03-12-2013, 03:47 PM | #533 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
If the car is to be global (as the Mustang will be)...they'll NEED to appeal to European tastes. Remember - some of those poor folks get taxed or regulated or however it all works based on displacement of the engine, not just mpg or emissions. You're right that there's a market overseas for our traditionally American-sales-only Camaro...it's almost "exotic" to them (using the term literally, by the way, "exotic" as in: rare, desired, special). But in order to truly tap that market, they'll need to be aware of its requirements. And they've ALWAYS needed to appeal to the masses...One of the largest contributing factors (among, admittedly many) of the 4th-gen's demise was that the entire car was too enthusiast-focused. They went too far in the right direction, and lost their majority of buyers. |
|
03-12-2013, 04:01 PM | #534 |
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
|
For me, I love the idea of a different take on the 6th Gen Camaro, I would love to see a 3250lb Camaro with a 2.0L based at around 300HP that could be tuned to make somewhere in the neighborhood of say 350-360HP with just some minor tuning/programming.. I think it would be very interesting and I would even love to see a TT V-6 fitted somewhere in the lineup..
|
03-12-2013, 05:12 PM | #535 | |
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,990
|
Quote:
In what way is the 4th gen too peformance oriented? |
|
03-12-2013, 05:27 PM | #536 | ||
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0 Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
|
Quote:
Quote:
Believe me, I get the European angle, where as I understand, cars are often taxed heavily based on engine displacement, meaning a turbo-4 is actually significantly cheaper to purchase, unlike in the US. I understand the desire appeal to and sell to Europe, but they are walking a fine line....it still has to have (more) appeal in the US to succeed as well. On further thought, the real place they may need to appeal to is China, India, or similar if they need a world car. (What buyers want, and what the regulations are there, I don't have a clue.) The European car market is in the tank and in decline. Shouldn't the global focus be concentrated on growing markets, not declining ones?
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive." . 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon) |
||
03-12-2013, 05:31 PM | #537 |
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,465
|
Was saving it, but now's as good a time as any...Please don't kill "the goose that laid the Golden Egg"...lol...
|
03-12-2013, 06:34 PM | #538 | |
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6 Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
03-12-2013, 06:34 PM | #539 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
03-12-2013, 06:37 PM | #540 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
I highly doubt the Turbo 4 will match the V6 HP from the factory (especially if they bump the V6 to 330 - 340 HP like I'd like to see from the current 323) but matching and surpassing the V6 Torque would be easy. That, combined with better highway mileage is how they could slot it as the optional engine.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
03-12-2013, 06:42 PM | #541 |
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,465
|
Don't know if you guys saw it, but the "CEO orders 15% diet" thread in this forum, one of the first things out of the gate..."Engineers say eliminating the V-6 for the 4cyl would save 200lbs..."...or something to that effect....(Just FYI, thought it might be relevant)...
|
03-12-2013, 06:45 PM | #542 | ||||
Moderator
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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.
__________________
RDP Motorsport//GEN5DIY//Cultrag Performance//JPSS//Rodgets Chevrolet//
Operation Demon//Buy at Invoice//RACECARWEAR RESPECT ALL CARS. LOVE YOUR OWN. warn 145:159 ban |
||||
03-12-2013, 06:49 PM | #543 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
2.5L RWD / Auto (3315/ 1503) 2.0 Turbo RWD / Auto (3373/ 1530) 2.0 Turbo RWD / Man (3403/ 1543) 2.0 Turbo AWD / Auto (3543 / 1607) 3.6L RWD / Auto (3461/ 1570) 3.6L AWD / Auto (3629/ 1646) Thats less than 100 lbs difference between the rwd turbo and rwd V6. Sounds about right, b/c I find it hard to believe there is a 200 difference between the 3.6 V6 and the 2.0 turbo. Maybe if they compare the turbo to the new 4.3 V6...maybe?? You can't say that the extra lbs is removed from the chasis either, b/c GM would be dumb to use a weaker chasis to support the turbo 4, when the torque it produces isn't much less. Edit: just read that part of the article. He was comparing V6 to I4. not a turbo 4.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
03-12-2013, 06:56 PM | #544 | |
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,465
|
Quote:
|
|
03-12-2013, 07:01 PM | #545 | |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
Quote:
This is all interesting stuff.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!) |
|
03-12-2013, 07:07 PM | #546 |
Drives: '12SS/2SS/45TH-'06 2500HD/Silverado Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 2,105
|
Why would anyone want a 6 cylinder Camaro??!! JK 6'ers, don't get all defensive!!
__________________
2012 Camaro SS 2SS 45TH Anniversary Edition
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|