Well, the small block pushrod V8 is about as long as a 4 cyl and not that much wider, so I don't think a car has to be THAT big to package one. Remember, they fit fine in FOX Mustangs, and they are SMALL.

That and the original Camaros seem like they are 30% smaller than the new ones.

 

That was 1982, a 2015 4 cyl Camaro would put out as much HP as a 5.0L V8 did in 1982. Maybe the last 4 cyl. failed because of its 0-60 was 12 seconds and it did the 1/4mi. in 20 sec. instead of the number of cylinders it had.

Gas back then was also $1.25 which according to an online inflation calculator that is about the same as $2.70 today. That is what we are currently paying and I don't think a 2.4L SIDI Camaro would sell today. But by 2015 gas should be in the $5 range. I think $4+ is the point that a 200HP 4 cyl. Camaro becomes something people would be interested in.

 

Nonsense. The lower cost components are the heavy items because they are sufficiently strong on the basis of the cost/weight metric used. Just compare a truck to a Camaro... which is cheaper to produce?

To safely retard the car... just like any performance car, it needs a good brake package.

 

Designing for 450 instead of 600 lb ft of torque will help. Do you know that the current car is actually designed for 600?

Shorter and narrower could help a bit, depending on how they get there. The CTS gained a couple of hundred pounds when it got wider, but I don't know how much was from the extra width and how much was from a stouter chassis designed to take an LSA.

Hefty and fullsized seem to be encompassed in the shorter and narrower part. Given that a V6 Commodore is lighter than a V6 LaCrosse and not much heavier than a V6 Malibu, which is midsized, I question how hefty the Commodore actually is. I'd say it's pretty much typical.

Sizewise, you're describing something about the size of an IS350 or 335i. Both of those typically come in at 3600. Add 100-150hp and tq, remove a bit of luxury equipment (most of that stuff doesn't really weigh that much). I think 3650 would be a very good result. 3500 just seems like too much to hope for. Just to be clear, I'm talking about a 6.2 liter V8 model. As I've mentioned before, I would expect 4 and 6 cyl models to be more highly optimized for those powertrains than is the case today, so they should be able to come in with a greater reduction. I'd be disappointed if that doesn't turn out to be the case.

 

I can't swear on it, but just what I've heard, maybe even more.

 

600 seemed like a good idea in 2007....

 

Actually, 600...................in a convertible.

 

Okay. The Fox Mustang does not meet modern crash standards and came with, what, 240hp in the top model (unless you count the '04 model as a Fox)?

A small block has larger bores than 4 cyls and the V8 engine has an offset bank. So it is bigger. Maybe not THAT big, but about that big....

 

Could the alpha Camaro make due with 17 or 18 inch wheels as opposed to the 20+ inchers that get thrown on just about every performance car coming out these days? Probably more dependent on styling than anything else. Smaller wheels would save some weight and probably help out handling. There is a point of diminishing returns when wheel diameter is increased to excess.

 

I can tell you that on the 5th gen, the 20" wheels were more driven by GM Design than by engineering.

 

In 20 years, 20+ inch wheels will be viewed as the tail fins of this generation. It amazes me that they have become so commonplace.

 

i don't buy that at all. i bet stuff like the seats add a lot of weight.

 

I'd bet a 27 way, memory power seat with heat, cooling and massage is pretty hefty.

 

Two things:

1. I said "most of that stuff".

2. Betting that "stuff like the seats" they add a lot of weight is not a basis for discussion until we define "a lot of weight" and until you define what stuff you're comparing "like the seats" to.


In any case, it doesn't really matter to the point.

 

Yeah, and which car that we're talking about has that?