Ugh for the love of god I hope not.

 

I am not sure what the penalty is in the new legislation. But, didn't the GTO have a $1500 or so gas guzzler tax if you got an Auto?

I am guessing the Feds made it more difficult or expensive than just paying another $1500. Because if you think about it, when you are paying $40,000 for a loaded 2SS, another $1500 isn't going to be a big deal to get the horsepower.

-Geoff

 

I think a base turbo 4 would open up all sorts of doors for the Camaro. Doors, which frankly, Camaro needs opened. All while delivering great FE. Especially important as V8's move more upmarket.

How do we feel about turbo 4 Camaro SS? Just throwing that out there...

I have a feeling that the ATS-V will give us a great preview of what pieces might be seen in a 6th gen Z/28. Sounds like it'll be packing a hot Gen V smallblock - can't wait to see what turns up.

 

A base turbo 4 would be a waste of time and money for GM, the outcome would eb a car with most likely worse mileage then the V6. Turbo 4's are great in smaller lighweight vehicles but put one in a 3700lb Camaro and the engine will be taxed to keep that much mass going and killing your mileage. Turbo 4 in my Cobalt is rated for 30 hwy, best I can do in my 3000lb sedan is 28, add 700lb's and your looking at 25mpg most likely. Turbo 6 would get better mileage since it has more torque to get the mass moving.

 

3700 pounds?

You must be in the wrong thread...

 

That is just a guess on my part.

I was really surprised the General put a DOHC motor in the V6 Camaro.

I just think that is going to be the route. Because the motors are going to need to get smaller and more efficient, mainly more efficient, to meet all the regs.

 

Ok, I get you know, the Alpha frame, my bad. I thought we were rehashing the 4 cylinder 5th gen argument. I'm out

 

They weren't bad. Kinda looked like 60's ralley wheels. It was a base LS. Only options were floor mats and automatic. It was right around $24,000 with options and destination. It was less than a 2009 Cobalt SS that I looked at.

 

I'm in agreement here, and I think a turbo 4 Camaro SS would open up Camaro to a bunch of new fans. If the car is fully optimized for that engine (size and weight-wise), I think it could appeal to a whole new group of fans. But would it turn off the current fans?

 

The gas guzzler tax is a completely different thing. I don't believe the guzzler rules have been changed, so the cars just need 22.5 EPA combined (under the same metric where the current SS M6 is 24.3.

I looked at the PDF with the rules, and it looks to me as though the fines don't change, just the level at which they start to be levied. Now, I didn't study all 830 pages, I did a search on 'penalties' and found a section that continued to refer to the $5.50 per .1 mpg times number of vehicles sold.

I think the political fallout will be tougher. Though ironically, with the numbers going up every year, falling short and paying a fine may start to become acceptable. It doesn't seem to have hurt BMW and Mercedes, but the press and public have somewhat of a double standard on the issue.

 

A turbo 4 in a 5th gen could help the fuel economy, if the engine is tuned for economy, with a tall axle, low/medium pressure turbo, emphasis on low end torque, boost off idle, etc. But it wouldn't be an SS. Camaro Turbo Coupe anyone?

I think a high performance SS model turbo 4 would have to be smaller and lighter -- no bigger than the Genesis Coupe. Maybe 3300 pounds at most, or don't bother, unless the power gets cranked up over 300 or uses an electric motor for assistance.
But I would not want to see that in the current car.

 

Well, that just might be the actual intent of the legislation. Raise revenue with a tax that could be avoided. A different version of a "sin" tax. We'll be seeing lots of this kind of crap on food, drinks, cars, clothes, you name it.

Likely to be an attempt to go with a V.A.T. tax too.

 

Offer an optional V8 then - but it'll cost.


A turbo 4 SS can position itself as an entry level performance choice for Camaro. "SS" as defined by Chevy should represent attainable performance anyway. Maybe even offer two versions of that engine, like the Regal and Regal GS will.

 

Sorry but a turbo 4 for Camaro is a crap idea.

Did I mention it is a crap idea?

Reason: when you can get a super quick, super sophisticated EVO or WRX and a lighter chassis plus a more purpose oriented AWD drivetrain, a Camaro 4T would be a distant also ran against that competition. Why set the Camaro up for a failure?

A 4T does not belong in a Camaro, period. A 4T belongs in a small car, not a largish car like Camaro. I'm sure there'd be other GM products that would be far better recipients of a performance 4T (like Cruze).

 

It's interesting what 100lbs does to perception. Women aside...
3700 lbs =
3600 lbs =