Should Camaro get its own platform again?

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by McRat

Price just a set of titanium rods and valves for any V8. Then any dry sump system.

There is a reason the cheaper cars did not get these. Very little gain per dollar, but a gain none-the-less.

I get those parts are expensive but it doesn't change the fact that Ford was able to put a similarly expensive engine in the GT500 and not price it around the Z06.

The BOSS 302 got a fully forged bottom end, CNC ported heads and a deep breathing intake in a mid $40s car.

Why is Ford capable of doing that and GM isn't?

[McRat]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I get those parts are expensive but it doesn't change the fact that Ford was able to put a similarly expensive engine in the GT500 and not price it around the Z06.

The BOSS 302 got a fully forged bottom end, CNC ported heads and a deep breathing intake in a mid $40s car.

Why is Ford capable of doing that and GM isn't?

The Boss 302 is larger, heavier, less power, less torque, narrower powerband, than it's competition, the LS7, so that's apples to oranges.

On the GT500 powerplant, which is excellent:

How much would it have cost to remove >100lb from the GT500 engine? I think the LS9 has more area under the curve?

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by McRat

The Boss 302 is larger, heavier, less power, less torque, narrower powerband, than it's competition, the LS7, so that's apples to oranges.

On the GT500 powerplant, which is excellent:

How much would it have cost to remove >100lb from the GT500 engine? I think the LS9 has more area under the curve?

How is the Roadrunner 302 to LS7 apples to oranges? They both are specialty N/A engines. The only thing the LS7 has that the BOSS doesn't is the titanium parts, which it doesn't need.

As for the Trinity vs LS9 dyno charts, I can't find any comparisons that show the two, but I find it hard to believe the LS9 would have more area under the curve. The Trinity makes more power and torque plus is running higher boost.

[sspolo]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The Alpha seems to be a well received platform but, with so many cars and power trains being used on the Alpha, couldn't the Camaro benefit from having its own platform that isn't so compromised? As far as I know, the Mustang rides on its own platform and is priced competitively to the Camaro. What are the benefits of the Camaro using a corporate platform? It can't be cost related because the Camaro isn't any cheaper than the Mustang.

Maybe my understanding of this is way off base but I just was thinking about it and curious to what other people think.

If your question was, would it be good for GM? Probably no, as many have mentioned it is not cost effective. Also, the next gen platform will be a nice fit, but that's it.

Now, regardless of what all of the GM groupies say, the Camaro would greatly benefit from having its own platform. Just look at the well received FR-S. Ignoring cost, there is no reason why the Camaro would not benefit.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by sspolo

If your question was, would it be good for GM? Probably no, as many have mentioned it is not cost effective. Also, the next gen platform will be a nice fit, but that's it.

Now, regardless of what all of the GM groupies say, the Camaro would greatly benefit from having its own platform. Just look at the well received FR-S. Ignoring cost, there is no reason why the Camaro would not benefit.

FR-S isn't a unique platform. Ever heard of the Subaru BRZ [or Toyota (GT)86]?

Also ... look at the sales of the BRZ/FR-S/(GT)86 vs Camaro and tell me again how successful its been.

[FenwickHockey65]

FR-S/BRZ have been well received by enthusiasts and the automotive media. The buying public, not so much.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

FR-S/BRZ have been well received by enthusiasts and the automotive media. The buying public, not so much.

True. But its the same story with diesels & wagons* ... meanwhile, who holds more actual influence over the automakers: the ones who get a free car for a day before moving onto the next freebie (and drive a classic from the 50's or 60's to & from work) or the ones who plunk down tens of thousands of dollars for a new car and get something else several years down the road? Plus, most enthusiasts are encouraging their friends, neighbors, and co-workers to buy those cars so that in a couple of years they can get one cheap & lightly used. But they don't want to buy one new from the dealership.

Anyway, as corporations, the goal of every car company is to make money first and foremost. Everything else (including appeasing enthusiasts) is secondary -unless it makes them more money, in which case refer to rule #1.



*which reminds me ... a CTW-DV, (that is, Diesel High Performance CTS Wagon) with a manual would be practically guaranteed to be the best reviewed car in the history of automotive journalism. GM might sell 5 such vehicles, to the executive editors of MotorTrend, R&T, and 3 others ... but still, rave reviews would be guaranteed.

[sspolo]

Yes, but essentially the BRZ and the GT86 are the same car minus a few cosmetic changes. The Zeta platform has everything from coupes to wagons, so the platform is tuned to try and fit all in one, which is good since it makes money. However, for the car itself, a platform of its own would definitely give it a big change.

But yes, at the end sales are the main thing. So while the FR-S (BRZ) took advantage of having its own platform, it is not exactly a money maker for Toyota/Subaru. But you can't deny that the FR-S is a great car because of its specific platform.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

FR-S isn't a unique platform. Ever heard of the Subaru BRZ [or Toyota (GT)86]?

Also ... look at the sales of the BRZ/FR-S/(GT)86 vs Camaro and tell me again how successful its been.

[hotlap]

The argument for the Camaro having a unique chassis it that there would be less compromise....but...the G5 set the standard for its segment.

Given Chevrolets success with the ZL1 and Z/28, why would you expect less from the G6?

Bhobbs view the Camaro as the red headed stepchild rather than the sibling benefiting from the experience of its big brother

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

FR-S isn't a unique platform. Ever heard of the Subaru BRZ [or Toyota (GT)86]?

Also ... look at the sales of the BRZ/FR-S/(GT)86 vs Camaro and tell me again how successful its been.

I just noticed that I come across as an ass in that post.

My apologies

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Do you honestly believe the GT500 was sold at a loss? How about the BOSS 302? It had a low production, specialty engine.

No...but you're getting some "insight" as to just how inexpensive a Mustang was to produce after being unchanged (relatively) from MY '05 through '12-'13-'14. 10 years of tooling amortization benefitted the MSRP of the BOSS and the 500. THAT'S how they could "afford" (no pun) to splurge on a couple of engines.

Did the Base V6 and GT prices drop? No. They subsidized a relative handful of "haloes". FACT.

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I get those parts are expensive but it doesn't change the fact that Ford was able to put a similarly expensive engine in the GT500 and not price it around the Z06.

The BOSS 302 got a fully forged bottom end, CNC ported heads and a deep breathing intake in a mid $40s car.

Why is Ford capable of doing that and GM isn't?

See above...

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I just noticed that I come across as an ass in that post.

My apologies

You weren't wrong. I'm disappointed that it's sales aren't good, though. That's an area that I think the automotive industry sorely needs to expand. They're cheap "performance" cars. You might even call them starter sports cars. The guys that buy those play with them, and then they move on to bigger, real performance cars, like Camaros. It's a much stronger start for a car guy to hop into a BRZ/FR-S than to get a half-broken Honda Civic and start talking about the importance of stance.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

You weren't wrong. I'm disappointed that it's sales aren't good, though

The wrong part was how I said it, not what was said.