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

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I covered this further down the post you quoted.

I know I say that in the even in the quote you just quoted...I wanted further elaboration

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.

We'll see exactly with the Mustang and go from there. I agree it would have to lose weight and I'm sure GM are aware of that, then again they may not care and just go the route despite the weight like they do with their sedans and like many others do even those that aren't American.

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.

True I can't argue with you there, the point was that there is interest. Though I doubt people paying for a car to be delivered would really back out of the deal that quickly.

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

How are they not? With that reasoning I'd guess the CTS-V in your eyes shouldn't be a suitable alternative to a Vette but it is, the SS as well but it is. And I used those alternatives as car that are small engine performers that are also not so big exterior wise. The only difference is them being performance sedans to a sports car coupe. And can we drop the Muscle car tag line, this isn't the 60s/70s any more, I mean not to be rude but that moniker isn't truthful to how these cars perform since they do better than that and they weren't muscle cars to begin really.

Also it's an Opel (it's a joke but just in case were being too serious and you don't take it as one)

Anyways if I'm going by the little bit of reasoning you give, then neither the Vega nor Corvair should be brought back since they weren't Muscle or even Pony cars. Those were family compact cars, thus going by the fact that you seemed to agree with @Zenith on that end, it seemed reasonable to bring up two family cars (though not compact) that are performers in the trim given (Buick and Cadi). That is my reasoning for going that route.

So it confuses me that you agree with Zenith's choice -though not mine which is the more reasonable successor to the Corvair- but at the same time say the options I gave as alternatives aren't muscle cars, when his alternatives as revivals aren't either...

 

[homeforsummer]

The Vega and Corvair have both since become cars that people have taken to their hearts. Both were also rear-drive and relatively compact. And both were affordable, since they were designed to be affordable.

An Opel with a spangly grille and a Cadillac are very few of those things, in varying combinations. Buick's posh Vauxhall starts at $30k and when you factor in things like a mandatory destination fee, an ATS coupe is knocking on the door of $40k. Neither is remotely a sports car, regardless of the performance they offer.

A base Camaro is under $25k. A true successor to compacts like the Vega and Corvair should be less than even that. And a great deal more fun (with a turbo'd four-pot) than a posh Vauxhall and a leather-lined 4-series rival. That's why I agreed with Zenith. If you're going to plunder the past, make sure it's at least vaguely in tune with what those cars stood for and how people view them now.

The counterpoint to that of course is the current Dodge Dart. Or the Cruze, which is really a successor to cars like the Vega. But then we're discussing the Camaro and variants thereof, so if we're going to suggest alternatives to a four-pot Camaro we may as well dream a little.

I don't see why the term muscle car, or pony car doesn't still apply, either. They're fairly affordable, relatively unsophisticated cars with big engines up front. In that respect they're more or less the same as they've ever been, even if they now have electric windows and Bluetooth. A four-cylinder Vega remake wouldn't be a muscle car anyway, but since the original never was I don't think there's an issue there.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The Vega and Corvair have both since become cars that people have taken to their hearts. Both were also rear-drive and relatively compact. And both were affordable, since they were designed to be affordable.

So was the Chevy II and it had a performance option that rivaled the pony/muscle cars above it.

An Opel with a spangly grille and a Cadillac are very few of those things, in varying combinations. Buick's posh Vauxhall starts at $30k and when you factor in things like a mandatory destination fee, an ATS coupe is knocking on the door of $40k. Neither is remotely a sports car, regardless of the performance they offer.

Once again didn't call them a sports car but neither are the "affordable" Vega and Corvair if they even had a return. Also I did mention that though they are alternatives they're not cheap ones. And since Buicks goal is to target the young market as much as the Camaro...

A base Camaro is under $25k. A true successor to compacts like the Vega and Corvair should be less than even that. And a great deal more fun (with a turbo'd four-pot) than a posh Vauxhall and a leather-lined 4-series rival. That's why I agreed with Zenith. If you're going to plunder the past, make sure it's at least vaguely in tune with what those cars stood for and how people view them now.

Plunder? I'm not plundering anything and I really don't care how people see them in their hearts, the reality is take it or leave it that the Corvair and Vega were compact cars, but not performers. They had a simple job did it somewhat reasonable and that was that. Now the idea is somehow they'll be brought back and turned into something they never were (outside of aftermarket especially the Vega). So if we go by your pillar of heritage in a sense, how does that keep in line with it?

No where do I say that the alternative cars (buick regal and ats) are true successors or successors at al just alternatives to performance that the Camaro gives.

The counterpoint to that of course is the current Dodge Dart. Or the Cruze, which is really a successor to cars like the Vega. But then we're discussing the Camaro and variants thereof, so if we're going to suggest alternatives to a four-pot Camaro we may as well dream a little.

Let's go with the Cruze, since the Dart of current isn't bound to be a true performer in anyway. Sure the Cruze, and before that the Cobalt and before that the Caviler the problem is other than the Cobalt (unless you consider the Z24) never had nor seem to have a future performer. So obviously which is my point to begin with, GM is shifting that duty other places. If it's not in the V6 Camaro then it's in the sedans that's my point. Do I agree that is should be that way? No, or I wouldn't support a less weight, I4t, RWD Camaro in the future as an option.

I don't see why the term muscle car, or pony car doesn't still apply, either. They're fairly affordable, relatively unsophisticated cars with big engines up front. In that respect they're more or less the same as they've ever been, even if they now have electric windows and Bluetooth. A four-cylinder Vega remake wouldn't be a muscle car anyway, but since the original never was I don't think there's an issue there.

Depends really, I'd say the upper tier versions of the Camaro and mid level aren't that befuddling as you seem to present them, the V6 sure. Then again anyone that thinks that is a true performer compared to real ones like the BRZ and Genesis are sadly taken for a ride by GM and others and really. The SS is the first step really in any sporty aspect of the Camaro while still trying to be economical with AFM. I don't quite see how an LS1 decedent engine is all that heavy perhaps you're confusing the front heavy Coyote engines.

Also on the Vega that's my point...why bring up my choices not being a muscle car (since they obviously aren't)? You clearly understand the Vega isn't one so what does my choices having to be or not to be a muscle car weigh in. All the other stuff you said (which I agreed with far prior) makes sense until you use "they're not muscle cars" as some pre-existing criteria and then get rid of it for the options you will accept. Just doesn't seem consistent thus I'm confused hence why I continue to ask.

 

[homeforsummer]

So was the Chevy II and it had a performance option that rivaled the pony/muscle cars above it.

Right so... you're... agreeing with me? Something like the Chevy II, which had a performance option, which sat below the Camaro or a Chevelle SS is exactly what I'm trying to get at here.

Of course, back in the day a Chevy II might have had a V8 too. But today, it's a perfect candidate for an I4. Some of the attitude of the Camaro, but less outright performance, a smaller platform and a lower price.

Or if it makes more sense, just build the Code 130R and call it a Vega, Corvair or Chevy II. The name is incidental, I just happened to agree with Zenith's suggestions that Vega or Corvair would be suitable names.

Once again didn't call them a sports car but neither are the "affordable" Vega and Corvair if they even had a return. Also I did mention that though they are alternatives they're not cheap ones. And since Buicks goal is to target the young market as much as the Camaro...

Young people, as I'm sure you're aware, don't have much disposable income. So however much Buick wants to sell American youths Vauxhall Insignias with shiny grilles, it's never going to be a budget alternative to the (significantly cheaper) entry-level Camaro.

Plunder? I'm not plundering anything

I didn't say you were. I meant "you" in the general sense, not you personally.

and I really don't care how people see them in their hearts, the reality is take it or leave it that the Corvair and Vega were compact cars, but not performers. They had a simple job did it somewhat reasonable and that was that. Now the idea is somehow they'll be brought back and turned into something they never were (outside of aftermarket especially the Vega). So if we go by your pillar of heritage in a sense, how does that keep in line with it?

They're just names. That's as far as it goes.

They were cheap cars back in their day. If they were cheap today, but also offered a decent hit of turbo'd performance while being cheaper and smaller than a Camaro, I don't see the issue in re-using the name. You're overcomplicating this.

No where do I say that the alternative cars (buick regal and ats) are true successors or successors at al just alternatives to performance that the Camaro gives.

But they aren't, really. Does anyone cross-shop a Camaro with a Regal or an ATS? Does anyone actually think "No, I'm not going to spend $23k on a V6 Camaro, but that four-cylinder re-badged Opel for $7k more sure looks tempting!"?

Depends really, I'd say the upper tier versions of the Camaro and mid level aren't that befuddling as you seem to present them, the V6 sure.

Whut? American model lines are about as easy to understand as any in the world.

The Camaro comes with a V6. Then a V8. Then a performance version of the V8. That's basically it, with a few short-run special editions springing up here and there from time to time. It couldn't be much simpler if they named them "Pussy", "Badass" and "Murica".

You could put a turbo'd four in there (some here might name it "Metrosexual", which slots below "Pussy" in the model lineup). But you'd be putting a turbo'd four in a car that, at the moment, weighs more than many mid-size sedans. If you're shooting for economy and performance, priority number one would be to shed half a tonne to really allow the 4 to do its work.

Or, you could just make a smaller, lighter car in the first place for that four, and keep selling V6 and V8 Camaros to those who want them.

I don't quite see how an LS1 decedent engine is all that heavy perhaps you're confusing the front heavy Coyote engines.

I never said the engine was heavy. I said the car was. But a big engine like an LS V8 is quite well-suited to such a vehicle. A four-pot that's supposedly designed to replace a V6 in performance but offer better economy isn't, since in the real world we're yet to see engines of that type realistically delivering better economy and performance than the engine it replaces.

I believe both W&N and Tornado have brought this point up before, and both are correct.

Also on the Vega that's my point...why bring up my choices not being a muscle car (since they obviously aren't)? You clearly understand the Vega isn't one so what does my choices having to be or not to be a muscle car weigh in. All the other stuff you said (which I agreed with far prior) makes sense until you use "they're not muscle cars" as some pre-existing criteria and then get rid of it for the options you will accept. Just doesn't seem consistent thus I'm confused hence why I continue to ask.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here, and given your recent posts in these threads towards Beeblebrox I'm not sure you're not just responding for the sake of causing an argument.

Look, my stance on this is very, very simple:

I agree with certain posters here that an I4 in a car like the Camaro isn't very appealing. My personal view is that it wouldn't really achieve the tasks it's designed to do - improve performance or reduce fuel consumption next to simply developing the existing base engine, the V6. It may not even reduce weight, since all the plumbing that comes with a turbocharger is quite heavy in itself. What you have instead is a pony car/muscle car (I'm still gonna use that term, as that's basically what a Camaro is) with an engine that doesn't suit the car's character, replacing an engine that did.

Instead, I've proposed (as have others) simply resurrecting the Code 130R concept, which is like a downsized Camaro, and sticking the four-pot in that. Not only would it suit the character of the car, but it would probably be usefully cheaper too. And because it'd be cheaper, I agreed with Zenith's suggestion that a budget-car name from the past be resurrected.

I really can't add any more to this discussion than that. And I can't make it any simpler than that either.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Right so... you're... agreeing with me? Something like the Chevy II, which had a performance option, which sat below the Camaro or a Chevelle SS is exactly what I'm trying to get at here.

I had agreed from the get go, the issue arose when I decided to say what the alternatives currently are for performance if you wish not to buy a Camaro. You disagreed and we went from there. So yes once again on the aspect of what should be a true alternative I agree, no where do I say I think it's good to have a expensive Cadi and Opel as an alternative but that is where it currently stands.

Of course, back in the day a Chevy II might have had a V8 too. But today, it's a perfect candidate for an I4. Some of the attitude of the Camaro, but less outright performance, a smaller platform and a lower price.

It had an I4 back then too, thus the idea of Heritage is retained (though now you seem to not care about that)

Or if it makes more sense, just build the Code 130R and call it a Vega, Corvair or Chevy II. The name is incidental, I just happened to agree with Zenith's suggestions that Vega or Corvair would be suitable names.

It seemed otherwise hence my wording prior, but okay.

Young people, as I'm sure you're aware, don't have much disposable income. So however much Buick wants to sell American youths Vauxhall Insignias with shiny grilles, it's never going to be a budget alternative to the (significantly cheaper) entry-level Camaro.

Hey don't tell me tell the people at GM, just the guy repeating what they say, but I also show I don't believe them. Which is why I've never attempted to go to a Buick dealer and find out.

I didn't say you were. I meant "you" in the general sense, not you personally.

You could see how that gets lost when it's just been you and me talking...

They're just names. That's as far as it goes.

They were cheap cars back in their day. If they were cheap today, but also offered a decent hit of turbo'd performance while being cheaper and smaller than a Camaro, I don't see the issue in re-using the name. You're overcomplicating this.

No I'm not, I am just going off what you're saying if you had simply said it as this prior without the talk about how people remember them and heritage implications I would have agreed. But that's not what I read so you got something entirely different than what you wanted.

But they aren't, really. Does anyone cross-shop a Camaro with a Regal or an ATS? Does anyone actually think "No, I'm not going to spend $23k on a V6 Camaro, but that four-cylinder re-badged Opel for $7k more sure looks tempting!"?

Same question can be asked about the CTS-V and SS as I asked you earlier. It's the same concept, why have them if you're not planning to sway people too them as an alternative to a Vette. Why have a performance ATS that you take to all these tracks and tune as well as the Buick/Opel/Vaux if you don't plan to sway people. It may be tough to believe but have you been to an American car lot any where in the U.S., trying to up sale you to a different car as long as it somewhat matches the criteria is their game.

Whut? American model lines are about as easy to understand as any in the world.

The Camaro comes with a V6. Then a V8. Then a performance version of the V8. That's basically it, with a few short-run special editions springing up here and there from time to time. It couldn't be much simpler if they named them "Pussy", "Badass" and "Murica".

You could put a turbo'd four in there (some here might name it "Metrosexual", which slots below "Pussy" in the model lineup). But you'd be putting a turbo'd four in a car that, at the moment, weighs more than many mid-size sedans. If you're shooting for economy and performance, priority number one would be to shed half a tonne to really allow the 4 to do its work.

Or, you could just make a smaller, lighter car in the first place for that four, and keep selling V6 and V8 Camaros to those who want them.

We already agreed that lighter and smaller is key, I just don't agree with the notion that they're simple sports cars and thus nil.

I never said the engine was heavy. I said the car was. But a big engine like an LS V8 is quite well-suited to such a vehicle. A four-pot that's supposedly designed to replace a V6 in performance but offer better economy isn't, since in the real world we're yet to see engines of that type realistically delivering better economy and performance than the engine it replaces.

Though I now get what you're trying to get at, I just wanted to say:

LS series engines aren't that big though...I mean I guess if you want to compare it to a 5 series V8 sure but not that big to the point they weigh a ton.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here, and given your recent posts in these threads towards Beeblebrox I'm not sure you're not just responding for the sake of causing an argument.

If that's what you think but Beeblebrox came in complaining about the direction of the thread as if we weren't dancing to his liking, quite different from me trying to have an actual technical conversation with you. IF you feel that pressed for conversation/debate, then just don't respond I guess. Not sure how I'm just here trying to argue comes up.

Look, my stance on this is very, very simple:

I agree with certain posters here that an I4 in a car like the Camaro isn't very appealing. My personal view is that it wouldn't really achieve the tasks it's designed to do - improve performance or reduce fuel consumption next to simply developing the existing base engine, the V6. It may not even reduce weight, since all the plumbing that comes with a turbocharger is quite heavy in itself. What you have instead is a pony car/muscle car (I'm still gonna use that term, as that's basically what a Camaro is) with an engine that doesn't suit the car's character, replacing an engine that did.

Instead, I've proposed (as have others) simply resurrecting the Code 130R concept, which is like a downsized Camaro, and sticking the four-pot in that. Not only would it suit the character of the car, but it would probably be usefully cheaper too. And because it'd be cheaper, I agreed with Zenith's suggestion that a budget-car name from the past be resurrected.

I really can't add any more to this discussion than that. And I can't make it any simpler than that either.

Once again I know what your stance is and for a great majority I agree. What I don't agree with is the idea that the Camaro has to drastically change to support an I4 turbo and I think the Ford route would be best for Chevy if they don't plan to revive, create new or redo a current car. I think retaining it's shape and losing weight is best and should happen, making a mini Camaro just seems unreasonable when stacked with all the unnecessary stuff GM already does.

Why you feel as if this is an inconvenience for me to pick your brain or push you to elaborate more on the portion I don't agree with in a forum setting, is a bit troubling to me. Sorry I guess, again? Also I really couldn't care less if you want to use the term at this point, that you and I'm fine with that I just think it's a dead term due to the technology of these cars rising above it.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm cutting this down to the point as it's getting ridiculous:

Once again I know what your stance is and for a great majority I agree. What I don't agree with is the idea that the Camaro has to drastically change to support an I4 turbo and I think the Ford route would be best for Chevy if they don't plan to revive, create new or redo a current car. I think retaining it's shape and losing weight is best and should happen, making a mini Camaro just seems unreasonable when stacked with all the unnecessary stuff GM already does.

If by "drastically change" you're referring to my comments that it needs to go on a diet, then yes, it needs to "drastically change". Here is what I said:

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.

...

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.

Putting an I4 in a car that's the equivalent of the 3,700 lb current car would have no tangible benefits. It wouldn't have the performance and economy mix that makes it worth GM's while, and it flat out wouldn't have the character that buyers of cars like Camaros expect. That's the long and the short of this.

Regarding the name, this is what I said (from the same post):

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

How can that possibly be misconstrued? I was talking about a sub-Camaro I4-powered car with an old name! I couldn't have made that much easier to understand if I'd written "Build Code 130R. Call it Vega".

Why you feel as if this is an inconvenience for me to pick your brain or push you to elaborate more on the portion I don't agree with in a forum setting, is a bit troubling to me.

I don't mind you asking me to elaborate. But my initial comments needed no elaboration. I've essentially repeated the same thing in three posts now because that's what I meant to say in the first place.

 

[88GTA]

From GM Inside News:
2.0L Turbocharged I-4
3.6L LGX V6
6.2L LT1 V8
6.2L Supercharged LT4 V8

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f144/2016-camaro-planned-engine-line-up-170233/

The most interesting part is that unlike the Mustang, the 4 cylinder would be the base Camaro. The Mustang has the V6 as base and 2.3 Ecoboost as an option.

The 2.0T option would likely be the LTG (VVT, direct-injection turbo) engine currently available in the Malibu and ATS. This motor in the ATS makes 272hp @ 5500rpm and 260 lb/ft of torque from 1700-5500rpm. The Malibu uses the same motor but has only 259hp.

So let's check out the ATS vs the current Camaro base model:

2014 ATS (2.0T, specs found here) $45,860
272hp / 260lb/ft
21mpg city/31 highway
3404lb curb weight (51/49 split)
1/4 mile - 14.3 @ 97.3mph
0-60 5.7 sec
60-0 114ft

2015 Camaro V6 (specs found here) $23,555
323hp / 278lb/ft
17mpg city/28 highway
3,719lbs
0-60 6.4 sec

I tried looking into the dry weights for the LFX and LTG engines and I saw a few numbers but nothing official. All the numbers looked to be maybe a 20lb weight savings for the 2.0T. The LS3 V8 however, weighs almost 100 more pounds than the LFX V6.

As noted at the top, the V6 option will change in the new Camaro from the LFX to the 3.6 LGX engine. More here:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f144/confirmed-lgx-v6-2016-camaro-167114/

Sounds like the model hierarchy would be:
2.0T base model 272hp/295lb/ft (Buick Regal Turbo uses LTG motor currently with this much torque but less hp)
3.6L V6 option 330hp/330lb/ft ?
LT1 V8
LT4 V8

 

[Dennisch]

Seriously, unless they get the car at a maximum weight of 3000-3200lbs what is the point of the 4 pot?? A heavy car with a small engine still would be thirsty.

 

[eSZee]

Seriously, unless they get the car at a maximum weight of 3000-3200lbs what is the point of the 4 pot?? A heavy car with a small engine still would be thirsty.

You're giving the american public too much credit if you think that's something they would know.

 

[Dennisch]

One can dream and hope....
But as long as they keep on evolving maybe in 10 years or so they finally build something lightweight~ish again.

 

[Slash]

A lot of people use the reasoning of "you shouldn't be buying a Camaro if you want MPG's".

 

[Nish]

I think with a better trans and a few light mods the older camaros would get decent mileage, so an engine built from the ground up in modern times should get decent mileage easily. My only point is tech has come a long way 40 years and mpg should be expected by now.

 

[Slash]

I think with a better trans and a few light mods the older camaros would get decent mileage, so an engine built from the ground up in modern times should get decent mileage easily. My only point is tech has come a long way 40 years and mpg should be expected by now.

People still don't seem to realize that.

 

[eSZee]

I think with a better trans and a few light mods the older camaros would get decent mileage, so an engine built from the ground up in modern times should get decent mileage easily. My only point is tech has come a long way 40 years and mpg should be expected by now.

It has. That's why you have 4000lb cars that can get 30mpg.

 

[White & Nerdy]

So just imagine what a 3000lb car would get. Downsize the car itself before you downsize the engine, GM. Yes, this goes for your other models too. If once upon a time you could make a compact car that weighed maybe 27000 lbs with a big, heavy iron V6, your new model should not weigh over 3000 lbs with a tiny (turbocharged, but still) I4. Safety, too many features, I don't know, but not so long ago that would be closer to what a midsize car would weigh.

And yes, I also believe that MPG is a non-issue in a performance car.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm cutting this down to the point as it's getting ridiculous:

If by "drastically change" you're referring to my comments that it needs to go on a diet, then yes, it needs to "drastically change". Here is what I said:

Putting an I4 in a car that's the equivalent of the 3,700 lb current car would have no tangible benefits. It wouldn't have the performance and economy mix that makes it worth GM's while, and it flat out wouldn't have the character that buyers of cars like Camaros expect. That's the long and the short of this.

Once again I agreed with this (see quote below). You seem to think you're more concise than you read, if "drastic" to you is just losing weight then I agree if it's the 130R or a Camaro that looks like the size of a Solstice or slightly bigger then no. I don't think that cars the size of Miata are the only thing that can reasonably work a 4 cylinder turbo or not. Also you repeating this entire bit of "putting it in a car that is 3700 lbs" after I say repeatedly that I agree with you from the get go, just makes no sense.

We'll see exactly with the Mustang and go from there. I agree it would have to lose weight and I'm sure GM are aware of that, then again they may not care and just go the route despite the weight like they do with their sedans and like many others do even those that aren't American.

Since you seem to be having memory fade, not to be rude since at this point you might just take it the wrong way, the issue is as above is the route you think the Camaro should take if it is to have a 4cylinder. The fact you think a complete redesign is in order which actually sounds more than just taking it over to the local Jenny Craig as you now say, I just don't agree. However, that's subjective.

The 130r that was on the Alpha Platform is shared with the ATS, so the idea that the ATS isn't compact enough (even though it is a GM compact labeled car) is wrong, the only part I see is price and you agreed to that portion. So the rebuke –might be too strong- was due to that just to refresh your memory.

Regarding the name, this is what I said (from the same post):


How can that possibly be misconstrued? I was talking about a sub-Camaro I4-powered car with an old name! I couldn't have made that much easier to understand if I'd written "Build Code 130R. Call it Vega".

That's not what you said though, you were talking about a historical name and its heritage as people remember it...

That to me as I read it came across more than a nameplate hence why I said what I said after, and it only further went along because you said my choices weren’t muscle cars. So I though well if you’re basing the decision on how people remember or heritage then making them into performance cars isn’t true to that tradition. However:

The Vega and Corvair have both since become cars that people have taken to their hearts. Both were also rear-drive and relatively compact. And both were affordable, since they were designed to be affordable.

If it's just a nameplate you’re asking for then sure have at it. If you want a nameplate and heritage then no it doesn't make much sense at all because once again they weren't performance cars. However, since now you’re only saying that it's about the nameplate alone, then that's understandable.

I don't mind you asking me to elaborate. But my initial comments needed no elaboration. I've essentially repeated the same thing in three posts now because that's what I meant to say in the first place.

Sure it did it wasn't as direct as you've said, I wanted to know how those size cars (BRZ for example) are so much better than a current size Camaro with just less weight. Because I don't honestly believe (unless the nameplate changes of course) that a camaro needs to be in a class it's never been to utilize a 4 cylinder as best possible.

IF you can't see that you go off on to these bits that aren't nearly as black and white to you as to others, then why comment back, why get irritated over an internet conversation? Is it taking too much time out of your day or what? I don't see what the issue is here of me asking you what direction your actually trying to go on.


Anyways from what I've found the Alpha platform will be used on the 2017 Camaro. So for me sadly, the car may be the size of the 130r all around but after seeing ATS in person, I don’t mind that size of a car.

And yes, I also believe that MPG is a non-issue in a performance car.

First off since I'm not quoting that part from you, GM are downsizing. That's the point of the alpha platform to save weight and cost.

Also if MPG is such a non issue then why do GM go to such lengths to help save fuel in their performance cars? One reason could be to obviously save customers money by making sure they don't buy a car that would be suspect to the Guzzler tax fee.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Oh yes. The gas guzzler tax. Pure environmentalist nannying at its finest.

 

[Tornado]

I think with a better trans and a few light mods the older camaros would get decent mileage

There have been tests to show this to be true, in all honesty. You'll never get anything approaching what the cars from anything past the 1990s could get at their best because of horrific aerodynamics, but swapping in more modern transmissions and the like along with converting engines to fuel injection usually achieves numbers approaching those of the late-80s early 90s. There was actually a Cutlass performance package in the late 1960s that was tuned specifically for fuel economy that essentially made it a 442 with a very highly geared Turbo Hydramatic and a 400 instead of 455. Testing would break into the low 20s highway.

Also if MPG is such a non issue then why do GM go to such lengths to help save fuel in their performance cars?

It's almost entirely because Obama raised CAFE, actually.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's almost entirely because Obama raised CAFE, actually.

I say it is due to Gas Guzzler tax in the post you quoted which is in the same code of legislation though the EPA as CAFE. I know why I'm just seeing if he does, and why his thinking wouldn't work on today's industry.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

How about making Code 130R with the I4 turbo and V6, and leaving the Camaro as is? That way the puny little I4 wouldn't need to lug around 4000lbs of luxurious GT coupe but lighter, smaller sports coupe.

 

[Tornado]

I say it is due to Gas Guzzler tax in the post you quoted which is in the same code of legislation though the EPA as CAFE. I know why I'm just seeing if he does, and why his thinking wouldn't work on today's industry.

And his thinking doesn't work because CAFE being raised has finally made it so the gas guzzler tax, which sports car and especially luxury car buyers happily paid for decades without much thought, is no longer the main problem that automakers face.
His reasoning that sports car buyers generally don't care too much about fuel economy, however, is still quite accurate.



Something else:

Anyways from what I've found the Alpha platform will be used on the 2017 Camaro. So for me sadly, the car may be the size of the 130r all around but after seeing ATS in person, I don’t mind that size of a car.

You keep talking about the ATS in response to homeforsummer saying a car would need to be considerably smaller to have a Turbo 4 be worthwhile. The ATS is very small indeed. Only half a foot longer than the infamous Cimarron. You're even directly conflating the ATS with the platform in general.


The issue is, and I suspect this is why you aren't getting what homeforsummer is trying to convey, the CTS also uses the Alpha platform. The new CTS which is literally less than an inch shorter than the final Seville. The new CTS which (luxury equipment notwithstanding) is no lighter than the current Camaro. And the article on the first page all but explicitly says that the car will be larger (albeit lighter, somehow) than the current Camaro, riding on a wheelbase even longer than the stretched one the CTS uses. Hence a Code 130 model slotting in below the Camaro that would befit the GM I4 much better than the next Camaro would, regardless of how lighter it is rumored as.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You keep talking about the ATS in response to homeforsummer saying a car would need to be considerably smaller to have a Turbo 4 be worthwhile. The ATS is very small indeed. Only half a foot longer than the infamous Cimarron. You're even directly conflating the ATS with the platform in general.

If it is only half a foot longer then it isn't all the smaller to the current Camaro which would also be about half a foot longer so a full foot longer than the Cimarron. Which once again once realizing that isn't too bad of a size I guess.

The issue is, and I suspect this is why you aren't getting what homeforsummer is trying to convey, the CTS also uses the Alpha platform. The new CTS which is literally less than an inch shorter than the final Seville. The new CTS which (luxury equipment notwithstanding) is no lighter than the current Camaro. And the article on the first page all but explicitly says that the car will be larger (albeit lighter, somehow) than the current Camaro, riding on a wheelbase even longer than the stretched one the CTS uses. Hence a Code 130 model slotting in below the Camaro that would befit the GM I4 much better than the next Camaro would, regardless of how lighter it is rumored as.

Yes I know the CTS is.

I saw that, but it's in the early stages as I said earlier the Mustang was assumed to be this certain car but it didn't turn out to be that way, and what's said now isn't set in stone either. I still don't see how a current gen Camaro with say 32-3400 lbs would be a bad deal if given a 300+ hp I4t. Once again the issue is that I don't believe the dimensions of the car would hinder it greatly as the curb weight. Thus I don't see a reason to make a 130r Camaro or make a car under the next Camaro with an I4t and not give one to the Camaro.

We'll see how Ford does I guess and decide which ideal is better.

And his thinking doesn't work because CAFE being raised has finally made it so the gas guzzler tax, which sports car and especially luxury car buyers happily paid for decades without much thought, is no longer the main problem that automakers face.
His reasoning that sports car buyers generally don't care too much about fuel economy, however, is still quite accurate.

If that's true though then it makes even less sense for GM to put all this fuel economy equipment in all their performance cars. And still doesn't answer the question why? Unless -which I don't see anything saying- GM get in trouble for manufacturing inefficient cars, is that what you're saying? If so that makes sense.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

For the most part, virtually every common vehicle is already built with an emphasis on mileage. GM is no stranger to making fuel efficient sports cars- 4th Gen Camaros could hit at least 25 highway with LS1s when driven properly (more common with manuals than autos), and some people could get 30 with C6 Z06 Corvettes. I wonder what the mileage of the V-6 would be if it was in the ATS since it weighs 300 pounds less. If GM offered the turbo 4 in it, I would assume that they'd try to up the power to around 300 hp so that it would be a true Ecoboost 4 competitor. But in the meantime, they should pay attention to sales of said 4 cylinder and use that as a potential tool to determine interest in a 4 cylinder Camaro.

 

[Tornado]

We'll see how Ford does I guess and decide which ideal is better.

Ford's solution to people finding out after the fact that their higher priced Ecoboost I4s provide all of the power of a V6 with all of the fuel economy of a very slightly smaller V6 (or, for the F150, all the power of a large V8 engine with the fuel economy of a large V8) was to ignore it and build more cars with Ecoboost engines. The next Mustang, whose final weight and bulk have essentially doomed any chance for it to gain long legs in Europe regardless of how small of an engine they put in it, will almost undoubtedly follow the same path when the Ecoboost car weighs near as makes no difference to the V6 one.

If that's true though then it makes even less sense for GM to put all this fuel economy equipment in all their performance cars. And still doesn't answer the question why? Unless -which I don't see anything saying- GM get in trouble for manufacturing inefficient cars, is that what you're saying? If so that makes sense.

Every manufacturer has had to worry about retroactively paying penalties on every vehicle sold if their average vehicle fleet does not meet CAFE numbers. $ Amount * How Many MPG your cars fall under CAFE * How Many Cars you Sold. That is essentially the entirety of how CAFE is enforced, and why GM and Ford were able to successfully lobby to have CAFE pared back for a few years in the mid 1980s. The gas guzzler tax is a completely different thing that is applied on a per vehicle basis; which the consumer pays themselves and is decided on a number far lower than what CAFE has been for decades (22.5). When the CAFE number skyrockets like it will for the next decade, the companies can't afford to just tell the EPA to screw off and pay the penalties instead (like Mercedes, among other German brands, basically did from the start).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Ford's solution to people finding out after the fact that their higher priced Ecoboost I4s provide all of the power of a V6 with all of the fuel economy of a very slightly smaller V6 (or, for the F150, all the power of a small V8 engine with the fuel economy of a large V8) was to ignore it and build more cars with Ecoboost engines. The next Mustang, whose final weight and bulk have essentially doomed any chance for it to gain long legs in Europe regardless of how small of an engine they put in it, will almost undoubtedly follow the same path when the Ecoboost car weighs near as makes no difference to the V6 one.

Which is why I told HFS that GM may ultimately do what Ford did and just keep the weight or lose at most a hundred to hundred fifty pounds and call it a day. Due to not seeing it the way others think they should. I still think it's wise to see how the Ford does before saying it isn't going to be good whatsoever.

Every manufacturer has had to worry about retroactively paying penalties on every vehicle sold if their average vehicle fleet does not meet CAFE numbers. $ Amount * How Many MPG your cars fall under CAFE * How Many Cars you Sold. That is essentially the entirety of how CAFE is enforced. The gas guzzler tax is a completely different thing that is applied on a per vehicle basis; which the consumer pays themselves and is decided on a number far lower than what CAFE has been for decades (22.5).

I know that the consumer is the one that deals with Guzzler Tax hence why I said what I said to W&N, from a corporate stance I don't care. Well I care now cause you made it interesting so thanks for informing me on that end, I just know they are filed under the same legislation together (GGT and CAFE) through the EPA and just say one effects consumer and the other effects producers basically.

Anyways I feel though that the incentive of your vehicles passing both EPA regulations help the manufacturing and market side which is important to anyone buying a car. It doesn't matter if they have money to buy a performance car or not, even rich people will care about saving money on a tax they don't have to worry about.

 

[Tornado]

I know that the consumer is the one that deals with Guzzler Tax hence why I said what I said to W&N, from a corporate stance I don't care.

The corporate stance is what is important for this discussion:

Also if MPG is such a non issue then why do GM go to such lengths to help save fuel in their performance cars?

GM goes to such lengths to help save fuel because CAFE standards are shooting up. That's it. That's the only directly tangible reason. Just like European automakers' engine emissions drop drastically every time a new Euro standard is announced. The regulation is the reason. GM can't stonewall it this time like they did in 1986, so they risk losing tens of millions of dollars annually if they don't greatly ramp up the fuel economy of everything.


The gas guzzler tax, which has been set at 22.5 and will remain at 22.5 until long after no cars sold actually do that poorly, has barely anything to do with it. It's so irrelevant to buying habits that it doesn't even apply to SUVs or pickup trucks, and still doesn't even as CAFE standards on light duty vehicles has increased. Customers who were buying the cars that it applied didn't care about the tax itself, and as a result they didn't care too much about the low fuel economy the tax was supposed to prevent either. From a consumer point of view, which I suspect is what W&N was arguing about, fuel economy is comparatively irrelevant in a performance car outside of the effect it has on range.

 

[Nish]

It has. That's why you have 4000lb cars that can get 30mpg.

Doesn't the current Camaro only get 16/24? Sorry to me that doesn't show a huge progression to me from the 9/12 of 69. 45 years ago. I get it's a heavier car but thats by their design so that mpg is down to them.

Especially when this can be said

There have been tests to show this to be true, in all honesty. You'll never get anything approaching what the cars from anything past the 1990s could get at their best because of horrific aerodynamics, but swapping in more modern transmissions and the like along with converting engines to fuel injection usually achieves numbers approaching those of the late-80s early 90s. There was actually a Cutlass performance package in the late 1960s that was tuned specifically for fuel economy that essentially made it a 442 with a very highly geared Turbo Hydramatic and a 400 instead of 455. Testing would break into the low 20s highway.

Low 20's highway in the 60's. At 4140 lbs! (@Toronado sorry don't have time right now, so I will read the article later). Granted less power but more torque and almost 40 years ago.

Why do they need a 6.2 and the massive size of the current car? When they could get the same power with a smaller V8 and lose weight in many of the cars bulky proportions. They are now going to a lighter chassis and I can't wait to see if it will actually be cutting weight or be like the new Mustang.

If you can have both better power and mileage just by being a bit lighter with a better design I don't see the argument. It can still be a grunting beast from Detroit and not be a massive vehicle with bad milage. Safety regs aren't to blame for it's weight as it's heavier than a 300C.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The corporate stance is what is important for this discussion:

GM goes to such lengths to help save fuel because CAFE standards are shooting up. That's it. That's the only directly tangible reason. Just like European automakers' engine emissions drop drastically every time a new Euro standard is announced. The regulation is the reason. GM can't stonewall it this time like they did in 1986, so they risk losing tens of millions of dollars annually if they don't greatly ramp up the fuel economy of everything.


The gas guzzler tax, which has been set at 22.5 and will remain at 22.5 until long after no cars sold actually do that poorly, has barely anything to do with it. It's so irrelevant to buying habits that it doesn't even apply to SUVs or pickup trucks, and still doesn't even as CAFE standards on light duty vehicles has increased. Customers who were buying the cars that it applied didn't care about the tax itself, and as a result they didn't care too much about the low fuel economy the tax was supposed to prevent either. From a consumer point of view, which I suspect is what W&N was arguing about, fuel economy is comparatively irrelevant in a performance car outside of the effect it has on range.

You already said the CAFE angle and I now understand it better (as far as companies being penalized) so not sure what the repeat is for. I don't believe that consumers even those going for Performance don't like the added benefit of being able to buy a great performance car while being fuel efficient, and beating the Guzzler Tax they'd have to pay each year.

@Nish no they don't. They get 20/30 in V6 trim and in SS it's closer to the number you gave. So I think @eSZee was giving the V6 model.

 

[Nish]

Yes I was comparing V8 to V8. I just think with better aerodynamics, lighter materials, more gas saving electronics in cars than ever before, more gears and better power curves. Shouldn't it be better than a 20mpg average by now?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes I was comparing V8 to V8. I just think with better aerodynamics, lighter materials, more gas saving electronics in cars than ever before, more gears and better power curves. Shouldn't it be better than a 20mpg average by now?

Problem is lighter materials cost more money because they're usually more limited in use. The car already has three different devices in the V8 to save gas. The Aero I can't argue with, I agree it would save fuel at continuous cruise speed. And it's better than the 07 Tacoma V6 with VVT I use to drive which on avg only got 17-18. So 20 isn't too bad and those that do really go get 22 which is the best I could get out of the 08 Taurus SEL I previously owned.