[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Europe is different than the US. They tax displacement, for one thing. And it's not like it hasn't been tried before in the US. It was a failure. But go ahead. I'm sure "this time it's different".

You are missing the point. We will NOT be different than Europe when the new CAFE laws go into effect. We will be very much similar. China and Europe do tax on displacement. We aren't trying to do it with taxes. Not even tax on gasoline and diesel which Europe also does heavily. We are doing by legislating the car companies themselves. But the net effect will be the same and maybe worse.

You can fight it here, but my other point was to (not you specifically) quit complaining and start calling your Congressmen and women. It is now law and there is very little likelihood we can stop it.

So it has very little to do with a bunch of enthusiasts on this website saying, "go ahead and try it, this time it will be different". It will be different and if we don't do something the landscape of performance cars will be vastly different.

We (yes all of us) keep thinking this discussion is about what will and won't work in the market. That has ZERO to do with CAFE. GM will have to comply and the Camaro doesn't get a free pass.

So the question is how do we ensure there is an awesome Camaro beyond 2020?

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Number 3

You are missing the point. We will NOT be different than Europe when the new CAFE laws go into effect. We will be very much similar. China and Europe do tax on displacement. We aren't trying to do it with taxes. Not even tax on gasoline and diesel which Europe also does heavily. We are doing by legislating the car companies themselves. But the net effect will be the same and maybe worse.

You can fight it here, but my other point was to (not you specifically) quit complaining and start calling your Congressmen and women. It is now law and there is very little likelihood we can stop it.

So it has very little to do with a bunch of enthusiasts on this website saying, "go ahead and try it, this time it will be different". It will be different and if we don't do something the landscape of performance cars will be vastly different.

We (yes all of us) keep thinking this discussion is about what will and won't work in the market. That has ZERO to do with CAFE. GM will have to comply and the Camaro doesn't get a free pass.

So the question is how do we ensure there is an awesome Camaro beyond 2020?

No, I'm not missing the point. It's just not part of the discussion. And we probably won't have an awesome Camaro if the CAFE regulations are put into full affect. But GM chooses what kind of cars Chevy makes and if all GM and it's fans do is cheer every compromise in order to sell cars, the market will not be pleased when they actually buy it and realize they've been tricked.

[Outlander]

If they build the next Camaro on a smaller, lighter platform, why not?

I've never had as much fun in a car as when I owned a 2200lb, 1.6 liter, 116hp, 4 cyl '93 Miata.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

No, I'm not missing the point. It's just not part of the discussion. And we probably won't have an awesome Camaro if the CAFE regulations are put into full affect. But GM chooses what kind of cars Chevy makes and if all GM and it's fans do is cheer every compromise in order to sell cars, the market will not be pleased when they actually buy it and realize they've been tricked.

No you are missing the point. CAFE now dictates the cars GM is allowed to sell. GM will try and likely succeed but V8s will start to be burdened and thus cost far more. Not by GM's choice mind you from our government that is choking off free market chipoices.

[TrekGTO]

I could see where a 4cyl Camaro with 300+ HP could be popular with some. Volvo has a *2.0-liter "Drive-E" I-4 with both turbo- and supercharging 300 HP/Torque, yes compound boost, and Mercedes AMG has a 2ltr turbo 355 HP.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by TrekGTO

I could see where a 4cyl Camaro with 300+ HP could be popular with some. Volvo has a *2.0-liter "Drive-E" I-4 with both turbo- and supercharging 300 HP/Torque, yes compound boost, and Mercedes AMG has a 2ltr turbo 355 HP.

A 300 HP 4 cyl Camaro would be less an embarrassment than a 140hp V8 Camaro like I had in the 70's was.....

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Number 3

No you are missing the point. CAFE now dictates the cars GM is allowed to sell. GM will try and likely succeed but V8s will start to be burdened and thus cost far more. Not by GM's choice mind you from our government that is choking off free market chipoices.

Yes, that's the entire GD point. You keep jumping in to defend GM when that's irrelevant. We don't want 4 cylinder sports/muscle cars, as evidenced by the market choosing V8's. So it's moot why V8's become less affordable, or even not available. It doesn't mean the 4 cylinder will be appealing, because it won't.

[mikeyg36]

I think Mustang drivers should be more worried about the V8 dying than GM guys. GM made a substantial investment with the Gen V Small Block, and that means that they'll be around for a long time. On the other hand, Ford has basically given up on their V8s. Their full size SUVs now only use V6s, and they're trying to phase out the V8s in their pickups. That would leave the Mustang as the only car in their lineup that uses a V8, and I can't see them dumping money into V8 development for just one model. The Coyote is probably the last revision of the Modular V8 that Ford will do. Once that engine is pushed to its limits the Mustang will get an Ecobust V6 as its top engine and Ford V8s will be a distant memory.

[LOWDOWN]

For those pooh-poohing the idea of a 4-cylinder Camaro because of the anemic real world performance-economy of the early Gen-3s, THREE things need to be considered:

1) The Iron Duke 2.5 of that era made all of 100 hp or so, in a 3100 lb. Base car, a staggering 31 lb/hp Weight-to-Power ratio. A 200 hp n/a 2.5L, today, in a 3300 lb. Alpha-based platform will equate to 16.5 lb/hp...better than a 305 Z28 had back then (150 hp/3300 lb)...and will return nearly 40 mpg. Hiway...

2) Camaros for Fleet use (yes, there are some) are all about low maintenance and operating co$t$...see "nearly 40 mpg Hiway"...

3) How many Mustangs have been sold, over the years, with 4-cylinder engines? And that car is about to celebrate 50 years of uninterrupted success...

There is SURELY a market for 4-cylinder Gen-6 Camaros, and the car's continued availability AND success may depend on it...

Here's what Car and Driver had to say about a 2.5L ATS (which is a heavier car than the Camaro will be): We first drove an ATS with the base engine, a 202-hp, 2.5-liter four-cylinder with direct injection. It’s available only with a six-speed automatic and rear drive. This engine... delivers...claimed 0 to 60 in 7.5 seconds, which we think is about right on the nose...

BTW, 1983 Z28s, road tested with 305s in both 5-Speed Manual and 4-Speed Automatic, ran 0-60 in 8.5 to 9.0 seconds...and the H.O. 305s ran 0-60 in 7.3 seconds...

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Yes, that's the entire GD point. You keep jumping in to defend GM when that's irrelevant. We don't want 4 cylinder sports/muscle cars, as evidenced by the market choosing V8's. So it's moot why V8's become less affordable, or even not available. It doesn't mean the 4 cylinder will be appealing, because it won't.

Wow do you guys keep missing my point. I AM NOT DEFENDING GM IF THEY PUT A 4 CYLINDER IN THE CAMARO.

I am stating that they may and will likely have to do so to meet government regulations.

Yes this is regardless of who would want one or not want one.

Is that clear enough?

And check your V6 and V8 volumes. Not all Camaros are V8s.

[PYROLYSIS]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

A 300 HP 4 cyl Camaro would be less an embarrassment than a 140hp V8 Camaro like I had in the 70's was.....

Excellent point. I think the challenge of marketing a four cylinder Camaro would be differentiating it from the V6 if still offered. The numbers being thrown around suggest similar fuel economy and peak horsepower. I don't know if superior low end torque is enough to sell a lower number of cylinders to a group of potential buyers that have a higher number of cylinders being better for performance ingrained in their heads. The way Ford seems to be playing this game it looks like they will be phasing out the V6 altogether being that all the engineering focus seems to be on the turbo four. We haven't even seen anything groundbreaking with their entry level V8. Ford may ease the pain of reintroducing a four cylinder into the ponycar and make it easier to stomach in the Camaro. The problem for GM is if the market immediately embraces it and potential sales are lost. That's the risk being taken when you wait and see while developing a product that is a year behind.

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Wow do you guys keep missing my point. I AM NOT DEFENDING GM IF THEY PUT A 4 CYLINDER IN THE CAMARO.

I am stating that they may and will likely have to do so to meet government regulations.

Yes this is regardless of who would want one or not want one.

Is that clear enough?

And check your V6 and V8 volumes. Not all Camaros are V8s.

Great post... I couldn't find it, but I believe in the past V6 sales have equaled and maybe even surpassed V8 sales...

And another point that some people don't get is, is there is a whole big group of people that buy a car strictly on how it LOOKS and could care less what the power plant is, whether it's 4, 6 or 8 cylinders...

[LOWDOWN]

The original Business Case for the Gen-5 Camaro was predicated on a 60% V6 - 40% V8 split. Because of the interruption in the vehicle's life and, therefore, pent-up demand for a "performance 2-dr @ sensible pricing" from GM, those percentages were flipped: fully 60+ % of early Gen-5s were SSs...

Those sorts of numbers are NOT current...and are NOT sustainable, moving forward, for a number of reasons. CAFE '16 being one of them...

IF GM is able to offer "performance V8 versions (plural)", at competitive/affordable prices, WHILE OFFERING VERSIONS WITH MUCH BETTER FUEL ECONOMY (to ensure the Model's continued success AND availability), why couldn't/shouldn't they?!

[Wizard1183]

If GM doesnt put an I-4 in a Camaro, then soon it'll cease to exist otherwise, it'll become something like a vette where only upper-middle to upperclassman will drive.

As far as talking to your congressman? LOL That will NEVER help. Why exactly would they listen to someone such as yourself who has absolutely NO power? Unless you're filling their pockets up with money? Your words dont mean anything. Youd have to have the power of the entire state behind you to say if you dont push the issue, we're not voting for you in the election. And thats not going to happen. So forget congressman. Theyre crooks and only care about money and helping out themselves and otehr politicians.