A 4 Cylinder Camaro??? Say It isn't So!!!!

I guess my post was deleted. Anyways, the "rear end" on that Camaro is hideous. All you F-body fans check out the Pontiac G8. This car is getting rave reviews.
 
I read in the first post Lutz talking about the weight of the car, etc.



Then I gather fuel economy is going to be a concern for the rental car/every day driver/less performance-oriented crowd.



Their answer might be a turbo four banger? Why does it have to be complicated? The car must way too much!!! Look back to the last F-body when GM put in the 3800-II engine- it got GREAT highway fuel economy and the engine was based on decades-proven technology.



Sure it is easy for us to sit here armed with keyboards and bash GM, but I feel like they are going backwards in certain areas.
 
Who buys a muscle car, and complains about gas anyways?



I remember in 87-93, when the 2 engine choices for a Mustng were either the 2.3L 4 cylinder, or the 5.0L V8. The 4 cylinder was a dog (I am not talking about that supercharged SVT engine - just the plain ole 2.3L that came in a regular LX). At least now, the 4.0L 6 cylinder they put in the Mustang has a decent sound to it.



Putting a 4 cylinder in any muscle car these days is a step back.
 
It's not a step back; it's a reflection of the economy. The same thing happened in the 80's: The Camaro came with a 4-cylinder from 1982 to 1985.
 
The &9 mustang had a Turbo on the 2.3 liter. Remember Indy 500 pace car!!! Mine was baby blue, still have a turbo and carb setup for it with manifold. RANDAL
 
It couldn't be worse than the anemic models in the 80s. Save for that rear end, and the chrome.



Anyhow, maybe they could have both if they would ditch pushrods. I don't get why they are still used beyond packaging and cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top