I like having 4 engine options. But I dont think there should be 4 displacements. One or more should just be the same engine with different power outputs.

 

That would be cool, heres my rendition:

Base V6 Model : Whatever V6...
RS Model: Choice of SC V6 or 5.3
SS Model: 5.7L LS1/LS2
Z/28: 6.0 LS6 (or new Z06 engine)

 

I'd be thrilled with three...4 I am sure will not happen.

What some people forget when they talk about 307s, 327s, 350s, 396s etc. all in one lineup is that back then, it was CHEAP to do that. Now, emissions certification for each engine is big $$$. Not only that, but then they need to certify each engine with each tranny choice!!! Big $$$ real fast...

The point I am making is (and I'm glad to see at least some here agree), is ok, many believe three engines is nice...

BUT WHY MAKE THE THIRD ENGINE A SIX?????? Talk about giving muscle car buyers a choice they don't want anyways. Brilliant Like I said before, keep it simple...base car mechanicals with a mild 8...its worked before, and it will work again.

I ask you...in 1992, a 305 TBI made 170hp. Now, the 3800 TPI also made 170hp. If the 3800 had been the mid engine, how many of you 305 TBI buyers/owners would have been so happy with your cars? Or would you not have bought them because they had six spark plugs???? It doesn't matter that the 6 made the same power...

I doubt 39,000 Camaro buyers in 1992 would have opted for a 3800 The same theory applies here. If I have 61 year old RNs who never floor a car demanding an 8, and turning their nose up at a very competent V6, then you better believe that the overall consensus is with an 8. My point is, why make the buyer spend $4k more (historical cost of moving from a base car to a Z28 or Formula in 2002) if all they want is a $1,500 V8? If they aren't road racers, they don't care about sticky tires, firmer suspension, and trim bits...

THEY JUST WANT A V8.

 

Why all the chatter about relative motor cost? What the market will bear should be a more important criteria.

A 4.8 V8 and a 5.3 V8 according to statements here cost GM the same to produce, yet the 5.3 is a $900 option on a Silverado. Anyone know what the ratio is of 4.8's to 5.3's sold in trucks?

If the Camaro came with a 300 HP 5.3 and a 380+ HP 6.0 was the performance option, GM could easily charge and pocket an extra $2,500 for the motor alone. Make it part of a package and there would be even more "easy" money to be made on springs, shocks, wheels, tires, axle ratios, etc.

"Perceived Value" is where the money is.

 

I actually like the idea of a forced induction V6 over a midrange NA V8.

As for engine choices for 1st gen Camaros??? Just to correct any misnomers here.... in 1967 there were...
two L6 engines were available 230 and 250 cid
two 327 cid base V8's were available, 210 HP 2-bbl and 275 HP 4-bbl (RPO L30)
one 350 cid was available (L48)... and it only came in the "SS" (rated at 295 HP)
two 396 cid big blocks available the 325 HP L35 and 375 L78... and again only in the "SS".
one 302 cid (290 HP... yeah right! ) sbc in the Z-28. (But that was only because the 327 & 350 exceeded the maximum allowable displacement of 305 ci for SCCA TransAm sedan class racing. The Z-28 almost got a 283! )

The 307 came around in 1969 to replace the 327, and the 427 was dealer installed (or special ordered as on the 69 COPO Camaros.)

Guess what, that is eight engines like you said. However today's market is much different from the late 1960's and there's no way we're going to see that many engine choices in 2006.

If I had to make a guess, we'll get three model options....

"Base" - V6
"SS" - V8
"SS Supercharged" - V8 with a twist

(of course there'd be "trim" packages as in the past, but they would be just that... "trim" packages.)

I guess some 17 year olds aren't as lucky as mine... I'm letting him drive a supercharged Mustang GT.

 

As I side note to one of my previous comments. I said that an RS model should come with the mid level motor, whatever it may be, and a nice rim and GFX package. For the people who arent gonna touch it anyway, and just want to look good and say they have a V8.

I also think that the mid level motor should be an avalibale option in the base camaro. For the people that dont want all the "looks" options of the RS but still want a V8.

 

$$$$$$$$ For people who love the look but, want a more milage, cheaper insurance or want an "Entry Level" Camaro...for themselves or their kids...Hey,, there's a lot of kids(16-20yrs old) running around in these type cars, and I'm sure "Micky D's" don't pay enough to pay for them...
But as a fellow car enthusiest, I get where you're coming from..
Plus a lot of people nowadays want a "Cool Looking" car, good price, and spend their money in stuff like $4,000 stereo's..

 

Thats why im only expecting them to accomplish 50% of what theyve accomplished in the past. . . which I still dont see as demanding since trucks and suvs have their fair share of engine choices. Personally I think that if the camaro comes back with only 2 engine choices, its asking to fail.

Also on a side note, if you can get optional 4.10 gearing in a trail blazer, the camaro had better get that option as well... or if thats too much to ask, 3.73s at the very LEAST.

 

GM sells over 800,000 full size pickups a year, they can afford to have 6 different engines.

If Chevy can sell 200,000 Camaros a year then they probably would offer 4 engines.

 

i don't know man
4.10s stock?
i mean, the suv weighs a lot more with the same engine
now, put that engine in a lighter car and it can shred the tires all day long
i think 3.42s might be better for fuel economy...jmho
but i wouldnt mind 4.10s

also, why are we so concerned about the ricer market and attracting them?
most of the guys i talk to (i talk with respect even if i don't really agree with what theyre driving) know that after a year or 2 with a ricer car that it might be time to move to american muscle and really turn some 1/4 mile times
i think it's just something that they grow into after awhile unless they really like 4bangers (which is fine, just not my choice)

 

I said optional, not standard

edit: oh and I was thinking 6-speed too... oops. No 4.10s would not be economical for A4'ers.

 

GM listen to this!

What if we had different hp versions of the LS2 all the same size? That way GM doesn’t have to spend money on multiple certifications for each engine. They 5.3 and 4.8 may cost the same to produce As the LS* motors but they would require more money to certify. That’s what’s killing this idea. We should have a V6 for the base car. We need a V6. There is a market for this. Import buyers with their mind set, fleet cars, so on. But I also agree we need a mid range motor. Why not go with a detune LS* motor. Change the cam, mess with the programming give it low performing exhaust.

Z28 6.0L LS2 410 hp
SS 6.0L LS2 380 hp
RS 6.0L LS2 300 hp
Base V6 240 hp

What’s wrong with this? Everyone is happy. Motors all cost the same. You only have to certify two motors. Any we have different hp trim levels. Give them different hoods and styling and call it a day.

 

GM tried to tell us there were differences in the Z28 LS1 and the SS LS1, but we know there weren't. If GM really does turn down the performance of the LS2 from the Vette's 400 HP and the price to get this detuned motor drops considerably, as a stand alone option say $1,000-$1,500 over the cost of a base V6, then you have a true mid-range engine option. Is it "cheaper" to bring the LS2 down 75 HP than to just certify a 5.3? I have no idea.

 

A supercharged 6-cylinder is not, from what I have read cheaper than a V8, generally speaking. It won't be cheaper on insurance just because it has 2 less cylinders either...

Again, most people who buy a Camaro want a V8 .... why spend the money on offering something that:

A) Probably costs more to do.
B) Is not what people really want?

 

Sorry I'm late to this thread...
It was a rough day and night last night...
My pug of 13 years is probably going to be put down today as he's having seizures and became paralyzed last night @3am.
So I'm here this morning trying to get my mind off it.

ANYWAYS, allow me to interject a few new points -

1)The SVO was a street legal trans am car of the day, no question about it. Even to this day, there is likely not another offering from Ford that will match the handling capabilities of that car - it is RENOWNED. Michael Kranefuss came to the US from Europe to head the development of the SVO team, and the SVO Mustang was it's pilot car. The project was funded well, and it's intent was to reintroduce Ford products back into the world of Racing. SVO has continued to this day, now called SVT, and they are still puting out the hot, almost exotic, performers.

Turbo 4 was the buzz word in the day, and everyone thought turbos were going to be the salvation... 4-cylinder economy, but with V8 power when required. Look no further than the Trans Am track from 1979-1986 and see what Jack Rousch was doing to the rest of the field with Dorsey Schrader and Mark Martin in Turbo Stangs.

The actual SVO lived 3 years - 1984, 85, 86. It died because of price, parts, and the "new" turbo technology that nobody could "tune" or "play" with. When you could buy a new 5.0 with 225hp for $8k, why pay $15k for and SVO that had 220hp? They were nearly equal in 1/4 mile times, but the SVO ruled on the track.

So how many street car drivers will pay almost TWICE as much for a car with those stats, and actually USE the improved handling features? Road racing... not smart. Track racing... right place but not many do it. The car simply was an enthusiasts platform appropriate for the day it was in - much like we want a track carving Z/28 to be today. Those who were wanting a 4-banger for better fuel economy alone DID NOT buy this car.

2)The cost of the mid-level engine should be a non-issue. The consumer WILL NOT CARE what it costs GM to make a 400hp LSx over a 300hp LSx. When they shop for a car, they will buy what they WANT... if they can find it. Reference to JasonE's post about the 2 old chicks. I too have been there, done that.

When you go out for a nice dinner, and you want pork chops for $6.99, do you opt for tenderloin steak at $9.99 because they are out of pork chops? I sure as heck don't. Hidden point here is that Pork chops and Tenderloins come from the same cut of meat (like a 300 and a 400 hp variant could come from the same LSx family). If you cut across the bone, you get pork chops, if you cut along the bone(fillet-style) you get tenderloin. They cost the same to produce, but they sure cost different on the menu, and each has it's own "fans", and they pay what is required to get what they want.

3)For the books, I have 12 fox body Mustangs, and NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A GT, all are LX's, most automatics. Why? Because I like the V8, but don't always want to row gears or race - SIMPLE. IMO, the slick clean lines of the LX project subtlety and a conservative appearance, whereas a GT with wing spoiler, louvered taillights, and front air dam with fog lights screamed "look at me, I'm fast!".

Granted, the LX and GT had the same drivetrain, but the concept of a basic, no frills V8 is what appealed to me, and MOST of the folks that bought a 5.0 in fact. I would have still opted for the LX if it was 50hp shy of the GT, just because I didn't prefer the "gaudiness" of the GT ground effects. I like the GT, I just don't PREFER it.

In a nutshell, I am all for the 3-engine lineup, and I vote for a V6 and two V8's in the showroom. Keep the base V8 cheap, moderately powerful, economical as possible, easy to maintain, and fairly open to basic modifications. Two LSx variants seem to fit the bill nicely, based on GM's current powertrain offering, and the aftermarket (what there is for the LS1/LS6) is already there to help support the cause.