[DenverTaco07]

"Folding hardtops aren’t dead—Chevrolet is expected to build a retractable hardtop version of the Camaro beginning in 2016, for instance—but they’ll likely become more of a niche segment of the market."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news...-a-passing-fad



this is the second article i've come across saying retractable hardtop - i know doesn't really mean anything, but is more cause for speculation i suppose.

[Kleeeb]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

"Folding hardtops aren’t dead—Chevrolet is expected to build a retractable hardtop version of the Camaro beginning in 2016, for instance—but they’ll likely become more of a niche segment of the market."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news...-a-passing-fad



this is the second article i've come across saying retractable hardtop - i know doesn't really mean anything, but is more cause for speculation i suppose.

Woo! If I guessed right with a hardtop convertible I'll be so happy! Woop!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PoorMansCamaro]

I just hope they replace those huge effing side mirrors. freaking dumbo looking.

[dorfmac]

Originally Posted by benanderson89

Lets also not forget fuel economy. Although that wont be much of an issue in the USA with Gas prices only just now creeping up to around $4 a gallon, in the EU where prices are a minimum of $7.90 and can go as high as $10 a gallon, the fuel sipping capabilities of having two fewer cylinders would be the deal breaker.

It's expected that some places in the US will see gas at 2.50 in the coming months. At least here in Baltimore, prices have dropped to the high 2's after being above 4 just a year or two ago.

A retractable hard top would be amazing. Probably hated by the purists, but I would definitely be part of that niche segment that would prefer the hardtop. As someone who has been less than impressed with the next-gen based on what we know so far, a hardtop would flip my attitude for sure.

[GroundhogSS]

A hardtop convertible would be nice but I would expect a large weight penalty and a higher cost than a soft top. I would be satisfied with the soft, and doubt they would build both.

[MikesZ]

Originally Posted by MikeT

Does GM have a 300+ hp turbo 4? They could make one I suppose, but I don't think we've seen any sign of that yet.

If a turbo 4 shows up, I'd put my money on the 270-hp unit from the ATS.

It does raise questions, though, because Ford's Ecoboost supposedly puts out 310 hp. If GM chooses to play that game, can they do so with a 40 hp deficit to the Mustang? I mean, sure, they CAN, but would they? I guess it's possible if the turbo 4 is the base, entry-level Camaro, but even that is questionable since the base (V6) Mustang is at 300 hp.

I guess my point is this: Does GM really want ANY '16 Camaro out there that is less powerful that the lower-trim Mustangs? Maybe GM will just say, 'Screw it, we're going to top the Mustang across the board" (e.g., base NA V6, mid-range twin-turbo V6, top-end V8s).

FWIW, MotorTrend just concluded their long-term test with an ATS sedan, and raved about the T4 motor, even preferring it to the V6 ATS. GM's version of the T4 will probably be tuned higher for Camaro. Hopefully it will do better than the 19 MPG recently reported in Car And Driver's review of the T4 'Stang.

[benanderson89]

Originally Posted by MikesZ

FWIW, MotorTrend just concluded their long-term test with an ATS sedan, and raved about the T4 motor, even preferring it to the V6 ATS. GM's version of the T4 will probably be tuned higher for Camaro. Hopefully it will do better than the 19 MPG recently reported in Car And Driver's review of the T4 'Stang.

I thought the 4-pot I'm currently driving was uneconomical at around 27mpg combined with my foot pinned to the floor, but 19???
That is biblically poor for a 4-pot.
19mpg is what people get out of an Aston Martin V8 Vantage FFS.

Either C&D just kept their foot to the floor, or Ford screwed up somewhere.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by benanderson89

I thought the 4-pot I'm currently driving was uneconomical at around 27mpg combined with my foot pinned to the floor, but 19???
That is biblically poor for a 4-pot.
19mpg is what people get out of an Aston Martin V8 Vantage FFS.

Either C&D just kept their foot to the floor, or Ford screwed up somewhere.

I think some numbers are being provided incorrectly, at least from what Ford reports.

Mustang GT 16 city/25 hwy/19 combined mpg

Mustang Ecoboost 21 city/32 hwy/25 combined mpg

[Revo1]

Just waiting patiently for confirmation of T/targa tops...


ppppppleeeez.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by MikesZ

FWIW, MotorTrend just concluded their long-term test with an ATS sedan, and raved about the T4 motor, even preferring it to the V6 ATS. GM's version of the T4 will probably be tuned higher for Camaro. Hopefully it will do better than the 19 MPG recently reported in Car And Driver's review of the T4 'Stang.

GM should go:

2.4 or 2.5L Turbo 4 (they'd have to slap a TC on one of their current engines) at ~310 - 330HP
LF3 at 420 HP
LT1 at 460 HP
LT4 at ~650 HP

but probably not.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

GM should go:

2.4 or 2.5L Turbo 4 (they'd have to slap a TC on one of their current engines) at ~310 - 330HP
LF3 at 420 HP
LT1 at 460 HP
LT4 at ~650 HP

but probably not.

Why bother with the LF3? The size, weight, power and mileage would be too close to the LT1. There is no benefit to having the LF3 in the line up.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Why bother with the LF3? The size, weight, power and mileage would be too close to the LT1. There is no benefit to having the LF3 in the line up.

What about the MPG on LF3? I'm honestly asking since IDK (oh...i see MPG close already...ok)

Also, I think the benefit would be for those that want an NA V8 to Mod, vs a V6 that already boosted, or just want that V8 sound. You know I love the GT-R, it is an amazing car, but when I see one on the road and hear it, I just don't get that same response then when I hear a V8.

anyway, I don't know enough about these things, so you may absolutely be right on.

[PYROLYSIS]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Why bother with the LF3? The size, weight, power and mileage would be too close to the LT1. There is no benefit to having the LF3 in the line up.

I agree but it would be something cool and different.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

What about the MPG on LF3? I'm honestly asking since IDK (oh...i see MPG close already...ok)

Also, I think the benefit would be for those that want an NA V8 to Mod, vs a V6 that already boosted, or just want that V8 sound. You know I love the GT-R, it is an amazing car, but when I see one on the road and hear it, I just don't get that same response then when I hear a V8.

anyway, I don't know enough about these things, so you may absolutely be right on.

Check the mileage on the CTS V-sport. I think it's 23 highway. LS3 in my SS is 21. GG Tax on the SS.

So the turbo offers some benefit but only a couple.