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 03-12-2013, 03:47 PM   #533
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
Well put, Mr. Fielder...As far as marketing goes, I would add to Blur's point...that is keep it uniquely American...I've seen several threads from folks in Russia, Lebanon, the Middle East who are totally stoked with V-8 American muscle...
...for some reason the need to copy and please "Europian" tastes and trends, offer something for the Man-purse crowd with the Camaro, is a total missed opportunity to keep these cars "special" instead of believing they only want what they can get in other cars...The I-4 will look copy-catish, and a feeble attemt to be like everyone else....
I firmly believe adding a turbo-4 base model will NOT in any way diminish the pedigree or excitement of the awesome-power/performance V8 Camaro models. If they pull it off right (which I believe they can and will) - it could add to it...much like this generation's no-nonsense V6 model did. How many folks pounded their feet and crossed their arms in 2008 that a V6 Camaro would never, ever, ever be worth looking at? Now, obviously, it's not for everyone, but there's no denying the LT manual lives up to Camaro's reputation, and is a fun car to drive!

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.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 04:01 PM   #534
mr02Z/28

 
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..
mr02Z/28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 05:12 PM   #535
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I firmly believe adding a turbo-4 base model will NOT in any way diminish the pedigree or excitement of the awesome-power/performance V8 Camaro models. If they pull it off right (which I believe they can and will) - it could add to it...much like this generation's no-nonsense V6 model did. How many folks pounded their feet and crossed their arms in 2008 that a V6 Camaro would never, ever, ever be worth looking at? Now, obviously, it's not for everyone, but there's no denying the LT manual lives up to Camaro's reputation, and is a fun car to drive!

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.
I don't think you can make the Mustang and Camaro global cars without losing the core aspects of what makes those cars great. They are American muscle cars. I would rather the Mustang and Camaro sell better here than change to possibly sell better somewhere else and lose their appeal to American and Canadian buyers.

In what way is the 4th gen too peformance oriented?
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 05:27 PM   #536
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
I firmly believe adding a turbo-4 base model will NOT in any way diminish the pedigree or excitement of the awesome-power/performance V8 Camaro models. If they pull it off right (which I believe they can and will) - it could add to it...much like this generation's no-nonsense V6 model did.
As long a the turbo-4 is in addition to, and not replacing or affecting the V6 price point, I'm fine with it being offered for those who really want to go that route. However, my concern, which has yet to be answered by anyone, is if that is possible. A turbo-4 would be at least as or somewhat more expensive than the V6. So, if it is introduced as a base model, either GM will have to "subsidize" it, or it will push up the price point of the entire lineup. Which is it? Or would it be offered as an extra-cost option, not a base model?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
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.

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)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 05:31 PM   #537
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,395
Was saving it, but now's as good a time as any...Please don't kill "the goose that laid the Golden Egg"...lol...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:34 PM   #538
MikeT
 
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
As long a the turbo-4 is in addition to, and not replacing or affecting the V6 price point, I'm fine with it being offered for those who really want to go that route. However, my concern, which has yet to be answered by anyone, is if that is possible. A turbo-4 would be at least as or somewhat more expensive than the V6. So, if it is introduced as a base model, either GM will have to "subsidize" it, or it will push up the price point of the entire lineup. Which is it? Or would it be offered as an extra-cost option, not a base model?
Well, in the ATS, the turbo-4 is slotted below the V6 (the very same V6 that's in the current base-model Camaro). Not sure how they could turn around and market the turbo-4 as a premium upgrade in the Camaro... unless they bump up its hp to something like 350+. Assuming that they don't do that, yeah, I have to agree that it'll likely push up the cost of the entire lineup.
MikeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:34 PM   #539
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
I know in my head that you are probably right about market share, but in my heart I know that if this car ever gets reviews like a prius or Honda hybrid, if it becomes a gutless plastic DustBuster on wheels to mollify the people you want to sell to, it won't be the Camaro I'm on this site for. It will just become another crappy ordinary oatmeal conveyance for the masses.
That is not going to happen. You can be assured of that.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:37 PM   #540
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT View Post
Well, in the ATS, the turbo-4 is slotted below the V6 (the very same V6 that's in the current base-model Camaro). Not sure how they could turn around and market the turbo-4 as a premium upgrade in the Camaro... unless they bump up its hp to something like 350+. Assuming that they don't do that, yeah, I have to agree that it'll likely push up the cost of the entire lineup.
I'm not saying I WANT the turbo 4 to be the upgraded engine, but they could definitely and safely push the power to around 300+ HP and 300+ TQ giving the T4 a higher and broader TQ range than the V6.

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!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:42 PM   #541
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,395
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)...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:45 PM   #542
The_Blur
Moderator
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Harley-Davidson Street Bob
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,769
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
How about Chevy develops something for the younger people that doesn't have the generic grille. It makes the cars look like they are for moms and grandmas. Put the turbo 4 banger in a small car that looks edgy, price it right and built it right. Chevy needs some edgier car designs in my opinion. I get that cars like the Malibu are geared towards moms who want boring looking cars but if they want to steal market share away from imports, the cars have to get the attention. Imports already have the attention and the fan base so Chevy has to do something to take it back.

I don't think taking the Camaro down to Civic level is the right way to do it.
No one is bringing the Camaro to the Civic level. However, it does fit into a broad category of 2-door sporty vehicles that includes the following at a bare minimum:
  • Camaro
  • Mustang
  • Challenger
  • 370Z
  • Altima Coupe
  • BRZ
  • FR-S
  • Genesis Coupe

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:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
When my 20yr old son and I went to the LA car show 2yrs ago, that is exactly what they described the Sonic as..edgier, younger buyers, turbo 4, compete with the imports, etc...
The Sonic is definitely edgier. There's a lot of potential in that platform for a future sport model, and I hope one is developed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
For me when I look at the Sonic, all I really see is a commuter vehicle. IMO if GM wants to compete with the performance imports, they need an updated version of the Solstice or Sky.
I can understand that the Sonic won't appeal to all Camaro guys. We like long hoods and RWD. It's a lot more aggressive than some of the competition, like the Fit, and it's really satisfying to drive for being a 4-banger. I would like to see a Kappa car return to life, but those cars didn't make any financial sense. It would be cool to see one based on Alpha, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
I have to disagree with your logic here. GM's market share slide over the last 45 years occurred for many reasons, and not reducing horsepower enough is not very high on the list. To some extent, the gas shocks in the 70s hurt, but what has been the excuse for the last 30 years?

The problem was for a lot of years they were shoddily built, and far behind their competition in terms of reliability/durability, fit/finish and build quality, refinement, handling, content, etc.

GM did offer small, 4-cyl cars, even in the early 70s. What turned people off to GM was they were unrefined junk. Engine failure at 50K miles was common, and some were known to literally rust away in a few months sitting in climate controlled dealer showrooms.

While the durability and build quality improved somewhat, though not enough, over the years, the other issues still lingered. The current Impala didn't die on the vine because it didn't offer a small 4-cyl, but because in terms of chassis dynamics and content, it was a relic...a 1990s car trying to sell 15 years past its time. Remember the 2004-2007 Malibu? The Cobalt? The Aveo? All of the last Pontiacs except the G8? The W-body LaCrosse and Lucerne lineup over at Buick? Can you really look at that lineup of cars and argue that not having smaller, less powerful engines in them was the problem?



You're half right and half wrong here. Yes, GM needs to compete on all platforms with all types of engines, and if they could do that, they would take back some market share.

However, such a thing involves actually competing on platforms...which means if they want to compete against the FR-S, they need to have a comparable platform, and Alpha isn't it. Trying to turn a 3300-3400 lb Alpha based Camaro into something comparable to a 2700 lb FR-S is a battle lost before it even begins, particularly when the turbo FR-S arrives. And thus, trying to change and sell an Alpha Camaro into something that appeals to the FR-S buyer will not succeed in stealing FR-S sales, it will only give the Camaro type buyer less to buy. You are not going to be able to attract both the niche that wants a small, ultra light 4-cyl sports car and the one that wants a larger, torquey, more powerful car with the same car. If you want two different markets, you need two different cars.

You have to compete, but you cannot copy, either. You have to give your buyers a unique reason to choose your car. With today's level of competition, and the number of choices out there, you can't just be the same. Some people like Pepsi, and some like Coke. Changing Coke into Pepsi wasn't a reason for Pepsi drinkers to switch to Coke, it was just a reason for Coke drinkers to stop buying.

Yes, GM needs smaller, efficient 4-cyl cars to compete against similar offerings like the Camry, Accord, Civic, etc....The answer is to build a competitive Malibu or Cruze that competes with those cars. Turning the Camaro, a car that sells for reasons having nothing to do with economy, into an economy car, is not the right strategy. All that does is take away the characteristics of the Camaro that give that car the unique selling point responsible for its success.
I'm going to have to go point-by-point and refute almost everything you said. Seeing as you have Mustang in your garage, that doesn't surprise me at all.

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:
  • a favorable market for foreign investment with no protection for domestic manufacturers
  • fuel economy
  • decline in quality and performance due to lack of diverse products (badge engineering), entitlement mentality (customers will come back because they always come back), and government regulations (CAFE namely)

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
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:49 PM   #543
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
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....
Hard to believe that. Take for instance the ATS weights:

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!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 06:56 PM   #544
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Hard to believe that. Take for instance the ATS weights:

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.
Don't pound me too hard, brother...lol...It's all Greek to me...Just thought it was something to chew on as far as how GM might see things....dunno
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 07:01 PM   #545
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Don't pound me too hard, brother...lol...It's all Greek to me...Just thought it was something to chew on as far as how GM might see things....dunno
Not pounding on you lol. I'm glad you pointed it out. I just wanted to post up my thoughts about it is all.

This is all interesting stuff.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 07:07 PM   #546
MYDLIFECRISIS

 
MYDLIFECRISIS's Avatar
 
Drives: '12SS/2SS/45TH-'06 2500HD/Silverado
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larz29 View Post
Why would anyone want a 4 cyl camaro?? Sounds a bit lame.

Why would anyone want a 6 cylinder Camaro??!!

JK 6'ers, don't get all defensive!!
__________________
2012 Camaro SS 2SS 45TH Anniversary Edition


MYDLIFECRISIS 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 03:03 AM.


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