I get it. No 4 cylinders. No diesels.

Okay, give us a CAFE compliant line-up then. CAFE, circa 5 years from now. Assume halfway to the 2020 35 mpg target, let's say 31.5 mpg, with it going up annually.

 

Allow me.

"We don't know what technologies will be available -- maybe a V6 and V8 only combo will get us there."

In just 5 years, unless you're talking about using full-blown hybrid technologies, I don't see it.

 

You know, the more you babble the more you reveal yourself to be a truly obtuse fellow.

Until now I've thought that your thick headedness and hypocritical nature was simply a ploy to stir up the discussion. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps I have given you too much credit in the past with regard to discerning points made in posts. Therefore I will spell it out for you....


Discussing CAFE is fine and well within forum guidelines.

Discussing global warming is fine and well within forum guidelines.

Discussing most anything thing is fine and well within forum guidelines.

Repeatedly inserting your personal political slant into discussions is not.



I would love to go rounds with you debating the peer reviewed scientific data but will not because it does not belong in "Automotive News / Future Vehicle Discussion".

I am not personally offended by one's political views but those in charge here don't want the firestorms that develop from such discussions.

I have grown tired of seeing your political views posted while everyone else follows the rules.

I offered you the opportunity to take it to PMs but you did not accept.


Understand?

BTW - Congratulations. You're the first on any forum to waste enough of my time and sufficiently annoy me to the point of activating the "ignore" feature.

 

I don't see how. There's a lot I don't like about the possibility - but I simply don't care enough to 'boycott' the entire 6gen line. Yet, that doesn't conflict with me having concerns about GM choosing to put an I4 in the car.

 

Enthusiasts will still buy it if it gets teens for mileage apparently. So Chevrolet can just make the Corvette get 60mpg to offset the Camaro so they don't have to get good gas mileage in it.

I'm not an enthusiast because I would like my Formula to make better than the 21mpg combined that it does regularly.

 

AH-HA!!!! NOW we see where your slant is originating.

In your mind (predominantly), you see the Camaro as a MUSCLECAR, not a ponycar.

Perhaps you have only owned V8 Camaros of various performance levels.
GREAT! It's your choice and right - be grateful you had the choice.
However, don't dare underestimate the number of people who own F-bods that are NOT V8 powered. Likewise, remember that Mustang has ALWAYS offered multiple cylinders - up to 9 engine packages in some years. Wonder if that has had anything to do with it outselling Camaro as much as it has?

In my humble opinion, it's perfectly fine (and awesome) to cram a big honkin' V8 into a coupe made to accomodate 4s and 6s as well, but that should be the exception - NOT the rule. Camaro (like Mustang) is a PONYCAR - NOT a MUSCLECAR. They both have had iterations in which they pretend to be musclecars by installing "cubes", but they were designed, built, and marketed as sporty coupes - typically 2+2 configuration - that are intended for sporty recreational driving or commuting.

Sounds to me like you really want a Corvette with new bodywork and a different name.

Honestly, I don't want to see the same Camaro you describe, because it will only fail and leave me pizzed-off worse than I was in 2003. Chevrolet HAS a MUSCLECAR already, and with mileage restrictions getting worse, gas prices getting worse, and the economy still teetering on recession - they would be suicidal to bring out another one beside the Vette.
They need a PONYCAR - one with mass-appeal and volume sales, preferably with a heritage and "Camaro" on the fenders that will last for several years to come.

 

Time for me to offer this thread something more constructive than anti-BDF tirades...

I personally can't get my head around a diesel Camaro.

I have no problem accepting a NA four banger Camaro in the lineup but the car would probably have to be lighter than a 3rd gen for it to return decent mpg numbers. Smaller displacement doesn't automatically = better economy.

I can't see a turbo four being more fuel efficient than a comparably powered six.

If the car is smaller, fairly light (say 3100 lbs), has reasonable aero and rolling resistance, why couldn't it approach 35 mpg with known technology?

My LT1 (we all know when that was designed) averaged low 20s under my heavy right foot when it was a daily driver. This involved mixed driving in Philadelphia traffic, summer and winter. 70 mph highway trips would return about 26 - 28 mpg. My '91 TBI 305 (when was that designed? ) routinely got 30 mpg on 70 mph highway runs. Sometimes a bit better.

It seems to me that a smaller, lighter, more aero worthy car with a slightly smaller displacement direct injected engine wouldn't have a great deal of difficulty breaking 30 mpg in the federal test. *shrug*


SIDEBAR - Wanna guess what that same LT1 gets now when I'm racing? Remember it is still nearly bone stock right down to the stock tune. I only have a CAI and cat-back.

I get somewhere around 3 - 5 mpg.

If it wasn't my car I would never believe it. I didn't even think it was possible for a stock, reasonably modern PCM controlled / fuel injected car to burn that much fuel.

 

It could be, we agree on more than we know. I do agree the Camaro would/will not flourish as "just a muscle car with a honkin' V8". It needs affordable, "non-honkin" variants to be a success. I simply feel that can be done with a V6, and I don't like the street image of seeing/hearing 6gen Camaros with that obnoxious 4-cyl exhaust note. Who knows? Maybe by the time the 6gen is out, enough young "2F2F" types will be out there who want a 4cyl Camaro. But I doubt it. I guess time will tell.

But as for classifications - I don't see the Corvette as a "muscle car". I tend to follow the definitions and classifications found on http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...finition.shtml in deciding what a car is. That site doesn't consider the Corvette a muscle car either - but instead, a sports car, akin to a Ferrari Modena or the like. Surely you don't consider the Modena a muscle car?

Further - that site does not consider all Mustangs and Camaros as "muscle cars"... only the high-performing variants like the Camaro SS and the Mustang GT. YMMV

 

A 4 cylinder engine does not automatically mean better gas milage.
I get 23MPG in my Saturn Sky that weighs 3000 lbs, has the 2.4l ecotec with a mere 177hp. And I have the 5-speed manual
My GTO got 22MPG, had the 350hp LS1 and weighed 4000lbs and was tied to a 6-speed manual.
33% heavier, twice the power and it lost 1 mpg.

 

I'm still not convinced we even need that many "economy" Camaros. Don't tell me its for insurance purposes because being basically a new model, the insurance premiums will be based on the purchase price until some accident data can be figured in.

So let's say we have a V8 Camaro low option version that basically costs the same as a V6 Camaro high content. Which are most people going to buy? If luxury is important, perhaps the V6, but if performance is important they'd probably take less frills for the V8. The point being is this is a "new" car. Its styling is more agressive than in the past and it says "enthusiast" from the word go.

For someone looking for a sporty 4-passenger coupe with all the bells and whistles but who doesn't necessarily want a V8, the new Camaro may not even be on their radar. However for the enthusiast who wants a Camaro regardless, they might want more grunt with less frills to save a buck. Turning the volume Camaro into an econobox just to average 35mpg sounds great on paper, but how many here would actually buy it?

Call me crazy, but I just don't buy all ths CAFE doom and gloom.

However, I wouldn't mind a Camaro that averaged 32 mpg as long as had enough power to smoke a Mustang or Challenger.

 

Another good point, NA 4cyls lack torque.
That's why a turbo is the only 4cyl I'd want.
I repeatidly got 21 mpg in my stock '90 IROC @ 65mph. and 16mpg or so in town.
My '03 Rendezvous 3.4L gets 24.5mpg highway and 17mpg in town.
A larger engine could motivate that extra poundage easier and get similar or better milage under normal driving.

 

Well since you're ignoring me now, you won't see my apology for ignoring your previous request. It was not my intent to aggravate. However I did get a little sarcastic, I suppose that was a mistake. I will take care to tone it down, so no one else feels the need to berate me personally in response.

But there are a couple things that trouble me about the above. I believe we ought to be allowed to challenge some things here. If I don't think the new CAFE is sound, nor likely to survive long in American society, I think that should be something I can say here... along with my reasoning. CAFE, global warming, and the buying habits of the 6gen's demo group(s) are all inherently germane to this discussion. It wouldn't be much of a thread without examining them and their possible impacts on the Camaro. Perhaps that was why CAFE, for example, was mentioned in the thread's first post.

 

"THE G-- D--- GERMANS HAVE NOTHIN' TO DO WITH IT!"

-Buford T. Justice

 

I loved that flick!

 

"CAFE Negative" needs to be in context, because the Camaro will still be CAFE positive when compared to the million fullsized trucks that GM sells every year. ~50,000 V8 Camaros per year is only a tiny part of the overall picture.

Also by mid-next decade hybrid engines will be regular production items -- in theory you could have larger electric motors burning rubber while still having extremely good MPG.