[Jason@JacFab]

I have a buddy that used to work in the Cadillac parts department... Not sure if this goes across the board, but he once told me that GM had a 100% mark up on parts.

[ChicagoTommy]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

Im not sure why everyone thinks the 3.0TT is so much more expensive. If is is, they are not passing the extra cost onto the dealer's or the customers.
LGX- 4652.33 dealer cost
LGW-4995.00 dealer cost
Now , I know we could sit here and talk about "other" costs, turbo's, piping, fuel systems ect.. that can go both ways..But , long block to long block- the 3.0 is damn near the same price as the 3.6
And yes, it is wishful thinking, but not super far fetched... Well , maybe.. lol

Exactly, it's all the ancillaries that drive the cost up. That cost has to be passed on to the consumer. GM is already having a difficult time moving Alpha chassis cars, so adding another $1000 to the price is going to be a non-starter. Maybe they could get away with tossing the 3.0tt in the ATS/CTS, but that's a maybe. MSRP to MSRP a base 1SS is $3k higher than a Mustang and nearly $4k higher than a Challenger. It's the same with the base model cars. Mustang is $24835 base V6 (2018 pricing unavailable), Dodge is $26340, and a Camaro 1LS coupe lists for $26900! Obviously people are voting with their dollars, and it's not the Camaro they are choosing.

Cost aside, GM has a hard enough time getting people to take turbo cars. Enthusiasts know that turbos are AWESOME! It's the lay person that still has the 1980's perception of turbochargers. They think that they constantly break, are expensive to repair/maintain, and are laggy. We know that's not true anymore. However, even some members here complain of nonexistent lag (mostly throttle mapping and torque management)! It's exceptionally difficult and expensive to change perceptions, which is why I think the N/A 3.6 is here to stay until at least Gen 7.

[ChicagoTommy]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

Warranty pays 40% markup, no exceptions. Customer pay, sometimes 150+%

This is exactly why it pays to shop the large online GM part warehouses like GMPartsDirect et al. My local Caddy dealer straight up said they won't price match any of those guys, so I found another dealer who would. Really smart of them to lose a sale.

[ChicagoTommy]

Originally Posted by geoffchad

No way. Cost aside (the 3.0TT is extremely expensive by comparison) it's straight up too much power for a lot of drivers - and in some markets the base insurance on the vehicle would be higher, increasing the cost of ownership, which would hurt sales and residuals. That's one of the reasons the 4th gen Camaro died in 2002.

To put it in perspective in the UK, the BMW 318i comes with a 1.5L I3 with 136hp or the 320i with a 2.0L I4 with 184hp or the 330i with a 2.0L I4 with 252hp.

The same idea holds true in China as well, which is the market du jour - 200hp in a 3400lb car is FINE for a majority of drivers and PLENTY for those that live in cities and never drive fast anyway and are more interested in owning a BMW than having a BMW that's fast.

This is more relevant for the stable mates at Cadillac (even though the brand has exited the idea of taking on Europe and is just sticking to China) than the Camaro because globally a base engine with 260hp is pretty extreme and the Camaro isn't as global a vehicle - but saying a base engine should be 350hp or above actually risks "hairdresser" sales that want a styling car that's quick and sporty and don't want to be terrified when they put their foot to the floor.

For the ATS, dropping the 2.5L *was* the right move, but it actually did hurt sales as a LOT of people were plenty fine with 200hp and couldn't afford the higher-priced ATS variants. The Camaro could/would have the same problem - keeping cost down on the base model and having it be well equipped is REALLY important.

Thank you! I agree with about all of this!

Another big issue facing Camaro sales is the silly options. Can someone please tell me why I can't get heated seats in a base model car? I know GM would like for me to upgrade to a 2LT, but I don't want to spend $4595 (cost difference between 1LS and 2LT base prices) to get one option. I know they do it for ease of assembly, but a lot of other manufacturers offer heated seats as a sole option (usually around $100). Hell, if Kia can offer that, why can't GM? Heated seats and steering wheel are the cold weather package on a Challenger and that's only $495! So nearly $4k more in the Camaro for stuff I don't want! They need to take a page out of the Porsche playbook and allow more options and less packages. You can nearly double the price of a 911 if you wanted to with options. Heck, I was playing with their configurator and got the price of a Macan over $120k!

[geoffchad]

Originally Posted by ChicagoTommy

You can nearly double the price of a 911 if you wanted to with options. Heck, I was playing with their configurator and got the price of a Macan over $120k!

Mini cooper as well - I pushed one to $50k at one point and it really was a nice car with a lot of features, but I wanted so many options it'd have made sense to make option packages. There are extremes on both sides and GM just wants to offer like 3 options and 2 trims. It's stupid.

The real sad part is the assembly plant in MI doesn't make the seats, they all come in line sequenced for the car - there is ZERO functional reason why heated seats would need other hardware except for the dashboard assembly, dashboard wiring harness and cabin wiring - but as all cars now come with power windows and locks and many have power seats by default the harness doesn't change.

Offering more options and customizations for a premium on customers that WANT those options is a great way to build brand loyalty as well - and considering the additional hardware cost to add the heated package is a lot LESS than $500, it's a very profitable option. And on the Camaro's stable mates it's a separate option on it's own, but not Camaro. Stupid friggin marketing people trying to get people to jump to the next option group.

I use the common complaint that my ATS cannot be built today. I have the adaptive HID headlights which aim nicely around corners, a manual transmission, magnetic suspension, heads up display, illuminated door handles, and the morello red interior. Now that "premium performance" is the only way to get a LOT of those options, it de-contents the lower grades of ATS and keeps shifting nicer features up level (but price hasn't gone down on the lower trims) and they locked the powertrain on premium performance for some stupid reason to the V6 and slushbox.

Stupid. Friggin. Marketing.

[ChicagoTommy]

Originally Posted by geoffchad

Mini cooper as well - I pushed one to $50k at one point and it really was a nice car with a lot of features, but I wanted so many options it'd have made sense to make option packages. There are extremes on both sides and GM just wants to offer like 3 options and 2 trims. It's stupid.

The real sad part is the assembly plant in MI doesn't make the seats, they all come in line sequenced for the car - there is ZERO functional reason why heated seats would need other hardware except for the dashboard assembly, dashboard wiring harness and cabin wiring - but as all cars now come with power windows and locks and many have power seats by default the harness doesn't change.

Offering more options and customizations for a premium on customers that WANT those options is a great way to build brand loyalty as well - and considering the additional hardware cost to add the heated package is a lot LESS than $500, it's a very profitable option. And on the Camaro's stable mates it's a separate option on it's own, but not Camaro. Stupid friggin marketing people trying to get people to jump to the next option group.

I use the common complaint that my ATS cannot be built today. I have the adaptive HID headlights which aim nicely around corners, a manual transmission, magnetic suspension, heads up display, illuminated door handles, and the morello red interior. Now that "premium performance" is the only way to get a LOT of those options, it de-contents the lower grades of ATS and keeps shifting nicer features up level (but price hasn't gone down on the lower trims) and they locked the powertrain on premium performance for some stupid reason to the V6 and slushbox.

Stupid. Friggin. Marketing.

Well as far as the ATS goes, I'm sure the reason has to do with the take rate of the M6. I'm sure it's less than 1%, which is about the industry average. And the V6 is supposed to be the High Performance option since it now makes 50hp more than the LTG in stock form.

[ChicagoTommy]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

You guys make some damn great points!!!. I love reading all the different point of views on this. And I mostly agree with everything mentioned.
But , I still have to wonder, what is the answer? Will the 3.6 become the new base engine option and the I4 get bumped up? Can the current 3.6 handle an upgrade that would close the gap on a 70+ lb ft deficit? IDK..

Huh? 70lb ft deficit to what? The 5.0?

Camaro will remain with the 2.0t as the base engine, 3.6 as the medium performance option, and 6.2 as the SS. Like I've been saying, GM spent a lot of money on this, and there is zero business case to change it. Even though Mustang ditched their crappy V6, all that means is that both Mustang and Camaro compete with a base 4 cylinder engine. Why would GM have to change anything?

[geoffchad]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

Well, because their 4 cylinder offering is sitting at 310 hp and 350 ft lbs.. Neither I4 or 3.6 come close.

The problem is making the LTG competitive would mean boosting the poor little 2.0 into power/liter ranges that are NOT good for longevity from an OEM standpoint even with seriously good internals, and the LTG as it stands today still has new cars coming in with popped pistons (the EB Mustang does too, to be fair).

So GM is stuck needing to push the 2.0T to where it won't survive or push the V6 into higher RPM territory which would hurt torque even more. The only solution would be a NEW engine which takes a while to certify for emissions, validate, get approvals on, set up parts supply chains and inventory management etc etc. A 2.3L or 2.5L boosted Camaro might happen for Camaro 7, but they're too deep into production to make power train changes till the next model year.

Originally Posted by ChicagoTommy

Well as far as the ATS goes, I'm sure the reason has to do with the take rate of the M6. I'm sure it's less than 1%

No clue. I've seen conflicting reports and year over year it hasn't sustained well, but a bunch were sold in 2013 by early adopters. Fun filled fact, the car with the highest % manual transmission take rate for GM for over the past decade has NOT been the Camaro or the Corvette. It was specifically the CTS-V Wagon (though all CTS Wagons regardless of engine made up only 0.5% of 2nd gen CTS (coupe/sedan/wagon) sales).

[b0bsaget007]

I wouldn't mind a 2.5 turbo as a base option. But, the way I would do it would be a 2.5 V6 with reverse flow heads and a single twin-scroll turbo, while also having direct injection and cylinder deactivation like the LGX. 350 bhp and 350 lb-ft would be great, and it could be made well enough to be the only LT model engine, completely replacing the LTG and LGX.

[ChicagoTommy]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

You guys may be right.... But, I just don't see it looking like this.. Well, I don't want to see it looking like this....

.................................................H P ....TQ
2018+ 4 cylinder Mustang .....310 ....350
2016-21 4 cylinder Camaro ...275.... 294
2016-21 6 cylinder Camaro .. 335 ....284

Even if you give the typical GM 10-25 HP/TQ upgrade, its just not enough. (besides, ford will be doing the same exact thing, so its irrelevant ) It dwarfs the 3.6 by 66 TQ, and almost matches the HP. I will throw maybe 10hp or tq out of the window for the marginal weight difference's...

Damn, I didn't realize the EBM had that much torque! Must be that extra .3 liters!

[Jason@JacFab]

Originally Posted by ChicagoTommy

Damn, I didn't realize the EBM had that much torque! Must be that extra .3 liters!

Hence... 2.3 stroker kit

[geoffchad]

Originally Posted by ChicagoTommy

Damn, I didn't realize the EBM had that much torque! Must be that extra .3 liters!

Right!? It always blew my mind - it sounds like only an extra 15% of volume would't make *that* much difference, but in straight "bump" fashion, that'd put the 272hp/295tq LTG to 313hp/340tq - but you'll get more than that because you could easily spin a better A/R wheel up faster and you'll have a "tidal wave" of torque.

Originally Posted by cooper9165

besides, ford will be doing the same exact thing, so its irrelevant ) It dwarfs the 3.6 by 66 TQ, and almost matches the HP. I will throw maybe 10hp or tq out of the window for the marginal weight difference's...

Ford may be pushing the engine as hard as they are willing to go, knowing that the V6 is going away and it's doing double duty - there may be no power bumps till there's a mid cycle refresh or next generation Mustang.

That said you're 100% correct. The 2.3L EB has a ton more torque then either Camaro and splits down the middle on power. In this case price will be king and all the rags are gonna go nuts which way to compare it.

[show7ime]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

That is a TRUE. But, the mid-engine Vette is coming, and it will change that car, allowing more room for Camaro performance.

Honestly, ... We all know GM is not going to let the mustang beat the camaro in all trim levels.. The 18'GT , and 18SS are dead locked now. And the base engine 18' Stang destroy's the TWO lower trim 18' camaro offerings by GM.
The 19 refresh will most likely address all trim levels...Well, it better anyway.
I still think, they cut an engine option, and entry level car should be detuned 3.0TT... Talk about sales.. Who would buy a base stang 4-cylinder over, a base camaro 3.0TT ?

Who would buy? A person who prefers Mustangs over Camaros perhaps?

[Dustya]

I wonder how much harder they are pushing it and how much room there is for tuning the stock turbo further. If ford is pushing more just by using a more aggressive tune that leaves less to be desired for tuning it stock. Time will tell and GM will answer or ride with what they have. Good read and conversation!