Economy Camaro

[zebra]

Originally Posted by stratman

While this is true, it was only true for 1953,1954 and NEVER again. The last 54 model years (skipping the non existent 83) have been V8s. And with good reason. Any corrections to my factoids welcome. (Supposed handful of 55s with V6s eliminated from consideration as extreme outliers)

if you really wanna get technical, there were 44 '83 models built. all but one were crushed & it's in the vette museum.

[stratman]

Thank you Zebra. I did not know that.

Were they V6s per chance?

[zebra]

Originally Posted by stratman

Thank you zebra. I did not know that.

Were they V6s per chance?

no. the same L83 used in the '82 & '84 models

[fierodeletre]

While I *did* postulate that a turbo 4 might cost more than the smaller V6, this is pure speculation. In the same article, it states that the reason GM is going to use the CTS-V's 550 hp SC V8 instead of the ZO6's 505 hp NA V8 in the new Z28, is because the supercharged engine is cheaper to produce (I know, the author was surprised too). Conventional wisdom may say the turbo engine would cost more, but it might not in the long run.

Also, I've driven V6 F-bodies here and there, and I think there are plenty of people who have dreamed of owning these cars. I've driven both. I like both for different reasons. How many cylinders there are and their placement along the crankshaft of the engine is not in any way shape or form a measure of that engine's performance or efficiency. My buddy's 3.8L V6 97 camaro blew the doors off of my 82 Trans Am WS6 with the 3.83 rear end and a four barrel on it's 5.0L V8. Wasn't even close. There's WAY too much stigma attached, I think often stemming from uninformed masses, to the engine's configuration. People assume that number of cylinders equals performance. People also don't consider the dynamic difference forced induction has. A car with a factory turbo is already set up for easy tuning and tweaking. Also, a turbo car can behave just like its displacement would have you thinking when you keep your foot out of it. It's the original MDS. Only it works better.

All this is moot however. The big decider will be what the market demands. If there not enough new-era, free-thinking potential camaro owners who would buy a turbo four camaro, it simply won't happen no matter how cool or how much sense it makes.

Also: the C1 corvettes were inline sixes, not V6s. I'm pretty sure we need a tutorial on this, because the number of people saying V4 is kind of alarming. (not that V4's didn't and don't exist. They're just VERY few and far between.) It shows a lack of understanding about engine layout.

[stratman]

Originally Posted by fierodeletre

While I *did* postulate that a turbo 4 might cost more than the smaller V6, this is pure speculation. In the same article, it states that the reason GM is going to use the CTS-V's 550 hp SC V8 instead of the ZO6's 505 hp NA V8 in the new Z28, is because the supercharged engine is cheaper to produce (I know, the author was surprised too). Conventional wisdom may say the turbo engine would cost more, but it might not in the long run.

Also, I've driven V6 F-bodies here and there, and I think there are plenty of people who have dreamed of owning these cars. I've driven both. I like both for different reasons. How many cylinders there are and their placement along the crankshaft of the engine is not in any way shape or form a measure of that engine's performance or efficiency. My buddy's 3.8L V6 97 camaro blew the doors off of my 82 Trans Am WS6 with the 3.83 rear end and a four barrel on it's 5.0L V8. Wasn't even close. There's WAY too much stigma attached, I think often stemming from uninformed masses, to the engine's configuration. People assume that number of cylinders equals performance. People also don't consider the dynamic difference forced induction has. A car with a factory turbo is already set up for easy tuning and tweaking. Also, a turbo car can behave just like its displacement would have you thinking when you keep your foot out of it. It's the original MDS. Only it works better.

All this is moot however. The big decider will be what the market demands. If there not enough new-era, free-thinking potential camaro owners who would buy a turbo four camaro, it simply won't happen no matter how cool or how much sense it makes.

Also: the C1 corvettes were inline sixes, not V6s. I'm pretty sure we need a tutorial on this, because the number of people saying V4 is kind of alarming. (not that V4's didn't and don't exist. They're just VERY few and far between.) It shows a lack of understanding about engine layout.

While I disagree somewhat with your point on engine size and displacement and with your example of a 97 V6 beating up on a 15 year older V8 from the bottom of the hp days(not taking a shot at ya), I think you are dead on with the V6, Inline 6 and V4 comments. I think we at times use V as a de facto badge for “cylinders” not the configuration of said cylinders as it is intended. I know I do it. I’ve been doing it on this whole thread. Having owned an inline six I can say they are a different animal. I actually like them better.

[Joe Remi]

Stratman: You're correct, "arse" was intended to push back gently, not start a war. I didn't mean to imply that not being a sports car was a bad thing. Sports cars are usually narrowly defined by one engine with limited options, whereas pony cars (Camaro, Mustang, Challenger) have always been offered as everything from "secretary cars" to tire smokin' muscle cars (we'll leave the Mustang II out of this). I think "Pony Car" or "GT" are better definitions. My "2 more doors, it's a sedan" example was unfortunate. I should have started with the BMW 3 Series comparison.

I agree that people didn't dream of V6 Camaros and Mustangs in the past. They bought them because they liked the look and feel of the car, but couldn't afford the V8. In these days of never knowing when gas is going up again, someone like me may try to get the look and feel of a Camaro in the most fuel efficient package possible, even if I can afford the 8. That's easy to do when even the lowest-powered rumored model packs 255HP. It aint 400, but it's 70 more than my 2 '82 Firebird 305s had. Point being: From my 140HP-Civic perspective, every Camaro will be powerful, even my proposed eco-model. As far as the 300 horse 6 goes, I think the days of getting a 6 because you couldn't get the 8 are over. If the 6 car handles a little better because of less weight up front (which I expect), many handling-and-power folks are going to prefer it, especially refugees from WRXs and EVOs and such (ask your kids).

There's not much point in continuing this thread. I offered it up to get some feedback and, hopefully, catch a dealer or GM person's eye. I'm going to continue to monitor this site as y'all get your cars and start working the bugs out for us late adopters. Considering the financial climate we're in, it's a miracle GM is going forward with this and we're very lucky. Every iteration of the new Camaro looks awesome and I can't wait to drive one. I'll let you know if I get a test drive and they make me an offer I can't refuse!

[stratman]

I'm 28 and no kids that I know of. It was a good push back and it's a good thread. Good dialog here. It is a real clash of worlds today with the big cubes is power versus the small cubes with forced induction is power worlds. Cars that where nurtured with one philosophy in mind are meeting buyers with the other. Good news is there are plenty of options for all tastes. At the end of the day we are all car guys and that’s what matters.

[zebra]

Originally Posted by stratman

I'm 28 and no kids that I know of. It was a good push back and it's a good thread. Good dialog here. It is a real clash of worlds today with the big cubes is power versus the small cubes with forced induction is power worlds. Cars that where nurtured with one philosophy in mind are meeting buyers with the other. Good news is there are plenty of options for all tastes. At the end of the day we are all car guys and that’s what matters.

why can't we all just get along?!

[Joe Remi]

Originally Posted by zebra

why can't we all just get along?!

What fun would that be?

[DntWrryBeHappy21]

So many threads about this, I thought we agreed a turbo 4 would need more power to be able to EFFICIENTLY carry the Camaro's weight....

[Joe Remi]

Originally Posted by DntWrryBeHappy21

So many threads about this, I thought we agreed a turbo 4 would need more power to be able to EFFICIENTLY carry the Camaro's weight....

Sorry about the new thread. This was my first visit here and I was basing it on the Closing In On Camaro article in the new Road & Track. It mentioned a possible lower-power 6 or 2.4 Turbo for a bargain Camaro. I didn't realize a boosted 4 had been an ongoing topic for the new Camaro. I guess I've got some thread searching to do.

[stratman]

Actually the first roomers I heard back in the concept days was a turbo version of the 5 cylinder in the Colorado.

[Camarino]

Originally Posted by fierodeletre

Couldn't remember which one. I found it though. April 2009, Road & Track, page 16. They also all but said the Z28 is a go but on hold with the CTS-V's motor. Don't count out the enthusiast crowd here, we're actually pretty open-minded. However, the current motor in the base camaro is pretty dang economical as it is. 304 hp and 27 mpg? Not too shabby for a car of the camaro's 3750 lb girth. That being said, I don't think you'd hear too much belly aching if GM were to offer a turbo four camaro. GM's turbo fours are pretty fabulous, and a 2.4 would most likely outdo the 3.6 in power, torque AND mpg, though not by much in any of those categories.

MOTOR TREND had this article

[zebra]

Originally Posted by Camarino

MOTOR TREND had this article

we all know what other article they had, too!