Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Chevrolet Camaro
231 messages, Last post on Oct 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM
You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h
|
Replying to: m1miata (Nov 07, 2006 11:24 pm) You really think the entry level V-6 will be over $20k? Maybe very nicely equipt, but I think they will price it more competitively with the Mustang starting the V-6 under $20k and again the entry level V-8 at $28k nicely equipt but base around $25.
|
|
|
Replying to: casull (Nov 08, 2006 2:02 pm) I am pretty sure the $22K for a Camaro is too optimistic a price. Especially, if they decide to give it the good 3.6 V6 engine. That said, the next few years are totally un-predicatable. I would imagine a recession cooked into the economy may cool car prices, as will competition from Japan and Korea. One more thing, please no more than 17" wheels on the stock car. Please, someone end the madness -- now!!! Maybe 18" on the Z28 model. -Loren |
|
|
Replying to: casull (Nov 08, 2006 2:02 pm) Agreed. But I don't see GM essentially putting the Corvette drivetrain into the Camaro and then selling the package for $20k under the Corvette. Because then the question CHANGES from "just get the Corvette" to "WHY get the Corvette?". Wouldn't it make more sense to compete with the Mustang with a drivetrain with SIMILAR hp/performance numbers to the Mustang (at least in a the base V8 version) and getting sales based on the the styling (and freshness) of the Camaro without canabalizing Corvette sales? |
|
|
Using the GTO as a comparison, the weight ran approx, 3700 – vs. approx. 3200 for a C6 ( I drive a 2007 ) and clearly the 3200 would provide superior acceleration, handling and braking – all other aspects being substantially similar. I am pretty sure the GTO did not cannibalize significant sales from the C6. I actually could see using the current basic engine & trans. in a Camaro as potentially a Good Thing for the Corvette – possibly allowing amortization of some fixed costs associated with that drivetrain over a substantially larger number of units. Could allow the C6 to continue to contain price increases. And encourage the aftermarket, with far more potential vehicles powered by LS2s . . . Just my 0.02 gallons worth. - Ray Carpe Vette |
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Nov 09, 2006 9:57 am) So do you like the C6? Reliable so far? Any quirks? I really like the C5, and was considering a used one. I guess the C6 cars did not have anything too serious in the way of problems in the first year. Well the fly roofs got some media attention.  -Loren
|
|
|
Replying to: rayainsw (Nov 09, 2006 9:57 am) Yes, I'm sure it didn't either. That's because the style of the GTO was a bit blander than that particular market desired. There needed to be more flash to go with the dash. The point is that, even with mega-performance (the GTO) you need great styling to be a strong seller. From the initial buzz over the Camaro, the styling will NOT be a problem. So where is the need to go with mega-performance right out of the box? Why not start with something closer to 300hp, great styling (love it or hate it styling being better, IMO, that just plain blah), and a lower price of entry and then offer the LS2 later to help spur sales in years 3 or 4? |
|
|
Replying to: m1miata (Nov 09, 2006 7:05 pm) Excellent point. Doesn't the C6 use a transaxle? No way GM would be offering a transaxle in what should be (at least nominally) a 4 seat vehicle.
|
|
|
|
I would love to see the General's new 3.6L as the base engine, with a stick, for $20k or so. More realisitically, and given GM's penchant for mediocrity in base models, it will likely be the 3.9L from the Impala. (I think it's 211 hp.) That's a fine mill, but still a pushrod design........IMO, GM is still subject to the whims of unions and bean-counters, who often dictate what engine will be in vehicles.........trouble is, when the Camaro appears, the Mustang will have its own 24valve 3.5L as its base engine, 250hp. Power gap? Sure will be.
|
|
|
Replying to: walterquint (Nov 15, 2006 6:13 pm)  Yes, I agree, the 3.6 V6 at say 255HP is an excellent engine for the Camaro. Cut down the size to lose the fat, the high doors, width, and weight where the V6 would fly and you do not need a V8. By the time the New Camaro is released, gas should be between $4 and $5 per gallon. -Loren |
|
|
I keep reading that GM should produce a cheap V6 200ish Camaro.... I say don't waste your effort. The camaro should be a Muscle car... it deserves 4-500BHP and lightening acceleration. Now for the 2009... I hate it. I hate the pseudo caddy front end, the plug ugly rear and most of all, the tacky disco retro interior display cluster. I am just hoping that the photos make it look 400% worse that what it really is. For me the 2009 concept lacks class. As an SS driver I am looking for three things Power, Stability, and more Power. I have no problem with a 22K plastic Camaro-ish car for the wanna-bees... I want a Car that will crush the Shelby GT500....
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Chevrolet Camaro
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Camaro
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
