Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson
Did you happen to catch the first part of that
As in, I am not disagreeing with performance being the car's primary focus or that it should stay that way.
The catch comes with what constituted an adequate level of performance, and I'm sure that you and I differ substantially on how much attention is paid to each of the various measures of that performance. Let alone what's OK to somebody less hardcore than either of us.
As far as the stereo-types you describe that now buy the car, ignoring their reasons or ability to purchase a car that others may not see as "practicle", is the reason the car should not include a I-4....Build a car that is "practicle"...compete for market with every other "practical" car with the Camaro, and those damn elitist, v-8, SS owners with some money in their pocket, just might not consider a Camaro in the future...
|
Coupes in general aren't as "practical" as 4-door sedans and such, and I don't expect them to ever be that practical. Certainly not to the extent that performance absolutely must be bred out of them in order to get there. What's your point here?
And I still don't get why you or anybody else would refuse to buy a V8 SS Camaro solely because of the existence of an I4-T version. Talk about shots fired and feet
. . . . neither you nor I would have to buy such a version, and it's highly unlikely that either of us ever would.
Norm[/QUOTE]
Not sure if I ever really have a point...lol....Just that if there is a "trend" of any kind going on here, the addition of an I-4 is more than "just another option" that you don't have to buy if you don't have to...It points to a direction of "let's be like Honda", or "let's build the Camaro more practical" to appeal to the masses...smaller and just enough is perhaps the way to increase sales of the Camaro....Not very appealing to me, even if the car still has a v-8 option...
I always thought all Camaro's were in the same family...but don't think we need to "adopt" an I-4...lol