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 12-02-2013, 09:53 AM   #43
wakespeak

 
wakespeak's Avatar
 
Drives: 2020 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,321
Come on any weight reduction affects fuel economy. GM spent millions on weight reduction programs, as have everyone else. Reducing weight via unsprung components is much more interesting to me in terms of its affect on the vehicle dynamics.

Does the Camaro need a 2-3 mpg increase? No. GM doesn't sell enough of them to affect CAFE ratings significantly. Does the Camaro need reasonable fuel economy? Yes. I mean 16-17 ish for the V8 city, around 20 combined. The Camaro won't be sold in numbers nor should it - its a niche product with good margins if it doesn't get watered down.

I hope Chevy continues to focus on VIR and Nuremburgh for the Camaro.

Now could Chevy come out with a product like the Subaru FRS? Yeah great, I am interested, but don't split the Camaro program to do it. Too many compromises.

Last edited by wakespeak; 12-02-2013 at 10:04 AM.
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:11 AM   #44
camaro2lt
 
camaro2lt's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT VR/RS CGM Rally's
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Palmyra, PA
Posts: 5,675
Idk about you guys but the new 6th gen ford mustang marketing campaign sucks!
camaro2lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:43 AM   #45
meissen
Founder - Michigan FBody
 
meissen's Avatar
 
Drives: 1994 Camaro LT1, 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Haven, MI
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDISIN View Post
According to fueleconomy.gov

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?a...VWTYoWiw.gmail

2014 Cadillac ATS: 18/22/28
2014 Chevrolet Camaro: 18/21/27

I see Chevrolet advertises the 2LS at 30hwy, so maybe that's the difference.
That same site says the side by side specs:

Passenger Volume - ATS: 91 ft3 (4 door); Camaro: 93 ft3 (2 door)
Luggage Volume - ATS: 10 ft3 (4 door); Camaro: 11 ft3 (2 door)

Somehow a 2 door car has 2 cubic feet more passenger volume and 1 cubic foot more luggage volume.
__________________
2012 Camaro 2SS/RS L99 - "Zooma"
1994 Camaro LT1 A4 - "Red Alert" - v6-to-LT1 Swapped Cruiser; Cammed, Stalled, Enjoyed

"Gone But Not Forgotten"
2016 Camaro 1LT A8 - "Elmo"
2014 Camaro 1LT M6 - "Cherry Bomb"
2012 Camaro 1LS M6 - "Clifford"


Michigan FBody Association
http://www.mifbody.com/
meissen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 11:01 AM   #46
Angrybird 12
7 year Cancer Survivor!
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 17 Cruze RS, 07 G6 GT, 99 Astro
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 21,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by meissen View Post
That same site says the side by side specs:

Passenger Volume - ATS: 91 ft3 (4 door); Camaro: 93 ft3 (2 door)
Luggage Volume - ATS: 10 ft3 (4 door); Camaro: 11 ft3 (2 door)

Somehow a 2 door car has 2 cubic feet more passenger volume and 1 cubic foot more luggage volume.
But what is available and what is useable can make a difference too. Take a rectangular box with 91 cubic ft of space inside compare it to another container that is odd shaped with the same 91 cubic ft of space inside. The box would have more useable space. The trunks are different shape as are the passenger compartments. So what may seem like the Camaro has more room using measurements, the actual usable space may be much less.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...
The Bird is the word!
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 02:25 PM   #47
meissen
Founder - Michigan FBody
 
meissen's Avatar
 
Drives: 1994 Camaro LT1, 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Haven, MI
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrybird 12 View Post
But what is available and what is useable can make a difference too. Take a rectangular box with 91 cubic ft of space inside compare it to another container that is odd shaped with the same 91 cubic ft of space inside. The box would have more useable space. The trunks are different shape as are the passenger compartments. So what may seem like the Camaro has more room using measurements, the actual usable space may be much less.
No I agree - though if you've sat in an ATS you'll know the rear seat is not as usable as it may seem. It sure is easier to get in and out of having the 2 rear doors compared to the 5th gen Camaro, but it's definitely just as small as the 5th gen's rear seat. Barely any knee space and I'm only 5'5". It's actually so tight that they had to "indent" the headliner up tighter against the roof for the rear passengers so they aren't brushing their heads against the headliner. But even then, with my short 5'5" stature I was bumping my head against the "edge" of the indentation getting in and out of the car.

Without sitting in the car, I would have never known it was there and I'm not sure if I'm explaining it in a way that folks who haven't sat in the car can picture. None of the interior pictures I've ever seen show the "indentation."

Edit: You can actually see the "indentation" (how it curves up against the roof) in this picture, to the right of the side courtesy light:
__________________
2012 Camaro 2SS/RS L99 - "Zooma"
1994 Camaro LT1 A4 - "Red Alert" - v6-to-LT1 Swapped Cruiser; Cammed, Stalled, Enjoyed

"Gone But Not Forgotten"
2016 Camaro 1LT A8 - "Elmo"
2014 Camaro 1LT M6 - "Cherry Bomb"
2012 Camaro 1LS M6 - "Clifford"


Michigan FBody Association
http://www.mifbody.com/
meissen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 04:55 PM   #48
Cheveey57

 
Cheveey57's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT RS
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,425
They are trying to sell the 14's so they won't come out with a "teaser" until '15.
__________________
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Cheveey57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 05:24 PM   #49
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2020 Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 37,371
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheveey57 View Post
They are trying to sell the 14's so they won't come out with a "teaser" until '15.
They won't come out with a "teaser" until MY2015 because that's the smart thing to do. Who the hell shows anything about a future product two model years in advance?

And before anyone brings up the concept, it had zero plans for production at reveal.
__________________
2023 GMC Canyon Elevation
2020 Chevrolet Colorado W/T Extended Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 07:55 PM   #50
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,851
...agreed as Fen said, play close to the vest, nothings gained from an an early announcement other than product marketing hype. Don't show your cards before your hand is ready to be played.
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 08:40 PM   #51
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: 12,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakespeak View Post
Come on any weight reduction affects fuel economy. GM spent millions on weight reduction programs, as have everyone else. Reducing weight via unsprung components is much more interesting to me in terms of its affect on the vehicle dynamics.

Does the Camaro need a 2-3 mpg increase? No. GM doesn't sell enough of them to affect CAFE ratings significantly. Does the Camaro need reasonable fuel economy? Yes. I mean 16-17 ish for the V8 city, around 20 combined. The Camaro won't be sold in numbers nor should it - its a niche product with good margins if it doesn't get watered down.

I hope Chevy continues to focus on VIR and Nuremburgh for the Camaro.

Now could Chevy come out with a product like the Subaru FRS? Yeah great, I am interested, but don't split the Camaro program to do it. Too many compromises.
Take a look at the NEW and IMPROVED CAFE standards brought to you by our leaders in Washington. You will notice that each car has it's own specific FE requirements based on the "footprint" size of the car. The Camaro needs to gain 6 mpg AVERAGE in the next few years. No loner can the low volume Camaro be covered by the higher volume cars.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
Number 3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 10:41 AM   #52
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 Number 3 View Post
Take a look at the NEW and IMPROVED CAFE standards brought to you by our leaders in Washington. You will notice that each car has it's own specific FE requirements based on the "footprint" size of the car. The Camaro needs to gain 6 mpg AVERAGE in the next few years. No loner can the low volume Camaro be covered by the higher volume cars.

Be careful mentioning the government. It get's people riled up around here.
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2013, 11:52 AM   #53
wakespeak

 
wakespeak's Avatar
 
Drives: 2020 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Take a look at the NEW and IMPROVED CAFE standards brought to you by our leaders in Washington. You will notice that each car has it's own specific FE requirements based on the "footprint" size of the car. The Camaro needs to gain 6 mpg AVERAGE in the next few years. No loner can the low volume Camaro be covered by the higher volume cars.
Good point - I took a look in more detail at the 2011 changes. There is still averaging from what I see in the 2011 changes - its just now based on footprint derived mpg per model instead of the actual mpg of the car. Correct?

A high mpg vehicle can still offset a lower one, but the affect is diminished. That is, small cars with really high mpg's don't factor in directly, only the mpg for their footprint. So the 50 mpg hybrid may only provide a 36 mpg contribution to the average calculation.

That takes care of the fleet mpg and fine at the fleet level.

The second component will the impact of the footprint in terms of a gas guzzler tax. It may be difficult for GM to hurdle this one with the Gen6. Customers may have to pay the gas guzzler tax or an imputed fine incurred by GM. Fine by me as long as the car is worth it.

Although the MPG requirements per footprint go up in 2016, there seems room for a V-8 Camaro, Mustang, or Challenger. We just might be paying a higher price for them than we do now. Eventually that may price them out of the market for good as Oppenheiser said. Personally I wouldn't mind having a Tesla and a Camaro to balance my own family average fuel economy .
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 11:25 PM   #54
shrinkdoc

 
Drives: SRT Yugo GT Super Sport with Manual
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: va
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro2lt View Post
As most of us know Ford has announced they are unveiling the 6th gen mustang in 6 major cities on December 5, 2013---------I figured to rain on Fords parade should GM release something about the 6th gen Camaro to steal the excitement over the 6th gen mustang??

I Think that Gm needs to show a teaser shot or give us something on the 6th gen to get the enthusiast response and feedback......
I think I heard the 6th Gen pictures will be released early around late summer. Probably to attempt to thwart some 2015 Mustangs sales.
shrinkdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 08:35 PM   #55
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrinkdoc View Post
I think I heard the 6th Gen pictures will be released early around late summer. Probably to attempt to thwart some 2015 Mustangs sales.
...I would safely say do not wager on that....we <GM> are doing things right....there is no gain to be achieved from an early promo release at this time.
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 09:46 PM   #56
OperativeXIV
 
OperativeXIV's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Summit White 2LT/RS
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro View Post
...I would safely say do not wager on that....we <GM> are doing things right....there is no gain to be achieved from an early promo release at this time.
I don't quite get that, while I agree Chevy will wait and release information when it's ready, I do think there would be something to be gained from stealing some of the new Mustangs thunder even if it was with very minor stuff.
__________________
Yeah, the logo is off center. :/
OperativeXIV is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

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 05:59 AM.


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