Chazman

Disagree there slightly. The structural components used to support the engine will vary in size depending on the size of the engine. Since the size is directly proportional to the mass of the vehicle, increasing engine size means increasing structural components' mass to carry the load while maintaining the same structural stiffness. Most of these components are high strength steel alloys, which add a lot of weight. So for a hypothetical example, if a 3" diameter torsion bar is selected for a 8 cylinder engine member support, for a 4 cylinder engine, the same job can be done by a 2.1" diameter member, assuming the the 4-cylinder weighs exactly half of the 8-cylinder engine. That is almost 30% weight saving. What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8? Yes, they will be needed to modified to control the additional weight transfer more than gaining clearance. I know weight tranfer was a concern when Alpha was modified to accept a HFV6.

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

I still don't know exactly what his new job title entails.

Yeah, I hear ya. But the 5th gen would have been on Zeta even without BK. There just wasn't the political will to create an appropriate architecture at the time - no money either. What GM has created here, is not a pony car with mass appeal, it's one which only targets the Camaro faithful - and not even all of them. Sure, it's initial sales volume was good, but it also required an 8 year hiatus and 18 month model year to hit 100K units. It's sales volume has recently decreased dramatically. I applaud GM for it's expressive sheetmetal, but I see the market for a 4000 pound pony car with poor visibility fairly limited now that the pent up demand appears met. GM really needs to quicken it's step on the 6th gen, I really don't see the sales picture looking pretty for the 5th gen, post 2014.

Yeah, that's what we said about the 5th gen too.

Actually, more than 3 cars. But not the CTS-V, it'll be getting something else.

It will be called LT1 and be shared with the C7 Corvette.

I wouldn't be surprised if a version of e-Assist makes it into the base car.

MY 2016 is what we're hearing. Wish they could move it up, the next gen Mustang is 2014. BTW, in case you guys didn't know, I'm the one who wrote that as a follow up to a larger piece. Give us a hint!

6th gen styling is a complete mystery right now. I'm working on it.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f144/sixth-gen-camaro-story-fallout-99614/

Other than the requirement for 91 octane, I'd like to see GM improve the 3.6 across the board in this way. I find the 3.6 in my CTS to be a coarse, noisy unit, without much eagerness to rev. While it was under warranty, I did complain about it and the dealer found a TSB on the "vibration issue" and updated some software into the ECM. No difference which I could tell.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is the GEN V will have production displacements of 5.3 and 6.2L. The 5.5 is a destroked 6.2 and that displacement is NOT intended for the production Gen V.

Where do you see 5.5L? So far GenV displacements are 5.3 and 6.2. 5.5L is for Corvette racing rules.

Hey, I like the way you think! The 5.5L is race only - no production intent. You'll have to do with 6.2L.