Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Out of all that I got owners of the Corvette are generally 40 years old or higher. Guess ill be getting a C8 when my time comes.
|
Quote:
|
Something to keep in mind when comparing Coyotes to other critters is the physical size of Ford's OHC V8s...much larger in width and height than the SBC. Weighs more, too.
So now you run into packaging issues. More boiler room required. Cowl height and frontal area issues. And don't forget a Lincoln 4-dr is supposed to share the next-Gen Stang chassis, too. If so, Lincoln will have input as to body-chassis structure and specs, just as Cadillac has with the Alpha derivatives. There's an opportunity for GM to create a Gen-6 Camaro that, for once in a long-long time, is the same size or even smaller/lighter than the next-Gen Stang...and the physical size of the SBC plays a part in that overall physicality. |
I think a 1ss with a 5.3 and more mpg friendly gears at a lower cost would help sales and then allow the 2ss to be offered with the big boy 6.2 at a higher cost and better gearing.[/QUOTE]
yep, this has been part of my point..if they can get those HP ratings out of a smaller displaced engine, they can get better MPG's with it and in turn, keep the super high, even supercharged beasts in the line-up. But Honestly with less rotating mass, the 5.3L will rev quicker, will have comparable power and the 6th gen will weigh less thus making an awesome track car..with good MPG's LOL |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Probably its gonna be the same format. The ss will be the same engine as the base stingray engine.
|
Quote:
I know the LS3 is smaller in size, but Ford did pretty well because the 5.0 didnt gain any size over the 4.6, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe its even more compact than the 4.6l. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
They are putting a 6.2 liter V8 in the New SS sedan, they put 6.2 liters in the Stingray, why would they put a smaller displacement engine in the best selling pony car in the land?
So the Camaro SS can get beat by the GT? Again? Put that DI 6.2 in that baby and there is your mpg savings AND your grunt. How do you even argue that the 5.3 liter is better than 6.2 if they are both DI with cylinder deactivation? :bonk: |
Although I must admit AFM seems like it sucks from all accounts on camaro5 and every other Camaro site I have seen...
|
Quote:
The logic could work both ways. Any savings based on the volume of the 5.3L displacement could be offset by differences between the truck engines and car engines. The 5.3L is the volume truck engine, but the volume advantage of the 5.3L displacement may be offset by the volume disadvantage of having a unique version of the 5.3L just for the Camaro. It depends on exactly what is interchangeable. Ultimately, whatever cost differences there may be between the various displacements and applications of the small blocks is probably fairly small, certainly not anywhere near enough to affect price to the point that another trim can be separated out. So even if a 5.3L SS was offered (and it probably won't be), it will likely be priced where the current 1SS is, not below it. Sure, the 6.2L comes with a price premium in the trucks, but not because it costs GM that much more. It's mostly just marketing (attaching the larger engine to premium trims). The standard models pay for themselves and get people in the door, but the options are where the real money is made. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Its also the point that that the 5.3L DI will get better gas milieage than the 6.2L...if we all want to keep our V8's in the future, I am all about having an option for a smaller standard V8 to help the company with CAFE ratings, and yes as we say we will pay to play, if you want the bigger engine you will pay for it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.