[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

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.

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.

Please don't have the impression that I'm trying to start a Ford vs. GM fight or anything like that. Every concern/issue I have regarding the 6th gen Camaro, I have equal feelings and concerns for regarding the same thing happening with the next Mustang. And I agree Ford had plenty of either unreliable or completely forgettable or both offerings as well. And while I have a Mustang for now (along with an Oldsmobile), I really don't have any kind of brand loyalty one way or another, and I'm just as likely to consider a Camaro (particularly after a drive of an ATS last month) as I am a Mustang next time around in a few years. So I'm not trolling, I really do care and have an interest.

Originally Posted by The_Blur

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.

But again, the issue wasn't fuel economy, it was a lack of interest in improving the offerings that provided good fuel economy that was the problem. Those are two different things. And even if they were, I don't think its that relevant to this discussion anyway, as I still contend that there really isn't all that much fuel economy difference (perhaps a marginal improvement) between a turbo-4 and V6 of similar power in real world driving.

I guess I won't try to rehash my whole argument, since this is probably one we just won't agree on. All I'll add is that on surveys asking car buyers to rate attributes that are important to them, fuel economy is more often than not nearer the bottom of the list, not the top, even in 2008 when gas first spiked to $4. It is a factor, but more of a secondary factor, not a primary one. And for those who do want high fuel economy above almost all else, those buyers will never look at sports cars anyway.

Originally Posted by The_Blur

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.

Performance and sportiness can mean a lot of different things. Sure, in a straight line, the Camaro is way faster. But in terms of handling, and subjective measures, such as how the car feels and handles, balance, the steering, clutch and transmission...basically every driving metric other than power, the FR-S/BRZ has the upper hand. I've driven both.

The point I am trying to make with that, and my earlier post, is that the FR-S/BRZ twins and the Camaro are two very different cars, built on two very different platforms, meant to appeal to very different types of buyers. A small, lightweight sports car will do certain things that a larger platformed pony car like the Camaro (and to be inclusive, Mustang, Challenger, Challenger replacement, Genesis,...any pony car) will never be able to do simply because of its basic platform characteristics, and vice versa. You can't appeal to everyone with just one car/platform, and attempting to do so is the surest way to mediocrity.

Originally Posted by The_Blur

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'll repeat, I don't have an issue per se with the turbo-4 being offered to those who might want it as long as it doesn't take away the other choices. My concern is the possibility that it will push up the price of the V6 and V8 just to make room for itself in the family. I don't want what was considered standard one year, to be labelled "premium" and priced thousands of dollars higher for next year, and in my mind, that is what will most likely happen.

In short, I'm not worried that I'll be "forced" to buy the Turbo-4, as other engines will still be available, but I am worried that there will be a penalty for not doing so.

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Edit: just read that part of the article. He was comparing V6 to I4. not a turbo 4.

I think I just had a little stroke reading that. Turbo-4 had me upset enough, and now NA-4 has been thrown out there.

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Aren't both choices really the same thing?

In practice, yes, probably.