6th Gen Chevrolet Camaro: 2017 ZL1, Z/28

[Aquarelle]

True, but GTP is just as much fun on a former workstation as it would be on the best avaialbe equipment. (mainly because it doesn't have Flash everywhere making the pages take two hours to load).

What, exactly, is your point?

Look, White. Let's have a real talk for a moment - and please, actually respond to me properly without flying off on a tangent.

I agree with you that an I4 Camaro is a bit wrong as a ridiculous motor is the only thing it has going for it - you can't use a small motor in a hulk of a chassis, it simply doesn't work.

But this bizarre crusade you have is ridiculous - surely you can see how backwards this mindset is - surely there must be a hint when almost everyone disagrees with you and are trying to help you open your mind to the possibilities so you don't go through life despising the world all because it's not the same as a time period you weren't even alive to experience!

Please, I implore you to go and test drive some other cars - please join us in the real world where litres aren't the only measure of a cars worth - I BEG OF YOU

 

[Tornado]

I miss the old days when computers used to be owned by enthusiasts. They were highly tuned machines that you would maintain and use for serious stuff. Now they're just tools for the current generation to dick around and waste time on forums and Facebook talking about dumb crap. I asked someone today what kind of processor they had in their computer and they said this:

This is why I hate that computers are designed for the current generation. It's all dumb laptops instead of a much better desktop that's way more powerful. The people I know would laugh at you for saying you'd rather have a laptop than a big powerful custom desktop that you can crank up the power on. Nobody knows if they have a dual, quad, or 8 core processor (I think every computer should have an 8 core processor, they're always the best every time), and nobody knows about what graphics card they have. People don't even know the difference between memory and hard drives these days.

People just buy whatever computer looks cool, and they only care about touch screens and stupid crap like that, and the computers are constantly getting weighed down with these dumb factory installed features like webcams and stupid media stuff and touch screens, so the laptops get way worse battery life. Instead of cutting bloatware they just constantly make less powerful computers so they can advertise their battery life so dumb liberals can buy a computer that says "I'm a mother earth hero!" nobody makes a proper lightweight OS anymore. I could build my own desktop but what if I need a laptop for work or something? If nobody resists the current generation it's all going to be these dumb underpowered laptops that you can't do any real fun stuff with.

The current generation is so dumb. They're all a bunch of idiots, liberals, and metrosexuals, and they treat their computers like appliances.

What does it mean that I'm so obstinate that I spend obnoxious money to get a compromised middle ground every time I buy a new computer?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

True, but GTP is just as much fun on a former workstation as it would be on the best avaialbe equipment. (mainly because it doesn't have Flash everywhere making the pages take two hours to load).

You might want to check your entire system and your internet provider...most people have moved on from Dial Up

 

[White & Nerdy]

People were saying that computers can be just as fun to use as a car is to drive. My point is, it's not the act of using a computer that's the source of fun in this case, it's what you do with it, and the hardware only has to be "good enough".

@LMSCorvetteGT2 So have I, but my DSL doesn't really work as often as I'd like.

 

[TB]

My point is, it's not the act of using a computer that's the source of fun in this case, it's what you do with it, and the hardware only has to be "good enough".

And yet a Core 2 Duo (read: I4) isn't good enough, you have to have the much better i7 477k (read: honking V8)?

I'll give you that the Camaro or Mustang sporting a 4 cylinder isn't right but that in no way means ALL 4 cylinder engines are worthless. Not all cars need 300+ horsepower. Not all cars need to hit 60 in under 5 seconds. Not all cars need to be manuals. Not all cars need to be rear wheel drive. Some, sure. Keeps things interesting, but absolutely not all.

 

[BKGlover]

Two questions, and I'm expecting polar opposite answers for both:

1) How is a Turbo-I4 wrong? We are in the future, the Iron Duke is no longer produced. Does it SOUND right? No, but no one said it was replacing anything, AFAIK, and the V8 isn't going anywhere. Besides, if it rivals the EcoBoost engines, the people buying them will either be cruising comfortably or flooring the thing. You'd be surprised how far to extremes EB drivers can be.

2) What do we think the next Camaro should look like? None of the renders or photos work, so lets start frankensteining something.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

A sort of answer to @BKGlover
I think that the turbo 4's success (or possible lack thereof) will ultimately be dictated by the Ecoboost. If people buy Ecoboost Mustangs, GM will almost certainly put one into a Camaro. The key is that if a 4 is offered, it will have to hit the mpg numbers that GM advertises for it (something that Ecoboosts, especially 3.5s, often struggle to do).

As for making my own Camaro (basing it off a throwback since that is the main rumor going around), I'd make it look like a second gen from the firewall back and maybe try to use a fourth gen nose (or some slightly modified version of it).

 

[eSZee]

Two questions, and I'm expecting polar opposite answers for both:

1) How is a Turbo-I4 wrong? We are in the future, the Iron Duke is no longer produced. Does it SOUND right? No, but no one said it was replacing anything, AFAIK, and the V8 isn't going anywhere. Besides, if it rivals the EcoBoost engines, the people buying them will either be cruising comfortably or flooring the thing. You'd be surprised how far to extremes EB drivers can be.

Because not v8. Because not traditional. Because unpatriotic. Because un'murrican.
It mostly comes down to people being closed minded.

 

[Tornado]

The same proportions the car had after the first generation would be nice, but laid out more sensibly than the squished balloon the final one was. Something resembling the interior from the early second gen would be nice if they wanted a clear, clean design to work from while still having a visual link. Wrap around rear window (which would be a pleasing change from the pillbox the current car is) that the car had for most of its life. Doesn't need to be a hatch, but pretty much anything would be better than this:

Beyond that, so long as it doesn't have the pig snout GM puts on half of their cars since 2008 or so, or the Xeriouxly Forxed lines the Corvette was forced to deal with, I'm not too worried.





Failing that, even a continuation of the current car's styling but toned down so it actually looks like a car rather than a parody would be good. The different proportions alluded to in the OP would help with that by itself. Though they'd need to change the taillights so it didn't look even more like a Prelude. Or, hell. Just make it look like a Prelude. Preludes were nice.

 

[BKGlover]

Just looked at pics of the different generations. The biggest problem with these retro designs is that the sharp, clean lines of then cannot be replicated now, be it due to government intervention such as safety requirements or the unrepentant march of technology. The bumpers now have to be close to the ground, side panels don't appear to curve underneath, the rake on the Gen 1 is way steeper than any other one, the list goes on. I've come to the conclusion that the current definition of "Pony Car" must be stated as different from the 60s and 70s definition, you know back when they were cruisers first, racers later. If GM wants to shock us all, the Camaro will have to shrink in almost every way.

 

[niky]

People were saying that computers can be just as fun to use as a car is to drive. My point is, it's not the act of using a computer that's the source of fun in this case, it's what you do with it, and the hardware only has to be "good enough".

From there, perhaps, you can draw the conjecture. Or let's draw it for you.

Browsing GTPlanet is commuting.

Playing silly flash games or an older, lower-requirement build of NFS or GTA is driving down a mountain road at a spirited clip.

And playing a full-on driving sim with a wheel set-up on a multi-monitor system is like doing trackdays. Both of which are a completely unnecessary expense for 99.9% of the customers, who'd be just fine playing arcade racers.

-

Starting to see the point yet?

A Camaro doesn't have to be a 400 horsepower, bellowing, guttural dragstrip or trackday demon at all times. In fact, it doesn't have to be that way for all customers (remember, 60% chose the V6... and the take rate on automatics is probably a bit greater than that).

Just like your computer doesn't have to be a $5k to $10k gaming rig for you to enjoy playing games or watching movies on it.

You might object then, that this would mean most people buy Camaros simply because they like the way they look and feel, and because they do whatever mundane tasks they ask them to do.

Why, duh, yes... that's the way people have always bought cars. Which is no different than the way you choose your computer, your cellphone, or even your own personal car.

 

[Zenith]

And don't forget that the proliferation of computers from massive calculators for labs into personal computers for daily use is what burst the market wide open for technology and innovation. The same goes for cars.

You owe much of what you like about the V8 Camaro to the fact that so many people go out and buy V6's.

 

[Aquarelle]

or even your own personal car.

I'm not entirely sure he chose the Sunbird out of choice, thus why he defends it so vigorously.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Partially it was choice. I've probably said before, but it was actually my mother's car first, and she actually wanted to sell it years ago when the transmission started acting up. But by that point I'd already become attatched to that car, and that was before I cared about V6 vs. I4 or whatever else. So I bugged her to keep it, and took it for myself (saving the cost of a different car in the process) when I got my license.

Speaking of, it only took me about a week or two to get to the point where I could drive it into town and back without stalling, though I still do stall it occasionally if I'm in too much of a hurry and/or have the music too loud.

I've had dumber attatchments to cars in the past. My grandfather had a Chrysler New Yorker Turbo, a 1987 model, that I was convinced was the fastest thing in the world. He didn't keep that one, though, and I'd be surprised if whoever bought it is still using it. His diesel Isuzu pickup, which I have no such delusions regarding the performance capabilities of, is still in the family, and I intend to get hold of it one day, though I'm not sure what I'd do with it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Partially it was choice. I've probably said before, but it was actually my mother's car first, and she actually wanted to sell it years ago when the transmission started acting up. But by that point I'd already become attatched to that car, and that was before I cared about V6 vs. I4 or whatever else. So I bugged her to keep it, and took it for myself (saving the cost of a different car in the process) when I got my license.

Speaking of, it only took me about a week or two to get to the point where I could drive it into town and back without stalling, though I still do stall it occasionally if I'm in too much of a hurry and/or have the music too loud.

I've had dumber attatchments to cars in the past. My grandfather had a Chrysler New Yorker Turbo, a 1987 model, that I was convinced was the fastest thing in the world. He didn't keep that one, though, and I'd be surprised if whoever bought it is still using it. His diesel Isuzu pickup, which I have no such delusions regarding the performance capabilities of, is still in the family, and I intend to get hold of it one day, though I'm not sure what I'd do with it.

The moment I realize the crazy conservative has more emotional attachments than the bleeding heart knee jerking liberals I've met...blown away

 

[White & Nerdy]

And I don't particularly know why I get attatched to cars, either. I literally cannot explain it in a way I know to be true, if you get what I'm trying to say.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And I don't particularly know why I get attatched to cars, either. I literally cannot explain it in a way I know to be true, if you get what I'm trying to say.

Wish I could say I do but I don't, as lovely and emotional as this is (really I'm choked up over here)...can we get back to the Camaro?

 

[homeforsummer]

Wish I could say I do but I don't, as lovely and emotional as this is (really I'm choked up over here)...can we get back to the Camaro?

To be fair, it was all about the Camaro before people took it down the cylinder discussion road.

W&N's stance on I4s in general is... well, daft to say the least (though he's hardly the only one on this forum with that attitude), but I kinda understand what he's getting at on a car like the Camaro. I don't really mind the downsizing trend that he objects to in regular passenger cars, but a muscle car's raison d'être is pretty obviously a big multi-cylinder engine.

Saying I4s are crap is one thing. Getting paranoid suggesting the next Camaro will probably be a FWD econobox is another. Saying I4s don't suit a car like this though is actually quite understandable, and I'm not so sure why people are jumping down his throat about that particular thing.

At the same time, I'm not saying it shouldn't be offered - it could be quite interesting. But speaking as someone who has no objection to cars with small turbocharged engines, the concept of an [insert whatever muscle car here] with an I4 doesn't appeal. And given the styling of such things, I'd be surprised if it appealed to other typical muscle car buyers either... apart from in markets like Europe where presumably, a turbo'd I4 Mustang will be the only version available.

2) What do we think the next Camaro should look like? None of the renders or photos work, so lets start frankensteining something.

I'd like to see a bit of originality this time around.

The original Camaro stood out in its day not because it harked back to something else, but because it was new. If Chevy gave us something fresh and modern today I'd not object. As @Tornado mentioned before, there's no real clear lineage through the previous generations of Camaro. I see no reason to regress and start copying earlier generations when throughout the car's life designers have tried something different each time.

 

[VXR]

The Code 130R would make perfect sense with a Turbo I4. Give that muscle stylings by all means. Just keep the Camaro a Camaro with multi-cylinder engines.

 

[Brett]

The Code 130R would make perfect sense with a Turbo I4. Give that muscle stylings by all means. Just keep the Camaro a Camaro with multi-cylinder engines.

So Chevrolet should go with a V-Twin in the next Camaro? Or maybe a three or five potter? Any of those will definitely be a change for Chevrolet.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

To be fair, it was all about the Camaro before people took it down the cylinder discussion road.

W&N's stance on I4s in general is... well, daft to say the least (though he's hardly the only one on this forum with that attitude), but I kinda understand what he's getting at on a car like the Camaro. I don't really mind the downsizing trend that he objects to in regular passenger cars, but a muscle car's raison d'être is pretty obviously a big multi-cylinder engine.

Saying I4s are crap is one thing. Getting paranoid suggesting the next Camaro will probably be a FWD econobox is another. Saying I4s don't suit a car like this though is actually quite understandable, and I'm not so sure why people are jumping down his throat about that particular thing.

At the same time, I'm not saying it shouldn't be offered - it could be quite interesting. But speaking as someone who has no objection to cars with small turbocharged engines, the concept of an [insert whatever muscle car here] with an I4 doesn't appeal. And given the styling of such things, I'd be surprised if it appealed to other typical muscle car buyers either... apart from in markets like Europe where presumably, a turbo'd I4 Mustang will be the only version available.

I already saw you echo this though, so I know what you're getting at. However, I still don't see how the car should be singular unless it's a true halo car like the Viper or the Vette or Porsche or what ever... The Camaro was never a halo car it was always the poor man's sports car from Chevy with the upper models being an alternative to the Corvette. Now days you can buy a few alternatives to the Vette, thus it makes sense even more so to expand the Camaro in a different direction than just Sports Car and Corvette's less refined brother.

That is why it's not fully understandable because if you're not talking the regional and world market into the scope of things then you're really not trying to argue the subject. If you want Heritage they still provide it even in the Mustang (if not more so with the supposed GT350 and Mach 1).

 

[Zenith]

Just bring back the Vega or the Corvair and give that an I4 turbo. Boom, BRZ competitor.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

To be honest, I was one of those people who wouldn't consider a Mustang without a V8, but with rising fuel costs and advancements in smaller displacement motors, I'll probably end up getting next gen Turbo 4 or V6 Mustang. In my opinion, 300 HP plenty to have fun without breaking the bank.

 

[homeforsummer]

Now days you can buy a few alternatives to the Vette, thus it makes sense even more so to expand the Camaro in a different direction than just Sports Car and Corvette's less refined brother.

While I understand this, I think a car like the Camaro would require a total redesign for it to be particularly relevant if they did drop an I4 in there.

I'm still highly intrigued to see how the Mustang Ecoboost fares in this regard. Maybe in the flesh it'll be small and light and nimble enough that an I4 actually suits it, just as a four-cylinder suits cars like the Toyota 86 or the Miata or a 2-Series.

Ironically, I feel like the best way to make a car like that "feel" right would be to build something to the scale (though not necessarily the design) of the original Camaro.

If you make a car that size, with those proportions, and that weight (that I can find, a six-pot '67 Camaro was around the 2,770 lb mark; a new one is almost exactly 1,000 lbs more) then a turbocharged I4 would actually suit it perfectly.

If, on the other hand, the next Camaro is huge, bulky and still weighs 3,700+ lbs, then you may as well make the I4 a diesel because it's still going to be pretty bad at the purpose it's designed for, i.e. selling in countries where the V6 and V8s are too thirsty and produce too much emissions.

Alternatively, just do what @Zenith suggests and give the Camaro a little I4 brother with a different historical nameplate.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

While I understand this, I think a car like the Camaro would require a total redesign for it to be particularly relevant if they did drop an I4 in there.

In what sense? And more so why? Are you saying it would need to be more European in look or just small in general like the cars in the next part I quoted from you? If so that's quite a limited scope on what's a working four cylinder turbo (or not I suppose) sports car.

I'm still highly intrigued to see how the Mustang Ecoboost fares in this regard. Maybe in the flesh it'll be small and light and nimble enough that an I4 actually suits it, just as a four-cylinder suits cars like the Toyota 86 or the Miata or a 2-Series.

Well as sales go it already seems to be fairing well across the pond at least it did for the pre-release sales and sign-ups out side of some Manchester United (I think that was the club Ford joined up with) event. As for the actual car we have to wait and see.

Ironically, I feel like the best way to make a car like that "feel" right would be to build something to the scale (though not necessarily the design) of the original Camaro.

If you make a car that size, with those proportions, and that weight (that I can find, a six-pot '67 Camaro was around the 2,770 lb mark; a new one is almost exactly 1,000 lbs more) then a turbocharged I4 would actually suit it perfectly.

If, on the other hand, the next Camaro is huge, bulky and still weighs 3,700+ lbs, then you may as well make the I4 a diesel because it's still going to be pretty bad at the purpose it's designed for, i.e. selling in countries where the V6 and V8s are too thirsty and produce too much emissions.

Alternatively, just do what @Zenith suggests and give the Camaro a little I4 brother with a different historical nameplate.

Those alternatives do exist just not from Chevy, the Regal turbo AWD and the ATS. Problem is there a bit pricey (the Buick isn't too bad) and they just look like they're trying to hard to be something that might be approved in Germany or the UK. Now I'm not trying to have a spout of W&N Nationalism (even if i love my country) but I think trying to appeal to a certain niche is unattractive to be honest and I don't think Europeans get it right all the time to the point everyone by default should copy them.

Also I don't think I'd want to see a Vega or Corvair return...two ugly vehicles to be honest. Maybe a return of the Nova in a chevy II size would be better.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Speaking of, as I said in another thread elsewhere, I was in a GM dealership recently, and the current Camaro is a lot smaller in person that it looks like in pictures/at a distance. The Challenger is the same way to a lesser degree. Not sure how that happens... high beltlines maybe?

 

[Turtle]

Chevy can keep the Vega dead, but I'd be all over a new Corvair. The world needs more RR cars, just because; I'm fascinated by RR cars, and I don't even know why.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Chevy can keep the Vega dead, but I'd be all over a new Corvair. The world needs more RR cars, just because; I'm fascinated by RR cars, and I don't even know why.

I wasn't even a good RR car though.

 

[Turtle]

I wasn't even a good RR car though.

Nope, not really. Better than the Vega though. To be fair though, most things are better than the Vega.

 

[homeforsummer]

In what sense? And more so why? Are you saying it would need to be more European in look or just small in general like the cars in the next part I quoted from you? If so that's quite a limited scope on what's a working four cylinder turbo (or not I suppose) sports car.

I covered this further down the post you quoted.

A four-cylinder Camaro would, I expect, be implemented in order to improve fuel efficiency and emissions while maintaining the performance of a larger engine.

But if the Camaro remains as large and heavy as it is (3,700 lbs for the base model), you're fighting a losing battle. A four-cylinder Camaro will never be frugal unless they completely redesigned the car to make best use of the smaller engine. And if you're not saving fuel by driving the four-pot (and you probably won't be - for reference, most F-150 V6 Ecoboost drivers are barely scraping 1 mpg better mileage than those with the V8) then you might as well enjoy the car more with a V8.

Well as sales go it already seems to be fairing well across the pond at least it did for the pre-release sales and sign-ups out side of some Manchester United (I think that was the club Ford joined up with) event. As for the actual car we have to wait and see.

I deal with this a lot when I'm writing about new cars.

Deposits and interest checks essentially mean diddly-squat. We won't know how the car does until people actually start buying them and driving them around. I'd be surprised if the Mustang didn't at least do reasonably, but then it's a good-looking coupe with decent performance.

Price will make or break it, and we'll have to see whether it's one of those cars that reaches saturation quickly (i.e. everyone who wants one buys one in the first year on sale and then sales drop sharply thereafter) or not.

Those alternatives do exist just not from Chevy, the Regal turbo AWD and the ATS.

Neither of those are sports cars. Nor muscle cars. And the Regal is a Vauxhall. Neither is a suitable alternative.

Speaking of, as I said in another thread elsewhere, I was in a GM dealership recently, and the current Camaro is a lot smaller in person that it looks like in pictures/at a distance. The Challenger is the same way to a lesser degree. Not sure how that happens... high beltlines maybe?

I think you may be right - they're also fairly wide by the standards of regular cars, with exaggerated proportions and fairly long, flat hoods. All of those make them look pretty big.

That said, they are still pretty big compared to their predecessors. A new Camaro is half a foot longer, three inches taller, three inches wider and half a ton heavier than a '67. The sixth-gen Mustang is half a foot longer, half a foot wider and three inches taller than a '64, and the new Challenger is half a foot longer, half a foot taller and surprisingly just an inch wider than the original.

That's not much compared to say, how much a VW Golf has grown, but then the Golf has had two entire classes of car spring up beneath it, whereas the Camaro (/Mustang/Challenger) has just grown itself.