From GM Inside News:
2.0L Turbocharged I-4
3.6L LGX V6
6.2L LT1 V8
6.2L Supercharged LT4 V8
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f144/2016-camaro-planned-engine-line-up-170233/
---
I tried looking into the dry weights for the LFX and LTG engines and I saw a few numbers but nothing official. All the numbers looked to be maybe a 20lb weight savings for the 2.0T. The LS3 V8 however, weighs almost 100 more pounds than the LFX V6.
Nothing against your assumptions, because, you're probably right. But, even GMI is missing a few things.
IF the new Camaro is based on the larger version of the Alpha chassis that underpins the Cadillac CTS, which according to C/D have the following curb weights:
CTS 2.0T: 3,731 lbs
CTS 3.6: 3,839 lbs
CTS 3.6T: 3,966 lbs
Those Cadillacs use the same powertrains (give/take) discussed on the post above, and don't exactly paint an entirely glorious picture of the weight situation for the Camaro. Granted, it is roughly a savings of 200 lbs compared to the current car (progress!), but its still about 100 lbs more than where we assume the Mustang will be. Of course, the Camaro
won't be a full-size luxury sedan, and there stands to be a good chance that they may be able to save 5-7% on weight if the car's overall size is a good bit smaller - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Again, I'll reiterate that I do not think that the corporate 2.0T is up to snuff to include on the Camaro if the Mustang will be released with a 300+ BHP version. Assuming the Camaro will be higher in weight, and lower in power, it completely undercuts any reason for having the engine there other than GM doing a tit-for-tat release on the car. At that rate, they may as well just stick that new diesel under the hood, "because reasons." I'm still assuming that GM is working on a turbocharged version of the 2.5L I4 that'll see duty in multiple vehicles, but, will probably be designed more for the crossovers than actual performance applications. Then again, we could just expect GM to pull a GM, and just leave the V6 unchanged at the bottom until Mustang sales shake out.
Because I'm a madman, I've re-adjusted my packaging on the new Camaro:
Base: 3.6L V6, 315 BHP - Mostly fleet sales, nothing particularly special. Take away the stick because no one bought it that way. Just the basics.
Rally Sport: 2.5T I4, 315 BHP - The optioned up version of the base model. Legitimately sporty suspension, available manual transmission - cheap fun to bring in younger buyers with nice visual add-ons that are somewhat of a throwback.
LT: 5.3L V8, 355 BHP - Entry-level V8 model, automatic-only, set up to be more of a cruiser than a bruiser. Think more along the lines of a poor man's Jaguar XK or Mercedes E-Class Coupe. Fuel economy should easily reach 30 MPG with cylinder deactivation and the eight-speed automatic. Has a more luxurious interior trim, and supplements the "need" for CTS Coupe in light of an ATS Coupe.
SS: 6.2L LT1 V8, 430 BHP - The bread-and-butter, headlining Camaro. Corvette powertrain, available 1LE suspension tune, but takes a page out of the Fiat-Chrysler book and offers a stripped out version in addition to another model that's more like the LT in terms of equipment. Make the Magnaride suspension standard on this model, and equip it with proper tires to beef up the sporting credentials.
Of course the only real missing model would be a Z/28, and in all honesty, I'd skip the supercharged LT4 V8 in favor of keeping the LS7 going. Its still too good of an engine to let die, and in a smaller and lighter Camaro, it could be a hell of a car if done right. Thing is, that assumes that GM would even want to let that happen depending on how good the ATS-V might be.
RE: Name for a Performance Sub-Camaro Model:
I think the only real answer is "Chevy III." The kids might not get it, but at the very least, its a name that stands out compared to anything else in the segment. If GM wants to make all the money, however, they'd just need to release a wagon version with a diesel, in brown. I mean, they want to succeed globally, right?
Fifth gen Camaros can pull mid 20s with over a hundred more horsepower than the 295 hp LM7 in said truck. The fact that Fifth Gens can pull down mileage numbers similar to fourth gens despite having more power and being heavier is a testament to technological advancements in current engines. Of course, the older truck 5.3s (and 4th gen LS1s) didn't have active fuel management in 2001, but still. Engines have come a long way in a short period of time.
