What If?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Supermans

However they will lose many of the old-school V8 die-hards in the process.. Camaro heritage would go out the door...

That was the point of this thread. You said it clearer than I did...

I think the car that I propose would sell to a wider, NEW audience. And I think it would seel amazingly well. Yet it could still retain some of those muscle car diehards who aren't emotionally attached to 8 cylinders. (me) Most of those diehards would walk away, though. They'd see 6 cylinders enough of a reason reason to dismiss an amazing car.

But that's my question. The people who are attached to the V8, the people who see V6's as inferior for some reason...Are they holding the Camaro back? Preventing it from evolving with the times? (I'd rather see that then have it die because the times weren't in sync with what the Camaro was.)

EDIT: Again, this is purely a 'what-if' game.

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by asrapid

if the car is light i don't mind (but i'm from Europe so we are more accustom to 4 cylinders engine here...actually v8 are very rare here)
Something like this lineup would work

2.0 l i4 260+ hp
v6 3.6 l 330 +hp
v6 TT 430 hp
and for top of the model (z28) gen V ..with 5.0 l displacements... and turbochargers if needed..you pick power ratings

If i'm not mistaking z28 in '60 has 5.0 l V8 which can rev beyond 7500 rpm. :-)

can't remember where I read it but the gas mileage between the 2.0 i4 and the 3.6 Di 6 were almost the exact same. so they ditched the trubo 4. think it was on julopnik.

[jmliptak]

One of the drivers for the 4 is international sales. Car in many other countries are taxed base on DISPLACEMENT, not hp. So Camaro with a turbo 4 would COST LESS to own in some other countries even if the gas mileage was the same...

[Shadowsong]

I'd hop on a TTv6 SS pretty quick....


Hell I plan on putting twins in my v6 RS anyway

[Mr Twisty]

I don't know exactly what would define a "DieHard Camaro guy" I'd like to think I'm one, 48 years old, grew up with the Camaro, first car was a Camaro, have owned at least one of each generation. Some were 6cyl cars, some were v-8 Z28, IROC.
GM HAS to look at the younger crowd. My kids aged 21 and 23 like Camaro probably because of their pop. Here's the problem...My daughter just bought a new car. At her pay level her biggest concern was price, number 2 was gas mileage. Long story short, she ended up with a Mazda3. I gotta tell ya, it's peppy, gets great gas mileage, and handles like a go-cart! OK, to the point...GM wants me as a buyer, but they NEED my kids as return buyers. I tried to get her to look at the Cobalt but she never made it to the Chev dealer before the Mazda salesman made her an offer she couldn't refuse.
Talk to your kids, drag them into GM dealership for a test drive. And GM, build us some cars that our kids want and need, including an economical and fun to drive Camaro!

[Cubanaso]

^exactly, because of the weight and nature of the 4T it does not make much sense.

WHILE, cutting weight then doing that might help EVERYTHING. Dragoneye, you are right...we have to make sure we don't hold it back from being all it can be. The more Camaro's they sell the more they will do to make it better and it wont die off like a dino again.

I think, AS YOU ALL KNOW, lol, that lighter weight helps everything and then everyone can get the Camaro they want.

I4
V6
V6T
BIG DADDY V8

More sales = long life = company concentration = a better car

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by Cubanaso

^exactly, because of the weight and nature of the 4T it does not make much sense.

WHILE, cutting weight then doing that might help EVERYTHING. Dragoneye, you are right...we have to make sure we don't hold it back from being all it can be. The more Camaro's they sell the more they will do to make it better and it wont die off like a dino again.

I think, AS YOU ALL KNOW, lol, that lighter weight helps everything and then everyone can get the Camaro they want.

I4
V6
V6T
BIG DADDY V8

More sales = long life = company concentration = a better car

If the T4 has the same flat torque curve as the DI6, you might be surprised how peppy the 4cyl car would be. It could also use lighter weight drivetrain for weight savings.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I added a poll. Purely "What-if?" remember that...

If you would buy this car, but you don't believe it should be called Camaro; then the situation I'm trying to create is that there would be no Camaro. This would 'replace' it.

However, keep in mind there is no performance gap between this car and an equivilant 2010. My theoretical Camaro can do everything a 2010 cam.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by asrapid

If i'm not mistaking z28 in '60 has 5.0 l V8 which can rev beyond 7500 rpm. :-)

Well, not 1960 but 1st gen Camaros were availiable with a 4.9 liter (302 cu in...only Ford calls a 4.9 liter 302 a "5.0" )

and yes, the 302 DZ is awesome.


But as far as the original topic, I agree with the OP.

In another thread I joked about a N/A ecotec 2.2 powered "Camaro XFE"

I was only half joking.

The '74 Mustang didn't come with a V8 at all. Later on, base 4 cyl Mustangs were referred to as Mustang MPG. The most powerful Mustang in 1980 was the 140 hp turbo 4. The 255 cu in V8 was only rated at 120 hp and that is a very optimistic rating. Ford also took a sporty, solid lifter, German V6 (Cologne V6) and a very reliable L6 (200 cu in 3.3l) out of the Fox Box and replaced it with the Essex 3.8 in 1983 to 86 which was neither sporty, nor reliable. Then they put that hooptie Essex BACK in in '94.

The Mustang survived all of this.

Camaro should be able to survive with a good turbo 4 or a turbo 6

[neo2227]

COUNT ME IN TOO!!!

[MLL67RSSS]

Two things:

1. Told my buddy (who with his '05 GTO seems to get snootier every day) the other evening that I pretty mad since I can't afford ANY new car these days and had no plans on a new Camaro. Then they released all those specs and pictures. Dammit!!! I REALLY want one now. I mentioned that for something I could drive more regularly that I think a RS Camaro with a 300 HP V6 and 6-speed manual would rock!!!!!

He looked at me like I was a complete idiot saying how ridiculous it would be to buy a "sports" car that doen't have the NECESSARY V8. To which I said, "So a Ferrari Daytona Spyder isn't a sports car 'cause it has all those darn extra cylinders?, a '68 E-type Jag isn't a Sports car with it's strait 6?!?!?! etc. etc. etc. See I don't see that anything HAS to have a V8 to be acceptable.

2. When you burn gasoline a finite amount of energy is created. If you have similar cars that weight the same and are burning the same gas it doesn't matter how many cylinders you have given the weight of each car is still the same. So in order to move those same weight similar vehicles from exactly the same "a" to "b", at exactly the same time "x" you are going to have to burn THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF GASOLINE because it will require the same amount of energy to do it.
Years ago had a '84 Monte Carlo SS. It's V8 got 13-14 MPG around town and 17-18 on the highway. My Ford lovin' buddy made fun of my "gas hog" V8 when he first bought his Cougar XR7 with the turbo 4 cyl. Similar cars, weighed about the same and stock for stock (which they were) had almost identical 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Boy was he pissed when he later discovered that his turbo four got 13-14MPG around town, and 17-18 MPG on the highway.

So a turbo 4 Camaro, if it weighs about the same and HAS THE SAME PERFORMANCE NUMBERS won't get any better mileage because it will have to burn the same amount of gas to acheive the same amount of energy. The number of cylinders does not change the laws of physics. Gonna have to give up performance if you want to gain MPG. Of course this is simplified, if you "baby" the turbo 4 as opposed to the V8 it will likely get a little better mileage so I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.

Cliffs: Same performance = burning same amount of gas > cylinder count irrelevant.

[chevydude26]

if you put a turbo in a v6 you've got more potential to tune...i mean like skylines can get to like 1200 hp...

at least in the gran turismo video games

and i couldn't do that after tuning any of the mustangs or camaros on the game which made me mad

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

if you put a turbo in a v6 you've got more potential to tune...i mean like skylines can get to like 1200 hp...

at least in the gran turismo video games

and i couldn't do that after tuning any of the mustangs or camaros on the game which made me mad

lol please tell me you don't base everything you know about performance of cars on that game. . .


the saying for there's no replacement for displacement is still true even with trubo/supercharging.

[MLL67RSSS]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

if you put a turbo in a v6 you've got more potential to tune...i mean like skylines can get to like 1200 hp...

at least in the gran turismo video games

Yeah, and INFINITE MPG as well.