03-10-2013, 12:55 AM | #463 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
Which bottle have you been in tonight? The good stuff, I assume.... If we took the number of cylinders out of the equation...and asked: Who would want a 270hp/270tq, 33mpg, 3300lb Camaro (guess based on ATS Caddy)? I think the responding posts would be quite different. It just goes to show the power of perception and our natural tendency to attach positive or negative feelings to an inanimate object. |
|
03-10-2013, 01:15 AM | #464 | |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
|
Quote:
Ironically, the cost to mod a V8 go that fast is less than the stock price of that car unmodified, which sort of proves my point that all these things that CAFE is forcing onto us will cost a heap of money just to maintain the performance status quo. |
|
03-10-2013, 01:20 AM | #465 | |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
|
Quote:
|
|
03-10-2013, 09:43 AM | #466 | |
Drives: 2021 1LE Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N'Awlinz
Posts: 6,315
|
Quote:
tramtwo posted this on the go |
|
03-10-2013, 10:26 AM | #467 | |
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,466
|
Quote:
....As an inanimate object, an engineering feat and marvel, for sure...if we only had to deal with a CAD drawing or a blue-print... ...But I think the reality of it all will be a sight to see... Heard it several times..."Perception is Reality"....If it had nothing to do with the Camaro, which we all hold dear, I couldn't care less... As a Chevy customer, and purchaser of a great car, I think a concern of it's future development and perception, is more than just about an inanimate object.... |
|
03-10-2013, 01:11 PM | #468 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
Rather - the engine.....a proposed base-model engine, no-less....I can't help but roll my eyes a little at the fear and trepidation over the mere proposal of a 4 cylinder base engine. One that, when the weight of the future car is considered (guessing 3300 from ATS)...will perform just as well, if not better, than our current V6 model. Furthermore...its a model that so few of us would end up buying, anyways - it would serve the general public. But.....no right/wrong here...not yet, anyways. It's interesting to read the varying opinions and thoughts of everyone here. It'll be even more interesting to see how this all plays out. |
|
03-10-2013, 01:40 PM | #469 | |
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0 Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
|
Quote:
Furthermore, you'll never convince me that a turbo 4 will be anything more than roughly equally efficient as a V6, but for more money with an extra possible failure mode down the road. And if they offer both turbo 4 and V6, you'll never convince me that they won't raise the price of the V6 to make room for a more expensive turbo 4 beneath it. PS...thanks for getting us back on topic...this was falling apart into a "complain about logistics of forum" thread for a while there.
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive." . 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon) |
|
03-10-2013, 01:44 PM | #470 |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,215
|
Repeat warning - The Camaro has already had a 4 cylinder option. The Camaro has already had a crappy 145 HP base V8 engine and the optional engine went way up to 165. If there is a 4 cylinder so be it.
GM already learned the lesson of putting the 3.0 L V6 in a few cars and it was not well received. But the reason it wasn't well received you may ask? No better FE in the real world than the 3.6 L V6 which offered much better driveability. If there is a 4 cyclinder then it will have to deliver real world FE noticeably better than a V6. If not it will bomb. But I maintain there is room for a stylish RWD coupe with a 270 HP 4 cylinder engine AS LONG AS GM FIXES ALL THE KNOWN FAULTS OF THE CURRENT CAR. That means great visibility that isn't sacrificed for styling. Great trunk space and liftover that isn't compromised for styling and interior features and ergonomics that aren't sacrifice for $$$. Rember why the 2002 model died? Anyone? Bueller? The base model sold like crap. It had a horrid V6 option. No trunk. It had horrid ergonomics and ingress/egress was maybe the worst thing since the C4 Corvette. What it had was T-tops and a decent V8 which just like today's car makes a lot of the compromises worth it. If you don't have a GREAT base model the guys that think the Camaro is only a V8 will feel like you did around 2004.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
03-10-2013, 01:49 PM | #471 | |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
03-10-2013, 02:08 PM | #472 |
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,466
|
I hope they continue the V-6 (for the sake of the brand)....I really just can't see all the current V-6 enthusiasts purchasing a turbo-4 for many of the reasons mentioned above, driveability, hp mods, even "sound" (gulp!...lol)...Just sayin', I-4 turbo, even though it's numbers may be comparable, and V-8 only options may end up with fewer Camaro purchasers over-all, not more....
|
03-10-2013, 02:16 PM | #473 | ||
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
2.5 I4 (202 hp)...3315 lbs...22/33 mpg 2.0 T4 (272 hp)...3373 lbs...20/30 mpg 3.6 V6 (321 hp)...3461 lbs...18/26 mpg Now - it is worth pointing out that the heavier V6 Camaro 2LS (designed expressly for maximizing fuel economy) has a mpg rating of 19/30. I don't know why there's such a large difference. But IMO...that could be taken to mean that Cadillac didn't squeeze as many miles per gallon out as they could have being luxury oriented, and that their V6 model is supposed to be performance, while ours (Camaro) is more for economy. Perhaps then, the 6th-gen Camaro (using the same engines and similar weights) COULD get 2-3mpg higher than a similarly-equipped ATS? All speculation at this point - but as #3 pointed out, I think it's very clear that the tried-and-true GM 2.0L turbo 4 is more efficient than the high performance 3.6L V6. By the way....where did this idea that the V6 would disappear come from? In my dreams...I see a Turbo 4 LS, V6 LTs, and V8-powered SSs, Z28s, and ZL1s...If the current car was a little more aerodynamic and not as heavy, it might have already had a Turbo 4....But it wasn't designed for this option...the Alpha platform was. Quote:
The only point I think I might argue, 3...is that I think the design is what sells this 5th-generation car...if some compromises (stress "some") in visibility, or convenience are needed to achieve another awesome look...then that is a worth-while trade-off, imo. |
||
03-10-2013, 02:31 PM | #474 | |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
Design is what sells this car, I fully agree. But it is also the limitations of that same design that keeps people from buying it as well. I hope the Camaro always has style and I suspect it will. But a great car has both. GM has a trend going that sacrifices some usability for style. CTS Coupe is an example of that. Looks awesome, but there are sooooooo many compromises.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
03-10-2013, 02:40 PM | #475 | |
Hail to the King baby!
Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,215
|
Quote:
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley
|
|
03-10-2013, 03:00 PM | #476 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
Luckily Tom Peters is darn near a genius with design - and I'm confident they'll address as much of the convenience stuff as they can without loosing any of the Camaro's visual potency. I look at the new Corvette and find hope. Does it? I checked the fuel efficiency tab under ATS, and couldn't find anything that said 22/32? Where'd you see it? |
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|