I have no idea if or when the 4gen was spared 'execution', other than the official end in 2002 (which IIRC, was also due a lot to issues with production costs at St. Therese). But focusing only on the period 1993-2002 is myopic. No doubt, GM design planners had to be looking out beyond 2002 and you better believe, crash standards DID change after 02.
Nonsense, not a 'safe bet' in the least. We sitting here today really have no visibility into energy futures beyond the next few months. We don't know what new technologies are coming (judging from the last 15-20 years, they're likely to be pretty amazing). We don't know how soon the manmade-global-warming hoax will be exposed. And we don't know how much of a change in the new CAFE (even as little as a 1- or 2-MPG reduction) might have on GM product planning, but it would be major, in a good way, for us muscle car fans.
Fine. Let the 2F2F crowd have their turbo-I4's. But there are a lot more of us American-Iron muscle car fans than you might think, and we are raising our kids to appreciate the good old Honkin' V8

 

IIRC, in 1996, it was decided to kill the F-bodies after 1998. Then a decision was made to drop the LS1 in them, and they were extended until 2000. Another decision was then made to extend the run until 2002, when they were finally dropped. I'm pretty sure that GM's designers weren't looking past 2002, if the F-bodies were destined to die off very soon.

 

Wrong. You may have asked ALMOST every last person... but clearly you did not ask me

I've said it once, and will say it again. Gasoline is a bargain at current prices. People have been going hysterical about it due to (1) Endless spectacular stoking and doomsaying in the mainstream media, and (2) the whining that comes when an extreme bargain (last year's gasoline prices) becomes an average bargain (today's).
America will not now, and not ever, give up her love affair with the automobile. Obviously that does not mean everyone out there will be willing to buy a genuine V8 muscle car. But many, many still will for decades to come. That's just the way we nutty Yanks are
I was not aware! I simply did not know the OP had been promoted to his new position as "GM CAFE Spokesman"! ( )

BTW - why can't one or two 6gen Camaro variants be hybrids?
Maybe... but I can tell you, strictly off-cuff, that 4cyl Camaros have never been a hit in the past. Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

 

100% agreed. The more things change, the more they remain the same...

 

There are at least two problems with this lineup. First, weak-sauce 4cyl Camaros have been offered before... and they were a loser in the marketplace. Camaro buyers want some pizazz, even if only a peppy V6. Second, the Camaro hasn't (either in the 4gen or from what we know so far, in the 5gen) had more than three engine choices. There's simply not enough volume to justify it.

100% Agreed.
If they are so great, why haven't diesels already taken off in the USA? It could be their noise, smells, and possibly also this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/us...0A&oref=slogin (cliff's notes - diesel fuel availability is constrained by refinery capacity). Also... isn't a diesel a pretty large departure from the Camaro's brand identity?

 

Don't forget the plan to change the F-bodies to 4 and 6-cylinder powered FWD cars. That idea got trashed, too.

 

What's "stylish" can turn on a dime, depending on new facts coming to light. I predict that within ten years from now, the man-made-global-warming hoax will have been exposed for what it is - utter leftist propaganda. We'll see what's "trendy" once that happens Guess what is the single most important factor in the Earth's temperature? THE SUN http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2...ew-years-time/

 

Again, ask John Q. Public if he agrees. Quite honestly, the explosion in hybrid offerings (which make little economic sense for the consumer whether they realize it or not) and hybrid sales tell you what the consumer believes.

If you don't understand why a company would not be in a hurry to build a volume vehicle that hurts its CAFE rating, I'm not sure how to continue this discussion.....

Mmmkay. Welp, in closing to this, I would say that we can all go whistling past the graveyard, or play our fiddle right in the middle of a flaming Rome, OR we can at least acknowlege the possibility of some very drastic and fundamental shifts in the future automotive market -- and think about ways to better prepare Camaro for this.

 

Do you have to work your political view regarding this matter into every single thread (twice in this one) you post in? Isn't that (regurgitating the same BS in thread after thread) the sort of thing you cried about earlier? Also, I'm pretty sure this site has a strict "no political content" policy. Drop it. It doesn't belong here and I'm tired of seeing it.

I have no interest in debating you on this matter. It simply is not appropriate for this forum. If you'd like to continue this via PM, I'm game but I won't post again in this thread regarding the matter.

 

+10^100

 

CAFE's just as political, and was mentioned by the OP in the first post of the thread, twice and with major emphasis. It's ridiculous to have this discussion without considering such matters. However, the uncertainties surrounding the futures of them does definitely make it quite difficult to make concrete conclusions about the next Camaro.

 

The raw combined number for the 2008 Vette (the number used for CAFE, iirc) is 23.13 for the A6 and 25.13 for the M6. The raw highway number for each is 34.35 and 35.8, but the city numbers of 18.25 and 20.2 bring the average down.

 

But isn't that because pony cars don't get good fuel economy?

Why shouldn't GM build a pony car with good fuel economy, so that they could get buyers for whom it is high on the priority list?

 

Well, yes!

On my first day, I relayed to my superiors, a theory I read from some guy on the internet. This theory postulates that CAFE is on a collision course with the American lifestyle and should be ignored. And eventhough this new CAFE is the LAW of the land, I told them that GM and the Board of Directors should just grow some ***** and and ignore it, and not worry about aligning any future products to conform with these laws. That's when me and The Board, shook our fists in the air and yelled "ANARCHY, ANARCHY"

Rick Wagoner especially, thought I rocked.





This from someone who says that Camaro is not a ponycar but should be a midsized coupe. Umm, with no need for functional gauges....

Departure?

 

So you are saying we need to stick with the proven formula that carried the Camaro into blazing glory... fast and faster?
Correct me if I am wrong, but do we all not agree that marketing and design decisions made with the incursion of the 4th gen helped to seal it's eventual doom? Hence "bad calls" were made by those in power and resulted in a less appealing car that was marketed more poorly? Perhaps one of those "bad calls" was moving so far away from a basically simple and economical platform. Perhaps another was restricting the engine options so narrowly. Hmmm.

As I recall the 3rd gen was the last "big seller" - when Camaros actually sold huge numbers - like 150k/year or more.
82: 189,747
83: 154,318
84: 261,591
85: 180,018
86: 192,219

Compared to the 4th gen's MUCH lower numbers...
94: 119,934
95: 122,844
96: 66,827
97: 95,812
98: 77,198
99: 42,098
00: 45,417
01: 29,009

NOW - I'm sorry... could you tell me which models offered the "weak-sauce 4cyl Camaros" and which ones didn't?
Seems the people who voted with their wallets would not side with you... historically speaking.


I'd open this debate by asking how many European diesels you have driven in the last 2 years. If you say none, then I humbly ask you to restrain your criticism as you do not have a clue of what you speak. They are CLEANER than most of our gas burners here - especially with the low-sulfer they have had over there for a long time. They don't smoke or smell. They are quiet, smooth, and torquey as all get out. You seem to have the old Oldsmobile Diesel from the 1970's stuck in your mind, and that is the WRONG paradigm - trust me. When you are running 145 and you get passed handily by a diesel... maybe you'll begin to realize that good power is good power, no matter what the combustion cycle that produces it.

As for the refining capacity... well, less cars burning gas means more refining capacity to make diesel, doesn't it? As more electrics, hybrids, and diesels come out, I'd say the capacity would be no more than a shift at best. Also, diesel is a more forgiving fuel to make. You can even do it yourself if you like fries with that.

Humbly Yours,
PP