Why such "follower" mentality?

If GM finds a business case for a V8 camaro, it should make it regardless of what Ford makes. One could even argue that if Ford does not make V8 mustang, GM could be in a unique position to offer a true muscle car, and lure additional buyers.

Maybe GM could lead for once, instead of following... But then, no, it could not.

 

What was the torque on that V6? What was its displacement? There's only so much torque one can reasonably, efficiently squeeze out of 2.3L. And you'll notice that torque numbers on 4-cylinder engines are usually lower than HP numbers, especially as HP gets closer to 200.

 

This is great! In fact, I suggest to ditch the electrical motors on the RS and only leave the 60hp DI 3 cyl. Tata motors could build the engine for them.

 

You're excluding forced induction, correct? The reason I ask is the 2.0L turbo ecotec produces 260hp.

And FWIW, GMs new 2.7L methanol OHV I-4 (for Midget racing) produces 350+hp.

 

G37 weighs considerably more. And the next-gen will weigh yet more. Basically, that's why you have Solstice and Sky.

Here are my choices of what i see as reasonable and feasible.
- GDI 3.0L V6, 255-285 hp.
- GDI 2.8L turbo V6, 320 - 350 hp.
- GDI Gen V smallblock V8 400 hp.

What impresses me with Mazda is that they made not only Miata fun to drive, but they did so also with Mazda 3 and 6.

Unless GM can make the Camaro appeal in its driving dynamics, and not solely in engine power, there might be a case for a 4-cylinder engine. Otherwise, I think perhaps not.

 

Yes.

I'm afraid this isn't worth much - I am talking about street offerings.

 

I know. But don't forget that often in the past the racing world has provided development for what eventually have become "street offerings."

 

GM had racing programs all along, yet in the past 18 years, I don't see any gains in powerplant output.

The average HP has risen from 120 to 140 on base cars, but as for high performance naturally aspirated, we cant even catch up to 1990.

I doubt anything much will change in the next 4 years, esp since the craze is on fuel economy. In fact, i will be surprised if GM's NA engines will surpass 200 HP.

edit: there is actually no need to have high output NA engines since GM has a turbo engine. At some point, the fuel economy of a NA engine is worse than that of a turbo. Good example is the VW Rabbit with 5-cylinder 2.5L engine that makes 170HP and about the same amount of torque, versus its 4-cylinder 2.0L turbo engine that makes 200HP and 200+ lbs-ft of torque, AND gets better fuel economy.

 

IRE, I wonder what the packaging issues and differences would be between an LSx smallblock and a HFV6, or even a turbo HFV6

 

But you should be making that argument if you want to be consistent. A 3600 pound V8 Alpha is going to be almost as CAFE negative as a 3800 pound V8 Zeta. So if CAFE negative is a problem, then the V8 Alpha is a problem.

Personally, I think the argument is a little silly, since there will always be plenty of CAFE negative vehicles to balance out the CAFE positive vehicles.

 

I don't see the relevance of Colorado to Alpha.

There are two questions.

1. Could the Alpha designed around I4/V6 take a V8?

If the answer to this is 'yes', then I think that GM has made a big mistake in that the car will be longer, wider, and heavier than it should be.

2. Could the Alpha be modified to take a V8?

I can't imagine the answer to this would be 'no'. But it might be expensive due to low volumes. Maybe call it Alpha-prime or Alpha-V8. I predict minimal size-based weight advantages to this over a Zeta platform. That is, the difference in size will not save much weight. That still leaves open the door for every other weight saving device, but that door is open for a Zeta sized vehicle as well.


So how much extra will the market pay for a Camaro that's several inches shorter and an inch or two narrower than a Zeta-sized Camaro? Remember that there's hundreds of millions of dollars riding on GM getting this right, whereas many of us posting here don't have any money riding on this (allowing for some of us being GM employees and shareholders).

 

I think I've made my arguements on this.

Less mass, means less displacement, with better or equal performance and better mpg. Don't tell me you don't get that? I know you do. Less mass is an enabler to use more fuel efficient powerplants.


BTW, who sells a 3800 pound V8 Zeta?

There will always be CAFE negative vehicles, but when even the base V6 is going to be CAFE negative, that''ll be a problem.

 

perhaps you see the relevance that the Gm-355 was not designed fore a V8----yet here we have it

 

But it'd still be CAFE negative. If the Camaro is way out of step with the market, a 200 pound lighter Camaro will just be a bit less out of step. It's not like 200 pounds changes it from way out of step to right on target. Unless you're just exaggerating. I could go find quotes from you on this, because I know I'm not quoting directly. I don't think you'd disagree that you've made extreme statements as to the market suitability of the Camaro. Did I misread you? Or do you really think that 200 pounds makes that big a difference?

Remember that we're talking a few years out, and Holden is putting Zeta on a diet. [supposedly -- again, the proof will be in the pudding] Many weight reduction measures could be applied equally, while some would be easier on the new platform.

Yeah. And that argues for the smallest possible base model.

 

Yes, and that falls into my option 2 that you partially quoted. Regarding modifying the Colorado and the relevance to Alpha, first there's IREngineer's comment and second, I bet it's a lot easier to modify a body on frame pickup than a unibody.