Modern Camaro Forums banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6227554/editorial/the-next-next-chevy-camaro/index.html

DETROIT - No, the next Camaro, not the upcoming 2010 Chevy Camaro. A few weeks ago, I wrote that the V-8, as we know it, is dead. Since then we've heard how Ford is pondering a twin-turbo V-6 Mustang to supplement, if not replace, the GT V-8. Small GM cars in the future will likely get a 1.4-turbo four in place of the current 2.0-liter turbo. The realities of the 2020 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards are starting to sink in. Asian and European automakers will have to comply, too, as the European Union is set to impose CO2 standards at least as draconian as our '20 CAFE.



Cars and trucks will have to get lighter and smaller. The V-8 will become a low-volume engine configuration, like V-10s, V-12s and Mazda Wankel rotaries. All is not lost: the horsepower wars of the last 20 years have raised all boats ... er, boat engines. Today's turbo fours and direct-injection V-6s would amaze anyone whose last drive was in a '69 Z/28.

And that's how cars like the Mustang, Camaro and maybe even the Dodge Challenger can change rather than become dinosaurs again, or the next Mustang II. I don't know what Chrysler plans after the next-generation rear-drive platform runs its course, but GM has Alpha. You've read about the secret Alpha platform: it's a compact rear-drive architecture designed to give Cadillac a legitimate BMW 3 Series competitor for North America and Europe (the CTS is closer to the 5 Series and Mercedes E-Class in size). To make that new platform economical, GM needs to use it on a large-volume car. Most other pundits have taken too seriously Bob Lutz's words about rear-drive Pontiacs and believe it's going to be a small Pontiac sports sedan. I've reported to that it's more likely to be a high-volume Chevy to make the platform development pay off.

And now, here's another application: besides, say, a "Chevy Chevelle" sedan, how about using Alpha for the next Chevy Camaro? Mustang, Camaro and Challenger are much bigger cars than they were in the late '60s. A 2008 Chrysler 300 is less than two inches longer than a '68 Dodge Dart coupe, and two feet shorter than any of the Chryslers of four decades ago, all of which were full-size models. The current Mustang and upcoming Camaro and Challenger are bigger now, because they alone have remained about the same size as their Vietnam War-era counterparts.

Neither the '09 Challenger nor the '10 Camaro will be able to match Mustang's steady sales of 125,000 to 150,000 units per year. After the Camaro has been out for five years or so, everyone who wants one will have bought one. Some will be young buyers, but most will be my age or older; in my case, just a few years too young to have bought a new, original Camaro before high insurance rates, net horsepower ratings, emissions and the oil embargo killed off the hot versions worth having. I turned, like many of my generation and those younger, to smaller, high revving four-bangers with better handling than straight-line performance.

So GM should build the next Camaro, model year 2016 or so, on the Alpha rear-drive platform. Power it with maybe a twin-turbo four. The 2010 Camaro will find itself parked in big suburban driveways next to Tahoes, and the like. That '16 Camaro will make the perfect trade-up for the Honda Civic Si.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
Hmmmmmmm ughhh ok well lol Lets make the next camaro an ampficar and do away with boats so we can save money not only on dry land but on the water as well :D I never thought mustang would go to the level of a Ricer and hop up a hampster rather than building onto there mouse ! Maybe they never had the mouse to begin with lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
The guy who wrote that article must think that the Probe not becoming the new mustang was the worst thing that could of happened and the Mustang IIs were badass. Lame.

I would rather have them retire the nameplates and make the type of cars mentioned in that article or do both. The word on the Mustang is that the turbo V6 will prolly the same trim level as the V8 that will be offered with it (power compariable too), so i doubt V8s are going to be forced out by the government or big 3 (like it was somewhat attempted in the 70s), I think its the buyers that are going ease themselves into choosing the forced inducted variants over the V8s due to modern events. While I favor the V8 option, I can say a well engineered turbo 6 can do great things (supras, GT-Rs, turbo 3Ss, S/Ced Grand Prix, and GNXs) especially if the cars are too be lighter.

But, I still wish new names would be used. Pontiac is on a good roll with the G# cars. The use of late 70s/80s/early 90s could be used that wouldnt seem to intrude in on the muscle car house would be a wise move by the Big 3 (Grand National/ Grand Am/ Fiero, etc).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
this is so wrong on so many levels

If camaro switches to a platform designed for a Cadillac three series itl:
Will cost more
won't have massive wheels
will be narrow
won't have the hot zeta proportion
will drive like a sigma platform I.e not as good as zeta
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
There's no way GM is going to do this to Camaro. They might use a name from the past like Firebird or Chevelle, but after all the positive response to the 2010 Camaro, there's no way they'll throw it away on a smaller car.

What I can see GM doing is developing a better mileage V8 and controlling volumes of current V8's until that happens.

There's a reason why automotive writers don't make cars.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
ehh a Turbo 6 is not a bad idea..hell I would rock an electric Camaro is it was like the Tesla powerplant..
They better have an optional exterior sound system that plays V8 tones if I'm going electric. Seriously, though, this car looks so badass, I'll take it no matter what.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
I'm a fan of the Alpha chassis though... and since they can fit a V8 in the smaller Kappa chassis, I'm sure a V8 will fit right in a Alpha chassis too.

Oh and in case you're wondering:
http://www.6thgen.org :D ;)
That's weird, they haven't done any modifications to the 6th Gen, it looks just like the 5th Gen. Guess it IS electric. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
There's no way GM is going to do this to Camaro. They might use a name from the past like Firebird or Chevelle, but after all the positive response to the 2010 Camaro, there's no way they'll throw it away on a smaller car.

What I can see GM doing is developing a better mileage V8 and controlling volumes of current V8's until that happens.

There's a reason why automotive writers don't make cars.
They better not throw Firebird away on a smaller car, either. :D



 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,153 Posts
I got an idea for our government. Instead of making BS fuel mileage regulations, why not start regulating the refining companies? Start making them invest their BILLIONS in profit every year in modernizing and updating their old and outdated plants?! Why not MAKE them start investing their BILLIONS in profits in alternative fuels. Why don't you leave it to the consumer to decide the amount of gas mileage they want their vehicles to get?

Dumb democrat congress. LOL! I'm just messin with ya altoid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
I got an idea for our government. Instead of making BS fuel mileage regulations, why not start regulating the refining companies? Start making them invest their BILLIONS in profit every year in modernizing and updating their old and outdated plants?! Why not MAKE them start investing their BILLIONS in profits in alternative fuels. Why don't you leave it to the consumer to decide the amount of gas mileage they want their vehicles to get?

Dumb democrat congress. LOL! I'm just messin with ya altoid.
Aye, let the consumer control MPG with their dollar, we don't need Big Gubment tightening the thumbscrews on American creativity any more than they are already.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
I got an idea for our government. Instead of making BS fuel mileage regulations, why not start regulating the refining companies? Start making them invest their BILLIONS in profit every year in modernizing and updating their old and outdated plants?! Why not MAKE them start investing their BILLIONS in profits in alternative fuels. Why don't you leave it to the consumer to decide the amount of gas mileage they want their vehicles to get?

Dumb democrat congress. LOL! I'm just messin with ya altoid.
Since my livelihood is tied to the refinery's spending money lets spend it
all!!:roxor:

And if "they" are doing alternative fuels they will come to the people they know to engineer them and that still us!!:roxor::roxor:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
Aye, let the consumer control MPG with their dollar, we don't need Big Gubment tightening the thumbscrews on American creativity any more than they are already.
I have to disagree with you here, Luwinkle. The consumer has already proven that it doesn't mind paying out the nose for gas for their 12 mile per gallon SUVs and trucks that carry what? Kids to soccer and school?

Manufacturers have to plan years in advance for what they think the consumer will want. That means all of the sudden people are wanting efficient cars now, and they are not ready to produce them.

To me, this is a kick-start to the industry to say "look, you all have been riding the oil industry's coat tails for too long, it's time to think about efficiency". My only question is, why did Bush push for it? He's rolling in cash from big oil.

And one last thought...

Why doesn't the gubment have a CAFE standard for full-size trucks? Hasn't the F-150 been tops in sales over cars for the past few years?
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top