If the weight also comes down a step, actual acceleration performance might not be enough different to notice without a stopwatch. Other measures (not just fuel usage) could actually improve.

Never mind that people buying in at the lower power levels tend not to be all that interested in brutal acceleration anyway. The current V6 is more than many will ever use as it is. These people are the "some's good" in "some's good, more's better, and too much is just enough", and there really are a lot of them. Just not people like either you or me.



If the rules were staying the same, that would be the intelligent thing to do.

In different states of tune there is every reason to believe that the same engine would be made available in other platforms.


I don't see that at all. What I do see is a few V8 cheerleaders expressing fear that any new 4-cylinder variant will be not the least bit better than models with the low-tech 4's of the fairly distant past, and that somehow the V8 versions will be adversely affected as a direct result. Kind of a glass-is-half-empty train of thought.


Norm

the way i see it, it's better to have a choice than not.
it would be fine if they offered a 4 cyl. camaro and let the people buy the camaro with the engine type that they like

4 cyl
 

i guess when the 6.2 liter 4 cylinder is available i will have to take a look at it...

More choice almost always comes in at a greater expense. Unless you want to pay more for the v6 or the v8, you probably wouldn't like a turbo I4. That is my only opposition.

I don't know, and I don't want to know. Correct, it's lame. :D

I'm sure you are correct about the new 4's being far better than the old ones...but no matter what, I don't think it can be denied that there is a definite "stigma" and mind-set about them that will cause GM to lose Camaro customers...that is, those who see the brand as a way to get away and be different from all the existing 4-banger, rice-rocket, econo-cars that are in vast supply in other models...

...Just because the I-4 technically can work in the new Camaro platform, doesn't mean it "has to" go in it...Get your 4 in a GM Cruze, Sonic, or Spark...Step up to the Camaro if you want more than that...

I like to drive a manual and most people prefer the automatic. If GM took away the transmission choices and built only automatic camaros because it's more cost effective to build only one kind of transmission, most likely, I would have bought another car. That's why I am for more choices, be it transmission types or engine choices :)

I'm trying really hard to avoid coming to the wrong conclusions here, but I just can't see why if you can make the choice you want that the existence of any other option matters. What I can see is that all three engine configurations (4, 6, 8) probably can't be accommodated in the same relatively low-volume platform

I've been at this sort of decision point before, several times.

In 1979 when we had a Malibu 2-door coupe built to order, it was the top-available engine for low altitude (with a 4M tranny, HD cooling and alternator). Since we never considered anything but a V8/MT coupe, it's as if all other variants were being sold on another planet.

Same thing with the Mustang, except that I wasn't interested in the GT500 beyond wanting two sets of its front tire and wheel package fitted to my car on its build. That other versions exist still doesn't matter, so it really doesn't matter to me how they were equipped; none of them are in my driveway.

Even the last time was a similar decision point, only it was H4 turbo vs either H4 NA (about 1/3 less power) or H6 NA (with similar power). While I know intellectually that the other versions exist (and are in fact more popular), it's not something I'd ever dwell on. If I wanted to think about it at all, it'd be really easy to come to the conclusion that I'd picked the best of the bunch while other buyers simply chose differently. I'm OK with that.


Make that a normally aspirated 4 in all of those platforms and I'd probably agree wholeheartedly (I haven't really been considering a NA 4-powered Camaro other than as a V8 AFM condition). 1250 lbs/liter (NA) is not very exciting.


Norm

Yes, you have the option of two different transmissions in your Camaro. The manual transmission is the standard. The automatic transmission can be purchased at an additional cost. If an automatic transmission did not exist, I submit that, most likely, your car would have been less expensive. More choices require more logistical decisions. Those decisions almost always come with additional costs. Since I do not work for GM and do not make their logistical decisions, I cannot tell you whether or not GM entirely recovers all costs for an automatic Camaro in the automatic transmission option. I would guess that the costs are borne through the entire Camaro lineup. If someone would like to prove otherwise for me, then I would be happy to see this information. However, I would be willing to guess that those documents are not widely available to the public.

No one seems to be willing to answer the simple question "If no additional choices effect the
Essence or prestige of the Camaro, does the same apply to the Corvette?" Why not a 4 cylinder econo Vette? That won't hurt it's image will it?

If the weight comes down, the fuel economy & performance improves for all engine types. That's not an argument for the 4 cylinder, it's a moot point because it applies to everything.

So what? There's plenty of sporty economical cars around, GM should sell them one of those.

The Camaro has a market that it earned, and it wasn't for fuel efficiency. Trying to "convince" their customers that GM knows what they "really" want is going to lose them their customer base.

I'll take a shot lol.

Vette is a $50K starting performance car....period. It definitely stands to have its image tarnished much more than a Camaro would, with a turbo 4 cylinder engine going into it.

Camaro starts in the low to mid 20s, which is a very resonable number for someone that may want a sporty looking car, something fun to cruise around or be seen in, but can't afford a top end model, like the Vette.

But that has always been the case for Camaro and Mustang....you either get great looks at an affordable price, or great looks and performance for a little more.

Vette on the other hand, has stood as a performance car for a very long time. With the Corvette, you get looks and great peformance at the starting price, and if you pay more, you get even better looks and AMAZING performance. Vette is not meant to be something every average Joe can afford to buy.

Because of this, I don't think comparing the Camaro and the Corvette is fair.

Sort of agree about the 'Vette not being the "same" as the Camaro...on the other hand, the Camaro need not become an "economy" option more that it already is...as you say 20K for entry now, means we need another less expensive entry model?...

I think Camaro's "image" should at least have some respect over multiple other economy models that are already available...

Here is the puzzle. If gas prices hit $5, $6 per gallon people will go more and more to those economical cars and abandon Camaro as a potenial choice. I have strong recollections what happened to the Camaro back in 2000 or so when the total Camaro/Firebird sales dropped to very low levels. Took us years (Fbodfather cough, cough) of effort to get one back.

Volume drives the business case plain and simple. So without a viable entry level Camaro, the SS/ZL1 can't exist unless you get it up to Corvette $$. And I'm not sensing a strong desire on this website to have a Camaro starting at $50,000.

Really , which one ?

Why do you think a turbo i4 will cost less than the current v6 cylinder entry level car? I would guess a price creep. The turbo i4 will probably cost as much as the current v6. Then, the others will only increase from there.

I think it will keep the respect (as far as performance), b/c I fully expect the T4 in the lighter platform to perform close to, or as well as the current V6. Maybe better if they decide to really put a powerful T4 in there with over 300hp/tq.

But I still hope to see a V6 option as well. More the merrier.

I appreciate the answer, I see your point as a difference of degree with the Corvette. This was the point I was making. Some cars have a different image than the econo hybrid, and the family coupe (Camry, Accord, Altima) while the Corvette analogy was the extreme end, I was showing that it DOES matter what's in the lineup of a car that is a legendary Pony/Muscle car. If the Camaro gets watered down to a Sonic or even an Accord I feel (you may not, granted) that its base will suffer.

Bad-assery is what has it outselling Mustang and Challengers in its rebirth. Being compared to a Honda Accord is what they sell a 4 cylinder hybrid Malibu to do. Being compared to a smart car is what they make Sonics and Sparks for.
My first Camaro was a V6 entry level 304 HP car that I modded with long tube headers, CAI, short throw shifter and Hids. It had WAY more 'tude than an Accord. Didn't think of cross shopping Hondas.

( I know everyone ain't me) but can you see cross shopping Sparks and Camaros?

But and a big one the Malibu Hybrid (not sure why you specific about hybrid) does not offer a coupe. Honda does and whether you like it or not the Camaro in V6 trims is a "sporty coupe". Same class the Accord Coupe and Altima Coupe. You can't fall into the trap that for the customer shopping for a sporty coupe you want to include Honda and Nissan. Just my opinion, but if I were still at GM, I would want every single person considering a sporty coupe to want Camaro at the top of their consideration list.

Because you didn't cross a Honda doesn't mean GM shouldn't want the Honda or Altima buyer to cross shop Camaro.

And most people on this website who are inclined to modify their cars don't understand that most people don't. Go look at the % of leases. Do you think anyone leasing a car (Accord or Camaro) is going to mod it like you did?

I'm just trying to say that the next redo of the Camaro sure ought to drop the styling down a notch and get back to making a great coupe. Period.

To get the show car styling (and also use an existing architecture) GM created a styling tour deforce that gave up front and rear visibility, entry egress, trunk space and liftover height and a host of features that are now available in the 3rd and 4th years (height adj. passenger seat, nav, decent steering wheel, hard cheap plastic IP and door trim, etc.).

So what is wrong with GM making a sporty coupe that is sooooooo good that it destroys not just Mustang and Challenger but Accord and Altima too?

I would much rather have a factory 4cyl Turbo Camaro than a factory V6 N/A Camaro to drive everyday and enjoy and get reasonable mileage.

But a V8 will always belong in the Camaro in some form or another...

LTG in the Cadillac ATS and Malibu Turbo.

Tech IV's were fairly reliable if you didn't drive it like you stole it. Though the early ones with timing gears instead of chains are know for shearing off teeth at high mileages.

So what are you saying exactly? It sounds like when you say "drop the styling down..." And put in lower displacement gas economy engines that what you are asking for, and trying to convince Camaro nation of, is that being like a Honda Accord is what we are striving for. I gather you worked for GM, is what you are telling me is the only way to sell. Camaros is to make them Hondas? I would hope not.

The people who want mere transportation and care nothing for cars as we do can buy Camaros but shouldn't control the image of what it is. If they do, I predict the Camaro will be gone in two generations. I know I won't buy a watered down Vanilla version knockoff of a Honda Accord. I think a lot if Camaro drivers agree with me.

Fbodfather said to keep the faith, the way I see it if the Camaro becomes synonymous with Honda accord then Chevy has broken faith with me.

270 hp for a stock tune out of a turbo 4 is great, comparing it to 10 years ago the solstice gxp was 260 on a non conservative tune.

If the stock tune is at 5-6psi then 270 is great! If a GM performance tune is released I don't think 320+ would be that hard to achieve in either one of those vehicles.

I like Turbo LS7s better than Turbo 4