Why The 2009 Camaro Is Doomed

NMA ^ | 5/16/08 | Eric Peters

[XR7]

Motorheads don’t want to hear it; refuse to believe it — but ugly realities are coming down hard on the ‘09 Camaro that will very possibly cause GM to pull the plug before the first one ever rolls off the line.

Doubt that? Consider the stillborn rear-wheel-drive next generation Chevy Impala — nixed because of concerns within GM about the possibility of meeting the pending (2012) 35 mpg fuel economy edict recently passed by Congress. A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can’t. So it’s gone. So is the talked-about next generation GTO. And the future of the G8 sedan looks not so good. GM is openly talking about scaling back the entire Pontiac division — and ending its role as a performance brand.

No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.

Now consider the 2009 Camaro — and the world in which it will have to swim. Gas prices are already surging toward $4 per gallon for regular unleaded. And Camaro’s not even here yet. By the time the car reaches production status in about eight months or so, we may very well be at $5 per gallon.

Maybe more.

At the same time, the buying power of the dollar is falling down the well — so everything is becoming more expensive, not just gas. And most of us are not making more money to compensate. Quite the opposite. Inflation and income stagnation are hitting us hard. Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful — and nervous. Buying a new car is not on our agenda. And buying a frivolous new car even less so. Camaro is not an exotic; it is a "Joe Sixpack" kind of car — so middle class and working class buyer skittishness is no small thing.

GM is well aware of these facts — which are going to kneecap Camaro (and any car like it) on the consumer level. Whatever the projected sales potential was two years ago should probably be cut in half. Bet your bippie that the bean counters within GM have thought about this, too.

That’s bad enough — and by itself could be sufficient to make going ahead with Camaro in 2009 about as sensible as building something like a Series 62 Cadillac would have been in 1979.

But wait, there’s more. Don’t forget the 10,000 pound Tallboy bomb that’s about to fall onto GM’s head (and ours) in the form of the 35 mpg CAFE edict. That changes … everything. The recession, crippling gas prices and declining buying power of the dollar are merely the coupe de grace.

A V-6 Camaro could maybe meet the current 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement for passenger cars without major engineering changes/expenses or hitting buyers with a "gas guzzler" surcharge that would bump the purchase price of the car up by $1,000 or more.

But 35 mpg? Only a few four-cylinder economy compacts and hybrids make it under that bar. Anything much over about 3,200 pounds with an engine larger than 3 liters is getting iffy. With a 300-plus hp V-8 engine and rear-wheel-drive?

Forget it.

Don’t believe it? Chew on this:

The current Ford Mustang GT — a car very similar in layout/power and so on to the pending ‘09 Camaro — manages just 17 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. That’s with the 4 liter V-6 engine, by the way. The GT’s 4.6 liter V-8 (300 hp) slurps it down at the rate of 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway. To survive 35 mpg CAFE, the V-8 Mustang GT would have to somehow nearly double its current average fuel economy. How is this going to be achieved, exactly? Think Ford is worried about the Mustang’s viability?

You’d better believe it.

The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won’t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg — and highway mileage that isn’t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford — don’t come close to delivering 35 mpg.

Camaro’s in the same pickle. Neither the base V-6 version nor the high-powered V-8 model have a prayer of achieving CAFE compliance. If they’re produced, buyers will be facing huge "gas guzzler" surcharges that will only add to the growing roster of negatives arguing against making a purchase — from $75 fill-ups to the general uselessness of cars of these type, beyond their ability to provide a good time.

And here’s the deal: Chrysler’s already on the hook; the commitment to production has been made. It will have to at least try to make a go of it. For awhile. Ford has a strong buyer base for the Mustang; a case can be made that even with gas guzzler fees and generally awful times, economically speaking, it’s worth trying to hold the line — at least, for the moment.

But Camaro?

GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool’s errand. And it’s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge. If Camaro sinks — as all signs indicate it will — GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen. Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.

Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.

You wait and see.

[XR7]

Don’t worry. We will all have our bicycles and and old mopeds for transport soon enough. No worries. The government knows best.

The Glorious Future

[Between the Lines]

2012 should be 2020

[EEDUDE]

“I used to have a 1966 GTO with a 6.5 liter (389 CID) V8 and a carburetor, and it got this kind of mileage or better. What gives?”

Several things:

1) We put more accessories on our cars now than we did back then. Power steering, power brakes, automatic transmissions, bigger alternators to power more electrical stuff.. all use energy.

2) Many people don’t know it, (I didn’t until I worked with some performance engineers that educated me) but pollution reduction strategies often compromise mileage.

I had a car with a small V8 (220 CI) that routinely got 26 mpg on the highway. This car was made in 1961. Manual transmission, no power steering or power brakes, but it sipped gas.

[count-your-change]

You could say the same thing about a flame thrower, I don't really NEED one. But nothing says macho like toasting marshmallows from a block away.

[mountn man]

Do you absolutely NEED the computer you're using. Simply to waste time sending messages on this forum.

Were/are you the one driving a Yugo, because it was inexpensive and got good gas mileage? Meanwhile, all the hot chicks were riding in the Camaros and Firebirds and pickups.

If life were only about what was "practical", we'd all end up being Jimmy Carter.

[B Knotts]

A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can’t.

Sorry. This is total B.S.

Rear wheel drive makes very little difference in fuel mileage. 1-3%, tops.

GM continues to ship pretty much every car it builds with an automatic transmission. That hurts their corporate average fuel economy much more than a switch to rear wheel drive would.

[B Knotts]

Those are the new, improved EPA fuel economy numbers. They are unrealistically low.

[eyeamok]

if any of these car companies had any balls, they would band together and “JUST SAY NO” we will no longer produce or ship any Vehicles of any kind in or to the US. Beginning today all new vehicles coming off of production lines are for export only.
Or they could just close their doors sell off everything and divvy it up amongst the employees as severance.

All it would take is them announcing this Publicly and the game would be over, Every City and State in the US has New Car Sales as their largest source of Sales Tax Revenue. Every Politician would be voted out tomorrow if not outright lynched in the public square.

I only wish they had the GUTS to Stand up and do the right thing, because I would If I were in their shoes, Starting with California. within 2 weeks the economy would be in a MAJOR Depression and the Politicians would be begging for forgiveness or in hiding.

Eyeamok

[CGTRWK]

So what should they do instead, prove they know better than the customer by building stickshifts nobody wants to buy?

In most causes an automatic does better on the EPA treadmill test than the manual.

[Glenn]

I’m glad I got my GTO when I did.

I can afford the gas.

God Bless America!

[B Knotts]

A torque converter is always going to be less efficient. That’s just physics.

If the government really wanted to encourage more efficient cars, it would promote the use of manual transmissions, among other things.

My point is that the “we can’t build rear wheel drive cars because of CAFE” whine is bull.

[vpintheak]

Ah, smog and bicycles. Gotta love it.

[stefanbatory]

here’s a rather dumb question...

why doesn’t GM bring back a new version of the 53mpg 1993 Geo Metro xfi? that ought to go a long way towards having a fleet-wide average greater than 35mpg...

[CGTRWK]

All else being equal, yes an unlocked torque converter wastes energy and the hydraulics to work the clutches waste more energy. But a computer controlled transmission working with a computer controlled engine can do things a stickshift can’t. For a known operating schedule like the EPA treadmill test, this can be gamed into a higher score by 1-2 mpg.

Rear wheel drive doesn’t give up a great deal of mileage. But in an environment where urban hippies are demanding the manufacturers build clowncars their customers dosn’t want to buy, they can’t afford to give up anything. That means RWD - and body panels you can lean on without denting, and side mirrors big enough to see out of, and trunks low enough to see over, etc - are getting the axe.

[CGTRWK]

Because the same government that demands clowncar fleet mileage is simultaneously demanding cars be built with huge, heavy crash frames to let you walk away from driving into a brick wall at 40 mph.

GM can’t legally sell you that 2000 lb 50 mpg Geo any more, and when they finished putting 800 pounds of new safety equipment in it you’d be left with a 30ish mpg car like the Aveo they’ll already sell you.

[Flying Circus]

The torque converter of an automatic is inherently loses more energy than the clutch of a manual. In the rare cases the auto version of a model does equivalent or better mileage than a manual in economy because of other compromises the manufacturer has made. Anytime the auto version gets better mileage than the manual on the same model you know the auto has at least one of two performance disadvantages: the gearing is taller or the engine is less powerful.

Another disadvantage of automatics is they require more maintenance, are less reliable, and cost more to repair.

As for customers, we don’t like automatics and the last time we bought a car I had to do a lot of research before I found a model that fit our needs and had a manual transmission available. Now we are in the market again, this time for a minivan, and would buy a manual if they made one. Unfortunately, the Mazda5 is the only minivan model with a manual option and it is too small for our needs. Even in trucks where manuals were the norm is is getting difficult to find one.

[Para-Ord.45]

“When you just use the argument of fuel efficiency, the purchase of a hybrid car is not justified”

- Kazuo Okamoto, Head of Research and Development at Toyota

[Flying Circus]

Except that EPA mileage is generally a MPG or two better with a manual than an auto. Directly from the EPA website, only two models, Honda Civic and Nissan Sentra (CVT), have the auto do better than the manual.

city/highway:

Model	Manual	Auto
Chevy Cobalt	24/28	22/26
Chevy Aveo	24/27	26/32
Ford Focus	27/33	28/33
Ford Fusion	23/29	23/28
Honda Civic	29/34	29/36
Hinda Accord	25/31	24/31
Honda Fit	31/34	30/34
Mazda3	27/32	26/31
Mazda5	24/28	23/27
Mazda6	24/29	23/28
Nissan Altima	26/32	26/31
Nissan Sentra	24/31	25/33
Toyota Corrolla	31/37	29/35
Toyota Yaris	32/36	31/35

[Fundamentally Fair]

If the Democrats have their way we’ll all be in rickshaws by 2025.

Then the Republicans will jump in and save us all by suggesting that we not make the rickshaws mandatory until 2028.

Those of us that try to resist will be told, "You can't win by loosing."

[B Knotts]

LOL...that’s about right.