Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2013, 10:34 AM   #205
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
If something is banned (or regulated out of existance) by the Government, it's gone. Regardless of consumer demand.

People buy Big Gulps and Happy Meals by the millions, but that didn't stop places in the US from banning them. Courts have ruled cities can ban foods, plastic bags, and sugar drinks. They've also said that the EPA can regulate Greenhouse Gasses. If the EPA decides that certain engines must be banned, they are gone.
Not sure you read the whole post. Why would they ban an engine just based on the number of cylinders? They may ban engines above a certain displacement (although I doubt they are even looking at it that way), but if a 4.9 L V8 is just as efficient as a 4.3 L V6 then why would the government car how many cylinders it has? As for local laws, if you don't like them you can move. It would take a lot of local governments banning V8s to influence GMs decision to get rid of the V8. Dealerships can sale V6s and I4s in those hypotetical local markets while the rest of us can buy what we want.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:49 AM   #206
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
Hey man, how's Gretchen? That's one baaad V6!
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:51 AM   #207
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
Not sure you read the whole post. Why would they ban an engine just based on the number of cylinders?

As for local laws, if you don't like them you can move. It would take a lot of local governments banning V8s to influence GMs decision to get rid of the V8. Dealerships can sale V6s and I4s in those hypotetical local markets while the rest of us can buy what we want.
I have a news flash for you, Government regulations often make no sense. They are written by career politicians (who were usually lawyers before politics) who have ZERO experience in the industries they write the regulations for.

I wasn't saying cities could ban certain engines, I said the EPA could. The EPA is part of the Federal Government. FYI, when something is banned on the Federal level, you cant just move to another city/State so you can buy it again.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 11:19 AM   #208
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 11,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
We can—actually, I'm sure we will—bicker about this for weeks. Please remember that offering a high-performance version of a 4-cylinder engine with forced induction does not require you to purchase it. This would be an option granted to those who want the unique styling of a Camaro above all else.

Start thinking outside of the Camaro-Mustang-Challenger rivalry. GM is winning this rivalry now, but GM doesn't have a product to compete with some of our low-displacement import competition. An Alpha Camaro will weigh less and therefore be a perfect fit for that market with the right pricing and engine options. Camaros will still be available in the traditional V6 and V8 arrangements for the long haul in order to compete with our traditional domestic rivals and to bring enthusiasts what we expect of our favorite car. Of course, not everyone is an enthusiast. Some of these people are just customers wanting something different, and I know a lot of people that want a cool car but don't care how much power it has. A version with a 4-cylinder turbo makes sense for them.

I did notice that a lot of arguments against any 4-cylinder turbo are coming from the V8 crowd. You guys are the heart and soul of high-performance GM drivers, but you are not the market for any 4-banger. Keep that in mind. If you want a 6thgen, then you'll be able to buy one with a V8, as usual. Think of the 4-cylinder model as a stepping stone to convert some ricer kids into real American performance machines. It starts with hot styling, and then they join Camaro5, and ultimately they're so enamored with how awesome Camaro enthusiasts are that they want to show up to a future Camaro5Fest with the V8 they've dreamed of owning since getting their 4-cylinder turbo. It's just something to consider.
Thanks for the above post....and the chance to "pour some more gas" onto the fire, so to speak...lol..

Some of the things you mention, even though on the surface may sound benign, speak to the reasons an I-4 should not be in the Camaro line-up...

This I-4 will, as you state, changes the image of the Mustang-Challenger rivalry...The very reason the Gen5 was built , and the image it was marketed as, will morph into a rivalry with low-cost, low-powered imports with a Gen6 I-4...Enticing the "ricer-crowd" to purchase I-4 Camaros will no doubt happen, and believe me they will get "riced-out", is the exact opposite of why many of us purchased a Camaro in the first place...The Camaro should never be a model for "ricing-out"...and when they inevitalbly are, v-8 and v-6 owners will be shaking their heads and thinking wtf...This is the "same" car I have?

They cannot and should not be both..."ricer" and "muscle"....The image of the car will be an embarrassment and deal-breaker for many, if not all, loyal Camaro customers....Those who want a car with the image of the Mustang-Challenger rivalry will not be able to ignore it's new "ricer" image when considering the Gen6...
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:13 PM   #209
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,056
Doing well. Have a few tuning issues to work out for the launch and I may have a good shot at a 10s run.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:16 PM   #210
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen View Post
I have a news flash for you, Government regulations often make no sense. They are written by career politicians (who were usually lawyers before politics) who have ZERO experience in the industries they write the regulations for.

I wasn't saying cities could ban certain engines, I said the EPA could. The EPA is part of the Federal Government. FYI, when something is banned on the Federal level, you cant just move to another city/State so you can buy it again.
Very familiar with how the gov. works. All your examples of silly bans were local governments. Again, why would EPA ban an engine based on the number of cylinders? What evidence is there that they look at that at all?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:45 PM   #211
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Just as you call bans on certain personal freedoms "silly bans", those people who are not car enthusiasts would call a ban on high performance engines the same thing. Captain's sig says it well (look into the actual quote he got his from). When they banned smoking in public places in the name of public safety, there wasn't an uproar because smokers are less than 10% of the population. So the bans stuck. What if they decided to ban "gas guzzlers" in the name of public safety? What percentage of the population would you consider to be car enthusiasts? It sure isn't anywhere near 10%....

I'm not saying they are planning on doing any bans, RIGHT NOW. But the fact is they can at any time they choose to. The Clean Air Act gives them the right to, and courts have upheld that law. And the types of people running the EPA right now are the ones with a history of making "silly bans" in the name of public safety.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:08 PM   #212
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_ View Post
I call BS on this one. How much experience do you have with boosted 6 and 4 cylinders? Again, you miss the power:weight ratio.

I read your posts, and you do make people think, but on this, I call BS.
You can call it anything you want, you're entitled to your own opinion... just not entitled to your own FACTS.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:12 PM   #213
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
It would be incredibly stupid for GM and Ford to ignore the fastest growing economies and populations on the planet, especially considering they are publicly traded companies with a responsibility to shareholders to pursue expansion opportunities.
Ayone with stock in a company that for any reason can have your stock sold off illegally by public servants to reimburse the unsecured creditors that make up their constituents is out of their mind. I'm amazed anyone owns any auto company stock anymore, but I guess I overestimated the intelligence of the average person.

So much dumbing down going on these days, I bet only 10% of the people in this forum even know what it is I am talking about.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:26 PM   #214
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
It's only fair to point out that there are a lot of people in China, and GM saw this as an opportunity to get into a market before a culture of buying cars became mainstream. As a result, GM has expanded into an untapped business market. It has nothing to do with Camaros. It has to do with expanding the sales end of a big business.
Did they still teach world history when you went to school, or did they already switch over to devote that time to hyping junk science about the atmosphere?

If you know anything about history and current events you will know that GM and Ford are playing with fire. Nothing exists to prevent the Chinese from one day deciding that they have amassed suffucient car manufucturing technology from the gullible and greedy Americans and simply tell them to leave the country or else. Then the state will take over and LOL at anyone who poured a lot of money in stock thinking there was great "growth opportunity".

Other than that, we have China harassing the shipping of our Ally Japan, so if something breaks out then, we might have to recall everyone and everything from China. China is allied with North Korea as well, and despite 4 years of january addresses that claimed we were stopping their Nuclear aspirations... well... test #3 of a more powerful miniaturized nuke (missile warhead type) went off the other day. What happens there is anyone's guess.

I would not be so quick to boast of the great business happening over there.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:29 PM   #215
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
Not sure you read the whole post. Why would they ban an engine just based on the number of cylinders?
How about for the same reason they think they can ban something explicitly protected from banning, based only on the number of rounds it holds?
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:36 PM   #216
trademaster
 
Drives: 06 Maserati gran sport, 12 z06
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit/NYC
Posts: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Ayone with stock in a company that for any reason can have your stock sold off illegally by public servants to reimburse the unsecured creditors that make up their constituents is out of their mind. I'm amazed anyone owns any auto company stock anymore, but I guess I overestimated the intelligence of the average person.

So much dumbing down going on these days, I bet only 10% of the people in this forum even know what it is I am talking about.
Quality sidestep there. Keep preachin' the gospel of those Open Market articles you read on the pooper.
trademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:38 PM   #217
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
Very familiar with how the gov. works. All your examples of silly bans were local governments. Again, why would EPA ban an engine based on the number of cylinders? What evidence is there that they look at that at all?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
You are apparently NOT familiar with how government works.

For example they don't have to BAN anything... just make it extremely expensive to own. What if they put a $5000 per cylinder tax on any car with more than 4 cylinders.

But that's beside the point of your qestion... the real answer is that they don't care how many cylinders a car has, it just has to meet some arbitrary standard set so high that it would be impossible to make a car meet the requirement if it had a V8. A "normal" V8 would be too large to fit in such a car. They would have to make a 1.2 liter V8 to fit in a car that passes the standard and that size V8 pretty much defeats the purpose of having a V8 in the first place.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:45 PM   #218
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Who needs the EPA?

They way things are going anyone with a V8 will be a pariah.

Don't believe me? Here's a copy of a foreboding article:



PITTSBURGH (Jan. 4) - In the latest in a string of vandalism carried out in the name of the Earth Liberation Front, members of the radical environmental group are claiming responsibility for a fire at a Pennsylvania auto dealership.

A posting on the group's Web site said the ``attack'' targeted SUVs in a fight ``to remove the profit motive from the killing of the natural environment.''

Jugs of gasoline were set ablaze under three vehicles, engulfing them and a nearby car in flames Wednesday at a dealership in Girard, about 110 miles north of Pittsburgh, FBI Special Agent Bob Rudge said. Three other vehicles also had jugs of gasoline set under them but failed to ignite.

``I have no reason to doubt that it's an individual who committed the acts on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front,'' Rudge said.

The FBI considers the Earth Liberation Front one of the nation's most prolific domestic terrorist organizations. It is thought to be responsible for the 1998 torching of a ski resort in Vail, Colo., an arson that caused $12 million in damage and is considered the most destructive act of eco-terrorism in U.S. history.

ELF is loosely organized. Anyone who carries out an action under the group's guidelines and claims responsibility as part of the organization is considered a member. Over the past year, its name has been attached to a string of vandalism in Pennsylvania.

Last month, the group's Web site said ELF members and cells from the Animal Liberation Front set a Nov. 26 fire at a mink farm in Erie. The fire destroyed a barn, but no animals or people were harmed.

The group also claimed responsibility for an Aug. 11 fire at an unoccupied forest research station near Warren and the torching in March of a construction crane at a bridge work site in Erie, Rudge said.

ELF's claims of responsibility typically come through its Web site, where managers say they serve only as a media conduit for the group. A manager who did not provide an identity said in an e-mail that the communique about Wednesday's fire came in anonymously, as do all reports of ELF attacks.

Rudge said that communique, posted on the Web site, appeared to be authentic because it included information that hadn't been made public.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:58 PM   #219
trademaster
 
Drives: 06 Maserati gran sport, 12 z06
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit/NYC
Posts: 691
First of all, that was over a decade ago in January of 2003. Second, how do the actions of a terrorist organization reflect, "the way things are going" ?
trademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:41 AM   #220
Lou_Dorchen
 
Lou_Dorchen's Avatar
 
Drives: Jeep
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tx
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
First of all, that was over a decade ago in January of 2003. Second, how do the actions of a terrorist organization reflect, "the way things are going" ?
Our current President broke bread at his home with a terrorist.

Again trying to not to get too political, but the current (though outgoing) Energy Secretary does not a own a car, he bicycles to work. He also openly advocates Americans paying the same price for gasoline as Europeans do. Sounds pretty radical to me, and certainly not mainstream.
__________________
'It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.' -Samuel Adams
Lou_Dorchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2013, 11:54 AM   #221
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 33,688
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65


This thread is beyond saving.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2000 Ford Ranger XLT Regular Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.