2014 Z/28 sounds like Al got it backwards

[meissen]

Originally Posted by Sven59

How much of this could be the fact that in the future we might not see these cars. Future EPA standards might gut the muscle car market with auto makers unable to meet the standards and maintain the performance we are currently enjoying.

In my personal opinion, and 100% based on my own understanding of the CAFE requirements et al, I don't think the muscle cars are going anywhere. Look at the new C7 -- 450hp, 450tq, and MPG in the 20's. That's amazing - we're getting more powerful V8s and more fuel efficient at the same time. Further, my understanding is that as long as GM produces vehicles which offset the V8's "lower" MPGs, it's not an issue. I think in the worst case scenario, our muscle cars will always exist but the ones who get the "lowest" MPG rating will be more of a limited quantity.

[Sven59]

Originally Posted by meissen

In my personal opinion, and 100% based on my own understanding of the CAFE requirements et al, I don't think the muscle cars are going anywhere. Look at the new C7 -- 450hp, 450tq, and MPG in the 20's. That's amazing - we're getting more powerful V8s and more fuel efficient at the same time. Further, my understanding is that as long as GM produces vehicles which offset the V8's "lower" MPGs, it's not an issue. I think in the worst case scenario, our muscle cars will always exist but the ones who get the "lowest" MPG rating will be more of a limited quantity.

You are correct about the offset, they are currently meeting those but they are do to change in 2016, not sure how much effect they will have.

The new standards apply to new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements

[TPAJETSKI]

I'm not sure I understand the desire wax nostalgic about the Z28. (regardless of whether you want to play semantics with they hyphen or slash). The Z28 spent most of its history slapped on to the side of cars that were overweight and under powered. I don't care if there are two jet engines strapped to it and creates more g force than an f-16 I refuse to pay corvette money for a camaro. They should have left the track capabilities to the ZL1. Get a 1SS, stuff a 427 in it, add the 1LE suspension bits, and there you have it a Z28.

[MikeSVX]

Originally Posted by AZCamaroFan

his reasoning makes no sense. he says the ZL1 fit the Zl1 because it was like the 69' which is absolutely rediculous. the 1969 ZL1 was a stripped completely down drag race car. that's not at all what the current ZL1 is.
plus some people at GM seem to have the first gen Z/28 confused with the actual Trans Am race car.

Not sure why everyone keeps saying that. ZL1 was not a Camaro designation. ZL1 was an engine designation. It was also available in the Corvettes (although only 2 were ever built). It was however the most powerful engine available in a Camaro.

So, The current ZL1 Camaro is the most powerful Camaro. The LS7 puts out less power then the LSX in the ZL1. There for it fits.


This is off the net in an article about the ZL1.

"The ZL1 Engine was never intended to be put into a street legal production car. Chevrolet had developed the engine primarily for Can-Am racing and other track use under the hood of a Corvette. Featuring aluminum heads used on the also potent L88 iron block 427, the ZL1 also featured an entirely aluminum casting of the 427 engine block."

Here is a website about the ZL1 Corvette. http://www.corvettelegends.com/zl1.htm

Now, can we move on and stop bring this up? We've been talking about this since the ZL1 was released.

[2cnd chance]

If you go back to the 67'-69' Z/28's the new one fits the model perfectly. If you look at the 2Gen-4Gen it's not even close.

BTW a 1969 COPO ZL1 Camaro could be ordered with everything if someone wanted to.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

If you go back to the 67'-69' Z/28's the new one fits the model perfectly. If you look at the 2Gen-4Gen it's not even close.

BTW a 1969 COPO ZL1 Camaro could be ordered with everything if someone wanted to.

I didn't even know that. I guess I hadn't heard, read, or seen one ordered so equipped. That doesn't mean it didn't happen though!

[2cnd chance]

I must clarify, I don't think you could get it as a Vert'.

Most bought it as a drag car because the first sold were bought for that reason. Hence less add-ons. And drag racing was huge at the time.

[OldScoolCamaro]

...revisionist history....sigh....

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by slacker

Count me as one who thought they got it backwards. Seems to me they could have sold a ton more ZL1's if they were called Z/28, and the ZL1 is a great car. But historically the ZL1 Camaro was stripped down 427 powered race car, which is what they are touting the new Z/28 as.

Lots of 69 RS/Z28 Camaro's with houndstooth interior and other luxury items, but only 1 ZL1 car with RS option in 69.

How can you say historically anything about the ZL1 powered COPOs when there were only 69 made for one model year?

The Z/28 was a car GM intended to build. The ZL1 powered COPOs were not.

[OldScoolCamaro]

...agreed Hobbs, another step in misinformation about history, revisionist history. Perception is reality as they say. Don't let facts get in the way....that's the way it is today...

[f5journal]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

...agreed Hobbs, another step in misinformation about history, revisionist history. Perception is reality as they say. Don't let facts get in the way....that's the way it is today...

Agree...however GM is partly to blame with their treatment of the Z-28 in later years. They sortof confused the younger crowd here.

[silverds]

There's no bible or commandments that say a specific model car or name is restricted by any of its characteristics. The auto makers have the freedom to name their products however they choose, to sell the most of them.

The Chevrolet Malibu, Impala and Dodge Charger are now 4 door sedans and are well accepted as such, though originally they were all 2 Door coupes. 40 Years from now we may see a 4 door Camaro Z/28. Then we can all listen to the live feeds of arguments on Camaro10.com about what the Camaro Z/28 name really meant. I wonder which crowd will be considered confused then.

Our great, great grand children may be very happy to reminisce about out passion for the Z/28 when they buy their first Camaro Z/28 People Mover.

[Cpanthers85]

Even if you want to argue that the "ZL1" was named improperly, what could they have named it? The IROC? The SS3? They already used 1LE.

The Z/28 is perfect. It's a high revving, high powered, track ready car. Sure, its not a 302, but still...it beats what they did in gens 2-4. My 79 Z28 has a 350 rated at 150hp. barf.

While we're at it, why did GM call it the Chevy SS? Ressurrect the Chevelle or Nova.

[sanjosebmx]

Originally Posted by TPAJETSKI

I'm not sure I understand the desire wax nostalgic about the Z28. (regardless of whether you want to play semantics with they hyphen or slash). The Z28 spent most of its history slapped on to the side of cars that were overweight and under powered. I don't care if there are two jet engines strapped to it and creates more g force than an f-16 I refuse to pay corvette money for a camaro. They should have left the track capabilities to the ZL1. Get a 1SS, stuff a 427 in it, add the 1LE suspension bits, and there you have it a Z28.

When I think of the z/28 I think of my friends '69.. 302, solid lift cam..dual 4bbl manifold (as delivered in the trunk)..4 speed..

You had to ride in one to know what I'm talking about..