Camaro will offer a four-cylinder with forced induction attached to it. Now that everyone has had time to swallow that, and accept the Camaro isn’t just a pony car any longer, we’re approaching the official launch of the 2016 Chevrolet Camaro base, equipped with General Motors’ 2.0-liter LTG four-cylinder turbo engine.
And, as we approach launch, it means fuel economy numbers are in. The U.S. government has returned with the 2016 Camaro turbo’s scorecard, and it’s not too shabby. The Camaro turbo returns a combined 25 mpg when equipped with the eight-speed automatic, coming in at 22 city and 31 highway.
If you’re looking to row your own, the 2016 Camaro turbo, equipped with the six-speed manual, will return 24 combined, and 21 city, 30 highway.
However, this misses its main rival, the Ford Mustang Ecoboost, by 1 mpg in every area. Chevrolet has chosen to offer the turbo-four as an entry level variant, where Ford has positioned the Ecoboost above its V6-powered pony. The segmenting may explain why the 2.3-liter Ecoboost and a six-speed automatic returns better fuel economy than the Camaro’s 2.0-liter turbo and an eight-speed.
The 2016 Camaro turbo should be arriving at dealers in the coming weeks, knowing production of the car fired up last month.
Comments
Hopefully it will be better than the Iron Duke Camaros 🙂
The 2.0T LTG is a great engine. It’s already widely used in the Cadillac ATS, Buick Regal, and Chevy Malibu (LTZ). There’s support in the aftermarket community, and with the Camaro now sharing the lighter Alpha platform there’s nothing to say this can’t outperform the V6 after a tune.
Not bad! Not bad at all!! Although it would be nice if the MPG could surpass the 6-speed auto Mustang, seeing as to how the Camaro has two extra gears to work with…..:/
This should be a car with surprising performance.
This same engine in the Solstice, Cobalt SS and HHR SS was a blast to drive.
I own an HHR SS with this engine and with the GM tune. It is one hell of a fun car to drive. The only real gripe is the lack of traction on the front wheels. FWD does not give you more traction.
The Camaro should just be a little heavier but not by much with this engine. We should see some respectable performance times and I suspect as like with my car the MPG may do a little better than what is posted.
The ability to change the performance is very easy here. I would hope GM would offer the Performance tune I have as it added much in HP and Torque while adding 1 MPG. I saw 315 FT LBS from 1800-5300 RPM. yes it is that flat of a torque curve. The Solstice saw 340 FT LBS due to the stronger transmission.
The tranny in the Camaro should also add for a much smoother flow of torque.
This engine as it is can go to 400 HP before it needs a change of rods and pistons. The block and other parts will far exceed 400 HP.
I see 23 PSI daily and no ill effects since 2008 on pump gas.
The key here is torque and the ability of this engine to make a ton of torque on such a low end flat torque curve.
I wouldn’t be worried about it missing the EcoBoost’s numbers – since the Mustang unlikely to even attain those if you have to use the gas pedal at all.
As far as initial performance numbers go, the 2.0L nearly matches (or beats, depending on who tested it) the EcoBoost Mustang, despite being the entry-level (cheaper) variant.