03-25-2014, 01:41 PM | #1037 | |
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06 Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,129
|
Quote:
However, a 4 banger in the base Camaro doesn't mean it will be crappy.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread |
|
03-25-2014, 01:46 PM | #1038 | |
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6 Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
The top-of-the-line buyers subsidize the entry-level folks. You want a deal on a new car, buy a stripped entry-level car. You want a big discount on top-of-the-line car, buy used... or hope for a fire-sale deal on a car that's been sitting on the lot for months or years. |
|
03-25-2014, 02:36 PM | #1039 | |
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
|
Quote:
I truly hope a 4 cylinder Camaro doesn't end up an embarrassment. The iron Duke was and history has a way of repeating.
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
|
|
03-25-2014, 03:00 PM | #1040 | |
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06 Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,129
|
Quote:
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread |
|
03-25-2014, 03:24 PM | #1041 |
Drives: 2015 Z/28 #533 Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NY
Posts: 6,731
|
Writing to any congressman is a complete waste of time unless you're lining their pockets. You'll just get the same BS answer everytime saying that they "respect" your opinion, but won't do anything about it. Without getting to political I will say this, if you don't like these regulations you know which party to vote for in 2014 and 2016. We had a chance to change these BS laws in 2012, but we blew it.
|
03-25-2014, 06:27 PM | #1042 | |
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
|
Quote:
Because the US auto industry has had to deal with "harsh" regulations before, and they didn't exactly respond to them well. And they lost sales to foreign companies because of it. And we all lost access to buying cars we wanted. And, years later, it turned out US auto companies actually could make high HP engines that met regulations, they just didn't get ahead of things. You may blame it on how long it takes to re-engineer things, I'm going to blame it on auto manufacturers not wanting to change until they were forced to by Mr. Market. You can also put all the blame on the government on those past issues, but at least some of it has to come down to a lack of foresight on the part of the manufacturers. And the lack of foresight may be repeating because, as I said at the beginning of this thread, there is no known market for a 4 cylinder Camaro. There is a market for 4 cylinder sporty compacts, but not 4 cylinder muscle/pony cars. We've been there, we know this. |
|
03-25-2014, 07:03 PM | #1043 | |
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6 Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
I personally don't really care one way or the other. I doubt I would ever consider a 4-cyl Camaro... UNLESS we're talking about a Camaro that scales down to 9/10 its current size/weight. Then all bets are off. Even if Camaro doesn't go on any kind of diet, a 280+ hp turbo 4 wouldn't be embarrassment. I probably wouldn't want one, but it wouldn't be a disgrace to the Camaro name. On the other hand, some sort of 'budget 4,' like the base engine in the ATS actually would be embarrassing. Not to say that it would be this generation's 'Iron Duke,' but it would have a lot of people (including me) saying, 'Geez, if they have to do THAT, why bother?' |
|
03-25-2014, 07:21 PM | #1044 | |
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
|
Quote:
|
|
03-26-2014, 12:22 AM | #1045 | |
Account Suspended
|
Quote:
|
|
03-26-2014, 11:59 AM | #1046 | |
Downright Upright
Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,145
|
Quote:
It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that, without a fuel-sipper version(s) of the Camaro (available for those who want the "look" but don't wanna kick sand in the faces of everyone they see), there may NOT be a Camaro left to "ruin" (your word)! If "life is all about choices", and it takes some saleable sippers to carve the way for the monster powered versions YOU and I may want to buy, what's the problem?! You and I get what WE want...and so do THEY. And YOU and I may have to thank THEM for the chance to get our LT1-LT4-TTV6 versions... A 2.5L 4-cylinder 202 hp. Camaro weighing 3,300 lb. should run 0-60 in a tick 'r three over 7.0 seconds. Compare that time to a Prius...or a 4-cylinder Camry...or a 2010 Camaro LS/LT...but THIS Camaro would look-ride-handle-scoot like a CAMARO, only with phenomenal fuel efficiency...which is a VALID 21st Century necessity... EDIT: There's essentially TWO simple ways to increase fuel efficiency: 1) Drop engine size/power; and 2) Drop weight and/or size. Dropping weight and a little size will happen with the Alpha-based Gen-6. Which also leaves 1) in play... The weight/size side of the equation has limitations: if you're gonna build a platform that can handle 500+ hp engines, you can only reduce size sooo much. And we all know that using more exotic materials to build with has (at the moment) severe co$t containment issues. Carbon fibre and titanium and magnesium and aluminum and ultra-high strength steel are all more expensive than equivalent sheet metal, and a $35,000 Base Camaro is NOT what anyone wants to see, right? So, as new technologies and manufacturing processes mature to the point where these now-exotic and -expensive compounds can be integrated into vehicle manufacturing at co$t$ that don't have us mortgaging our homes, just to buy a new car... But we have to get to THERE...from HERE... Even with 8-speed Automatics and 7-Speed Manuals, other rationalizations MUST be considered, to maintain the sustainability of EVERY vehicle made and sold. To ignore these "realities" will lead to a repeat of 2002 for the Camaro... Last edited by LOWDOWN; 03-26-2014 at 12:23 PM. |
|
03-26-2014, 12:11 PM | #1047 | |
Buick 455 Fan
Drives: 1970 Buick, 2012 1SS LS3 Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 5,957
|
Quote:
That's actually a wimpy 4 cylinder. GM's sold 2.0L 4 cylinders in the 21st century that made 145 bhp per liter, and they installed them the correct way, not transverse, so aside from the sound, no clue that the engine wasn't a mild V8, from the driver's seat. I think the bottom line is this- a lot of people want that 8 cylinder link to glory days, and they will fight tooth and nail for it so they can identify with the macho days of yore. I've owned V8s for over twenty years that make the LS3's displacement look downright cute. I like V8s but I like them for what they do, not because of their mystical V configured pattern of 8 cylinders. And today we can make a 4 cylinder with a nice fat powerband and plenty of torque down low. But will we?
__________________
|
|
03-26-2014, 12:34 PM | #1048 | |
Downright Upright
Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,145
|
Quote:
|
|
03-26-2014, 02:00 PM | #1049 |
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Memphis
Posts: 378
|
If it made some decent tq I'd consider buying one, but my heart is with the v8.
|
03-26-2014, 06:10 PM | #1050 | |
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
|
Quote:
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|