Filed under: Opinion/Editorial
Camaros, turbos, mpgs and the underappreciated V8
The GMnext blog has a post up that talks about the potential viability of a low-displacement turbocharged motor -- the direct-injected 2.0L Ecotec turbo, specifically -- in upcoming GM cars, including the Camaro. Let's talk about this a little. The breathed-upon Ecotec delivers 260 horses and 260 lb-ft of torque, and if you've driven, say, the Sky or Solstice equipped with it, you know just how ballsy it really is. It's more powerful (but less torquey) than either V8 offered in the '87 IROC-Z that I thought was so cool back during high school. The turbo four might well be a nice solution in a future iteration of the Camaro, but is the fuel economy argument for it as rock solid as it might seem on the surface?
The Pontiac Solstice GXP with the turbo four has an EPA fuel economy rating of 19 city/28 hwy when mated to a 5-speed manual. Not bad at all for the performance it delivers, but that same drivetrain in the bigger, heavier Camaro isn't likely to give you equal returns in terms of fuel consumption. Over at AutoblogGreen, Sam notes that the 2.0 turbo's lighter weight relative to the six- and eight-cylinders the Camaro's going to launch with should help somewhat. He follows by reminding us that GM's next-gen mild hybrid system will work with RWD cars and predicts that we'll see a 2.0T hybrid Camaro by 2011 or so. This would dovetail neatly with the first phase of the new CAFE regs, and we're sure GM would find a way to engineer a hypothetical turbo/hybrid's fuel economy numbers so they'd play nice within Uncle Sam's rules. Great.
The issue with all this talk of four-cylinder turbos and hybrids for a muscle car (along with attempts to redefine the class and reset expectations) is that everyone conveniently overlooks just how good the existing V8 is. In the 2008 Corvette Coupe, the big bad 6.2L LS3 is rated at 16 city/26 hwy. Hardly a guzzler in the traditional sense, the V8's rating isn't that far off from the direct-injected Ecotec turbo. Furthermore, the V8's fuel economy comes with 430 horsepower and 424 lb-ft of torque. Those are numbers befitting a muscle car like a Camaro. Who's to say a direct-injected LS-family V8 with efficiency tech like hybridization and/or cylinder deactivation wouldn't be just as effective at meeting the federal fuel economy requirements that begin taking effect a few years from now? You could potentially satisfy the government-created CAFE gods without giving the customers who want actual, traditional muscle the finger in the process. Yes, the consensus seems to be that smaller engines will be a necessity across the board in the new CAFE era, but let's not summarily ignore the bigger ones just because they're big.
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
larry 12:04PM (5/18/2008)
I couldn't agree more with this post.
Reply
naggs 11:20PM (5/18/2008)
what about both?
how about a light hybrid, DI twin-turbo, cam in cam VVT, cylinder shut off, 6.2 liter LS10?
im thinking 700 hp and 40 mpg! ;)
Red 12:05PM (5/18/2008)
Both 2.0T Ecotec and LS3 use Premium fuel no? Doesn't the G8 GT allow regular? The fuel economy numbers may seem similar, but the difference between what customers actually pay at the pump could offset any pros. Then again, I think the G8 GT is rated at 15/24, which is still worse than the LS3, even with regular fuel.
Reply
Torrent 12:43PM (5/18/2008)
All I know is- if the Corvette gets 27 MPG with a 400 HP V8, they can work something out.
Guenther 12:51PM (5/18/2008)
The GTO was rated for 25hwy w/o using any modern gimmickry, like cylinder deactivation. There is no reason a well motivated coupe can't return high 20's, or even 30mpg. I would think the DI 3.6 would be a natural choice as well.
Carlos 1:33PM (5/18/2008)
Even more interesting is if this new Camaro gets an all electric system from the Volt. That could explain why its taking so long for it to come out.
What better way to introduce an all electric next gen vehicle than with a muscle car icon like the Camaro. Talk about generating buzz.
Trevor Nalepka 1:42PM (5/18/2008)
Yes, but Torrent remember that the Corvette is a LIGHTWIEGHT supercar. The Camaro is much much heavier.
Torrent 1:49PM (5/18/2008)
Trevor- I'm still sure GM can work something out. It wouldn't hurt to put the Impala SS Engine inside the Camaro- A 303 HP V8 and 27+ MPG sounds like a great mid level Camaro to me.
PJ 3:33PM (5/18/2008)
The Corvette's fuel economy figures have been trotted out countless times before to champion V8 efficiency, and each time the author has ignored the issue of gearing.
Even with the shorter Z51 ratios, the Corvette is geared to hit 190 mph. At redline in 1st, it's going 49 mph; in 3rd, it's going 102. Its sixth-gear ratio is 0.57. The effect of this on EPA highway figures is pretty obvious.
The same V8, in a 4,000 lb Camaro, with gear ratios chosen more for daily drivability than top speed, isn't likely to fare so well.
why not the LS2LS7? 4:12PM (5/18/2008)
The Corvette is a supercar?
Craig 4:17PM (5/18/2008)
I have a 6,000 pound Silverado that gets 24mpg highway. I agree that GM could work something out to get a V8 in the camaro.
A little known fact about GM V8s is that they get better gas mileage when they are broken in. My truck started out with around 19mpg new and that number got significantly better after about 10,000 miles. I think they need to figure out a way to get that mileage up front.
hydrogenvodka 7:44PM (5/18/2008)
The BMW M3 delivers 25 mpg on real tests, and thats a V8 with 420 bhp. Much nicer.
naggs 11:05PM (5/18/2008)
good point, the ls3 is a much better engine than the bmw v8. not only does it make more hp, but it gets better mileage, weighs less, costs less, and is much simpler to maintain and repair.
plus, the hp/cam cannot be beat!
Bah 12:24PM (5/19/2008)
@PJ: the Corvettes gearing isn't that far from the gearing that LS1/6sp Camaro's got. With the torque, an LSx can pull that gearing just fine and doesn't have a problem lighting up the tires or pulling a low 0-60 time. The LS1 even had enough torque for the 1-4 skip shift that the factory put in the 6sp Camaros. Sure, some will always want to switch to lower gearing, but that's what the aftermarket is for. I doubt that GM will mess up the stock gearing and turn it into a car that has to rev 3000rpm just to go 70-75mph like many other manuals are set up.
montoym 8:02PM (5/19/2008)
To PJ:
The Corvette is geared to go much faster than 190MPH. I'm not sure of the exact theoretical numbers, but I know that it hits top speed in 5th gear, not 6th. I'm not even sure that the top speed in 5th is actually redline limited, I think it's actually due to drag.
I found the answer on R&T's website. The standard Corvette has a 186MPH top speed. In 5th gear, that speed comes at 5600RPM. In 6th gear, that drops to 4700RPM. The redline of the engine is 6500RPM. Extrapolating the numbers, theoretically, the Corvette is geared for almost 260mph. But, that high gearing is what allows it to attain such good mileage figures.
I see no reason why the Camaro would have significantly different gearing. As others have stated, the Corvette V-8 is plenty powerful enough to lope along at 1500 RPM on the freeway while returning decent HWY mileage.
Thetruck454 12:06PM (5/18/2008)
Amen
Reply
Josh 12:14PM (5/18/2008)
Makes sense to me - nice article
Reply
vwboyaf1 12:19PM (5/18/2008)
The best comprimise would be the DI v6 from the CTS. 300 hp and good gas mileage.
Reply
Avinash machado 12:22PM (5/18/2008)
What about cylinder deactivation?
Reply
Cole Mitguard 12:28PM (5/18/2008)
I have been thinking about this a lot as more and more of these blown and turbo inline 4's have been coming out, they really dont have that great gas mileage. And when you consider the heft that the Camaro is going to have over the Solstice, thats going to mean that the engine is going to be given gas freely, keeping it in the the higher RPM range, and giving some most likely horrible mileage. The V8 on the other hand has the power, and the smooth torque like, to accelerate a bigger car without any need to put the "pedal to the metal" as one might say. I don't know if this is scientific or not, but an engine that is driven hard seems to be much less able to return decent fuel mileage compared to one that does not need to be abused. The only way I see a 4 cyl being so much better for fuel mileage in the Camaro than an 8 is if you have a driver who is not looking for performance, which although not always realized, is the point behind the Camaro. Just my thoughts.
Reply