If you believe GM will build a GEN 7 ICE Camaro, Read This

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by olrocker

I’ve said it before - all the brainiacs working at GM with advanced degrees sitting behind a desk in an ivory tower say the public wants one thing.

Mean while at your corner bar, all the real Americans who bust their butts all day and punch a clock want is an affordable, reliable, uncomplicated gasoline burning car with no unreliable turbos or complicated hybrid systems that get them and their families to where they need and want to go. With no BS. No hassles of charging. No expensive repairs.

In other words, the 3800 V6 or the 350 V8.

That’s all real people want.

My grandfather got 31 MPG in his mid 90's Park Avenue with a 3800 V6.


Emissions be damned! Emissions in US cars havent been a problem for at least 20 years or more. Its money wasted for nearly no returns.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by GreenZLE

If there's one thing I've learned from watching emissions strategies in all these different markets, you can simply add fuel AND catalyst capacity to clean up the pipe.

But then you sacrifice fuel economy and have to re-rack that whole balance. It’s not simple at all. I know when I was at GM there were dozens of people focused on regulatory compliance. And these were super-smart people. They had to maintain spreadsheets and datasets that were so large they couldn’t pass through our email filters.

One of the things all the automakers track is the efficacy and cost for different technologies. They maintained a ranked order of $/change in mpg for each technology and had to make a business case for using one technology over the other based on those calculations, but also considering mass, ability to package it in the vehicle and measure of any detrimental impact the tech would have on fuel economy or performance. Having seen their job I made it a point to NEVER put myself in a position of being in that staff area.

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

But then you sacrifice fuel economy and have to re-rack that whole balance. It’s not simple at all. I know when I was at GM there were dozens of people focused on regulatory compliance. And these were super-smart people. They had to maintain spreadsheets and datasets that were so large they couldn’t pass through our email filters.

One of the things all the automakers track is the efficacy and cost for different technologies. They maintained a ranked order of $/change in mpg for each technology and had to make a business case for using one technology over the other based on those calculations, but also considering mass, ability to package it in the vehicle and measure of any detrimental impact the tech would have on fuel economy or performance. Having seen their job I made it a point to NEVER put myself in a position of being in that staff area.

You sure do! The diesel industry was forced by government mandates to add fuel after combustion to OTR Trucks which cost 1MPG on a vehicle that gets maybe 8MPG ITFP. If CO2 is a pollutant, how is adding 13% more a solution when at the time this was implemented, we already reduced diesel "pollutants" 90%?


I'd say its not a problem.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by GreenZLE

My grandfather got 31 MPG in his mid 90's Park Avenue with a 3800 V6.


Emissions be damned! Emissions in US cars havent been a problem for at least 20 years or more. Its money wasted for nearly no returns.

Exactly.

No one can give a reasonable answer as to why the 3800 was retired in the first place - and fuel economy or emissions aren’t reasonably ok e when modern cars aren’t any better in real life driving. You pair a modern 6-9 speed automatic to it and you’ll have every bit the same performance or better that with these tiny turbo 4s with the same fuel economy.

Only exponentially better reliability, and much cheaper to repair when it does break.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by GreenZLE

You sure do! The diesel industry was forced by government mandates to add fuel after combustion to OTR Trucks which cost 1MPG on a vehicle that gets maybe 8MPG ITFP. If CO2 is a pollutant, how is adding 13% more a solution when at the time this was implemented, we already reduced diesel "pollutants" 90%?


I'd say its not a problem.

CP pumps, DEF, and all the other emission controls on diesels have combined to ruin what were the two main attributes of a diesel engine (besides massive low-end torque): simplicity and low maintenance.

Now anyone with a diesel made in the last 15 years will tell you it’s more finicky than an LA housewife and will bankrupt you if an emission component fails.

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by olrocker

CP pumps, DEF, and all the other emission controls on diesels have combined to ruin what were the two main attributes of a diesel engine (besides massive low-end torque): simplicity and low maintenance.

Now anyone with a diesel made in the last 15 years will tell you it’s more finicky than an LA housewife and will bankrupt you if an emission component fails.

When I was a mechanic in a diesel shop, I couldnt believe how much of our business was DOC cleaning and replacement. After the 2012 standards went into effect, independent truckers with new trucks were real mad about their fuel costs and maintenance. It wasnt like their pay went up 10% to 15% to cover their additional expenses. Repeat when they added SCR catalysts which use DEF.



Looking at a chart covering emissions on gas and diesel engines over the last 15 years, It isnt worth what was gained and it gained it at the cost of even more CO2, which is what they say is the problem now! What a joke!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Exactly.

No one can give a reasonable answer as to why the 3800 was retired in the first place - and fuel economy or emissions aren’t reasonably ok e when modern cars aren’t any better in real life driving. You pair a modern 6-9 speed automatic to it and you’ll have every bit the same performance or better that with these tiny turbo 4s with the same fuel economy.

Only exponentially better reliability, and much cheaper to repair when it does break.

Packaging. The 3800 was intended to be installed longitudinal. It is a 90-degree (bank angle) V6. When you turn it transverse, the banks are front and rear and result in a longer than desired hood. As crash regulations became more challenging, the packaging of a 90 degree V6 became more challenging. The 3.5 and 3.9L engines that eventually replaced it in most GM FWD vehicles are a 60-degree design. It can be installed transversely without having to extend the hood and deal with increasingly stringent crash regulations. Emissions was also beginning to be a problem that was better managed by the High Value V6 (3.5 & 3.9L).

For the record you got that info from the person who was responsible for taking the 3800 out of production while maintaining serviceability.

Feeble attempt to get back on topic:
Given that Mark Reuss has said that there will be another Camaro, though electric…and
Given that since that time GM has decided to revive hybrid and/or plug0in hybrid offerings…and
Given the information I received from an unknown source that there are clay models with “Camaro design theme”, 1 with tailpipes and 1 without…and
Given the performance of the ERay, getting extra traction from the electric motor in a hybrid set-up, making the Eray as quick in the 1/4 as a Z06

I think it’s logical to believe that a Camaro based on an electric platform with a small displacement ICE is a very real possibility. An unaided ICE very much less so.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Packaging. The 3800 was intended to be installed longitudinal. It is a 90-degree (bank angle) V6. When you turn it transverse, the banks are front and rear and result in a longer than desired hood. As crash regulations became more challenging, the packaging of a 90 degree V6 became more challenging. The 3.5 and 3.9L engines that eventually replaced it in most GM FWD vehicles are a 60-degree design. It can be installed transversely without having to extend the hood and deal with increasingly stringent crash regulations. Emissions was also beginning to be a problem that was better managed by the High Value V6 (3.5 & 3.9L).

For the record you got that info from the person who was responsible for taking the 3800 out of production while maintaining serviceability.
.

Well we all know who to blame now.

For 30 years it worked perfectly in a transverse application. I’d like to see a real life comparison in a head on collision between a 2007 Buick Lucerne and a 2015 Chevy Impala. Same chassis. One with the 3800, one with the 3.6.

I seriously doubt either has any advantage.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by GreenZLE

When I was a mechanic in a diesel shop, I couldnt believe how much of our business was DOC cleaning and replacement

What a brilliant idea it was by our wonderful gub’ment to force diesel exhaust to be recycled back into the intake.

Nothing could possibly go wrong.

[shaffe]

The 3800 was an incredible engine. Those things would run forever, got great mileage even when hooked up to a 4 speed slushbox. Buddy had one in his pontiac and he beat the ever living hell out of that car. Ran like a champ.

[Aqua Blue RS/SS]

Originally Posted by GreenZLE

When I was a mechanic in a diesel shop, I couldnt believe how much of our business was DOC cleaning and replacement. After the 2012 standards went into effect, independent truckers with new trucks were real mad about their fuel costs and maintenance. It wasnt like their pay went up 10% to 15% to cover their additional expenses. Repeat when they added SCR catalysts which use DEF.



Looking at a chart covering emissions on gas and diesel engines over the last 15 years, It isnt worth what was gained and it gained it at the cost of even more CO2, which is what they say is the problem now! What a joke!

Don’t forget about the other part of all that… before all the dpf bs and horse piss, in the late 90’s, thru mid 2000’s the diesels of all of the big three us manufacturers of the day were capable in most configurations of getting in the 25-30 mpg range empty. Now we can barely get 12-15 but we are doing it with “clean” tail pipe emissions. What a joke. I’m not a mathematician but it seems if we are cutting fuel mileage in half with all the BS, than in the long run we are still very likely producing pretty close to or even more than the same emissions as we were before all this crap, and all at the cost of double the fuel, def, reliability/dependability and maintenance expenses.

I don’t even really care about the 7th Gen Camaro honestly. If it is electric or plug in hybrid, has more than 2 doors, and isn’t a coupe, I don’t want it, and won’t buy it.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by shaffe

The 3800 was an incredible engine. Those things would run forever, got great mileage even when hooked up to a 4 speed slushbox. Buddy had one in his pontiac and he beat the ever living hell out of that car. Ran like a champ.

When GM upgraded the 231 with balance shafts and multiport fuel injection in ‘88, it became one of the absolute best motors ever produced by any car company in the world. Smooth running, very torquey at low-mid RPMs, and rock solid reliable. By the mid-1990s it was standard or optional in pretty much every mid and full sized car from every GM division except Cadillac

The only real shortcoming of that engine is that power wheezed out quickly above 3500 RPM. But If you replaced the old 4 speed trans with a modern 6 or 9 speed to keep it in the power band better, it would be fantastic today.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Aqua Blue RS/SS

Don’t forget about the other part of all that… before all the dpf bs and horse piss, in the late 90’s, thru mid 2000’s the diesels of all of the big three us manufacturers of the day were capable in most configurations of getting in the 25-30 mpg range empty. Now we can barely get 12-15 but we are doing it with “clean” tail pipe emissions. What a joke. I’m not a mathematician but it seems if we are cutting fuel mileage in half with all the BS, than in the long run we are still very likely producing pretty close to or even more than the same emissions as we were before all this crap, and all at the cost of double the fuel, def, reliability/dependability and maintenance expenses.

I don’t even really care about the 7th Gen Camaro honestly. If it is electric or plug in hybrid, has more than 2 doors, and isn’t a coupe, I don’t want it, and won’t buy it.

FWIW, a similar scenario occurred when the first California emissions and smog checks were put in place during the late 60s and 70s. It didn't matter how lousy or poorly your car ran from horrible smog equipment or smog "tuning" adjustments from a mandatory smog check.

Hot rodders could prove their cars ran better, produced less emissions and got better mileage without any of the smog equipment....Didn't matter, too bad for everyone. Any common sense all fell on the state's deaf ears. Get your stupid smog check, then fix it back to common sense after you got your smog sticker. Sometimes it wasn't worth the hassle. I got rid of several cars just to avoid the smog-check bs.

Oh well, so much for the good old days...lol...You're whipping a dead horse if you think the state will realize any common sense at this point. Whatever it takes to eliminate fossil fuels and ICE will be employed in some manner over the near future.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Well we all know who to blame now.

For 30 years it worked perfectly in a transverse application. I’d like to see a real life comparison in a head on collision between a 2007 Buick Lucerne and a 2015 Chevy Impala. Same chassis. One with the 3800, one with the 3.6.

I seriously doubt either has any advantage.

You realize the 2007 Lucerne was a G-Body and 2015 Impala Epsilon II?

Not the same chassis......