Automobile Magazine test
03-22-2009, 05:17 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
03-22-2009, 09:34 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
This has been my major concern (besides along with the weight, which clearly isn't ideal but is not stopping it from hauling) since I sat in a mule a while back. I'm a long-torso 6'2", so I'm at the high end of the spectrum, but the car *feels* more closed off than my 4th gen because of the way too tall beltline and the tall dash/cowl height. This despite being an inch or two taller than the 4th gen.
I'm thinking that it would be a difficult car to autocross.
03-23-2009, 02:01 AM
#19
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
No thanks. I'd rather drive my Camaro all winter.
03-23-2009, 02:05 AM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
This has been my major concern (besides along with the weight, which clearly isn't ideal but is not stopping it from hauling) since I sat in a mule a while back. I'm a long-torso 6'2", so I'm at the high end of the spectrum, but the car *feels* more closed off than my 4th gen because of the way too tall beltline and the tall dash/cowl height. This despite being an inch or two taller than the 4th gen.
94LightningGal in the Future Vehicles Forum once mentioned that she thought GM may relive the past by making the new Camaro too performance focused at the expense of daily usability and friendliness (much like the very performance-focused 4th gens vs. the Mustang). I disagreed with her somewhat, because the car will have a bigger trunk and back seat than the Mustang (I think that is true), plus with IRS and better interior packaging (e.g. no catalytic converter hump), it should do OK attracting casual drivers. The excellent V6 fuel economy will help too. BUT, the stylists went too far in form over function when it comes to the tank slit windows, and I fear the closed in feeling, despite the actual roominess of the interior, may scare some off. I've been pissed about this styling trend since the Chrysler LX cars really emphasized it, and I am not happy seeing it on the Camaro. Some may be attributed to rollover / crash protection and roof strength, I guess, such as the thick A-pillars and the upper "door frame" area. But the beltline / bottoms of the side glass could easily be dropped an inch or two and the car would look better.
94LightningGal in the Future Vehicles Forum once mentioned that she thought GM may relive the past by making the new Camaro too performance focused at the expense of daily usability and friendliness (much like the very performance-focused 4th gens vs. the Mustang). I disagreed with her somewhat, because the car will have a bigger trunk and back seat than the Mustang (I think that is true), plus with IRS and better interior packaging (e.g. no catalytic converter hump), it should do OK attracting casual drivers. The excellent V6 fuel economy will help too. BUT, the stylists went too far in form over function when it comes to the tank slit windows, and I fear the closed in feeling, despite the actual roominess of the interior, may scare some off. I've been pissed about this styling trend since the Chrysler LX cars really emphasized it, and I am not happy seeing it on the Camaro. Some may be attributed to rollover / crash protection and roof strength, I guess, such as the thick A-pillars and the upper "door frame" area. But the beltline / bottoms of the side glass could easily be dropped an inch or two and the car would look better.
However, after driving a Dodge Charger today, and I feel that I could get used to it. But of course, I'd rather not have to "get used to it".
03-23-2009, 02:07 AM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
The G8 has a lower beltline than the Camaro, so I don't think you can blame this on Zeta.
03-23-2009, 09:57 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
03-23-2009, 11:13 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
The Sigma has a high fixed cowl via it's high (as Pacer corrrected me once when I called it a "firewall" in that same thread) thermal event separator that along with cost help remove it from consideration from being the platform for the 5th gen.
FWIW:
Everyone, the REAL reason for things like thick "A" pillars and high beltline:
1. The thick A pillars are meant to meet any potential future regulations that may require "A" pillar airbags to be mandatory.
2. The high beltline is GM being loyal to the original styling of the concept Camaro, which had largely a choptop roofline. It was raised (and thereby visually dropping the beltline slightly) for easier entry/egress, visability, and seating position.
So potential future regulations and public demand crafted that apparently controversial interior feel, not a scheme by GM, chassis limitations, or whatever else.
I drive with my 4th gen seat almost all the way up to avoid the sitting-in-a-bathtub feeling, and the Mustang fees the same way. The Challenger interior in black feels equally like a cave.
This is a non issue, IMHO.
03-23-2009, 11:26 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 3,650
Zeta doesn't have a "cowl". Many people here including PacerX have mentioned it, and I think I posted the Commodore's inner structure once that also indicated that.
The Sigma has a high fixed cowl via it's high (as Pacer corrrected me once when I called it a "firewall" in that same thread) thermal event separator that along with cost help remove it from consideration from being the platform for the 5th gen.
FWIW:
Everyone, the REAL reason for things like thick "A" pillars and high beltline:
1. The thick A pillars are meant to meet any potential future regulations that may require "A" pillar airbags to be mandatory.
2. The high beltline is GM being loyal to the original styling of the concept Camaro, which had largely a choptop roofline. It was raised (and thereby visually dropping the beltline slightly) for easier entry/egress, visability, and seating position.
So potential future regulations and public demand crafted that apparently controversial interior feel, not a scheme by GM, chassis limitations, or whatever else.
I drive with my 4th gen seat almost all the way up to avoid the sitting-in-a-bathtub feeling, and the Mustang fees the same way. The Challenger interior in black feels equally like a cave.
This is a non issue, IMHO.
The Sigma has a high fixed cowl via it's high (as Pacer corrrected me once when I called it a "firewall" in that same thread) thermal event separator that along with cost help remove it from consideration from being the platform for the 5th gen.
FWIW:
Everyone, the REAL reason for things like thick "A" pillars and high beltline:
1. The thick A pillars are meant to meet any potential future regulations that may require "A" pillar airbags to be mandatory.
2. The high beltline is GM being loyal to the original styling of the concept Camaro, which had largely a choptop roofline. It was raised (and thereby visually dropping the beltline slightly) for easier entry/egress, visability, and seating position.
So potential future regulations and public demand crafted that apparently controversial interior feel, not a scheme by GM, chassis limitations, or whatever else.
I drive with my 4th gen seat almost all the way up to avoid the sitting-in-a-bathtub feeling, and the Mustang fees the same way. The Challenger interior in black feels equally like a cave.
This is a non issue, IMHO.
It may or may not be a "non-issue" for the buying public (obviously people buy lots of Chrysler LX cars that have similar issues). But it is an issue for me and Charlie, apparently. And it has been mentioned in every road test / review of the car that I've read so far.
In my personal opinion, the height of the roofline itself is fine. 54" is plenty tall enough for a coupe. Cars are taller these days in general. The 4th gen was about 51.5-52" high. My problem is that beltline is too high. The Volt has the same problem, which they disguise by painting the doors black in the area immediately beneath the windows.
The aggressive looks of the 5th gen could have been preserved while still giving us an extra inch or two of window height (cutting the windows farther down into the doors, even with or slightly below where the mirrors sit).
Like I said, I love the looks and hope they sell a zillion of them. I just feel it would have looked even better and been more functional if they'd made the glass a little more generous.
03-23-2009, 11:42 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Heck all I see is the cowl scoop staring me in the face anyway.
03-23-2009, 11:57 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Visibilty is FAR better in a 1st gen. I agree that you get a similar view of looking over the cowl and hoodscoop on a 1st gen, but the thicker A-pillars and shorter windshield on the 5th gen really sort of close in on you.