Why its retarded to suggest supercharged v6's and 4s in the 5th gen.
02-07-2003, 08:16 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by Fbodfather
(and that's why I become rabid when I hear people tell me that they shut off their traction control every time they get in the car and start it up.) I don't care how good of a driver you think you are.........any race driver will tell you it is there to protect you. (Yup..OK to shut it off at the drag strip and on a road course.....but any other time? Sorry...you aren't that good...and we prove it every day at Bragg-Smith, Justin Bell, and Bondurant.)
(and that's why I become rabid when I hear people tell me that they shut off their traction control every time they get in the car and start it up.) I don't care how good of a driver you think you are.........any race driver will tell you it is there to protect you. (Yup..OK to shut it off at the drag strip and on a road course.....but any other time? Sorry...you aren't that good...and we prove it every day at Bragg-Smith, Justin Bell, and Bondurant.)
That's like saying "I don't need a seatbelt, I can catch myself in a wreck" or "I don't need ABS, I can pump the brakes faster than the ABS system can"
02-07-2003, 08:27 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Fbodfather made some great points. Some of us in here have said before that not everyone WANTS a rocketsled... plain and simple. It's not really up to us (as performance nuts 
) to discern why they don't all want big honkin' V8s - but it is up to us to take their wants into consideration - they have $ too, and there are considerably more of them than there are of us. The base-car buyers literally finance our toys, like it or not.
And insofar as a 4-slug in a Camaro... I still say "Why not"?
How would a 4 cylinder be bad for Camaro's image? One that's 20+ years old, sure. But I don't think you will find anyone here asking for an old 88hp N/A OHC engine. I think we are talking modern, performance producing engines easily making 200+ hp. At this point in time, I think there are more V6 alternatives that are actually proven and ready to use in this application, but I can't fathom why a future 4-popper couldn't work. The bottom line is whether it can deliver the goods.
For heaven's sake, look at the F1 cars, Roush Camel GT Mustangs, and such - 4-cyl turbos turning 14,000 RPM and making 800+ hp for hours on end... reliably too. They have been doing this since the '80s! I personally wouldn't hesitate for one moment to put my seal of approval on a modern turbo-4 version of the Mustang or Camaro. Look at the reputation of the SVO, Turbo Coupe, XR4Ti, '83 turbo GT, and others... Yeah, I'll take some more of that!
Fbodfather, also ecstatic to hear you mention dealer-installed or user-installed aftermarket mods that are developed (or at least supported) by the factory. I think that this is the one area where Ford has really put the Mustang ahead of the Camaro for the last few years. It won't affect the common buyer who "buys and drives", but it will go far with the enthusiast who wants his/her car to be a little different, a little faster than everyone else's. People crave individuality, especially true car lovers. This is one sure-fire avenue to gain respect and loyalty from guys like us in this forum - car nuts!
) to discern why they don't all want big honkin' V8s - but it is up to us to take their wants into consideration - they have $ too, and there are considerably more of them than there are of us. The base-car buyers literally finance our toys, like it or not.And insofar as a 4-slug in a Camaro... I still say "Why not"?
How would a 4 cylinder be bad for Camaro's image? One that's 20+ years old, sure. But I don't think you will find anyone here asking for an old 88hp N/A OHC engine. I think we are talking modern, performance producing engines easily making 200+ hp. At this point in time, I think there are more V6 alternatives that are actually proven and ready to use in this application, but I can't fathom why a future 4-popper couldn't work. The bottom line is whether it can deliver the goods.
For heaven's sake, look at the F1 cars, Roush Camel GT Mustangs, and such - 4-cyl turbos turning 14,000 RPM and making 800+ hp for hours on end... reliably too. They have been doing this since the '80s! I personally wouldn't hesitate for one moment to put my seal of approval on a modern turbo-4 version of the Mustang or Camaro. Look at the reputation of the SVO, Turbo Coupe, XR4Ti, '83 turbo GT, and others... Yeah, I'll take some more of that!
Fbodfather, also ecstatic to hear you mention dealer-installed or user-installed aftermarket mods that are developed (or at least supported) by the factory. I think that this is the one area where Ford has really put the Mustang ahead of the Camaro for the last few years. It won't affect the common buyer who "buys and drives", but it will go far with the enthusiast who wants his/her car to be a little different, a little faster than everyone else's. People crave individuality, especially true car lovers. This is one sure-fire avenue to gain respect and loyalty from guys like us in this forum - car nuts!
Last edited by ProudPony; 02-07-2003 at 08:31 AM.
02-07-2003, 08:53 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
Anyone else kinda scared by the whole 4 banger talk? Dealer installed blower or not..............I think that would definatly be bad for the Camaro, no less than 6 cylinders for the base model.
02-07-2003, 09:22 AM
#34
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,801
Only thing I'm going to take issue with is Scott's comments on Traction control.
Let me preface my comments by saying I have worn my seatbelt every time I have driven (or ridden) since I turned 16, which was 12 yrs ago. Clearly the benefits of belts, air bags, and ABS have been established.
But show me the benefits of traction control in terms of saving people's lives. Show me the statistics to prove it. Traction control is about limiting rear wheel slip, period. Most people who have driven rear drive cars (like me) their entire driving lives know how to modulate the pedal to achieve the same thing traction control gets you. Now I am not a road racer nor have I been trained at any schools, and I'm not claiming to have been.
3 weeks ago I made it home from work in 3 inches of very wet and slick snow here in TN w/o the use of traction control (which my car was not equipped with new, and I bought it used). This was while plenty of other vehicles, including front drivers, were stuck on the sides of the roads and in ditches. I'm not bragging about my driving skills, but I will say I have experience in driving f-bodies in a few very deep snows and know that despite traction control you can get around safely if you know what you're doing and drive with caution and patience. I would have given my right arm to have my ABS operational, but its been on the fritz for weeks and I have not been able to solve the problem despite a couple of Tech II scans and a replaced rear sensor--but even w/o ABS I managed. In fact, it snowed 7 inches that day (we aren't usually prepared for big snows here in TN and this one caught everybody off guard) and if I had waited much longer to leave work I would probably not have tried...its important to know the limitations of your car and I had no preconceptions about driving a Firebird through more than a couple or three inches. Just to give you an idea of how crazy it was, it took me 45 minutes to make a 3 mile trip.
Now, if traction control is sooo important that anyone who does not use it on public roads is a total fool with a death wish, why is traction control not a STANDARD feature of every rear drive vehicle GM makes including trucks? If its that beneficial, GM then implies that only person's who are willing and able to afford TC as an option deserve its life saving benefits? I see flawed logic in those comments.
I don't want to take this thread off in a new direction and I'm not trying to flame Scott, but I had to respond to the TC issue. I fail to see the logic, maybe you can clarify what you meant and/or set me straight.
Let me preface my comments by saying I have worn my seatbelt every time I have driven (or ridden) since I turned 16, which was 12 yrs ago. Clearly the benefits of belts, air bags, and ABS have been established.
But show me the benefits of traction control in terms of saving people's lives. Show me the statistics to prove it. Traction control is about limiting rear wheel slip, period. Most people who have driven rear drive cars (like me) their entire driving lives know how to modulate the pedal to achieve the same thing traction control gets you. Now I am not a road racer nor have I been trained at any schools, and I'm not claiming to have been.
3 weeks ago I made it home from work in 3 inches of very wet and slick snow here in TN w/o the use of traction control (which my car was not equipped with new, and I bought it used). This was while plenty of other vehicles, including front drivers, were stuck on the sides of the roads and in ditches. I'm not bragging about my driving skills, but I will say I have experience in driving f-bodies in a few very deep snows and know that despite traction control you can get around safely if you know what you're doing and drive with caution and patience. I would have given my right arm to have my ABS operational, but its been on the fritz for weeks and I have not been able to solve the problem despite a couple of Tech II scans and a replaced rear sensor--but even w/o ABS I managed. In fact, it snowed 7 inches that day (we aren't usually prepared for big snows here in TN and this one caught everybody off guard) and if I had waited much longer to leave work I would probably not have tried...its important to know the limitations of your car and I had no preconceptions about driving a Firebird through more than a couple or three inches. Just to give you an idea of how crazy it was, it took me 45 minutes to make a 3 mile trip.
Now, if traction control is sooo important that anyone who does not use it on public roads is a total fool with a death wish, why is traction control not a STANDARD feature of every rear drive vehicle GM makes including trucks? If its that beneficial, GM then implies that only person's who are willing and able to afford TC as an option deserve its life saving benefits? I see flawed logic in those comments.
I don't want to take this thread off in a new direction and I'm not trying to flame Scott, but I had to respond to the TC issue. I fail to see the logic, maybe you can clarify what you meant and/or set me straight.
02-07-2003, 09:45 AM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,801
From Scott's remarks it sounds like we're looking at another V6 of around 200hp. I think it should be quicker than the 3800 4th gen because hopefully a 5th gen would be a bit lighter, but if what he's saying is accurate about women buyers and HP, you can't go much above 200hp w/o scaring buyers away. I'd say look for them to match the HP rating of the future base Mustang.
But you can also see my point about a mid-level V8. Quite a few women buy Mustang GT's despite them being v8 because while they are more powerful than a V6, they are not over 300hp--which seems to be a magic line for buyers now. I totally understand that the economics of the car prevent the investment in a third engine, but that was basically my argument for having no v6 and a base V8 instead.
But you can also see my point about a mid-level V8. Quite a few women buy Mustang GT's despite them being v8 because while they are more powerful than a V6, they are not over 300hp--which seems to be a magic line for buyers now. I totally understand that the economics of the car prevent the investment in a third engine, but that was basically my argument for having no v6 and a base V8 instead.
02-07-2003, 10:11 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Originally posted by Darth Xed
A V6 would do the same, and not give the econo car image....
A V6 would do the same, and not give the econo car image....
I'll give up the 4's much easier than the 6's for a base ponycar.
But I , personally, wouldn't be suicidal if I saw another turbo-4 in a Mustang, that's all I'm saying.
We're back to common ground again, now what?
02-07-2003, 10:18 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Red Plan....er....Fbodfa....I mean,... Sc.....well, whatever his name is...brings up an interesting point.
Let's put the V6 vs I4 base motor debate away.... for the moment.
I think it would be a pretty good guess to say, that GM won't be putting any really thrilling and expensive HF V6's in the next Camaro.
Some version of the new Malibu's HV 3.5 L V6 is probably more like it. I know, not too exciting.
This is where I find RP's comments interesting. A GMPD certified, dealer installed performance package (S/C, exhaust, etc.). I love it!
What a great way to bring in a more affordable, entry level Camaro.... with the building blocks to hot rod it......effectively and affordably.
The Pontiac G6 concept has a supercharged version of this V6, rated at 285 hp.
That should be enough to keep up with those pesky , Accords, Camrys and Altimas...heck , it may even give a napping Mustang GT a good run for it's money.
Boy, I'm thinking now. I can see a whole new tuner underground forming with the "base" Camaro. Camaro has traditionally been (especially when it was really selling), about grass roots level hot rodding and modding. What a great thing to happen to Camaro... AGAIN!
Let's put the V6 vs I4 base motor debate away.... for the moment.
I think it would be a pretty good guess to say, that GM won't be putting any really thrilling and expensive HF V6's in the next Camaro.
Some version of the new Malibu's HV 3.5 L V6 is probably more like it. I know, not too exciting.
This is where I find RP's comments interesting. A GMPD certified, dealer installed performance package (S/C, exhaust, etc.). I love it!
What a great way to bring in a more affordable, entry level Camaro.... with the building blocks to hot rod it......effectively and affordably.
The Pontiac G6 concept has a supercharged version of this V6, rated at 285 hp.
That should be enough to keep up with those pesky , Accords, Camrys and Altimas...heck , it may even give a napping Mustang GT a good run for it's money.
Boy, I'm thinking now. I can see a whole new tuner underground forming with the "base" Camaro. Camaro has traditionally been (especially when it was really selling), about grass roots level hot rodding and modding. What a great thing to happen to Camaro... AGAIN!
Last edited by Z284ever; 02-07-2003 at 10:42 AM.
02-07-2003, 10:24 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by ProudPony
OK - agreed.
I'll give up the 4's much easier than the 6's for a base ponycar.
But I , personally, wouldn't be suicidal if I saw another turbo-4 in a Mustang, that's all I'm saying.
We're back to common ground again, now what?
OK - agreed.
I'll give up the 4's much easier than the 6's for a base ponycar.
But I , personally, wouldn't be suicidal if I saw another turbo-4 in a Mustang, that's all I'm saying.
We're back to common ground again, now what?
02-07-2003, 10:26 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Just a few thoughts,
Traction Control: I think that's the best safety feature in the Camaro. Not everyone out there learned to drive on RWDs in Pennsylvania. It IS annoying when you have to gun it to get across an intercection in heavy traffic, and there's a button right there to turn it off for something like that, otherwise, leave it on. 255 series tires aren't the best for all purpose traction. I'd rather GM get rid of those DRLs & that really stupid automatic headlights that you can't turn off.
On a 4 cylinder Camaro: If it's as fast as a 3800 V6 on the 4th gen, I say go for it! Especially if there is going to be aftermarket support & dealer installed performance parts. It's just like the 60s again. The 30 somethings buy the high powered Camaros, while the younger guys buy the base models & hop them up. Back then it was base V8s, today they hop up 4 cylinder cars. It's exceptional that GM may go this route in a car like Camaro. A V6 SHOULD be the bulk of Camaro's sales, and it should be at the least a performer equal to the Infinity G35 Coupe. The V8 SHOULD be just a tic behind the Corvette (SS just behind the base Vette, the Z28 just behind the Z06...sorry RP ).
The $25,000, 40,000 car per year, V8 only Camaro: The 4th gen Z28 couldn't perform this feat, why do you think limited edition (inherently more expensive to do) would fare better?
All just opinions on my part.
Traction Control: I think that's the best safety feature in the Camaro. Not everyone out there learned to drive on RWDs in Pennsylvania. It IS annoying when you have to gun it to get across an intercection in heavy traffic, and there's a button right there to turn it off for something like that, otherwise, leave it on. 255 series tires aren't the best for all purpose traction. I'd rather GM get rid of those DRLs & that really stupid automatic headlights that you can't turn off.
On a 4 cylinder Camaro: If it's as fast as a 3800 V6 on the 4th gen, I say go for it! Especially if there is going to be aftermarket support & dealer installed performance parts. It's just like the 60s again. The 30 somethings buy the high powered Camaros, while the younger guys buy the base models & hop them up. Back then it was base V8s, today they hop up 4 cylinder cars. It's exceptional that GM may go this route in a car like Camaro. A V6 SHOULD be the bulk of Camaro's sales, and it should be at the least a performer equal to the Infinity G35 Coupe. The V8 SHOULD be just a tic behind the Corvette (SS just behind the base Vette, the Z28 just behind the Z06...sorry RP
).The $25,000, 40,000 car per year, V8 only Camaro: The 4th gen Z28 couldn't perform this feat, why do you think limited edition (inherently more expensive to do) would fare better?
All just opinions on my part.
02-07-2003, 10:36 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by Fbodfather
Additionally, (and I know some of you will go into convulsions over THIS one: ) when asked why they did not consider a Camaro, a goodly number of Mustang buyers -- primarily female -- tell the research company that 'the Camaro has too much power and that much power is not necessary..........) (yeah, can you believe it? In my book, you can never have too much...but that's out of the mouths of some of the people who made Mustang sales greater than Camaro.)
Additionally, (and I know some of you will go into convulsions over THIS one: ) when asked why they did not consider a Camaro, a goodly number of Mustang buyers -- primarily female -- tell the research company that 'the Camaro has too much power and that much power is not necessary..........) (yeah, can you believe it? In my book, you can never have too much...but that's out of the mouths of some of the people who made Mustang sales greater than Camaro.)
So they are telling you that the 200 hp V6 Camaro has too much power compared to the V6 Mustang which has 193 hp?!?!?
That makes no sense at all to me... not saying you are lying, but it just doesn't make any sense... they are saying they bought a Mustang over a Camaro because Camaro had SEVEN more horsepower and that was too much to handle?!?!?!?!?!
02-07-2003, 10:40 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
I'm sure its a matter of perception more than reality. I doubt a whole lot of V6 pony car buyers actually look at the specs anyway.
I'm sure its a matter of perception more than reality. I doubt a whole lot of V6 pony car buyers actually look at the specs anyway.
Dropping the power of the base model would not be the solution to a perceived problem... If it's just a perception, you could have a 10 horse power Briggs & Stratton lawn tractor motor in there and it wouldn't matter!
