Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


Bigwormgraphix


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-10-2013, 12:55 AM   #463
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 31,876
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro View Post
...from my personal standpoint, there is nothing more frustrating than taking much time and thought to write a post, then go to post it here, then it diassapears into cyberspace...when my computer is working fine...so that's the facts, and the reader can be the judge and decide. But, what's even worse, is trying to rewrite the post, and having it dissapear again......come on, really? Nothing confrontational,... insightfull, informative yes....but somethings not white in the milk ....
I did a good and thorough check of all your posts in this thread...the only one that was removed was deleted by you, yourself!

Which bottle have you been in tonight? The good stuff, I assume....


Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Ok...back on track...lol....

OP...Good question!!
If we took the number of cylinders out of the equation...and asked: Who would want a 270hp/270tq, 33mpg, 3300lb Camaro (guess based on ATS Caddy)?

I think the responding posts would be quite different. It just goes to show the power of perception and our natural tendency to attach positive or negative feelings to an inanimate object.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:15 AM   #464
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Risky guy View Post
That some turd 139 mph trap speed pulling 10s.
Maybe not your taste, but it will rip up 90% of street cars.
It's faster than most.
It looks like a turd and sounds very much like the sounds that are often made when turds are excreted after a spicy meal.

Ironically, the cost to mod a V8 go that fast is less than the stock price of that car unmodified, which sort of proves my point that all these things that CAFE is forcing onto us will cost a heap of money just to maintain the performance status quo.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:20 AM   #465
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro View Post
...whats really funny going on here tonight is I wrote two posts <both on the same page, one to replace the other that dissapeared> taking me 15 minutes and both majically were eliminated, ala dissapeared, not by my hand...but by some power other than me, it's happened before, and it's BS, whoever is doing this, knock it off....
It must be a serious glitch in the forum software because it happens all the time. Sometimes the software gets so messed up it locks you from logging in for a a week or even a month. It's really bizarre that this would happen to such an upmarket and popular forum. We should pull together and offer to debug it.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 09:43 AM   #466
tramtwo


 
tramtwo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2021 1LE
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N'Awlinz
Posts: 6,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I did a good and thorough check of all your posts in this thread...the only one that was removed was deleted by you, yourself!

Which bottle have you been in tonight? The good stuff, I assume....



If we took the number of cylinders out of the equation...and asked: Who would want a 270hp/270tq, 33mpg, 3300lb Camaro (guess based on ATS Caddy)?

I think the responding posts would be quite different. It just goes to show the power of perception and our natural tendency to attach positive or negative feelings to an inanimate object.
Beyond that.... without our fuzzy feelings for our Camaros there would be no aftermarket and this site would have nothing but tumbleweeds rolling through it.


tramtwo posted this on the go
tramtwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 10:26 AM   #467
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by tramtwo View Post
Beyond that.... without our fuzzy feelings for our Camaros there would be no aftermarket and this site would have nothing but tumbleweeds rolling through it.


tramtwo posted this on the go
What will be rolling through this web-site (and on the street) will be videos and cars like the above Mitsubishi car... Only now they will have a Camaro body-style and logo on them...The future horrors and "perception" issues for this web-site and the forums boggle the mind...

....As an inanimate object, an engineering feat and marvel, for sure...if we only had to deal with a CAD drawing or a blue-print...

...But I think the reality of it all will be a sight to see...

Heard it several times..."Perception is Reality"....If it had nothing to do with the Camaro, which we all hold dear, I couldn't care less...

As a Chevy customer, and purchaser of a great car, I think a concern of it's future development and perception, is more than just about an inanimate object....
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:11 PM   #468
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 31,876
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
What will be rolling through this web-site (and on the street) will be videos and cars like the above Mitsubishi car... Only now they will have a Camaro body-style and logo on them...The future horrors and "perception" issues for this web-site and the forums boggle the mind...

....As an inanimate object, an engineering feat and marvel, for sure...if we only had to deal with a CAD drawing or a blue-print...

...But I think the reality of it all will be a sight to see...

Heard it several times..."Perception is Reality"....If it had nothing to do with the Camaro, which we all hold dear, I couldn't care less...

As a Chevy customer, and purchaser of a great car, I think a concern of it's future development and perception, is more than just about an inanimate object....
The Camaro is not the "object" I was referring to. You'll never find me holding it against someone for being excited about our favorite car.

Rather - the engine.....a proposed base-model engine, no-less....I can't help but roll my eyes a little at the fear and trepidation over the mere proposal of a 4 cylinder base engine. One that, when the weight of the future car is considered (guessing 3300 from ATS)...will perform just as well, if not better, than our current V6 model. Furthermore...its a model that so few of us would end up buying, anyways - it would serve the general public.

But.....no right/wrong here...not yet, anyways. It's interesting to read the varying opinions and thoughts of everyone here.

It'll be even more interesting to see how this all plays out.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:40 PM   #469
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
Rather - the engine.....a proposed base-model engine, no-less....I can't help but roll my eyes a little at the fear and trepidation over the mere proposal of a 4 cylinder base engine. One that, when the weight of the future car is considered (guessing 3300 from ATS)...will perform just as well, if not better, than our current V6 model. Furthermore...its a model that so few of us would end up buying, anyways - it would serve the general public.
The fear isn't in the offering of a turbo-4 as base engine in addition to the V6, it is that it will be the only non SS, or ZL1 engine, with the V6 option going away entirely. Strictly on paper numbers aren't everything, particularly in this segment of cars. Many of us prefer the characteristics of N/A engines over turbo engines, and the sound of the 6 cylinder engine to that of the 4.

Furthermore, you'll never convince me that a turbo 4 will be anything more than roughly equally efficient as a V6, but for more money with an extra possible failure mode down the road. And if they offer both turbo 4 and V6, you'll never convince me that they won't raise the price of the V6 to make room for a more expensive turbo 4 beneath it.

PS...thanks for getting us back on topic...this was falling apart into a "complain about logistics of forum" thread for a while there.
__________________
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)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:44 PM   #470
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Repeat warning - The Camaro has already had a 4 cylinder option. The Camaro has already had a crappy 145 HP base V8 engine and the optional engine went way up to 165. If there is a 4 cylinder so be it.

GM already learned the lesson of putting the 3.0 L V6 in a few cars and it was not well received. But the reason it wasn't well received you may ask? No better FE in the real world than the 3.6 L V6 which offered much better driveability.

If there is a 4 cyclinder then it will have to deliver real world FE noticeably better than a V6. If not it will bomb.

But I maintain there is room for a stylish RWD coupe with a 270 HP 4 cylinder engine AS LONG AS GM FIXES ALL THE KNOWN FAULTS OF THE CURRENT CAR. That means great visibility that isn't sacrificed for styling. Great trunk space and liftover that isn't compromised for styling and interior features and ergonomics that aren't sacrifice for $$$.

Rember why the 2002 model died? Anyone? Bueller? The base model sold like crap. It had a horrid V6 option. No trunk. It had horrid ergonomics and ingress/egress was maybe the worst thing since the C4 Corvette. What it had was T-tops and a decent V8 which just like today's car makes a lot of the compromises worth it.

If you don't have a GREAT base model the guys that think the Camaro is only a V8 will feel like you did around 2004.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:49 PM   #471
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
The fear isn't in the offering of a turbo-4 as base engine in addition to the V6, it is that it will be the only non SS, or ZL1 engine, with the V6 option going away entirely. Strictly on paper numbers aren't everything, particularly in this segment of cars. Many of us prefer the characteristics of N/A engines over turbo engines, and the sound of the 6 cylinder engine to that of the 4.

Furthermore, you'll never convince me that a turbo 4 will be anything more than roughly equally efficient as a V6, but for more money with an extra possible failure mode down the road. And if they offer both turbo 4 and V6, you'll never convince me that they won't raise the price of the V6 to make room for a more expensive turbo 4 beneath it.

PS...thanks for getting us back on topic...this was falling apart into a "complain about logistics of forum" thread for a while there.
So the fact that the ATS with the 2.0T is rated higher than the ATS with the 3.6 doesn't convince you? 2.0T is 22/32 and the V6 is 19/28. Sorry if that doesn't convince you, but it should.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 02:08 PM   #472
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,404
I hope they continue the V-6 (for the sake of the brand)....I really just can't see all the current V-6 enthusiasts purchasing a turbo-4 for many of the reasons mentioned above, driveability, hp mods, even "sound" (gulp!...lol)...Just sayin', I-4 turbo, even though it's numbers may be comparable, and V-8 only options may end up with fewer Camaro purchasers over-all, not more....
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 02:16 PM   #473
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 31,876
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
The fear isn't in the offering of a turbo-4 as base engine in addition to the V6, it is that it will be the only non SS, or ZL1 engine, with the V6 option going away entirely. Strictly on paper numbers aren't everything, particularly in this segment of cars. Many of us prefer the characteristics of N/A engines over turbo engines, and the sound of the 6 cylinder engine to that of the 4.

Furthermore, you'll never convince me that a turbo 4 will be anything more than roughly equally efficient as a V6, but for more money with an extra possible failure mode down the road. And if they offer both turbo 4 and V6, you'll never convince me that they won't raise the price of the V6 to make room for a more expensive turbo 4 beneath it.

PS...thanks for getting us back on topic...this was falling apart into a "complain about logistics of forum" thread for a while there.
I look at the ATS (hopefully the same underpinnings as the 6th-gen Camaro)...the specs show:

2.5 I4 (202 hp)...3315 lbs...22/33 mpg

2.0 T4 (272 hp)...3373 lbs...20/30 mpg

3.6 V6 (321 hp)...3461 lbs...18/26 mpg

Now - it is worth pointing out that the heavier V6 Camaro 2LS (designed expressly for maximizing fuel economy) has a mpg rating of 19/30. I don't know why there's such a large difference. But IMO...that could be taken to mean that Cadillac didn't squeeze as many miles per gallon out as they could have being luxury oriented, and that their V6 model is supposed to be performance, while ours (Camaro) is more for economy. Perhaps then, the 6th-gen Camaro (using the same engines and similar weights) COULD get 2-3mpg higher than a similarly-equipped ATS?

All speculation at this point - but as #3 pointed out, I think it's very clear that the tried-and-true GM 2.0L turbo 4 is more efficient than the high performance 3.6L V6.

By the way....where did this idea that the V6 would disappear come from?

In my dreams...I see a Turbo 4 LS, V6 LTs, and V8-powered SSs, Z28s, and ZL1s...If the current car was a little more aerodynamic and not as heavy, it might have already had a Turbo 4....But it wasn't designed for this option...the Alpha platform was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Repeat warning - The Camaro has already had a 4 cylinder option. The Camaro has already had a crappy 145 HP base V8 engine and the optional engine went way up to 165. If there is a 4 cylinder so be it.

GM already learned the lesson of putting the 3.0 L V6 in a few cars and it was not well received. But the reason it wasn't well received you may ask? No better FE in the real world than the 3.6 L V6 which offered much better driveability.

If there is a 4 cyclinder then it will have to deliver real world FE noticeably better than a V6. If not it will bomb.

But I maintain there is room for a stylish RWD coupe with a 270 HP 4 cylinder engine AS LONG AS GM FIXES ALL THE KNOWN FAULTS OF THE CURRENT CAR. That means great visibility that isn't sacrificed for styling. Great trunk space and liftover that isn't compromised for styling and interior features and ergonomics that aren't sacrifice for $$$.

Rember why the 2002 model died? Anyone? Bueller? The base model sold like crap. It had a horrid V6 option. No trunk. It had horrid ergonomics and ingress/egress was maybe the worst thing since the C4 Corvette. What it had was T-tops and a decent V8 which just like today's car makes a lot of the compromises worth it.

If you don't have a GREAT base model the guys that think the Camaro is only a V8 will feel like you did around 2004.
We need to step away from our need for performance for just long enough to realize the importance of offering a really good inexpensive, economical, attractive, and "fun" (not necessarily fast) base model(s) for the masses.

The only point I think I might argue, 3...is that I think the design is what sells this 5th-generation car...if some compromises (stress "some") in visibility, or convenience are needed to achieve another awesome look...then that is a worth-while trade-off, imo.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 02:31 PM   #474
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I look at the ATS (hopefully the same underpinnings as the 6th-gen Camaro)...the specs show:

2.5 I4 (202 hp)...3315 lbs...22/33 mpg

2.0 T4 (272 hp)...3373 lbs...20/30 mpg

3.6 V6 (321 hp)...3461 lbs...18/26 mpg

Now - it is worth pointing out that the heavier V6 Camaro 2LS (designed expressly for maximizing fuel economy) has a mpg rating of 19/30. I don't know why there's such a large difference. But IMO...that could be taken to mean that Cadillac didn't squeeze as many miles per gallon out as they could have being luxury oriented, and that their V6 model is supposed to be performance, while ours (Camaro) is more for economy. Perhaps then, the 6th-gen Camaro (using the same engines and similar weights) COULD get 2-3mpg higher than a similarly-equipped ATS?

All speculation at this point - but as #3 pointed out, I think it's very clear that the tried-and-true GM 2.0L turbo 4 is more efficient than the high performance 3.6L V6.

By the way....where did this idea that the V6 would disappear come from?

In my dreams...I see a Turbo 4 LS, V6 LTs, and V8-powered SSs, Z28s, and ZL1s...If the current car was a little more aerodynamic and not as heavy, it might have already had a Turbo 4....But it wasn't designed for this option...the Alpha platform was.


We need to step away from our need for performance for just long enough to realize the importance of offering a really good inexpensive, economical, attractive, and "fun" (not necessarily fast) base model(s) for the masses.

The only point I think I might argue, 3...is that I think the design is what sells this 5th-generation car...if some compromises (stress "some") in visibility, or convenience are needed to achieve another awesome look...then that is a worth-while trade-off, imo.
You made my point. Visibility is one trade off to get the look of the car. Yes worthwhile for many, but there are people that won't buy the car for that reason alone. There are others that would drive a panel van with no windows at all if it looked BA and had V8

Design is what sells this car, I fully agree. But it is also the limitations of that same design that keeps people from buying it as well. I hope the Camaro always has style and I suspect it will. But a great car has both. GM has a trend going that sacrifices some usability for style. CTS Coupe is an example of that. Looks awesome, but there are sooooooo many compromises.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 02:40 PM   #475
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I look at the ATS (hopefully the same underpinnings as the 6th-gen Camaro)...the specs show:

2.5 I4 (202 hp)...3315 lbs...22/33 mpg

2.0 T4 (272 hp)...3373 lbs...20/30 mpg

3.6 V6 (321 hp)...3461 lbs...18/26 mpg

Now - it is worth pointing out that the heavier V6 Camaro 2LS (designed expressly for maximizing fuel economy) has a mpg rating of 19/30. I don't know why there's such a large difference. But IMO...that could be taken to mean that Cadillac didn't squeeze as many miles per gallon out as they could have being luxury oriented, and that their V6 model is supposed to be performance, while ours (Camaro) is more for economy. Perhaps then, the 6th-gen Camaro (using the same engines and similar weights) COULD get 2-3mpg higher than a similarly-equipped ATS?

All speculation at this point - but as #3 pointed out, I think it's very clear that the tried-and-true GM 2.0L turbo 4 is more efficient than the high performance 3.6L V6.

By the way....where did this idea that the V6 would disappear come from?

In my dreams...I see a Turbo 4 LS, V6 LTs, and V8-powered SSs, Z28s, and ZL1s...If the current car was a little more aerodynamic and not as heavy, it might have already had a Turbo 4....But it wasn't designed for this option...the Alpha platform was.


We need to step away from our need for performance for just long enough to realize the importance of offering a really good inexpensive, economical, attractive, and "fun" (not necessarily fast) base model(s) for the masses.

The only point I think I might argue, 3...is that I think the design is what sells this 5th-generation car...if some compromises (stress "some") in visibility, or convenience are needed to achieve another awesome look...then that is a worth-while trade-off, imo.
Cadillac website had RWD 2.0T at 22/32, not 20/30. Base 2.5L is only 22/33 for a 1 mpg increase.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 03:00 PM   #476
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 31,876
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
You made my point. Visibility is one trade off to get the look of the car. Yes worthwhile for many, but there are people that won't buy the car for that reason alone. There are others that would drive a panel van with no windows at all if it looked BA and had V8

Design is what sells this car, I fully agree. But it is also the limitations of that same design that keeps people from buying it as well. I hope the Camaro always has style and I suspect it will. But a great car has both. GM has a trend going that sacrifices some usability for style. CTS Coupe is an example of that. Looks awesome, but there are sooooooo many compromises.
I'm afraid gunning for both will water down the effectiveness of the design too much. The only "easy" solution I can think of that won't kill the design would be to work for a lower belt line, and try hard to skinny up the A-pillars on the 6th-gen. This improves visibility, but keep the shoulders, and the chopped roof for their aggressive value.

Luckily Tom Peters is darn near a genius with design - and I'm confident they'll address as much of the convenience stuff as they can without loosing any of the Camaro's visual potency. I look at the new Corvette and find hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Cadillac website had RWD 2.0T at 22/32, not 20/30. Base 2.5L is only 22/33 for a 1 mpg increase.
Does it? I checked the fuel efficiency tab under ATS, and couldn't find anything that said 22/32? Where'd you see it?
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post 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 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.