Chevrolet Unveils The 2010 Camaro With Direct-Injection and AFM Engines
21 July 2008
Chevrolet has unveiled the 2010 Camaro sports car, resuming a 35-year production history that ran from 1967-2002. GM strove to strike a balance between performance and efficiency, and is offering the Camaro with a 3.6-liter V-6 direct injection engine delivering an estimated 26 mpg highway, and two V-8s, one of which offers Active Fuel Management (AFM, cylinder deactivation), for 23 mpg US. All engine options are matched with six-speed transmissions.
|
| The 2010 Camaro. |
The 3.6L direct-injected V-6 in the LS and LT models employs variable valve timing to optimize performance and fuel economy across the rpm range. It is rated at an estimated 300 hp (224 kW) and 273 lb.-ft. of torque (370 Nm). A six-speed manual transmission is standard with the 3.6L engine; a Hydra-Matic 6L50 electronically controlled six-speed automatic, with TAPshift control, is available.
(For a historical—40 model years—comparison, the 1970 model year Camaro offered a base six-cylinder engine of 250 CID displacement (4.1 liters) that developed 155 hp. The new Camaro uses a smaller engine with almost twice the power output.)
The high-performance Camaro SS is equipped with a 6.2L V-8, with a choice of a six-speed manual or six-speed automatic transmission. Standard, manual transmission-equipped models receive the LS3 engine, estimated at 422 horsepower (315 kW) and 408 lb.-ft. of torque (553 Nm). The LS3 debuted on the 2008 Corvette and uses high-flow cylinder heads based on the Corvette Z06’s LS7 engine to enable high low-end torque and high-rpm power. It is paired with a TR6060 six-speed transmission.
A new, L99 V-8 engine is used on automatic transmission-equipped SS models. It is based on the LS3 and carries all of its high-performance design features, but also includes GM’s fuel-saving Active Fuel Management feature, enabling the engine to run on only four cylinders during light-load driving conditions, such as highway cruising, to improve fuel economy.
The V-8 is estimated at 400 horsepower (299 kW) and 395 lb.-ft. of torque (535 Nm); and it is matched with a Hydra-Matic 6L80 six-speed transmission. This combination delivers an estimated 23 mpg on the highway.
Ahhh yes...gas guzzling Detroit glory! This car (with the 6.2L, 422 HP, manual, non-fuel mgmt engine) will no doubt go to mass numbers of paunchy, balding, mid-life crisis types looking for some feel-good nostalgia. It might also be a car for the typical feminist hyphenated last name professional woman with p,enis envy. Overall, I don't think we need to worry about mass amounts of these on the roads pumping GHG's into the sky with these gas prices.
Posted by: ejj | 21 July 2008 at 06:27 PM
Here we go !
Quite the right timing for such a vehicle, let's applause the well inspired management of GM, 35 years of history to come with such an ugly and inefficient design, the new green trend of GM...
Posted by: Treehugger | 21 July 2008 at 06:43 PM
ejj you sound envious.. You really want one dont you?.. just save your pennies and you will be able to buy a used one around 2015, by then gas will be down to $2 a gallon again since everyone will be driving electric cars and you cant give gasoline away.
Meanwhile, keep driving your electric moped.
Posted by: Herm | 21 July 2008 at 07:02 PM
The truly sad thing is, it doesn't look THAT different than the Volt concept. You can tell they share quite a bit of DNA.
Well, until you lift the hood, anyway.
Posted by: rob | 21 July 2008 at 07:18 PM
Herm, if you are waiting for $2 a gallon gas, you might have to take that thumb that is presently up your a$$ and waive it into traffic to get around.
Posted by: steve | 21 July 2008 at 07:18 PM
Ah, yes... The judgmental ones are already chiming in. And if the car isn't what they prefer... well, attempt to mock the potential buyers. Such angry, smug, people! Very sad.
Posted by: Albert | 21 July 2008 at 07:26 PM
Yikes, this is like praising hypermiling at a drag race, at least they could give some MPG comparisons with vintage Cameros or contemporary muscle cars.
With all the geeks we hava on GCC dreaming of raising our families with only a 30 hp downsized insight ("You don't need more than 30 hp; you can walk or bus, or take an ox cart").
One year ago this might have been well recieved (and might still be in the real world), now it reminds me of the previous "VW Research Chief Predicts 10% Market Share for EVs Will Take 20-25 Years" press release.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 21 July 2008 at 07:42 PM
Was it really necessary to make the v6 300hp? Last time around (2002), the v8 made 300-350 hp, and with a 6 speed, got an (new EPA) estimated 26mpg highway. With 2 liters and 2 cylinders less, plus direct injection, they went the performance route, instead of picking up fuel economy. Don't base v8 GT Mustangs make 300hp? Who are they trying to compete with?
6 years ago these six-speed cars could pull 30mpg highway. They've come a long way..
Posted by: m | 21 July 2008 at 08:09 PM
Maybe they're measuring mileage differently now. 26 mpg for a 300hp unit is not so bad. I wonder what the new Camaro weighs? Two tons? Does it have a backseat that will hold more than a six-pack?
Six speed, huh? How many cupholders? Six? (coded message: GM = 666...) And you're not on drugs?
Posted by: Dweezil | 21 July 2008 at 10:04 PM
Hey, lighten up on GM here. Little old ladies need these cars for pulling tree stumps!!! One marketing rule here is that for a performance oriented car, one can never offer too much horsepower. High school kids aren't going to dream of the newest hybrid. After all money comes for free from Mum and Dad. And besides teenagers are immortal and can put all that power to good use.
Posted by: | 21 July 2008 at 10:13 PM
"High school kids aren't going to dream of the newest hybrid. After all money comes for free from Mum and Dad. And besides teenagers are immortal and can put all that power to good use."
Well put :-)
Posted by: Pradeep | 21 July 2008 at 11:51 PM
This car has nothing to do with getting good fuel economy. It is a MUSCLE CAR. People don't buy these to get 50 mpg they buy them to go 0-60 as fast a possible. It is however quite impressive that they were able to get 300hp out of a N/A 3.6L. Ten years ago they were getting 200hp from a 3/8L and they had that mated to a slushbox of a 4 speed.
Posted by: Jon | 22 July 2008 at 04:21 AM
You're not hanging around the right type of high school kid.
Posted by: Icelander | 22 July 2008 at 05:30 AM
Theoretically, it isn't hard to get good fuel economy from a sports coupe. The frontal area isn't that great, so you don't need a lot of power to go 100 kilometers per hour. Technologies like hybrid power systems, Diesel engines, or (for spark-ignited engines) cylinder deactivation are merely means of achieving what automotive engineers always knew was theoretically possible with a smaller vehicle.
What worries me is, will we ever be able to get high fuel economy out of a van, with larger frontal area, such as what the quintessential American "soccer mom" would use to haul little Jessica to her ballet lessons, Timmy to his Cub Scout meeting, Jason to soccer practice, hauling groceries, et cetera. Such vehicles are limited in their maximum theoretical fuel economy because larger frontal area means more power is needed to overcome drag.
The only way such vehicles can be economical, is by driving slower. Will Americans (and others, i.e. Canadians, Europeans) be willing to settle for only 40 MPH?
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 22 July 2008 at 05:41 AM
A friend just got 29mpg hwy in a 5 year old Corvette, the trick of course is to keep the speed down.. he was doing about 70mph.. he says you dont want to use the cruise control, it ruins the mileage. He also says if he drives below 58mph gas mileage will actually get worse. This is in Florida, hot weather and no ethanol.
Posted by: Herm | 22 July 2008 at 06:32 AM
GM management must be deeply disconnected to come up with one more dinosaur. Is this the end of the Volt?
Posted by: HarveyD | 22 July 2008 at 08:00 AM
@ Jon
fyi, the previous generation of the Renault 2-litre sport engine -naturally aspirated- (for the Clío) delivers 182 HP @ 6250 RPM, that's more power per unit displacement than the power of the Camaro's V6.
Renault's engine: 91 HP per liter
Camaro's V6 engine: 83.3 HP per liter
@Alex Kovnat
I don't think the vans and mini-vans achieve the best fuel economy at 40 MPH. At that speed, the load on a gasoline engine is too low and therefore the engine operates at very poor efficiency.
I think the most economical speed could be between
50 and 62 MPH.
Posted by: Jorge | 22 July 2008 at 08:16 AM
@Jorge:
If you use an engine small enough so that you get rated power at whatever power corresponds to 40 MPH, then you'll get great mileage at that speed (roughly, 3.375 times whatever miles per gallon you would get at 60 MPH).
Its when you use an engine so big that rated power corresponds to what you need to go 100 MPH, that you won't get the theoretical fuel economy possible at only 40 MPH owing (especially with throttled spark-ignited engines) to brake specific fuel consumption going way up at low load.
What worries me is that the way automobile-hating intellectuals are beating up on the auto industry regarding both fuel economy AND safety as well, the only way we will be able to get all the safety and fuel economy said intellectuals want for everybody else's cars, will be to settle for only 40 MPH.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 22 July 2008 at 09:27 AM
Hp/liter is marketing terminology and is meaningful to reciprocating engines as Zesty and Tangy are to food.
Literage gives torque NOT power. For power you want large diameter pistons and lots of them.
In motor cycle racing 350cc singles were always outperformed by 250cc twins because the aggregate piston area of the two smaller 125cc pistons exceeded the piston area of the 350cc. One has to assume piston speeds were the same of course and no boosting is involved.
More modern proof is in the 2005 Honda CBR600RR 4 cyl motorcycle which makes 115Hp. That's equiv to 192Hp/liter.
Its pistons at 67mm dia. are only 80% area of a 75mm 1500cc automobile engine which makes about the same power.
Its torque though is only 46lbs-ft compared to 105lbs ft of the 1500cc. By increasing slightly the bore size at the expense of stroke any manufacturer can impress the gullible with their "superior" technology.
T2
Posted by: T2 | 22 July 2008 at 09:52 AM
T2,
To me, the 182 HP output from the Renault's sport 2-litre engine is impressive because 6250 RPM is not such a high engine speed -compared to some Honda and BMW engines-
And I think that a 600cc 4-cylinder motorcycle can outperform a 650cc twin because the 4-cylinder engine can operate at higher RPMs and breaths better, and not because of the areas of the pistons.
Posted by: Jorge | 22 July 2008 at 10:42 AM
This is the best looking Camaro GM's made in a while. If for nothing else, they should be commended for that.
The MPG isn't impressive, but it could be worse. They probably won't sell too many SS's to people who will drive them daily. The 300 hp V6 is impressive, and will probably reduce sales of the lower mpg V8's since 300hp is a psychological barrier for the performance minded. Still needs better mileage though.
I'm eagerly awaiting for the day that the National Electric Drag Racing Association (NEDRA) makes it desirable to have electric drive or hybrid drive in a sports car. Maybe we can see that or KERS technology in the V6 Camaro's of tomorrow. The "purists" will always want a straight up V8 with a manual transmission, but fewer and fewer can afford to be purists.
@ Alex Kovnat re: frontal area - I'd heard that it was necessary to raise the height of the front of vehicles to reduce damage to pedestrians when they get hit. Wouldn't such a law make it difficult to design a small frontal area for good aerodynamic properties?
Posted by: Elliot | 22 July 2008 at 11:05 AM
Elliot, I'm glad you mentioned pedestrian protection.
One of the factors that will add to the frustration of designing cars in the future, is that between NHTSA and ambulance-chasing lawyers it will be necessary to design future cars with whatever it takes to guarantee survival of pedestrians, from children to the elderly, who may get in the way of either a car's front or back end.
Autoliv, which recently layed off many of its people, has devised hoods that pop up to reduce head injuries to pedestrians. Such apparatus invariably adds cost, if nothing else. They will also most likely add weight, and create packaging issues.
As for raising bumper height to protect pedestrians, that's a new one on me. I thought the reason for raising bumper height was to achieve compatibility between vehicles of different sizes.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 22 July 2008 at 11:40 AM
I find it interesting that a halo car like the new Camaro is being mentioned on this site. It is not designed to be an economy car or a 300,000 sales a year vehicle. Just a beautiful car for the enthusiasts. If they are touting a V-6 option with better fuel economy, so what? I mean, really, so what? What is wrong with that? Can we soon expect to see articles here as well about Mustang Shelby's, Ferrarris, Porsches, Lamborghinis, etc. and their latest contributions to all things green as well?
Posted by: Schmeltz | 22 July 2008 at 12:35 PM
I believe they did it so that people wouldn't get hit around the ankle or lower shin, then fall onto the hood while their feet were drug under, leading to catastrophic injuries. Sorry to be so graphic (especially if I'm mistaken on the policy), but it goes to show that increasing fuel efficiency through aero or other improvements still has to take into account a lot of other factors, safety in particular.
Seems to me that weight and size reduction, coupled with hybrid/electric/ kinetic drivetrains and aero improvements, within reason, are the best way to boost mileage. If manufacturers would look at their current offerings with this in mind perhaps we could see some more efficient vehicles. They still have to make desirable vehicles for sales though. It's tricky, but not terribly so.
Posted by: Elliot | 22 July 2008 at 12:39 PM
@ Alex Kovnat
... will we ever be able to get high fuel economy out of a van, with larger frontal area, such as what the quintessential American "soccer mom" would use to haul little Jessica ...
Simply there is no need for a (mini) van, or SUV to carry kids around town.
They're not transporting horses or cows so that they need a tall vehicle.
Yes, there are some lousy drivers who like to drive oversized and overweight vehicles that offer somewhat better protection in case of an accident, but they are safety hazard for drivers in smaller vehicles, and owners of heavier vehicles care little about that. For that reason high fuel prices is a good thing.
Why they don't drive station wagons, like Europeans (until recently), enough storage room and small frontal area.
Posted by: MG | 23 July 2008 at 01:03 AM