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 03-12-2013, 07:23 PM   #547
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYDLIFECRISIS View Post
Why would anyone want a 6 cylinder Camaro??!!

JK 6'ers, don't get all defensive!!
__________________
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 03-12-2013, 07:28 PM   #548
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 11,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYDLIFECRISIS View Post
Why would anyone want a 6 cylinder Camaro??!!

JK 6'ers, don't get all defensive!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
Stop it!...Take this where it belongs...The General Discussions...!!!

Don't ace me out as the Low IQ guy in this thread, please...lol
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 08:08 PM   #549
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
No one is bringing the Camaro to the Civic level. However, it does fit into a broad category of 2-door sporty vehicles that includes the following at a bare minimum:
  • Camaro
  • Mustang
  • Challenger
  • 370Z
  • Altima Coupe
  • BRZ
  • FR-S
  • Genesis Coupe
I thought the Code 130r was supposed to be GMs FRS/BRZ fighter? Why develop a redundant Camaro? I don't see how the Camaro could do both roles well. A cheap sporty car while being a mid priced, high performance model. There would have to be even more concessions made for either model to work on the same car.


American companies aren't going to take over the market by just playing hard at home. These non-American cars are on American soil selling to American buyers. What makes their cars worthy of our sales? GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have to develop global cars, and they're doing it. They also have to fight these cars as they are overseas so that they can make the same money they make here over there. Some people here will never buy American after bad experiences from the Big 3 back in the day. GM should recoup these lost sales by selling overseas and continuing to build undeniably awesome, well-crafted products.

The imports have a reputation for reliability and build quality that American cars do not have. American car companies should focus on building better, more reliable cars to sell overseas instead of forcing the Camaro to be something it shouldn't be. There is no problem in making cars to be sent to Europe and Asia but why change the Camaro? There are plenty of other cars GM could adapt to European styling. The Camaro is one car in the line up that people are attached to for a few specific reasons. Those being performance and aggressive styling. The car was already killed off once for not sticking to what worked, so why change it again when we just got it back? The Mustang never died so they can take a risk with it. Besides, who's to say that Europeans will accept the Camaro in great enough volumes to justify changing it?

The Camaro is not moving downscale. The next Camaro will keep the same awesomeness of the current Camaro, and it will keep it's satisfying V8 and V6 performance base. Let's just add something for those guys who would normally buy a sporty 4-cylinder. Some guys are going to put 26-inch rims on their cars, and we're all going to hate it together. Some people are going to prefer fuel economy to performance, and you don't have to like that either. Fortunately, this decision would be up to GM and not many of the participants in this thread. It is short-sighted to think that GM is going to avoid expanding its sales when the opportunity has clearly presented itself. As a publicly traded company in a mixed economy, GM owes its shareholders a good business case for the Camaro. Selling to enthusiasts is great, but GM also needs to make as much money as possible. It would be a good business decision to sell Camaros with as many easy-to-manufacture options as possible, and that includes a turbo-4. It will compete with all of the above cars both in the US and overseas.
I get that there have to be lower cost, entry level trims to the Camaro and that most people buy them but like I said, the Camaro is only part of the GM line up and is a niche car. If the next and future generations can keep up with the success of this generation, I see no logical reason to change the formula of the car.
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 08:17 PM   #550
The_Blur
Rock Chalk
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: Demon Super Sport
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,687
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
I see that you're an owner of a classic Chevelle. That's an awesome car. Certainly, a 4-banger of any car is not a likely vehicle for your garage. The car I'm suggesting is not for you or me. It's for the guy who wants a stylish vehicle, but doesn't care about performance the same way that you and I do. It's for the guy that respects the Camaro's shape, but would still rather have a Nissan or something with a small engine. Back in the day, Chevrolet probably argued about having different engines. Should the Camaro have a 427 and a 350 or just a 427? Today, we're doing the same thing with engines more in line with what the average customer will want. We are not average customers on this forum, so we are a poor indication of Camaro buyers. We are the die-hard enthusiasts.

Look at the price of a BRZ. It's already in the Camaro price range for significantly worse performance.

No one has confirmed the Code 130R as a production vehicle. It's a design concept. There is no redundancy.

I struggle to call any car with over 100k sales a niche. The Camaro is a mainstream production car with an opportunity to increase sales. Let's get some!

The Camaro was previously killed due to poor sales. It stuck to a formula for too long without any changes to keep up with the market. Let's avoid that this time.

Finally, the new cars coming out of GM have top marks in reliability. I don't need to hear that import supremacy garbage anymore. GM vehicles are superior in almost every category to similar imports.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 08:39 PM   #551
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
As long a the turbo-4 is in addition to, and not replacing or affecting the V6 price point, I'm fine with it being offered for those who really want to go that route. However, my concern, which has yet to be answered by anyone, is if that is possible. A turbo-4 would be at least as or somewhat more expensive than the V6. So, if it is introduced as a base model, either GM will have to "subsidize" it, or it will push up the price point of the entire lineup. Which is it? Or would it be offered as an extra-cost option, not a base model?




Believe me, I get the European angle, where as I understand, cars are often taxed heavily based on engine displacement, meaning a turbo-4 is actually significantly cheaper to purchase, unlike in the US. I understand the desire appeal to and sell to Europe, but they are walking a fine line....it still has to have (more) appeal in the US to succeed as well.

On further thought, the real place they may need to appeal to is China, India, or similar if they need a world car. (What buyers want, and what the regulations are there, I don't have a clue.) The European car market is in the tank and in decline. Shouldn't the global focus be concentrated on growing markets, not declining ones?
China taxes on displacement as well. Big time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Was saving it, but now's as good a time as any...Please don't kill "the goose that laid the Golden Egg"...lol...
The golden egg will wither unless it meets/enables CAFE standards and maintains the ability to sell in a world of every increasing fuel costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT View Post
Well, in the ATS, the turbo-4 is slotted below the V6 (the very same V6 that's in the current base-model Camaro). Not sure how they could turn around and market the turbo-4 as a premium upgrade in the Camaro... unless they bump up its hp to something like 350+. Assuming that they don't do that, yeah, I have to agree that it'll likely push up the cost of the entire lineup.
It probably won't be. But in the ATS, the 2.0T is a premium upgrade over the 2.5L NA 4 cyclinder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Don't know if you guys saw it, but the "CEO orders 15% diet" thread in this forum, one of the first things out of the gate..."Engineers say eliminating the V-6 for the 4cyl would save 200lbs..."...or something to that effect....(Just FYI, thought it might be relevant)...
Mass reduction enables improved drivability and city FE improvments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Hard to believe that. Take for instance the ATS weights:

2.5L RWD / Auto – (3315/ 1503)
2.0 Turbo RWD / Auto – (3373/ 1530)
2.0 Turbo RWD / Man – (3403/ 1543)
2.0 Turbo AWD / Auto – (3543 / 1607)
3.6L RWD / Auto – (3461/ 1570)
3.6L AWD / Auto – (3629/ 1646)


Thats less than 100 lbs difference between the rwd turbo and rwd V6. Sounds about right, b/c I find it hard to believe there is a 200 difference between the 3.6 V6 and the 2.0 turbo. Maybe if they compare the turbo to the new 4.3 V6...maybe??

You can't say that the extra lbs is removed from the chasis either, b/c GM would be dumb to use a weaker chasis to support the turbo 4, when the torque it produces isn't much less.

Edit: just read that part of the article. He was comparing V6 to I4. not a turbo 4.
Yep, Turbo alone weighs 20 pounds, plus intercooler, plus coolant. Adds up to the extra 100 pounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
I see that you're an owner of a classic Chevelle. That's an awesome car. Certainly, a 4-banger of any car is not a likely vehicle for your garage. The car I'm suggesting is not for you or me. It's for the guy who wants a stylish vehicle, but doesn't care about performance the same way that you and I do.

Look at the price of a BRZ. It's already in the Camaro price range for significantly worse performance.

No one has confirmed the Code 130R as a production vehicle. It's a design concept. There is no redundancy.

I struggle to call any car with over 100k sales a niche. The Camaro is a mainstream production car with an opportunity to increase sales. Let's get some!

The Camaro was previously killed due to poor sales. It stuck to a formula for too long without any changes to keep up with the market. Let's avoid that this time.

Finally, the new cars coming out of GM have top marks in reliability. I don't need to hear that import supremacy garbage anymore. GM vehicles are superior in almost every category to similar imports.
Camaro won't increase sales unless it can compete with a wider segment. It would need to be an all aroun car as well which would take a lot of Camaro out of it. That is a very tough balance.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 09:38 PM   #552
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead View Post
That's a very good point. So many people relate that name to a redneck trailer trash vehicle. I got it all the time in my SS and now even with my ZL1.
You know what?

I'd proudly own a "Redneck Trailer Trash Vehicle" rather than be caught dead in a "Greenneck Treehugger Trash Econobox".
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 09:45 PM   #553
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
So, if it is introduced as a base model, either GM will have to "subsidize" it, or it will push up the price point of the entire lineup. Which is it?
Aren't both choices really the same thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
In what way is the 4th gen too peformance oriented?
I could have sworn their sales suffered because they were neglected in the engineering department, not advertised, were long-in-the-tooth, they had playschool interiors, and management was obsessed with consolidating platforms, making a 2-car F-body platform a redheaded stepchild.

CAFE also played a hand in the decision as well...
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:06 PM   #554
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
I could have sworn their sales suffered because they were neglected in the engineering department, not advertised, were long-in-the-tooth, they had playschool interiors, and management was obsessed with consolidating platforms, making a 2-car F-body platform a redheaded stepchild.

CAFE also played a hand in the decision as well...
That's how I understood it.
I don't get why the F Body never got independent rear suspension. I've seen people swap Corvette IRS into LS1 F Bodies.
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:20 AM   #555
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
That's how I understood it.
I don't get why the F Body never got independent rear suspension. I've seen people swap Corvette IRS into LS1 F Bodies.
The pencil pushers despised the F-Body back then. IRS might have helped sales and make it harder for them to kill it. Back then there were all kinds of people who were involved with the program leaking stuff on the boards (early forum software).
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:31 AM   #556
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 4,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
The pencil pushers despised the F-Body back then. IRS might have helped sales and make it harder for them to kill it. Back then there were all kinds of people who were involved with the program leaking stuff on the boards (early forum software).
That doesn't surprise me but GM obviously had the wrong pencil pushers.
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 02:43 AM   #557
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
I'm going to have to go point-by-point and refute almost everything you said. Seeing as you have Mustang in your garage, that doesn't surprise me at all.

We could talk about all the cars you listed with poor build quality, but I'm not going to do that since you drive a Mustang. I could do the same thing with Ford products.
Please don't have the impression that I'm trying to start a Ford vs. GM fight or anything like that. Every concern/issue I have regarding the 6th gen Camaro, I have equal feelings and concerns for regarding the same thing happening with the next Mustang. And I agree Ford had plenty of either unreliable or completely forgettable or both offerings as well. And while I have a Mustang for now (along with an Oldsmobile), I really don't have any kind of brand loyalty one way or another, and I'm just as likely to consider a Camaro (particularly after a drive of an ATS last month) as I am a Mustang next time around in a few years. So I'm not trolling, I really do care and have an interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
You're correct that GM offered 4-cylinder cars. The marketing and production focus was not of 4-cylinder vehicles for any American manufacturer at the time. Until very recently, no domestic manufacturer took the compact segment seriously, resulting in poor build quality and mediocre amenities to sell to consumers compared to imports. Imports, mostly making their sales on small cars with 4-cylinder engines, capitalized on this trend and got a strong foothold on the US automotive economy. This goes back to my point that quality declined and caused imports to take over.
But again, the issue wasn't fuel economy, it was a lack of interest in improving the offerings that provided good fuel economy that was the problem. Those are two different things. And even if they were, I don't think its that relevant to this discussion anyway, as I still contend that there really isn't all that much fuel economy difference (perhaps a marginal improvement) between a turbo-4 and V6 of similar power in real world driving.

I guess I won't try to rehash my whole argument, since this is probably one we just won't agree on. All I'll add is that on surveys asking car buyers to rate attributes that are important to them, fuel economy is more often than not nearer the bottom of the list, not the top, even in 2008 when gas first spiked to $4. It is a factor, but more of a secondary factor, not a primary one. And for those who do want high fuel economy above almost all else, those buyers will never look at sports cars anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
Let's talk about the Subaru-Toyota lovechild. This car weighs only 2,700 lbs, but it is underpowered and costs about the same as a Camaro LT, which will smoke it.
Performance and sportiness can mean a lot of different things. Sure, in a straight line, the Camaro is way faster. But in terms of handling, and subjective measures, such as how the car feels and handles, balance, the steering, clutch and transmission...basically every driving metric other than power, the FR-S/BRZ has the upper hand. I've driven both.

The point I am trying to make with that, and my earlier post, is that the FR-S/BRZ twins and the Camaro are two very different cars, built on two very different platforms, meant to appeal to very different types of buyers. A small, lightweight sports car will do certain things that a larger platformed pony car like the Camaro (and to be inclusive, Mustang, Challenger, Challenger replacement, Genesis,...any pony car) will never be able to do simply because of its basic platform characteristics, and vice versa. You can't appeal to everyone with just one car/platform, and attempting to do so is the surest way to mediocrity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
Offering a "Diet Coke" Camaro will be affordable since Alpha is designed to handle pretty much any engine GM wants to put on it, and the cost of R&D has already been absorbed into it's production for the ATS. It's like building a car for free. All GM has to do now is profit. Even the enthusiasts win. GM isn't replacing any existing Camaro platform. The new LT1 will be in the next SS. The V6 will still be there. It's just a new addition to the family.
I'll repeat, I don't have an issue per se with the turbo-4 being offered to those who might want it as long as it doesn't take away the other choices. My concern is the possibility that it will push up the price of the V6 and V8 just to make room for itself in the family. I don't want what was considered standard one year, to be labelled "premium" and priced thousands of dollars higher for next year, and in my mind, that is what will most likely happen.

In short, I'm not worried that I'll be "forced" to buy the Turbo-4, as other engines will still be available, but I am worried that there will be a penalty for not doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Edit: just read that part of the article. He was comparing V6 to I4. not a turbo 4.
I think I just had a little stroke reading that. Turbo-4 had me upset enough, and now NA-4 has been thrown out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Aren't both choices really the same thing?
In practice, yes, probably.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.

Last edited by fielderLS3; 03-13-2013 at 02:55 AM.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:40 PM   #558
revychevy
 
revychevy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: St Louis mo.
Posts: 270
So now we are considering NA 4 cylinder? Why not EV? Toyota seems to sell a lot of them. We can position the Camaro as a Leaf/Prius competitor!
__________________
2SS RS bone stock for now...
revychevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 02:01 PM   #559
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 11,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
I don't think you can make the Mustang and Camaro global cars without losing the core aspects of what makes those cars great. They are American muscle cars. I would rather the Mustang and Camaro sell better here than change to possibly sell better somewhere else and lose their appeal to American and Canadian buyers.
Very well put...Probably one of the multi-million dollar questions for GM...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 03:16 PM   #560
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy View Post
So now we are considering NA 4 cylinder? Why not EV? Toyota seems to sell a lot of them. We can position the Camaro as a Leaf/Prius competitor!
They won't consider an N/A 4 for the Camaro...at least not the 6th gen. Don't think you have that to worry about.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger 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 04:52 AM.


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