Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-07-2013, 07:47 AM   #776
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,083
Tried going on last night and got message the servers were not responding or something. Many posts from yesterday seem to be gone.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 07:56 AM   #777
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by pv-camaro View Post
The Camaro don't need to become a small car or an ugly hatchback, it just needs to get a bit shorter and lighter,

i agree with, a muscle car like the Camaro needs a fast engine, but the new engines are getting better and better,

If you take the LS1 out of the 4th generation, compare it with the new 3.6V6, they have almost the same horsepower.

The 2.0L turbo engine of new Cadillac ATS gets 275 horsepower, in 2016 GM should get way over 300 horsepower out of it, so in my opinion it may be a good entry level engine, with a good fuel economy
And top of the line could still be a V8, or a turbo V6,


a 4 cilinder in a Camaro is not new, in 1982 till 1985 they had a 4 banger too, it may not the best engine, i don't know, i have never driven one.
You think GM is going to completely redo this brand new engine in only 2 years? Not saying they won't, but it would be very out of character to spend 100's of millions on an engine and then redo it 2 years later. To get way over 300 HP would be a pretty big tear up. That is a lot of HP from a 2 liter. That would be equal to nearly 1000 HP from the LS3 on a per liter basis. And we all know what it would take for GM to achieve that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
Appearing as #35 on the 50 worst cars of ALL TIME!
the Camaro Iron Duke--

"There was a time when 90 horsepower was a lot, and that time was 1932. Fifty years later, it was bupkis, especially under the hood of Chevy's beloved Mustang-fighter, the Camaro. As the base engine for the redesigned 1982 Camaro (and Pontiac Firebird), the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" was the smallest, least powerful, most un-Camaro-like engine that could be and, like the California Corvette, it was connected to a low-tech three-speed slushbox. So equipped, the Iron Duke Camaro had 0-60 mph acceleration of around 20 seconds, which left Camaro owners to drum their fingers while school buses rocketed past in a blur of yellow."
Have to keep in mind folks that in that same time frame the V8 made 145 HP and you could get the Cross Fire FI V8 with a whopping 165 HP. I had my moms 82 Trans Am on highway and it would only go 105. So we still called those muscle cars and pony cars. It's just what the times demanded and allowed from technology to meet emissions standards, etc. The new NA 2.5L in the Malibu and ATS makes 195 to put it in perspective.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 08:38 AM   #778
unkillsam
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro LT
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Springfield, PA
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pv-camaro View Post
If you take the LS1 out of the 4th generation, compare it with the new 3.6V6, they have almost the same horsepower.
The LS1 in a top-spec 01-02 Camaro/Trans Am was making 345HP/345TQ while more easily attainable models were still 325/335.

Compared with 278TQ for the 3.6 HF, not exactly a good comparison, thought I owned both 4TH gen V8 and 5TH gen V6, the V6 does pull almost as good thanks to the 6-speed auto.
unkillsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:36 PM   #779
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
You think GM is going to completely redo this brand new engine in only 2 years? Not saying they won't, but it would be very out of character to spend 100's of millions on an engine and then redo it 2 years later. To get way over 300 HP would be a pretty big tear up. That is a lot of HP from a 2 liter. That would be equal to nearly 1000 HP from the LS3 on a per liter basis. And we all know what it would take for GM to achieve that.
.
I agree that getting way over 300 HP is far fetched, but getting to 300 HP and about 350TQ is not.

I mean, they already damn near did it with an optional GM factory tune for the Cobalt SS. 290hp and 340TQ

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...umber=19212670

I think whatever Ford does could be a clue on what GM does. Rumors suggest that the next Mustang base engine will be the V6, with possibly a slight power increase over the 305HP/280TQ it currently has. An optional engine could would be the turbo 4, and if that is true I'd expect it to have around 300hp and 340+ TQ.
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 03:22 PM   #780
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
I agree that getting way over 300 HP is far fetched, but getting to 300 HP and about 350TQ is not.

I mean, they already damn near did it with an optional GM factory tune for the Cobalt SS. 290hp and 340TQ

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...umber=19212670

I think whatever Ford does could be a clue on what GM does. Rumors suggest that the next Mustang base engine will be the V6, with possibly a slight power increase over the 305HP/280TQ it currently has. An optional engine could would be the turbo 4, and if that is true I'd expect it to have around 300hp and 340+ TQ.
What they can do and what they will do are usually two different things.

Why would you want to have a 4 cylinder turbo equal to the V6? The reason to buy the V6 can't simply be "hey, I want equal performance but worse FE"?

Also you have to consider why GM made the GMPP kit available as an aftermarket accessory and not a production improvement. Guessing there is some warranty issues that are covered by the extra $500 it cost.

I had that kit in my Sky Redline. It made a really nice improvement. The biggest was the torque jump. Going from 270 to 300 was ok but it pulled like a little locomotive with the 335 (if I recall correctly) lbft of torque.

If they try to pump up the 2.0T to the levels everyone keeps suggesting, then there won't be a need for the 6 cylinder. It will just be 4 cylinder and 8 cylinders optional.

I can't say anymore what they will or won't do. I'm now guessing like everyone else. But I don't see them trying to make a 330 hp 4 cylinder for the Camaro or even for the Cadillac ATS/CTS which arguably would need it more than the Camaro for image.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 09:24 PM   #781
blk13SS
 
blk13SS's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 1SS LS3 '05 Neon SRT-4
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 160
All I'm thinking is of the massive size of the Camaro's engine bay, and how a 4 cyl would look in it...


(Family Guy' Consuela's voice) No....noo....
__________________
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/972215_10151639026654474_979065832_n.jpg
blk13SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 07:23 PM   #782
danl
 
Drives: 2013 JSB Camaro 2ss
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 184
if the T4
will help the v-6, and v-8 survive CAFE for a few more years. . .then its a no brainer
danl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 10:16 AM   #783
gen=5

 
gen=5's Avatar
 
Drives: 13 ZL1 vert blac fastlane/LPE 750
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: houston
Posts: 1,042
Well there are too many posts to read from the start,but I Believe GM has to do what makes sense. Although I dont like the idea of it having a 4cyl..there is a V-6 that makes 300hp,and thats a lot compared to the LS1 only having 300 that started the whole ls thing..why lower the price point even more !!! if those that cant afford it priced at what it is why lower it to the point that those of us that spend 30k to 60k for it have to see one on every corner with stickers to make them faster...do we need a 19k 200hp camaro ? sure if it had 400hp,lol
__________________
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346589 CHECK OUT THE BUILDING OF MY RANCH FOR DISABLED VETS, COMPLETE WITH A GUN RANGE &, PAINT BALL COURSE coming...garage for car shows,and a workout & rehab center hopfull
gen=5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2013, 11:57 PM   #784
donathonnn
donathonn
 
Drives: 95 integra, 2014 2LS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 5
A four cylinder engine note doesn't fit the camaro. Plus a four cylinder doesn't seem very muscly at all
donathonnn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 11:51 AM   #785
shine2013
 
shine2013's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 Mustang/2014 Camaro
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Memphis
Posts: 537
It's smart though. Opens up the car to a different demographic and with the right turbo the car will move pretty quickly. IMO 4 and 6 cylinder Camaros=sports cars. 8 cylinder Camaros=Muscle cars.

If you want GM to keep making a muscle car then be glad they're going this route.
shine2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 12:38 PM   #786
Airmaster
Go Gators!
 
Airmaster's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 Camaro and '97 Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 702
If GM can do something similar to what Mercedes has done with their turbo 4 there is NO reason why a 4 cylinder shouldn't be in the next Camaro....

355 horses and 332 lb-ft, and a hell of an exhaust note...

(Here's a random youtube video where you can hear the exhaust)



GM already has done 290 horses / 340 lb-ft with a manufacturer's tune in an otherwise stock Cobalt SS. Those numbers honestly make for a better option than our LFX.

Just look at a recent Motortrend article where the 2.0L CTS outruns the 3.6L CTS to 60 and through the 1/4 mile. All the while with a better exhaust note too... everyone knows our V6 doesn't have the greatest tone under exhaust.

2014 Cadillac CTS4 2.0T 2014 Cadillac CTS 3.6 2014 Cadillac CTS Vsport
BASE PRICE $46,025 $54,625 $59,995
PRICE AS TESTED $65,345 $67,470 $60,095
POWER (SAE NET) 272 hp @ 5500 rpm 321 hp @ 6800 rpm* 420 hp @ 5750 rpm*
TORQUE (SAE NET) 295 lb-ft @ 1700 rpm 275 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm* 430 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm*
ACCEL 0-60, MPH 6.0 sec 6.3 sec 4.4 sec
QUARTER MILE 14.5 sec @ 93.5 mph 14.7 sec @ 96.7 mph 12.8 sec @ 111.9 mph
BRAKING 60-0, MPH 115 ft 111 ft 98 ft
LATERAL ACCEL 0.81 g (avg) 0.85 g (avg) 0.94 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.8 sec @ 0.65 g (avg) 26.7 sec @ 0.66 g (avg) 24.7 sec @ 0.78 g (avg)
EPA ECON (CITY/HWY) 19/28 mpg 18/29 mpg 17/25 mpg
REAL MPG (CITY/HWY) 20/30 mpg 18/32 mpg 20/27 mpg
*SAE certified
__________________
Airmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 02:13 PM   #787
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Camaro Z28, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by unkillsam View Post
The LS1 in a top-spec 01-02 Camaro/Trans Am was making 345HP/345TQ while more easily attainable models were still 325/335.

Compared with 278TQ for the 3.6 HF, not exactly a good comparison, thought I owned both 4TH gen V8 and 5TH gen V6, the V6 does pull almost as good thanks to the 6-speed auto.
And the LS6 made 405HP/405TQ.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 02:49 PM   #788
walter78
 
walter78's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 RS (2LT) CRT w/ Blk Rally Strp
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 9
They could also use the 3.5L I5 w/ Turbo, but the cost would be close to the V6. I had a 04 Colorado, CAI, Flowmaster EX, & TB spacer (totaled Feb/2011). It ran great, sounded nice, and could keep its own against other V6s and some V8s who could not drive. Also got 22MPG city and 27HWY towing a 1700LB load from GA to KS in the summer running AC.
walter78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 05:43 PM   #789
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 777
IMO GM is doing it for European sales (since Europe doesn't like big displacement engines), but I think they'd have a lot more success putting the engine in a car built for small displacement TT.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 07:37 PM   #790
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
IMO GM is doing it for European sales (since Europe doesn't like big displacement engines), but I think they'd have a lot more success putting the engine in a car built for small displacement TT.
Just curious - do you consider the ATS Cadillac a "car built for small displacement"?
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 07:51 PM   #791
2010-1SS-IBM

 
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
Just curious - do you consider the ATS Cadillac a "car built for small displacement"?
Could be, I just don't know enough about it. I suppose you're making a point about the 2 cars sharing the same chassis.

The Camaro and the ATS aren't in the same market segment. IMO it passes strange that they would share the same power plant. I could see other (and good) cars sharing a 4 cylinder with the ATS, but a 4 cylinder Camaro seems as strange to me as a 4 door Camaro.
2010-1SS-IBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 07:57 PM   #792
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Could be, I just don't know enough about it. I suppose you're making a point about the 2 cars sharing the same chassis.

The Camaro and the ATS aren't in the same market segment. IMO it passes strange that they would share the same power plant. I could see other (and good) cars sharing a 4 cylinder with the ATS, but a 4 cylinder Camaro seems as strange to me as a 4 door Camaro.
Fair point.

That is the reason I asked. The engine can perform in a car as light as the ATS. It is possible the Camaro version would be a few pounds lighter still...they *could* position the 6th generation car with a turbocharged 4 cylinder against the likes of the scion/subaru car (brz/frs). If it looks good - it could do well in that market and swell the Camaro's repertoire without bastardizing its performance heritage.

There is some research indicating that a sizable portion of buyers actually hold a turbo four-banger in high regard as a sporty engine option....

Just food for thought...it's my opinion, only.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 01:26 PM   #793
The_Blur
Jayhawk USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 6.2L of AWESOME! 2011 L99 2SS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NAS Whiting Field
Posts: 14,201
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
Could be, I just don't know enough about it. I suppose you're making a point about the 2 cars sharing the same chassis.

The Camaro and the ATS aren't in the same market segment. IMO it passes strange that they would share the same power plant. I could see other (and good) cars sharing a 4 cylinder with the ATS, but a 4 cylinder Camaro seems as strange to me as a 4 door Camaro.
It's certainly not unfair to see a 4-cylinder Camaro as strange. At one point, seeing anything above 4 cylinders was strange, and so was racing cars, and so now is making a move in the direction of small displacement.

It doesn't matter how many cylinders a car has. When we look at some of our beloved V8 Camaros, they put out as little as 140 hp—rating, not through the wheels—and they certainly weren't performers. Keeping that in mind, it stands to reason that any Camaro faster than those would be worthy of the name. Furthermore, we need to see numbers that don't deal with cylinders. No one cares if you drive a V8. How fast is it?

Now, let's look at how the Camaro fits into the performance market. Not all of these products are intended targets of the Camaro, but try thinking about it from the mindset of a company that wants to increase its market share. Adding competitive markets to the Camaro's repertoire could add significant appeal and increase market share. Some of the below categories may overlap in horsepower numbers, quarter mile times, or other qualities, and that is why they are lumped together.

Camaro ZL1 vs. Mustang GT500 vs. Challenger/Charger SRT8 vs. M5 vs. CTS-V vs. Porsche Panamera
Camaro 1LE vs. Mustang Boss 302
Camaro SS/Chevrolet SS vs. Mustang GT vs. Challenger/Charger R/T vs. 370Z vs. Genesis vs. Taurus SHO vs. M3 vs. CTS-Vsport
Camaro V6 vs. Mustang V6 vs. Challenger V6 vs. Genesis vs. CTS
no adequate GM rally-style 4-cylinder competitor vs. Lancer EVO vs. Impreza WRX STi
no adequate GM 4-cylinder performance coupe vs. BRZ/FR-S
no adequate GM 4-cylinder small RWD roadster vs. Miata vs. Z4
no adequate GM compact vs. Focus ST vs. Civic Si vs. tC vs. Mazdaspeed 3
no adequate GM subcompact vs. 500 Abarth vs. Cooper S

I could continue comparing cars and researching competitors, and I know some are missing, but why do that? I've made the point that GM has entirely neglected the 4-cylinder performance segment. The Sonic RS is a Sonic with a body kit, not a performance package. There is no Cruze SS. There is no Malibu SS or Impala SS, so the Taurus SHO is not facing adequate volume when competing with the overpriced Chevrolet SS. There's nothing to fight with the rally niche. In fact, nothing GM produces for the US market would succeed in WRC racing competitions, which is phenomenally disappointing given the success of the Cruze in European racing.

Internationally, GM does fairly well at least competing in 4-cylinder performance with the Cruze. Unfortunately, GM has entirely given up the "win Sunday, sell Monday" concept despite the competitiveness of its products.

In summary, any 4-cylinder Camaro on the lightweight Alpha platform is a perfect fit to compete in a different segment without interfering with the competitiveness of established trim levels. Instead of buying underperforming imports like the FR-S, this gives interested buyers the opportunity to purchase the better designed, better built, and better performing Camaro in a package that allows modest performance and fuel economy not previously available by a serious domestic RWD competitor.

Really, what's the harm in offering that?
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 04:03 PM   #794
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM View Post
IMO GM is doing it for European sales (since Europe doesn't like big displacement engines), but I think they'd have a lot more success putting the engine in a car built for small displacement TT.
A 4 cylinder will enable more sales in Europe (and Asia the bigger car market). However, our elected leaders have enacted a thing called CAFE. CAFE alone in the U.S. market is driving the 4 cylinders and hybrids.

By 2025, CAFE is well North of 50 mpg. And worse, the smaller cars footprint the higher the number.

By 2017, the Camaro has to be at 36.3 and the Corvette needs to hit 40 mpg. Anyone wonder why the C7 was saddled with AFM?

The Camaro isn't likely to hit 36.3 without a 4 cylinder. It's pretty much that simple.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 04:21 PM   #795
Coy
 
Coy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RS M6
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Posts: 19
Glad the option will be there for people that want it, and I have no problems with GM doing what they have to to keep the Camaro or any of their performace cars around, but I am definitely not interested in purchasing a four cylinder performance car of any kind.
Coy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 04:39 PM   #796
OperativeXIV
 
OperativeXIV's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Summit White 2LT/RS
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
It's certainly not unfair to see a 4-cylinder Camaro as strange. At one point, seeing anything above 4 cylinders was strange, and so was racing cars, and so now is making a move in the direction of small displacement.

It doesn't matter how many cylinders a car has. When we look at some of our beloved V8 Camaros, they put out as little as 140 hp—rating, not through the wheels—and they certainly weren't performers. Keeping that in mind, it stands to reason that any Camaro faster than those would be worthy of the name. Furthermore, we need to see numbers that don't deal with cylinders. No one cares if you drive a V8. How fast is it?

Now, let's look at how the Camaro fits into the performance market. Not all of these products are intended targets of the Camaro, but try thinking about it from the mindset of a company that wants to increase its market share. Adding competitive markets to the Camaro's repertoire could add significant appeal and increase market share. Some of the below categories may overlap in horsepower numbers, quarter mile times, or other qualities, and that is why they are lumped together.

Camaro ZL1 vs. Mustang GT500 vs. Challenger/Charger SRT8 vs. M5 vs. CTS-V vs. Porsche Panamera
Camaro 1LE vs. Mustang Boss 302
Camaro SS/Chevrolet SS vs. Mustang GT vs. Challenger/Charger R/T vs. 370Z vs. Genesis vs. Taurus SHO vs. M3 vs. CTS-Vsport
Camaro V6 vs. Mustang V6 vs. Challenger V6 vs. Genesis vs. CTS
no adequate GM rally-style 4-cylinder competitor vs. Lancer EVO vs. Impreza WRX STi
no adequate GM 4-cylinder performance coupe vs. BRZ/FR-S
no adequate GM 4-cylinder small RWD roadster vs. Miata vs. Z4
no adequate GM compact vs. Focus ST vs. Civic Si vs. tC vs. Mazdaspeed 3
no adequate GM subcompact vs. 500 Abarth vs. Cooper S

I could continue comparing cars and researching competitors, and I know some are missing, but why do that? I've made the point that GM has entirely neglected the 4-cylinder performance segment. The Sonic RS is a Sonic with a body kit, not a performance package. There is no Cruze SS. There is no Malibu SS or Impala SS, so the Taurus SHO is not facing adequate volume when competing with the overpriced Chevrolet SS. There's nothing to fight with the rally niche. In fact, nothing GM produces for the US market would succeed in WRC racing competitions, which is phenomenally disappointing given the success of the Cruze in European racing.

Internationally, GM does fairly well at least competing in 4-cylinder performance with the Cruze. Unfortunately, GM has entirely given up the "win Sunday, sell Monday" concept despite the competitiveness of its products.

In summary, any 4-cylinder Camaro on the lightweight Alpha platform is a perfect fit to compete in a different segment without interfering with the competitiveness of established trim levels. Instead of buying underperforming imports like the FR-S, this gives interested buyers the opportunity to purchase the better designed, better built, and better performing Camaro in a package that allows modest performance and fuel economy not previously available by a serious domestic RWD competitor.

Really, what's the harm in offering that?
Excellent analysis! Doesn't trying to spread the Camaro through so many market niches - going all the way from sub $20,000 mini to a $78,000 Porsche, dilute the brand a bit though? I would think anything south of where you have the v6 Camaro listed would be more the territory of the Code 130R - just as likewise anything north of the ZL1 is Corvette territory.

-

I don't mind the idea of a V4 as long as it has reasonably good performance. If a V4 can put out comparable performance to a V6, then I don't see why there should be *too* much of an issue. That being said my next Camaro will probably be a V8...

Does adding a very fuel efficient V4 to the family mean that it can cover cars like the ZL1 as far as CAFE is concerned? I don't quite understand the technicalities of these regulations. If a V4 means that the Gen 6 ZL1 can still have a great V8 boosted to over 600 HP, then by all means please add them!
__________________
Yeah, the logo is off center. :/
OperativeXIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 08:21 PM   #797
Airmaster
Go Gators!
 
Airmaster's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 Camaro and '97 Wrangler
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 702
^^It'd be an I4 not a V4. V4's are not commonly used in production cars.

But the rest of what you're saying I understand, a strong powered 4 cylinder could pretty much replace the V6, or at least supplant the normal V6 and allow for a turbo V6 to slot in between.

Regardless of it all, it NEEDS to be a performance 4 cylinder, not some naturally aspirated 2.5L making 200 horses (like what is in the ATS), needs to make well north of 250 to truly be considered.
__________________
Airmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2013, 09:43 PM   #798
camaro-dreamer
 
camaro-dreamer's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 Maxima/ 2011 Mustang GT
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
no adequate GM rally-style 4-cylinder competitor vs. Lancer EVO vs. Impreza WRX STi
no adequate GM 4-cylinder performance coupe vs. BRZ/FR-S
no adequate GM 4-cylinder small RWD roadster vs. Miata vs. Z4
no adequate GM compact vs. Focus ST vs. Civic Si vs. tC vs. Mazdaspeed 3
no adequate GM subcompact vs. 500 Abarth vs. Cooper S
Most of those market segments sell far too few cars to justify the R&D expenses for GM to produce a new entry. The compact segment, on the other hand, needs to be an area where GM takes note. I would argue that they could populate that segment with an Opel Astra GTC OPC, not a camaro.
camaro-dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 12:27 AM   #799
WHAMMO

 
WHAMMO's Avatar
 
Drives: LS2 Fbody
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by pv-camaro View Post

If you take the LS1 out of the 4th generation, compare it with the new 3.6V6, they have almost the same horsepower.
LS1 were underrated. They often dynoed 310-330rwhp/330-340 rwtq. Those V6 are down a solid 50rwhp and even more on torque. Not in the same league. They were all 350+hp cars (depending if they had the LS6 intake manifold). Same engine rated 345 in the Corvette...
__________________
4th Gen SS/LS2 SB/LS3 heads/N20
WHAMMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2013, 01:23 AM   #800
Jason@JacFab
Mad Scientist

 
Jason@JacFab's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LT Camaro; 72 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Point, OR
Posts: 3,603
Send a message via AIM to Jason@JacFab Send a message via MSN to Jason@JacFab
As I mentioned previously, I test drove a Regal Turbo in 2011 (I think)... I loved it. Looking at the current Regal Turbo specs, I'm seeing 259hp@3,000rpms and 295ft lb tq @ 2-3000 rpms... Pretty impressive.

Just turn the boost up, and it would be even more impressive! I'd buy one.
__________________

Specializing in attractive "no drill" front license plate brackets for the 2010+ Camaro Check out our new website! www.jacfab.com
2010 Camaro 1SS RJT w/ SIM Stripes; M6. 12.535 @ 112.33mph SOLD!
2014 Camaro 1LT RRM; A6.JacFab No-Drill front license plate bracket... More to come...
Jason@JacFab is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.