Camaro chief: 'rock-star' 4-cylinder set for Mustang fight

Filed under: Chevrolet, Coupe, Performance
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims...5%2Fcamaro.jpgWe catch up with the chief engineer of the 2016 Chevy Camaro, Al Oppenheiser, to talk about its new turbo four-cylinder engine and a variety of other subjects.Continue reading Camaro chief: 'rock-star' 4-cylinder set for Mustang fight
Camaro chief: 'rock-star' 4-cylinder set for Mustang fight originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:29:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments

More...

Next up is a 1.4L Briggs & Stratton V-Twin for better MPG.

V4's in Camaros & Mustangs as wrong as 2 boys F@$king....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMWS6TA

V4's in Camaros & Mustangs as wrong as 2 boys F@$king....

---

Actually, I think the turno four is a good thing. It'd be a really awesome car for the autocrosser crowd if GM would get smart and offer the top end suspension package for it. Plus its going to be a way to get those people who are fuel economy conscious into a Camaro.

I know that you meant I4 but I do wish that GM would develop a V4 for RWD models. I think a V4 would help in weight distribution/center of gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2002ssslp

Next up is a 1.4L Briggs & Stratton V-Twin for better MPG.

---

You kid, but GM actually helped out a University team that engineering project was to hybridize a performance coupe (5th gen Camaro) as an all out performance car.

There are some cars that just don't get screwed with.... Sorry a Camaro, Mustang, Challeger, Vette just don't need to be experimented on. You don't buy them for fuel economy. A turbo V6 I could get behind but not on a 4 cyl. No way it could have enough pwr to weight ration to make it worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMWS6TA

There are some cars that just don't get screwed with.... Sorry a Camaro, Mustang, Challeger, Vette just don't need to be experimented on. You don't buy them for fuel economy. A turbo V6 I could get behind but not on a 4 cyl. No way it could have enough pwr to weight ration to make it worth it.

---

I dont know about that, the Ecotech 2.0 is a pretty nice engine and already has a following since its Cobalt days. GM had go fast parts for it then and I am sure they will now. I could see it being a better tweaked car than the 3.6 will be. It also probably will be no slower than the current V6 model and its extra heft.

While the car might not be exactly what we would buy, I definately see a place for it in the line up, especially considering that the car needs to be competitive in the global market. Remember, every Camaro sale pays towards Return on Investment. That helps lead to more development that can trickle up to the V8 models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whamhammer

I dont know about that, the Ecotech 2.0 is a pretty nice engine and already has a following since its Cobalt days. GM had go fast parts for it then and I am sure they will now. I could see it being a better tweaked car than the 3.6 will be. It also probably will be no slower than the current V6 model and its extra heft.

While the car might not be exactly what we would buy, I definately see a place for it in the line up, especially considering that the car needs to be competitive in the global market. Remember, every Camaro sale pays towards Return on Investment. That helps lead to more development that can trickle up to the V8 models.

---

You have to understand the magic behind a "Musclecar". It's not just the look, it's the sound of a rumbling V-8 with a lumpy cam being trumpeted through twin 2 1/2" pipes. It's the feel of the torque in the seat of your pants when you hit the gas and let the clutch out. It's the HP when you see the speedo sweep past 100, 110, 120, 130 and more. It's the overall package when you look at it and you know you have over 400hp under the hood and you're man enough to use it anytime you feel like it. That's a V-8 muscle car to me.

Hey let's drop a 4 banger with turbo's in what is American Sports car said no one ever........



IMHO you will not see many of these 4cyl in the states. To be honest when it comes to American Sports cars we as a nation are prudes. It's barley acceptable to have a V6 and it's mostly because it's consider a base model.

The real reason I see this happening if for overseas markets like Europe. They love anything with turbos on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2002ssslp

You have to understand the magic behind a "Musclecar". It's not just the look, it's the sound of a rumbling V-8 with a lumpy cam being trumpeted through twin 2 1/2" pipes. It's the feel of the torque in the seat of your pants when you hit the gas and let the clutch out. It's the HP when you see the speedo sweep past 100, 110, 120, 130 and more. It's the overall package when you look at it and you know you have over 400hp under the hood and you're man enough to use it anytime you feel like it. That's a V-8 muscle car to me.

---

I know what a "muscle car" is, heck, even by your own description the Camaro you have, from the factory, doesn't even fit (single exhaust, sub 400 hp, etc). That wouldnt even fit most of the muscle cars during the muscle car era.

The F-cars were pony cars anyways, which gave up some weight and power/cubic inches for a slighy lighter, more nimble car.

I also remember the Gen I Sprint OHC six Firebirds being fairly popular, as were 327 and 307 two barrels. Not to mention the anemic inline and V6s that were used.

There have always been "secretary-specials" that were offered right beside the fire-breathing dragons (or screaming chickens), they add volume and reduce economies of scale in order for guys like us to make check marks on the crazy fun stuff. Just because we dont buy them, does t mean that the average Joe that is looking at a mid range Camry or a base model Camaro wont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whamhammer

I know what a "muscle car" is, heck, even by your own description the Camaro you have, from the factory, doesn't even fit (single exhaust, sub 400 hp, etc). That wouldnt even fit most of the muscle cars during the muscle car era.

The F-cars were pony cars anyways, which gave up some weight and power/cubic inches for a slighy lighter, more nimble car.

I also remember the Gen I Sprint OHC six Firebirds being fairly popular, as were 327 and 307 two barrels. Not to mention the anemic inline and V6s that were used.

There have always been "secretary-specials" that were offered right beside the fire-breathing dragons (or screaming chickens), they add volume and reduce economies of scale in order for guys like us to make check marks on the crazy fun stuff. Just because we dont buy them, does t mean that the average Joe that is looking at a mid range Camry or a base model Camaro wont.

---

What is the name of this site Scott ?? It's not six banger.com, it's not turbofour.com It's LS1.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMWS6TA

Hey let's drop a 4 banger with turbo's in what is American Sports car said no one ever........



IMHO you will not see many of these 4cyl in the states. To be honest when it comes to American Sports cars we as a nation are prudes. It's barley acceptable to have a V6 and it's mostly because it's consider a base model.

The real reason I see this happening if for overseas markets like Europe. They love anything with turbos on it.

---

In Europe, its the whole discplacement tax, and I feel that the 4cyl Camaro will make inroads there. It might not sell in the US, but no reason not to give it a shot, the engines are pretty much the same as used in other cars, and its not like the 4/6 cylinders are going to replace the 8s in them.

Remember for less than the price of a decently optioned 4cyl Honda Accord coupe, you now can get a 4 cyl Camaro with more power. There arent two many mediumish coupes out there any more for a modest price. I think its a viable option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2002ssslp

What is the name of this site Scott ?? It's not six banger.com, it's not turbofour.com It's LS1.com

---

I understand what you are trying to say, but just because we love the V8, more powerful versions of these cars does not mean that there is no purpose for the lower output versions. The name of the website is LS1.com, but yet we have a six cylinder forum on this site (all be it an all but inactive forum, but nonetheless).

Like it or not, these cars have always had a "budget beater" version, and I think that even the turbo four offering isnt going to be on the same line of "penalty box" that previous base versions were. Heck, itll probably even beat down a Pentastar Challenger, giving the power to weight ratios. I also believe the young guy who buys the 4cyl Camaro, a purchase that supports the brand, will likely step up into a beefier version when thier budget allows. And there is nothing wrong with that.