Chevy should build the code 130r!

[trademaster]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

Only if they price it as the base model.

If they do what Ford is doing, don't expect to sale that many. Ford is placing it as a premium engine which is a mistake imo. Their turbo 4 makes less hp and trq than the v6, gets the same mpg as the v6, but yet cost more than the v6 and almost the same as the v8. This makes no sense to me at all.

No, no it doesn't.

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And following Ford for the sake of following Ford is somehow better?

Ultimately, much of the Camaro's history amounts to following Ford, so it's not like that's anything new. But as King T alluded to, there is very likely a good sized market that would see a somewhat smaller, noticeably lighter Camaro with all the power, torque and fuel economy balance of a turbo 4 as an attractive proposition, particularly as gas and other prices remain historically high, wages stagnate and CAFE continues to raise its ugly, miserable head.

As I said elsewhere yesterday, if GM has something up their sleeve to compete without a turbo 4, great, but it has to match or exceed what the four cylinder can do to be a viable competitor. GM's engineers are smart so I'm not counting anything out, but there are certain strengths that the turbo 4 has over a V6 which make it difficult to believe that they can make it happen. There's also cost to consider - do they really want to impose extra development cost for a traditional V6 on their customers when the turbo 4 is cheaper? The principles of maximizing their profits and the value of their products to their customers should always overshadow not following Ford.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Lazerbrainz2k3

Ultimately, much of the Camaro's history amounts to following Ford, so it's not like that's anything new. But as King T alluded to, there is very likely a good sized market that would see a somewhat smaller, noticeably lighter Camaro with all the power, torque and fuel economy balance of a turbo 4 as an attractive proposition, particularly as gas and other prices remain historically high, wages stagnate and CAFE continues to raise its ugly, miserable head.

As I said elsewhere yesterday, if GM has something up their sleeve to compete without a turbo 4, great, but it has to match or exceed what the four cylinder can do to be a viable competitor. GM's engineers are smart so I'm not counting anything out, but there are certain strengths that the turbo 4 has over a V6 which make it difficult to believe that they can make it happen. There's also cost to consider - do they really want to impose extra development cost for a traditional V6 on their customers when the turbo 4 is cheaper? The principles of maximizing their profits and the value of their products to their customers should always overshadow not following Ford.

A turbo4 won't be noticeably lighter than a naturally aspirated V6
A turbo4 costs more to build & develop than a NA V6

[90503]

Mini-Vette has already been made...

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

A turbo4 won't be noticeably lighter than a naturally aspirated V6
A turbo4 costs more to build & develop than a NA V6

Excuse me. I'm not saying the turbo 4 by itself, weight reduction will be an advantage shared across the entire platform. What I was getting at (or trying to anyway) was that a turbo 4 on top of a lightened platform is where the appeal is.

Also, I doubt a NA V6 which will equal with a turbo 4 in power and torque (particularly where in the power band that torque will arrive) while competing in fuel economy will be less expensive than going with a turbo 4.

[FenwickHockey65]

130R as a design is old and dated already. Welburn would probably never approve it for production.

GM was interested in building something similar though.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Lazerbrainz2k3

Excuse me. I'm not saying the turbo 4 by itself, weight reduction will be an advantage shared across the entire platform. What I was getting at (or trying to anyway) was that a turbo 4 on top of a lightened platform is where the appeal is.

Also, I doubt a NA V6 which will equal with a turbo 4 in power and torque (particularly where in the power band that torque will arrive) while competing in fuel economy will be less expensive than going with a turbo 4.

If it costs less to get equal power, torque, and fuel economy out of a turbo4 than a V6, V6s would practically cease to exist overnight. There just wouldn't be any point to a V6 if a turbo4 does everything just as well or better than a V6, at a lower price point.

The efficiency of turbocharged engines is highly sensitive to the boost & vehicle weight. If you have a high-boost engine (and to get 130 hp/L at 5500 rpm its a high-boost engine) it will not be overly efficient. The things you have to do for the compression ratio, AFR, and other things to get it to happily accept that giant air charge end up making it less efficient than a low boost engine (or NA engine of the same size). Think of the 1.4L in the Cruze compared to, lets say the 2.0 in the Evo X. One is low boost, designed for fuel economy. The other is high boost designed for performance. The difference in fuel economy is drastic.

As for weight, if the engine is undersized for the vehicle it is going to be drawing boost all the time which also hurts the fuel economy. The next gen Camaro & Mustang are both going to be right on the borderline for being too much car for not enough engine. It could work out that a T4 will have an advantage on paper, while a V6 gets better real world fuel economy. That might be nice for CAFE, but not so great for the people that have to pay extra for it.



As this relates to whether or not GM should build a Code 130R type car ... you end up avoiding most of these things all together by going with such a car. It will be smaller & lighter than the Camaro could hope to be, therefore inherently more efficient. The volume seller would be a NA 4 cylinder which would probably sell in better numbers than a turbo4 Camaro could itself. Selling more of something more efficient would be highly beneficial to GM's CAFE score. Then high performance variant could have the 300+ hp engine.

[King T]

Originally Posted by 90503

Mini-Vette has already been made...

I always thought the Opel GT looked good

[jp23rockstar]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

130R as a design is old and dated already. Welburn would probably never approve it for production.

GM was interested in building something similar though.

I agree with the design being dated like Welburn and Reuss said. I just wish they made a car as a lite version of corvette sold with a high output turbo 4 similar to the amg cla with light weight like the brz. I'm 21 years old and that type of car would appeal to me as long as the design is sleek and good looking. I would enjoy a car like that and so would any of my single friends that were seeking a sporty ride that's American and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg for maintenance like german cars. You would be surprised that many of my friends like American cars and I live in the New England. Make the car GM!

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

In cylinder/displacement-conscious North America, where "more is ALWAYS better", a 4-cylinder engine suffers ONLY from bad press and under-appreciation.

IF (italicized and capitalized) a 4-cylinder turbo is such a bad idea in a 3500 lb. RWD car, why is Cadillac so happy with their n/a V6-beating performance in the ATS?

A 2.0 Turbo-4 has inherent price advantages in Europe, where cars are often taxed by displacement, which get onerous beyond 2.0 liters. AND, if it matches/beats a V6 in acceleration AND mpg, why is that a bad/compromised circumstance?

The case against the Turbo-4 in the Camaro makes no sense. All the reasons listed for the engine's availability in the 130 (if built) EQUALLY APPLY to the Camaro. Improved CAFE. Wider sales. Lower costs. If someone has to choose between a Turbo-4 130 OR a Turbo-4 Camaro, it's a win-win for GM, INSTEAD of having it being 130 vs. MUSTANG.

I know all the angst about Iron Duke 4-cylinder Gen-3 Camaros is still a burden to many, but the 2.0 Turbo-4 @ near-300 hp/near-300 lb.ft. (with a torque curve like the prairies) is NO Iron Duke. And Cadillac, for one, KNOWS IT.

Adapt to your Market. That's what DIDN'T happen, late-Gen-4.

[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by King T

I always thought the Opel GT looked good

Elana Scherr, Staff Editor @ Hot Rod Magazine, is currently rebopping an Opel GT into a quick and reliable SoCal daily driver. And she's a closet Mopar diehard.

[shine2013]

I'd buy it if it came out and was a turbo. I liked that concept. Dunno why GM isn't going for this.

[i2disturbedSS]

I think that 130r concept was ugly.
But I hear what you guys are saying. Maybe something like the Cobalt SS was. Keep it FWD so it won't steal sells from the Camaro and light/small so it can compete against BRZ and whatever the other one is called.
However the Solstice was pretty cool. That would be awesome to see again but I don't know how sales did / how the market actually is for that again. Let alone the cost to build a whole new car

[Camaro_Corvette]

Awd it should be