That's correct.


Anyway, back to the main topic...look at the poll results guys. Despite all the anti-base V8 sentiment in the thread, the poll #'s are overwhelmingly in favor of it, and this isn't even representative of the generalized market.

 

Of course we were in favor of it. It was the highest producing option on the list with most potential for more. Now if the LS2 were an option at the same price that changes everything. That 5.3 would be a dealers paper weight.

 

Not to derail my own thread, but the 3800 was available in EVERY state effective '95 1/2...and was probably the only CA V6 for all of '95, but cannot verify that. I know there were '95s with the 3800s available nationwide, because I test drove a '95 with a 3800 in 1998 that had an MA title from new...

Russ,
I follow better what you're saying now...my apologies for my agitated state before. I feel so strongly about this issue because I watched Firebird sales slip through my hands left and right because cheap V8 was Mustang's forte. If the Camaro can slide in below that Mustang GT price point with a basic V8, I honestly think we have a major coup attempt here...a V8 around $23-24K? How cool would that be? And how many would they sell? TONS...I firmly believe that. If the base car is $21-22k, there is no reason why they can't price a V8 right there...under Mustang's nose

As for the "mid-level" model, I assume you're referring to the proposed SS for $28-30k. At that level, yes...I'd like to see a 400hp V8, to be able to more than handle a heavier-optioned Mustang GT. Camaro has to be more powerful than the same or less $$ than the Mustang for people to notice it. Obviously, usability and style matter as well...but more for less is what this car will need for awhile to attract the public...

 

Fair point. It's self tuners like me that sometimes tend to overlook certain 'little things'. I always fill my car with Aus 98 PULP, which is equivalent to US 94 PULP.

Real cars don't have V6s... but if that's what the market dictates as a base startup and for a successful Camaro, then the mid-spec 5.3L might seem the logical route especially in light of high fuel prices.

 

Let's suppose the average person drives 15,000 miles per year. It'll take almost seven years to drive 100,000 miles.

Saving $830 over seven years is not going to entice very many people who are in the market for a new car.

 

That doesn't mean the engine can't be tuned differently for the Camaro. I find it hard to believe that a 5.3 making 350hp is going to be fine on 87, but a 400hp 6.2 is going to need it. If we se a 5.3 at that power level, I would not be suprised at all if the engine drank premium. I think too many people take this 87 or 91 octane thing way too far anyway. If someone really wants the car, I really doubt they are going to be swayed by what kind of gas the car needs. Over the course of a full year, you may be able to save a few hundred dollars on 87, but if you are that concerned with cutting out small costs, you can always eat out less, buy less impulse stuff (candy) etc, etc.

 

"If someone really wants the car".....again speaking as an enthusiast. The truth is to regular people this does make a diffrence along with fuel economy. You have to realize that your buying habits and priorites do not represent the majority of new car buyers.

 

OK...lets just say you compare two imaginary Camaro's. Now, I only factored in the difference in Octane before. If you factor in a milage difference as well than you get an approx. price difference of over $1900. And if gas prices keep going up, and I would bet they will, it will amount to even more money. Now, I'm just guessing on the average milage numbers, but I factored in about a %10 difference.

Over 100,000 miles ($2.35-87 Octane & $2.55-93 Octane)

5.3L 27 Avg mpg 3703gallons Total Cost: $8702

6.0L 24 Avg mpg 4166gallons Total Cost $10624

Add that to the fact that a lot of people are a little reactionary over the price of gas and you can begin to make a case for it. Not only that, but compare it to the Mustang. Non-enthusiasts will look at both cars, see maybe a $2000 difference in price, factor in milage and gas prices and choose the Mustang.

Now, don't get me wrong, I fill my tank up with 93 Octane, and don't worry too much about milage, but your average Joe will. These are the exact same things that GM is thinking about. From the way some people talk, they already know the engines going in the cars. I keep seeing hints that the 5.3L won't make it. That doesn't rule out a mid-level V8 though.

 

I see where you're going, but those average mpg numbers seem a bit high, especially over 100,000 miles. Still I would expect a mid-level Camaro to be flex-fuel capable by the time it returns. (Perhaps flex-fuel will be standard by then.)

 

I'll re-make a point I made a few posts back: $1900 extra over seven years is not going to scare off very many people.

 

Flex-fuel...let's complicate the argument even more, shall we?

I think we're all oversimplifying the matter. GM is going to run the numbers and we'll see what they come up with. It all depends on the sticker price really. Fuel costs are secondary to that, but will play a role, irrational as it may be.

But choice is the operative word, and if the price difference between a 5.3 and 6.0 is enough, than it makes sense as it would draw in budget buyers that also want that V8.

And that's all I'm going to say, no more hogging this thread for me!

 

Regular people do not often find themselves buying Camaros. Cars like Camaros are typically either performance buys, or cars bought for style or cool factor. No one is going to buy a Camaro as a resort to a sedan, even the v6.

 

And I will completely agree with your restatement. I could probably find $1900 iln the couch over the course of seven years. Well, maybe not, but you get my point.

 

A little bit of history (from my family's point of view)...

Back in the early 70's my folks bought a used 1970 Chevrolet Kingswood Estate stationwagon. It was big, smooth, and fit the whole family inside. We took that car everywhere, including a road trip across several western states in 1977. But gas prices continued to head north. Econobox cars were quickly on the rise and my parents started contemplating whether a big V8 powered American car was still practical. Especially when we were getting somewhere from 5-7mpg. (Heck before the gas crisis did anyone even check their fuel mileage? )

In 1980 my parents started shopping for a replacement for the wagon. Fuel efficiency was now a high priority, and as my mom was going to be the primary driver, she pretty much ruled the roost on picking it out. I was getting close to getting my driver's license, so naturally I helped out best I could. They ended up buying a 1980 Datsun 310GX hatchback. (Yes it was still called Datsun back then.)

My point in all this? If gas prices are going to continue to go skyward, people who are truly worried about fuel economy aren't going to be worrying on whether that V6 Camaro gets 28 mpg, compared to a 5.3L V8 Camaro getting 26 mpg, or a 6.0L V8 Camaro getting 24 mpg. They're going to be looking a buying a Honda. A person in the market for a Camaro is going to be a bit of an enthusiast and is buying because of its style and sportiness. They're going to care more about handling and ride, rather than whether this engine choice gets 2-4 mpg better than another. If fuel economy is #1, they'll opt for a FWD econobox or a hybrid. Camaro won't even be a blip on their radar. That said, whatever engine choices go into the Camaro, they're going to have to have enough zip to maintain the "sportiness" Camaro has come to be known by, otherwise what's the point?

 

I, for one, would love to see the Camaro be the best selling coupe on the market. If this car is as good as it looks, I don't think that's entirely out of the question. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.