[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by revychevy

What message do you think I'm sending? The one I'm trying to send is don't ruin this car. Don't make a crappy car to keep the V8 at a higher price point. (Like SRT) They might make the 4 the main car, the turbo 4 the SS and the only V8 a Zl1, or Z28.

The only message that matters is if car companies can't sell us govt mandated crap, they will fight back and exert more pressure than I ever could.

I can call my congressman all I want, but if I buy the crappy product anyway then they will say "see, they like it."

Money talks, and if mandated 50 mpg egg shaped electric hamster cars going beedow beedow beedow don't sell, then congressmen will get leaned on and laws will change.

Exactly! If enough people call their representatives/senators and also only buy V8s, then the law will change. I don't think we will get rid of CAFE, but I did write my senator and tell him that I think the rules for pickups need to change. In my opinion, how the pickup goes is how the V8 will go.

However, a 4 banger in the base Camaro doesn't mean it will be crappy.

[MikeT]

Originally Posted by Outlander

Back around 2010 Bob Lutz said GM's cost to build a V6 or V8 Camaro was almost the same. If you look to buy both engines as crate motors there is only about a $900 difference.

Yet there has been about $8k in price difference between the LS and SS.

I don't know where SS owners are laying down all these 5 second 0-60 times that justify the paying Chevy all that markup but my experience owning V8's has been that traffic only moves as fast as the Geo Metros and other beaters ahead of and boxing me in traffic.

The same could be said of virtually every car on the market for which there is a 'high end' or 'performance' version. BMW tacks on $12,000+ for an 'M' car. Ditto M-Benz and its AMG version. That's where the automakers make their money, not on entry-level stripper cars. Of course, there's a huge markup. That's how the game is played... $12K for parts and equipment that might cost the automaker a couple grand at the most.

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.

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Exactly! If enough people call their representatives/senators and also only buy V8s, then the law will change. I don't think we will get rid of CAFE, but I did write my senator and tell him that I think the rules for pickups need to change. In my opinion, how the pickup goes is how the V8 will go.

However, a 4 banger in the base Camaro doesn't mean it will be crappy.

This makes sense to me, I respect your ideas Gretchen your work with your bad ass twin turbo V6 inspired me to work on my V6. Unfortunately I lacked the knowledge and deep pockets to do what I wanted, and ended up buying the SS upgrade.

I truly hope a 4 cylinder Camaro doesn't end up an embarrassment. The iron Duke was and history has a way of repeating.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by revychevy

This makes sense to me, I respect your ideas Gretchen your work with your bad ass twin turbo V6 inspired me to work on my V6. Unfortunately I lacked the knowledge and deep pockets to do what I wanted, and ended up buying the SS upgrade.

I truly hope a 4 cylinder Camaro doesn't end up an embarrassment. The iron Duke was and history has a way of repeating.

As I'm sure you know, I am perfectly happy with smaller turbo cars. However, I really don't want to see the V8 go away. They make great truck engines (as do turbo diesels) and I can't imagine a Corvette or Camaro with out one as an option. I'll pester my Senator and Representatives so there is a large volume platform (trucks) for V8s just so we can get them in other vehicles at a reasonable cost. I'll also support GM as they try to traverse this minefield. I figure if we have GMs back (buy V8s, support fuel efficient trims) then they will keep trying to give us what we want for the higher trims and maybe even have some sales data to put pressure on Congress themselves. Again, just how I'm thinking about it.

[mikeyg36]

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.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Wow do you guys keep missing my point. I AM NOT DEFENDING GM IF THEY PUT A 4 CYLINDER IN THE CAMARO.

I am stating that they may and will likely have to do so to meet government regulations.

And you know that how? Because GM is talking about a 4 cylinder and you're inferring that they must be doing it because they "have to", or because you know that they've tried other applications and they haven't worked?

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.

[MikeT]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

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.

Well, obviously, the new 4-banger Mustang will be an interesting test case. If it sells as well as (or better than) the V6, then clearly there is a market for 4-cyl pony cars.

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?'

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by MikeT

Well, obviously, the new 4-banger Mustang will be an interesting test case. If it sells as well as (or better than) the V6, then clearly there is a market for 4-cyl pony cars.

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?'

To me the issue is: will the new generation of muscle/pony car actually perform worse than the previous generation? It's actually a possibility, and it should scare the shit out of an auto maker.

[Outlander]

Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl

Exactly! If enough people call their representatives/senators and also only buy V8s, then the law will change. I don't think we will get rid of CAFE, but I did write my senator and tell him that I think the rules for pickups need to change. In my opinion, how the pickup goes is how the V8 will go.

However, a 4 banger in the base Camaro doesn't mean it will be crappy.

CAFE has been around since 1975. Its not going anywhere.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by revychevy

What message do you think I'm sending? The one I'm trying to send is don't ruin this car. Don't make a crappy car to keep the V8 at a higher price point. (Like SRT) They might make the 4 the main car, the turbo 4 the SS and the only V8 a Zl1, or Z28.

And the point the "Pro-4 availability" people are trying to share with you is THIS:

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...

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

A 2.5L 4-cylinder 202 hp. Camaro weighing 3,300 lb. should run 0-60 in a tick 'r two over 7.0 seconds. Compare that time to a Prius...or a 4-cylinder Camry...but THIS Camaro would look-ride-handle-scoot like a CAMARO, only with phenomenal fuel efficiency...which is a VALID 21st Century necessity...

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?

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

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.

...that are TURBOCHARGED...the one I cite is the ATS Base engine, n/a...The Turbo-4 may become a middle-of-the-road version, a super light super-nimble Euro-inspired version (maybe like someone else is gonna build!)

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 totally "get it"...and I TOTALLY agree...but it may take a few 1000 4-cylinder Camaros to get a few 1000 LT4s...or there may NOT be an LT4 available...

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?

Being the current owner of, among others, a Stage1 AND an '87 Regal Turbo-T, I understand the beauty of low-tech AND high-tech...and I also understand the necessities AND complexities of 21st Century vehicle production...

[shine2013]

If it made some decent tq I'd consider buying one, but my heart is with the v8.

[revychevy]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

And the point the "Pro-4 availability" people are trying to share with you is THIS:

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 jversions...

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...

So you are advocating turning the Camaro into a Hamster car if it will save the nameplate?! We know what ways there are to increase mpg, and when mpg is your driving factor--- you get hamster car. You get Iron Duke. You think that I don't understand your point, but I do. Have the Camaro be the same as the other grocery getters only "sporty" then have a high end V8 version. But wait, GM already has a Corvette! And now an SS sedan. Why make a Camaro if it's just another Spark or Cobalt? You could apply your same logic to the Corvette but I don't see any takers...