It’s clear Chevrolet is looking for customer feedback on the future of the Camaro. On Monday, we reported the brand pushed out a survey to Camaro owners fishing for opinions on future powertrains. Specifically, the survey pitted hybrid power versus non-electrified powertrains.
Chevy gave owners two option: a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine or a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine with a hybrid system. It appears the brand perhaps listened when we spoke of where GM’s Tripower 2.7-liter L3B turbo-four engine should go next after pickup trucks…
We digress. Today, we want to know what you think. Would you take the 2.0-liter turbo hybrid? Or the 2.7-liter turbo-four without the electrification?
Chevy didn’t provide too many specifics, but we have the basics to help readers make a decision. In the survey, the 2.7-liter turbo-four would theoretically make 310 horsepower, return 25 mpg combined and sprint from 0-60 mph in 5.2 seconds. The engine would also be a no-cost option. In comparison, the 2.0-liter turbo-hybrid four-cylinder would make 365 hp, achieve 30 mpg combined and dash from 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds.
However, the hybrid powertrain would be an extra $4,000. In a world where sports cars play more and more of a niche sales role, that’s a chunk of change for a four-cylinder Camaro.
The survey goes on to pit a naturally aspirated 6.2-liter V8 against a hybridized V8 engine with 545 hp, but we’ll focus on the four-cylinder engines here.
Right now, the standard 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder found in the sixth-generation Camaro is a tad underwhelming. We’d gladly accept either powertrain as an improvement. When it all boils down, the hybrid system seems like a no-brainer, but the extra cost is a tough pill to swallow. What do you think? Vote in our poll down below and strike up conversation.
Comments
Keep it as cheap as possible and go with the 2.7. People buy base engines because generally that is all they can afford.
If someone is buying performance and is willing to pay more it would be the V8.
We have seen many of these systems and they are offered and they go away as they cost too much. Get the price down and it will help make it a real viable option.
Also most performance buyers will not buy them to save a tree so there is little motivation there.
I agree they can be a great drive but in this car, in this segment, at this time with low gas prices at this point in time it is just going to be a foot note in GM history. Much like the Hybrid trucks and SUV models they offered and sold at great discounts to get them off the lots.
Now this system on a high end C9 with a DHOC Turbo V8 and 1,000 HP with the two systems combined price is not an object.
The bottom line now is they are trying to make the Camaro cheaper because people claim it is already too expensive.
Now if the time comes they have not made this system cheaper and the only way to keep the big engines is to use off cycle credits gained by these systems then there is no choice.
They should do the 2.7 as the new base engine and make the 2.0T hybrid replace the 3.6 as the mid level engine.
V8 + Hybrid.
In a few years anyway.
It has been pointed out a few times, the 2.7T being a large I-4 engine just doesn’t have the NVH to put in a car which is why it is considered a “truck” engine. I guess that none of that matters anymore, yes the 2.7T makes more horsepower and torque then the 2.0T and 3.6L engines. However this isn’t the only factors involved in what makes an engine good or bad, based on first drives of the 2.7T engine things get bad near 6,000rpms which would be a complete turn off for me and this engine.
If they gave me an option of a Camaro with the 2.7T and 3.6L NA engine I would pick the 3.6L NA engine as it revs nicely to 7,000rpms and sounds great, The 2.7T struggles at 6,000rpms and runs rough.
2.7 L turbo four hybrid.
2.7T. While I’m an advocate for an EV future, I believe the Camaro should skip the hybrid phase and go straight to EV. Cramming both a gas and electric powertrain into a single chassis makes for a heavy, poorly balanced car with poor handling traits. It would also ruin the Camaro’s affordability.
Instead of a hybrid version I would rather see an AWD version to make it more accessable to those with modest incomes. As RWD-only, the Camaro is a very expensive car since it requires a second winter car along with an empty garage bay for the winter.
If the current turbo engine made at least 300-Hp, it would be a no brainer for me as a 1LE. The hybrid as a 1LE would be my choice over the 2.7 as long as it had some ability and range to be driven in town without the fueled engine, but if it didn’t, that wouldn’t be deal ender. Increased MPG and performance and lower emissions would win the day.
The 2.7L turbo would probably have some issues in a car. And, what are its torque and Hp delivery profiles. Are they better then the current Turbo.
I don’t know if you have found out yet. But I do know that 90% of the tq for the 2.7t comes in at 1500 rpm and goes to 5600 rpm. From there I believe the HP takes over at around 5200 rpm. I’m not entirely sure about the HP and the end of the tq band. But I do know thats where the tq starts for the 2.7t.
On the Camaro don’t use the grill from the Toyota Camary.
What is a “Camary”? It should be the Camry. BTW, it is a fact that Toyota copied the Camaro to make its own “pony car” the Celica.
GM must produce the hybrid Chevy Camaro now. Ford has announced the Hybrid Mustang for 2020, which is very soon, and probably already running on public roads as unlabeled “mules” for long term tests. The Cadillac hybrid CT6 has an excellent hybrid RWD power train, developed from the Chevy Volt, so GM just has to do some engineering to fit that in the Chevy Camaro.
GM is working on something better than a hybrid Camaro.
Remember the EV fleet of which they said over 20 will be on sale by 2023? Well, those aren’t all going to be econoboxes like the BoltEV.
The hybrid is already in validation. These surveys and focus groups are just designed to develop the right price tiers.
Lets use the 3.9 diesel 4 cylinder that GM uses in its box trucks 😂😂😂😂
Engines aside, it better lose that ugly front end on the 2019 SS.
#BUTTERFACE
Since the Camaro is a sports car 2 + 2 Coupe / Convertible is not driven daily. Whether 2.0 Turbo with Hybrid or 2.7 Turbo is therefore no matter, as the 3.0 V6 TT with manual transmission is the perfect drive. As an everyday car you drive a station wagon, SUV, CUV or small car soon only electrically. I prefer the OPEL Corsa F as an electric car, so I can also pull a small trailer (450kg), whether for a motorcycle or gardening. This is my personal opinion that I live too!
Current use of my vehicles in everyday life:
OPEL Cascada S with 200HP / manual transmission to 30%.
OPEL Corsa S with 150HP / manual transmission to 60%.
OPEL Corsa C 58HP / 8% manual transmission.
BMW S1000RR about 193HP to 2%
Conclusion:
Thus, a Camaro convertible 3.0 V6 TT could replace the OPEL Cascada S.
Decisive is only the personal use and use.
Why do I think so?
I live in Europe / Germany / Bavaria / Regensburg …
Currently we do not have a Chevrolet dealer within 60mls.
Only 3 Ford dealers who sell a lot of Mustang.
Shelbys are available at http://www.Geigercars.de near Munich.
Why can’t a 2+2 Coupe be driven daily? It seems to me the only obstacle to the use of a Camaro as a daily driver is the lack of an AWD option, and that only applies to those living in the snowbelt.
The 3.0TT would be great, but one issue could be that a simple tune would render it as powerful as the 6.2 V8.
I’m not going to comment about a car application, because I don’t care; but for the 1500, half-ton Silverados and Sierras, the 2.7L Tripower is NOT what the customers asked for; well not entirely. What the truck buyer asked for and want from GM is more options for more buyers and GM is going half the distance by offering more total choices but still very limited choices at each trim level and configuration category. For instance, the 2.7L, 4 cylinder turbo will be a great power train choice for those who don’t need to tow a great deal in a half ton, but this is only a choice in a couple of configurations and a couple of trim levels and none of those are near the bottom level of the price point. This is very unlike F150 customers who can get a choice of two, twin-powered turbos or a V8 with all the advancement available from Ford mated to a ten speed with a modest premium to the base price, or a base NA V6 mated to a six speed for a bare-bones price; all four gas-powered power trains, without limitations on level of advancement all the way down to the least trimmed and least configured pickup truck all the way to the top. The GM customer will get advanced power trains only when they pay for a configuration that he or she may not want or a trim level that he or she may not want. This is not what the customer meant by choice. To illustrate an example; even though GM is playing marketing gimmick tricks saying they have a base 2.7L turbo cheaper than Ford, in reality, a Ford customer can get a 2.7L Turbo with dual fuel injection mated to a 10 speed starting under $30K in an XL, short bed, standard cab; whereas a GM turbo-wannabe customer must choose a double cab in LT trim that starts near $40K. For GM customers, at the low end, the choice is the old, carryover V6 with the old, carryover 6-speed transmission, with the old AFM cylinder deactivation system, with the old fuel economy numbers and old performance numbers, or the 5.3L V8 with the same old stuff and even worse mpg than the current truck. And to make matters worse, GM is taking away choice by doing away with the RCSB truck entirely. How are all of these actions considered more choice for the customer.
As we all know that entertainment is very necessary to be fit and healthy so you can enjoy indoor or outdoor games here we are going to share https://myminesweeper.com free online minesweeper games as these games are puzzle single player game.
Well, your comparison is off. The 2.7 in the ct4v makes 325 hp and 380 lb feet of torque and will take the car to 60 in about 4.7 seconds not 5.2. The camaro weighs about the same and sits on the same platform. So the performance would be roughly the same.