OK, I'm going here again...

[Jason E]

Soooo...with my newfound ability to rant about all things Camaro (thanks for that, Charlie ), I'm going to take on a topic yet again that I haven't brought up in about 5 years...

It bothers me that I need to spend over $30,000 for a V8 Camaro. It also bothers me that in an age where technology will be leading us down the road to even greater MPG from existing designs, I am told that V8s will be getting more costly, and even more exclusive. I am reasonably confident that if GM came out with a smaller displacement V8, with DoD, idle shutoff, etc., it could eek out damn good numbers for a V8. As noted in another thread, a lot of these boosted, tiny engines aren't exactly getting decent REAL WORLD mileage...something that I hope will be picked up by the EPA sooner or later.

So, folks, what is my dream? Welp, if a 5.3 in a GM pickup makes about 315hp, I imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to get it to 350hp or so? Throw in an aggressive DoD schedule, good gearing, a PCM designed to shift early at part throttle, a great 6 speed AT, and voila...in a 400 lb lighter package, a 6th gen that gets out of its own way AND close to, if not a solid 30 MPG highway. If a 6.0 can get to 25 MPG now with utilizing only DoD? Who says a 6th gen can't get to 30 using this method?

Take a base LS for around $25,000, add a $1,500...hell, an $1,800 optional V8 that probably will cost GM LESS than an HF V6 or stupid turbo 4, and what happens? GM makes more money, and a lot of us get the "base V8 car" we actually want.


I know what I got for responses 5 years ago. Times have certainly changed, as has technology. Interested to see what the responses are now.

[Barry Badrinath]

Soooo...with my newfound ability to rant about all things Camaro (thanks for that, Charlie ), I'm going to take on a topic yet again that I haven't brought up in about 5 years...

It bothers me that I need to spend over $30,000 for a V8 Camaro. It also bothers me that in an age where technology will be leading us down the road to even greater MPG from existing designs, I am told that V8s will be getting more costly, and even more exclusive. I am reasonably confident that if GM came out with a smaller displacement V8, with DoD, idle shutoff, etc., it could eek out damn good numbers for a V8. As noted in another thread, a lot of these boosted, tiny engines aren't exactly getting decent REAL WORLD mileage...something that I hope will be picked up by the EPA sooner or later.

So, folks, what is my dream? Welp, if a 5.3 in a GM pickup makes about 315hp, I imagine it wouldn't be terribly hard to get it to 350hp or so? Throw in an aggressive DoD schedule, good gearing, a PCM designed to shift early at part throttle, a great 6 speed AT, and voila...in a 400 lb lighter package, a 6th gen that gets out of its own way AND close to, if not a solid 30 MPG highway. If a 6.0 can get to 25 MPG now with utilizing only DoD? Who says a 6th gen can't get to 30 using this method?

Take a base LS for around $25,000, add a $1,500...hell, an $1,800 optional V8 that probably will cost GM LESS than an HF V6 or stupid turbo 4, and what happens? GM makes more money, and a lot of us get the "base V8 car" we actually want.


I know what I got for responses 5 years ago. Times have certainly changed, as has technology. Interested to see what the responses are now.

Since engine choices has been limited from Gen4 on, I would not be in favor of it if there was only 1 V8 option. However, if there were options like the C2, or Gen3 Fbody, then I would not have a problem with it. I actually think it would help with product differentiation, and attract more overall customers.

[Jason E]

Since engine choices has been limited from Gen4 on, I would not be in favor of it if there was only 1 V8 option. However, if there were options like the C2, or Gen3 Fbody, then I would not have a problem with it. I actually think it would help with product differentiation, and attract more overall customers.

What's my dream engine lineup?

1) V6 similar to what we have now...maybe a little bit smaller for better MPG? If the car is lighter, 280hp or so would be great, especially if it got up to 31-32 MPG or so, and 21-22 city.

2) 350hp "mid-level V8" optional in base car/RS.

3) 425 or so HP V8.

4) Z28 firebreather, or whatever.

We don't need astronomical HP increases...lighter weight will more than make up for it.

[Z284ever]

First, a little 5th gen trivia, (since I've spent the past decade collecting it ).

The 5th gen was originally going to get a midlevel V8. A 5.3L with about 320 horsepower. Below it would have been a 3.9L HVV6 and above it a 6.2L with 400 hp. As time went on, GM decided that the midlevel V8 should be replaced with a high output 3.6 V6 of about 320 hp. As more time went by, the pushrod V6 was dropped, making the "midlevel" V6 option the base engine.

Waaay further down the road, Bob Lutz wanted to bring back the midlevel V8 idea. The intent was to sell a Camaro in V6 trim but with the G8's 360 hp 6.0L engine for around mid $20K. Sounds good huh? The problem? Marketing determined that such a package would KILL SS sales. People would be spending $27K on their 6.0L Camaro rather than $35K on their SS. It's fate was sealed.


With that said....

I'm a big proponent of a two V8 strategy for the 6th gen. A less expensive volume version and a lower volume performance version. We've gotten to the point where pretty much anything you buy, I4, V6, V8 will all perform great. But only a V8 can provide that certain burble.

[Barry Badrinath]

What's my dream engine lineup?

1) V6 similar to what we have now...maybe a little bit smaller for better MPG? If the car is lighter, 280hp or so would be great, especially if it got up to 31-32 MPG or so, and 21-22 city.

2) 350hp "mid-level V8" optional in base car/RS.

3) 425 or so HP V8.

4) Z28 firebreather, or whatever.

We don't need astronomical HP increases...lighter weight will more than make up for it.

How about, same engine with e-assist, a 5.3 GenV V8, and a 6.2 GenV, with and without supercharging? All with a 400lb weight reduction.

[Barry Badrinath]

Marketing determined that such a package would KILL SS sales. People would be spending $27K on their 6.0L Camaro rather than $35K on their SS. It's fate was sealed.

Says to me that 100k annual units was the max volume they could expect with the current car. Profitable, but the SS margins were being counted on heavily.
They need to think in terms of creating a car where a 2 V8 option would increase overall sales and not be parasitic from one to the other. If an 85TA can have 3-4 (cannot remember) 305 options, and they sell more Firebirds than 5th gens, then they should study why that model worked.

[bballr4567]

Believe it or not but the 5th gen is slightly cheaper than the 4th gen. A loaded 2002 SS was around $32k and now its about $37k IIRC.

Then, think about all you get with the new Camaro and its kind of silly to compare them. The days of a cheap V8 being $26k and having just roll down windows, ABS and traction control are long, long gone.

[Neanderthal]

First, a little 5th gen trivia, (since I've spent the past decade collecting it ).

The 5th gen was originally going to get a midlevel V8. A 5.3L with about 320 horsepower. Below it would have been a 3.9L HVV6 and above it a 6.2L with 400 hp. As time went on, GM decided that the midlevel V8 should be replaced with a high output 3.6 V6 of about 320 hp. As more time went by, the pushrod V6 was dropped, making the "midlevel" V6 option the base engine.

Waaay further down the road, Bob Lutz wanted to bring back the midlevel V8 idea. The intent was to sell a Camaro in V6 trim but with the G8's 360 hp 6.0L engine for around mid $20K. Sounds good huh? The problem? Marketing determined that such a package would KILL SS sales. People would be spending $27K on their 6.0L Camaro rather than $35K on their SS. It's fate was sealed.


With that said....

I'm a big proponent of a two V8 strategy for the 6th gen. A less expensive volume version and a lower volume performance version. We've gotten to the point where pretty much anything you buy, I4, V6, V8 will all perform great. But only a V8 can provide that certain burble.

I think they blew it. Was it C-E that told them SS sales would be killed? Marketing has been wrong before, yes?

Perhaps selling a slew of 5.3 V8 jobs for well under 30 would have made up for the inflated profits coming from SS packages.

Chevy is CHEVROLET, not Cadillac. Everyman's car. A cheap V8 and a cheaper 3.9 ohv V6 is IMO the way they should have gone. Not everyone is utterly in love with ohcs.

[Z284ever]

I think they blew it. Was it C-E that told them SS sales would be killed?

I don't think so. It was internal I believe.

[avro206]

GM looked at making the 98 Camaro with a base V8...the 5.3L you really want. IIRC the mileage was no different then the 5.7L LS1.

I doubt GM has any interest in selling a base V8. They want to sell exspensive, high content V8 cars. The market for a low HP base V8 is tiny to non existent. Fords not bothering to go this route either. (I am hoping for twin turbo V6 Mustang)

[OLDSCHOOLGMFAN]

I'm with you on the more fuel-efficient V8 idea. Imagine if all the money GM wasted on that Volt crap had been used on getting EVERY last drop of fuel out of it's V8s?

[bballr4567]

I'm with you on the more fuel-efficient V8 idea. Imagine if all the money GM wasted on that Volt crap had been used on getting EVERY last drop of fuel out of it's V8s?

Seriously? You have zero knowledge on how CAFE works apparently as you continue to spew this line of crap. Its really shocking how someone who loves V8 is bashing a vehicle that uses very little fuel. Just amazing how you continue to be an ostrich.

[demonspeed]

I think some are forgetting about the bottom line and non-enthusiast buyers. The Camaro is to appeal (and be affordable) to the "average" person. This segment of buyers differs dramatically from those 10-20 years ago -- and are not like those of us posting here on GMI.

It's not a Corvette where performance rivals exotics, but has a limited use as a two seater at a $50k starting price. The Camaro is stylish and has a presence -- and most people do not need a V8 to meet those two points. With four seats, an advanced and powerful V6, what is there not to like? There will always been a performance variant for those of us who want it, but we'll have to pay a premium.

The bottom line drives what goes on, and if they can sell a crap load of base cars to the majority, then share holders are happy. ROI is all that matters.

[Z284ever]

I think some are forgetting about the bottom line and non-enthusiast buyers. The Camaro is to appeal (and be affordable) to the "average" person. This segment of buyers differs dramatically from those 10-20 years ago -- and are not like those of us posting here on GMI.

I guess this gets back to the "Pony Car" thread. What is a Pony Car and why does GM not want the Camaro called that?

If you look at the cold, hard, numbers, maybe GM did make afew quick bucks by funneling all of the V8 buyers into a $30-$40K car. Will that help or hurt the Camaro brand thrive down the road? We'll see.

Mustang is no saint here either. They latched on to this higher V8 price of entry, immediately after the Camaro, raising the price of the GT to better match the SS.

[Jason E]

The market for a low HP base V8 is tiny to non existent. Fords not bothering to go this route either.

With all due respect....

WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, so utterly wrong that I PRAY someone at General Motors is listening. Let me give you a REAL WORLD example of why I say this mentality is WRONG.

I had the pleasure to sell THIRTY FIVE Firebirds in 2002. Thirty five, in all colors, price points and options. Everything from Y87 V6s to Firehawks, and everything in between. Want to know what my BEST SELLING Firebird was? A $27,500, plain old Formula Firebird. No leather. No CD Changer. Not even TSC. Just a simple, honest V8 with shiny wheels. I sold 10 of those alone. To people that never would've bought $30,000+ TAs. One even went to an EIGHTY FIVE year old woman, trading a TBI '91 Firebird. I begged with her to understand "ma'am, the new V6 has 30 extra HP over your V8. You really don't need a V8."

Her response? "Sonny, I've been driving V8 Firebirds for way longer than you've been alive" (she wasn't kidding...). "I want a V8, and that's that." So off she rolled in her pewter, base Formula.

Want to know what the number one competitor I had was, that I lost more sales to? An even cheaper V8...a $24,000 Mustang GT that the Ford dealer down the street sold in droves. Typical customer response?

1) "Why do I need to spend $3,500 more? That one has a V8 as well?"
2) "I don't need the extra 50hp, but I do want a V8."
3) "I don't need standard t-tops. Sure, the Firebird is a little nicer, but I want a V8, and that one is cheaper."

I rest my case. Just because Ford isn't doing it doesn't mean GM SHOULDN'T do it. What, are we happy now with doing what everyone else does?????? Is that the path to enlightenment, gentlemen?

I am POSITIVE Charlie is right. Yes, a mid-level V8 would cannibalize SOME V8 sales. But not all. AND, it would bring people like myself into the market to buy something! Anything! Why the hell do I need to spend an extra $100 a month over 5 years to get 2 extra cylinders????

I ain't buying it. I'll buy it used, and GM won't get my money. There is ABSOLUTELY a market for a more basic, less powerful, V8 muscle car. Look at the last year it was offered...1992. 40,000 of the 70,000 Camaros that year were TBI 305 RSs.

I think if more dealers in 2002 stocked Firebirds like I did, a whole lot more Formulas would've been sold. A paltry 901 of the 31,000 sold that year were Formulas, but I couldn't keep them around.

I rest my case.