[Sax1031]

I loved the SVO turbo 4 bangers.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by cbass

Then why invest all the money in the Gen V V8?

The Gen V V8 will be needed for truck applications and ultra limited production cars that will not impact overall corporate fuel mileage due to their limited production and being sticker priced to be cost prohibitive for too many of the "masses" to own, but will recoup R&D costs for the new truck engines keeping the cost of the trucks down and giving certain people an excuse to say "SEE! THEY STILL MAKE V8 CARS!" even though only those certain people will be able to own them.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by KXRM

It's 1984 all over again for the mustang.

I4 turbo, V6 and a 5.0 V8 option. Spooky. I'll laugh if they call the I4 Turbo an SVO.

Let's just hope we don't get 1984 power levels this go around.

I posted a topic with a link to an interesting article about this very thing last night and it was mysteriously deleted without my permission. I'd post the link again but suspect it would meet the same fate or worse.

[rez333]

Originally Posted by Sax1031

It was a concept Mustang. Fabrizio Giugiaro created that concept. The photo is from 2005.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

I remember when the first pictures of the 5th gen came out. I thought it looked really close to Giugiaro's concept Mustang.

Shoot - now you gone and ruined the fantasy for the fanbois. Don't you know everything to them copied the Camaro? Those dang Italians used the LHC in 2005 to go forward in time to create a concept copying a Camaro from 2006!!

In fact the Italians are so brilliant that in 2005 when the LHC wasn't even invented yet (they used a prototype version based off the Camaro's engine), they went and stole the design of the 2006 Concept Camaro and then went back in time to give the design to the engineers of the Lamborghini Coutach!!! Yep - that's right. Lamborghini copied Camaro.

Originally Posted by Kiss My SS

Damn....That orange Mustang photo looks exactly like a Camaro...WTF?

[toesuf94]

Engine technology has progressed by leaps and bounds since the 80's kids. We have high hp cars that get 20+ mpg now. The turbo 4 in the next Mustang with a lighter body wrapped around it will probably be a great performer. GM is putting the Turbo 4 in the ATS and it has been decently received - there is no reason to think that the next 'base' Camaro will not also have a four cylinder in it. We are NOT talking about the old Iron Duke here kids.

[Sax1031]

Originally Posted by rez333

Shoot - now you gone and ruined the fantasy for the fanbois. Don't you know everything to them copied the Camaro? Those dang Italians used the LHC in 2005 to go forward in time to create a concept copying a Camaro from 2006!!

In fact the Italians are so brilliant that in 2005 when the LHC wasn't even invented yet (they used a prototype version based off the Camaro's engine), they went and stole the design of the 2006 Concept Camaro and then went back in time to give the design to the engineers of the Lamborghini Coutach!!! Yep - that's right. Lamborghini copied Camaro.

It is probably a hard pill to swallow that the 5th gen looks "exactly" like a 2005 concept Mustang.

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by toesuf94

Engine technology has progressed by leaps and bounds since the 80's kids. We have high hp cars that get 20+ mpg now. The turbo 4 in the next Mustang with a lighter body wrapped around it will probably be a great performer. GM is putting the Turbo 4 in the ATS and it has been decently received - there is no reason to think that the next 'base' Camaro will not also have a four cylinder in it. We are NOT talking about the old Iron Duke here kids.

THIS

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

Okay, I am only going off of what I read on wikipedia (I know - shame on me..); but, it says that the fine for not meeting the requirement ends up being $55 per mpg under the CAFE requirement. This is the most simplistic way of looking at it, it doesn't bring in the fact of the rest of the corporate average. Which would definitely be HELPED by cars with a larger market share.

So lets say the average for a future v8 Camaro would be 25 mpg, or a $550 penalty (or increase in price passed onto consumers). How are car companies turning this into a "oh no, we can't do that without making it prohibitively expensive." Or leaving the only v8 for something like the zl1 model which is essentially tens of thousands more than the current base v8. It is like the whole gun issue with Obama. He is "anti-gun" but gun sales have never been higher - at a higher cost. I guess it is "good business" for the manufacturers...

Please pick apart this thinking and correct me where I'm wrong because if you can't, then...it is just really F'd up that manufacturers are doing this.

First, if the penalty is simply $55 per MPG below the CAFE target of "essetially" 55 MPG by 2025 would be 30x55 or $1650.

But I've never seen a penalty that way for CAFE.

The interesting thing will be that the new standards are based on the "foot print" of the car. Basically wheelbase x track. So theoretically a larger car gets better treatment.

The costs to meet CAFE and Green House Gas regulations is much more than $55 per MPG. If it were that easy companies would do it today.

Increasing FE is a big engineering deal (big f**ing deal.....get it ) You can't simply spend $1,000 per car and get 20 MPG by your math or Wiki-math.

So even though you are thinking you can get today's SS for a mere $550 more it wont work that way. The companies will pay huge fines for not meeting CAFE. It isn't simply that you get to pay more. You'll pay more so that the companies limit volumes to avoid the fines.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by toesuf94

Engine technology has progressed by leaps and bounds since the 80's kids. We have high hp cars that get 20+ mpg now. The turbo 4 in the next Mustang with a lighter body wrapped around it will probably be a great performer. GM is putting the Turbo 4 in the ATS and it has been decently received - there is no reason to think that the next 'base' Camaro will not also have a four cylinder in it. We are NOT talking about the old Iron Duke here kids.

Have they invented a way to fix the SOUND of those turbo 4's yet?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Number 3

First, if the penalty is simply $55 per MPG below the CAFE target of "essetially" 55 MPG by 2025 would be 30x55 or $1650.

But I've never seen a penalty that way for CAFE.

The interesting thing will be that the new standards are based on the "foot print" of the car. Basically wheelbase x track. So theoretically a larger car gets better treatment.

The costs to meet CAFE and Green House Gas regulations is much more than $55 per MPG. If it were that easy companies would do it today.

Increasing FE is a big engineering deal (big f**ing deal.....get it ) You can't simply spend $1,000 per car and get 20 MPG by your math or Wiki-math.

So even though you are thinking you can get today's SS for a mere $550 more it wont work that way. The companies will pay huge fines for not meeting CAFE. It isn't simply that you get to pay more. You'll pay more so that the companies limit volumes to avoid the fines.

Are you aware of an exemption for very low volume cars? I have heard this discussed recently. Essentially, any car with production of 1000 or less would not count against the corporate average.

The car companies like this because they can make exotic "Halo" cars and charge whatever they want for them and they get to use them in various racing series based on production cars.

I cannot confirm this really does exist. I just hear people discussing it.

[BowtieBelle]

That orange car looks like a Camaro and a Mustang had a b@$tard baby. Just sayin'.

[C5RocksC5]

If Ford goes with a 2.0 Turbo, Ford will save $ on reusing the 5.0 badge...just invert/reverse the 5 into a 2.

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Have they invented a way to fix the SOUND of those turbo 4's yet?

The 2.0T in the ATS actually doesn't sound too bad. That little engine is getting a lot of praise in the ATS for its power and MPG (32 hwy).

[2010-1SS-IBM]

What's weird is that an engine that has 300hp and gets 30 mpg in the current model isn't good enough anymore.