[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by revychevy

Dude. You drive an SS. I can't take your question seriously since you posted here. Ask a Corvette owner if he cares if they make an Eco economy 4 cylinder Vette station wagon. I bet you find guys that wouldn't like it...

It'd be a sales move. Plain and simple. GM like ALL companies are out to make money. It's not about having the hi-po V8 guys buy a "lesser" model with a weaker powerplant to replace their cars. It's about making a sale to a customer that may have not ever been there before. Will the performance enthusiast buy it? No. But thats not why it would exist.

[mikeyg36]

Originally Posted by revychevy

Dude. You drive an SS. I can't take your question seriously since you posted here. Ask a Corvette owner if he cares if they make an Eco economy 4 cylinder Vette station wagon. I bet you find guys that wouldn't like it...

The Vette should only be a V8 because it's a ****ing Corvette. We're talking about a Camaro here, which has ALWAYS had an "economy" or base model engine. So what I'm asking is why should the V8 guys give a shit what engine the base model has when they're not going to buy it in the first place?

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

If you're 50 years old, back in the mid-late-'70s when you were plastering your walls with HOT car posters, Chev did NOT make a Camaro with 200 hp. That didn't happen, after '74, until '87 when the L98 was jammed into Gen-3s...and it made less than 250 hp. The HOTTEST Gen-3 made? A PONTIAC...with a Buick-bred TURBO 6...



Folks, we have our answer...and your time's up...

Next topic?

Of course then (the mid 70's) I had pics of 68 and 69 Camaro's on my wall. Also 70 chevelle SS.

If you don't like the topic, you don't have to read it so I don't understand the next topic comment.

Anyway I'm a little confused at a Camaro enthusiast site where you have to apologize for liking more displacement over less.

Where if you support a V6 and V8 over a 4 cylinder gas sipping grocery getter then there's something wrong with you.

Then if you state that you will cease buying GM if the car becomes another Malibu or Metro Geo type car--people take exception to that.

Right now GM is dealing with recalls and lawsuits over the ignition systems of these small cars. If they don't need the good will of truck buyers and Camaro enthusiasts then by all means, phase out the V8.

I just didn't think you'd get lambasted on a Camaro site for liking a V8 over a freaking turbo 4. ( put a fart box and a giant wing on it and we'll fit right in with Hondas!)

[MikeT]

Originally Posted by mikeyg36

The Vette should only be a V8 because it's a ****ing Corvette. We're talking about a Camaro here, which has ALWAYS had an "economy" or base model engine. So what I'm asking is why should the V8 guys give a shit what engine the base model has when they're not going to buy it in the first place?

I totally get where you're coming from. And you're right. If you're not going to buy the base engine, then why should the mere existence of the base engine bother you?

With that said, a counter-argument could be made that the existence of a sub-par base engine damages the overall image of the car. Reviewers get their hands on a base model, and then knock it, and the spillover effect is a negative perception of the vehicle in general.

To some extent, this has happened with the ATS. I think that GM shot itself in the foot by putting the 2.5 NA engine in the base ATS. Reviewers have derided that engine as rough and unsatisfying, and I've seen and heard a lot of folks ask, 'What the heck is the base engine from the Malibu doing in a Cadillac?! Can you say Cimarron Part 2??' And that's totally unfair because, if equipped with the V6 or the turbo 4, the ATS is a great car. But it's hard to deny that the base version has done a bit of damage to the car's overall reputation.

[mikeyg36]

Originally Posted by MikeT

I totally get where you're coming from. And you're right. If you're not going to buy the base engine, then why should the mere existence of the base engine bother you?

With that said, a counter-argument could be made that the existence of a sub-par base engine damages the overall image of the car. Reviewers get their hands on a base model, and then knock it, and the spillover effect is a negative perception of the vehicle in general.

To some extent, this has happened with the ATS. I think that GM shot itself in the foot by putting the 2.5 NA engine in the base ATS. Reviewers have derided that engine as rough and unsatisfying, and I've seen and heard a lot of folks ask, 'What the heck is the base engine from the Malibu doing in a Cadillac?! Can you say Cimarron Part 2??' And that's totally unfair because, if equipped with the V6 or the turbo 4, the ATS is a great car. But it's hard to deny that the base version has done a bit of damage to the car's overall reputation.

I agree, but if they put a 300+hp and tq 4cyl turbo as the base engine to replace the V6 it's a win win.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by mikeyg36

I agree, but if they put a 300+hp and tq 4cyl turbo as the base engine to replace the V6 it's a win win.

Not if it costs more than todays v6 without a major economy gain. Then what's the point?

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by MikeT

I totally get where you're coming from. And you're right. If you're not going to buy the base engine, then why should the mere existence of the base engine bother you?

With that said, a counter-argument could be made that the existence of a sub-par base engine damages the overall image of the car. Reviewers get their hands on a base model, and then knock it, and the spillover effect is a negative perception of the vehicle in general.

To some extent, this has happened with the ATS. I think that GM shot itself in the foot by putting the 2.5 NA engine in the base ATS. Reviewers have derided that engine as rough and unsatisfying, and I've seen and heard a lot of folks ask, 'What the heck is the base engine from the Malibu doing in a Cadillac?! Can you say Cimarron Part 2??' And that's totally unfair because, if equipped with the V6 or the turbo 4, the ATS is a great car. But it's hard to deny that the base version has done a bit of damage to the car's overall reputation.

This. The Iron Duke damaged Camaro's rep also. Everyone acts like they KNOW what 4 banger GM would use, but when bean counters get counting you never know what you are gonna get. What if it IS a 2 liter underpowered NA gas sipper?

Will you guys still feel the same? Would I still be the asshole for liking V6 and V8 as the traditional Camaro configuration?

[mikeyg36]

GM is not stupid enough to put an underpowered engine in a Camaro again. They've had their heads screwed on right lately.

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by mikeyg36

GM is not stupid enough to put an underpowered engine in a Camaro again. They've had their heads screwed on right lately.

I hope so man, but this ignition thing does not engender confidence.
Neither does the Cadillac base engine.

If the four is a screamer in a light car, then Mebbe so. But if it's a dog I don't subscribe.

I'm also not for getting rid of the V6 and moving the V8 north of 40 grand...

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by revychevy

This. The Iron Duke damaged Camaro's rep also. Everyone acts like they KNOW what 4 banger GM would use, but when bean counters get counting you never know what you are gonna get. What if it IS a 2 liter underpowered NA gas sipper?

REALLY? That's how little you think of GM and the good folks in Product Development?!

Will you guys still feel the same? Would I still be the asshole for liking V6 and V8 as the traditional Camaro configuration?

Now you're branding YOURSELF.

But you DID say "But maybe I just wanna whine about it awhile" . If that makes you what you say you are, so be it...who am I to try and change your mind?! It doesn't seem to be meeting with much success...

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

Not if it costs more than todays v6 without a major economy gain. Then what's the point?

If there is a noticeable performance gain (just because it's a 4 doesn't mean it has to be strictly economy tuned) then I believe that that's the point. Torque output of an I4-T, making similar HP to a NA-V6, should have both a higher peak and a broader/flatter delivery curve.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

If there is a noticeable performance gain (just because it's a 4 doesn't mean it has to be strictly economy tuned) then I believe that that's the point. Torque output of an I4-T, making similar HP to a NA-V6, should have both a higher peak and a broader/flatter delivery curve.

You forget the average Joe that buys these are going to look at horsepower and fuel mileage and if they are not significantly greater than the V6 and costs more to buy the 4, guess which one they will buy?

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Now you're branding YOURSELF.

But you DID say "But maybe I just wanna whine about it awhile" . If that makes you what you say you are, so be it...who am I to try and change your mind?! It doesn't seem to be meeting with much success...

? I don't know what your deal is or why this is apparently personal with you. The whining comment is out of context and was a facetious comment regarding the idea that V8's could be soon legislated out of existence completely.

My response to that idea was that it might be true (it seems the direction the green crowd is after). And that I would whine about that outcome rather than embrace crappy cars.

What is your deal Lowdown? Is it a personal affront to you if I don't like a 4cylinder Camaro?

Does it pick your pocket or break your leg if I won't buy one?

Does it harm you if I don't have complete and unwavering faith that the Camaro gods will do everything YOU say they will concerning cars and engines?

Is there room on this forum for people to disagree on what they like in a Camaro?

Note that I have not said that they WON'T make another 4 banger Camaro, I just said I don't like it, and that I fear they will reprise the Iron duke.

The arguments are the same as then.

So tell me why I can't like V6 and V8 better than 4 banger and V8?

[mikeyg36]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

If there is a noticeable performance gain (just because it's a 4 doesn't mean it has to be strictly economy tuned) then I believe that that's the point. Torque output of an I4-T, making similar HP to a NA-V6, should have both a higher peak and a broader/flatter delivery curve.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. I for one hate NA DOHC V6s simply because of their lack of low end torque, especially in a heavy car like the Camaro. The 6th gen will be lighter, but the broad torque of a turbo four would still be better. IMO Ford has it almost right slotting the 4 banger between the 6 and the 8.