Cylinder deactivation sucks. My Avalanche had it and the mileage still sucked. I got 16mpg on a good day. The old old body style did better. Like my bosses '99 burb gets in the twenties.

Well, my A4 has only 200hp from it's 2.0L turbo.....and it's a Quattro.....so the car is probably, what 3,500lbs?

I have NO issues with performance with the car. It scoots....and has plenty of midrange torque. I think C&D got one from 0-60 in 7.2secs.

With that in mind, 260hp in a new Camaro might actually be decent. I'm betting the Camaro will come in the 3,600-3,700 range. We might be surprised....if the 2.0L Ecotec turbo is anywhere near as driveable as the Audi 2.0T......

(edit: It could come down to transmission in a 4cyl Camaro.....my car is a 6-speed and feels quick. Auto-equipped 2.0Ts are decent, but much less sparkling.....)

Manual transmission cars I have a feeling would fare MUCH better. Both performance AND mileage.

Cylinder deactivation sucks. My Avalanche had it and the mileage still sucked. I got 16mpg on a good day.

New technology gets credit for alot IMO. My wife's Magnum has MDS, it works astoundingly well, hard to tell when it's on but over 25mpg on the freeway when in cruise control, and it's 340hp and a big car.....

I like the turbo 4 cylinder for the base engine a lot. Here is how I could see it working out.

- Base 4 cyl. turbo - For the financially challenged younger person that wants a Camaro. It still offers lots of opportunity for modification and cheap horsepower.

- 3.6l DI V6 - For the person that wants the style of a Camaro and who will be happy with something that performs "adequately". Basically, someone that would never intend to modify the car for improved performance and is happy with what they get from the factory.

- LS3 V8 - For those that would never, ever consider a 4 cylinder to be a worthy engine for a Camaro. Want to mod the car for improved performance but can't afford the top of the line powertrain choice.

- LSA V8 - For those that have to have the top factory performer.

While I do agree the 4-cylinder sounds like a base, but I still can't get my mindset straight with how can the turbo'ed 4 can be cheap. I've yet seen a cheap car with a turbocharger these days (well, minus the keicars in Japan). Also, doesn't the 3.6L take regular and the 2.0L DI Turbo take premium to get the rated power? I can't see the budget minded putting premium in their car.

So I can't see the value in there, a 2.0L Turbo will almost be as expensive to operate as the 3.6L.

Unless we ARE talking about a Hybrid Camaro here and leave the 3.6L be the traditional base...

No four banger period. That is just wrong do a 3.6L that can run on E85 paired to a six speed manual and automatic. Simple then do an LS3 and an LSA.

While I do agree the 4-cylinder sounds like a base, but I still can't get my mindset straight with how can the turbo'ed 4 can be cheap. I've yet seen a cheap car with a turbocharger these days (well, minus the keicars in Japan). Also, doesn't the 3.6L take regular and the 2.0L DI Turbo take premium to get the rated power? I can't see the budget minded putting premium in their car.

So I can't see the value in there, a 2.0L Turbo will almost be as expensive to operate as the 3.6L.

Unless we ARE talking about a Hybrid Camaro here and leave the 3.6L be the traditional base...

A turbo 4 isn't cheap, especially if it is DI. However when compared to a DI, DOHC V6, it is likely cheaper. Think about this: the turbo 4 is losing 1 cylinder head and it's valvetrain components, 2 cams, 2 fuel injectors, 2 pistons & rods, etc. etc. Cost and weight will be at least partially offset by the turbo and associated piping. I'm not sure if the 4 banger is iron block or a sleeved aluminum block so obviously that has weight implications. Ironically, of the powertrain options I proposed, it is quite possible the LS3 V8 is the cheapest engine for GM to manufacture of the 4 yet it would by no means be considered the base.

As far as fuel economy, it's hard to say how it would come out and if it would spec premium or not. The Solstice GXP specs premium fuel but if I'm not mistaken, the HHR SS specs out regular. The turbo 4 would probably not get much better fuel economy around town than the 3.6 but I would think it could easily be tuned to get 2 mpg or more extra on the highway.

My only concern for any is whether or not they demand premium gas. If none do, we're golden.

My only concern for any is whether or not they demand premium gas. If none do, we're golden.

There is always that possibility for the LS-powered cars, unfortunately.

Id say lets use the 2.0 Turbo for the base engine. especially if they are planning on exporting some to Europe. I have a feeling though that most Camaros will be powered by the 3.6L. probably only about 20 percent will have a V8.

So is there any decision yes or no for the four (late pass if this came up in another thread)?

Based on the announcement today and the revealing of the Camaro details it's safe to say the only P.P.s are the V6 and V8

Obviously not at the start of production, but moving forward possibly.

My money would be on the Alpha-based next gen as the first Camaro to get this engine.

On the B-bodies......I'd have to argue LT1 engine option aside, Ford's fullsize sedans of that time were better cars. The B-bodies were barely changed underneath from the 1977 originals....

Choosing a Panther over a B-body because the age of the frame is like choosing Richard Simmons over Liberace because he's manlier.

Choosing a Panther over a B-body because the age of the frame is like choosing Richard Simmons over Liberace because he's manlier.

Well, I'd warrant that Richard SMELLS better.

A year ago I might have said "hell no, only six cylinders and more!"

Fighting to keep the ecotech, even a non-turbo, out of the Camaro

is just naive. My fillup this morning was at F$ing $4.27 a gallon.

Now I justr came off of driving a 7.0 liter 4bbl Cadillac, & I realize

the 4-cyl might barelly help MPG over a small V6 but better IS still

better and the public's perception is EVERYTHING.

Like several have already said... don't want a 4-cyl Camaro? Then

buy a 6 or 8 and stfu. Or, if anything be happy all those chicks and

broke dads of two are buying 4 cylinders as they just might be

helping to justify the cost worthiness of the 6th gen. Camaro since

we've come full circle and it's 1974 all over again.

I'd love a hardtop Camaro but the factory will not give me one, you

guys are complaining because you're getting MORE choice and still

get to have what you want in the end.

I'll gladdly buy a 4-banger Camaro if it costs $21,500 or whatever

for a stripped out one and I can justify to Julie "but it gets three

times the fuel economy of my B-59" or whatever my classic car

is at that point.

If I was offered a hardtop Camaro at a $1500 premium I'd gladdly

take it and be happy as pigs in $hit.

You guys are complaining because your V8s will be that much

more rare & sleeper worthy, that makes no sense.

A year ago I might have said "hell no, only six cylinders and more!"

Fighting to keep the ecotech, even a non-turbo, out of the Camaro

is just naive. My fillup this morning was at F$ing $4.27 a gallon.

Now I justr came off of driving a 7.0 liter 4bbl Cadillac, & I realize

the 4-cyl might barelly help MPG over a small V6 but better IS still

better and the public's perception is EVERYTHING.

Like several have already said... don't want a 4-cyl Camaro? Then

buy a 6 or 8 and stfu. Or, if anything be happy all those chicks and

broke dads of two are buying 4 cylinders as they just might be

helping to justify the cost worthiness of the 6th gen. Camaro since

we've come full circle and it's 1974 all over again.

I'd love a hardtop Camaro but the factory will not give me one, you

guys are complaining because you're getting MORE choice and still

get to have what you want in the end.

I'll gladdly buy a 4-banger Camaro if it costs $21,500 or whatever

for a stripped out one and I can justify to Julie "but it gets three

times the fuel economy of my B-59" or whatever my classic car

is at that point.

If I was offered a hardtop Camaro at a $1500 premium I'd gladdly

take it and be happy as pigs in $hit.

You guys are complaining because your V8s will be that much

more rare & sleeper worthy, that makes no sense.

Sixty8, a voice of reason? Hell hath froze over!

I agree 100%

Reason... I guess.

All I'm saying is if I want performance & a big-honkin

pushrod V8 I'll stuff a Cadillac 8.2 into a fiberglass

'32 Ford highboy kit, & driving a modern car that gets

great MPGs in an era when gas has trippled in less

than a decade would free up enough money to do so.

No matter how fast a modern car gets it's never as

exciting as the REAL old school muscle. Esp. now that

the greenhouse of the Bone-marrow will be closer to

my mom's 2005 Cobalt LT than a '69 Z.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if I'm going to waste

gas on a V8 it makes more sense to do so on a old

cheap ironblock powered classic car with antique

plates, cheap insurance & cheap parts availability

while also allowing me to turn wrenches, tweak the

motor & perform all the maintenance without having

to worry about ECMs, catalitic converters, MAFS &

other obnoxious modern gizmos.

For me the Camaro would be my "point-A-to-B" car

that I would have little attachement to besides being

a daily driver that I woud not have to hate or be

ashamed of.

If anyone ever sees me "driving a cute, peppy little

sandstone colored Corolla to save on gas" please, do

me a favor and just shoot me in the face.

But I can keep my RWD-only stance, still give the

finger to hybrids & all while giving GM a new car sale

by buying a Camaro with a respectable 4-cylinder.

I can picture a "I'd rather be driving my '59 Buick"

bumper sticker on the ass end of a '12 Camaro.