Lutz: GM Considering 2.0L Turbo 4-Cylinder Engine for New Camaro!

Sacrilege? Well maybe for some, but in our books, it’s totally okay if that’s what it takes to keep cars like the Camaro alive and kicking. According to GM’s Vice President Bob Lutz who spoke to journalist on the sidelines of the New York auto show, if fuel prices continue to increase, GM is considering to response with a four-cylinder engine for the new Chevrolet Camaro.

Luckily, GM is not thinking about any 4-cylinder unit, but for the same 260 HP, 2.0-liter turbocharged, direct-injected four-cylinder that’s used in the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters. –Continued after the jump

GM’s current plans for the Camaro that’s expected in the US market next February include V6 and V8 units. Whaile there’s no official info on the V8 powertrain(s), at the NY Show opening, Lutz confirmed that the V6 Camaro will be powered by a detuned version of the Cadillac CTS’ 3.6-liter V6 unit developing around 260 Hp. According to Lutz, the V6 Camaro should be able to get an avg. fuel consumption of 17 mpg in the city and 25 mpg on the highway. (Photo edited by Carscoop)

Via: AN (sub.req)

9 comments

Frank // March 24, 2008

Bob Lutz has gotta be joking. The Chevrolet Camaro is meant to be a MUSCLE car. Throwing a 4 cylinder unit in the car whether it's turbocharged or supercharged is just complete bullshit. Mustangs never had 4 cylinder engines dropped into them, so why should Lutz bother? It ruins the Camaro's muscle car image.

Maybe Bob Lutz wants to bring the Camaro into Street Tuner's territory?
Anonymous // March 28, 2008

By the time the Camaro is available for sale Gas will be $4.25 a gallon. The idea that people will flock to get a 17 mpg car is ludicrous! It goes to show that experience does not = good judgement. Imagine going 8.5 miles to
go shopping and 8.5 miles home for $4.25 in gas. People in major cities
in CA, Chgo, NYC are sitting is crawling traffic most of the time. What is the point of a big V-8 or turbo V-6 to crawl on the San Diego Freeway at 9 mph?
Alex // April 04, 2008

Regarding the previous two posts:

Muscle cars are about good power-to-weight ratios. These days, that's perfectly attainable with a well-setup four cylinder, especially if it's a hybrid design. I guarantee you that a modern 260hp 4-cyl Camaro would be more fun to drive than, say, an '82 Z28 with it's 145hp V-8...

Also, don't forget: Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs (and the K-car Charger!) all had four bangers available in the 1970s and '80s. And people bought them, too.

To the other poster: EXACTLY. My current vehicle has 195hp; my previous one had 150hp. They weigh essentially the same, but the newer one goes slower. Why? Because, when I moved to the city I'm in, the population was about 2.7 million. Now it's about 4 million. And yet there have been no new major roads built in that time.

Not only is crowding getting bad, but as nice as a V-8 is (and they ARE nice, don't get me wrong), gas hasn't been cheap (I define cheap gas as <$1.75) here in about six years, and a V-8 sure gulps allot of it down in stop-and-go traffic.
Alex // April 07, 2008

The more I think about this, the more I wonder: If the Camaro had a 260hp Four that was good for, say, 18-24 MPG in mixed driving, then why not make it a 220hp unit that could maybe get even better MPGs without sacrificing too much performance.

It's astonishing to me how overpowered cars are getting now, even as fuel prices stay high and roads get more crowded. I know some might say that it's cool that a 260hp engine now can get similar fuel economy to a same-sized 160hp version of a decade or two ago. I suppose it is cool. I can't help but think, though, that it would be even cooler if that engine was 210hp and got BETTER mileage...
Anonymous // April 17, 2008

To frank there were 4 cylinder/turbo 4 mustangs, thunder birds, all withthe same motor as the probe GT turbo/Mx6 turbo GT 4ws...

And also why not put in a turbo Four or super charged for Look at the SRT-4.. But why would you want a detuned 3.6 that will burn more gas, thats like putting in the old 3.8 in the mustangs which were under powered but had low in torque, at least the gm 3.8 push rods had more grunt.

And if I car maker has to keep coming out with more body kits, and look to other performance enhancer to make more out of a small 4.6 then ford should just drop back in the old school 5.0 and go from there.
Anonymous // June 15, 2008

Actually Frank, you're wrong. 79-86 Mustangs came stock with 4 cylinders.
Anonymous // February 25, 2009

the 4 cyl in the mustang and thunderbird WAS NOT the same 4 cyl that was in the probe and mx6/626 GT, the motor in the probe/mx6/626 gt was a SOHC 2.2L 12 valve F2T motor with an RHB5-VJ11 IHI Turbo with a 7.8:1 compression ratio and made 145hp and 190tq, and was designed originaly by Mazda for use in the USDM MX6 and 626's because the japanese motor the FE3 (DOHC 16v 2.0L 170hp 160tq N/A) didn't meet emissions standards for the states. the motor in the SVO mustang and Turbocoupe T-Bird was a turbocharged version of the ford pinto's 2.3L 4 cyl using a T3 turbo and made 175hp and 210tq at its debut in 1984 then later output was raised to 205hp and 248tq.
Anonymous // March 08, 2009

Wow! its sad that the world has lowered themselves enough to put a 4 cylinder in a legendary muscle car its also sad im the only car guy who has a brain and its actually pretty fricken stupid if you ask me. So let me educate you people on something if your going to be stupid enough to do so much work to as something as crappy as a 4 cylinder to push 250 horse power in it you might as well spend the money to drop a supercharged V8 in it. I hope you all take my advice and even more i hope you all grow a brain when it comes to cars!!!!!!!!
Anonymous // April 14, 2009

Are you guys serious??? The 2002 Camaros were EPA rated at 18 city/26 highway with the 5.7L V8, shouldn't a 4 cylinder or even a V6 be in the lower 30s? My 2005 Impala with the 3.8L V6 gets anywhere from 30-32 MPG average on the highway and as high as 34. This car should be much lighter and more aerodynamic than my Impala. I am sure someone will want to argue with me but if they put a 6 speed transmission in it to where it was only turning around 1600 rpms at 65-70mph it would probably do at least 35mpg, it should easily be in the 30-35mpg range with a V6. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with the so called "Fuel efficient 4 cylinder?" I would go with the V8 because you don't buy a Camaro for gas mileage you buy it for a fun car.