C/D: Jeep Trackhawk

[kevm14]

Two things need to be true for GM to make that base Camaro V8:
1) They have to be able to do it profitably
2) There has to be a market for it and by market, I mean a market for the total characteristics of the base V8 Camaro that GM can build for $30k, satisfying #1.

I am not convinced that EITHER of those is true. And if both were true, it would probably already be on the market.

And yes, I agree there is some segment/enthusiast base who might like a 5.3L Camaro to modify but you missed something pretty fundamental: those folks are not looking for new cars with warranties if they are really interested in slapping a turbo on and all sorts of other stuff. The 2nd or 3rd owners? You bet. How does that help GM though?

[kevm14]

How much is a 4 cyl turbo Camaro? 27K? Can you really tell me that a 4 cyl turbo powerplant is cheaper than a 5.3?

Right from the website: $25,905. Call it $26k. A base 95 Camaro with the 3.4L and 160hp was $14,495 according to Bing. Inflation adjusted, the 2018 base Camaro is less than $1,200 more expensive. Forget the features and options, the new car is light years better than the base 95, not to mention an ADDITIONAL 115 hp. I hardly see the problem there.

[kevm14]

Base 2018 Camaro V6 is $27,395 which has 335 hp. They may have dropped the price a bit for 2018 but I can't recall for sure.

Car and Driver got 13.7 @ 103 from a 2016 with the manual. OK so let's look at the one car that does offer a base V8 trim. Guess what a 2015 Challenger R/T with manual trans runs? 13.7 @ 103, and needed 375 hp to do it. Probably goes without saying that the EPA numbers on the V6 Camaro are a lot better. The V6 Camaro is a full 600+ lbs lighter than the Challenger R/T.

So your real argument would be that the Camaro should be heavier so they have to use a V8. I can't really support that. What you probably want is a Monte Carlo SS that IS bigger (and is not a Camaro) with a 5.3L. FCA is in a convenient position to offer that but that does not seem to extend to GM and Ford and I think they are wise to just leave that fullsize muscle coupe market to FCA.

Oh and by the way, a Challenger R/T base is $34k. I have NO idea how, at least comparatively, you think it would be reasonable that GM should offer a Camaro 5.3L with $30k when they offer a $27,395 version that performs identically to the competition's $34k offering (which, ironically, inspired the whole base V8 conversation and turns out not to support your case at all). And like I said before, if they really could do it (again, remember the constraints like CAFE), they would just do it.

[kevm14]

How much is a 4 cyl turbo Camaro? 27K? Can you really tell me that a 4 cyl turbo powerplant is cheaper than a 5.3?

Right from the website: $25,905. Call it $26k. A base 95 Camaro with the 3.4L and 160hp was $14,495 according to Bing. Inflation adjusted, the 2018 base Camaro is less than $1,200 more expensive. Forget the features and options, the new car is light years better than the base 95, not to mention an ADDITIONAL 115 hp. I hardly see the problem there.

2018 Challenger SXT (with the 305 hp V6) is $27,295. I can't find any tests on it because of its incredible lameness and classic rental car qualities (but I found 2.0T and V6 Camaro reviews....maybe because they have redeeming chassis qualities - sucks being a one trick pony). But I would easily wager a 2.0T Camaro is not giving up any performance.

[bill25]

those folks are not looking for new cars with warranties if they are really interested in slapping a turbo on and all sorts of other stuff. The 2nd or 3rd owners? You bet. How does that help GM though?

Maybe they should scrap the V6, and make it the 5.3. That would benefit everyone. Most 6 cyl buyers buy that based on price. They are worthless on the used market. These would be great.

[bill25]

So your real argument would be that the Camaro should be heavier so they have to use a V8.

Never said anything like that. I was suggesting lower trims to have cheaper cars. Like you stated at the beginning.

[kevm14]

Yes that would be great. I don't see a business case for it and based on my little comparison to the Challenger, what you are asking for is not reasonable. That doesn't mean you can't ask for it of course. It does mean that you probably shouldn't get too upset when they don't offer it, however.

[kevm14]

So your real argument would be that the Camaro should be heavier so they have to use a V8.

Never said anything like that. I was suggesting lower trims to have cheaper cars. Like you stated at the beginning.

I know you didn't. But the V6 Camaro performs equally (actually a lot better when you add turning and stopping) to a Challenger R/T which is significantly more expensive.

Shit, a V6 1LE is only $31,900 which is STILL less than a Challenger R/T. I know this is kind of not fair but it is still performance - a V6 1LE ran 3:04 on the lightning lap. A 2012 Challenger SRT 392 ran a 3:09.4. 5.5 seconds SLOWER. And that is the SRT 392 not the R/T!!! The performance per dollar on the Camaro is very, very good.

[bill25]

what you are asking for is not reasonable

Just because it would be better than the competition doesn't make it unreasonable. My argument was that a cutting edge turbo 4 probably isn't more money than an old tech truck 5.3 that has already recouped the R&D etc. So putting an old 8 in a chassis that already accepts that engine mount/transmission should not cost GM more than 4K. Seriously, how much extra can the 5.3 and V8 trans cost GM compared to the turbo 4 and it's trans? I bet less than 4K.

[kevm14]

So to that I will say that the new Gen V 5.3L is nowhere near as simple as the original 1999 LM7 5.3L. It has direct injection, variable valve timing and displacement on demand. And probably other tech. I might have agreed with you with the old Gen III and IV stuff.

Let me see if I can find any numbers though.