an old friend of mine who was a chevy fanatic asked me this while i was sitting on the passenger side of his 420 hp 5.0 mustang: "how did chevy go from big block chevys and 350 killer crates motors to supercharged v6 and FWD's? "
sadly i couldnt find an answer because deep down inside i knew that chevy let us down over the years, besides the corvettes and new camaros which i dont have the money for. anyway how do you guys feel about this though?

p.s. im mostly reffering to performance more than looks or anything else.

 

They built what people needed. Look at ford. Theyre v6s have all had 200 hp until this year, and they were all crap. The mustang had a v8, so did the ford gt, but thats about it. Chevy had the camaro till died out but kept the corvette. Besides, most mustangs sold were v6's.

 

you know how ford still had the mustang out when it was doing the styling of it over the years. chevy did the same for the comaro and the firebird when they stoped making them for awhile then the car that braught people in wernt coming till the comaro came out and the firebird didnt in 2010. if they were still being made like ford with the mustang. they would still be in the green as in not being hurt in any way needing our help. they had a vehicle that braught people in with the camaro and the firebird. it is my opinion it hurt them badly they could be doing great but it will take time. to come back to where they will be in the running with ford again i like chevy cars but it seems like most of chevy cars will break when turning on the ac. there needs to be a beater quality controll for there lower priced cars like the higher priced cars have to make them be on top of there game again. pergo there afeleat that they made is trying to make them do a beter quality controll on the interior as well as better performing great gas milege cars. look at ford and mazda 90% of the mid sized cars from ford are ford and mazda design look at the mazda 6 and the ford fusion and the ford taurus all three have the same quality controll look at the ford escape and the mazda tribute they share every thing same as the ford ranger and the explorer and the mazda b series trucks they have high quality controll. in my opinion the lower caust gm cars lack but needs it and needs to be changed but i would like to get the chevy colorado but it is the izuzu hombre and it leaves me a little dissatisfied. i wish that they still had the s-10 a full chevy mid truck. i miss them and wish that quality was back again i miss saying that i am proud to be a dual owner of two quality of vehicles like ford and chevy. i miss saying chevy first than ford but my monte left me stranded in orlando 42 miles from home with the chevy being 3 years old

 

hay enzo there 4 v6 ford engins that rated from 200 to 240hp and the fourth is the i6 witch is still rated at 300hp. i use to work for a mazda ford chevy dealer ship till 2008 i know ford and mazda rating majority of ford cars from 1995 including the ranger used mazda engins rating at 235-245 hp rating

 

well what hapened to the sport truck line? ya kno rare GMC Syclone,,,that coudl eat a corvette fro breakfast and eat a stang for a snack?

and the fullsize 454SS? we have on its a 1500 with sport suspension posi rear and a 454 bbc from factory,,,yet sadly WTF GM only rated it at i think under 300hp,,,, thats horible isnt it?

but dont get my wrong that truck moveessss



and HONESTLY i think the new montes should be RWD even if they r V6, just as my Z seems as its ment to b a RWD car

 

Hate on a supercharged FWD V6 all you like, but they were practical cars that could move. Ford had nothing to compete with the Monte Carlo/Grand Prix GTP. Sure there was the Thunderbird, which Ford also made in a Supercharged V6, although it was RWD. They discontinued the T-bird in 1997, the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix lived on.

The only reason they stopped making the Camaro is because the Mustang outsold it. The Camaro outperformed the Mustang in every way, handling, acceleration, MPG. The Mustang V6 was just a more practical every day car, it was bigger, more stylish, and cheaper. Still, the V6 Camaro would outperform the V6 Mustang.

 

well im glad they brought the camaro back...but they f*cked up the front end and the tail lights imo,,,,, its based off a 69 but i think they culda done alot better with the grill and the tails....with sum tweeks id love it


personaly im not a dodge fan but i think they did beter on the throwback Challenger then Chevy did with the camaro

 

all im saying is, give us a killer v8 that more than sits and looks pretty. hell let it be a gas guzzler, as long as its like a remodeled monte or chevelle. something mean, fierce, and carries a sleeper motor. lol im sorry for being a dreamer, im just not used to gas saving v6's and fwd

 

The same as every other manufacturer did. Its not just chevy that went from big old V8 cars to newer, smaller FWD cars with only a sprinkling of rwd V8 cars- Ford, Chrysler, and all the others did the exact same thing.

The problem is, the masses don't want a RWD V8 muscle car anymore (and they haven't for awhile)- they want fuel economy and cheaper cars. Given equal technology, you get better fuel economy with a smaller engine, and a smaller lighter car. The smaller engines make less power, and have fewer components- and require less strength in the chassis and others parts of the drivetrain which make the overall car cheaper. Not to mention, given current technology, it no longer takes massive cubic inches to make the kind of power reliably.

You also have to realize that it wasn't Chevy's decision to cut the big cubic inch V8's- it was the public's (both in the cars they started buying once fuel became scarce; and in who they voted into government that decided to increase emission standards and fuel economy). They really had no choice- they had to improve technology to increase gas mileage (and in the short term, they had to cut power output and engine size to make to cutoffs until they could develop the technology). Overall, I think it was for the better- we now have engines putting out just as much as the old ones, but with lower emissions and far better fuel economy; and at the same time not needing any maintenance for 100k miles.

But as I said before- every manufacturer has trended towards the same kind of lineup Chevy has as far as a split between RWD performance and 'normal' commuter cars. Take a look at Ford's current lineup for example:

-Fiesta, FWD
-Focus, FWD
-Fusion, FWD
-Taurus, FWD (AWD optional)
-Mustang, RWD

So you have the same lineup as Chevy- mostly FWD 4 cylinder commuter cars; and a single RWD car that can get a V8 for the more performance oriented people. Sure you could argue that Dodge has a very RWD/performance oriented lineup- but they're just as broke as GM, so obviously their business model isn't working out that well either. The companies that are doing well have the bulk of their car market in smaller, fuel efficient, FWD 4 cylinder cars because that is what sells.

Chevy let us down as far as what? After the great 60's, power output tanked because of public demand for fuel efficiency and government demand for lower emissions. You can't have lower emissions, more fuel economy, and more power without developing new technology- and that takes time. That's why we had years of cars with terrible performance in the 70's and 80's.

I'll admit, GM as a whole let consumers down quite a bit in making inferior quality products for awhile- but before foreign automakers began selling their products here; people had nothing to compare the quality to. GM took too long to react to the higher standard of quality of a globalized marketplace- and they've paid the price- they almost went out of business (I attribute this both to lost market share, and to poor financial responsibility).

Unfortunately, that also fits under the financial responsibility category. The car prices are partly so high because their wages and benefits were so high. American union workers kept pushing for higher wages, and more benefits- and now the company is shelling out tons of money to maintain this system- money that the foreign manufacturers didn't have to spend.

I also think this is a problem with them not being ready for a globalized market and open competition (which is not just a problem in the auto industry)- American workers want more money, and more benefits- and these costs have to be made up somewhere; and since their only product is automobiles- the cost gets tacked directly onto your sticker price.

They can't afford to make cheaper performance cars because performance vehicles cost more money to design and more money to build- and the market is so small for them, that you don't have production on the scale that you do with your daily commuting vehicles.

That's not to say you can't buy a GM car and have a RWD V8 for a reasonable price; you just have to go to the used market. You have used C5 Corvettes, up to '02 Camaros, Firebirds, and Trans Ams; CTS-V's and STS-V's, and used GTO's and G8s- any of which could be had for under the $31k sticker of a brand new Camaro V8; and also arguably many more options than you would have if you went with Ford (since their only recent RWD V8 options were the Mustang and GT).

The other thing you have to think about is that many new FWD and AWD vehicles- including 4 and 6 cylinders perform equally well if not better than the old V8 muscle cars of the 60's. Its hard to compare the the supercharged V6's since those are an outdated design anyways (with roots back to the muscle car era)- but try comparing the big old V8's to some of the smaller modern engines- especially the direct injection ones; like the 300 hp V6's, and boosted 4 cylinders like in the EVO and such (also keep in mind that you can't directly compare power ratings since the old muscle cars were not power rated with all the accessories on).

Realistically, its the same principle- it costs a lot of money to make a performance version, and they don't sell in big numbers like your base model does. There are modern options that are at least somewhat equivalent to the Sy/Ty:

Typhoon- 280 hp 360 lb ft AWD- price about $30k

Lets adjust that price to 2009:

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?use[]=DOLLAR&use[]=GDPDEFLATION&use[]=VCB&use[]=UNSKILLED&use[]=MANCOMP&use[]=NOMGDPCP&use[]=NOMINALGDP&year_source=1993&amount=30000&year_res ult=2010

That puts it about $45k in 2009 money using CPI (could be higher or lower depending which calculating method you use); but CPI is pretty standard.

04-09 Cadillac SRX offered in RWD or AWD w/ a 320 hp / 315 lb ft torque V8 for a base price around $45k

10+ Cadillac SRX with AWD a turbo V6 with 300 hp / 295 lb ft starting about $50k (granted that's more than the Ty for a slower vehicle, but this thing is also way more optioned out

06-09 Trailblazer SS offered in RWD or AWD with a 395 hp / 400 lb ft V8 starting around $40k (supposed to run a 13.5 @ 100 compared to the 14.1 @ 95 for the Ty)


Compared to the Syclone in the modern day from GM

09+ Silverado LTZ w/ RWD or 4WD and a 403 hp 417 lb ft V8 engine starting about $36k

09+ Colorado 3LT w/ a 300 hp 320 lb ft V8 starting at $27k

03 Silverado SS had a 345 hp 380 lb ft V8

that's not even getting into the diesel stuff. Granted none of these are mini trucks, but it still shows you can get something with decent power and performance for the same money or less- the Sy/Ty's were pretty expensive for their time- its not like they were some sort of common/cheap option you could buy.


I think its because the big block chevy hadn't been used in a performance application in years- it was geared towards low horsepower, broad torque applications (RV's, trucks, etc). They didn't have the performance options available to them that the people who designed the 70 Chevelle did- they had to work with modified versions of the new heavily emission restricted parts, and the late 80's/early 90's weren't exactly known for high performance vehicles anyways- they were still improving technology at that point to make the new restriction goals and to still make power.

FWIW, I believe the 454SS trucks were rated at 230 hp and 385 lb ft of torque with an old 3 speed trans- the turbo 400 (although I think the latter ones got a 4 speed at least)- so I imagine that thing wasn't putting out squat for power to the rear wheels through that massive trans and all the drivetrain, not to mention the big weight of the truck. I have a buddy with a 454 Chevy pickup of the same time frame that he uses for plowing, and that thing is an absolute turd- I imagine the 454 SS's weren't much better, even with a steeper rear end.

Would you be willing to pay even more money for them; and what platform would you build them on? That's the problem, in the late 90's, early 00's- chevy couldn't just slap the monte on the Fbody platform and make it a direct competitor to the camaro- the camaro was selling bad enough as it was; and with the monte having slightly more luxury oriented features, it would probably cost as much if not more than the camaro. Even now, I think it would be a bad idea to bring back the monte on the new camaro platform- they'd just be stealing market share from themselves. They just dumped a bunch of companies so they could have less overlapping product, and less internal competition- I think they need to focus on making 1 solid car to compete in each class rather than a bunch of half-effort cars with overlapping markets.

I looked through the current GM platforms, and could only find 3 that were RWD (obviously they can't currently afford to build a new platform from scratch right now).

There is the Zeta platform which the Camaro is built on- but that goes back to what I said before- you don't really want 1 brand selling 2 cars that are both on the same platform, both being 2 doors because where is the difference? Obviously the camaro would have the higher performance engines; but it would be too hard to make another profitable car on the same platform when they're having a hard enough time with one (especially once the new car popularity wears off).

There is the Y platform which the corvette is on, which obviously isn't going to happen.

Then there is the sigma platform which used to house the CTS, STS, and SRX platforms- but now has been enlarged and is used just for the new CTS. I suppose you could use this platform, but you'd still have to find a way to differentiate it from the camaro to gain new market share- and not just have another 2 door RWD coupe. Not to mention, since this has been a Cadillac only platform- I'd imagine that you couldn't just reskin it because you're starting with an expensive car- base price for a CTS is $35k now going up to $70k for a fully optioned out CTSV; even if you cut out a lot of the luxury items- you could still end up with a car that starts a good bit higher than the camaro, even with a V6.

 

I won't go into detail since others already have. But I think GM fell into the trap of trying to please the people who were looking for fuel efficient cars to get them from point A to point B.

GM started watering down the performance in their cars back in the early 80's. New models got more fuel efficient and less power. Wasn't until the mid 2000's GM finally put some performance back into their vehicles. Only because they were losing customers to other brands who had already beat GM to it years earlier.