I kind of do.

Suppose a high performance turbo 4 is more expensive than the V8; what will Chevy do? Can they market a 4 cylinder muscle car that's more expensive than their V8 version?

And will they? Or will they push up the price of the V8 instead?

And will there need to be compromises in other areas of the car to accomodate both a 4 cyl turbo and a V8?

Here's my issue; we don't have many choices for pony/muscle cars as it is. If the manufacturers water down performance (or start charging a premium for performance, in what used to be an affordable performance car), we may not have any choices.

And who wants the same power train in the Malibu, ATS, Camaro and who knows what else, anyway? Shouldn't these different cars actually be different, so that we (the consumers) have choices to pick from?

The majority of traditional pony car buyers do not buy the V8. That's why.

Camaro currently has the same LFX powertrain as the ATS, CTS, SRX, Equinox, Caprice, Commodore, Terrain, LaCrosse, Impala...

I was hoping someone would post that reply, but most that don't want a 4 cylinder in a Camaro also don't want the V6 in it either.

Do you want to pay for that exclusivity of having a one-off engine in the Camaro? I don't and most people don't.

There's more differences between all those cars than just the engine.

I pick a car from what's available that gives me what I want.

I won't not pick a car because it gives me a choice I don't want. I will pick a car because it gives me a choice I do want however.

"Oh no, there's a Camaro with a W16 and 1500 hp! I'm not buying a Camaro at all even though the V8 that I want is available!"

I will get the regular V8 regardless of other engine choices available.

// Stefan

You just ruined 5th Gen sales :facepalm:

Why? By stating this in a camaro forum? Its a standard V6. They've been doing that for 75+ years. So have other automakers.


Remember, GM is in the business to sell cars.
Why does the camaro have a v6? Because it sells a lot. Imagine that GM meeting.


Person A: "Camaro's a muscle car. Get rid of that V6."
Person B: "But we make a lot of money from the sell of them. Double profit."
Person A: "But its a muscle car! V8 sells will go up."
Manager: "But not as high as th v6/v8 combo. Why did I hire you?"

:laugh:

Great holiday treat for your 5th gen, 0% interest and 15% off parts is.

http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk/yoda.png

It must be ok to stick any engine in every car, then...

Actually one of the issues in early 5th Gen Camaro production was the higher than expected V8 sales. The percentage of fully loaded Camaro SS sales were much higher than anticipated. This has evened out a bit as the model years have passed. But it gave GM a new understanding of the Camaro market. Especially after a lot of work and planning went in to making the V6 and base models better cars that they were in generations past in an effort to bring in more kinds of buyers.

The key to the success of this Camaro and a reason why it got produced was the ability for GM to make higher profits on the base models and all models as lower production numbers. GM doesn't need to sell 100k Camaros just to turn a profit like the 3rd or 4th Gen were planned.

So unlike in generations past the base models are profitable and thus the necessity of large production isn't necessary. This business model allows for GM to expand the lineup and include a turbo 4 cyl or 2 V6's to keep the entry level costs into Camaro more attractive to younger buyers. A smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient Camaro helps with buyers and CAFE.

Camaro can't survive on V8 sales to smaller demographics. This will even be less the case in 6th Gen.

Pretty much. If it performs well in the product GM wants to use it in then it makes production.

Some of you put the Camaro on way too high of a pedestal.

And some of you think you can toss anything into a Camaro and it'll still sell. Must be the catchy name.

Wow....if that was possible, could you imagine a Spark with a 575hp V8 in it...:thumbup:

I want one. would be like in the old days when there were stuffing blown 455's in a chevette.

I saw one in a wheelie contest that actually flipped completely over backwards....


Sorry this went off topic... But the whole thread has gone to pot anyway:D

Sorta agree. I thought this thread was an argument between whether a turbo-4 or N/A V6 would be the better base engine. For the record, most of my comments here have more or less been based on a dislike of turbos, and concern that a turbo-4 would net less performance for more cost than a N/A V6.

When did this shift to an argument that the Camaro shouldn't have any base engine at all? I agree it needs the base engine to make the car high enough volume to be affordable (and clearly, that base engine needs to be a V6:D).

But are they really looking at performance cost in the next gen when you get to the Turbo? I mean if we have a v6 putting out 340 and a v8 putting out 350 with a small price difference between the 6 and the 4 gm could just be pushing the 4 to balance out the line. I mean if the 4 can get 40 highway on a stock tune with the v6 pulling 33 (highest I have achieved with stock tune and no mods) again and the 8 pulling 26(again highest I have seen) then it would make sense. 40+33+28= 101 average that and the it would be around 34 instead of the current 28.:chevy:

V8 will be closer to 450. A roughly 300 hp turbo-4 will not achieve anywhere near 40. The current 270hp 2.0T is rated 31 mpg in the ATS. The V6 in the Camaro is rated 29-30 mpg, and would be better than that if it were in the smaller ATS platform. So I don't really see the benefit in CAFE. And since the V6 runs on regular, and the turbo likely not, I really don't see the benefit to the buyer.

And in terms of CAFE, the averaging is not that simple. They take the average of all the cars they sell. So if one engine is rated at 20 and one is rated at 30, the average is weighted based on the sales of each model, not just the availability of the model. In other words, if GM offers a lower performance, high economy version, but no one buys it, it doesn't help their CAFE average much. So what they will likely do is artificially raise the price of the V6 and V8 to "encourage" more people to buy the lower performance model.

Also, the averaging of the mileage ratings is not linear. For the average to be a linear function, what is being averaged must be taken over the units in the denominator (gallons), not the numerator (miles). For example, driving two cars the same distance, one getting 30 mpg, the other 20 mpg, the average is 24 mpg, not 25. To make the average linear at 25 mpg, the two cars have to get their respective economies over the same number of gallons, not the same number of miles.

Its really the way the world is going. can not stop it from happening. Lets hope they will keep making v8s for the ones who want one.

its not even a thing about power either, its sound.

Do you seriously not like the fact that they use the LFX engine across multiple vehicles? I guess you don't understand how good business operates then. You know other manufacturers do the same thing right? The LFX is a fantastic engine, and so GM SHOULD use it wherever they can. Its not exactly the same in each vehicle though...it comes in different states of tune in other cars. I'd not be surprised to see it come as the base engine in the new Silverado. Ram is doing it with their trucks (same V6 engine as in the Challenger....OMG!) and it has gotten good reviews.

Maybe it will perk you up to know it makes the most HP and TQ in the Camaro, even if it is just slightly more. Now..feel better?

Man I'd love to know how many more buyers would have bought the V6 if it sounded just like a V8 in every way. Yes I know it isn't possible, but lets just pretend. I think it would be a huge difference.

I did not know that! thank you for the information, but is it so unlikely that a new generation of turbos in the newest 4 wouldn't have higher mpg standards with performance benefits?? and I find the EPA estimates incredibly low. I have yet to get lower then 21 in town.

I rented an SS auto for just over three weeks this june and in town I was averaging 16 without a lead foot.

I was averaging 28 on the highway though.

// Stefan