Why The 2009 Camaro Is Doomed
May 15th, 2008 Posted in Technology
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
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.
Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com
Image Credit: Chevrolet
Other Related Articles
- Will Plug-in Hybrids Save Us From High Gas Prices?
- 300 MPG Or Conspiracy Theory?
- The Best Used Cars For Older Drivers
- Blue Collar Cars — Wall Street Prices
- Is New Technology Creating Bad Drivers?
22 Responses to “Why The 2009 Camaro Is Doomed”
By Nick on May 15, 2008
You are an idiot. Tell us, what do the C and A of CAFE stand for?
The 28 and upcoming 35 mpg CAFE standards are AVERAGES across an entire manufacturer, not minimums that every model must meet, as you state in your article. Why don’t you brush up on fuel economy laws and get back to us.
By steve on May 15, 2008
How in the bloody hell are you an automotive columnist? You are an idiot. CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, and it is not a REQUIREMENT but rather a TARGET for the automakers ENTIRE LINEUP, not just a SINGLE CAR. If automakers do not reach CAFE req’s they will be subject to some sort of fee/tax. Also, if the Camaro LSx is anything like the current or previous gen LSx motors, it will have a very respectable mid to high 20’s of highway mileage with a manual transmission, which should be easily offset by the new MPG oriented Cobalts, G5s, and Astras that GM is churning out. Let’s also not forget that CAFE mpg is calculated differently than EPA (window sticker) mpg, with CAFE being higher. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, by your logic, automakers like Porsche will no longer have a lineup at all! I hope this isn’t your day job.
By Thad on May 15, 2008
The new Camaro is spun of the G8/Commodore platform in exactly the same way the Challenger is spun of the Charger. You need to do a little more research before you post a blog.
By Rusty Shackleford on May 15, 2008
This is why blogs are useless. Misinformation and the idiots that spread it. If you don’t know shit about shit, don’t say shit.
By George on May 15, 2008
No, he is right, but for the wrong reasons.
The CAFE is not based off window stickers (even the newly reduced ones for ‘08 model year), but off the uncorrected numbers.
The loophole for E70-E85 fueled vehicles is likely to be closed before the 35mpg fleet average is implemented.
So, to sell a Camaro in the realities of $5-6 a gallon gasoline, the highest performance Camaro that GM could sell would be a 300hp direct injection 3.6 V6 hybrid model.
But the powers that be haven’t reached a target price of oil at $200 a barrel, and GM is committed to producing the Camaro, so the Camaro will come out.
By Joe Hitchcock on May 15, 2008
How about some thought to a fiberglass hood, trunk, roof, aluminum (too pricey) There is an awful lot of used plastic bottles and aluminum beer cans laying around this country!
I had a lot of fun with my 6 cylinder 65 and 69 Mustang.
By TONY RICH on May 15, 2008
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT KIND OF BREAKTHROUGHS IN TECHNOLGY THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE BETWEEN NOW AND THE YEAR 2020 ALSO TO MY UNDERSTANDING THE V8 VERSION OF THE CAMERO WILL BE ABLE TO SHUT OFF 4 OF ITS CYLINDERS LIKE MY PONTIAC GXP DOES THAT IS WHY I GET 30MPG WITH MY 303HP V8.
By Nick on May 15, 2008
Lol@above. Why am I not surprised that a person who would buy a FWD V8 also does not know how to use the caps lock key. Or spell ‘Camaro’ for that matter.
By camaro1 on May 16, 2008
your so stupid…….i cant believe you still have a job. lol
By George on May 16, 2008
Tony, please, the caps lock.
Also how slowly do you drive & do you use the GM recommended premium fuel in the LS4?
The cylinder shutoff system only works on one set of four cylinders. GM’s their idling system currently is not capable of running on four cylinder indefinitely, i.e. it can not run on the first group four cylinder for 30 seconds & then switch to the other four cylinders for 30 seconds.
In the near term, GM could combine the large bore of the 3.6 V6 (94mm) and utilize the short crankshaft stroke of the 2.8 V6 (74.8mm) resulting in an oversquare 250hp 3.1 liter V6. Chevrolet could couple that to their 6L45 6 speed automatic or TR6060 6 speed manual transmission.
That combination would be fun, but would not rate at an uncorrected 35mpg, so by 2012 a smaller engine would be needed.
By TONY RICH on May 17, 2008
To George first off I apologize for the caps lock I am haveing trouble with my left hand and it frequently rests on the keyboard to answer your question I have tested the gas mileage on the highway at several different speeds at 50 mph I get 26.2 mpg at 68mph I get 28.8 mpg at 72 mph I get 31.3 mpg and then at 75 mph it drops down to 29.7 mph all done with cruise control on and on factory recommended premium fuel so the peak gas mileage with car seems to be at 72 mph and only if you use the cruise control I do not get this kind of gas mileage useing my foot and the city gas mileage was only 17mpg I did manage to bump up the city gas mileage to 19 mpg when I switched to synthetic motor oil in the engine and the average gas mileage between highway and city is around 26mpg I put regular fuel in this car only once it was only $4.00 cheaper to fill the tank and the gas mileage droped from a 26 mpg average to only 19mpg but getting back to the subject of the Camaro GM is looking into combineing this V8 with cylinder deactivation into a hybrid electric drive GM says it will get 32mpg and have 400hp.
By RobG on May 19, 2008
GM will freak out and kill it. OR, worse (and even more typical), they will run it for 1-2 years, then kill it. This is just their nature. The thing is already ugly as sin and is going to weigh over 4000 lbs, so let it die. I loved the 4th gen Camaro, but the new one is 800 lbs heavier and beyond freaking ugly. I hate Fords but the Mustang is the most attractive of the three “muscle cars.” Thanks, I’ll take an AWD Subaru WRX anyway… more practical, better on gas, and HALF the price of what the new Camaro will cost.
By John A. Gonzales on May 19, 2008
I guess I will be restoring and builing street motors with NOS to get what I want but in away I have to say thank you republicans for driving up the price of oil and for sticking you noses in our personal lives yet again. An other republican presidant? yeah right. And by the way. Just my opinion but the new camero like the challenger and the mustangs are retro to the old muscle cars that they were based on. true the new ones are a bit heavier but I am so sick of looking at wedge cars like the 4th gen camero and trans ams that sort of look like a vette that some one stepped on. Every little economy forien car looks just like it.
By Dom on May 21, 2008
Sounds like this guy writes the same article over and over. Here it is 2 years ago about the 07 camaro with different reasons.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008543
By Tim on May 21, 2008
If this guy is so big on facts, he sure missed some big ones:
1. As stated previously by other comments, CAFE is AVERAGE fuel economy. Not every vehicle needs to be above the line. On the grand schema, Camaro is a relatively low volume vehicle, even at the projected 100,000 per year. So even if it’s below the line, it won’t hurt the average much.
2. He thinks the target market for Camaro is the 18-25 year olds. While that may be a significant piece of V6 buyers, it’s not at all true for the V8 buyers. In the 4th Generation (1993-2002), the average Camaro buyer was 41 years old.
3. He thinks it’s impossible for a RWD V8 car to get 30mpg. I drive a 2001 Camaro Z28 that’s modified, and I have some gas receipts he should see. Sure the new one is heavier (mostly due to safety requirements) but it’ll still get respectable gas mileage.
4. Since the Camaro launches in spring 2009, it’s a 2010 model.
5. The 35mpg requirement comes in to effect in 2020, not 2012.
By Eric on May 22, 2008
To make the high gas prices out to be the real monster is just irresponsible. The rest of the work sitll pays another $2 or more for gas, so I would say we shouldn’t be complaining.
Maybe if all of the products we buy we still made in America instead of everywhere else, or we had a crackdown on illegal employment in this country, or our government didn’t subsidize the oil industry with our tax dollars on top of what we pay at the pump, or if we had I better approach to a war that is going to cost multiple times what we were told, we would have a more buying power as a whole and could afford the higher gas prices.
And there is no reason that auto companies can’t produce engines that are alot more fuel efficient, while still producing the same power we are accustomed to. The technology is there, but our auto executives are just too lazy and cheap. They don’t want to lose their high pay whatsoever, even if it means cutting thousands of jobs, and making CHEAP cars.
All of these recent developments could have been, and probably were predicted. We have turned into a country that when faced with a problem, instead of getting to the root of it and solving it the right way, we make knee jerk reactions placing “band-aids” on the problem. We don’t fix it, we put it off onto future generations. Think about our sky rocketing debt to China, who is going to pay that off. Not these current politicians or business executives who make these stupid decisions, but our children and grandchildren.
If you cant afford the gas you need to get to work, think about working closer to where you live or vice versa, think about a bike or public transportation. Just think about the decisions that you make, and don’t just listen to the talking heads, because they are just puppets for the same people that are bankrupting our country.
By CamaroChick on May 26, 2008
I don’t care what crappy gas mileage it gets, there will be one of these parked in my garage if/when GM sells them. Right now I drive a “sensible”, paid off Civic as a commuter car, so a Camaro would be a weekender, fun ride to cruise around in.
By mike o on May 27, 2008
O.K. I’m no dummie but this is how I feel. 1) If people buy it–they’ll make it. 2) Some folks are dedicated to “their” type of car. 3) Alot of people complain of this and that but won’t follow through with their complaints. It’s time for “THE PEOPLE” to stand up and be heard
By Greg on May 28, 2008
Supposedly he’s stating: “No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.”
Well, I’d like to see the sources of these “facts.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t exist.
By Ed on Jun 2, 2008
The retro-styled ‘09 Camaro will sell regardless of gas prices! It is an affordable American sportscar symbol and the $$$ are available to purchase it, even if that means $5+ a gallon for petrol. The Hummer is quite indicative of what I mean. And that tank as well as the swelling SUV line have sold plenty! The consumer just skimps on the other things, but not on status symbols! At least not much…