Here's the competition

It's not a puzzle, though. Chevy has fuel efficient cars already. And I wouldn't bet the farm on gas going to 5 or 6 dollars a gallon.

It's not a moot point because a little lower on the absolute power scale would then become more acceptable. Maybe only marginally so, but that's still acceptable to many.

Of course everything more powerful that stays at least roughly the same power output improves its position, but they've already been justified and further demonstration of that is not necessary.


Fine. Find me a 2-door model that's no taller than 56" and available with a manual transmission. Then we can get into the sort of power requirements and what-not that it would take to siphon potential entry-level Camaro sales over into it. Please don't suggest anything that looks like a shrunken SUV, crossover, or odd little box on wheels.


As long as you can get your version, why does it matter what version GM can sell to somebody who doesn't have the gotta-have-performance gene? GM is not trying to convince you that you must evolve away from yours.

Anybody whose own choice is to walk away from the Camaro line before the V8 becomes completely unavailable just because an I4-T shows up is making that choice all by himself. That's cutting your nose off to spite your face over a perception that's more imagined than real.

If/when the V8 does disappear from the line entirely and no V8 represents an absolute deal-breaker for you, abandoning ship then does become the only option. I know this, because I've already been down a similar road over manual transmission availability in family sedans - more than once. The point is that I do know the difference between me abandoning a car company and them abandoning me. The question is, do you?


Norm

Ok, I'll post it again. The Chinese auto market is expected to triple by early next decade. Do you think the Chinese market going from 12 million per year to 30 million per year in the next 8 to 10 years won't impact the price of gas in the upward direction?

Our market and population is not growing, but China and India are. The number of people reaching the income level to buy cars in both countries is growing and fast. They will need gas.

The only hope you have is if in the near term EVs take over and no one wants gas.

So yes, I'd bet the farm, mine, my families and my friends that gas will hit 5 or 6 per gallon in the not too distant future.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/ameri...ry?id=17536852

Drive on...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...shale-oil.html

and on.....

Where is my new farm located again?

So height is the new requirement?

An Accord Coupe and Altima coupe are both available with manual transmissions and 270/280 HP V6 engines. Both are 300 to 400 pounds less than a Camaro.

Not saying this works for everyone. Just saying those can also be very entertaining to drive.

V6 manual transmission "sporty coupes".

Why don't they just build the Cruze coupe we all wanted in the first place... lol. They killed the LNF Cobalt thats the right place for a turbo 4, not an overweight Camaro. 6th Gen is probably a way off anyways.

This.

The 6thgen is going to weigh less on Alpha. Calling it overweight is wrong.

And so it will begin....gone with the wind...No more Challenger, Mustang comparisons...

....Enators sales graphs for each month will be replaced with Camaro vs Honda and Nissan sales...lol

So, what you are looking for is for the Camaro to be the kind of sporty coupe the Accord is. A bean counter car?

So you don't want the Camaro to be so great that anyone considering a coupe would consider the Camaro? I'm really not getting what you think a V6 Camaro is then.

Again and again. You guys think that people that buy V6 Camaros aren't just looking for a great coupe? Do you think all V6 buyers are posers that wish they could buy an SS?

Let me be clear. I hope for the day when the Camaro is such a great coupe that not only do Mustang buyers and Challenger buyers think about it but Accord, Altima and Genesis buyers, and all the others thinking of buying the best coupe would look to the Camaro as the ultimate sporty coupe to buy.

Why do you guys act like that is some kind of insult? I guess I'm lost.

Here's why: because we don't believe one car can be everything to everyone. When you try to make a pony/muscle car/sports car/grocery getter/ econo car you end up making everything mediocre. That's why econo cars and family sedans and grocery getter coupes are all in different categories at different price points and marketed differently.

Originally Posted by Number 3
So you don't want the Camaro to be so great that anyone considering a coupe would consider the Camaro? I'm really not getting what you think a V6 Camaro is then.

This thread is about 4 cylinder Camaros not sixes. We have no problem with them, they are tradition. The question is do you want anyone considering an econo box 4 banger to consider the Camaro. GM makes more than one car, they don't have to fill every price point with Camaro.

But they can't do that. They are being coerced by a beaurocratic mafia to sell a boatload of "Eco" Camaros to earn enough MPGs to sell one V8 Camaro. In order to convince buyers to adopt this ratio of cars they must do one thing:

They will subsidize the cars they need to sell at lot of (I-4) by overcharging for the ones they want to discourage people from buying (V-8) and funneling the extra money into incentinves for the mass volume cars.

The net effect is that many people who want a V-8 will not be able to find one because they will only go to high volume dealers who can get their hands on the rare models. And many other people will not get the V-8 engine they want because the price is jacked up artificially out of their price range to force them into the I-4.

How can you blame what happened to the sales in 2000 on the cars themselves?

What do you expect will happen to sales if you make a car that you don't advertise and half-heartedly refresh with parts bin components. The best part of the refresh was the LS1 but even that was never advertised really. By 2000 the design was 7 years old and had 7 year old interior which was not great when it first came out new. (Yes, it was refreshed in 1998, but with Firebird parts, not new ones.)

oooh... but that has 0.0992% less horsepower per liter than a one-off honda racing engine I read about, so it sucks!

Now that we have figured out how to get the oil out of tar sands and out of shale, it can't be that hard to extract it from the red-tape. Once we do that, there will be plenty for everyone and gas will be cheap.

Also, the economy will right itself, and we will have a big public works project to build oil powered earth cooling fans to placate the climatist preists.

Cheap gas and another golden age of muscle cars! That's what I'm about.

Golden age of econo boxes doesn't have the same ring...

It seemed the simplest way to separate the general appearance that Camaros have always had from the general appearance of current 4-door sedans, crossovers, SUVs and odd little boxes. I contend that the buyers who would be likely to shop Camaros/Mustangs/Challengers are somewhat different with different priorities than those looking at vehicles in the other group. How many potential Camaro buyers would actually cross-shop it against an Impala, Equinox, or Traverse?


This ↑↑↑ .

All some folks want is a little excitement in their transportation and somewhat better than base or "average" performance. My wife fits into this category at least on the performance point. 4-cyl NA was and still is an absolute deal-breaker to her, but 4cyl-T was entirely acceptable following a test drive demonstrating that it wasn't just another gutless wonder. I KNOW she gets into the throttle more than lots of people do, at least once in a while.


Even as Mustang owner (and still very happy with that car) I'd rather see the folks who currently shop only at the import stores for their coupes at least cross-shop the Camaro.


You don't have to target the car directly to be great or just merely good at all of those things. Build the car to have primary emphasis on the first three but with enough utility to be able to function as somebody's only car.

When you want to compromise away all of the utility in the effort to push the first three further hardcore, you're basically limiting the car's potential sales to singles, empty-nesters, and those fortunate enough to be able to maintain at least two vehicles. At some point along this path, you've just shot yourself in the foot.


Save the NA econo versions for the econo cars, absolutely. Let's neither assume nor suggest that the Camaro would get that version as well.

FWIW, one of the "equivalence factors" used for turbocharging is 1.4. Applying that to a 2.5L engine gives you 3.5L equivalent as NA. Close enough to the various 3.6L and 3.7L displacement engines to not matter at all.

Cylinder count was left out intentionally, but I suppose instead of sticking a 2.5T badge on its rump you could give it a 3.5E tag if it would make you feel any better.


Norm

You must be reading different articles and journals.

Tar sands requires extra processing steps to get oil and is for that reason more expensive.

Shale requires even more processing and has yet to be done in a true commercial process and has the extra step of getting the environmentalists to ok strip mining the Rocky Mountains increasing cost even more.

And lastly it is a commodity. Simply because we have it doesn't make it cheaper. It will be subject to global pricing and as Chinese demand goes up so will the price regardless of where it is made. It would be like saying gold mined in the US could be purchased at a lower price.

But I hope your optimism works out for is. Global econics suggest otherwise.

The "first three things" you mention, Norm, are what made this car a success and is what buyer's wanted in the Camaro model line, and why other makes were not even considered ...All of a sudden this is just no longer acceptable?

What you call a compromise, I would say gives the car it's sales appeal, popularity, repeat customer loyalty, and "image"...

...As far as the stereo-types you describe that now buy the car, ignoring their reasons or ability to purchase a car that others may not see as "practicle", is the reason the car should not include a I-4....Build a car that is "practicle"...compete for market with every other "practical" car with the Camaro, and those damn elitist, v-8, SS owners with some money in their pocket, just might not consider a Camaro in the future...

...That would really be GM and Camaro shooting themselves in the foot...

Did you happen to catch the first part of that
As in, I am not disagreeing with performance being the car's primary focus or that it should stay that way.

The catch comes with what constituted an adequate level of performance, and I'm sure that you and I differ substantially on how much attention is paid to each of the various measures of that performance. Let alone what's OK to somebody less hardcore than either of us.


As far as the stereo-types you describe that now buy the car, ignoring their reasons or ability to purchase a car that others may not see as "practicle", is the reason the car should not include a I-4....Build a car that is "practicle"...compete for market with every other "practical" car with the Camaro, and those damn elitist, v-8, SS owners with some money in their pocket, just might not consider a Camaro in the future...[/QUOTE]
Coupes in general aren't as "practical" as 4-door sedans and such, and I don't expect them to ever be that practical. Certainly not to the extent that performance absolutely must be bred out of them in order to get there. What's your point here?

And I still don't get why you or anybody else would refuse to buy a V8 SS Camaro solely because of the existence of an I4-T version. Talk about shots fired and feet :iono: . . . . neither you nor I would have to buy such a version, and it's highly unlikely that either of us ever would.


Norm