[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

Yeah but the BMW i3 is cheaper and a little slower to 60 (compared to the SS), but in commuter terms racing to the next stop light, it is faster. Tesla is coming out with a $35K car that will perform similarly.

Apple is even coming out with an electric car.

Just saying the next Camaro should be a Corvette with 4 seats, not spend a lot of development $$ on a cheaper model.

lolwut. That's a hell of a good way to kill this nameplate off again.

[SPCBA]

Originally Posted by Posaune

We'll see if that $35K Tesla (model S) ever sees the light of day. Seems there Model X cannot get to market. How many times has it been delayed now?

No they aren't. It is working on better integration of their map apps and Carplay software.

The cheaper models are what allows the uber Camaros to exist. It is critical they are done correctly.

The model s was just one upped by the Bolt as well...

And agreed the v6s are what made the rest of the Camaro line feasible for GM and affordable for us.

[wakespeak]

The Gen6 Camaro is based off of a shared platform with the ATS/CTS. Why does it need a low cost model to justify it? Chevy came out with the V8 only $45K SS 4-door correct, now expanded to a manual transmission model.

We can watch the sales of the 4-cyl Mustang as an indicator. I still like my Camaro/Tesla combination.

[FenwickHockey65]

SS is a super low volume model and is only in the United States to give Holden an export program for the VF Commodore. Which has an entry-level volume V6 model.

It seems like you want Camaro to become some low volume exotic. It's not going to happen. Like it or not Camaro is GM's volume sports car.

[mt3130]

The 2.0T and V6 Mustang models will likely represent 2/3 or more of all Mustangs (and Camaros) sold.

Honestly, I hope you're right. I would love an electric commuter for under $40k, then have Camaro as a toy. VW has an all-electric golf for $35k, but it only has a range of 84 miles, and my daily drive is about 75, so range anxiety keeps me from making the switch.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by mt3130

The 2.0T and V6 Mustang models will likely represent 2/3 or more of all Mustangs (and Camaros) sold.

Honestly, I hope you're right. I would love an electric commuter for under $40k, then have Camaro as a toy. VW has an all-electric golf for $35k, but it only has a range of 84 miles, and my daily drive is about 75, so range anxiety keeps me from making the switch.

Sounds like the new Chevrolet Bolt is the answer for you. 200+ mile range for under 40K. Perhaps less.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

The Gen6 Camaro is based off of a shared platform with the ATS/CTS. Why does it need a low cost model to justify it? Chevy came out with the V8 only $45K SS 4-door correct, now expanded to a manual transmission model.

We can watch the sales of the 4-cyl Mustang as an indicator. I still like my Camaro/Tesla combination.

As said above, making the Camaro a high cost low volume car would only end in the death of the Camaro. The Camaro is Chevrolet's "every man's" sports car. The buyers want either a nice performing V6 in the 20K - 30K range or a V8 in the low to mid 30K range. If you remove all of that, you just killed off 90% of the sales of this car. The rest of the buyers will opt for the higher cost, loaded V8, or the ultra powerful forced induction V8 models.

We are lucky that GM has a great platform that can be shared and used for Camaro, which should help to only further spread out the costs of the Alpha architecture. Without this, we would pay more for a separate unique chassis that we would only hope drives as well as Alpha performs in the ATS and CTS.

You may be able to afford a 45 thousand dollar (or much higher) Camaro, but that doesn't mean Chevrolet shouldn't build a Camaro for the masses. If you don't understand that, well then I have to

[Jeb114]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

As said above, making the Camaro a high cost low volume car would only end in the death of the Camaro. The Camaro is Chevrolet's "every man's" sports car. The buyers want either a nice performing V6 in the 20K - 30K range or a V8 in the low to mid 30K range. If you remove all of that, you just killed off 90% of the sales of this car. The rest of the buyers will opt for the higher cost, loaded V8, or the ultra powerful forced induction V8 models.

We are lucky that GM has a great platform that can be shared and used for Camaro, which should help to only further spread out the costs of the Alpha architecture. Without this, we would pay more for a separate unique chassis that we would only hope drives as well as Alpha performs in the ATS and CTS.

You may be able to afford a 45 thousand dollar (or much higher) Camaro, but that doesn't mean Chevrolet shouldn't build a Camaro for the masses. If you don't understand that, well then I have to

[SuperSound]

Well said KMPrenger

[wakespeak]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

As said above, making the Camaro a high cost low volume car would only end in the death of the Camaro. The Camaro is Chevrolet's "every man's" sports car. The buyers want either a nice performing V6 in the 20K - 30K range or a V8 in the low to mid 30K range. If you remove all of that, you just killed off 90% of the sales of this car. The rest of the buyers will opt for the higher cost, loaded V8, or the ultra powerful forced induction V8 models.

We are lucky that GM has a great platform that can be shared and used for Camaro, which should help to only further spread out the costs of the Alpha architecture. Without this, we would pay more for a separate unique chassis that we would only hope drives as well as Alpha performs in the ATS and CTS.

You may be able to afford a 45 thousand dollar (or much higher) Camaro, but that doesn't mean Chevrolet shouldn't build a Camaro for the masses. If you don't understand that, well then I have to

Not sure why you would make that statement. The Corvette is a low volume, but higher profit car, as are many others. The Camaro does not have to be a volume seller to be a successful product.

I would say that the 4 cyl would diminish the car and kill it faster than CAFE could. It will be slower and get poorer fuel economy while having none of the techno coolness of the competition. A properly track credentialed car that is downright cool to own has a much greater chance at staying around. Yes it will be more expensive, but people pay $50K for a pickup these days.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

Not sure why you would make that statement. The Corvette is a low volume, but higher profit car, as are many others. The Camaro does not have to be a volume seller to be a successful product.

I would say that the 4 cyl would diminish the car and kill it faster than CAFE could. It will be slower and get poorer fuel economy while having none of the techno coolness of the competition. A properly track credentialed car that is downright cool to own has a much greater chance at staying around. Yes it will be more expensive, but people pay $50K for a pickup these days.

Not even going to attempt to argue.

[newb]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

Not sure why you would make that statement. The Corvette is a low volume, but higher profit car, as are many others. The Camaro does not have to be a volume seller to be a successful product.

I would say that the 4 cyl would diminish the car and kill it faster than CAFE could. It will be slower and get poorer fuel economy while having none of the techno coolness of the competition. A properly track credentialed car that is downright cool to own has a much greater chance at staying around. Yes it will be more expensive, but people pay $50K for a pickup these days.

Given that the alpha platform should weigh less than the Mustang, why would a similarly powered car be slower with less fuel economy that its primary rival? And as far as techno coolness, we don't know what is planned so that's not really a fair statement.

[Iroc_Z28]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

The Camaro does not have to be a volume seller to be a successful product.

If you read up on the death of the camaro in 2002, you will see that it wasn't the sales of the v8's that was the problem, but rather the sales of the base model. THE CAMARO IS NOT THE CORVETTE. Turbo 4 and v6 model camaro's must sell well in order to keep the model alive, otherwise it's 2002 all over again.

Originally Posted by wakespeak

I would say that the 4 cyl would diminish the car and kill it faster than CAFE could.

A turbocharged 4 cylinder making around 300 hp is very respectable for an entry level pony/sports car. I don't see it diminishing the camaro at all.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

Not sure why you would make that statement. The Corvette is a low volume, but higher profit car, as are many others. The Camaro does not have to be a volume seller to be a successful product.

I would say that the 4 cyl would diminish the car and kill it faster than CAFE could. It will be slower and get poorer fuel economy while having none of the techno coolness of the competition. A properly track credentialed car that is downright cool to own has a much greater chance at staying around. Yes it will be more expensive, but people pay $50K for a pickup these days.

The Corvette is definitely profitable, no denying that, but that's essentially because it has no direct rivals in the US. The Camaro has always filled that spot below the Corvette and both have enjoyed immense success because of it. To move the Camaro more into a more exclusive Corvette class, would be detrimental to both. The golden rule in GM is mess with the Vette. Several cars have in GM have done it in the past, none of them are around today.

As far as CAFE killing the Camaro...unlikely. The V8s may get axed in the future but performance won't. Take a look at the McLaren P1, Porsche 918, i8, and the new NSX. Hybrid technology isn't just good for MPGs, it's making cars quicker than they have been before. It may take some getting used to, but electric power is hear to stay.

And what techno coolness do you see in the competition?