WTF Poor new Camaro

[smellslikecurry]

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/19/lutz-says-gm-considering-2-0-liter-turbo-for-camaro/

A four-banger in a Camaro! Blasphemy you say? Could be, but what four-pot are we talking about? In this case, the General's car czar Bob Lutz suggests that the new 2010 Camaro due next February could offer the same 2.0 liter direct-injected engine used in the Saturn Sky Redline, Pontiac Solstice GXP and the SS versions of the Chevy HHR and Cobalt. Before dismissing the turbo-four immediately, consider the top-of-the-line engine options the Camaro offered after the last oil-embargo-driven doomsday. In '72, the big block 402 engine offered just 240 horsepower; in '73, the Z28 was equipped with a 245-horse 350 and by '75 the hottest option underhood made only 155 horses. Ouch. The 2.0 being considered for the Camaro punches out 260 horsepower, and based on our time with the engine, you feel each of them as you run up towards the redline. The next step-up will likely be a version of GM's 3.6, as offered in the CTS and G8, also making around 260 horsepower.

Other Camaro tidbits mentioned by Lutz: it will be priced higher than the Mustang, as GM sees the Camaro as a higher-end offering. Specifically, Lutz suggests that the Camaro will feature a much better interior than the 'Stang, along with its inherently better independent rear-suspension arrangement.

Perhaps a bigger question to ponder is how bad will the performance industry be impacted by new fuel efficiency standards along with the ever-tightening emissions regulations. Just so long as carmakers such as GM continue to offer engine options like their 2.0 liter DI four-banger, the performance drop-off won't be nearly as drastic as it was back in the mid-70s. Thank God for that!

[eastcoastS14]

hahhahahahahahahahahahaha

American companies continue to fuck themselves....I would pay to be at one of these meetings where they decide shit like this, seriously retarded

[SW20Racer]

the way i feel after reading that can best be described as "my soul just left my body"

[WilloW]

That just doesn't sound right! Every time I hear the word Camaro, I think V8.

[jspaeth]

Good info, but

Camaros are still ugly as shit.

Did you know that nearly 40% of Camaro drivers have a mullet, thin mustache, or Confederate Flag tattoo?

True story

[jackjack]

whatthecrapbbqftmfw.

[240love^_^]

Now that is just depressing.....:(

[jrbump]

Did you know that nearly 40% of Camaro drivers have a mullet, thin mustache, or Confederate Flag tattoo?

True story



And those are just the women.:eek3:

[Antihero983]

cool. heavy as fuck AND under powered?! price shipped to 03819?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

cmon. if you're gonna bring back a car like the camaro, i mean the best thing you can do is not fuck it up!

[flip3d]

boo! LS9 or bust!

[Farzam]

I can't wait till GM goes out of business.

They officially deserve it if there is no V8 option, there should totally be a damn LSx in that bitch.

[VROOOM]

I can't wait till GM goes out of business.

They officially deserve it if there is no V8 option, there should totally be a damn LSx in that bitch.

im sure they are putting a LS in the camaro i just think that are using the turbo 4 for the base model.

BTW the turbo 4 has as much HP as a 04 mustang GT so its not too bad

[Farzam]

Turbo 4 cylinder is pretty cool

But not in a heavy ass car...and it'll need a good amount of torque and a nice tranny setup

[drift freaq]

GM fails once again. For all their bright idea's they somehow manage to fuck everything up in the execution.

[kornaz]

Dunno why, but seems like American car makers just do it to themselves. They fuck it up. Oh man, i could go on and on, but it's not worth. Everyone who have brain knows that. Lol.

[an_orange_s2k]

American companies continue to fuck themselves....I would pay to be at one of these meetings where they decide shit like this, seriously retarded
i totally agree, wtf are they thinking?!?!

[cdlong]

what the hell are you guys talking about? haven't you been crying out for a RWD turbo 4 for years? yeah, it's big and heavy, but the idea is there. i'm not saying i would buy one, but the independent rear suspension and 2+2 are appealing.

the ecotec (i think that's what it is) is nothing to shake a stick at. it has 260hp @5300 and 260lbft @ 2500 rpm. this is no honda engine. direct injection turbo engines usually feel more like a big NA engine than a turbo. the turbo 4 has more power and torque then a mustang V6.

it also wouldn't be much of a stretch to do a 2.4 liter direct injection turbo. swap heads onto a base model sky/solstice engine, upgrade some internals, and tune.

[drift freaq]

what the hell are you guys talking about? haven't you been crying out for a RWD turbo 4 for years? yeah, it's big and heavy, but the idea is there.

the ecotec (i think that's what it is) is nothing to shake a stick at. it has 260lbft at 2500 rpm. direct injection turbo engines usually feel more like a big NA engine than a turbo. the turbo 4 has more power and torque then a mustang V6.

it also wouldn't be much of a stretch to do a 2.4 liter direct injection turbo. swap heads onto a base model sky/solstice engine, upgrade some internals, and tune.

read my post again. I think you will understand.

[BustedS13]

what the fuck

seriously, when they were all "yeah okay we're gonna bring the camaro back" i was like "woot"
but then they were all "okay this is what it looks like", and i was like, "uh... wtf is up with the back"
and then they were like "okay so it's going to have a four cylinder option", and i was all "okay now you're gay, the challenger just won"

seriously, if you're going to make a car, don't downgrade through generations. the 4th gen f body is a better option than this new thing is going to be

[exitspeed]

I must be crazy, but when i read this yesterday I thought it's a good idea.

Let me explain the alternative...

NO MORE CAMARO.

Maybe that's what people would prefer. Because if GM doesn't offer smaller engines in their cars, yes even their "muscle cars", these type of cars aren't going to exist.

IMO, a better definition of muscle is more power, not just size. Obviously not the "no replacement for displacement" crowd.

[Omarius Maximus]

People have to understand that the vast majority of buyers for the mustang, and eventually the challenger and camaro prefer the "lower end", lower priced versions.

The mustang and it's rivals were never "muscle cars", they were pony cars, and even in their time, they sold more of them with inline 6s.

I personally think it's a great idea to stick a turbo 4 in it. You want the LS3? You'll definitely get it (just have to pay more).

For the 70-80 percent of people that buy these cars, whether it's a mustang, camaro, or challenger, giving them this option is a godsend.

They'll get better gas mileage, more power, and lighterweight. So whats the problem?

I can't help but think that these babyboomer geezers have screwed up the American sportscar industry. Compare a 65 mustang fastback to it's current iteration and it makes you almost vomit. They stick to tradition to the point of shooting themselves in the foot. Live axle? Come on. 3500 pounds? Aero of a brick?

The one car that did away with the american sportscar cliches was a huge failure because of it. GTO got the independent suspension, the non retro styling and what did it get in return? Some geezer screaming "we need morz hoodz scoopz or not GTOZ guyz"

A camaro is a hell of a lot closer to it's roots with a turbo 4 than a mustang is with a dohc supercharged 1000 pound truck motor wedged into a 3000 pound chassis.

Think 1964 and the advent of the pony car. It was designed for college kids, younger gen people as a nice smallish econobox that was a bit easier to maneuver than your average car.

[ranger240]

the camaro is too fat... it was undersized when new... with fat cars engine... now theyre tying to pull the opposite..

what gm needs to do is take the average weight/size of cars sold in the 60s figure a power to weight ratio

and figure the average weight of modern American cars sold..

then they need to undercut the average weights by a similar percentage...

a 4 cylinder camaro is a good idea.. if it weighed <3000lbs

no one buys big giant 60s yatchts anymore.. theres no reason we should be trying to reproduce a 60s alternative car to a scale of car that doesnt exist anymore

[Omarius Maximus]

I think if it weighs around 3200-3300, and gets the 260hp, it should make it about as quick as an E36 M3 = low 14 seconds. Which is pretty damn good for a base model, and you'll get mid 20s in the mpg.

That is a very attractive package to me.

[HyperTek]

wait till teenage girls crash em and the engines end up in 240s.. hehehe

[jspaeth]

what the hell are you guys talking about? haven't you been crying out for a RWD turbo 4 for years? yeah, it's big and heavy, but the idea is there. i'm not saying i would buy one, but the independent rear suspension and 2+2 are appealing.

the ecotec (i think that's what it is) is nothing to shake a stick at. it has 260hp @5300 and 260lbft @ 2500 rpm. this is no honda engine. direct injection turbo engines usually feel more like a big NA engine than a turbo. the turbo 4 has more power and torque then a mustang V6.

it also wouldn't be much of a stretch to do a 2.4 liter direct injection turbo. swap heads onto a base model sky/solstice engine, upgrade some internals, and tune.


yeah but the camaro is a fucking boat and ugly as shit

[BustedS13]

yeah but the camaro is a fucking boat and ugly as shit

i've got to agree. it's decent from the front, but they FUCKED UP the back. from the c pillar back it looks like a tard baby

[drift freaq]

People have to understand that the vast majority of buyers for the mustang, and eventually the challenger and camaro prefer the "lower end", lower priced versions.

The mustang and it's rivals were never "muscle cars", they were pony cars, and even in their time, they sold more of them with inline 6s.

I personally think it's a great idea to stick a turbo 4 in it. You want the LS3? You'll definitely get it (just have to pay more).

For the 70-80 percent of people that buy these cars, whether it's a mustang, camaro, or challenger, giving them this option is a godsend.

They'll get better gas mileage, more power, and lighterweight. So whats the problem?

I can't help but think that these babyboomer geezers have screwed up the American sportscar industry. Compare a 65 mustang fastback to it's current iteration and it makes you almost vomit. They stick to tradition to the point of shooting themselves in the foot. Live axle? Come on. 3500 pounds? Aero of a brick?

The one car that did away with the american sportscar cliches was a huge failure because of it. GTO got the independent suspension, the non retro styling and what did it get in return? Some geezer screaming "we need morz hoodz scoopz or not GTOZ guyz"

A camaro is a hell of a lot closer to it's roots with a turbo 4 than a mustang is with a dohc supercharged 1000 pound truck motor wedged into a 3000 pound chassis.

Think 1964 and the advent of the pony car. It was designed for college kids, younger gen people as a nice smallish econobox that was a bit easier to maneuver than your average car.

Here I was going to applaud your for a good post and you went all south and failed half way through. If you think baby boomers are the reason American cars are fucked up your one clueless person.

Yes Camaro's and Mustangs were Pony Cars. No GTO"S were never Pony Cars Pontiac built the GTO which was a upgrade Le Mans with one thing in mind a big engine and lots of HP it was a Muscle Car from the get go. Some of Chrysler's offerings were pony cars but others were straight up Muscle cars.
The GTO was not a failure because of its suspension. It was a failure because GM is currently somewhat of failure and could not market the GTO for the right price in its catagory.
Yes the current Mustang could have had IRS which I wish it had. Though Ford manage to score a hit with the it anyways.

The Camaro fails with the 4 cylinder because of overall size and weight of this current reiteration. If it was smaller in size closer to the original the 4 cylinder might not be a bad idea but not in the chassis they are currently offering. Yes its big and ugly I have seen it in person.

Now none of these cars are Sports cars. Yes some are pony cars and some are muscle cars.

The only true American sports cars are the Corvette one of the few things that GM manages get pretty close to right with and the Pontiace Solstice and Saturn Sky. Everything else are pretenders to the throne.

[Yuri]

I think it's great the Camaro can be had with a T4.
Better fuel economy, I wish the base Challenger had this instead of the underpowered N/A V6.

Besides, it's not like the Camaro can't be had with a V8.
SS models have already been caught testing.

And for those of you saying GM is messing up for putting an inline 4 in a Camaro, back in the 80's you could get an N/A 4-cylinder.
SO at least this one has power compared to what they could have done.

I'd be more pissed off if they only offered the car with an automatic.

[cdlong]

there was also the SVO mustang in the '80s. certainly not a mistake, that car was pretty quick and sought after.

yeah but the camaro is a fucking boat and ugly as shit

boat? yes.

ugly as shit? i disagree but either way, i'm sure GM doesn't care. controversial sells. if some people hate it, there're just as many people that really like it. (unless it's just downright poor design, like the Aztek). people don't often buy a car they kind of like if there's one they really like. unoffensive designs get ignored and lost in the shuffle. people want to be noticed.

think of the '02 7 series. it was ugly at first, but people noticed it and it sold better than the previous model because everyone noticed your brand new BMW.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

IMHO I think that if the 4cyl had the same advances as they do today a lot more cars would have had them in the bay. Yes, the car may be ugly but it speaks to SOME people. And because a person has a 4cyl turbo motor under the hood of a camaro doesn't mean that it's not a fast car. We've seen some very impressive 4 cyl on here with some impressive times!

With that said, I think Chevy would be better off putting a FI inline 6. It'll beat the base 'Stank and will have potential in different ways that the LS motor might not see. Plus, the production would be cheaper so the car would be cheaper.

A 4cyl in a Camaro is blasphemy.

[jspaeth]

there was also the SVO mustang in the '80s. certainly not a mistake, that car was pretty quick and sought after.



boat? yes.

ugly as shit? i disagree but either way, i'm sure GM doesn't care. controversial sells. if some people hate it, there're just as many people that really like it. (unless it's just downright poor design, like the Aztek). people don't often buy a car they kind of like if there's one they really like. unoffensive designs get ignored and lost in the shuffle. people want to be noticed.

think of the '02 7 series. it was ugly at first, but people noticed it and it sold better than the previous model because everyone noticed your brand new BMW.


GM makes ugly cars, period. There are so many boring flat spots on their cars, it just is a disgrace.

SOME American manufacturers get it right.....Lincoln, etc.

For being way cheaper than chevys, saturns aren't TOO terrible.


GM is just crap, I'm sorry. The same kind of people that buy the HHR, Atzek, Camaro, Challenger, Dodge Magnum, etc. are those that think NASCAR is awesome.

Except the Corvette and Viper, everything else is just shit. They can make good NICE cars, but haven't figured out how to make good economy/affordable cars.

It's really not hard at all. Kia's or hyundais look way better than fords/chevys and are way cheaper

[flip3d]

I see where GM is coming from. They want to offer us more efficient options. There's nothing wrong with that. Tradition is for brainwashed people. Times change.

[cdlong]

IMHO I think that if the 4cyl had the same advances as they do today a lot more cars would have had them in the bay.

turbo and direct injection both add significant cost to an engine. it's probably easier and cheaper to just throw a v6 in the car that makes the same power. that's why i think this is good for GM, they aren't taking the easy way out anymore.

GM makes ugly cars, period.

still your opinion.

[svensko]

What's funny is that if they put an anemic four cylinder into the Camaro and made it FWD you babies would be saying "Gawww, if only they'd make a turbo version with IRS! It'd be so driftable!!!" :barf:

[drift freaq]

I think it's great the Camaro can be had with a T4.
Better fuel economy, I wish the base Challenger had this instead of the underpowered N/A V6.

Besides, it's not like the Camaro can't be had with a V8.
SS models have already been caught testing.

And for those of you saying GM is messing up for putting an inline 4 in a Camaro, back in the 80's you could get an N/A 4-cylinder.
SO at least this one has power compared to what they could have done.

I'd be more pissed off if they only offered the car with an automatic.

Ok let me state something here, CDlong seems to have missed my point and I don't quite think you got it either.

I have a problem with GM on the fact that they have lots of great ideas but they routinely fail in the execution.
That is a indisputable fact that both you and CD seemed to have either missed or completely glossed over. I have nothing against GM trying to do a four cylinder Camaro. If the car was not a big ugly overgrown comic book version take on the original. That most likely weighs to much to carry a 4 cylinder.

All I can say is, people do not seem to be reading posts in this thread and getting all up in arms. They are assuming people are implying things because they are taking it from their own heart and then accusing others of doing the same thing. Which means this thread has become dumb and useless and should be closed.

I made posts based on reasons which people seem not be able to get beyond their own emotional feelings to understand.

[jspaeth]

As far as I am concerned, the measuring stick for good performance is power output per liter, and American cars are just god awful at this.

It's like they use sheer displacement as a bandaid for the fact that their engines are inefficient as piss.

[svensko]

It's like they use sheer displacement as a bandaid for the fact that their engines are inefficient as piss.

At least they don't have to perform an engine swap or add a turbo to make the engine worth driving. :fruit:

[Gnnr]

and by '75 the hottest option underhood made only 155 horses. Ouch.

And it weighed 3733 lb from what I pulled up on google. What a pig!

[jspaeth]

At least they don't have to perform an engine swap or add a turbo to make the engine worth driving. :fruit:
You've got to be fucking kidding me....

"Make the engine worth driving"....yes, because the engine is what you drive...

Question: "How can we make this motor put out more power/torque?"

Answer: "Make it bigger!"


This requires no thought or engineering at all. Simply scaling something up is for pussies that can't use their brains.


That's why Formula 1 is recongized as the pinnacle of building cars, because it's all about quality, not quantity.


Shit, why not build a 16L V16.....that thing would be so awesome.....:down:



Clearly I am not a fan of the MEATHEAD "my car is really fast in a straight line but if I try to turn it will roll over" methodology.

"At least they don't have to do a motor swap or add a turbo to make their engines worth driving"


Oh you mean, actually put some thought into how to make the car perform better?


6L engines that put out like 350 hp....hahaha hahaha

oh wait, doesn't an N/A NSX put out like 300 hp on just 3L?

Oh that's right, because they actually thought about quality, not just quantity


EDIT: Oh yeah, by the way the E46 M3 put out 340 hp from a 3L

[Omarius Maximus]

As far as I am concerned, the measuring stick for good performance is power output per liter, and American cars are just god awful at this.

It's like they use sheer displacement as a bandaid for the fact that their engines are inefficient as piss.

Why? An S2000 F20(which has a good specific output) gets 18miles city/24 highway while producing 240hp. You have to run it to 6K+ rpms to get any power out of it, and it's gutless down low.

A C6 Z06 on the other hand gets 16/26 from a 7 liter that produces MORE than twice the power, has torque throughout the rev range, is compact, light, and simple.

Specific output has always been an argument from Honda fanboys. Whenever they're outgunned, be it in acceleration, efficiency, torque, etc...they'll always fall back on horsepower per liter no matter how irrational the whole idea is.


Also, your formula 1 analogy doesn't work. If your RESTRICTED to low displacement, the only way to make more power is to get the car to rev as high as possible while still being able to breath (cams, itbs, intake mani, etc).

I can assure you that if formula 1 teams could get away with any displacement they wanted, they'd be running SHITLOADS of it.

[cdlong]

As far as I am concerned, the measuring stick for good performance is power output per liter, and American cars are just god awful at this.

It's like they use sheer displacement as a bandaid for the fact that their engines are inefficient as piss.

you actually consider that? it's a worthless spec unless you drive a honda. Lb/hp (of the engine), mpg/hp, fine. those are things that affect the performance and use of the car. hp/liter is worthless.

If the car was not a big ugly overgrown comic book version take on the original. That most likely weighs to much to carry a 4 cylinder.

i understand what you're saying, but they haven't executed anything yet. plus, i don't think they really messed anything up.

and the car is only marginally bigger than the original. the weight gain is unfortunate but hardly atypical with a new car of that size.

dimensions of the 1969 Camaro:
Length - 186.0 inches
Height - 51.1 inches
Width - 74.0 inches
Wheelbase - 108.0 inches
weight - ~3000lbs

dimensions of the Camaro concept:
Length - 186.2 inches
Height - 53 inches
Width - 79.6 inches
Wheelbase - 110.5 inches
Weight - 3733

[svensko]

I'm confused as to how adding a turbo is different than adding displacement? Flipping over when you try to turn? Who in the world brought suspension into this argument? You DO realize that this Camaro has an IRS instead of a SRA, correct? What are you going to complain about next? Weight? Need I remind of the nearly two ton VR-4 or other piggy 90s GTs? (Supra, 300ZX...).

[jspaeth]

Z06s are actually well designed and have a pretty good specific power output.

Terrible comparison.

Plus, Z06s can actually handle.

Some of the older Corvettes were shitty as fuck simply because they had realtively high displacement motors with just okay power.

[svensko]

Z06s are actually well designed and have a pretty good specific power output.

Terrible comparison.

Plus, Z06s can actually handle.

Some of the older Corvettes were shitty as fuck simply because they had realtively high displacement motors with just okay power.

Older Corvettes? Why are you discussing OLD GM vehicles in a thread about the NEW Camaro? What's next? A comparison to the price of tee in China?

[jspaeth]

I'm confused as to how adding a turbo is different than adding displacement? Flipping over when you try to turn? Who in the world brought suspension into this argument? You DO realize that this Camaro has an IRS instead of a SRA, correct? What are you going to complain about next? Weight? Need I remind of the nearly two ton VR-4 or other piggy 90s GTs? (Supra, 300ZX...).

You are comparing a Camaro to a Supra.

:tweak:


Older Corvettes? Why are you discussing OLD GM vehicles in a thread about the NEW Camaro? What's next? A comparison to the price of tee in China?

yes, the price of golf tees in China.

Learn how to spell.

I am discussing older Corvettes, because GM continues to make these "cool" cars with horrificly inefficient engines that suck down gas.

[svensko]

Cool you caught a typo. How dare I read a postgreSQL tutorial, watch TV and post in a thread at the same time. :goyou:

Secondly...

The Z06 gets 26 MPG and makes 505 HP...

How is that horrificly inefficient?

Edit: I'm trying to figure out why you guys are complaining about a TURBO four cylinder Camaro with IRS that has POTENTIAL to handle well after a diet?

[Omarius Maximus]

You are comparing a Camaro to a Supra.

:tweak:




yes, the price of golf tees in China.

Learn how to spell.

I am discussing older Corvettes, because GM continues to make these "cool" cars with horrificly inefficient engines that suck down gas.

Where is the inefficiency? I mean the best way to measure efficiency would be miles per gallon correct? If so, which V8 chevy gets terrible gas mileage? Most of the sedans with the small block V8 have cylinder deactivation technology, the corvettes, as I quoted before get better gas mileage than an S2000. The modern LSX engines are technological marvels, period.

The truth of the matter is that high specific output motors are actually far more inefficient than either turbo or modern ohv engines.

Why does honda keep the high revving na 4 bangers around when they get relatively mediocre gas mileage, torque, and power? The same for BMW and it's M series engines. They have 100hp per liter, but the new m3 gets 12 miles per gallon. Perhaps to appease hp/liter people like yourself, or maybe to fulfill some Formula 1 delusions of grandeur. It certainly isn't for the performance.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

ok. so I had a little time to think about it while i was at work and I thought that the USDM market has had a bad reputation because they refuse to think outside of the box, well that and the unoriginal cars. So, now they adopt an idea that Japan has had for 25 years now and people are taking a shit on the idea. My initial reaction was to say that a 4 cyl in a camaro was blasphemy but come to think about it, it could be revolutionary for the USDM market. They could be selling to a whole new market, coupled with the v8 crowds in the upper models.

I don't have a problem with it.

[svensko]

ok. so I had a little time to think about it while i was at work and I thought that the USDM market has had a bad reputation because they refuse to think outside of the box, well that and the unoriginal cars. So, now they adopt an idea that Japan has had for 25 years now and people are taking a shit on the idea. My initial reaction was to say that a 4 cyl in a camaro was blasphemy but come to think about it, it could be revolutionary for the USDM market. They could be selling to a whole new market, coupled with the v8 crowds in the upper models.

I don't have a problem with it.

Wait, you mean you don't prefer an anemic V6? Who do you think you are? Someone with a brain?! :aw:

[jspaeth]

Cool you caught a typo. How dare I read a postgreSQL tutorial, watch TV and post in a thread at the same time. :goyou:

Secondly...

The Z06 gets 26 MPG and makes 505 HP...

How is that horrificly inefficient?

Edit: I'm trying to figure out why you guys are complaining about a TURBO four cylinder Camaro with IRS that has POTENTIAL to handle well after a diet?


See earlier post where I specifically said that i am pro Z06

Where is the inefficiency? I mean the best way to measure efficiency would be miles per gallon correct? If so, which V8 chevy gets terrible gas mileage? Most of the sedans with the small block V8 have cylinder deactivation technology, the corvettes, as I quoted before get better gas mileage than an S2000. The modern LSX engines are technological marvels, period.

The truth of the matter is that high specific output motors are actually far more inefficient than either turbo or modern ohv engines.

Why does honda keep the high revving na 4 bangers around when they get relatively mediocre gas mileage, torque, and power? The same for BMW and it's M series engines. They have 100hp per liter, but the new m3 gets 12 miles per gallon. Perhaps to appease hp/liter people like yourself, or maybe to fulfill some Formula 1 delusions of grandeur. It certainly isn't for the performance.


I am talking about power efficiency, obviously.

Clearly, if you are talking fuel economy, your best bet is a lightweight, aerodynamic car with a small engine or turbodiesel or hybrid.

They are two entirely different problems.

However, a good engine should be able to output a ton of power while still getting good mileage under crusing.

I believe I recently read somewhere that the car that holds the record for highest top speed (SSC Aero built by Shelby) has 1200 hp yet gets ~30 mpg when cruising.


EDIT: I am done arguing turbo/well-designed engines vs. inefficient large-displacement engines, as it has nothing at all to do with the thread topic.

I think a turbo 4-cylinder would be cool in a Camaro....if this is the case, why does it need to be so god-damned heavy and bulky and have the aerodynamics of a rectangle?

[svensko]

See earlier post where I specifically said that i am pro Z06



Right, and the Saturn Sky Redline which can still pull of 26 MPG and has more horsepower and more torque (almost 100 lb/ft more) than the S2000, is that a 'lame American car'?

Pros of the Saturn:
- More MPG than S2000
- More HP than S2000
- More torque than S2000
- Cheaper than a S2000

Cons of the Saturn:
- Some guy on the internet thinks they're lame

:ughd:

[Bushido]

you guys are being close minded and ignorant.

whats wrong with a 4 cyl camaro that is turbo charged?

you think its wrong just because it is a 4 cylinder, ignoring the fact that its a much better option than a heavier and more inefficient v6 as a base model engine.

I hope that GM produces the camaro with a turbo I4 option and they skip the V6. I bet you'll see that the turbo 4 will be better recieved by the aftermarket and that they'll probably be making more power than the v8's with just a few mods.

[jspaeth]

No I like the Sky, it can actually turn and doesn't look like a square piece of plastic over a metal frame.


you guys are being close minded and ignorant.

whats wrong with a 4 cyl camaro that is turbo charged?

you think its wrong just because it is a 4 cylinder, ignoring the fact that its a much better option than a heavier and more inefficient v6 as a base model engine.

I hope that GM produces the camaro with a turbo I4 option and they skip the V6. I bet you'll see that the turbo 4 will be better recieved my the aftermarket and that they'll probably be making more power than the v8's with just a few mods.

agreed completely

[svensko]

And how about the Saab 9-5 Aero and 2.3T? 28 MPG and 260 HP. Goddamn GM and they're inefficient cars! They just threw displacement at that Saab like it asked for it! :rant:

[jspaeth]

Are you serious here man?

Let me reiterate.....I am obviously not hating on every single GM car.....I am saying that some of their "performance" cars are a joke....nothing more than a big engine put into a heavy car that cannot handle and looks like a brick going down the road.


Leave it to rest.

[svensko]

So I guess when Nissan went through with the VQ35DE and made it rev to 17K and run on alochol for the new GTR that is was taking the manly, wise route by creating an engine that was made of pure knowledge, plated in grey matter...

Wait, no, they just upped the displacement and slapped on two turbos.

:ghey:

[cdlong]

I am obviously not hating on every single GM car

yes you are. well, i guess you said the vette is nice originally.

GM makes ugly cars, period. There are so many boring flat spots on their cars, it just is a disgrace.

GM is just crap

Except the Corvette and Viper, everything else is just shit



Leave it to rest.

but this is too much fun. :bigok:

[drift freaq]

you actually consider that? it's a worthless spec unless you drive a honda. Lb/hp (of the engine), mpg/hp, fine. those are things that affect the performance and use of the car. hp/liter is worthless.



i understand what you're saying, but they haven't executed anything yet. plus, i don't think they really messed anything up.

and the car is only marginally bigger than the original. the weight gain is unfortunate but hardly atypical with a new car of that size.

dimensions of the 1969 Camaro:
Length - 186.0 inches
Height - 51.1 inches
Width - 74.0 inches
Wheelbase - 108.0 inches
weight - ~3000lbs

dimensions of the Camaro concept:
Length - 186.2 inches
Height - 53 inches
Width - 79.6 inches
Wheelbase - 110.5 inches
Weight - 3733
Ya but have you seen it in person?I have, almost a half a foot wider makes for a much larger car.

Regardless of dimensions on paper in person the car looks way overblown. I stand on what I say about stuffing a 4 cylinder in a 3700 lb car as well. Plus when I say GM fails at execution, I am not just talking about the Camaro. I am talking about GM overall with most of their cars.

I don't know, maybe your reading comprehension sucks, but my earlier post with my statement about GM once again having great ideas but failing in execution, clearly gets that point across. I was commenting on GM overall and using the Camaro as the example.

Now you are entitled to your opinion but please don't claim I am saying something I am not.

I stated my point clearly on numerous occasions and you have failed to understand it, till had to break it down and spell it out for you.
My writing is not that obtuse. Of course obtuse may throw you. lol

P.S. GM has made one small 4 cylinder engine that was worth a damn but in General has eschewed the whole idea of a powerful 4. I do not see them turning the corner and putting a successfully powerful 4 in this car. Look no further than my earlier comment to read into this.

[Antihero983]

And how about the Saab 9-5 Aero and 2.3T? 28 MPG and 260 HP. Goddamn GM and they're inefficient cars! They just threw displacement at that Saab like it asked for it! :rant:

except saabs are absolute shit cars. and thats from a mechanic's point of view.

fun to drive....when they arent broken. which is rare.

[Matej]

Needs more apex sealzzz.

[cdlong]

I stated my point clearly on numerous occasions and you have failed to understand it, till had to break it down and spell it out for you.
My writing is not that obtuse. Of course obtuse may throw you. lol

P.S. GM has made one small 4 cylinder engine that was worth a damn but in General has eschewed the whole idea of a powerful 4. I do not see them turning the corner and putting a successfully powerful 4 in this car. Look no further than my earlier comment to read into this.

they probably won't do it, mostly because the general reaction will be the same as the first page of this thread. that dosen't mean having good ideas that go unexecuted is a bad thing. you have to start somewhere.

the concept of the powerful 4 goes unexplored here because we don't have restrictions and taxes based on engine size. if lower tech, less expensive, larger displacement engines still move cars (both physically and financially) then why not?

btw, no need to be a dick. i understood your posts, i just disagree.

[Omarius Maximus]

Ya but have you seen it in person?I have, almost a half a foot wider makes for a much larger car.

Regardless of dimensions on paper in person the car looks way overblown. I stand on what I say about stuffing a 4 cylinder in a 3700 lb car as well. Plus when I say GM fails at execution, I am not just talking about the Camaro. I am talking about GM overall with most of their cars.

I don't know, maybe your reading comprehension sucks, but my earlier post with my statement about GM once again having great ideas but failing in execution, clearly gets that point across. I was commenting on GM overall and using the Camaro as the example.

Now you are entitled to your opinion but please don't claim I am saying something I am not.

I stated my point clearly on numerous occasions and you have failed to understand it, till had to break it down and spell it out for you.
My writing is not that obtuse. Of course obtuse may throw you. lol

P.S. GM has made one small 4 cylinder engine that was worth a damn but in General has eschewed the whole idea of a powerful 4. I do not see them turning the corner and putting a successfully powerful 4 in this car. Look no further than my earlier comment to read into this.

Well the Camaro is bigger than it's predecessor. But then again, so is every other car that's being built nowadays. That's the price you pay for added safety, 20 airbags, etc etc.

We'll look at the Nissan 350z as an example (since you love Nissans so much)
Is it really necessary for a car that hauls only 2 people to weigh in at 3400 pounds?

As far as GM goes, I think they've made a brillant turn around. Bob Lutz has seriously changed the company. Look at the new malibu, Buick Enclave, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Aura and Astra, Pontiac G8 etc etc. They have changed DRASTICALLY for the better over a relatively short period of time.

[jspaeth]

http://makingapril.com/greg/justin/negrep1.JPG

"I'm throwing displacement at your rep"


Classic.

Fear the grey square

[Matej]

None of these remade classic muscle cars look appealing to me, they make me think of movie remakes, which are never as good as the original. If you want to add a new model to one of your most legendary lines, sit down, take your time, and come up with a brand new design that will blow people's minds away, you can't keep trying to bask in your former glory.

[drift freaq]

Well the Camaro is bigger than it's predecessor. But then again, so is every other car that's being built nowadays. That's the price you pay for added safety, 20 airbags, etc etc.

We'll look at the Nissan 350z as an example (since you love Nissans so much)
Is it really necessary for a car that hauls only 2 people to weigh in at 3400 pounds?

As far as GM goes, I think they've made a brillant turn around. Bob Lutz has seriously changed the company. Look at the new malibu, Buick Enclave, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Aura and Astra, Pontiac G8 etc etc. They have changed DRASTICALLY for the better over a relatively short period of time.

The 350z handles like a car that weighs 2800lbs. The GTR wieghs in at 3800-3900 pounds and handles like it weighs in at 3200 lbs. Nissans suspensions design in these cars kick serious ass. I bet you have never driven a 350Z as well.

I give GM some credit for trying but I stil think their execution fails and no one is going to change that opinion but GM. You guys are really starting to beat a dead horse here. I said this thread had run its course and all you guys are doing is going over the same shit over and over.

[jspaeth]

^agreed on the handling, how else does the GT-R beat a 911 Turbo and Z06 around Nurburgring?

[Omarius Maximus]

The 350z handles like a car that weighs 2800lbs. The GTR wieghs in at 3800-3900 pounds and handles like it weighs in at 3200 lbs. Nissans suspensions design in these cars kick serious ass. I bet you have never driven a 350Z as well.

I give GM some credit for trying but I stil think their execution fails and no one is going to change that opinion but GM. You guys are really starting to beat a dead horse here. I said this thread had run its course and all you guys are doing is going over the same shit over and over.

The 350z doesn't handle anything like a 2800 pound car. Sure it's got decent handling, and it has good grip, but you still feel the heft. Weight is weight. There are no ways around it. No amount of suspension tuning can make a 350z drive like an elise. Their levels of grip/skidpad numbers might be similar, but the actual HANDLING is a different story altogether.

[drift freaq]

The 350z doesn't handle anything like a 2800 pound car. Sure it's got decent handling, and it has good grip, but you still feel the heft. Weight is weight. There are no ways around it. No amount of suspension tuning can make a 350z drive like an elise. Their levels of grip/skidpad numbers might be similar, but the actual HANDLING is a different story altogether.

Oh really, do you speak from actually driving the 350 or just based off of reading. Seeing as you did not challenge my comment about you not having driven one I know you speak without actually knowing. You probably have never driven an Elise either.

Oh ya and your taking the thread completely off topic with this debate.

[jspaeth]

The 350z doesn't handle anything like a 2800 pound car. Sure it's got decent handling, and it has good grip, but you still feel the heft. Weight is weight. There are no ways around it. No amount of suspension tuning can make a 350z drive like an elise. Their levels of grip/skidpad numbers might be similar, but the actual HANDLING is a different story altogether.


:bash:

Maybe that's because elises and exiges weigh like 2000 lbs, not 3200 or even 2800.

Good comparison, seriously.

[drift freaq]

:bash:

Maybe that's because elises and exiges weigh like 2000 lbs, not 3200 or even 2800.

Good comparison, seriously.

Like I said he has never driven either car and does not know what the hell he is talking about.

This thread has now officially failed beyond belief and should be locked.

[Omarius Maximus]

I've driven my buddies 2003 quite often, infact he isn't even running stock rubber. 20 inch iforges with 265?s in the front and even bigger tires out back. Still didn't handle like a 240sx let alone an elise.

[Antihero983]

As far as GM goes, I think they've made a brillant turn around. Bob Lutz has seriously changed the company. Look at the new malibu, Buick Enclave, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Aura and Astra, Pontiac G8 etc etc. They have changed DRASTICALLY for the better over a relatively short period of time.

the enclave is a numb handling, underpowered POS. its looks cool as hell dont get me wrong, but thats it.

as far as GM changing...well they havent changed much, theyve just been pickier as to what cars they Re-Badge for the american market....

[drift freaq]

I've driven my buddies 2003 quite often, infact he isn't even running stock rubber. 20 inch iforges with 265?s in the front and even bigger tires out back. Still didn't handle like a 240sx let alone an elise.

Hmm people have already pointed out that Elise's are like 2000lbs. You fail at that comparison yet you still bring it up. Now you say you have driven your friends Z but thats hearsay and to be honest I do not believe you. You have said a lot of things here without real facts. That makes your word less than credible. On top of that there are a fair number of 240 owners here that either own Z's or have bought them and sold their 240's every single one feels they are in all ways superior. Your entitled to your opinion and I don't agree with it nor believe its based on any reality.

Now with all of this I will repeat what I said earlier you have taken this shithole of a thread completely off topic. I will not respond to anymore of your posts because of that.

[Omarius Maximus]

The whole point of the elise/350z comparison WAS the disparity in weight. If you compared an E36 M3 to a 350z, the minor (200lbs) weight difference may not be felt, but it is there. I chose the elise for that purpose, as 1400 pounds missing is hard to ignore. Even if you've never driven either car, it should be easy to comprehend that no matter how you tune your suspension in an elise, it's not gonna make your car handle exactly how it was, prior to adding a 1400lb girlfriend.

Hell, for the sake of clarity, we'll widen the gap even to further prove my point. Lets take a gokart and compare it to a schoolbus. Now, with the proper awd system/tires/suspension/weight distribution, will the schoolbus handle exactly like a gokart? Obviously not.

[ryguy]

As far as I am concerned, the measuring stick for good performance is power output per liter, and American cars are just god awful at this.

It's like they use sheer displacement as a bandaid for the fact that their engines are inefficient as piss.

If we use that as any kind of guideline then the SR must suck royal ass too. Let's look at the S15 SR, since its the newest. 250ish hp and just over 200tq, at 2 liters. The GM Ecotec 2.0 has 260hp and 260tq, while getting better gas mileage. Looks like your car is god awful too.

Oh, and one more thing

CAFE
Would you rather lose the Camaro, and more importantly the Corvette, altogether?

[kingkilburn]

I didn't read through the whole thread(will in the morning) but I think they should throw in a turbo I5. I rented a GMC Canyon once and found it to be a fantastic engine. It had decent power and good MPG as well.

[exitspeed]

CAFE
Would you rather lose the Camaro, and more importantly the Corvette, altogether?


I'd like to reiterate this. I said this a couple pages ago, and this is indeed the alternative.

I didn't read through the whole thread(will in the morning) but I think they should throw in a turbo I5.

The I5 is out. It's being replaced by the new 3.6.

[lucky7]

what the hell are you guys talking about? haven't you been crying out for a RWD turbo 4 for years? yeah, it's big and heavy, but the idea is there. i'm not saying i would buy one, but the independent rear suspension and 2+2 are appealing.

you know they are toying with the idea of making a solstice/sky coupe?? something not as large and overweight as a camro is more appealing.

remember when the first probe was introduced in the 80's? it was badged 'mustang' at the detroit auto show. it had fwd, and a turbo 4 cylinder. people werent happy. not even close. that is why the probe exists today. im seeing something slightly similar here.

[98s14inaz]

I've driven my buddies 2003 quite often, infact he isn't even running stock rubber. 20 inch iforges with 265?s in the front and even bigger tires out back. Still didn't handle like a 240sx let alone an elise.

The 20's are why his car feels heavy and sluggish. Wheels that big are for car shows.

[drift freaq]

The whole point of the elise/350z comparison WAS the disparity in weight. If you compared an E36 M3 to a 350z, the minor (200lbs) weight difference may not be felt, but it is there. I chose the elise for that purpose, as 1400 pounds missing is hard to ignore. Even if you've never driven either car, it should be easy to comprehend that no matter how you tune your suspension in an elise, it's not gonna make your car handle exactly how it was, prior to adding a 1400lb girlfriend.

Hell, for the sake of clarity, we'll widen the gap even to further prove my point. Lets take a gokart and compare it to a schoolbus. Now, with the proper awd system/tires/suspension/weight distribution, will the schoolbus handle exactly like a gokart? Obviously not.

Your point was abstract at best. Fact is reviewers have reviewed both the GTR and the 350z and both have turned in times that behest cars lighter than them.

Now No where did I say that the GTR or the 350 were going to handle like cars 1400lbs lighter .

Oh and by the way the curb wieght of the 350z is 3200 lbs not 3400lbs like your claiming. 2007 comes out to around 3340lbs.

I stated both cars handled like cars that were roughly 600 lbs lighter. In your abstract attempt to prove your point, or to say I was wrong, you went over the line into the land of absurdity. weight comparison wise to handling your comparison is absurd.

You get proven wrong and what do you do? You try to take it to a even higher level of absurdity, which equals a big fail on your part.

You really have not a clue, as what the hell your talking about, beyond what you feel with your own ass.

On top of that you admitted your friends 350z had 20's which is 2 inches larger than stock wheels.
The 350Z wheel wise is not undersized to begin with. Which means Nissan put a optimum diameter for handling wheel on the car. Your friend put a 20 inch wheel on the car and it will be less nimble and sluggish.

Now with all of this said , I have nothing more to say on the subject, it has gone so off topic to the thread and you just insist on taking it there.
This is about Camaro's not Z's or GTR's or Elise's.

[kingkilburn]

The I5 is out. It's being replaced by the new 3.6.

Why is that? What configuration is the 3.6?
An inline 6 derivation of that particular I5 sounds good to me. Big block I6 :D

[[email protected]]

4cyl Camaro ROFL???

whats chevy thinking???

oh wait its chevy.....

[kingkilburn]

What's wrong with 4 cylinders if it gets more power and better mpg than the 70's through mid 90's F bodies? (If you don't have a logical rebuttal keep your -rep to yourself)

If we want these cars we, as a community, need to accept some compromise from the companies who make them. If 80% of those who buy a Camaro opt for an I4 that frees up GM to go crazy with options for the other 20%. If they all have LS9s we can kiss the corvette goodbye. I don't think the CAFE regulations would allow for so many big displacement cars from one manufacturer.

edit
Don't get me wrong I'm all for V8 growl but if I4 gets you there just as quick with better mpg it's a no-brainer(to me).

[WangonwWarrior]

Good info, but

Camaros are still ugly as shit.

Did you know that nearly 40% of Camaro drivers have a mullet, thin mustache, or Confederate Flag tattoo?

True story


you callin me redneck?
http://www.stangbangers.com/RedneckCamaro4x4.jpg


j/p this is my camaro
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/3/web/2235000-2235999/2235225_89_full.jpg
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/3/web/2235000-2235999/2235225_87_full.jpg

[cdlong]

Why is that? What configuration is the 3.6?
An inline 6 derivation of that particular I5 sounds good to me. Big block I6 :D

the I5 is already a derivation of the 4.2L I6 from the trailblazer. there's a 2.9L 4 also.

i believe he's refering to the DOHC 3.6 from the Equinox, malibu,and others.

[SexPanda]

big car + small motor= no fun. Its a camaro. People who buy camaros, I assume for the most part, want some fun power... I know a guy in the auto body shop at the local vo-tech restoring a 68 camaro, with a 427. That would be fun.

And what about gas mileage? My buddy's srt-4 gets like 20 mpg( only light mods, stock turbo, stock ECU, etc, and driving normally). Many new v8's get better than that. With the technology we have these days, I dont see any reason not be getting 40mpg out of a v8, let along 25 ish.

[wafflez66]

http://makingapril.com/greg/justin/negrep1.JPG

"I'm throwing displacement at your rep"


Classic.

Fear the grey square

THAT'S AWESOME! what an idiot

[JVD]

End your life GM... seriously.

[kingkilburn]

Thanks for that info cdlond. I'll have to do some research on that. I wouldn't mind a monstrous I6 in my car.

[ryguy]

I dont mind a turbo I4 in my Camaro. As long as it has at least as much torque as horsepower and the turbo lag is not an issue (and with today's turbo tech, it doesnt have to be) what difference does it make if it has 4 cylinders or 8. Its still balls out faster than the V6 Camaros of the last generation. Have you guys forgotten that the last of the V6 Camaros to roll off the assembly line had only 200hp and 225 ft lbs of torque? It used the same 3800 series V6 as the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, and that engine is lucky to see 25mpg average. 30mpg on the highway tops, babying it all the way.

[cdlong]

my mom's buick had the 3800, i thought it was a pretty decent engine. that's the only thing that car had going for it. but for a camaro, i'm not so sure.

[ryguy]

my mom's buick had the 3800, i thought it was a pretty decent engine. that's the only thing that car had going for it. but for a camaro, i'm not so sure.

My mom's Monte Carlo has the same motor too, and I like that car a whole lot. Not saying the 3800 is a bad engine, just pointing that the turbo 4 is still a vast improvement.

This shit doesnt matter much to the armies of 20-something girls who buy base models to look like badasses anyways. It'll still sell.

[cdlong]

This shit doesnt matter much to the armies of 20-something girls who buy base models to look like badasses anyways. It'll still sell.

which is why they should/will go with the simplest/cheapest engine to produce that is has enough hp to keep up with the competetion.

[SHIFT_*grind*]

I can't believe people were actually arguing that specific output should be the measure of a great car. Sure, the extra cost of R&D might raise the price a few grand and the car might actually get worse gas mileage (like someone already said...S2000?), but it'll make >100 HP/L!! Yay, where do I sign up? Come the fuck on.

Why not make power the cheap way - bore, stroke, better heads, whatever - and then put the extra money into improving the fuel efficiency? ~95% of people would be perfectly happy with good power and decent gas mileage. American car companies are suffering enough as it is; it wouldn't make any sense to dump a bunch of time and money into catering to the remaining percentage of HP/L fanboys with a new high specific-output powerplant.

And I find it hilariously ironic that GM's turbo 4-banger RWD platform is being shit all over by a bunch of guys who drive turbo (or N/A) RWD 4-bangers. Base model Camaros and Mustangs have always come equipped with shitty underpowered engines, so this should at least be a small improvement.

[ByeByeSti]

tokyo drift may as well be blamed for this..

[exitspeed]

End your life GM... seriously.

Seriously, know WTF is going on before you say some nonsense like that.



And to everyone else, the base model's of muscle cars have always sucked. Buying a muscle car with out the muscle. Like a women without a vagina. (that's a Mel original) The fact that the base engine is a T4 producing more or equal HP then most V6 engines should have no bearing on anything.

GM couldn't afford to make the Camaro a niche vehicle. It had to build a car it could sell to the masses. Most of these Camaro's are going to be base model auto's sold to women and looser dudes that don't know a damn thing about cars.

For the rest of US in the know (not that I would buy one) GM makes a V8.

NOW, if the base was going to be a I4 and the muscle version was going to be a V6, THAT would be blasphemy.

[exitspeed]

Leaked pics of the Camaro accessories. From Autoblog. This thing looks way better then the Challenger IMO. It looks modern.

ere's the quick-and-dirty rundown.

* 7-spoke wheels
* RS stripe package (left side of the car)
* SS stripe package (right side of the car)
* Grille insert
* Rear fascia blackout
* Platform-style rear wing
* Fuel filler cap
* 2 possible ground effects kits (see close-up of the rear -- at that point, the clay modeling is "halved")
* Ducktail spoiler (again, see detail shot -- it's on the right half of the car)
* Slotted brake discs w/ red calipers


http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/accessory3.jpg
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/accessory2.jpg
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/accessory1.jpg

[Antihero983]

that Wing Is Fucking Retarded.

[exitspeed]

that Wing Is Fucking Retarded.

I like the profile of it.

[SHIFT_*grind*]

Holy ugh. I like the car in general, but that looks like an HIN reject. Spoiler is awful. Pep Boys wheels are beyond shit awful. Is that a cardboard grille insert?

I know it's leaked, and a bunch of accessories all thrown onto one car just to show what they look like, but damn.

[98s14inaz]

v8>turbo4>v6. I like gm's thinking on this one. Lose the v6 altogether. It's like buying midgrade fuel.

[Baka Sama]

Looks like we might be getting a Twin Turbo V6 Mustang as well. Things are changing quickly in the autoworld and I for one am glad to see the US leaving behind big V8 in heavy cars. Its nice to see them focus on FI for once.

http://files.windingroad.com/newsuploads/2006/11/must-giu-17-600.jpg
http://files.windingroad.com/newsuploads/2006/11/must-giu-9-600.jpg
http://www.moddedmustangs.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/giugiaro-mustang.jpg


The idea of an EcoBoost V6 powering the next-generation Mustang has been kicked around the Autoblog offices ever since Ford announced the new twin-turbocharged, direct-inject V6 earlier this year. According to MotorTrend, FoMoCo is now seriously considering offering the new mill along with its standard 4.0-liter V6 and a set of new V8s. The Blue Oval is contemplating equipping the new 'Stang with an all new 5.0-liter V8 that would find its way under the hood of a limited edition Boss 302 or the 315-hp, 4.6-liter V8 found in the Bullitt. Either way, buyers can keep things traditional or go for the turbo V6 while still retaining the output characteristics of a big V8. The move comes as new CAFE regs are beginning to be taken seriously by all automakers, including GM, which recently canceled its DOHC V8 engine program.

Despite all the talk about a more fuel-efficient V6, Ford is reportedly also developing a supercharged version of its 5.0-liter V8 to be stuffed into a new flagship model that would compete with the Chevy Corvette ZR1 and Dodge Viper SRT10.

[exitspeed]

Yea, props to Ford on their new ecoboost engines. That's exactly what they need.

[cfrost]

i like that camaro, the wheels are lame, but i like the car

as for that orange mustang that's not a spy shot car or anything, that was when some italian designer got a hole of a mustang and put his spin on it, i forget the name of the company/studio but it was in autoweek months and months ago

[exitspeed]

i like that camaro, the wheels are lame, but i like the car

as for that orange mustang that's not a spy shot car or anything, that was when some italian designer got a hole of a mustang and put his spin on it, i forget the name of the company/studio but it was in autoweek months and months ago

Yes. It's the Mustang Giugiaro Concept.

You should see his new concept. :confused: :loco:

[Baka Sama]

^ You are correct, I just added a nice picture to go along with the post.

[drift freaq]

Well, I feel the leaked pics of the Camaro, just go right back to what I said before. G.M.(short of the Corvette) Great idea's, fail in execution. The correct body lines are there but they managed to make it look blocky,big and plastic. UUUUGGGGGHHHHH.

That Mustang Giugiaro Concept is actually pretty sick looking(except the lambo doors). Still has the kind big blocky thing going on but not nearly as stated.

Man, What happened to American car design? It just seems to have gone right down the tubes, everything is huge and blocky.

[muddafakka]

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/accessory1.jpg

Ehh can't say I'm feeling it much. My opinion would probably be different if all the body parts were the same color.

[smellslikecurry]

that pic screams gtr

[OurOnePassion]

that pic screams gtr

Yes, I can see that. If you squint. :squint: