I stated years ago that the Camaro should be more like a 3 series coupe.
It should handle well, get good mileage and have a great fit and finish.

From the pictures I have seen of the RS, I think they listened. I have no complaints. I do see little things on the car I am not a fan of, but overall it's a home run. Afterall, I didn't design the car, and if I did there would be little things you wouldn't like about it still.

Best of all, the V6 with 300 hp and great mileage will be enough to keep performance within reach for many.

GREAT JOB!

But now I think you should hire me since you obviously listened to everythign I said!

 

+1. Great job to all involved.

I got to see the RS in person at the Royal Oak unveiling, and the only thing I have to say is that, much like the concept, pictures don't do it justice.

 

I think GM hit this one out of the park. I just hope the market is still able to receive it despite a changing economy.

If the car is put together as well as it looks, then I'll likely be returning to the land of American cars

 

I am ecstatic that GM is pushing the V6, and it looks like such an amazing car. I hope they continue this trend and put a turbo V4 in the entry Camaro in a few years, and replace the V8 with a turbo 6.

 

ummmmm, no.

The V8 can achieve better gas mileage with several more years of research. I can imagine a smaller displacement V8 pumping out 400 hp at higher rpms and variable intake and exhaust timing and geometry as well as DI, getting 30+ mpg easily in todays heavy cars while offering more than enough low end torque as needed, that goes without saying they will need to focus on lowering weight. A 30+ mpg V8 and a 40+ mpg V6 will do enough to satisfy the average consumer. that said, those refinements added to a light weight 4 cyl car will achieve 50+ mpg (a 1984 escort 4 door wagon got over 45 mpg).

 

BTW...

The V in V6/V8/V10/V12/V16 means that the cylinders in the engine are separated into two banks, which are arranged at a V-like angle.

Four-cylinder engines usually have a single bank of four, all in one line. This is called I4, not V4. Two banks of two cylinders in a V arrangement is naturally very unbalanced, and is therefore an undesirable configuration.

There are also H4 engines (a.k.a. "horizontally opposed"), in which the two banks of two cylinders are pointed in opposite directions.

 

Worst comment of the year award winner.

 

Well, lets (as in me too) not be too harsh. Although I am sure we'd all like to forget it including (or especially) the guys at GM, the Camaro in the early 1980's had a V4.

Not to say it was a good idea then, or would be a good Idea now, but it was done.

I think GM should shift it's small and midsize sedans to RWD with AWD capability, with potent 4cyl engines standard and 6 cylinder turbo engines for the performance end. Performance cars like the Camaro and Vette should have potent engines only. The Ford Fusion is going to get an SVT version, rumors place an eco-boost and AWD in it, with possible manual trans versions. I'd like to see the next malibu go RWD and get a 3.6 with turbos and a stick. Better yet would be a coupe with a V8 and rwd, HELLO CHEVELLE!

 

Please go back and read Post #6 again! It was a 2.5L I4 in the 80s camaros, not a V4 !!! As for the second comment I put in bold, there are many many people in cold weather climates that want FWD sedans for the winter months. AWD would be nice, but it's more expensive and overkill. I would be affraid to let many people drive RWD cars in the winter.

 

I think GM hit this one out of the park. I just hope the market is still able to receive it despite a changing economy.

 

As stated, the motor was a 2.5L inline 4. It produced approximately 90hp and was found in a variety of vehicles, especially FWD/transverse mount applications like the GM A-Body, the N-Body, it found its way into the S-series trucks too. However, there was never anything "v" about it.

Really?

 

I'm happy GM is pushing the V6 and I'm actually more impressed with the V6 then I am with the V8!

Funny since when I owned my V6 Camaro it was "un cool" and now the focus is on the V6!

My only complaint, I wish they toned down the V8 a bit. IMO the LS1 and LT1 were great engines at delivering power & Fuel economy and I dont see that with this new generation of V8's. I feel they just tip the scale too much in power and the economy went away.

 

Agreed. Buts its always been a power thing at GM. They like to have that bragging right. New CTS... ZR-1... Even their sixes. Maybe they could have done with less if the car shed a few pounds and lost some rotational mass.

 

sorry. Love my LS3. Lots of Camaro people just dont drive that much to make a hill of beans difference in economy over a year. If it's Camaro it's top dog has to be a V8. Always will be...they will just find ways of getting 30+ miles to the gallon out of them....The V6 is a great option as a daily driver though....Car is too heavy for a 4 to make sense...probably gains would be minor...

 

A Chevy Camaro without an optional V8 - basically goes against what a Chevy Camaro is. Which is to say a high performance Pony Car - it needs to be affordable, fast & fun to drive. And a V8 has alway been a part of that formula.

But with the 5th Gen - we finally get a V6 that also delievers great performance in addition to good fuel economy.

I also believe it's very possible for GM to build a V8 powered Camaro that gets better than 30 mpg on the highway. How? Simple - hybridize it like has already been done on other Chevy cars & trucks. BTW adding a good hybrid system to the current V6 motor could net a highway mpg of about 35 mpg or more.

And Personally I would love to see a small block chevy V8 with a displacement of about 5.0-5.7L back in the Camaro - possible in DOHC configuration - so it could produce near the same hp as the current LS3. Now that would be cool.