Chazman

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(2) That somehow protecting the car for V6 or V8s will make the car heavier. Well, that may be the case when you actually install those engines, but the chassis weight probably won't change very much. The weight distribution may become less favorable with the heavier engines, but when these engines are not installed then the weight distrubtion ought to be as favorable as before.

Disagree there slightly. The structural components used to support the engine will vary in size depending on the size of the engine. Since the size is directly proportional to the mass of the vehicle, increasing engine size means increasing structural components' mass to carry the load while maintaining the same structural stiffness. Most of these components are high strength steel alloys, which add a lot of weight.

So for a hypothetical example, if a 3" diameter torsion bar is selected for a 8 cylinder engine member support, for a 4 cylinder engine, the same job can be done by a 2.1" diameter member, assuming the the 4-cylinder weighs exactly half of the 8-cylinder engine. That is almost 30% weight saving.

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(1) That the suspension geometry becomes sub-optimal because heavier V6 or even V8 engines are fitted is utter rubbish. Suspension geometry has everything to do with maintaining proper camber and toe during cornering and braking/acceleration. Given a particular geometry, the amount of these you experience has everything to do with the amount of actual body roll and squat. It has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle is say 10% heavier, you'll simply increase the spring rate and anti-roll bar size by the appropriate amount so the roll an squat at a given driving condition remains the same. Of course it is fixed by tuning, you don't change the control arm length or pick up points to fix these. You only change that if you are trying to lower or raise the ride height or change the centering force, etc. None of that has anything to do with weight!

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

Yes, they will be needed to modified to control the additional weight transfer more than gaining clearance.

I know weight tranfer was a concern when Alpha was modified to accept a HFV6.

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(1) That the suspension geometry becomes sub-optimal because heavier V6 or even V8 engines are fitted is utter rubbish. Suspension geometry has everything to do with maintaining proper camber and toe during cornering and braking/acceleration. Given a particular geometry, the amount of these you experience has everything to do with the amount of actual body roll and squat. It has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle is say 10% heavier, you'll simply increase the spring rate and anti-roll bar size by the appropriate amount so the roll an squat at a given driving condition remains the same. Of course it is fixed by tuning, you don't change the control arm length or pick up points to fix these. You only change that if you are trying to lower or raise the ride height or change the centering force, etc. None of that has anything to do with weight!

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

I still don't know exactly what his new job title entails.

We said that but GM had not filed chapter 11 and only had the Zeta to work with.

This has since changed and they now have the Alpha.

Yeah, I hear ya. But the 5th gen would have been on Zeta even without BK. There just wasn't the political will to create an appropriate architecture at the time - no money either. What GM has created here, is not a pony car with mass appeal, it's one which only targets the Camaro faithful - and not even all of them. Sure, it's initial sales volume was good, but it also required an 8 year hiatus and 18 month model year to hit 100K units. It's sales volume has recently decreased dramatically.

I applaud GM for it's expressive sheetmetal, but I see the market for a 4000 pound pony car with poor visibility fairly limited now that the pent up demand appears met. GM really needs to quicken it's step on the 6th gen, I really don't see the sales picture looking pretty for the 5th gen, post 2014.

This needs to be a car people want to buy badly regardless if it has a V8 or even the name Camaro on it. This need to be a got to have car that appeals to not just the Camaro fan but to anyone who loves great cars.

.

Yeah, that's what we said about the 5th gen too.

I also see it shared with the CTS V too. With the CTS coupe going away in a few years unless GM changes their minds it would give GM 3 different cars with the same engine. a CTS V sedan, Top Line Camaro and one of the Vettes. This would not cross shop the buyers and help spred the cost over several models.

I just hope they dress them up different. I would like to see more engine detailing like the LS9 in the higher end cars. The plastic covers are ok for the cheaper cars and V6 models.

Actually, more than 3 cars. But not the CTS-V, it'll be getting something else.

Odds are they will have a option on a V8 but it will become more difficult to offer them in the numbers as they are today at the prices they are at today.

It will be called LT1 and be shared with the C7 Corvette.

About 20~23 City, 30~35 Hwy assuming the aerodynamics is not horrible. A lot of it depends on the selection of the final drive ratio. It also depends on whether GM will put in new technology like continuously variable lift & duration (which essentially gives you variable compression).

I wouldn't be surprised if a version of e-Assist makes it into the base car.

I wonder how many years out, though the 6th gen is...3-5?

MY 2016 is what we're hearing. Wish they could move it up, the next gen Mustang is 2014.

BTW, in case you guys didn't know, I'm the one who wrote that as a follow up to a larger piece.

Not to me!

Give us a hint!

6th gen styling is a complete mystery right now. I'm working on it.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f144/sixth-gen-camaro-story-fallout-99614/

Let me address afew points.

1) I read an interwebz rumor that the next V8 will displace 5.5L.

The 5.5L bore/stroke ratio was developed at substantial expense for the C6.R racing program in order to homologate the Corvette for GT2. There are no plans to put this displacement in production.

2) There are no plans for an Alpha Camaro because I hear that GM has a secret program to lighten the Zeta Camaro.

So secret in fact, that GM doesn't even know about it. Something like that would require a huge investment, one which GM won't spend on an orphaned platform. The Alpha Camaro is indeed coming.

3) A 4 cylinder Camaro! That sucks.

Hey listen, if you want to still buy a rip snorting smallblock V8 Camaro in an era of 35.5 mpg CAFE, you'd better pray that Chevy sells a buttload of 4 banger Camaros.

4) What, no V6?

The 6th gen may or may not have a V6. We couldn't get confirmation either way. But for CAFE and marketing reasons, the I4/V8 product mix is confirmed and joined at the hip.

5) 7 and 8 speed transmisions are stupid.

I don't think we're going back to Powerglides and T-10's boys and girls. If adding a gear or two can squeeze another bit of mpg on the EPA test loop, well that's what needs to be done. See "if you still want a V8" above.

6) It's impossible to have any info on the 6th gen because myself and the site I frequent have no info on it.

Ooops sorry. If anyone wants to question the veracity of the information we've put into the 6th gen story feel free to challenge it here. As nsap has mentioned, we are very careful to confirm through multiple sources what we post. Expect more to come.

When the so called HF V6 was created, it was the premium six cylinder in GM's line-up. It went into premium models while the 3.5 and 3.9 Pushrod sixes served the Malibu, G6es and other high volume models. With GM going to the DI V6 across the board in the near future, there no longer a Hi-Lo mix.

I believe that it'll be worthwhile to create a new derivative of the DI V6 engine specifically for premium applications as the Standard DI V6 moves into the mainstream. The premium version will focus on delivering greater refinement, performance and runs on 91 Octane. The idea is not to build a sports car engine here, rather it is to give the engineers a free hand to improve the DI V6 without having the compromise of 87 octane compatibility and cost sensitiveness.

3.6 liter Premium Six

Changes

• Aluminum valve covers replace polymer ones for improved acoustics
  
• Aluminum continuously variable intake runner assembly for flatter torque curve
  
• 12.3:1 compression instead of 11.3:1 for improved torque output
  
• Cylinder deactivation on 3-cylinders
  
• Anechoic skirt around engine block for noise reduction
  
• Anechoic acoustic cover over engine for noise reduction
  

Performance

• Power Output: 312 hp @ 6600 rpm
  
• Torque output: 292 lb-ft @ 3600~5600 rpm
  
• Rev limit: 7000 rpm
  
• Fuel: 91 Octane Unleaded
  
• Est. Fuel Economy (RWD CTS w/6L50): 19 (City) / 28 (Hwy)
  
• Price Delta (vs regular 3.6 DI V6): $2000
  

Other than the requirement for 91 octane, I'd like to see GM improve the 3.6 across the board in this way. I find the 3.6 in my CTS to be a coarse, noisy unit, without much eagerness to rev. While it was under warranty, I did complain about it and the dealer found a TSB on the "vibration issue" and updated some software into the ECM. No difference which I could tell.

Those are Gen IV. Gen V is supposedly the 5.5L, which the Corvette has been racing for the last couple of 24LM.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is the GEN V will have production displacements of 5.3 and 6.2L.

The 5.5 is a destroked 6.2 and that displacement is NOT intended for the production Gen V.

Chazman, GM just announced the 5.5 is going to be built at Tonawanda

Where do you see 5.5L?

So far GenV displacements are 5.3 and 6.2. 5.5L is for Corvette racing rules.

The I6 is not without its flaws. The I6 is a VERY long engine; Longer than a V8, almost as long as a V-12. It is also heavy due to the long bottom end. This negatively impacts balance and weight. To get to 50/50 weight distribution, the BMWs have to have the front wheels very far forward of the A-pillars and the battery in the trunk. This is bad for torsional rigidity and adds weight (because the stressed load bearing structure is longer. They also had to tuck the I6 very far back and cannot implement an integral cross member between the front strut towers (ala Audi). That the 3-series is not overly heavy and has good dynamics is a testament to BMW's engineering discipline. But that same discipline will produce a lighter, stiffer and similarly balanced car if a shorter engine is employed.

If you concede that GM cannot build a car in the same size and weight as the 2000~2006 C-class (3250 lbs for the C230 to 3500 lbs for the C55) then you are also conceding that GM cannot get within 10 years of the competition in engineering and manufacturing. Based on that assumption, they will not build a competitive car, period. Adding weight and engine power doesn't change that.

As far as pricing goes, the CTS-V -- one size class up and fitted with a force fed 6.2 V8 -- is already at $60K. The ATS-V will have to be slotted lower. If the run of the mill ATS is to be priced high-20s to high-30s. The ATS-V should come in at $45K or thereabouts. This will be consistent with the premium that the CTS-V commands over the CTS. It is also a good price point to be at. That was where the E36 M3s were (adjusted for inflation). An ATS-V priced at $45K will under cut the $60K European Uber sport compacts by about $15K. It also returns an Uber compact to the price segment which saw their best sales (the E36 was the best selling M3); a price segment the Europeans had gradually priced themselves out of. Why is $45K the magic number? Because it is what a young 25~35 year old making a decent salary can painfully afford. Any higher and they can't afford it even if they dream of owning one every day through their college and internship years. Once you need to pander to the 40 and 50 year olds with more established careers and financials, you start getting push backs like them wanting a bigger car, wives complaining about the ride, etc. When that happens they start looking at the M5s and the E63s and the CTS-Vs and away from the ATS-V or the AMG C-class or the M3. This is exactly the situation where the Europeans find themselves in.

My formula for the ATS-V will be very simple -- Keep it simple, keep it light, keep it small and keep it at $45K.

• 5.5 liter Gen V DI VVT AFM Pushrod V8 making ~420hp
  
• Rear mounted 6-Spd Hydramatic Auto with Helical LSD.
  
• Hyper Strut fronts, Multi-link rears, free floating calipers all around.
  
• No active steering, no active differentials, no active dampers, no air springs, no active headlamps.
  
• No power sun shades, no massage chairs, no air conditioned cushions, no moonroofs.
  
• All steel construction, 3500 lbs.
  

Hey, I like the way you think!

The 5.5L is race only - no production intent. You'll have to do with 6.2L.

I believe it is "view new content" on the top of each page.

Is there a "new post" button somewhere and I'm not seeing it? I know the front page has 4 or 5 "latest posts".

There are lots of small cars which I find nicely proportioned and attractive. The Spark however, is one disturbingly ugly car...

Oh man, that is such a cool truck!!!!!!!!!!!!

It will be around 2011 or 12 for DI to show up on the V8. More Power yet for the SS.

You think the Camaro will get a GenV smallblock? The impression the Camaro Team gave me at Indy last year was that there were no such plans for it.

Maybe things have changed?

Dude, that would be the car of my current dreams. My only two points in this thread are:

1 We can't diss the current Camaro too baldy, it is one hell of an effort from the general. No car is perfect, but the new (current) Camaro is one hell of an effort.

2. Enjoy it now, it will be the last of it's breed.

I am actually hoping that GM comes out with a cool premium small car, along the lines of the GTI and the Mini S. Most of the cars I have owned have been GM and I have had great luck with them. A car starting every day without complaint in the middle of an Ohio winter year in and year out...that does a lot to generate good faith.

Chris

Although it doesn't hit my personal bullseye, I agree, it's a hell of an effort. Considering what the Camaro Team was given as a basis, the constraints they were under and just the general atmosphere of chaos and bad politics - I give them credit.

Last of the breed? If you mean a two ton ponycar? Then thankfully yes. If you mean last of the viscerally styled, exciting, RWD coupes - not by a long shot.

I'm hoping GM enters the Mini/GTI segment too. But those two not only are great cars, they've got alot of brand equity in them. Chevy would need alot of focus to create something like that out the Cruze or Aveo.

I pegged the sarcasm meter and at least one person seemed to notice. GREAT!

Agree with you about the Camaro being lighter. However, this will for the reasons that Oldsmoboi and I have put forth probably be the last V8 musclecar Camaro ever.

Does it have faults? yes.

Do I want one? Yes.

Just want us all to enjoy this car for what it is for as long as it is around.

Will I buy one? No, probably a more fuel efficient sporty car like a GTI or a MINI Cooper S. So you can understand that I like light, sweet cars.

I just want one with the fuel economy of the S when gas hits 6 bucks a gallon.

Chris

Well, would you be against a smaller lighter Camaro, with an available turbo 4, which gets over 30 MPG?

BTW, I think the GTI and Mini S are great cars. I wish GM had something like that to offer us.

Yes I do, all the time. ::

Part of that is safety, part of that is style. The Prius is big on the inside and moderatly sized on the outside...do you want the Camaro to look like the Prius?

Part of the issue is the "crumple zone" in the side of the car. Do a side intrusion crash test with a 68 Camaro and an 010 Camaro and tell me what you think.

Chris

Jeeze dude, there sure is a LOOOOOOOOONG stretch between wanting Camaro to slim down and wanting it to "look like a Prius".

BTW, you do know that the lighter Mustang gets 5 star frontal crash ratings and the Camaro 4.

Smaller cars do not excite me sorry, just an honest disagreement. .

Fair enough. Of course the 5th gen is large on the outside but small on the inside.