[trewyn15]

I don't know that anyone is afraid of the Camaro not having a V8, they just don't like the idea of a 4 cylinder in a muscle car, because that's not a 'muscle' engine.

I wonder if they'd go so far to offer 4 Cylinder, V6 and V8... doubt it, but it would kind of be nice for the people inbetween.

[ENV US]

So y'all know there was a 4cyl option in the third generation Camaro as well as he Firebird? I sold a few back then to people that couldn't afford a v8 or the insurance. Gave 1st time buyers the opportunity to drive a new Camaro within their budget.

[Angrybird 12]

The length of time the V8 will exist is still an unknown, but I believe its day in cars produced for the affordable car market is numbered. I see it continuing for a while in specialty low volume cars but with all the government regulations going into effect over the next 10 years will require more and more fuel efficient cars be sold over high powered V8s.
So to begin with, introduction of more smaller engines including the downsizing of the V8's and the cars they are used in will be necessary. Now if they can figure a way to give you a 500 HP V8 that gives 30+mpg overall then we will all be winners....as long as it doesn't cost $100,000 to buy.
So my question to those not wanting to see a 4 cylinder Camaro, would you rather have a Affordable Camaro with decent performance that gets 40mpg, with a high performance version available to a limited number of people at a premimum price. Or no Camaro at all? Believe me If it comes down to having GM choose between the Camaro or Corvette remaining as the brands performance image leader, the Corvette will win out.

[trewyn15]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

The length of time the V8 will exist is still an unknown, but I believe its day in cars produced for the affordable car market is numbered. I see it continuing for a while in specialty low volume cars but with all the government regulations going into effect over the next 10 years will require more and more fuel efficient cars be sold over high powered V8s.
So to begin with, introduction of more smaller engines including the downsizing of the V8's and the cars they are used in will be necessary. Now if they can figure a way to give you a 500 HP V8 that gives 30+mpg overall then we will all be winners....as long as it doesn't cost $100,000 to buy.
So my question to those not wanting to see a 4 cylinder Camaro, would you rather have a Affordable Camaro with decent performance that gets 40mpg, with a high performance version available to a limited number of people at a premimum price. Or no Camaro at all? Believe me If it comes down to having GM choose between the Camaro or Corvette remaining as the brands performance image leader, the Corvette will win out.

Honestly, if I were looking to buy one, no Camaro at all. I'd save for a Vette or similar.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

So my question to those not wanting to see a 4 cylinder Camaro, would you rather have a Affordable Camaro with decent performance that gets 40mpg, with a high performance version available to a limited number of people at a premimum price. Or no Camaro at all?

All your choices are worse than what is available right now. So... why are you giving us grief about not being happy about it?

Is there some reason why they can't make an SS version of an already-4 cylinder car? I'm stumped as to why people claim the Camaro has to have a 4 cylinder.

[solo40oz]

Originally Posted by shockandawe

The 2.0 turbo may work if they drop about 1500 lbs. off the current Camaro.

1500 lbs.....the Camaro goes on 'the biggest loser' show......and comes back as a miata.

[SlingShot]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

All your choices are worse than what is available right now. So... why are you giving us grief about not being happy about it?

Is there some reason why they can't make an SS version of an already-4 cylinder car? I'm stumped as to why people claim the Camaro has to have a 4 cylinder.

It doesn't have to, but after all it did start out with a 140hp straight six to begin with so what difference does it make ?

[Fraxum]

A lighter, more efficient Camaro is a good move. I am looking forward to the 6th Gen. While I like my 5th Gen, it is too big and too heavy.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by SlingShot

It doesn't have to, but after all it did start out with a 140hp straight six to begin with so what difference does it make ?

286 HP?

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Blast

I'm sure you can name loads of turbo cars that have had engine issues and I'm sure I can name loads of N/A cars that have had engine issues

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

All engines undergo the same testing before they're warranted.

That's all well and good that they are engineered to last until the warranty expires. My concern is what happens after that? Being an Alero owner, I am fully and painfully aware of what happens to certain cars as soon as the warranty period is over. And a turbo failure is a very expensive potential problem that a N/A engine does not have.

Sure, a lot of them may never have any problems over the life of the car. My point was, and there really is no way anyone can deny that every car that ever suffered a turbo failure was turbocharged, while no N/A engine has ever had a turbo fail.

Originally Posted by KarFan

Instead of outrage this should be viewed as a great thing. If the 6th Gen Camaro can have a viable turbo 4cyl option then this will be a much lighter and more nimble vehicle than the 5th Gen. That's better for all levels of performance and fuel efficiency.

Yes, there are great lightweight, nimble, 4-cylinder sports cars out there, a few of which already exceed in terms of handling, lightweight, and efficiency anything that will come from the ATS platform. If I were interested in that type of car, I could already have one.

Taking away the uniqueness of the Camaro, and instead building it in the template of stuff that's already out there has the potential to backfire.

Originally Posted by ENV US

So y'all know there was a 4cyl option in the third generation Camaro as well as he Firebird?

We are well aware of the 4-cylinder 3rd gen Camaros. That's exactly why some of us are so strongly opposed.

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

So my question to those not wanting to see a 4 cylinder Camaro, would you rather have a Affordable Camaro with decent performance that gets 40mpg, with a high performance version available to a limited number of people at a premimum price.

This is exactly my concern. High performance, high efficiency, low price. You can have two.

If they really wanted to make it more affordable, they'd stay with the N/A V6. N/A is cheaper than turbos. And factoring in the difference between regular and premium gas, N/A is cheaper at the pump too.

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

All your choices are worse than what is available right now. So... why are you giving us grief about not being happy about it?

[JusticePete]

The ATS with a Turbo 4 clocks a quarter Mile in 14.1 Yenko Camaros turned effortless mid-13s. http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/...camaro-427.htm

I can see why no one would want a 6th Gen with a turbo four

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

All your choices are worse than what is available right now. So... why are you giving us grief about not being happy about it?

Is there some reason why they can't make an SS version of an already-4 cylinder car? I'm stumped as to why people claim the Camaro has to have a 4 cylinder.

I love how you ignore everything said about government regulations and gas mileage. You just will never understand things are changing rapidly and downsizing engines and cars is the only way it will be met. I am not giving you grief, you are living in denial. EPA regs call for average fuel economy to be 35.5 mpg by 2016. Guess what, that is just 3 years away.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Angrybird 12

I love how you ignore everything said about government regulations and gas mileage. You just will never understand things are changing rapidly and downsizing engines and cars is the only way it will be met. I am not giving you grief, you are living in denial. EPA regs call for average fuel economy to be 35.5 mpg by 2016. Guess what, that is just 3 years away.

I didn't ignore it, it's not relevant.

Does selling a 4 cylinder Camaro instead of a 4 cylinder Cruze (or insert any other non-muscle car here) improve fleet fuel economy? My guess is no.

But, by selling 4 cylinder muscle cars you do have a real good chance of messing up your muscle car sales. So we got that going for us...

[SoCalThug]

Yay a turbo! I cant wait! Eeeeeerr chhhhhhh.. Only mod ill need is a bov