The CAR that saved Detroit?

[cwcwmack]

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23118&stc=1&d=1240970395

These things are UNREAL... and the waiting lists are long.

[Ian David]

1. How many MPG does it get? n/t

[baldguy]

2. 26 hwy

The 2000 Camaro got 30.

[Ian David]

35. What a piece of shit. Did they pay you to post that? n/t

[DainBramaged]

57. Your opinion, so since you think it's shit, here's some shit paper...

[obiwan]

60. I drove my friend's Camaro, once.

I am 6'3" and my knees were in my belly button when I operated the clutch. The little 4 cylinder motor was not up to the job of hauling around 3500 pounds.

Pathetic!

[CRF450]

143. You should know that the 2010 camaro has nothing in common...

With the older f-bodies, right? Its a roomier car with the zeta platform it shares with the Pontiac G8. The base model v6 does 0-60 in 6 seconds.

[Ian David]

66. Gets better mileage than your pice of shit dinosaur. n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

76. Sorry, wasn't paying attention and thought you were the OP. n/t

[DainBramaged]

97. I was informed you made a mistake by friends, my apologies also

"click' removed.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

287. I didn't do it. I await your apology. n/t

[cwcwmack]

110. bad person=ignore

go away.

[DainBramaged]

116. If I win the lottery I will buy you a new Camaro

but I've been trying to win something for almost 40 years LOL.

[cwcwmack]

117. thanks

yeah I'll be playing the MM on Friday it's $220M!

[DainBramaged]

123. OMG I didn't win last night, wow I had better play more than a dollar.

:hi:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CRF450]

128. My 01 Trans Am got 31mpg on the interstate, still a POS?

The way the EPA rates cars, I expect the 2010 Camaro to get much better than that, and average in the low 20's easily just like what my car does. Hell the Corvettes get 30mpg HWY easily and thats with the same exact drive train this Camaro has! The v6 will get a few more.

[ddeclue]

256. Same here with my 1995 Z28 Convertible - still runs after 14 years

and 188,000 miles and it gets >30mpg on the hwy thanks to a six speed manual transmission and a good engine (V8 LT1).

[CRF450]

270. My brother used to have a 95 Z28

4 speed auto though. Most of his driving was highway with a little bit of city driving and it was getting him 23-24mpg average. That car made it to 232,000 miles till it threw a rod, and lodged a piston into the cylinder head somehow. The engine and transmission had never been rebuilt! I wanted that car too when he put it up for sale, but I was hardly making any money at the time. The body was still in such good shape for how many miles was on it, it was in no way, shape or form ragged out to death like most LT1 f-bodies I see currently.

[ddeclue]

274. Mine is in good shape, needs interior work mostly.

I'm back to work these days and will be fixing it back up again.

It's kind of toy at this point as my every day car is now a 2008 Dodge Charger R/T.

Your mileage was worse because of the 4 speed automatic.

My Charger gets 23 mpg because of a higher HP engine and an automatic transmission. On the bright side I can run it off of regular gas.

Doug D.

[liberal N proud]

3. Maybe 8 mpg

Not sure, but I recall it being very low for both the Camaro and the Dodge Challenger which is priced very similarly and sold out through next year.

[bighart]

6. 304-HORSEPOWER AND AN EPA EST. 29 MPG HIGHWAY

Taken directly from the Chevy website.

[JVS]

8. And with the EPA fuel economy measurements having been made tougher over the last few years...

this is probably a slight improvement over the previous generation's V-6

[cwcwmack]

42. Yes 29mpg Highway...

compared to a Prius @ 45mpg Highway...

The Prius leaves a carbon footprint the size of Yeti... those battery packs are DIRTY to build and then the batteries are transported halfway around the world for subassemblies and final assemblies... and where do you put them when they're exhausted? Hmmmm?

I drive roughly 1000 miles per month... and the combined City/Hwy on the Camaro is 24mpg and the Prius is 46mpg

So that's 42 gallons of gas in the Camaro per month and 22 gallons of gas in the Prius.

So at 2.25 per gallon that's 94.50 in gas per month for the Camaro and 49.50 per month in gas for the Prius.

The "penalty" for driving the attractive FUN car is $45 per month...

OK.

[obiwan]

62. And how many grams of CO2 per mile for the American car?

[lumberjack_jeff]

252. How many grams of CO2 were required to build the Prius? n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

260. And? Apples and oranges

Not everyone is going to drive a Prius.

[JVS]

Maybe 64. Making uninformed statements is fun!

[lumberjack_jeff]

251. My underwear says 6. Or maybe 36.

If I pull something else out of there, who knows what I'll get.

You know how hard it is to decrypt intestinal prognostications.

[dkofos]

4. The retro look helped Mustang sales too.

[JVS]

5. But where can I hang the truck nuts?

[DireStrike]

7. It doesn't look affordable at all...

Nobody will be able to buy it.

So I guess the car companies are fighting for the ever diminishing scraps rather than making affordable vehicles?

[bighart]

10. LS model starts at $23,040 according to the GM website.

[DireStrike]

20. OK, that's not bad at all for a car that looks like that.

[obiwan]

50. I paid $15,900 for my Honda Fit, loaded.

And it will run circles around this POS.

[beevul]

114. Care to share whatever it is you're smoking?

"And it will run circles around this POS."


I very much doubt that.

[obiwan]

146. I don't do drugs.

However, I have been studying automobiles for 40 years.

[EOTE]

230. You haven't seen his Fit, it's amazing!

The thing gets 150mpg (it uses some super hi-tech engine intake thingy). Makes over 600 hp and 750 lb/ft of torque. Runs in the low 9s in the quarter mile. It changes into a giant Voltron style robot and pisses on any domestic car if it violates its personal space. The thing really is quite incredible.

In all seriousness though, yes, he's clearly smoking something. His POS Fit would still be running a quarter while the Camaro is finishing up its first lap. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad little economy car, but it will get smoked by just about any Chevy out there with the exception of the Aveo. But I'm sure he knows what he's talking about because he's got 40 years of old copies of Car and Driver.

[beevul]

240. "Form blazing sword"...

OMG you almost owe me a new keyboard...I laughed so hard...almost 'Dewed the thing.

I too have nothing against hondas, or the fit. They serve a purpose, however...

Yeah...I don't expect there will be many, if any at all, comparable foreign cars that will perform any better at all, or be significantly more fuel efficient if they do, and I guaran-damn-tee not a one of them look as good.


As another poster pointed out - jelly beans are for eating, not for driving. I don't mind a few of them, but the great majority of them are butt ugly and have no character.

Hell, I wish there were a way to remake the '58 impala and keep it looking good while aerodynamic. Thats one of my fav oldies. And the 55-57 bel-airs. And most of the 60's/70's muscle - except the AMC marlin and pacer - they belongs with most modern ugly cars lol. I had a friend with a pacer-x that was quite the tricked out little bathtub...what a sleeper that was, but jeez it was ugly. We told him it was so ugly he wasn't allowed to win a race, no matter how fast he built it to go lol.

[obiwan]

65. A good Japanese car with great MPG can be had for $12,00-$16,000.

[EOTE]

112. And you can get a good domestic car with great MPG for the same price, what's your point?

The appeal of the Camaro is that it's a stylish, very powerful, rear wheel drive car that also gets decent fuel economy. The closest thing that the Japanese have to offer is the RX-8 and not only does the RX8 offer worse fuel economy (in a much lighter car), but it doesn't have anywhere near the low end torque of the V6 Camaro (the V8 offers almost 3x the torque that the rotary Mazda makes). So unless you're here strictly to dump on domestic cars, I really fail to see your point.

[obiwan]

142. That's the point.

1. It does not get decent fuel mileage by modern standards.
2. It is an inefficient use of materials.
3. Its aerodynamics are woefully out of date.

[obiwan]

147. And when you can get a new American car for $13,000 that gets 35mpg...

... and is available anywhere, post your results and sources here.

[EOTE]

179. How about two?

The Cobalt XFE and Ford Focus get 35 mpg or better, can be found new for 13k or under anywhere (domestics always appear on lots under MSRP, I defy you to tell me any zip code where I couldn't find one of those vehicles new for under 13k). You sure go through a lot of effort to demonstrate how much you hate the American auto industry. Pretty pathetic, really.

[beevul]

248. Funny you should mention that.

"The Cobalt XFE and Ford Focus get 35 mpg or better"

Our youngest just bought a cobalt xfe. Its a VERY nice car, and she LOVES it.

[EOTE]

261. I'm a big fan as well.

That new 2.2 liter Ecotec is a great little engine, one of GM's chiefs called it the next great small block from GM. It's smooth and torquey (just as smooth as any new Civic engine, with even better low end torque), yet it gets better fuel economy than the Civic. The 2.4 sacrifices a little in terms of fuel economy, but it's just as smooth and has great mid range grunt. Also, the 2.4 isn't harsh at all unlike some of the big 4 cylinders I've driven in the past (including GM's old 'Quad 4' which was also a 2.4). That you can get such a nice and fuel efficient engine in such a cheap car is a real testament to how much GM has changed for the good in the past decade.

[quiller4]

262. The base price of the Ford Focus is $14,400 but can be had

It is rated at 24 city 35 highway (www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2009-03-05-ford-focus-test-drive-healey_N)

The Toyota Yaris is the only Japanese car listed in Consumer Reports Best and Worst for 09
that lists a base price under $13,000 at $12,202. It, too, is rated 24 city/35 highway.

If my area is any indication a customer can negotiate a better deal on a Focus today than on a Yaris.

Consumer Reports, not known as a booster of Detroit, rates the Focus as superior to the Yaris.

[EOTE]

157. It gets AWESOME fuel economy by today's standards.

Care to tell me any foreign cars with 300+ hp that get fuel economy that good? Didn't think so. As for your second point, well, it doesn't mean anything. Inefficient compared to what? Are you upset that the engine block is aluminum as opposed to titanium? Once again, it's a silly point to attempt to make. As for the third point you make, it's the only somewhat valid one you've made this whole thread. Yes, at .37, the Camaro's coefficient of drag is merely decent. This is a minor issue of form over function, but it doesn't prevent the vehicle from having tremendous performance and great comparitive fuel economy. So giving that, I fail to see your point. But that doesn't surprise me.

[michreject]

176. It beats mine

I only get 10 mpg in my 07 PU.I would take 29 mpg but I'm not giving up my truck.

[anigbrowl]

285. In a recession, value trumps cool every time

I have nothing against the car, it looks fine if you're into that sort of thing.But I doubt it will make that much difference to the bottom line because sporty cars are luxury items. Maybe 12 or 18 months from now it'll be flying off dealer's lots, but I don't see it in 2009.

[Pavulon]

122. So can a Lexus IS-F for almost 70k..

life is not always about cheap.

[obiwan]

150. Agreed. Not everyone can afford a $70,00 car.

The cars I talk about are cost-efficient.

[Pavulon]

155. Both end of the scales are available from the US companies.

oddly they do not sell overseas models that would do well here. Ever hear of a Mercedes A class?

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. Show me a 12k Japanese car. n/t

[JVS]

275. Nissan Versa 1.6 base, MSRP $9990

http://www.nissanusa.com/versa/

[lumberjack_jeff]

293. That's actually pretty cool.

Although I'm not sure I'd compare it to a Camaro, I stand corrected.

[JVS]

294. I'd prefer the Camaro, but circumstances might force me to take the Versa.

My car died after 20 year (it was a Honda) What I like about the Versa is that it's about the same price (actually cheaper and without adjusting for inflation) and same dimensions as my old car. It also avoids needless frippery like power windows, but does incorporate safety features like 6 airbags. The mileage is better, but I think the civic had 10 more horses. 5 speed manual. I've been running the old car without the AC (it worked still but a lot of pollen had gotten into the system from parking under some bad trees for a couple years) for so long that I might not even spring for the $1000 AC which pushes the price to $10990

[quiller4]

264. Not is you are talking about list prices.

I know that dealers are offering deals to clear inventories but I haven't seen that kind of price break on Japanese cars locally. Us, yes. Korean, yes. Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Mazda have not been advertising such deep discounts.

[ksilvas]

9. These are the cars that destroyed Detroit?

You can't move forward if you continue to design backward.

[Kalyke]

11. You know why it's selling?

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A BUBBLE OR A BOX!!

I have a retro 2005 Mustang which also get about the same gas mileage as advertised for this Camero. I LOVE my car. Reliable, responsible and average gas mileage and I didn't mind paying $20,000 for a car that's nice on the eyes.

MOST AMERICANS do NOT like the bubble look that is so prevalent with the so-called "energy-saving" cars. It has nothing to do with their fuel efficiency.... they're butt ugly! People simply don't want to spend $32,000 on an ugly car.

When will DU get out of the bubble and learn this?

FWIW, I was traveling to work this morning and was surrounded, nine cars deep in three lanes of traffic by American cars. I didn't see a foreign car for miles and miles. Found that interesting.

[wuushew]

12. Then they are going to be very sad when gas is $5-$6 a gallon

I am glad most people don't become architects or engineers since form really should follow function.

[Kalyke]

18. Not when form is ugly.

Seriously - they can't make a fuel-efficient car that doesn't look like this:

[Occam Bandage]

24. That is prettier than all the cars in all the world. Bad example.

[Kalyke]

27. It's pretty - but I wouldn't want to drive it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. I can think of dozens of cars that are prettier than a soap bubble.

I guess there IS no accounting for taste.

[obiwan]

69. Look around. Style isn't static- it changes.

It isn't 1975 any more. Cars partially look like they do because there is a lot more attention paid to aerodynamics and to efficient packaging and more efficient use of materials.

All of the above factors are far more important to the look of the car than styling is.

[bighart]

43. The Honda Accord V6 is rated at - - - - - - - - wait for it

31 mpg hwy. The Camaro is rated at 304 hp, the Accord coupe at 271 hp. The Camaro base price $23,040 the Accord V6 coupe base price $28,955.

[obiwan]

51. My Fit gets almost 40 mpg highway, and 37 mpg all-around.

[bighart]

297. Your FIt is not a comparable car.

I agree the Fit is a great little car, put not a V6 "performance" auto. I am just pointing out that the new Camaro compares very favorably to a "similar" import.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Heh.

Yes, the battered and beaten Japanese manufacturers need to take a lesson from the successful and stable American ones.

[Kalyke]

15. They aren't stable, either - they receive loads of subsidies from Japan.

Not to mention the legacy and health insurance costs Japanese manufacturers don't have to cough up since they have governmental-supported health care.

Sorry - you can't compare apples to oranges.

The Japanese car industry is tanking, too, despite not having those additional costs. Maybe they're far worse off than American car companies, if you actually compare that bit of information.

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

21. Not nearly as much as ours recieve, nor are any at risk of bankruptcy. Apples and oranges, indeed.

And "legacy and health insurance costs" aren't the reason that foreign manufacturers are gaining market share here and abroad, at the expense of American. Oh, and you bring up American health care costs? I'll counter that with the fact that Japanese cars have an import tariff, and American ones don't.

But the real claim--the one you made--is that Japanese manufacturers should take a page from American designers. That's nonsense. People like the design of Japanese and Korean cars better. This is demonstrable, and not just in market share trends. Asian manufacturers have higher customer loyalty. Asian cars regularly wipe the floor with American in Consumer Reports testing. Every innovation in design is coming out of Asia. Seriously, this thread's example of brilliant American design is, more or less, the exact same design America was producing forty-five years ago.

[Kalyke]

25. Actually, I never claimed Japanese manufacturers should take

a page from American designers - YOU said that.

What I said is that Americans find fuel-efficient cars (and I didn't say foreign or domestic) UGLY. They just do.

BTW, just to stop this argument - foreign cars SUCK and have for 20 years. You won't get anywhere with me on this issue because of my personal experience with both. I don't give a flying frog what Consumer Reports says because I've dealt with both and would much rather have a Ford in my garage than a Nissan, or BMW, or Subaru, in the shop.

[obiwan]

71. The worldwide recession is hurting all auto manufacturers equally badly.

There are no winners here.

BTW, check out how much of the build cost of an American car is "legacy" costs: health insurance, retired persons pensions, etc. etc.

Your argument is specious. Apples and oranges.

[Telly Savalas]

301. You don't see Ford begging for a handout.

[krispos42]

153. That's not entirely fair

The Japanese companies have a protected domestic market and their government has not allowed their automotive industry to become a sluggish, unresponsive monopoly.


Us, on the other hand, have let our market fall prey to foreign brands AFTER letting the Big Three become fat and lazy.

[NickB79]

34. So, you want fuel efficiency WITHOUT serious attempts at aerodynamics?

:crazy:

If you want to maximize gas mileage, you must take aerodynamics VERY seriously. And the most aerodynamic shapes are those "bubbles" that you dislike, unfortunately.

[Lorien]

73. I was going to say the same thing-plus, it's all a matter of taste. The Camero

makes me think of scrawny dudes with mullets and mustaches listening to Aerosmith-but I guess those were the kinds of guys I knew back in High school and college who lusted after cars like the Camero. To me the 22k (not 32k as so many GOP talking heads claim) hybrids are more appealing.

[obiwan]

79. The kids with the mullets grew up and they still want Camaros.

I guess it's true. For some, human evolution does stop at high school graduation.

[Fire1]

53. I hung up foreign cars 15 or 20 years ago. I loved my Jeeps

for about 10 years and it's been Chevy's ever since. Great looking car (Camero) but can't afford that sports car insurance.

[obiwan]

72. The new Camaro is NOT a sports car. By any definition.

Too big .

[Fire1]

83. It's a muscle car just as the older models were and they were

considered 'sport' by the insurance companies. What's changed?

[obiwan]

154. Performance of true sports car.

BTW, you are absolutely right about insurance companies. They need to catch up with reality too.

[8 track mind]

241. I agree and to add,

GM finally listened to the public and they built what the public wanted. I got to see one up close and it's really something to see.

[Occam Bandage]

13. That'll no more "save Detroit" than V2 rockets saved the Third Reich.

Flashy, attention-grabbing, low production, don't really do much to change the harsh arithmetic.

[Kalyke]

19. At $23,000, I'm betting production will be more than

you think.

And, well, it doesn't look like something you'd make out of shipping boxes.

[Occam Bandage]

23. At $23,000 for a toy during a recession, I'm betting it'll be less than you think.

[Kalyke]

28. Oh - so they're going to spend $32,000 on an ugly Prius?

:rofl:

Nope.

[Occam Bandage]

31. The Prius is a toy as well. But the Prius isn't being touted as the last, best hope of an industry.

The Japanese manufacturers' American strategy is centered around sensible, small, efficient, inexpensive sedans. The Prius is a toy for rich, self-conscious greenies, just as this is a toy for people who have the money to drop on a sports car but can't afford a Corvette. Neither should be seen as anything but an attempt to corner the fringes of the market.

[Kalyke]

33. I don't think the Camero is the last best hope, either, and

never made that claim.

In fact, I said that the Ford truck has done far better.

[EOTE]

47. Or maybe those buyers who'd like a Corvette with a back seat.

23k is a very attractive price for a vehicle like this and I'll definitely be looking at one when it comes time for me to pick up a new ride (along with the Mazda RX-8, Mustang GT and BMW 1 series). I need something fairly practical with a decent sized back seat, but I'd like that practicality to come with a good amount of fun too. I could get an Accord or Camry, but no matter how much they tweak their suspensions, front wheel drive just sucks. Even a V6 Camaro is loads more fun than any Camry, Accord or even Maxima out there. For 23 grand, you're getting a powerful, fun and very utilitarian vehicle which looks damn good to boot. GM isn't expecting the Camaro to replace its fuel efficient compact and sub-compacts, it's a pony car and should do damn well as one.

[NickB79]

36. In a severe recession/recession, people aren't going to buy Camaro's OR Prius's

They're going to fix up their old car, or buy a beater for a few thousand and drive it until the wheels fall off. That's why car sales have fallen so much already, and why they will continue to stay down until the economy begins to recover.

This entire thread seems to treat the downfall of the auto companies as a problem of lack of models that buyers want. That is secondary to the real reason car sales are so far down: people either don't have money, or are too scared of losing their source of income in the future, to justify spending $20,000+ on a new car.

There is no one car model that will save Detroit until people have the confidence and income to start buying cars again.

[JVS]

45. ding ding ding

We have a winner.

[Ron Green]

105. The even bigger picture is that bicycles, trains and buses are sustainable where

cars are not. The auto's a dying mode, although some people on DU keep flogging it.

[krispos42]

160. Three points

One, the production lifespan is likely to be several years, or a decade or more. The fact that car sales are down at this point in the recession/depression is likely a temporary situation compared to the life cycle of the model.


Two, car sales that are put off now will rebound stronger. With new car sales down, the average of the American fleet will rise. At some point more cars will be needed as beaters that were held together with duct tape are finally retired. And this car will be availble during this upbeat time.


Three, GM has already done the engineering for the platform. It's based on the Pontiac G8 or whatever. Since they've already done all the work for the frame, engines, transmissions, suspensions, and such, some light modifications and a change of sheetmetal is a minimal change to get extra use out of that R&D.

[and-justice-for-all]

284. Both of my autos are paid for and I like it like that..

I am not buying jack sit until I have the option to buy an EV.

[ContinentalOp]

39. Oh joy it's you again! Spreading your bullshit lies that the Prius costs $32,000. -nt-

[obiwan]

52. In California, you can get a new Prius for $24,000.

Only the GOP would say you have to pay $32,000.

[Lorien]

74. 22K in Ohio. nt

[anigbrowl]

286. Yeah, they will. Because it costs less to operate.

I know you think they're ugly, but somehow I'm not convinced that you set the taste for every other car buyer. You can't throw a rock without hitting a Prius where I live, but what do we wacky Californians know about anything. We just invest your computers and produce most of your movies, so we're totally not with it.

[pansypoo53219]

16. and the aztek killed pontiac

pfft. give me a car with old fashioned bench seats.

[obiwan]

54. GM killed Pontiac.

The Aztek, and its spawn, the Vibe, were the victims of bad styling genetics. Both were butt-ugly. I am still trying to figure out what bizarre drug the stylists took before they sat down and designed these two. At least there is a car that makes the Edsel look good.

Imagine a Toyota Matrix built in Detroit by hung-over auto workers, with legendary Detroit build quality. That's the Vibe.

[EOTE]

84. The Aztek is actually a fantastic car.

I picked one out for my mom and now at 110k miles, it drives better than new and has had almost zero work done to it. Yes, it's fairly ugly, but it's got a fantastic and ergonomic layout, drives extremely smoothly and confidently and is really built to take a beating. I've driven my mom's quite a bit and I've also spent a lot of time in the much more expensive Lexus RX330. Aside from the leather seats of the Lexus, there's very little that would make me prefer to drive the Lexus over the Aztek. And with regards to the Vibe, styling is subjective, but the build and overall quality of the Vibe is exactly the same as the Matrix, only you can get one better equipped for less money than the equivalent Matrix. And the Matrix is built in Canada while the Vibe is built in California, so I don't know what point you were trying to make. They're both very nice cars.

[obiwan]

159. I am glad you have had a good experience with your Aztek.

In ten years, tell me about your repair experiences.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Being an auto enthusiast for over 40 years, my opinion may be different than yours. By any styling standards I am familiar with, the Aztek is a styling disaster.

Once again, that's my opinion. If you love your Aztek, more power to you.

I don't slam Aztec owners; personally, I don't like the Aztec.

[EOTE]

194. It's 7 years old and has 110k miles on it.

It's had almost zero repairs (the only current issue with it is the LCD panel is out on the stereo). I doubt my mom will have the car in 10 years, but if she does, I'll let you know. Oh, and my mom's friend who has the RX330 has about 80k on it and has put over 10k in repairs since she purchased it. She also paid more than twice as much as my mom paid for her Aztek. And I may only be 30 years old, but I've been an auto enthusiast for the bulk of my life and I know a hell of a lot about cars.

[8 track mind]

244. fellow gear head here as well

:hi:

my dad got 365,000 miles out of his 1985 v-6 El Camino. The only thing that stopped it was a deer one morning. He just simply took care of it.

[EOTE]

246. Another great GM. 262 in the El Camino, I assume?

Very stout engine in either FI or carbureted form. If you look down thread, you can read about what the poster DainBramaged did with an S10 and a highly modified 262 (it's running 11s). I like cars of all stripes, but there's nothing like eeking out some serious power from a big American OHV engine with minimal money and effort. I leave the Toyotas for people who can't change their own oil.

[8 track mind]

257. yep the 4.3!

first year for TBI, 1985. He still has the car by the way. I found him a front clip for it, and i gave him the Vortec 4.3 out of my 1995 full size Chevy van, when i did the V-8 upgrade (I'm a van guy, ok?). I need to bug him to get him to put all of the bits back together again.

I leave the Toyotas for people who can't change their own oil

How true this is.....


I like cars of all stripes as well. I have 3 Chevy's and one Mitsubishi, a 1987 Starion. The Starion's engine parts are reeeeeeallly expensive compared to the GM's stuff. I like the little car because it's quite rare these days. Not many of them out there.


GM's are just flat fun to play with and they are the most forgiving.

[KG]

17. prolly not.

they're cool, but my lifestyle requires a light truck.

[Kalyke]

22. BTW, isn't Ford part of Detroit? If so, then this is the car that saved Detroit.

March 2009:
* Ford F-Series: 32,728
* Toyota Camry: 25,783
* Chevy Silverado: 23,508
* Honda Accord: 22,722
* Toyota Corolla: 22,257
* Honda Civic: 20,645
* Nissan Altima: 19,521
* Dodge Ram: 19,328
* Chevy Malibu: 14,772
* Honda CR-V: 12,959
February 2009
* Ford F-Series: 23,614
* Toyota Camry: 20,634
* Chevy Silverado: 19,788
* Toyota Corolla: 18,103
* Nissan Altima: 16,002
* Honda Accord: 15,976
* Honda Civic: 15,687
* Dodge Ram: 14,448
* Honda CR-V: 12,370
* Chevy Malibu: 11,516
January 2009
* Ford F-Series: 25,237
* Chevy Silverado: 23,987
* Toyota Camry: 20,782
* Toyota Corolla: 19,238
* Honda Accord: 16,581
* Honda Civic: 14,198
* Nissan Altima: 14,135
* Honda CR-V: 13,143
* Dodge Ram: 12,853
* Chevy Malibu: 9,312

Funny... I don't see any Prius's on these lists.

[Occam Bandage]

26. "Funny... I don't see any Prius's on these lists."

Funny, I see Japanese cars 18 times on that list, and American cars three times. Detroit sure can make trucks, though. Maybe they should just give up on cars for good.

[Kalyke]

30. Foreign cars still suck, though.

In the shop night and day.

Oh - and I count four American cars and six foreign cars.

Or did you triple count the foreign cars and only count the American ones once, forgetting one?

[obiwan]

59. Man, I have had foreign cars for 15 years.

Not a day in the shop and reliable as hell. Great gas mileage, too.

The last American vehicle I had was a brand new Ford Aerostar in 1994. The first 5 years I had it:
1. The A/C compressor went out after 3 years.
2. The A/C heater core went out . Twice.
3. The rear end gears went out in the differential after 4 years.
4. The accesory drive belts wore out at 40,000 miles.
5. The driver's seat fell apart.

I had all the maintenance done by the book, as on all my vehicles.

I have many more stories about American cars I have owned.

American cars? Sure, when they are built like Japanese cars.

The attitude stated in the post above is from the 1970's and no longer applies.

Japaqnese cars passed American cars in cost of ownership and build quality years ago.

[ejpoeta]

107. we bought a chrysler town and country a year ago this month.

we have already had to have the calipers changed twice and brake pads and the calipers are still whining. it really sucks going to a funeral procession and your car is squeaking and whining. and now when we had the 80 degree weather the other day i found out that the AC isn't working either. getting kind of pissed off. if we wanted these kinds of problems we could have just kept our 1994 ford explorer.

[guruoo]

278. Try switching to ceramic brake pads, and

have your mechanic install new hardware kit (clips, pins, and sleeves costs about $10) and then
flush out the system with fresh DOT4 brake fluid (helps to prevent sticky calipers).

Your A/C problem is most likely an R134 leak caused from seals that have dried out
due to lack of use during the off-season. Try refilling using a couple cans of a do-it-yourself R134
mix that contains stop-leak. Take care not to overfill the system, lest you make the situation worse.
Other causes could be compressor clutch, or clutch relay failure. Or, it could just be a blown fuse.

[ProfessorGAC]

126. That's Not Data

It's an anecdote. I've had nothing but american cars since my first car in 1973. Never had a major repair on any of them.

That's not data either, but it's as valid an anecdote as is yours.
GAC

[obiwan]

163. Good for you.

Please post your data and sources here.

Anecdotally, problems with American cars over 30 years hit me directly in the wallet. That's why I buy foreign now.

I am glad you have had a positive experience with your American car. Cars can be a pain in the ass, and I am glad you have a good one.

[ProfessorGAC]

181. Reading Problems?

I said that my information WAS NOT DATA! It was the same anecdotal information as was yours. I made no claim of anything. Merely suggesting that you had no claim, either.

Which part of that is so difficult to understand.

Your experience is irrelevant as to whether US or foreign cars are better are worse.

On a purely anecdotal basis, we could use my example and say american cars are perfect. Of course, that would be a monumental extrapolation. And would be silly.

You know; sort of like you're doing.
GAC

[guruoo]

280. Every brand has their dogs...

Hear about it every day at work.
My guess is you practice better than average diligence at maintaining yours.

[EOTE]

48. And no Germans!

I guess the Germans better pack up shop and go home. They're obviously not selling any cars.

[8 track mind]

245. and German stuff is

freaking pricey to fix.

[obliviously]

266. Gmc trucks

may be dropped by gm. big mistake

[guruoo]

281. GMC trucks = Chevy trucks

(I know, because I sell all teh parts!)

[obliviously]

298. It's worse

Than i thought. half ton and up trucks are their bread and butter.

[GetTheRightVote]

29. Man, they did the Camaro proud, it is looking good !!

:kick:

[taught_me_patience]

37. I'm so fucking sick of "retro"

Seriously, can Detriot come up with a damn design that is not 40 years old? Can Detroit come up with a better engine than a SOHC V8? Fuck... that engine design is 50 years old. How about a nice aluminum V6 DOHC with 300hp... something a bit more modern? Meanwhile Japanese and German cars are moving forward with design and engineering and gaining market share. Welcome to the continued destruction of the American auto industry.

[cwcwmack]

40. lol... IT IS!!!!!!

The BASE engine in the Camaro is:

A 3.6 liter Aluminum block/Aluminum Head Direct Injection (similar to newest VW, Porsche and Audi design) DOHC V-6 making 304HP!!! Welcome to 2009!

From Ward's Auto:

GM’s latest 3.6L DOHC V-6 is a world-class engine we’d stack up against any V-6

[taught_me_patience]

44. Excellent start

but the V8 is still SOHC. They should turbo the V6 and make that the top of the line.

[JVS]

46. They're not going to turbo it because that worsens mileage and adds to the base price

Since the car already isn't particularly good for their CAFE balance sheet and the Camaro is aimed at buyers without large incomes, it's better for both the company and the customer for those who want turbos to get them installed after purchase independently. There are plenty of people waiting to do just that.

[taught_me_patience]

58. They should turbo the V6 instead of offering a V8

They could get much more power from a smaller power plant. Turbo is the wave of the future... adjustable power on demand by simply changing the amount of boost available.

Aftermarket turbos are not good because the motor is not designed for them. The compressions is way too high, which will limit the amount of boost available. An aftermarket turbo might only be able to add 5psi without serious detonation problems arising.

[EOTE]

70. So, they should add 100+ pounds to an engine that's already approaching the weight of the LS3

Just so they could get equivalent power and less torque (not to mention horrific turbo lag) than the LS3? Why would you spend more money on a high tech turbo V6 when you've already got very powerful OHV V8s which have fantastic torque curves as it is? Once again, power per displacement means NOTHING. You should stop pretending that it does.

[CRF450]

133. NTM that hp/L stuff is usually ricer talk.

[EOTE]

140. Yep, specific output is a completely meaningless statistic.

Typically used by people who know nothing about cars to try and make them seem smarter than they actually are. When I speak with people lambasting domestics and they bring up the relatively low specific output of American OHV V8s compared to the foreign OHC competition, I usually say "So? And what does that mean?" They'll usually stammer a bit and provide a non answer. It's funny how these people talking about specific output as if it's important never talk about engine weight or even engine size (a 3.5 liter Ferrari engine is physically larger than the 7.0 liter small block in the Z06). Nope, they just need to trot out this meaningless statistic because it's something their precious foreign cars (I'm not biased, I currently drive a VW) have over the domestic competition. One would actually make a better argument by saying "My car has more cup holders than yours!".

[CRF450]

184. The only reason a 4 cyl can make good power for their size is...

1. they spin up to much higher rpm's than a v6 or v8

2. they have DOHC 4 valve cyl heads with very good flow rates to support that much power with the high rpm's

3. they have adjustable valve lift like Honda's v-tec, more valve lift (esp at the hhigher rpm's) = more HP.


Alot of these motors are not very efficient like some are fooled into believing. Not when the engine has no guts what so ever in the low rpm's for normal driving.

You'd think that people who love their Civic Si would know these things, usually they dont...

[obiwan]

198. V8's, by virtue of their design, are potentially more efficient at making power.

However, engineers tend to stress these designs much less, and therefore in production vehicles they are less volumetrically efficient than they could be. Since they are less highly stressed, they will live longer.

Ask any automotive engineer how important effiency (especially volumetric efficiency) is.

[EOTE]

207. I guess you're slow, so I'll ask again.

Tell me why I'm supposed to prefer one engine over another simply because it has a greater specific output, all other things being equal. You can't tell me that because you don't know what you're talking about. All the things that MIGHT come from having a greater volumetric efficiency means NOTHING if you don't actually achieve them. So according to you, I'm supposed to value a less powerful, less fuel efficient, heavier and harsher engine over a more fuel efficient, more powerful, smoother and lighter V8 simply because it has a lower specific output. That's a stupid argument and you're coming off quite stupid for being an advocate of it.

[obiwan]

212. Use any engine you want. Free country.

Personally, I like efficient engines.

[EOTE]

217. So, I guess you have no idea of what you're talking about.

I like efficient engines too. I like my engines to be FUEL efficient. Apparently you think that specific output is more important than fuel efficiency. Frankly, if I were to choose an engine for my car, I'd choose a 7 liter that makes 500hp and gets 29mpg (such as in the Z06). But you'd choose a 5 liter engine that makes the same power and gets 19mpg (such as in the M5) because it has better volumetric efficiency. And then you can sleep well knowing that you chose the engine with greater volumetric efficiency (which I just proved means absolutely nothing). I'll sleep well knowing that I saved a bundle of money going for the engine with less volumetric efficiency.

[obiwan]

220. Specific output and efficiency are inexorably linked in a fuel-efficient engine.

This has devolved into a pissing contest. Good night.

[EOTE]

224. So why do GM's V8s with lower specific output

get far better fuel economy than those high tech foreign engines making similar power? You're making an extremely stupid argument (and that's being kind). Yes, this has turned into a pissing match, and you've been pissing all over yourself. Sleep well.

[obiwan]

219. The V8 is less efficient. THEREFORE, IT USES MORE FUEL.

If you think modern four cylinder engines are less fuel efficient, heavier, and harsher, it's obvious you haven't driven a modern 4 cylinder engine lately. If I am so wrong, why are the vast majority of the world's automobiles four cylinder units? Certainly all the world's engineers are not idiots.

[EOTE]

Dear god you are getting tiring.

You were talking about VOLUMETRIC efficiency. You throw the word 'efficiency' around like there's only one standard with which to judge it. Increased VOLUMETRIC efficiency DOES NOT automatically translate into better fuel efficiency. If it did, can you tell me why the 7 liter engine in the Corvette Z06 gets 50% better fuel economy tha the 5 liter engine in the BMW M5? They both make 500 HP, by your logic, the one with the greater volumetric efficiency (I'll save you some head scratching, it's the M5) SHOULD have better fuel efficiency. But it DOESN'T, so the metric means absolutely nothing. You have yet to tell me a single quality that additional volumetric efficiency intrinsically adds to an engine. It's a completely meaningless statistic and you've yet to say a single thing to the contrary. And I wasn't referring to any one specific engine, you're bringing up a strawman regarding today's modern 4 cylinders, but I'll tell you that I've driven plenty of them (including my current car, a VW GTI). But I think Dain brings up a damn good comparison down thread, so I'll make a similar one. Let's compare a current Civic SI to a Corvette Z06. The Civic and the Corvette get almost identical fuel economy, yet the Z06 (505hp) has more than two and a half times the power of the Civi SI (197 hp). Take a look at the dyno graphs of these two engines, it's clear with the almost total lack of low end torque in the SI that the V8 is a far smoother engine than the Civic. So, the V8 in the Z06 is FAR more powerful and smooth and gets identical fuel economy, yet it has a lesser specific output. But in your mind, the SI engine is "better" because it has a greater specific output. If you've yet to see what an incredibly stupid argument you're making, I'm afraid you're helpless.

[beevul]

255. On volumetric efficiency...

Check out the volumetric effieiency numbers that the vortec head for small block chevrolet gets on a flowbench.

Nowhere near as inefficient as you seem to think, and in fact quite remarkable.

[obiwan]

168. It's about efficiency. If anything, racer talk not ricer talk.

[EOTE]

173. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

You don't know what that means, I can guarantee you. You are talking out of your ass. Efficiency of what? Efficiency of making greater power per liter? How does that translate into anything making a better engine or better driving experience? It doesn't. It's a meaningless statistic and you're throwing it around because you don't know anything about cars. Tell me this, everything else being the same, would you rather drive a 2 liter engine that gets 20 mpg or a 4 liter engine that gets 30 mpg. Now think really hard about this and get back to me. Please stop talking about things that you know little or nothing about.

[taught_me_patience]

178. All things being equal

the more efficient engine will burn less fuel to get the same horsepower. That is why efficiency matters.

[EOTE]

188. Once again, you're not saying ANYTHING.

A more FUEL efficient engine will burn less fuel to get the same horsepower, but that has NOTHING to do with your argument that OHV engines are less efficient. In fact, it completely destroys your argument because the LS series of engines get far better fuel economy than any foreign engine of similar power. It also goes completely against the argument that I was responding to upthread that specific power output means something. The LS engines have a lower specific output than Ferrari and Lamborghini engines, yet they get greater fuel economy. So your argument is stating that GM's LS engines are far more efficient than the foreign competition. That's a good argument you're making there, but it goes completely against the previous argument you're trying to make. So I'd work on making up your mind first.

[obiwan]

205. That means, simply put, that if the volumetrically efficient engine...

...uses the SAME FUEL but is otherwise identical to the other non-volume-efficient engine, the volumetrically efficient engine will make more power per unit of fuel than the otherwise identical engine that is non-volume efficient. And installed in an identical vehicle, it will be consistently faster.

Yeow, my asshole hurts.

Any more clear, and I will have to drag out the Dick and Jane books.

[EOTE]

213. But how does this translate into a better engine?

I can say that my engine has 10 times more zinc in it than your engine, but what the hell does that mean? What good is additional volumetric efficiency or specific output if it doesn't make a more fuel efficient, smoother or more powerful engine? If all other things are being equal, why the hell am I supposed to value an engine with lower volumetric efficiency less? This whole argument began because I was talking about the good features of the LS engines (fuel efficiency, power, smoothness and low NVH levels). The only marker for which the LS series of V8s dosn't excel is specific output. If specific output doesn't change any of those other things (fuel efficiency, power, smoothness and NVH), why the hell should it be an important marker? Can you tell me just one single good thing that having an engine with greater volumetric efficiency brings to an engine with all other things being equal? It has NO intrinsic value.

[EOTE]

242. And I see the additional non-points brought up in your edit.

You say that given two otherwise identical engines, the one with greater volumetric efficiency will produce more power. Well, no shit, Sherlock. But that has nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make. We're NOT dealing with identical engines. You're saying that foreign engines with smaller displacement, yet similar power are by the nature of their greater specific output better engines than domestics with a lesser specific output. That's an extremely stupid argument to be making. You aren't taking into consideration things like fuel economy (something powerful GM engines are very good at), engine weight (another area where GM V8s destroy the much more expensive foreign competition with), smoothness (another strong point) and NVH. What you are completely incapable of grasping is that if an engine has greater specific output, yet doesn't change any of those qualities (engine weight, fuel economy, smoothness and NVH), then it doesn't mean a damn thing. It's like me bragging that my computer is so much faster than yours because my computer has 10 cheerios while yours has only 3. Really man, this is embarrassing.

[JVS]

189. Best engine ever

http://www.chiefaircraft.com/rcmsec/Models/Engines/OSEngines/OSEngines-2stroke.html

Until they can make honda fit with a 1.5l that makes 330 hp, this is king!

[obiwan]

209. If you have 4000 lbs. to haul around.

[Pavulon]

211. Or a 1500lb car,mmm

that would be snappy fast. I believe formula 1 used 4 banger turbo engines before they were banned. If you want efficient engines look to f1.

[8 track mind]

263. the ford cosworth

if memory serves me correct. 90 cubic inch 4 banger boosted to the moon. Need to research this

[EOTE]

269. Are you referring to the Ford Escort RS Cosworth?

If so, I believe that was a 2 liter (121 CID, I believe) boosted 4. Made around 230hp in stock trim, but it was fairly easy to get a LOT more with minimal tuning.

[obiwan]

192. I mean volumetric efficiency,.

If two engines of the same displacement, with the same ancillaries, are compared, the engine with the higher volumetric efficiency will make more horsepower. If you put these two engines in identical vehicles, the car with the more volumetrically efficient engine will be faster, consistently. No magic, just physics.

This is why Toyotas were competitive in NASCAR in a relatively short amount of time. Since NASCAR tightly regulates engines, Toyota made horsepower gains by means of superior engineering within the scope of the rules. Specifically, they were able to make more horsepower because their engines were more efficient. Simply put, the Toyotas made more hoprsepower for the same displacement.Some GM and Ford race engine engineers speculate that the Toyota engines have a 35-50 bhp advantage, although Ford and Chevy engineers appear to be narrowing the gap. The advantage appears to be in the valve inlet and combustion chamber shapes.

Since the Car Of Tomorrow is aerodynamically identical between makes, and all makes run the same tire and same aero package, engine efficiency gains will translate into performance gains.

In Formula One, a relative newcomer, Brawn Grand Prix, read the rulebook very closely and won their first race and are leading the World championship due to their use of diffusers, correctly determined to be legal under the current rules and a distincy performance advantage. Now Ross Brawn, the team owner and principal engineer, helped McLaren and Ferrari to many world championships. He understands better than anyone what efficiency is all about.

This is what I mean by efficiency.

[EOTE]

199. Once again, you're saying a whole lot without saying anything.

How does volumetric efficiency translate into a better engine or a better driving experience with all other things being equal? If increased volumetric efficiency doesn't translate into better fuel economy, smoothness or a decrease in NVH, what good does it do? If you have two engines that have the EXACT same characteristics, why the hell should I say that the engine with less displacement is superior to the engine with greater displacement? It's a completely meaningless statistic and you have said nothing that negates that.

[8 track mind]

247. What about the Buick Grand National?

Jesus Hector Tap dancing Christ, that was a FUN car. Yeah there was the issue of lag, but damn when that turbo got spooled up, that mild mannered 3.8 V-6 could easily embarrass a lot of V-8 cars. The GM Cyclone was also another hell raiser.

Don't take me wrong V-8's are a total hoot for raw horsepower (and i'm building one now for a project)but since technology has advanced since the Grand National's days, the new Camaro would be pretty freakin' fun with a turbo.

[flvegan]

250. I had one.

As I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the GN would wipe the smile of the face of a Testarossa driver. The GNx even more so. The 1989 Trans Am Pace Car was the epitome of performance with that engine.

The Nissan GTR is a V6 turbo (twin) as well. Not much out there faster than that.

[beevul]

273. Thats no shit.

"The 1989 Trans Am Pace Car was the epitome of performance with that engine."


That car was an animal, plain and simple. it had manners though, when one wanted it to.


And it looked good and handled quite well, too.


I don't recall its milage numbers though.

[8 track mind]

289. was that also known as the

GTA Firebird? i may have my cars confused.

[flvegan]

295. No. The GTA was the top tier of the Firebird/Trans Am family in normal production.

The GTA had the 5.7 350 Corvette engine, rather than the 305 of the regular T/A. The Pace Car was a limited edition run. It had the GTA body, but rather than the 350, it had the 3.8 Buick turbo from the Grand National.

[CRF450]

302. I'd love to have one of those turbo Trans Am's, problem is...

I cant see myself paying 20+ grand for a 20 year old car. I can change my mind if I hit the lottery lol. I'm saving up for a twin turbo kit to put on my LS1 Trans Am anyways.

[EOTE]

276. Maybe, but it would have to be really expensive to get rid of the caveats.

Perhaps with a small twin turbo setup designed not for max power, but to eliminate turbo lag. But then you'd be adding cost and complexity for really not much of a benefit at all. You could go single turbo, but that pretty much guarantees turbo lag. I currently drive a turbo vehicle that's pretty heavily modified and I can tell you that turbo lag is the bane of my existence. My GTI is an absolute blast above 2800 rpm, but under 2800 it's a bear to drive and a pain in the ass in traffic. Some companies like Mazda and Acura are doing really cool things with variable turbine geometry turbos which minimize turbo lag at low RPMs and maximize power at high RPMs, but these seem to work best with smaller engines for now and appear to add a substantial cost to the vehicle.

I love GM muscle cars and the Grand National and GNX were some of my favorites. The GNX is a blast to drive to this very day and seemed to be well ahead of its time. The only thing is, now there are easy and cheap ways to make big horsepower in a smooth running and fuel efficient engine. Why add complexity if it isn't needed? Besides, if you go with a larger, normally aspirated engine, you can always add forced induction later on and then you're talking BIG power :)

[JVS]

277. With Pontiac gone, you think they might continue the G8 or GTO as a Grand National?

[EOTE]

292. That would be so awesome.

Bring back RWD Buicks and I'd definitely make one my next vehicle. Offer a coupe version for the GTO and a rip roaring sedan for the G8 and be sure to offer 6 speeds for both and Buick would open themselves up to an entirely new market. I'd so love to see that happen, but I don't know what the chances are.

[flvegan]

296. They could, but I doubt it.

Considering the G8 is a Vauxhall VXR8/Holden Monaro overseas, the platform still exists. I'd rather they bring it back, but give it another identity. No GTO nor Grand National should ever have 4 doors.

[CRF450]

303. Renaming it as an Impala would work nicely. n/t

[guruoo]

282. Looks like Camaro's going to run second to Mustang in the

the lardass Detroit iron category...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlqjChw9H3A

(Sorry. Soobie owner here. I just couldn't help it.)



:rofl:

[EOTE]

49. Ummm, no. The V8 is OHV, not SOHC.

GM only puts OHC V8s in Cadillacs and Buicks. And there's no reason for Chevy to use OHC V8s when their OHV V8s are so damn good. They're light weight, powerful, fuel efficient and smooth. Just what more do you want from a V8? And your comment about the V6 is pretty damned silly considering the base V6 is EXACTLY what you described, it even includes direct injection and is one of the most advanced V6s available today. You should really learn more about cars before making such uneducated comments.

[taught_me_patience]

56. Umm... the LS based V8s are single cam pushrod motors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine

The reason why they are so powerful is because they are so big. They could get the same power from DOHC from much smaller displacement.

[EOTE]

68. Wow, you know even less than I thought you did.

Single cam (as in 1 cam for the entire engine) = OHV. Pushrod = OHV, pushrod does NOT = OHC. There is a difference between single cam and single over head cam. OHV means that there is a single cam in the middle of the cylinder block, not above the cylinder heads. Let me repeat this for you, the LS series of engines are OVERHEAD VALVE, not OVERHEAD CAM, as the very article you link to will tell you. And can you tell me what's wrong with a big engine? Engine size means almost nothing, ENGINE WEIGHT however, is very important. In that respect, the LS engines do very well compared to almost every foreign made V8 ever made. GM's OHV engines tend to be a hell of a lot lighter than foreign engines of equivalent power. Tell me this, oh auto guru, what benefit does providing greater power per displacement of an engine provide a car? If you have two engines, one a 3 liter and one a 4 liter and ALL other aspects of the engine are the same (torque, horsepower, NVH, weight, smoothness, fuel economy and such), what difference does it make if you're driving the 3.0 or 4.0? Power to displacement ratio means absolutely nothing. What IS important is the power to weight ratio of an engine. In that respect, GM's LS V8s are awesome. They'll kick the crap out of any Ferrari or Lamborghini engine in terms of power to weight ratio.

[taught_me_patience]

82. Notice I said single cam/pushrod in the title

You're right... I don't know shit... I've rebuilt several chevy 350's but don't know shit about cars. It's about efficiency. Two valves per cylinder will not mix the air/fuel as efficiently as four valves per cylinder.

[EOTE]

91. Dear god, do I need to cut and paste your own words for you?

You said: "but the V8 is still SOHC". No, that's incorrect, the LS series V8s are NOT SOHC, they're OHV or overhead VALVE. You keep on conflating "single cam" with SOHC. Care to tell me how many cams a SOHC V6 has? I'll give you a hint, it's not one. And then again you bring up efficiency like you have any idea what it means. Tell me which engine you'd rather have in your car given that both engines have the same dyno charts and the same NVH ratings:

1)A high tech V6 with 24 valves and dual overhead cams that weighs 500 lbs.

OR

2)A plane Jane OHV V8 with 16 valves and a single cam that weighs 400 lbs.

I eagerly await your next informed answer.

[EOTE]

99. And let me guess.

Were those 350's SOHC as well? Because, as you should know, the current LS design goes all the way back to that 350 that you claim to have experience with. If you knew that those small blocks were OHV, you should certainly know that the current LS design is OHV as well.

[taught_me_patience]

101. They are single cam pushrod V8s

I should have said SC not SOHC.

[EOTE]

102. Finally you admit to being wrong.

And SC isn't used as an acronym for single cam as it's an acronym for supercharger in the automotive world and it doesn't differentiate from OHC offerings. OHV is the acronym associated with push-rod engines. And can you tell me what exactly is wrong with an OHV design when it offers smoothness, power, torque, good fuel economy and good NVH levels in a package that weighs less than comparable OHC designs? Let me guess, you're gonna bring up power to displacement ratios again?

[beevul]

125. They aren't inefficient flat tappet cams, like the old smallblocks.

They are full on roller designs.

Combine that with the simply AMAZING vortec head, and they are nothing like the "350" engines I'm sure you were speaking of.

[taught_me_patience]

162. Tappet + solid lifters + big cam

equals adjusting valve lash every 3k miles. Yeah... these new motors are much much better than those beasts. However, I feel they could be even better with DOHC.

[CRF450]

170. If they went with DOHC V8's...

They'd have to run one with a smaller displacement so its not as physically big or heavier than the bigger displacement OHV pushrod V8, that can take away from horsepower and efficient low end torque for regular driving. Thats why they stick with the pushrod V8, its a simpler design, compact and lightweight (now that they're all aluminum) for their displacement, and more efficient than alot of other high powered engines.

[obiwan]

171. Most modern engines have self-adjusting valves ("VVTC" ) or an equivalent.

[beevul]

180. Modern hydraulic roller designs...

Modern hydraulic roller designs need no periodic adjustments once dialed in.

They wear so little, unless your talking nascar applications, there is simply no need.


I have a roller cam out of a late model smallblock with 90k miles on it, that dimensionally checks out as new, as do the roller lifters that rode on its lobes.

No reason to fix what isn't broken in the first place. Nothing wrong with the concept you speak of, but it simply isn't necessary in the current gen chevrolet smallblock.

[EOTE]

254. Don't fix what isn't broken. You'd think that would be common sense, but I guess not.

Are you aware that if Chevy started making DOHC V8s that they'd be able to put a big shiny DOHC sticker on the side of the car like you see in them fancy Civics? My non-scientific study has determined that the sticker alone can add 3 to 8 mpg and take a good one and a half seconds off the quarter mile time. Add a big, gauche wing to the back of the vehicle would send fuel efficiency and power to even greater levels.

Perhaps this is why you don't see many high schoolers working in the field of automotive engineering.

[8 track mind]

265. dude, what about the massive fart can on the back? n/t

[EOTE]

268. Shit, I knew I forgot about something.

I've heard that people competing at Bonneville have on occasion used large Taster's Choice cans as a complete cat-back system in order to break the sound barrier. It's amazing the car upgrades you can find at your local "Five Below".

[DainBramaged]

204. ALL GM products are hydraulic roller camshafts now, NO adjustments.

[beevul]

121. You appear...

You appear to know very little about the vortec head for the smallblock chevrolet v8.

You wouldn't trashtalk about 2 valve per cylinder designs as if they are all the same, if you did.

[DainBramaged]

258. The head on the left, old camel hump, on the right, Vortec

And the new LS6 heads





http://www.corvette-web-central.com/LS1Head.html

[beevul]

271. Yep.

Same "family", entirely different generation.

The vortec cast iron head might resemble a traditional cast iron head to some folks, but they're worlds apart.\



And those ls6 heads are amazing too. Though I wish they'd have used a different RPO#...I have a soft spot for the brute that was the original LS-6. A monster indeed.

[obiwan]

"They'll kick the crap out of any Ferrari or Lamborghini engine in terms of power to weight ratio. "

Bullshit! Maybe in 1970.

Prove it.

The specific power output of most modern 4 cylinder engines far exceeds that of the modern American V8. Of any configuration.

I will race a stock Honda S2000 against a stock Camaro any day of the week.

Or how about a Bugatti Veyron vs. a Corvette?

Or a Ferrari Enzo vs. anything Detroit makes.

[EOTE]

88. Who said anything about specific power output?

Do you even know what specific power output means? I'll give you a clue, it's the power per DISPLACEMENT ratio of the engine. Not power to weight ratio of the engine. Specific output means NOTHING. Power to weight ratio of the engine means a whole lot. The power to weight ratio of the LS engines are superior to anything made by Ferrari or Lamborghini, and I'll be glad to provide you evidence of that if you'd still like that (I'll give you another hint, the 500 hp LS7 weighs around 400 lbs).

[obiwan]

210. Okay, the 2 liter (122 c.i.) Honda S2000 4 cylinder engine makes almost 300 hp.

What's your point?

[CRF450]

229. Holy crap you're way off, the S2000 is rated 237hp and 153lb-ft of torque

[JVS]

300. Check this out

Honda S2000: 18 / 25 from the 2.2l 237 hp engine for a car with a weight of 2864 lbs

Camaro V6: 18 / 29 from the 3.6l 304 hp engine for a car with a weight of 3,780

Camaro V8: 16 / 25 from the 6.2l 426 hp engine for a car with a weight of 3,880

Now, we can safely assume that the coefficient of drag for the S2000 is no greater than that of the Camaro. The weight is half a ton less with the Honda as well, so road friction can't be the main source for it's high level of consumption. This leaves two suspects: either Honda makes a drivetrain that is heinously inefficient, which I doubt, or the S2000 has an engine that, although small in displacement, makes its power through pouring gas into the engine in an incredible fashion. This talk about hp/liter being for the sake of efficiency is rot.

[CRF450]

307. I did a quick look over at fueleconomy.gov at real world fuel milage reports

The S2000's seem to average in the mid 20's. Which is to be expected IMO. Its a light weight car comparable to that of a compact econo car that averages 30mpg. I suspect that it has a very high gearing, and it doesn't have a very efficient torq range in the low rpm's for normal driving. The Corvettes average in the low 20's easily and even get the same 30mpg HWY fuel milage as the S2000. Although the LSx v8 engines are top end monsters, they have a very efficient torq range down near idle, which is why my Trans Am can cruise at 70mph with the engine spinning a hair under 1500rpm, and still get 30mpg on the HWY.

[EOTE]

236. You're way off. But even so, what's YOUR point.

You're the one who's throwing around non-sequitors. You've yet to tell me why specific output ALONE is a good thing. You keep on telling me what increased specific output SHOULD do, but you don't tell me why it's a good thing when it fails to achieve what it SHOULD do. Basically, your argument is that GM's engines SHOULD get worse fuel economy than they do, so that in itself should be a knock against the engine. Please put some more thought into the next response.

[EOTE]

291. Too embarrassed to respond?

Your ignorance of cars is only surpassed by your massive hubris.

[EOTE]

93. Oh, and by the way.

The new ZR-1 recently lapped Nurburgring faster than the Ferrari Enzo, and it manages to do it at only one quarter the price of the Enzo. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. And the ZR-1 destroys the porky, overweight Veyron's time on the Nurburgring by a good 16 seconds. Even the stock LS3 defeats it. Please try again.

[taught_me_patience]

98. ZR-1 is supercharged

Enzo is naturally aspirated. Let's see a 5.8L LS3 naturally aspirated vs. a 5.8L Ferrari motor naturally aspriated.

[EOTE]

100. Once again, you speak of displacement like it means ANYTHING.

And, I'll have to correct you again, the LS3 is a 6.2 liter unit, not 5.8. And the Ferrari engine WEIGHS MORE than the LS9 even when you add the supercharger. And here's another bit of info that will surely mean nothing to you. The NORMALLY ASPIRATED Z06 still takes on the Enzo on the street and track and the Z06 only costs 1/10th what the Enzo does. The Enzo is for insecure idiots who have waaaay too much money on their hands. When GM can build a car for literally 1/10th the Enzo that still competes with it, that's pretty sad, don't you think? Do you have any more stupid to offer?

[flvegan]

139. The Enzo

is also a 12-cylinder. Just thought I'd throw that in. Vette is only 8.

[EOTE]

175. But it's domestic, so none of that matters.

Unless it can offer superior performance for less than 1/5th the price, no domestic is worthy to lick the boots of its foreign competition.

[flvegan]

183. As I'm sure someone mentioned, at $100k the ZR1

will defeat any $500k production car out there that I can think of. Matter of fact, last I checked, the ZR1 is faster than one of my very favorite cars, the Pagani Zonda F, which commands over $700k to own.

[EOTE]

191. I'm aware of that.

I should have put a sarcasm tag in my post. I was mocking the condescending and elitist attitude many people have here regarding domestic cars.

[EOTE]

104. Oh, and the Veyron has FOUR turbochargers, 64 valves...

8 liters of displacement and 16 cylinders. So, I guess the Veyron doesn't count for anything because it uses forced induction? Let's see the Veyron lose the turbochargers and get spanked by economy cars. And still this car demands a 7 figure price tag? Dollar for dollar, a Corvette will spank any Ferrari. Hell, even at 3 to 10 times the price, Ferrari's still find themselves getting spanked by the Vette.

[beevul]

135. Arguing with the haters are we?

Don't let them get to you. Most of the detractors of the chevrolet engine, likely have NO CLUE just how different it has become from the old "350 with a quadrajet" or even the l03/l05 tbi truck/camaro engines. They know nothing of cylinder head design, meaning they have no clue just how close the vortec head is to a 4 valve design, where efficiency is concerned.

FWIW, I have an s-10 blazer fourwheel drive, with a 350 (l05) transplanted where the old 4.3 was, and it gets better milage with the 350 than it ever did with the 4.3.

I kept the throttle body injection, the AC, and everything. Looks like it was born there.

And it doesn't ever end up in the shop - unlike my suzuki swift (which I actually do like as a car - its a GREAT little car for fuel economy) with 61k miles and a shot transmission.


And yeah, Dollar for dollar, a Corvette will spank any Ferrari. Of course, thats been the case for quite some time.

[DainBramaged]

144. You are my hero

I have wanted to do a 5.3 transplant in a 2-door Blazer forever. But a computer friendly upgraded 5.3 with maybe a Vortec supercharger. And a 9" Ford rear. And a bulletproof trans. And an air bag suspension.

[beevul]

172. LOL

Thank you.


My transplant was into a 1991 s-10 blazer sport (the package which includes the skidplates, digital dash, and a few other goodies - sort of the BAJA package for a blazer without the appearance portion of the package).

Took out the stock ecm, and plugged a 1227747 ecm in with the proper prom, dropped in a used lo5 350 tbi engine, plugged in all the sensors and turned the key to a good running ride.

I have done big and smallblock swaps both injected and carbed, and by far this was the easiest swap as far as tuning went - there wasn't any lol.

I am right now in the process of building a 383 (4.030 x 3.75) with 6" rods factory type roller cam, stock vortec heads, in a 4 bolt mid 90's roller block. This one won't ever see over 5000 rpm in the truck - its going to be a light tow vehicle/occasional romp in the mud truck (I live on a minimum maintanance road, no choice where mud err GUMBO is concerned) - but I'm going to go with the 6" rods just in case I ever do find my way back to bracket racing, and because I picked up a good set of used 6.0 carillo rods for 45 bucks from a buddy of mine who was cleaning his garage lol. And I'll still be sticking with the TBI. Older, and not as technologically advanced, but its cheap, and if one knows how to tune a TBI system properly - with a laptop plugged in the ALDL port, ostrich, a prom burner, and some blank proms, TBI is not that bad a system where a wet manifold design is concerned. And its great for rock crawlers - TBI works at all angles and pitches - unlike the carb.


The l05 that currently resides in the engine bay is getting tired, starting to run warm, losing MPG, I still get over 20 mpg even with over 200k on it though. Not bad for a super high milage bone stock smallblock.

From what I have read and the people I have spoken with, the newer style injection is actually easier to work with and tune than the TBI...But I am not ready for that yet.

If you would really like to do a swap of the nature you suggest, I suggest s-series.org as a place to begin compiling information. Tons of good info on s-series swaps of all generations. Be advised though, second generation s-series swaps are much more tedious than first gen, both because of the electrical/computer aspects, and because of how the gen2 design became more cramped under the hood.

I have not yet run into a person who was dis-satisfied with thier swap though, once completed.

GM should have built them that way, or at least as an option, all along.

[DainBramaged]

177. If we only had 'stock' Vortec heads in the 60's and 70's.........

One of the most durable new engines in the GM stable is the 4.2 liter DOHC 6 cyl. in the Trailblazer. 285 HP stock, LOTS of potential, massive ports in the head, but lousy gas mileage in a heavy chassis. One of these days....................


I'd have to tell you about a project I was involved in a couple of years ago, rebuilding a 4.3 V6 in an S10 but also adding the Vortec supercharger, Camaro throttle body, bigger valves, intercooler. Killer truck. 11.20's AFTER we stuffed a 'Vette 6-speed in. And the rear held up with a modified posi, 30 spline axles and aftermarket 3.90's.



My friend still owns it, I am trying to get him to give me the title since he is tired of it and has 'moved on' to mud trucks.

[EOTE]

182. That's a 262? Damn!

I've occasionally wondered what it would take to bring a V6 truck into the 11s. I guess I know now.

[DainBramaged]

193. Stock displacement, Keith Black Pistons

balanced and clearenced, custom ground Comp Cams computer friendly hyd. roller. 2.02/1.90 intakes and exhausts. We estimate (since the truck weighs 3200 lbs) it has about 550 HP with 15lbs of boost with methanol injection (after boost) to cool the charge further.

If only the injectors were upgradable, we could have probably gotten 600 HP and been in the 10's.........

[DainBramaged]

223. It cost about $7500 with the supercharger and the blueprint + accessories like intercooler

and it was a fun build. When I took the original short block down to our engine builder he laughed until he saw the first run on the truck. Now he is building more since we made him an 'expert' LOL. The trans was $650 EBay purchase originally and needed a gear (no biggie to replace) I think there is about $12,000 total invested in the truck without the price of the truck (it was a 2000 swb S10).

[EOTE]

233. That's why I love the old hot rodder maxim...

There's no replacement for displacement. There are some that would make the extremely stupid argument that by increasing displacement, you're lowering specific output and making a worse engine, but as much as I've been asking on this thread, no one has been able to tell me why having a greater specific output alone makes a better engine. One great thing about domestics is that even now they're a hell of a lot cheaper to work on. Try doing a project like that on a Japanese car or truck and you're going to spend substantially more.

[DainBramaged]

235. Dirty deeds done dirt cheap

http://stores.shop.ebay.com/Phoenix-Engine-Crate-Turn-Key__W0QQ_armrsZ1

[beevul]

196. We did...sort of...

What they used to call "turbo castings" came reasonably close for the old style design - 292 casting if memory serves- of course there weren't tens of thousands of those floating around the recycling yards on production vehicles though - color me bummed retroactively lol.

But Yeah, that would have been great. And so much cheaper than the alternative lol. The late model roller stuff too.



That project looks quite nice. Really clean under the hood, and I'd bet more fuel efficient than one would expect if one was easy on the footfeed.


Best wishes getting your hands on that truck. If the rest of the truck looks as good as the engine compartment, it ought to be a sweet ride , and a lot of fun.

[DainBramaged]

208. It is scary to drive, and the 'whine' from the supercharger and explosive

acceleration with the light weight of the rear make it a handful on choppy surfaces. Pull up next to a ricer with exhaust and bodywork and they immediately slunk back. And try as we could, we could never get a Subaru WRX to run. They sort of figured from the 3" dual exhaust under the license plate that something was going on, oh and the 18" 45 series tires on an S10 truck. That wasn't a clue.............

[beevul]

226. ROFL.

Yeah.

In another lifetime a couple years back I had a 68ss396 (all steel, no 'glass) chevelle with a 540 cube monster in it...Same thing...Downright scary. The ricers...hell, even the crotchrockets never wanted to play. I had to put a throttlestop on it, because I never did end up getting my nhra license. Track officials get downright testy when you rip off a high 9 second run without one. Eventually we got it to run 10.10/10.20 off the juice but getting it to run that way on street tires took one hell of a lot of time and effort. And destroyed many a set of tires lol.


Now days I can't afford that sort of thing anymore. I chose a simpler existance making less money but enjoying myself my work and my life. I truly got to hate working at a large employer and "being a number". I'll never make the same kind of money as I used to (I'm a machinist by trade) doing what I do now. Which is erecting steel/post frame buildings, and building grain storage bins. But I know and like everyone I work with, and more importantly work for, and I'm treated like a person rather than a number now. In fact, they treat me like family, which is unheard of in this day and age, and means a ton to me. Anyway...

If I can get my hands on an old vega, I might be able to have that sort of fun "on the cheap". Small block powered vegas are simply insane. And a guy can build quite a motor nowdays using more modern vortec and roller parts and a 3.75 stroke crank. Those 383 engines are hands down the most amazing makers of power in a smallblock package that I have ever seen - pricewise.

That thought floating around in the back of my mind is what led me in the direction of a 6" rod engine instead of the stock 5.7" rods.

[DainBramaged]

234. There are builders on EBay who sell 550 HP 454's for $4000

and know what, they have been in business for years, many NASCAR/Busch/Craftsman/Nationwide/Winston/Sprint shops NEEDING cash flow.

http://stores.shop.ebay.com/Phoenix-Engine-Crate-Turn-Key__W0QQ_armrsZ1

[beevul]

243. Man, do I know it...

Our youngest daughters last day of highschool is tomorrow, and she graduates a week from saturday, and shes already signed herself up for college a few hundred miles away this fall. I really don't know where it will put us financially when she runs off to college, but shes in a hurry and I guess thats ok. Its going to be odd with them both gone though. Once I get used to life after raising the kids, and we get comfortable with where that leaves us financially, we'll do...something. Likely not a car, sadly...it just isn't practical where we live, with the roads being so bad so much of the time, unless the right deal falls into our lap.

And though thats a great deal for a big block, this time, I'm going to go route of the efi smallblock in large displacement configuration. Mostly because I have the parts already to a degree, and I spent a decade building smallblocks - though I have to get more current with EFI and the new gen engines than I am.


It shouldn't be too long until we can put something fun together.


I'm half ass tempted to build a rock crawler, since thats what some of the fellas I work with build, and I have access to welder/plasma cutter/fab shop and folks that would give me a hand.

[EOTE]

167. Sometimes it can be fun.

And your S-10 seems like a blast to drive, it doesn't happen to have a stick, does it? As for the engine swap, it doesn't surprise me that it was a good fit, the 262 (4.3 V6) is just a 350 with two cylinders lopped off. And I have nothing against foreign cars either, my primary car is a VW GTI. I just get really tired of this domestic bashing by people who obviously know very little about cars and just want to slam a vehicle because it was made by Americans.

[beevul]

215. This is true lol.

Yes, it is fun to drive, but not in the way you might think. It performs decently for a stock l05 350 powered vehicle, but the fun is in knowing that it performs the way it does because the s-truck is a bit lighter and more nimble than a full size, and in opening the hood and it looking like it was built that way. Like you say, it was a good fit. No, no manual trans, I kept the original md8 700r4 overdrive auto trans which still works flawlessly with 160k miles on it. They are a much maligned transmission, particularly compared to thier offspring - the 4l60/e and 4l80/e - but if maintained and not abused, they are as good a transmission as any other. I even kept the stock 4.3 torque converter. Slightly higher stall speed than one that belongs to the v8 line, but barely noticable, and not really relevant once it locks up anyway. And oddly enough, the truck actually FEELS better to drive than it ever did with the v6 - it holds the road better. Plus it gets over 22 mpg as of last fill up even with over 200k on the engine. The same RPO engine in a friends car with slightly deeper gearing and much lower miles than mine, gets 31 MPG highway. Not shabby at all for a stock first generation smallblock with TBI.

Yeah, I agree with what you say both about the foreign cars, (I really like the suzuki swift we have except the bad transmission GRR) and about those that obviously know very little about cars and just want to slam a vehicle because it was made by Americans. American cars just don't fit some folks pre-concieved notions.

[Pavulon]

129. Road course or oval? No matter, Lotus

and atom actually hold the records you are mentioning. I have driven both of those cars (edit: camaro and 2000, not atom) at NASA events and this is more complex than you make it.

A good driver in a stock civic will fucking smoke me in a real GT car on a road course.

[EOTE]

130. Oh, and another thing.

You may race a stock S2000 against a stock Camaro any day of the week, but chances are, you'll get slaughtered. The new SS SMOKES the best S2000 lap time on the 'ring by a good 20 seconds. 20 seconds on the 'ring is a lifetime. Your arguments are weak.

[Pavulon]

138. The Cobalt SS will smoke a s2000

on any track. Those little cars MOVE.

[DainBramaged]

141. There is a little "upgrade" available for those motors over the counter

from GM, does not void warranty or change drivability, but makes the HHR turbo 290 HP and the Cobalt 315 HP. All for about $800 installed.


Turbo Upgrade
Part Number: 19212670

Your Price $655.20
With Installation $775.20


Turbo Upgrade Kit (w/ RPO Code LNF)



This kit has been designed to be a complete bolt-on kit. Its unique calibration will increase the performance to 290 HP (HHR) without changing the drivability or reliability of the product.

[Pavulon]

145. Potential track ho'

lease it, remove seats (store) thrown in some recaro seats and safety gear. Buy race insurance on a low dollar car, and break egos on gt3 drivers.

If you ball it up, fix it and turn it end at end of lease.

[DainBramaged]

148. The stock seats are wonderful, better to get a good cat-back exhaust and air intake

I had the chance to drive a 6600 mile 'manufacturer's' demo last week. It is a true sleeper. Take off the emblems and boom, Rice killer.


http://www.gmpartshouse.com/products/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit.html

http://www.gmpartshouse.com/products/installdocs/19212670-installation-instructions.pdf

[Pavulon]

152. Yep, the fact it looks like a rental

makes it even better...Really priceless imagine look of the gt2/gt3 crowd would be worth every penny. Big heavy cars like the vette SMOKE consumables.

[beevul]

232. Why do I get the feeling...

Why do I get the feeling that someone here besides me has spent some time behind the parts counter as a GM parts man? LOL

My stint was years ago, as a youngster.

The true test - What do the following mean to you:

Zora Arkus Duntov

Bill 'Grumpy' Jenkins

gm part number 366250 (no longer valid but corresponds to a legend)

RPO numbers L88 and ZL1

just for fun you understand. :toast:

I have a strong feeling you'll have no trouble.

[taught_me_patience]

164. I'd like to see the camaro race a Lancer Evo or STI

Turbo imports in a similar price range. I bet it gets smoked.

[DainBramaged]

166. Camaro doesn't have a live axle anymore, so I'll bet on the Camaro.

And 416 HP WITHOUT headers, injectors, air intake, track tires, computer upgrade, OH and racing MAF sensor, cylinder head blueprinting, 1.6 ratio rockers ( is that enough horsepower yet?) for UNDER $3000.

[EOTE]

174. Nice job moving those goal posts again.

And as you noted above, YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO, THOSE IMPORTS USE TURBOS!1!111! And on the track, the new Camaro SS performs very similarly to the similarly priced current generation Evo and STI. Of course, if you add forced induction to the Camaro, it will spank the Evo and STI unless you're gonna drop 6 figures into it. But keep on trying, eventually you're going to make an intelligent argument.

[taught_me_patience]

186. It's better than comparing a corvette to a 600k supercar

Evo's and STI's have four doors and way more cache than the new camaro for the younger generation. The entire point of my argument lies in the fact that GM continuously looks to the past, with retro styling and lumbering v8's, and therefore produces cars that appeal to 60 yos. No wonder GM is continuously losing market share to imports. Meanwhile, the idiots at GM are left scratching their heads... "well, it cost the same as an STI and has a big bad V8... why isn't it selling?"

[Pavulon]

195. It is selling, the vette is a solid line for GM

the evo and sti are not cheap cars. Not many of the "younger generation" make 500 a month payments or write mid 30's checks. I am 42 and have leased many sports cars and find the corvette to be on par with the base 911 and even the turbo (did not own a turbo) on most tracks.

WRX STI is a niche car and is not taking share from vehicles in that price band. The fucker costs as much as a 3 series.

[EOTE]

203. Sigh. You just don't get it.

First of all, GM is still the number one car manufacturer in the world, you don't seem to recognize that at all. You seem to suggest that they're not selling cars, well they're selling more cars than any car manufacturer in the world. And once again, to address your ever changing goal posts, you can get a Cobalt SS that competes extremely well with both the Evo and the STI for about 10 grand less. But I'm guessing that doesn't count for you because the Cobalt lacks AWD, yes?

[Pavulon]

187. I like to see an STI race a Lotus

I can find a used one for around the price of a new sti. Equal drivers will win on the lotus ALL DAY LONG. Naturally aspirated toyota 4 banger motor.

I believe an evo is a bit more expensive than a camaro.

[flvegan]

151. In 1987, Buick Grand Nationals were wiping the dragstrip with Testarossas.

And the GnX? They didn't build a production car then that could touch it. But then, they had a 6 cyl turbo.

The S2000 v Camaro is a good race. Problem is, that with $1k budget per car for aftermarket, and you'll get 40hp for the Honda, but 150hp for the Chevy (nitrous excluded). Stock, that might be a good race.

Your second two arguments are kind of silly. Those are hypercars, not supercars. If you want to compare them to something "out of Detroit", a Corvette-based Mosler, with its 1800 hp would make a Veyron look like a child in any scenario. And an Enzo would be too afraid to even show up. Well, we are talking about hypercars here.

But then, I've been a turbo geek...well, since I had my Grand National. I've had Corvettes and a 928S4, but I drive a Mazdaspeed3 now. Both types of car prove to be very entertaining, but you do have to drive them differently.

[jayfish]

227. Ummm... 928!

One of my favorite cars of all time. I had a chance to buy a pretty nice example a couple years back but chickened out. So old and expensive to fix.

Jay

[flvegan]

237. Yeah, at this stage, I wouldn't buy one again.

Way to dodgy to get a good one, and the expense to fix it is almost stupid. I swear that was the first car anyone built that you just weren't ever supposed to fit your hands anywhere under the hood.

[jayfish]

228. Dupe. -NT-

[obiwan]

85. Duplicate. please delete.

[obiwan]

165. The two liter four cylinder engine in the Honda S2000 makes nearly 300 hp.

In a car that weighs less than the Camaro. Granted, if you need to haul 4 people, then the S2000 is not for you. But I rarely see gearhead cars with more than 2 people in them.

[JVS]

202. The S2000 has a 237hp 2.2l engine getting 25mpg hwy and 18 mpg city

[Fire1]

55. How many can afford those 'German' cars? n/t

[tammywammy]

109. You can get a VW for under $20k n/t

[Fire1]

169. I mean something like a Benz. There are too many american

made cars of comparable quality to go to a VW, imo.

[obiwan]

77. I agree. Retro sucks.

It's not an appropriate response to a whole new set of problems.

[ecstatic]

216. The modern spaceship look flopped (hence Saturn's demise) nt

[dysfunctional press]

38. what's the firebird version going to look like?

oops...nevermind.

[cwcwmack]

41. lol...

[Toucano]

64. Exactly!

The days of cannibalizing your own customer base are so 2008.

[Politicalboi]

61. Just like the Bug come back

And Mustang this is a good move for Chevy. Now all we need is to use hemp for fuel.

[Toucano]

63. Looks kinda cute

If you're into that sort of thing.

[Jack Sprat]

67. If that car is legit, then I like it.

I would think it would sell very well.

I keep hoping Ford or GM will produce a full-size pickup with 300hp and 29EPA.

[flvegan]

78. Good to see I didn't miss today's episode of "American Car Wars"

[DainBramaged]

103. I get to drive one shortly, an SS, for at least a week...........

it's good to be the king................... :evilgrin:

[EOTE]

108. You're a lucky man.

When my current ride finally gives up the ghost, I'm going to be looking at an LS as a replacement :) I'll have to settle for a mere 300+ HP (which is almost as much as the previous gen's SS). I definitely think that Chevy has a hit on their hands, I can't wait to see Bumblebee in this year's Transformers sequel.

[flvegan]

118. You be nice to those rear tires, Dain.

:rofl:

Yeah, I wouldn't either.

[DainBramaged]

131. I already had to promise to return it with the side nubs still attached

but, I am in touch with a friend at GMPP who will vouch for me that the rear tires on 'my' Camaro are defective so I can get them replaced. Under warranty. When I turn it back in after 'testing'. Just like the 2004 Cadillac CTS-V I had in 2004 for a week. That one needed tires AND a trans (it sorta exploded when the clutch mysteriously dropped at 5 grand at Island Dragway when it accidentally found it's way onto the strip while I was trying to find the pits) when we went to watch the races.

:rofl:

[flvegan]

134. Good thing they're not going to let you

"test" one of those new ZR1s...

[DainBramaged]

136. Uh, no, uh, they think I'm nuts as it is, but they want an old guy's impression.

Who still believes in hot rodding. I am not comfortable in Corvettes, tough getting out of after a couple of hours and besides, an old man in a 'Vette, no big deal. My beautiful Daughter is pumped and she wants to drive it too.

[taterguy]

80. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Over 50 replies and not a single Dead Milkmen reference?

Shame
Shame
Shame

[jayfish]

231. Alright, Alright.

Bitchin Camaro
Bitchin Camaro
Bitchin Camaro...


There, happy? :fistbump:

Jay

[DainBramaged]

81. I get so tired of the Transplant/Foreign lovers here trying to bash ANY attempt

by Detroit to introduce a modern car that blends technology, performance and economy. At 29 mpg and 0-60 at 6 seconds or less for UNDER $23,000, I'd say it's a damn good car.

[taught_me_patience]

87. "Modern" for detroit

means "updating" a 40 year old style. This is a joke. Meanwhile foreign car makers make cars that look to the future and continue to gain market share. I bet the interior of this new camaro is cheezy ass plastic that doesn't belong in a car that costs $10k.

[DainBramaged]

89. Oh well, your opinion, so what.

[taught_me_patience]

92. The market's opinion

look at market share trends for the last 20 years.

[DainBramaged]

96. Love your foreign iron, oh well I don't care go kiss your car

Toyota and GM are WORLDWIDE the #1 and #2 automakers, and GM is still #1, so talk about market share in a world economy.

Suck fumes.

[obiwan]

222. Correction. Toyota is #1. GM is #2.

[Hannah Bell]

249. you apparently don't pay attention to overseas markets. gm's doing just fine.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

113. Talking to most of these experts is like pissing up a frozen rope in Alaska

not worth the trip.:hi:

[tabasco]

90. 29/24 mpg sucks.

You're living in the past like the dumbass car makers.

[DainBramaged]

94. BAWHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You have no idea about gas milage do you?

2009 Toyota Camry 21city 31hwy 4 cyl. Manual 5-spd

Toyota Corolla 4 cyl, 2.4 L, Manual 5-spd, 22 city, 30 hwy

2009 Toyota Avalon 19 city, 28 hwy

2009 Honda Accord 4 cyl, 2.4 L, Manual 5-spd,22 city, 31 hwy

and for a 6-speed comparison directly with the Camaro (remember, 304 horsepower, 0-60 UNDER 6 seconds)

2009 Honda Civic 4 cyl, 2 L, Manual 6-spd, Premium fuel only, 21 city, 29 hwy

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

When you can take out a loan to buy a clue, let us know, m'k?







:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DainBramaged]

305. Facts rule, morans drool.

:crazy:

[DainBramaged]

124. WELL what is you reply??? Or did my facts scare you away?

[LanternWaste]

86. I doubt there is any one car that will save Detroit...

I doubt there is any one car that will save Detroit, any more than the Binford 3500 Extended Cab Ultra-Sleek GoTivator Carriage saved the Horse & Buggy Industry.

[Owl]

95. Gorgeous car!

:woohoo:

[Postman]

111. I'm waiting for the Model T retro......

[sakabatou]

115. So it IS a bitchin' Camero

[Canuckistanian]

119. Unreal? I'll tell you what's unreal

It's falling for the latest shiny toy out of Detroit.

It's still a gas engined vehicle with typical lousy mileage. Oooo, but it looks fast, doesn't it?

When are we going to get off the treadmill and realize that things are changing?

No thanks.

Show me REAL innovation. CONVINCE me that you have the future in mind.

I'm off the treadmill.

[DainBramaged]

127. (sigh) Ford announced an 80+ MPG hybrid yesterday, is that good enough?

Do you own a car, and (honestly) what was the last car you owned if you don't? We can't get off the petrol treadmill, because you can't power a vehicle with thin air SOMETHING is going to be using fossil fuel in the chain to charge/re-power/float the next great technology.

[Canuckistanian]

158. Yes, I thought that was great

And yes, I own a Chrysler.

But ever since I saw "Who killed the Electric Car?", I knew that they could do better.

Keep making the gas-guzzlers, I don't care.

But give ME a CHOICE what kind of car I can buy.

[Pavulon]

132. Tools in a toolbox..

If i want mpg I buy a hybrid or pie. If i want speed for dollars I buy a vette. Because nothing does what it does. Nice american car, built well runs well. Want to wreck a road course buy a lotus or an atom.

Want a 4 person vehicle build to go fast and turn fast buy an M3.

[DainBramaged]

137. Or a CTS-V with the ZR1 motor

another Weiner beater....................

[EOTE]

149. I'd take a Camaro SS if I wanted to go fast with 3 friends.

Not that I don't find the M3 absolutely drool inducing (especially with the new V8, although I'll miss the outgoing I6). But at 70K+, the M3 isn't exactly affordable. You can get very comparable performance in the new SS for less than half the price. Don't get me wrong, I love BMWs, but mostly 3 series, and once you go above a 330i, the value starts to drop very quickly. The new 1 series is pretty awesome too.

[Pavulon]

156. 65K stripped new..Used in 2 years a bit less

it is a striking car. Built like a brick shit house, really nice driving car. They are expensive. The last model was a great track car, have not tried a newer model yet. (no one is "loaning" them) A 2 year old vette is a steal, the cayman s used is also in the 30k (high) range. Consumables are MUCH more on the cayman..

[EOTE]

161. If money wasn't an issue, I'd definitely prefer the M3.

I had no idea that Caymans depreciated that quickly. I think the Cayman is amazing and far more attractive and a far better deal than the Boxster. It seems to me that they made the Cayman too good. I couldn't see myself getting a 911 when you can get 90+% the performance for so much cheaper with the Cayman.

[Pavulon]

200. Seen them on carmax

for under 40k. The S model. No LSD available, other than that it is an amazing car. That would be nice on the gas out of 2nd gear corners. They are popular on track days and move with authority.

[EOTE]

239. Seems like quite a good deal.

No LSD? Do you know why that is? You'd think that would be a prerequisite in a car like that.

[Pavulon]

288. Z Germans did that directly

so it would not compete with the base 911. It is funny, the boxter gets no love ("hair dressers car") but the cayman is well liked. Basically Porsche just used the same frame and tweaked the setup in the cayman. Only company to charge more for a coupe than a convertible.

Still consumables are super expensive and I would feel really bad the first time a guy in a cobalt passed me off his line.

This is the PINNACLE of track speed for normal people. It will stomp any vehicle the haters have mentioned. Street legal. Assembled near Danville, VA.

Really, it looks like a buggy. Super sleeper, that will drop any thing on the road up to about 120mph or so.

http://www.arielatom.com/specs/options

And if you really have to go all out. 1000lbs 500bhp. (this model is made in UK)
http://www.arielatom.com/specs/atom-500-v8

[EOTE]

290. Dear god, I didn't know they had a V8 Atom.

I thought the NA 4 cylinder Atoms were insane enough, I'd have to imagine the acceleration in the V8 model is like an alcohol burning funny car. What do you think the quarter mile time is for that beast? I don't think I'd consider the Atom a sleeper though, to me it kind of looks like a purpose built racer.

As for the Cayman/Boxster, I admit the primary reason I prefer the Cayman is because of aesthetics, but I also tend to prefer coupes to roadsters. I don't like to sacrifice structural rigidity and vehicle weight in exchange for having a bit more wind in my hair. Some day, if I happen to have a lot of supplemental income, I'd love to have a Cayman as an alternative to my daily driver.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

185. That car is ok I guess, I just think that Detroit is spending too much

time in the past. They seem to be obsessed with everything retro.

[taught_me_patience]

190. My thoughts exactly.

It's time to move past a design from 40 years ago.

[DainBramaged]

201. It isn't from 40 years ago, and I am not going to try to convince you any longer

Do you even think the current technology from Toyota and Honda, OTHER than the hybrids, is any better than Detroit's "40" year old designs. Go make some comparison of gas mileage and horsepower and then reconsider what you said. Their technology sucks for the end result.



http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

[taught_me_patience]

206. I'm talking exterior styling n/t

[DainBramaged]

197. People don't like jelly beans, they have little choice today

It is the number one reason the Mustang sells as well as it does.

[ecstatic]

218. What looks good, looks good. Now they need a feminine counterpart

I don't think I'd look right driving around in that. Then again...maybe the contrast would be hot!

[DainBramaged]

221. Preliminary reports are orders are 60/40 female/male

With 70%+ the 6 cyl. LS model. And over 80% total automatics rather than the 6-speed. With a segment leading hp and milage figure over the Mustang and Challenger, and better looking, it is no contest.

[Rosco T.]

225. Would MUCH rather have one of these (and the waiting list is longer)

[ecstatic]

238. Interesting. Why do they look so similar

Well which one is the cheapest? Most durable?

[JVS]

304. If they Dodge offered the V6 with a stick shift, it would be a no-brainer.

But since they insist on automatic, I am leaning toward the Chevy.

[LuckyTheDog]

259. The new Camaro is awesome

I want one!

[Greyhound]

267. I like many of the retro-rides, but this car just looks too pissed off for my tastes. I'd have to go

with the new Mustang.

[flvegan]

272. Even with all the craziness and push-n-shove in this thread, I hope we can all agree...

Like the new Camaro or not, what it stands for or not, how it performs or not, it's a Chevy and it's built by American union workers and if it is a success it will help keep jobs and cash here, and that's a good thing.

While I'd love for it to be as electric and fast as a Tesla, it isn't and I hope GM works towards that. In the meantime, cheers to the Camaro. I hope they sell a million of them.

[beevul]

279. Well said, flvegan

Thats where the um...rubber meets the road lol

[and-justice-for-all]

283. The car is hot, I will give it that...

but reality dictates that is a little to late on the arrival. Gas hogs are not what we need and I do not think it will save GM at all...Instead of making autos for the rest of us, they want to make cars for a minority. Just like the GTO, hot car, but not practical and shitty mpg.

[mdmc]

299. thats not the FORD FUSION HY,,,

Dead Milkman...

[depakid]

306. Some Americans just never learn....