2000Firehawk

iTrader: (248)

http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=759

General Motors has been forced to rework the investment case for the Chevrolet Camaro in the wake of new fuel-economy rules adopted this past December.
The Camaro will still be built, but higher-end V-8 versions likely will be priced higher than expected. As for other planned GM rear-drivers–a new Chevrolet Impala, Buick LaCrosse and the replacement for the Pontiac G8 due this spring–all have been dropped along with a new V-8 engine GM was contemplating building.
“You can’t kill something that was never approved,” said one GM official, who asked for anonymity but who confirmed the rear-wheel-drive projects are now dead.
Stew Low, a spokesman for GM of Canada, said the Camaro project is safe and is moving forward. The GM of Canada plant in Oshawa, Ontario outside of Toronto should be ready to build the first Camaro late this year, Low said.
Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said that GM is spending $2.5 billion in Oshawa - including $435 million from the Ontario and Canadian federal governments.
“We anticipated that would be followed by other rear-wheel-drive vehicles, but the money they spent on the plant makes it a flex plant, so you can build both front-drive and rear-wheel-drive in the facility,'’ Hargrove told reporters in Canada.
Only a proposal for new ultra-luxury rear-wheel-drive Cadillac seems to still have a chance of making it through GM’s product development process and into production. Even that project, though, may well depend on how the Environmental Protection Agency writes the rules enforcing the new fuel-economy standards.
The death of the other rear-drive GM vehicles also has implications for the final pricing of the Camaro when it goes on sale next year.
Last year, GM vice chairman Robert Lutz had told TheCarConnection.com that the rear-wheel-drive platform developed for the Camaro would support other vehicles as part of GM’s effort to make the project financially manageable. Spinning more vehicles from one platform spreads the costs around and is the most efficient and effective way for GM to use its available capital, Lutz has said.
As part of global product strategy GM plans to use fewer but more flexible platforms that would accommodate a wider range of vehicles and vehicle designs. Specifically, the new Camaro platform could be used for other rear-drive vehicles, Lutz said he said before the fuel-economy debate had heated up in Congress.
Part of the reason for the delay in moving forward with the Camaro project revolved around extending the utility of the fundamental architecture so it could serve as the platform for other vehicles as well, he said.
The new fuel-economy rules, however, have basically forced GM to reconsider its extensive plans for rear-wheel-drive vehicles. Rear-wheel-drive trucks and SUVs are safe for now because the new federal rules will allow some wiggle room for trucks. GM, though, is not in a position to absorb the roughly 1-mpg fuel-economy penalty that comes with building rear-wheel-drive passenger cars, GM insiders said in the wake of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
However, GM’s decision to scrap the other rear-drive models is putting an enormous cost burden on the new Camaro.
GM officials are saying they should be able to recover some of the investment costs in the new rear-wheel-drive platform by selling the vehicles in places such as Australia, the Middle East and China. Australia, however, has a new government that takes global warming very seriously. China is imposing new fuel-economy standards that are as tough as those found in the United States and one of the largest vehicle markets in the Middle East, Iran, is off limits to American car companies.
Nevertheless, GM desperately wants to price the new Camaro competitively against vehicles like the new Dodge Challenger and particularly the Ford Mustang, which pretty much inherited the segment after GM withdrew the Camaro earlier in the decade.
With a new generation of rear-wheel-drive vehicles consigned to the never-built file somewhere in the company’s engineering office, GM now is working on a plan B for Camaro.
GM chairman Richard Wagoner has already confirmed a V-6 engine will be part of the Camaro package.
While the concept Camaro has come with V-8 engine, a V-6 would serve as basic engine for the production Camaro and would help keep prices competitive.
Meanwhile, Tom Stephens, the head of GM’s Powertrain Group, told reporters recently that turbocharging can help boost both fuel economy and horsepower.
The V-8 version of the Camaro is very likely carry a substantial premium and GM is thought to have assigned a team of engineers to work out how to apply its new dual-mode hybrid system for an even more expensive version of the Camaro.–By Joseph Szczesny

Wallywall

They had to do something with the new EPA regs. I'll buy a hybrid Camaro as long as it still has power AND mod potential. And hey, if they HAVE to turbo charge it to get better fuel economy....I guess I'll still get one.

TriShield

Does anyone see how utterly stupid stuff like this makes GM look?

This is the fourth time they've waffled on mainstream RWD cars in the US and now they're basically threatening to jack up the price of the Camaro and blame the government instead of themselves and the endless amount of stupid SUV truck things they produce.

Putting a diesel or Hybrid powertrain in these cars is akin to putting a four-cylinder in a fullsize truck, it completely negates the point of a car like this.

Considering the huge cost of GM's two-mode system and the market for a car like this I can't see people clamoring to buy a Camaro with a hybrid powertrain that costs thousands of dollars more than it's gasoline powertrain. Especially when you can get a powerful, pure muscle car from Chrysler and Ford for the same amount of money or less.

Those primarily concerned with fuel consumption will always buy the V6 model of this car that's actually designed to be a Hybrid fuel-sipper in the first place.

Diesel is also not a fitting powertrain for a car like this. Diesels do not rev freely or have a high redline, the fuel is expensive and the carcinogenic emissions are among the most dangerous of any combustion engine. It's also not in character for a car like this.

Really, GM should be making the RWD Impala based on this car they've already got 3 years of work into and making a dedicated Hybrid model of that.

Not only does press like this threaten to dim the Camaro's luster (and ruin it's focused mission), it also makes GM look incredibly stupid.

They should be talking about cutting trucks and SUVs, are you guys ready to pay $40,000 for a Camaro?

Chadder

iTrader: (2)

****. Looks like I'll be getting a used 'vette. I hate the car industry.

hc8719

I'll gladly buy a turbocharged Camaro. Given it creates the same HP.

Camaro's of the past did have huge displacement, but this is now. Before some meat head goes around saying "I won't buy a Camaro under 6.0 liters", pull your head out of your ***. A powerful 4.0 liter turbocharged Camaro is better than dropping the entire project, or paying $35k after the gas guzzler tax because you'd only buy a huge displacement Camaro.

I'm under the impression Camaro's and Firebirds of the '70s had turbos after the oil crisis, someone correct me if I'm wrong

TriShield

The Firebird had a thoroughly weak and awful V8 turbo.

TriShield

I had a 3.8L turbo Grand National for nearly ten years. It's overall fuel consumption driving around the city was 12mpg. I now drive an LS2 on the same route and average 16-18mpg per tank.

Engines use less fuel if you don't vary the throttle, stop and drive slow. If you drive normally or enjoy using the performance even a V6 turbo is going to use some fuel. There's no way around it and if fuel consumption is a concern a performance car isn't what you should be buying.

WECIV

**** GM...the camaro is not a huge production vehicle...they can still get by with it. I am not paying premium for a V8. I will buy a new Stang...these ******* bastards.

W

gallardo259

If gm can build a powerful v8 with descent fuel economy using their 'DOD' technology for a competitive price, then great. if not, then the 'fuel conscious' can just buy the v6.

-"****. Looks like I'll be getting a used 'vette. I hate the car industry."

why hate the auto industry? its not their fault. the problem is the government intervention into the market. if the consumer wants better fuel milage, they will buy cars with good gas milage and those auto companies not making vehicles with good gas milage will suffer. True capitalism always finds the right balance and works the best! why is there a 1mpg penalty for rear-drive vehicles?

-"Australia, however, has a new government that takes global warming very seriously."

Really? kinda like they where serious about the mini ice age that was sure to happen in the '70's and 80's? lets not get over zealous on something that hasn't been proven to have much of an impact. i'm all for proper stewardship of the earth, but why are governments stepping in to 'save us from ourselves'. whatever happened to personal responsibility. now it's government mandates on the auto industry; what's next?...legislated morallity?

Juicy J

iTrader: (5)

Looks like I will just keep what I got.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

I have to laugh at most of the people in these thread. They don't understand how to make money or what it takes to tool a factory.

GM isn't going to **** away its money so you can drive a 500 HP RWD car for 28,000MSRP while GM takes losses of 8,000 on each car sold.

If it doesn't make money why sell it? Step outside and see how many performance cars are out on the road. Does it makes sense now? You can't sell on low margins if you don't sell alot of them. There is just no market for a performance car. No one wants one.


I hate people that disrespect GM for not coming out with their every whim. How many people are complaining in this thread that have actually put their money on the line by investing or starting their own business?

Vicinity

iTrader: (7)

Very well said.

This 35 MPG bullshit should only be for small cars, Camaro's are performance, why the **** does it matter for it? If people want to be fuel conscious... they made a little *** car called the Prius. They sell 'em at Toyota. If I want a car that gets 12 MPG but has 500+HP, I'll buy it. It's my money, I'll spend it on a gas guzzlin muscle car.

I can understand this 'Global Warming' thing, but I sure as hell know we'll run out of gas before the Earth becomes uninhabitable. So it won't be the fault of cars.

GM should just make the Impala. I mean, rather then hybrid the Camaro, hybrid that... makes more sense, since it doesn't have rep a Camaro has to live up to.

Evilways

iTrader: (1)

Why not just ***** up and remove all the gas sucking SUVs from their line up? that's show the ultimate commitment to increasing gas mileage throughout their lineups. Make all the small commuter cars hybrids and then their avg fleet MPG would be way above the standards set to take place in the upcoming years and we'd still have rwd muscle. Hell, my C6 gets 28mpg avg,why can't the de-tuned Camaro do the same thing?

hc8719

I hear this all the time. Its not what I want, but if GM wants to sell a profitable number of Camaros, they'll have to go by Govt standards, which keep going up.

A turbo doesn't save gas, it makes it possible for cars to get a good bit more HP, with relatively the same fuel economy as a non-turbo'd naturally aspirated engine counterpart.

Check out the Grand Prix and Grand Prix GTP, the GTP actually gets one mile less per gallon, but 60 more HP and 80 more torque, for just ONE MILE LESS PER GALLON.

Now would you buy a 4.0 liter V8 turbocharged @ 400 horses or a 6.2 liter naturally aspirated @400 HP + a $2000 guzzler tax? hmmm....

hc8719

I don't think it counts against them if the vechicle is an SUV, truck, or so many lbs (Ex. Hummer H2)

The Camaro won't get the same fuel economy as the Vette with the same HP because the Vette gets all those lightweight features, aluminum frame, light weight body, magnesium engine crate, a shorter body, 2 seats instead of 4... all those things.

venomhp

iTrader: (13)

the soccer mom and baller market is still out there for all of the tahoes and suburbans and h2's, so gm wont take that out for a muscle car. I think gm is fine with the camaro because even in 98-02 they were selling 300hp rwd vehicles that can get 28mpg on the highway

Chris95Z

iTrader: (3)

A problem with the smaller vehicles imo is that a lot of sales go to foreign companies. With SUV's and trucks making a lot of GM's money it really has them in a tough position. Companies such as toyota and honda are at an advantage because prior to this, most of their cars were 4/6 cylinder compact to midsize passenger cars. That being their main staple, makes it easier to meet future fuel economy and emmissions goals as a company. I personally would axe the v8's in many suv's and try to replace them with hybrid tech as a standard. Most people driving are soccer moms or people who want a vehicle that can fit the family. It's not often that I see them towing anything let alone who actually offroads an modern SUV. They get horrible fuel economy compared to the other vehicle categories. It just makes sense to me that with the volume in sales and the lack of people using the engines to their fullest potential, it wouldn't hurt to work on that arena to make the standard product more eco friendly.

Maybe on a more extreme level I would even consider the base camaro being a hybrid if it could fit on the planned platform. How many v6 owners own their cars for the performance aspect. A problem is that justifiably, their is an uncomfortable stigma with hybrids which imho manifested from the prius with these hippie weird types. I think hybrids should be more of a standard so that we think nothing of it while on the other hand we can all hopefully have our perfomance cars. More and more it pisses me off because while there's a lot of us, we still are a substantial (and expendable) minority in the automotive market. I've said it before, the EPA and congress have their heads up their asses when there are more important arenas that they could focus on. A lot of this is just ranting so feel free to critique.

Beaflag VonRathburg

iTrader: (176)

The part that ticks me off about this is if GM would have gotten off their asses and put the camaro out earlier we wouldn't be hearing about this. They could have adapted the frame once it's already out and see what the potential problems would be. Then correct from there.

You sure about that? If I could afford a new car I'd buy one. Hence the reason I already have a 98 Formula, 93 Z28, and a 95 V6 Camaro that'll be getting a different engine at some point.

6.2, After owning factory turbo cars I'd never own another one.

Vicinity

iTrader: (7)

If GM turbo's as well as they supered the ZR1, I don't think it would be a big problem.

Syclone354

iTrader: (6)

So what does this do to the Mustang, the Challenger, Charger, G8, Solctice, etc? Why is rwd a bad thing? Does a Mazda Miata get a penalty for being rwd? Is Ford dropping the Mustang, is the new Challenger going to be $50k with a hemi?

Is GM just getting cold feet?

There is no doubt the Camaro will sell if priced right. It will sell probably 10 to 1 v6 models to performance-minded v8s. Out of all the mustangs on the road, im sure less than 30% are v8 models. People want the looks. The average person looks at a car and says "that looks cool" or "ewww thats ugly" they dont say "wow it does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds" or "wow it pulled .98 g's on the skidpad" etc. GM has to sell what sells, and they have to be making money on it, not losing money.

Now, the new turbocharged ecotech makes something like 260hp and 260llbs. The supercharged model was rated somewhere around 23 mpg city / 29 mpg hwy and i had read the turbo model was even better. I know gm has been working on a 3.6L (i think) v6 turbo with similar technology. They have the capability...

Now, if more people in this country bought chevy cobalt, ford focus, etc, rather than toyota, mazda, honda, etc we wouldnt even be having this discussion. I am seriously considering the new cobalt ss turbo model, when i was originally thinking about a gto or waiting for the camaro. why? gas mileage. I drive 250 miles a day + sometimes, and 18mpg highway aint gonna cut it at $3 a gallon for 87. I need a nice car, i couldnt stand driving a plain jane civic everyday, but i also gotta mind the budget. Ive got my Syclone for the guzzling of gas