[BigRedViking]

Yeah, he would gas it in 1st, 3rd, and let it settle in 6th. Then don't fill up until you see a FlyingJ. I think most people will be driving electronic cars within ten years anyway. If the i8/i3 is the future of motoring... I hope GM has an ace in the hole. Anyone have an objection to a CNG Camaro?

[Number 3]

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf

Start halfway down page 3.

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Standards

EPA is finalizing a set of fleet-wide average carbon dioxide (CO2) emission standards for cars
and light trucks. These standards are based on CO2 emissions-footprint curves, where each
vehicle has a different CO2 emissions compliance target depending on its footprint value
(related to the size of the vehicle). Generally, the larger the vehicle footprint, the higher the
corresponding vehicle CO2 emissions target. As a result, the burden of compliance is distributed
across all vehicles and all manufacturers. Manufacturers are not compelled to build vehicles of
any particular size or type (nor does the rule create an incentive to do so), and no single vehicle
is required to meet its individual target. Each manufacturer will have its own fleet-wide standard
that reflects the vehicles it chooses to produce, and the GHG program provides a wide range of
credit programs and flexibilities for manufacturers to meet the standards.

So I agree it is confusing, but the vehicle targets are set by foot print. And yes there is a fleet average of those vehicles and as it states, no specific vehicle will be required to meet it's target.

And credits still exist.

[90503]

Looking at how they "evolved" the design for the 6thGen, I think something like this could be considered evolutionary and/or revolutionary....Massage it up with some Camaro bits, it looks like a much lighter, smaller design....

Here's my vote for a Gen7 Camaro....

[HuJass]

Originally Posted by 90503

Looking at how they "evolved" the design for the 6thGen, I think something like this could be considered evolutionary and/or revolutionary....Massage it up with some Camaro bits, it looks like a much lighter, smaller design....

Here's my vote for a Gen7 Camaro....

I'm pretty sure this was a Challenger concept put forth by Motor Trend or Allpar or something like that. It wasn't Chrysler, though.

With that said, this car would have made a TERRIBLE Challenger. It looks NOTHING like a Challenger. It would make an even worse Camaro.

I don't understand why people are trying to ruin iconic muscle/pony car names by attaching them to cars that look nothing like the originals.
I have no problem with a modern car, but just give them a new name.

If you have a car carrying a name like Camaro, Challenger, GTO, Mustang, etc., it better look like the cars that made the nameplate legendary.

[Number 3]

With visibility, what looks like limited trunk access again and a rear seat that even GM engineers were rationalizing why it was ok to be so small, my fear is we are simply getting too close to a Corvette and it's competitors. Even a Porsche 911 has a back seat.

And when the hybrid version shows up this place will light up like Christmas with threads on how it's not a Camaro anymore.

So for 2022, don't be wishing for things the 2016 just didn't get (i.e. key fob button for rolling down the windows) but things that don't even exist yet.

And for me, I simply want KITT.

[90503]

Originally Posted by HuJass

I'm pretty sure this was a Challenger concept put forth by Motor Trend or Allpar or something like that. It wasn't Chrysler, though.

With that said, this car would have made a TERRIBLE Challenger. It looks NOTHING like a Challenger. It would make an even worse Camaro.

I don't understand why people are trying to ruin iconic muscle/pony car names by attaching them to cars that look nothing like the originals.
I have no problem with a modern car, but just give them a new name.

If you have a car carrying a name like Camaro, Challenger, GTO, Mustang, etc., it better look like the cars that made the nameplate legendary.

That's the idea....What is considered iconic, etc. may not be possible by the year 2025.....If you read the OP's first post, he's looking for a complete break from the past and the complete end of retro...

You don't have to like it....(and btw I believe it was a concept for a possible Barracuda that never happened....and a Barracuda was also considered in the pony-car field)...

[HuJass]

Originally Posted by 90503

What is considered iconic, etc. may not be possible by the year 2025.

Maybe not mechanically, but certainly aesthetically. And if that were true, then it would be time to drop the iconic name & come up with a new one.

Originally Posted by 90503

If you read the OP's first post, he's looking for a complete break from the past and the complete end of retro.

Well, he's misguided and wrong.

Originally Posted by 90503

It was a concept for a possible Barracuda

And you're right. It was a 'Cuda concept.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HuJass

Maybe not mechanically, but certainly aesthetically. And if that were true, then it would be time to drop the iconic name & come up with a new one.


Well, he's misguided and wrong.


And you're right. It was a 'Cuda concept.

"misguided and wrong"? Chevy has done this before when they broke from the 1969 styling to the 70 1/2 which was a complete and total style change; yet it was accepted as a Camaro.

The whole purpose of this thread is to basically come up with the definition of what we want in a 7th Gen. If in fact we want to keep the rear seats, then let's do a design that's reasonably accommodating for them. Since in reality the current Camaro is a sports GT, can we come up with something that opens up the cabin view a bit more? A true sports GT is half sports car, half practical passenger car. How can we embrace that with a new shape that still says "Camaro"?

Since it's painfully clear that style is almost more important than anything else, I wanted to start a discussion along styling lines; what's under the skin is mostly engineering stuff which they'll struggle with on the way to meeting CAFE standards. That's all highly technical stuff that anything we say in here won't have any effect on. Styling and design however we could very well have some effect on.

I noticed they "opened up the cabin" a bit by extending the upper windshield farther back on the 2016. Perhaps that kind of thinking can be applied in some way to the sides and back of the cabin; make it "feel" more open without necessarily being any bigger on the outside.

One of the big factors affecting fuel economy is the coefficient of drag (CD) of the body shape. If we're going into the future style-wise, perhaps a look into active aerodynamic elements that "assist" the airflow in, through and around the car might be a possibility. Everything we have now is passive. I remember seeing the old Chaparral 2J that Jackie Stewart was driving around Riverside Raceway in southern California (now gone sadly) back in the late 60's. Jim Hall who designed it had put 2 extractor fans in the back of the car and skirted the body all the way around so the fans would suck air out from under the car. It was so effective it was banned. The car could go 30 mph just with the fans on; that's how effective they were at helping the car move through the air.



Since GM is using computers like crazy to manage the performance of the engine and now the exhaust, perhaps they could add computer-controlled aerodynamic features to help move the car through the air. They could not only lower the CD through body shape but also fake it out with active aero.

What do we want in interior functionality? Reasonably usable rear seating? Better access to the trunk space? I read about a lot of people having issues with clearance when they're wearing a helmet. Do we want just a bit more height in the roof area? Or compensate by lowering the seating...

Just some thoughts.

[Doc]

Wow. Over 1600 views and this is all the discussion we get? I know I've been away from the forum for just over a year but boy it sure seems to have changed!

[90503]

Originally Posted by Doc

Wow. Over 1600 views and this is all the discussion we get? I know I've been away from the forum for just over a year but boy it sure seems to have changed!

lol...Might just be a bit premature to suggest changes and improvements for a 7thGen....maybe see how the 6th pans out first with some feedback...

I'm curious too about the headroom....If it's any less than the 5th, a 6th will definitely be a no-go for me....I'll wait and see once they are at the dealers....

[wakespeak]

Who is the model or typical buyer for the Gen7? This is Chevy's big problem IMO. Are they Millenials, GenXers, GenY...or younger baby boomers still wanting to have some fun?

Buyer A (me):
I liked the restrained interior, old style but perfected small block V-8, track capable handling combined with show car looks of the Gen5. Very refreshing compared to the gizmo filled self driving, automated everything trends in other cars.

The styling should be very compelling and timeless. Not a corporate "face" or mainstreamed watered down look. I don't think its a choice between retro or current; its simply unique. I am not a Miata buyer, but Mazda did a nice job of creating a very timeless look for the 2016 car.

I would like the Gen7 to follow those roots again like Mazda did with the Miata. Dodge has hinted that the Barracuda might be a product in this style.

Technology will mean (restrained) engineering sophistication.

Buyer B:

The Gen7 will be more like a Nissan GTR. Flip a switch and computers change the personality of the car via computer controlled shocks, engine, transmission, brakes, and mood lighting.

The engine will be whatever is deemed technically state of the art at the time, so probably turbo V6 and/or hybrid. The average age of the buyer will be in the 20s-30s.

Styling will be futuristic. Technology will mean driver adjustable everything, modes for this and that style of driving, HUDs, etc.

Whatever the buyer type turns out to be, I predict that car infotainment will mean less and less. Your phone already does everything - it just needs a port on the car. Base cars will have completely electronic displays for speed and so on.

Emission requirements will dictate the powertrains as much as CAFE. So the Gen7 would need a new small block V-8, that is likely overhead cam, with a small bore, longer stroke for emissions requirements. Yes Ford is doing that. I don't think the Gen7 will have any electric powertrains. Gen8 maybe.

If the new small block doesn't happen, then we'll have the NA and turbo V-6's. That's not all bad, particularly if the chassis continues to drop in size, but I will be glad if my Gen5 is still in the garage.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Doc

Wow. Over 1600 views and this is all the discussion we get? I know I've been away from the forum for just over a year but boy it sure seems to have changed!

I would say mainly this is due to the fact that we haven't even had time to wrap our heads around the gen 6 car as it hasn't even hit the streets yet. I really do believe this performance race for the everyday person will be coming to and end too. Although, people still seem to be able to rake out 50 to 70 grand for a pickup truck or SUV.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by motorhead

I would say mainly this is due to the fact that we haven't even had time to wrap our heads around the gen 6 car as it hasn't even hit the streets yet. I really do believe this performance race for the everyday person will be coming to and end too. Although, people still seem to be able to rake out 50 to 70 grand for a pickup truck or SUV.

Agreed. People I'm pretty sure make considerably less than I do are rolling around in new $60k Denalis and King Ranch editions all around me.

I hope GM goes with a smaller DOHC NA V8 rather than an FI V6.

I agree with other posters that "real" performance versions of cars will become beyond the reach of regular consumers, but again, with the magic of sub-prime credit and 10 year financing, I guess people will continue to get what they want based on impulse. ...but incomes are mostly remaining flat, and prices keep going up much faster. The price of goods has to level off or incomes have to catch up at some point.

At some point in the near future, either gen7 or gen8, the next generation will make less power than the previous one, just as in the 1970s. Trying to comphensate with material science is expensive. Regulations are outpacing (affordable) science with CAFE.

Gen 6 should get a solid 5-6 year run. 4 years is too soon for a proper return on investment.

[xgnxs]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Agreed. People I'm pretty sure make considerably less than I do are rolling around in new $60k Denalis and King Ranch editions all around me.

I hope GM goes with a smaller DOHC NA V8 rather than an FI V6.

I agree with other posters that "real" performance versions of cars will become beyond the reach of regular consumers, but again, with the magic of sub-prime credit and 10 year financing, I guess people will continue to get what they want based on impulse. ...but incomes are mostly remaining flat, and prices keep going up much faster. The price of goods has to level off or incomes have to catch up at some point.

At some point in the near future, either gen7 or gen8, the next generation will make less power than the previous one, just as in the 1970s. Trying to comphensate with material science is expensive. Regulations are outpacing (affordable) science with CAFE.

Gen 6 should get a solid 5-6 year run. 4 years is too soon for a proper return on investment.

By smaller do you mean smaller displacement or smaller physically? Because the OHV pushrod engines are larger in displacement and physically smaller than DOHC engines.