[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

How about Chevy develops something for the younger people that doesn't have the generic grille. It makes the cars look like they are for moms and grandmas. Put the turbo 4 banger in a small car that looks edgy, price it right and built it right. Chevy needs some edgier car designs in my opinion. I get that cars like the Malibu are geared towards moms who want boring looking cars but if they want to steal market share away from imports, the cars have to get the attention. Imports already have the attention and the fan base so Chevy has to do something to take it back.

I don't think taking the Camaro down to Civic level is the right way to do it.

No one is bringing the Camaro to the Civic level. However, it does fit into a broad category of 2-door sporty vehicles that includes the following at a bare minimum:

• Camaro
• Mustang
• Challenger
• 370Z
• Altima Coupe
• BRZ
• FR-S
• Genesis Coupe

American companies aren't going to take over the market by just playing hard at home. These non-American cars are on American soil selling to American buyers. What makes their cars worthy of our sales? GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have to develop global cars, and they're doing it. They also have to fight these cars as they are overseas so that they can make the same money they make here over there. Some people here will never buy American after bad experiences from the Big 3 back in the day. GM should recoup these lost sales by selling overseas and continuing to build undeniably awesome, well-crafted products.

The Camaro is not moving downscale. The next Camaro will keep the same awesomeness of the current Camaro, and it will keep it's satisfying V8 and V6 performance base. Let's just add something for those guys who would normally buy a sporty 4-cylinder. Some guys are going to put 26-inch rims on their cars, and we're all going to hate it together. Some people are going to prefer fuel economy to performance, and you don't have to like that either. Fortunately, this decision would be up to GM and not many of the participants in this thread. It is short-sighted to think that GM is going to avoid expanding its sales when the opportunity has clearly presented itself. As a publicly traded company in a mixed economy, GM owes its shareholders a good business case for the Camaro. Selling to enthusiasts is great, but GM also needs to make as much money as possible. It would be a good business decision to sell Camaros with as many easy-to-manufacture options as possible, and that includes a turbo-4. It will compete with all of the above cars both in the US and overseas.

Originally Posted by 90503

When my 20yr old son and I went to the LA car show 2yrs ago, that is exactly what they described the Sonic as..edgier, younger buyers, turbo 4, compete with the imports, etc...

The Sonic is definitely edgier. There's a lot of potential in that platform for a future sport model, and I hope one is developed.

Originally Posted by SlingShot

For me when I look at the Sonic, all I really see is a commuter vehicle. IMO if GM wants to compete with the performance imports, they need an updated version of the Solstice or Sky.

I can understand that the Sonic won't appeal to all Camaro guys. We like long hoods and RWD. It's a lot more aggressive than some of the competition, like the Fit, and it's really satisfying to drive for being a 4-banger. I would like to see a Kappa car return to life, but those cars didn't make any financial sense. It would be cool to see one based on Alpha, however.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I have to disagree with your logic here. GM's market share slide over the last 45 years occurred for many reasons, and not reducing horsepower enough is not very high on the list. To some extent, the gas shocks in the 70s hurt, but what has been the excuse for the last 30 years?

The problem was for a lot of years they were shoddily built, and far behind their competition in terms of reliability/durability, fit/finish and build quality, refinement, handling, content, etc.

GM did offer small, 4-cyl cars, even in the early 70s. What turned people off to GM was they were unrefined junk. Engine failure at 50K miles was common, and some were known to literally rust away in a few months sitting in climate controlled dealer showrooms.

While the durability and build quality improved somewhat, though not enough, over the years, the other issues still lingered. The current Impala didn't die on the vine because it didn't offer a small 4-cyl, but because in terms of chassis dynamics and content, it was a relic...a 1990s car trying to sell 15 years past its time. Remember the 2004-2007 Malibu? The Cobalt? The Aveo? All of the last Pontiacs except the G8? The W-body LaCrosse and Lucerne lineup over at Buick? Can you really look at that lineup of cars and argue that not having smaller, less powerful engines in them was the problem?



You're half right and half wrong here. Yes, GM needs to compete on all platforms with all types of engines, and if they could do that, they would take back some market share.

However, such a thing involves actually competing on platforms...which means if they want to compete against the FR-S, they need to have a comparable platform, and Alpha isn't it. Trying to turn a 3300-3400 lb Alpha based Camaro into something comparable to a 2700 lb FR-S is a battle lost before it even begins, particularly when the turbo FR-S arrives. And thus, trying to change and sell an Alpha Camaro into something that appeals to the FR-S buyer will not succeed in stealing FR-S sales, it will only give the Camaro type buyer less to buy. You are not going to be able to attract both the niche that wants a small, ultra light 4-cyl sports car and the one that wants a larger, torquey, more powerful car with the same car. If you want two different markets, you need two different cars.

You have to compete, but you cannot copy, either. You have to give your buyers a unique reason to choose your car. With today's level of competition, and the number of choices out there, you can't just be the same. Some people like Pepsi, and some like Coke. Changing Coke into Pepsi wasn't a reason for Pepsi drinkers to switch to Coke, it was just a reason for Coke drinkers to stop buying.

Yes, GM needs smaller, efficient 4-cyl cars to compete against similar offerings like the Camry, Accord, Civic, etc....The answer is to build a competitive Malibu or Cruze that competes with those cars. Turning the Camaro, a car that sells for reasons having nothing to do with economy, into an economy car, is not the right strategy. All that does is take away the characteristics of the Camaro that give that car the unique selling point responsible for its success.

I'm going to have to go point-by-point and refute almost everything you said. Seeing as you have Mustang in your garage, that doesn't surprise me at all.

I stand by my compelling argument that fuel economy helped turn the tide to imports. The history of the automotive industry is far to complex to place every variable on the table, but I will give you my top 3 reasons why imports took over the market:

• a favorable market for foreign investment with no protection for domestic manufacturers
• fuel economy
• decline in quality and performance due to lack of diverse products (badge engineering), entitlement mentality (customers will come back because they always come back), and government regulations (CAFE namely)

There are many more issues, and there are plenty of books on the subject for your reading. I'm not going to take this part of the discussion any further to avoid jacking the thread.

You're correct that GM offered 4-cylinder cars. The marketing and production focus was not of 4-cylinder vehicles for any American manufacturer at the time. Until very recently, no domestic manufacturer took the compact segment seriously, resulting in poor build quality and mediocre amenities to sell to consumers compared to imports. Imports, mostly making their sales on small cars with 4-cylinder engines, capitalized on this trend and got a strong foothold on the US automotive economy. This goes back to my point that quality declined and caused imports to take over.

Less powerful engines was a product of regulations mandating fuel economy. I'm not going to explain CAFE for the umpteenth time. Foreign automakers didn't really compete very well with larger engines, so they stuck to what they knew. They made lots of 4-bangers and focused on those. Consumers moved away from V8s and started buying imports, which goes back to my previous post. In my original post, I pointed out that fuel economy was a primary reason for losing market share. Government regulations reinforced this trend.

We could talk about all the cars you listed with poor build quality, but I'm not going to do that since you drive a Mustang. I could do the same thing with Ford products.

Let's talk about the Subaru-Toyota lovechild. This car weighs only 2,700 lbs, but it is underpowered and costs about the same as a Camaro LT, which will smoke it. Even if a future turbo-4 Camaro is slow, it's probably not going to be as slow as the BRZ or FR-S. Even if it is slower than the BRZ, the V6 options will smoke it. Serious performance enthusiasts have the work ahead of them if they buy a BRZ or FR-S. The handling is nice, and the Camaro already does have good handling. The power sucks. I'm not worried about being that car with Alpha. It'll be like being a Walkman with an iPod.

You kind of flip-flop in your next argument. You say not to copy, but you want GM to make a different car to compete. The Camaro is Chevrolet's sport coupe. Let's let it be a sport coupe for a different crowd. If Toyota is Pepsi and Chevrolet is Coke, let's offer a Coke Zero. It might not be exactly as awesome and powerful as Coke, but it will have the same logo and styling with less of a kick—the V6 is born. We can even offer a Diet Coke with a replacement for that lacking kick—the turbo-4 is born. Offering a "Diet Coke" Camaro will be affordable since Alpha is designed to handle pretty much any engine GM wants to put on it, and the cost of R&D has already been absorbed into it's production for the ATS. It's like building a car for free. All GM has to do now is profit. Even the enthusiasts win. GM isn't replacing any existing Camaro platform. The new LT1 will be in the next SS. The V6 will still be there. It's just a new addition to the family.

I never advocated turning the Camaro into an economy car. I advocated competing against cars that already exist in a sporty coupe segment with 4-cylinder engines. These cars are not that fast, and yet people buy them. If they're going to buy a sporty coupe, they should consider the Camaro as a direct competitor. In order to sell more cars, you have to sell to more people. This market is selling as many traditional pony cars as it is going to sell. It's time to think outside of the box. You conclude by suggesting that adding a 4-cylinder Camaro reduces it's uniqueness. You're outright wrong. It's still an American pony car with a heart-stopping V8. It's still a performance beast. It's just going to have some more sales to people who don't care about all that.