I agree completely, Red.

What Red is trying to say is a lot people already think of the Camaro as a ultra powerful and dangerous car. Nobody thinks of the Camaro as a regular car or sporty car, or something to drive daily. The result is killing sales big time.

I really think a lot of F-body owners need to get over the image of their car thing. It's like the V6 or lesser models hurt the image of the V8 "Oh, people are going to race that V6 and think my V8 is slow" It's supposed to be a muscle car! The Z/28 should be top dog! That doesn't belong...image this image that...It's like they have the image of what a Camaro is in their mind and everything else that isn't it or that could hurt that picture must die.

Well, the vast majority of people do not want or even like muscle cars anymore. The only way you're going to get one is if it's dressed up as a regular car. (wolf in sheep's clothing) You have to decide if you want the image or the actual car because you aren't getting that image in today's market and the car will have to stay dead.

They can put a electric hybrid 70HP engine in the next F-body I don't care, as long as they have a ~350HP++ V8 also.

 

I totally disagree.... so by this logic, you could make a 4-cylinder base model Corvette, and that would be OK too?

What would that do for Corvette's image?

 

Corvette never had a 6 cylinder engine (except the original version in the early 50s), so think that's oversimpifying the arguement just a bit?

The 6 cylinder engine was to the 60s & 70s what the 4 cylinder engine is today. The big difference is that today, 4 cylinder engines are the small block V8s of the current generation. You can get everything from trick heads, to super & turbocharger kits. Out here at least, it seems that young racers prefer 4s, and view 6s as something in family cars. Mustang V6s seem to be the exception (I've personally seen at least at least half a dozen supercharged V6 Stangs, and more riced out Mustangs than I can count).

V6 should be the bulk of Camaro sales, and V8s for the serious enthusiast. I believe a quick 4 with alot of aftermarket support on a LIGHTER WEIGHT Camaro would do wonders for it's image. Just as long as it isn't viewed as a throw away Camaro the way the 4 cylinder version of 82 & 83 were, or the V6 4th gen turned out to be.

It's not enough to put out a quick engine & walk away. You in this segment, you need to have the resorces available for the do it yourselfer to buy pieces to bolt on or program in to personalize his or her car's performance. This goes back to an obsevation I made, Camaros became serious rockets, while Mustangs remained fun cars.

 

I'll add Mitsubishi Eclipse to the Mustang as far as sporty cars with a V6 that do well... (I know there is an I4, but the V6 is the top of the line)

I just do not understand why Camaro needs to be an econobox competitor... makes no sense to me.

Again, I say let Cavalier, Vibe, Saturn go after that... obviously Mustang has proven V6 sales to be very healthy for this type of car.

How many people who mod these 4-cylinder Civics and such are going to be able to afford a brand new Camaro, 4 cylinder or not? Like it or not, a Camaro is never going to be priced inline with Civics... doesn't make any sense. Trying to capture a crowd that doesn't buy new in this price range is like throwing darts at the wrong dartbaord, IMO.

 

The Camaro is not the Corvette. The Camaro is not a 40K+ high profit car for GM. It is a volume seller and will not be a niche vehicle (V8 only) while the Corvette lives. Right now, the Corvette has a much better image than the Camaro as America's Sports Car. It's more of an image car than the Camaro, selling upon it's name and status. As opposed to the Camaro's goal which was to sell by the numbers and power...big HP and TQ tossed in an affordable package for everyone.

I'm not saying I want a 4cyl in the Camaro, I'm saying to GM to do what it takes to get me the power CHEAP. If that means a 4cyl Camaro to help balance out CAFE numbers or something so be it.

Personally I think they need to have a base engine that makes decent power from a small displacement. That means a low torque and high reving type of motor. It should be something like a 255hp@7000/200lb-ft@6500 ~3L DOHC V6 available in a six-speed. That is what the import crowd wants.

 

I totaly agree. The Camaro was meant to be a V8 powered monster, not a little 4 cyl. i don't even like the idea of a V6 in a Camaro or Firebird. Maybe a base 305 and an upgrade of a 350 or 383? (Though I think the best would be a 427 ) Also I never want to see anything but pushrods in an F-body, none of this OHC sh*t.

my .02

 

Though I agree with you that Camaro shouldn't be an econobox competitor, it unfortunately ended up in competition with many of them anyway. The Eclipse, the Celica, even the Integra. V6 in these cars are viewed not so much as enthusiast cars as 'cruisers'. For some reason, tuners look down on V6 versions of these cars.

Adding a 4 cylinder to a Camaro does cary a risk if done wrong. The Fox Mustang & early 3rd gen Camaros proved that. That's why everytime I step in favor of a 4 cylinder Camaro, I qualify it by saying it should be as fast as the 3800 V6 4th gen Camaro, and must have strong aftermarket support. Without either, I'd say a 4 cylinder version would in fact be a big mistake!

The V6 has to be the engine in most 5th gen Camaros. As such, it should be at least G35 quick. A V8 MUST be part of Camaro, and it should at least match a supercharged Cobra in performance. Yet, Camaro also needs a quick and potentially legendary 4 cylinder motor that offers more performance than any other 4 banger sports coupe out there. The only way to get all of this is a smaller & lightweight package. A Cougar or Eclipse sized vehicle with distinctive Camaro styling would do the trick.

 

It is the PERCEPTION in part that the Camaro has too much power.

 

wow...been a while since I've been on this site.

Traction control...the V8 has brake intervention..which means the brake will be applied to the rear wheel (s) that break loose, thereby in most cases, stopping the fish tail.. .. As I said, we prove it every day at Justin Bell, Bragg Smith and Bondurant Driving Schools. The experts at these schools (and others) insist that the car should be driven (under normal conditions in everyday driving) with the Traction control on....

As to "negligence" -- OK...where do you stop? Remember, we are trying to keep the car affordable -- as does any manufacturer. Yup...we thought about making it standard, but were told by many that it should remain optional.

4 cylinder..........IF (and that is a big IF) we were to offer a 4 cylinder, you can bet it won't be the old "Iron Duke" from years past. .....it would be a new, modern, state of the art 4 cylinder.....and it would have to have low levels of NVH. (noise, vibration, and harshness) It would also have to have some serious kick.....and appropriate bolt-ons for the owner to easily modify. (ideally)

Would I like to offer 4 or 5 engines? You betcha! (wow....302, 350, 427, etc.....) But guys and gals.....show me a car-line (with exception of full-size trucks) that offer 4 or 5 engines in the realm of the price of CAmaro......there aren't any...........this is 2003.......not 1967. There are stringent emissions regulations that have to be met....federal, california, northeast, etc. (and no, California emissions cars are not completely cleaner than federal cars...the mix of emissions levels is higher in some cases on a California car and lower on others....so it is not a case of making them all California cars.........) Additionally, they have to be enginneered, tested, and validated using the various powertrains (engine, axle, transmission) and that is very costly. Furthermore, the packaging and additional components and additional build complexity means that several engines are not a cheap date -- by a long-shot.

Am I making excuses? No......I'm trying to state facts.

The interesting part in this whole thread is that we are talking only to a small part of the fcar community...the enthusiast....and even we (that's you and me and some others) cannot agree on even this one subject.

Interesting, no?

Can you see now, how frustrating my job has been? (but I wouldn't have traded it for anything in the world...........)

Meanwhile.....keep the dialog going.....but be considerate of everyone's point.

And learn.

 

The Mustang has 4.

See ya' tomorrow night.

 

The Grand Prix has 3, and soon the Impala & Monte Carlo will as well (costing slightly less than Camaro did).

I think that's more in line with what everyone is asking for here, Red.

 

In this case you're not using facts at all, you're flat-out exaggerating. Nobody is talking about 1967 here. Nobody can tell me that drivetrain variety is the opposite of profitability.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was something called the thirdgen.. anyone remember it? The cars nobody on this site appreciates and the cars everyone erroneously associated with hillbillies. The thirdgen had FOUR to SIX engines every year. Every model could have at least a choice of TWO engines at the minimum. Three or four transmissions every year, etc. When the thirdgen was introduced it was Chevy's and Pontiac's PREMIER car line and a colossal success that made gobs of money. With the exception of the Vette, no other model in those divisions could touch the f-body as far as passion, style, variety, jaw-dropping buzz and sheer FUN. They were the TOP models in their division. The opposite of today. You think I'm crazy? When doing lineup pictures, Pontiac often used TWO Firebirds and ONE of every other model! They were the MUST-HAVE cars for most of the 80s. The most variety came in the first half of the thirdgen, like 82-86. If that could be done back then and be profitable and such a major success with profitability, then personally I dismiss any excuses as to why it cannot be done today. I just flat out dismiss it.

I'm inclined to think that those GM executives back then were more willing to try and find a way to engage and excite customers than today's GM executives who just blindly follow the short-term cash. When i say executives, I'm criticizing the people on those backasswards decision boards or whatever. Not you RP. GM will get it through its head one way or another, that variety (within the same model) is what people want. Let's just hope they're still in business when they finally realize it.

 

what year in the 80's did the Camaro have Six engines and 4 transmissions??

The 4th gen had 3 trannys 6,5,4 speeds

as far as 5th gen transmissions go I thing GM should only make 2, a 6 speed auto and a 6 speed manual

 

I don't think I need to go back over this again, since I already HAVE in many other threads, but I will. Here's a summary off the top of my head. 1983 fbody had six different engines: LQ9 LC1 LL1 LU5 L69 LG4, not even counting the export LQ8.. 1982 had 5: LC1 LL1 LU5 LG4 LQ9, not even counting the export LQ8. 1984 had 5 also: LC1 LL1 LQ9 LG4 L69. 1982 had at least three transmissions unless I'm missing one. The TH200c 3-speed and two 4-speeds; the Borg Warner Super T-10 and the name of the other one escapes me. Maybe a Muncie or Saginaw or something. Then in 83 or 84 the 200c was gone in favor of the 700R4 while the T-10 was gone in favor of the T-5. The Duke still had its own M4. there may have been one additional transmission that I can't think of. All the following years had at LEAST four engines unless I'm missing one: the four were: V6 MPFI and three V8's, usually 4bbl, TPI, or TBI, TPI, 350TPI, or, TBI, TPI, 4bbl H.O., etc. 1989 had 5 engines once again with the TTA.

 

kizz did a great job...but here you go.
http://www.hr3rdgen.org/speclist.html