Well friends, forgetting politics and ideological bickering for a moment, I think we can all agree that we're on the verge of a new era in cars. Like it or not cars are likely to substantially change within the next ten years. But what about musclecars? They don't exactly fit with the "Carbon neutral transportation" mentality of today's *snicker* supposed "car" people.
So what about Musclecars?
Well, even if I hate the greenies, I do agree they have to evolve to survive. The era of the big block is coming to a definite close. It's true that you never know... it looked pretty dead in 1979 too and look what happened. But this time I think it's for real.
So my idea for saving the musclecar is twofold.
First, we gotta lower prices on the Camaro/Challenger/Mustang because they're the cars that people want but often can't afford. How many guys driving a Cavalier here call it a "Baby Camaro" hmm? So why not price the Camaro lower, eliminate all that two door FWD sporty car nonsense altogether and sell a 2.4 Ecotec version of the Camaro for like... 17,000$? You'll sell more, create a demand for the product, and end up making money off it on volume alone. Same with the Mustang and Challenger really. People love those cars, they WANT them, but can't afford them most of the time. Volume is the answer for these cars, also, with the economy going the way it is we're gonna need all the volume sales we can to get people working again.
Secondly, the engines are all wrong. I love the big V8s, but CAFE and EPA rules say otherwise. So what to do? How about smaller V8s. Something in the 3.0 to 3.5 liter range? With a Turbo that could give you an easy 300-400hp, and with cylinder deactivation and the stop/start eco thing it would give some pretty damn good MPG (A 3.0 V8 running on 4 cylinders would be like running a 1.5 liter engine on the highway. Surely that would give spectacular fuel economy and good power.). Wouldn't sound the same, but at least it'd still be a V8. Also, since it's so small you could conceivably make a Hybrid version that would swap running on 4 cylinders and the electric engine for daily driving, and then be able to run on all cylinders and the electric engine full time for sport driving.
Seriously though, musclecars aside, I really do think small V8's are the answer for the future of the automobile. Cars are getting heavier and need power, yet they also need to pass draconian fuel efficiency rules. Too small an engine and it won't be able to pull the car, too large an engine and you're wasting gas. The only way to do both these things at the same time is use a V type engine, run on all cylinders to get the car going, then deactivate one of the banks once the momentum's started.
The two door RWD musclecar market is larger than the car company's think, they've simply priced the people interested in those types of car out of it. So if they can create engines that will make those cars as efficient as any compact or mid-size sedan and sell them to their intended buyer, they could conceivably make a lot of money. Sell a cool car to a passionate fan base lusting for one, sounds like a better business decision to me than "Let's go green and make Al Gore happy!"
Small turbo V8 I can go with. But a 2.4 eco in a Camaro just sounds like a bad idea.
I really dont see what is wrong with teh current V8's. My parents Camaro SS gets damn near 30 MPG at 70 MPH. Look at the @!#$ty economy that the high end cars get with their high strung V8's and F/I6's. Ill take an "old technology" GM V8 any day over some DOHC small V8. On a side note I am rather excited about the upcoming babymax diesel.
mitdr774 wrote:I really dont see what is wrong with teh current V8's. My parents Camaro SS gets damn near 30 MPG at 70 MPH. Look at the @!#$ty economy that the high end cars get with their high strung V8's and F/I6's. Ill take an "old technology" GM V8 any day over some DOHC small V8. On a side note I am rather excited about the upcoming babymax diesel.
To be honest, I 100% agree. The most important aspect of an engine (for fuel economy) is torque. The bigger the engine, the more torque you make; and the less it has to struggle with the car's weight. That's why the 7 liter LS7 V8 is more economical than Jaguar's 4.2 DOHC Supercharged V8. Not to mention that the LS7 weighs less and is externally smaller because it doesn't have those big OHC heads.
However, they could probably make smaller OHV engines and maximize the advantage of the design. Like a 3.8 liter LS type V8 would still make a very decent 260hp and probably (with that stop/start, cylinder deactivation tech) get better fuel economy than GM's current 3.6 liter V6.
I wouldn't call a 2.4 eco Camaro a muscle car...nor would I call any Mustang, Challenger or Camaro running a turbo a muscle car.
A muscle car is about displacement...horse power!! Simply put...a 2.4 Camaro is not what America wants...at least I don't think so.
The Camaro (which I happen to follow since I've plunked money down on one already!)...has a 3.6 liter V6 that has 304hp and still manages 27mpg! The V8 (auto) has 400hp and has cylinder deactavation already and manages 23mpg. All highway mind you but they do it! The M6 Camaro has 426hp and still can pull 23mpg on the highway...that's an LS3!! 426hp!
Today, Ford Mustang GTs are very affordable to most anyone at $27K loaded for the most part and while the Camaro SS is a wee bit more expensive, you do get 100+hp as well as a 5-link rear suspension. The Challenger is the expensive one at $40K plus...and needs to adjust pricing to match Ford and Chevy!
Muscle cars are just that...V8s getting huge #s without turbos. Yeah you can through them on there and get even more hp but not to a 4 banger! That's not "muscle"...it might be efficient, might be doable, but it's not muscle.
Now...do you have a muscle car body and looks...sure.
Eh...old man with a Corvette now...it was bound to happen sooner rather than later right?
IMO 'muscle' cars died in the 70's.
these new versions are just new technology wrapped in old design.
let the damn things die in peace already so we can move on.
I believe I can see the future... as I repeat the same routine....
BlueDeuce wrote:I wouldn't call a 2.4 eco Camaro a muscle car...nor would I call any Mustang, Challenger or Camaro running a turbo a muscle car.
A muscle car is about displacement...horse power!! Simply put...a 2.4 Camaro is not what America wants...at least I don't think so.
The Camaro (which I happen to follow since I've plunked money down on one already!)...has a 3.6 liter V6 that has 304hp and still manages 27mpg! The V8 (auto) has 400hp and has cylinder deactavation already and manages 23mpg. All highway mind you but they do it! The M6 Camaro has 426hp and still can pull 23mpg on the highway...that's an LS3!! 426hp!
Today, Ford Mustang GTs are very affordable to most anyone at $27K loaded for the most part and while the Camaro SS is a wee bit more expensive, you do get 100+hp as well as a 5-link rear suspension. The Challenger is the expensive one at $40K plus...and needs to adjust pricing to match Ford and Chevy!
Muscle cars are just that...V8s getting huge #s without turbos. Yeah you can through them on there and get even more hp but not to a 4 banger! That's not "muscle"...it might be efficient, might be doable, but it's not muscle.
Now...do you have a muscle car body and looks...sure.
Very well said!! No way in hell I would ever buy a Camaro if it had a 4 banger in it.
z yaaaa wrote:IMO 'muscle' cars died in the 70's.
these new versions are just new technology wrapped in old design.
let the damn things die in peace already so we can move on.
how do you figure? I would not agree
These new vehicles embody the same muscle car spirit with the Addition of new technology
it isnt like they are taking 1.6L Honda engines and dropping them in muscle car bodies
__________________________________________________________________
Where I work:
HP
What I take for Memory and Focus:
Focus Fast
Will the american auto industry ever stop making a car with a truly powerful and gas-guzzling engine besides the corvette or the flagship silverado truck? They already have. Ok, now you will argue that some other ford was better at some point in time, but the point remains. To say that the gasoline engine is dead? Who makes more awesome engines then the big three right now? Do the names Edelbrock, or even Joe's engine shop on the corner, who nodody knows, but can build a damn fine engine, and has a thousand catalogs to order whatever and everything, and can do whatever you want to it if you have the money? Yes transportation vehicles are soon going to be mostly electric drive, i have zero doubt of that. But there will always be the need for Corvettes, Mustangs, Porshe's, and whatever car you want to name.
Well, my point in all this was that I would like for gasoline engines and musclecars to continue, but that I also realize that electric cars and hybrids are coming fast and that the only way for my beloved genre of cars to continue their existence is if they make a few concessions to the green brigade. I'm not saying I'm fond of this, but I'd rather drive a Turbo 3.0 Hemi V8 powered hybrid Challenger that gets the same mileage as a Cobalt SS and makes 400hp than look at a big blank empty space in the dealers lot where a musclecar should be, but isn't because they don't exist anymore. I love old cars, but I'd like to have variety and maybe occasionally be excited about a new car offering.
And I also don't think smaller, more modern engines would make the cars any lesser. The 1987 Buick GNX with it's 3.8 Turbo V6 is faster and arguably more of a musclecar than the 1970 Buick GSX with a 455 big block V8 that preceded it. The same is true of a 1986 SVO Mustang whose 2.3 Turbo will outrun the 1970 Boss 302 in a heartbeat. Stock for stock of course, I'm not talking about the steroid pumped refurbished classic cars we see today that pump out about 500hp while pretending to be unmodified.
The thing is, I'd hate to see the end of musclecars and know that I could only go fast with an older car. That would sort of suck.
Gas mileage comes down to alot more than just the engine, its weight, aero, transmission, and the engine management, all of which have improved but still have room for improvement
I mean look at say a 2002 Trans Am, Gen III LS1 they can easily be tuned through HP tuners to get 30 or better on the highway. There is so much @!#$ on a car from the factory that either serves little purpose, is made of heavy or @!#$ty materials or is horribly inefficient. This goes for all makes and models.
Just in my Cobalt I've increased horsepower by 50% and increased gas mileage by 20% over what I got from the factory and theres still room to grow. I'm not an engineer, I'm just a novice. Its a myth that by increasing HP you sacrifice gas mileage in most cases if you can tune worth a damn you actually improve gas mileage.
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Rodimus Prime wrote:Gas mileage comes down to alot more than just the engine, its weight, aero, transmission, and the engine management, all of which have improved but still have room for improvement
I mean look at say a 2002 Trans Am, Gen III LS1 they can easily be tuned through HP tuners to get 30 or better on the highway. There is so much @!#$ on a car from the factory that either serves little purpose, is made of heavy or @!#$ty materials or is horribly inefficient. This goes for all makes and models.
Just in my Cobalt I've increased horsepower by 50% and increased gas mileage by 20% over what I got from the factory and theres still room to grow. I'm not an engineer, I'm just a novice. Its a myth that by increasing HP you sacrifice gas mileage in most cases if you can tune worth a damn you actually improve gas mileage.
X2, I got 37 mpgs mixed highway/ tad bit of city with my blower set up.
You all forget about emissions. Most cars could probably get an extra 5mpg (probably much more) if they didn't have to pass emissions testing. Just look at how cars in the 1960s got better fuel economy than cars today.
Knoxfire wrote:mitdr774 wrote:I really dont see what is wrong with teh current V8's. My parents Camaro SS gets damn near 30 MPG at 70 MPH. Look at the @!#$ty economy that the high end cars get with their high strung V8's and F/I6's. Ill take an "old technology" GM V8 any day over some DOHC small V8. On a side note I am rather excited about the upcoming babymax diesel.
To be honest, I 100% agree. The most important aspect of an engine (for fuel economy) is torque. The bigger the engine, the more torque you make; and the less it has to struggle with the car's weight. That's why the 7 liter LS7 V8 is more economical than Jaguar's 4.2 DOHC Supercharged V8. Not to mention that the LS7 weighs less and is externally smaller because it doesn't have those big OHC heads.
However, they could probably make smaller OHV engines and maximize the advantage of the design. Like a 3.8 liter LS type V8 would still make a very decent 260hp and probably (with that stop/start, cylinder deactivation tech) get better fuel economy than GM's current 3.6 liter V6.
I don't know exactly what you meant by that statement, but just so there is no confusion, POWER is what is needed to overcome frictional and aero forces to maintain a specific speed, not TORQUE. It's a common misconception to many that it's torque, because a lower reving engine must make more torque to make the same amount of power as a higher reving engine in order to maintain a specific velocity.
I'll give an example: No matter how you gear an engine that makes 300 ft-lb at 5250 RPM (300hp), it will never be able to reach the same top speed as a properly geared 300ft-lb at 8750 RPM (500hp) engine in the same vehicle. The main benefits a low reving engine have to better economy is lower frictional forces within the cylinder itself, less windage, but most importantly less inertia.
Also, cylinder cut only marginally works because you still have the problem of the inertia and friction from the inactive cylinders since they still have to move in relation to the crank. I don't know much about cylinder cut technology, but if the valves still open and close (which I would hope not), then you have the losses from the valve springs/valves/pushrods/etc. as well.
Knoxfire wrote:You all forget about emissions. Most cars could probably get an extra 5mpg (probably much more) if they didn't have to pass emissions testing. Just look at how cars in the 1960s got better fuel economy than cars today.
Agreed. Most cars are tuned the way they are to reduce NOx and hydrocarbon emissions. Although, a big thing with cars of the past, are they were considerably lighter. Cars today have much stricter regulations regarding crumple zones and other safety equipment...and heaven forbid there be any NVH in the cheapest new car on the lot.
I have no signiture
To be honest I am not to bad off when it comes to the bank, I work hard save my money and live within my means. But even for myself a 22 year old car lover, between insurence, unstable gas prices, and the stress of domestic car companies. These very thing's would sway a HUGE 16-25ish year old demographic of sale away.
My reasoning is this ISN'T 1966, 67, 69. Heck not even the 80's to 90's. Job's are being outsourced and many many other job's have more competition because of this. So there for financial freedom... no just financial relief isn't int he picture for a every growing % of us.
So there for I believe muscle cars along with there associated cost's are what keep them far and few in between and you see mostly old farts, and the rare kid who's parents are well of who can support not just the car but associated costs.
I said alot, but now with V8's, more displacement, are more expensive to run than econo cars. Don't throw MPG at me either I am talking about insurence prices and the lot.
Time's change, thats life. If you want that V8 roar today... it will cost you.
" Aint nothin' but a Peanut!"
LiTCaV (The Bright One) wrote:
I said alot, but now with V8's, more displacement, are more expensive to run than econo cars. Don't throw MPG at me either I am talking about insurence prices and the lot.
Time's change, thats life. If you want that V8 roar today... it will cost you.
It would cost me about $10 more a month to drive a GTO than my 02 Z24 as far as insurance is concerned. J cars are expensive to insure because they crumple. From what I understand insurance companies pay out more in medical expense than repair cost on small cars like the J cars.
Quote:
It would cost me about $10 more a month to drive a GTO
Well true, but I am saying that muscle cars, are out of reach to most of all the younger drivers, and with associated costs they become almost a burden to those who can afford them.
Now I mean, you could get an old junker LT1 camaro or similiar V8 with 100k miles on it and get a minimum by law insurnce policy to keep costs down. But how many people want do that with a car?
Take the new camaro, Mustangs ect. Mostly everyone I see driving them are adults, or kids driving there parents cars. There's simply not a huge demand for V8's because of there price and associated costs.
Besides with Boost and forced induction making engines extremely effcient, displacement is not cost effective.
" Aint nothin' but a Peanut!"
If I am going to buy a car that would fit into the "muscle/pony" catagory it needs to have a V8. A base version of one would be ok with a high power 4 or 6 but not the top level.
If it wernt for all the money I have sunk into my 02 I could go out and buy a brand new Camaro when they come out. I would probably spend it on a few year old Duramax though.
Well, that's what I was talking about. Making musclecars somewhat practical. I mean, take the Challenger. It has a huge backseat and trunk, bigger than most sedans. So why couldn't Dodge find a way to make it affordable. I mean, we're living in a more and more individualistic culture yet we drive cars that are borderline taxicabs and station wagons (sedans and SUVs), certainly there's a place for RWD coupes in the world.
I dunno. I would miss their extinction is all I'm saying.
