Eric,

I don't follow why earlier you stated there is no need for a mid-level V8, and that there should be a six derivative instead. Yes, GM has some nice sixes. They ALSO have a competent 5.3 V8 as well. I;m not asking for a new engine to be designed...they already have it!!!!!!!! Tell me WHY we should have a blown 6 instead of an 8 when an LSx...

Gets better MPG
Has the aura of an 8
And by your own admition, while an SVO type engine is neat, IT DIDN'T SELL. Mid level V8s ALWAYS SOLD.

Not sure I see where you're coming from...

This is a muscle car...an American one. Muscle cars have V8s. So I ask those of you who keep throwing the blown 6 idea in...

Give me a good reason WHY an engine with inferior gas mileage, no known appeal in a Camaro, and lacking the heritage of a V8, AND COSTING MORE THAN AN 8 would be a good idea?!?!?!!?!?!?

Sorry for getting a little ripped here...but I'm tired of people ignoring what has worked before, and saying they think a mid level 6 is a good idea when it has nowhere near the curb appeal, as stated above. I sold Firebirds...I know what Joe Consumer told me. I know what sold. And, I know what I want. Those of you most adamant against a mid level 8 are primarily $30k SS owners...well, Camaro means more than top models, does it not? We need the bread and butter, guys...and I'll pony up my own money too, if they make one I can afford...

 

To attract new customers. Maybe the Camaro is or isn't the place for a blown V6, but I think at least one car off this new Sigma-lite platform should have a blown V6. Maybe the Buick Coupe would be a better place for it

 

You said it. JasonE's posts make a lot of sense on this topic. I go back to my very original point that a well-executed Camaro does not need overly exotic hardware to draw people. For instance, while AWD might be interesting to me, it isn't needed to help Mustang sell 200,000 units a year....follow the Camaro formula.

 

Since not eveyone will want or have $30+ Grand to throw down for a car, there will need to be "packages" including a mid (entry level) V8 to accomodate them. Yes people like the "inferred reliability, power and sound of even a mid (entry level) V8, and "Bragging Rights" ARE important...I don't think this section of the market can be ignored, it's like those who want a "Sport Bike" but don't want a "R" model's "race only" feel...But as said, it CAN'T go backwards in power performance, it must be comparable to a 300HP Mustang..The "TOP" MUST GO UP...

And since the "Guy" who DOES have and pay $30+Grand for his car, I think he'd want it to have more power than a "Base Model", bragging rights again...but also to have it wrapped in a "Kick @$$" performance package only surpassed by the C6 Vette!...

To make a case for a mid-level V8, just as in the past, it must be part of a intermediate performance package, styling, badging, shocks/spring rates, speed rated wheel/tire combo's etc...
Not to mention a more pocket book freindly "Octane Rating", fuel comsumption, even if only 5 mpg more, more is more...especially since the gas prices could easily top the $2.50 mark this summer according to some predictions..(..let alone 2007..)
I also believe that a "Top V8" should be able to be ordered as an option in a "stripper"or base version .(ex.= 1LE Z, Mustang LX)

 

The problem with doing a downlevel V8 is that it doesn't gain you anything - I don't see a 4.8 or 5.3 getting appreciably-better economy than an LS1, it doesn't decrease manufacturing costs by any great amount, it'll complicate the validation process, it adds to the service-part complexity, and does little to broaden the appeal of the model (IMO). The only thing it does is to give folks some sort of psuedo-comfortable stepping-stone. The folks that can't use a 350+ HP V8 in a responsible manner will still find themselves wrapped around a tree in a 250 HP car.

The SVO didn't sell because it was so far ahead of its time. A turbo four-cylinder, in 1983? Yea, right - there's still problems getting people to accept the SRT-4's motor as a legitimate performance powerplant, so I know damn well what the reaction would have been 20 years ago. But a supercharged six - that just fits so nicely between a base six and a upper-end V8, and provides a easy modification path as well.

 

Are forced induction engines not usually the top dog in any model line? A performance version of the base engine? Mostly for packaging purposes?

IMO it would be very strange to have a base V6, a forced induction V6 upgrade and then a top dog V8 offered in the same car.

For me, with this type of car, the sound of a 6 would be enought to keep me from buying.

I agree totally with the idea that Buick should go the base 6 / forced induction 6 route with their Sigma lite.

 

I've always looked at V6 Camaros as a waste of good sheetmetal. So yes, I see a base (or RS) v8 Camaro as a good thing. With all of the other V6 choices out there, does there need to be a V6 Camaro at all?

 

Good Point, except for maybe insurance or people who want an "Entry" Camaro, for the look etc...

 

Eric,

OK, the SVO comment makes sense. But again, as the SVO was different, so is a blown V6. We don't need different...we need a volume sales leader.

And yes, a 5.3 IS NOT cheaper to make than an LS1. So? 300hp does not need as HD a tranny, rear end, brakes, etc. as a 375hp car does...does it? Thats where the savings can come in. V8 in a V6 car should be ok, if the base car is done right...

And yes, there should be some notable MPG savings between the proposed 6.0 engine, and using the same tech in a 5.3...plus, tune the 5.3 for 87 octane, and Joe Buyer saves more...

Give Buick the blown 6...thats the heritage. Leave the base V8 to the Camaro...thats ITS heritage. Quick story (I'm skipping training to write this ). I sold 2 Formulas to 2 ladies in 2002. Both had '92 305 TBI Birds as trades, coincidentally. One was a 61 year old, single RN, the other a 55 year old mother of 3. I asked them why they wanted a Formula instead of a Coupe, after showing them all models, colors, etc. Both proclaimed "I want a V8." Even though both agreed the 3800 made more power and got better MPG than their 305s, they both had to have an 8...and were willing to pay FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS to get that one lousy thing. Both were ripping mad, too, but still bought the cars.

If a 61 year old RN and a 55 year old mother of three both want an 8, and are an idea of a typical consumer for this product, AND still shelled out four grand to get it...don't let anyone tell me there is not a market for an 8. If these cars had had blown 3800s, then they would have bought TAs. They wanted 8s.

So who the hell are we to mess with success? Hey, we're getting the car, right? I'm thrilled. So lets give it the chance to succeed...I love how no one challenges me on former sales numbers of mid level 8s, either....

 

I love SVO's. When I see them around today...I go out of my way to get a really close look at them.

In the mid 80's I seriously considered purchasing a new one. I thought the handling was far more polished than a GT or LX. Same went for the styling and upgraded trim. The 2.3 L Turbo was also a great motor.


So why didn't I buy that SVO? At the end of the day...all I kept thinking was....this car would be awesome with a 5.0.

 

When I think of SVO's... I think "novelty".

I also think of melting turbo impellers... but that is another story.

To be honest, the only "cool" 6 cylinder I can think of in a "pony car" was the 1989 Turbo T/A... and that was a one-year limited edition car that was waaaaaaaaaaaaay fast for it's time... and we aren't talking about this being a top of the line/blow everything else away car...

 

I didn't read the whole post as the internet is slow on my end. But here is something I don't think has been touched on. What if the top V8 isn't a LSx 2 valve? What if the top is the 3 valve and the 2 valve is the mid road v8?

Something for you guys to think about while I am working/lurking tonight, can't login at work but I will be watching.

 

Why would I dream about it when Im affording the only high end v8??? I wouldve gotten the entry level v8 if it existed, case closed. I didnt say it would lower insurance rates, I said it would be much more accessible to younger drivers since their parents dont want their kids having so much hp under the hood. Parents say that and then say theyll only let their kid have a camaro if he/she gets a six. That defeats the purpose for most people, and so they move on to something else.

I like the idea of a forced induction six to attract new customers... put FOUR ENGINES in the lineup then!!! People keep whining: oh! . . . thats so much more money to produce!!! didnt the first gen have a xxxv6 (or I6?), 307v8, 327v8, multiple 350v8s, multiple 396v8s and a 302 v8? Thats at least 8 engine choices NOT including the 427. Gee, you noticed how that car succeeded!? Why? Because it satisfied a broad range of customers!!! and THEREFORE made up for the increased price of having so many availible engines to choose from. I dont see how asking for 4 or even only 3 engines is so much to ask when GM has done at least 8 in the past (i dont know how many stages the 350 and 396 had...).

A forced induction six would be nice in addition to an entry level v8, it could convert some of the lost "rice burners..." to american cars, But I think an entry level v8 needs to come first.

 

This is the line up I want to see.

The Z28 should be the Camaro version of the Z06. Thus it will be the highest performer, but low on the options. Hard top only, 6 speed only, no leather, so on. Give the Z28 the base Corvette motor. We should assume the C6 LS2 is underrated, so it should make about 415-420 through Camaro exhaust. It should still be slower than the base C6 because of aerodynamics and weight even though the horsepower is the same. 18 inch wheels. This will be the ***** to the wall Camaro.

The SS should have the slightly detuned C6 Motor; roughly 380 hp LS2. However you will be able to get this car fully loaded; convertible, all power, all the special stuff, Onstar, leather, auto or 6 spd. You need a choice of wheels here. Different styles in 17s or 18s. This will be a go fast look good Camaro.

Then this is what I think we should call the RS or LT; the mid level V8. Whether or not it shares the same cubic inches doesn’t matter. I assume if GM just detuned an LS2 even more down to 315 hp it would save money vs. a small cubic inch motor like the 5.3. This car should have most options you could get on the SS. I think if the Mustang ST exists then you’re going to have to have this cheaper model V8.

Then of course the V6 base car. Just call it Camaro. Make it cheap and nice. We all know what it should be.

There ya have it; models and only 2 motors to certify. Gm can’t call cost on that. They plan to build it with two motors anyway. Only thing different between them is computer tuning and exhaust.

 

I think if you and me keep repeating this part, it'll finally sink into everyone's mind.

As far the SC V6 is concerned. It's a measurably more expensive engine than a 4.8/5.3 LSx. Chevy could sell the 4.8/5.3 Lsx Camaro for cheaper.

Wait... a ... minute ....

base V6 => 4.8 Camaro => 5.3 Camaro => 6.0 Z/28

Sounds like a pretty damn good 4 engine lineup to me right there.