The only point in an otherwise excellent post I would argue (and argue is way too strong a word here) is this. IIRC, the 4th gen platform wasn't really a big move away from anything platform-wise, it was a really just a freshened up 3rd gen with some tweaks. Exact same floorpan, essentially the same wheelbase, but with a new IFS, and body shell, more rakish a-pillars, forward leaning B-pillars, and smaller trunk and door openings in the structure to stiffen if it up and somewhat deeper trans tunnel and over-the-rear-axle hump also for stiffening and tank relocation. Not to mention a little more attention paid to the T-top holes and surrounding structure so that the hardtop wasn't really a whole lot stiffer than a T-top car... wait a second, maybe all this made for a car that in the end was less mainstream acceptable - more confining, lower slung arguably harder to get in and out of, more powerful engines - more sports car than sporty pony car.

...back to what you said...

Ya know, a nice, modern, turbo'ed diesel alternative would make for an interesting Camaro....hmmmm. We've already seen that exactly what makes a Camaro a "Camaro" over the years can be a very fluid and slippery definition.

 

And how many of the 3rd gens sold were 4-cylinders? I bet you it's a LOT less than the 6-cylinder and base 8-cylinder models. The 4-cylinder F-bodies never sold well, because they didn't fit in with the F-body image. They were a pathetic joke.

 

Not necessarily. The 4th gen 6-cylinder F-bodies are capable of 30+ MPG on the highway, and even the LS1 cars can get near 30 highway MPG if the driver isn't beating on the car.

Regardless, if you surveyed the people who buy these cars, and asked them why they bought the car, fuel economy wouldn't be high on their list.

 

Inadvertently, you touched on an important issue (see bold text). Why do people do this? Why buy a hybrid costing thousands more? I'd suggest three reasons:

1. They ignorantly believe the hype in the mainstream media, that gasoline prices are going to explode and/or have already exploded.*
2. They raked in a tax rebate from our nanny government, who is trying to encourage all manner of weird 'fuel-saving' ideas like premature hybrids and inefficient ethanol schemes.
3. They score 'brownie points' with their liberal friends, who admire their 'environmental responsiveness'... and they get a little 'feelgood factor' from thinking they are somehow helping out. Nothing wrong with that if it is their cup-o-tea, I'm just sayin' what it is.

*Ignorant hybrid buyers should read more of this kind of news:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6440

 

Uh, ok....but the point that I think is pretty well illustrated is that offering the 4 cylinder did not do any damage to Camaro's image.

It seems like people have the notion that offering a very economical engine (like a future Ecotec) would somehow destroy Camaro and its image. I don't buy it. So for you "history" buffs, it HAS already been offered and did NOT do damage. They still sold Camaros by the boatload during the time the 4-pot was offered. And one big conclusion I draw from the failure of the 4 back then was that gas prices and consumption was simply not even a consideration. Now? I think something like that would have the potential to bring in more customers in a new era where $4/gallon is considered cheap.

Bud, you and I are on the same wavelength as far as the public. They really are sheep. But none of that matters when you're trying to sell cars. Perception IS reality and the consumer is always right. Therefore, you need to cater to the "sheeple" if you want Camaro to survive and thrive.

Look, I don't necessarily "love" the idea of a 4 cylinder Camaro and I would love it if it is never a necessity for CAFE reasons. I just think that we're going to have to consider such things and prepare ourselves. And, prepare yourself for the notion that GM probably can't get away with high volume building of 3700-pound (plus?) coupes like the Camaro you are demanding.

Question: If a 4 cylinder model was necessary on the low end to allow a top-dog 6th Gen with a 400+ HP V8 (in a lighter package of course), would you want GM to do it?

 

Another thing to consider is that 4th Gen buyers aren't exactly the target audience for the 5th or 6th gen cars. They are going for a more mainstream group of buyers and a lot more sales.

 

Point made.

If offering it gets you more buyers without adding lots of cost to develop and make, why not? My sole motivation for putting 2 of the options on that first list was to make the car more appealing to a wider range of buyers.

Like a Camaro commercial on TV that touts the hybrid as "a sporty car that loves the environment back" would not be well-received by a huge market ranging from tree-huggers to new kids that ave grown up recycling and conserving everything. WHAT could that hurt?!?!

 

My point was the Camaro sold like crazy while it was offered, and didn't when it was not.

I'm sorry.. what was your point again?

 

Seriously...

Imagine a turbo version of the forthcoming Duramax 4.5L V8 coupled with an A6 and sporty styling. Heck make it biodiesel capable and call it Camaro GS. ("Green" Sport.)

 

Actually, putting a 4-cylinder in the 3rd gen Camaro did damage its image. People still laugh whenever the 4-cylinder models are mentioned. The cars just didn't fit into the lineup - they were a poor attempt to cater to drivers seeking fuel economy, who weren't looking at Camaros anyway. Which brings me back to my original point - people buying pony cars aren't considering fuel economy when making their purchases. Anyone who is looking for an fuel-efficient car won't be looking for a pony car - they'll look for an econobox.

 

While true today, the original 6-cylinder Camaros were marketed as economy cars. However back then Camaro was one of the smaller cars in Chevy's line-up, along with the Chevy II (Nova) and Corvair (which was essentially killed off by Ralph Nadar and the birth of the Camaro).

Today, that's not the case as Chevy already has the Aveo, Cobalt and Malibu. Could the Camaro be marketed as an economy sport coupe? Possibly, but I think GM would be concerned about it taking some of Cobalt's market share. While it has been stated that the base Camaro needs to be a fuel efficent sporty car for the masses, if GM can sell more smaller cars that get over 35mpg (say 38+mpg), that means they won't have to hit that magic number with a "base" Camaro. Which makes you wonder... just what kind of numbers does the "base" Camaro need to achieve? 33mpg? 30mpg? Couldn't a turbo diesel achieve that today?

Another thing to consider. One cannot compare the 3rd and 4th gens to what the Chevy line-up will be in MY2010. Back then Chevy's sporty compact was the Cavalier. Although the Cobalt replaced the Cavalier, it is far sportier and more in-tune to younger buyers. Back then, younger buyers who wanted a sporty economy car may have actually considered a V6 Camaro. In 2009, they'll have the Cobalt as an option. In otherwords, how important is the "base" Camaro really going to be? I say, not as much as one might think.

 

Point made.

Exactly. It doesn't matter, if "having a 4cyl Camaro offered" DID NO damage to the name. Point is, it did not HELP. (It sure didn't do those poor buyers any good either, when they went to sell their 4cyl Camaros used and found that no one wanted them as collector cars).

Your argument suffers from a false-correlation fallacy. It is true, Camaros were heavy sellers in the 1980's. But this was due to demographic trends, styling, and most importantly, that the 3gens had the PERFORMANCE to back up the image of their styling. They sold well DESPITE the option of a weak 4-cyl, not because of it. The availability of a 4cyl had virtually nothing (causally) to do with the car's success.

 

The Camaro didn't sell like crazy because of the 4-cylinder. In every year you listed, the Z28s ALONE almost equaled the total production of the Sport Coupes, which were available with 4, 6, and 8-cylinder options. Include the Berlinetta models, which were available with 6 or 8 cylinders, and you can plainly see that the 4-cylinder had nothing to do with the 3rd gen's higher sales. More 8-cylinder models were sold than 4-cylinder models. I would attribute the 3rd gen's initial high sales to the introduction of its new sleek, aerodynamic body and wealth of 8-cylinder engine options, not to mention its outstanding handling.

4th gen production dwindled for a variety of reasons. Lack of investment in the program, specializing the car too much (where the Mustang was more mainstream), complete lack of advertising, changing car-buying patterns, etc. all contributed to lower sales - not the lack of a 4-cylinder engine. Even the Mustang during the same period was tens of thousand of cars short of 1980's production levels.

That's my point.

 

Hmmm...demographic trends....what the heck do you think we're talking about here??? Demographic trends as CAFE and fuel price considerations come into play perhaps?

Who says a 6th Gen wouldn't offer the PERFORMANCE to back up the 4-bangers in higher models? You didn't answer the question I posed earlier....If it came down to it, would you accept a 4 cylinder Camaro model if it was necessary to have the fire-breathing V8 model we all want?

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that says 4 cylinders damaged Camaro's reputation in the 80's. Because the sales numbers say otherwise. If Camaro was so hurt by offering a 4 cylinder for a few years, you'd think buyers would get the wrong impression of the whole line and would stay away in droves. I don't see that at all, in the numbers ProudPony posted. So what gives?

 

I would agree, but again, you're missing the point. The assertion that the Camaro was somehow "damaged" back then in the court of public opinion by offering a 4 cylinder is simply not supported by the sales figures.