http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11565
(Use a pop-up blocker)

I saw this and I wanted to know if your opinion is that he is onto something or spouting off about nothing and running around that the sky is falling? I am not saying that he is or isn't myself, but other than the "2008" portion and interestingly heavy "Z28" emphasis, what other holes do you see in his logic? What things are right on the money?

 

hmmm...well if the camaro gets the mpg that they said it would get when the concept came out (I think I remember them saying 28mpg highway out of the LS2), then it's not an issue. Either way it will be better on gas than my trailblazer I6 pig (18mpg if I'm lucky). He also says that it will be expensive to fill the 20+ gal tank. How many sports cars have a tank that big? My Trailblazer only holds 18. I could see the camaro holding 16 gals. I think he is slightly exaggerating...to create the sky-is-falling story.

If that many people were that worried about gas mileage...you'd see a lot less SUV's on the road. People who want a Camaro as a DD and are worried about mpg's can buy V6's. I can't see that many people who can afford to buy one in the first place, deciding not to because of the gas situation.

 

I only skimmed the article, but most of it is using the same lame, boring, tired, flat-out-incorrect logic that I see other "sky-is-falling" people use....that the Camaro must be a gas guzzler due to its rear drive, V8 nature.

Bull

****.

Columnists like these continue to perpetuate the myth that because my SUV has a V8, a V8 car must be equally as abysmal in terms of fuel efficiency. Can we please find someone who actually does research, talks to people living with these cars in the real world, hell even looks at the EPA rated numbers (which I have found are LOW for my LS1) and then write their article? No one asks me how I enjoyed getting 29 MPG on a recent road trip in my SS. They simply ignore the fact that GM claims 30 MPG highway is possible on the next car. Nope. V8 (or even V6) + RWD = Exxon Valdez.

Is "surprisingly efficient" a point that GM Marketing better be beating into everyone's head when the Camaro hits the streets? You better believe it. Someone has got to break these stereotypes. If GM doesn't beat people over the head with the facts in their advertising, I can certainly see the general public looking at the car all wrong. Self-important, holier-than-thou weenies like this writer have done a fine job getting their incorrect assumptions noticed.

He also mentioned that Mustang has slipped "considerably". True or false? I didn't think it was, I thought it was more of a statement to back up his illogical argument, even if sales are only down a few thousand since its debut.

This is just one big .

 

Yeah, I don't put much stock into that article. I'm not discounting that the Camaro will face huge challenges, just don't think that this article is all that good.

 

His logic doesn't even stand up when based upon the 4th gen car. We all know about the comparativly amazing milage the LS! got when coupled to a 6 speed. my 67 Would routinely average about 27 mpg, (and still would if it weren't sitting in my garage with a busted quarter panel).

And then he goes on to bash the V6 model.

My 98 sixer gets 34 mpg on the highway, 25 in the city. My gas bill is about $120 a month.

Somebody with some clout please call this guy on his BS.

 

Honestly a lot of the first buyers will be collectors and purists. I still have yet to see anyone under 25 buy the 2005+ Mustang GT themselves without the help of their parents in my town.

I won't be honestly buying one until I can see that it gets 20+ mpg. I can't afford another car that gets under 16 mpg anymore. Especially after mods like headers and exhaust etc.

Otherwise I'll be getting a Lexus or Infiniti.

 

$300 per month for gas? My current gas bill is about $200 per month . . . And I'm feeding an '02 Camaro SS AND an '07 Corvette. Of course, it depends upon how much, and how hard you drive, but still . . . The article was entertaining, but mostly B.S.

 

$300 a month is a bit off mark for the gas figure... an average driver drives what, 1,000 miles a month? to pay $300 a month at $3 per gallon the car would have to get 10 mpg... lol.. yeah right.. i think the camaro is going to get better than 10 mpg

even at $4 per gallon the car would have to get like 13mpg to cost $300/month

 

Marketing/Mythbusting idea.

Place a new "base" V8 Camaro, a new V6 Toyota Camry, and a new V6 Honda Accord on a test track. Fill them all with equal amounts of fuel. Drive them around the same track, on the same day, with the cruises set at the same speeds. Show the Camaro still driving effortlessly while the Accord and Camry sputter out. Show the Camaro passing them as they're dead in the water on the track.

I realize they're two different classes of cars. So what. It gets an impressive point across. Not that you'd probably need to, but you could give the Camaro the extra advantage by running the test at ~45 MPH with the Camaro in sixth gear.

Film it and run it with a smooth, matter-of-fact voiceover. Really feel like turning the screws? Ask the audience that given this test if they'd rather be driving the stylish Camaro or the frumpy other guys.

The idea was "borrowed" from a Mythbusters episode but I think it would be an eye-opening commercial.

 

/\/\/\/\ I like that idea, only I would add something...After the other two run out of gas...thats when I would kick it up a notch and show it smokin' the tires...then go into the "which one would YOU rather drive"

 

I'm sure Scott will have something to laugh about when he reads the article, if he has not already.

 

What a **** nut. Typical sky is falling, detroit is dead article. Of course, he had to mention the "fuel sipping" foreign compact sports cars... bla bla ****ing bla....

What about the gas sucking Tacoma? Or the Gas sucking Tundra? The new Sequoia will have the 5.7 as well... the Tacoma is #1 in sales in it's class and the Tundra's sales have increased well over 100% over last year... so people won't buy a camaro because of fuel costs? Bull ****.

 

The guy needs a reality check. Like where he compares the Camaro with the BMW. I assume he means 3 series. We recently serviced the brakes on my son's 2001 M3 to the tune of $1800. Servicing the brakes on my 4th gen has never cost that much, in fact, I've only had to service the front brakes once in 12 years on my '95 Z/28. Then there's the 20 something gallon gas tank and 20 something mpg. When has a Camaro ever had a 20 something gallon gas tank? Never. 20 something mpg? Uh, yeah more like 28-29 mpg with AFM and a 6spd, but that's more 30-ish than 20-something.

Eric Peters is an idiot.

 

I 100% agree with both of Z28Wilson's posts.

 

If I worked for GM and lurked on this site, I would sooo steal that idea.