A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!

Before I even start, I want to say up front I got this idea from "Evok" over at cheersandgears.com (http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14407&st=0).

"Evok" is a knowledgeable industry person & not one who is prone to flights of fancy or a "GM-should-make-a-top-notch-Camaro-regardless-as-to-it's-cost" shrew. That adds, IMHO, great amount of credibility and more importantly, reality and practicality to his proposal.

Although, both this & C&G share alot of the same members, I feel that an idea like this should be posted here as well, since this is a site about the car in question.

He starts off by taking into account that GM has it's back against the wall financially, and CEO Rick Wagoner has all but dictated that future vehicles come off of existing parts and chassis for the immediate future. He also realistically points out a ground up effort for a new chassis would take far more time than GM has.

He then points out verious parts GM can use that are already in existence.

On item that's bound to generate controversy here is his reccomendation that this Camaro uses a live axle. He later in the thread points out that the IRS components for the Omega chassis (known as the GTO & Catera here) would drive cost up (therefore profit margin and enticement for GM to actually produce it down).

Another area that's bound to generate controversy is that he proposes to build it at GM's Ramoz, Mexico plant, current home to such soon to be discontinued vehicles as the Pontiac Aztek. Again, a move that would also increase GM's profit margin on the car and make it more appealing to those that have to be sold on the idea.

The Zeta Answer!
Many here have been shocked by the sudden public announcement that zeta rwd cars will not be coming to North America. In the announcement GM stated that a business case could not be made for the zeta cars to compete successfully with the DaimlerChrysler LX cars and the Ford Mustang. For many the real loss meant that the return of the Camaro was not to be.

For a week now, message boards such as C&G have been clamoring in anger and disgust at GM’s decision not to bring the zeta cars to market. The press has not been to kind either for different reasons of course.

GM as we know has it’s back up against the wall. They must stop the slide in market share erosion and bring back some enthusiasm back to the company. GM also must show to pundits, industry analyst and financial markets that they are serious about turning the company around. Bob Lutz must execute a vehicle program that will grow market share, satisfy the enthusiasts fast and cheap. Bob Lutz it is time that you step up to the plate with a vehicle program that will stir up the passion and excitement that many have expected from GM. Bob this time around the business case has already been shown to work and I suggest you copy it to the ‘T’. You just have to look to your friends in Dearborn.

GM does not have the resources to devote a new RWD platform such as what was used for the Holden Torana. It would take a lead time to design and develop that GM does not have. The market for such a platform also would impinge on the current Epsilon architecture for the foreseeable future especially when AWD goes on line. The theme here is to grow market share and save cost; forget Torana and let’s go to the parts bin. Remember Bob, GM needs to be fast and lean.

Body Structure:
Start with sigma wide and cut the wheelbase to 113in. Trim the overhangs and make the vehicle 188in OAL. Be sure to take out all the fluff that adds cost for NVH Cadillac reasons. Not needed for this application. The quiet steel and foam have to go.

Structure is already validated and FMVSS compliant.

Electrical Architecture:
Carryover Zeta

Steering:
Carryover base CTS

Front Suspension:
Simple McPherson strut set up to save cost.

Rear Suspension:
Rear live axle from the SSR. It already is validated to the 6.0l V8

Seats:
Carryover Epsilon Structure

Transmission:
Carryover GTO auto and manual

Powertrain:
Base engine 3.6l V6 carryover
Uplevel engine 400hp 6.0l V8 carryover

Manufacturing Plant:
Ramoz, Mexico

Base MSRP:
$19,995

Body Style:
2 Door Coupe

Marketing Division:
Chevrolet

Model:
Camaro

Bob this is Beta. Rick wants you to go to the parts bin anyway and plus it is one of your line items on your performance review. I think you could sell 100k/year and get it to market it 30 months. Ford did just that with the 2005 Mustang. They took the DEW98 platform and cut all the cost out of it. There you go Bob, now just style the hell out of it.

This is about fast, cheap and potential for excitment. What I wrote was just that. Granted it was over simplified but it gets to where GM needs to be. Think about the potential of what I wrote about. How about a year later or two later with a follow up with the version of the 1999 Chevy Nomad concept to compete head to head with the dodge Magnum using a modified version of the same concept. Between the Nomad and the proposed Camaro ther is a potential of 200k to 250k vehicles. That is a 1 1/2 increase in market share without giving cars away. Sounds like a winner to me.

The old Omega platform is too expensive to do what it needs to do. Look at where the Catera and GTO are priced.

Sounds very interesting. Can the weight be kept down? If GM were to do this, and unless they are already working on something (one would thing SOMETHING would have leaked out about it), then its still MY08 at least - right?

Thanks for posting - and no lines to read between. :)

cutting out the quiet steel, that can be found on a 15k Cobalt and a 20k Malibu, is a bad move unless you plan to carry over the 4th gens interior as well.
Parts bin Camaro huh? Live axle made for a truck chassis? Well, I see that adding the truck live axle to the rear of Sigma, that is designed for SLA IRS, as a cost-adder then subtractor.

This seems like a last ditch, ubercheap effort to just get some sort of 2dr coupe here. I dont want some botched Camaro placeholder till GM rolls in some money.
And I would be very upset if I saw a live axle under Camaro. Camaro shouldnt go down to Mustang's level, it should continue to stay ahead of Mustang in performance.

:D :thumb: Now lets see if something like this will happen....I think it will. :)

while this might please bean-counters (whose significance at gm grows more each day) this doesn't necessarily make for a good car
me personally, i don't really have a problem with it as long as the camaro can be better than the last
but i know there's a lot more people who would care about quiet steel and foam, and other misc. points
the only way i can see this working is if it still holds the performance of the last f-body as is undeniably attractive
jmho, but i'm keeping the faith :)

Rear Suspension:
Rear live axle from the SSR. It already is validated to the 6.0l V8

Transmission:
Carryover GTO auto and manual

Powertrain:
Base engine 3.6l V6 carryover
Uplevel engine 400hp 6.0l V8 carryover

Manufacturing Plant:
Ramoz, Mexico

Base MSRP:
$19,995

Body Style:
2 Door Coupe

Marketing Division:
Chevrolet

Model:
Camaro

:D

GM has to remember to keep the Z/28,SS model affordable, similar to the pricing of the Mustang GT.

Am I the only one that remembers that Camaro needed both Firebird as a platformmate, AND parts sharing with the X-Body to be approved in the first place? This car is not about all out performance. Its about performance for a price point. Always has been, always will be. When you go for all out performance, you get a Corvette.

As Guion mentioned, the hallowed new Mustang uses DEW98...A damn fine platform, but with a whole lot of fluff removed. Guess what that leaves? A damn fine pony car.

If GM could bring a sigma-derived Camaro with parts-bin engineering to market in the next two years, with proper styling and interior appointments, they might be able to salvage some of the Mustang sales they gave to Ford...

Mustang's chassis is much removed from DEW. WAY removed.

Great concept offered by evok with some real possibilities. Granted, there are many components to choose from currently in the GM parts bins. But you don't want a thrown together embarrassment either, as this would prove all the naysayers correct yet again. A live axle is allright to match the Ford offering as a start, if you package with an IRS in mind to up the ante later. The suggested 9.5 inch axle from the new 6.2L SSR is man enough to do the job, but is extremely heavy. Use of this axle would drive the ride and handling folks nuts trying to damp that boat anchor out back. Packaging could prove to be a challenge as well. Keep in mind that a version of this unit sees duty in the three quarter ton trucks and suv's. Overall the ace in the hole to this entire scenario might be to allow Lutz to set up a skunkworks type of isolated team to develop such a vehicle. A team of dedicated gear heads, not yes men, unencumbered by the corporate quagmire that currently paralyzes GM. God knows there are enough of them that just want half a chance to show the world what they are capable of. Let's hope that the new degree of urgency being directed at the top brass by Wall Street, is directly translated into measures such as this. If not, the tailspin is likely to continue.

It sounds cheap. It sounds a little rough around the edges. In other words it sounds like a Camaro :D .

This is exactly what we need. We don't need a perfected uber coupe that costs $30,000. We need a car that provides everything the performance entusiast needs, and nothing they don't. As far as performance goes, the setup described would wipe the floor with any prior Camaro.
As far as refinement goes, it'll have more than enough. Sure, the Cobalt has quiet steel for the same price - but it doesn't have a big V6 or V8. It will be better to ride in than the 4th gen simply because even the cheapest stuff from GM's interior parts bin is much nicer than the crap that went inside the 4th gen.

Build this GM. Take a damn risk for once and it just might pay off.

Guy, is what evok describes more or less the "sport bike" scenario?

Wouldnt adding a Live rear axle to a platform designed to use an IRS add cost, not subtract it? Plus, isnt the rear in the CTS-V already designed for 400hp?

Thats what I said, but I guess not.
I would much rather have a IRS Sigma Camaro and spend the extra 1200 for a better, all around performance coupe then cheap out and grab some rear end out of a truck. This isnt the 90's anymore.

the more i read about this bull**** the more i just wanna keep the car i own.

Thats what I said, but I guess not.
I would much rather have a IRS Sigma Camaro and spend the extra 1200 for a better, all around performance coupe then cheap out and grab some rear end out of a truck. This isnt the 90's anymore.
I have mixed feelings on it..I like how IRS rides, but I hate wheel hop and the added weight that goes with it...Maybe it should be an option?

Sounds like a plan to me , now build it ;)

Camaro with IRS = me no purchase :) I want a pony car , not a GT or sportscar . That SSR rear might actually take a little power :D

This is a non-starter......it would be the ultimate admission of failure.

Magazines and the press would ALL point and laugh.....while saying that GM basically brought back a 25 year old chassis.

No thanks.......do it right or don't do it at all.....I sure as hell wouldn't buy such a compromised car.......

Yea. Uh Huh Guy you know what's going on buddyy. Evok does know what's going on. Guy...check out the Underground (now......umm Offground due to legalities I think).

25 year old chassis with an LS2 :drool:

It sounds cheap. It sounds a little rough around the edges. In other words it sounds like a Camaro :D .

This is exactly what we need. We don't need a perfected uber coupe that costs $30,000. We need a car that provides everything the performance entusiast needs, and nothing they don't. As far as performance goes, the setup described would wipe the floor with any prior Camaro.
As far as refinement goes, it'll have more than enough. Sure, the Cobalt has quiet steel for the same price - but it doesn't have a big V6 or V8. It will be better to ride in than the 4th gen simply because even the cheapest stuff from GM's interior parts bin is much nicer than the crap that went inside the 4th gen.

Build this GM. Take a damn risk for once and it just might pay off.

Guy, is what evok describes more or less the "sport bike" scenario?

I think you pretty much summed it up for me. Gm should take a hard look at this set up and make it work. Good thinking!

Wouldnt adding a Live rear axle to a platform designed to use an IRS add cost, not subtract it? Plus, isnt the rear in the CTS-V already designed for 400hp?

If the live rear can be done without adding cost to the platform and the CTS-v IRS can still work on the 5th Gen, then use the IRS for the Top model Z28 and leave the soild rear for the lower models.

This is a non-starter......it would be the ultimate admission of failure.

Magazines and the press would ALL point and laugh.....while saying that GM basically brought back a 25 year old chassis.

No thanks.......do it right or don't do it at all.....I sure as hell wouldn't buy such a compromised car.......

:confused: I thought Sigma was only a few years old? 25 years old? Has the CTS even been around 5 years yet? What do you mean?

It must have a live axle.

I'm a little confused about sigma also, thought it was a new. :confused:

NO SOLID AXLE!

I have owned and driven various Camaros for nearly 20 years now. I am and always have been a GM guy. I want a new Camaro as much as anybody.

I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER CAMARO WITH A SOLID AXLE.

This is a non-starter......it would be the ultimate admission of failure.

Magazines and the press would ALL point and laugh.....while saying that GM basically brought back a 25 year old chassis.

No thanks.......do it right or don't do it at all.....I sure as hell wouldn't buy such a compromised car.......

I think what Doug means by "25 year old chassis" is that the press will have a field day with a strut/live axle car. The setup reeks of 1975 technology, and they will gladly point that out.

I pretty much agree. It has worked for Mustang but that is because it has been ingrained in a lot of people's heads that Mustang can do no wrong. Yes, I believe this. I'd rather not see a Mexican-built Camaro either.

Call me stuck-up but I'd much rather hold out a little longer for a world-class effort than "ok here is your new Camaro, whatever, now you people can go away."

I agree to an extent but people tend to forget that that's almost exactly how the 1st Gen came about. It was a last sec thing that became something really good.

I'd rather have an all-new Camaro that makes the M*stang look like a complete piece in every way but I'd be OK with a comparably built car that still had more attention to detail and was more performance focused I guess you could say. We NEED SOMETHING people, the wait is crazy already. GM needs an affordable performance car that can compete with the M*stang and anything from Chrysler, what they need is the Camaro. Even if just for a few years until it can be done better.

I'm not much on the M-strut idea either, sounds like a step back.

I wonder what the rest of the buying public (not us enthusiast) think about the IRS vs. live axle debate.

Personally, I'd rather have IRS. But I'm not in to drag racing like most here are.

All and all, it sound pretty good, but what are the chances of it happening anywhere close to that, if at all?

I think the Live Rear should be an option.

An option that will probably DROP the price. It should. It cuts refinement for pure speed. Also though the press will piss at that, do something silly at the same time. Like offer a gear ratio change as well. The guys with the IRS get 3.42's and the Live guys get 3.42's OR 3.73's. Something like that. Why? That would take some of the heat off the press about the live rear axle. Some would say it was just a cover up, but some of the press might swallow that it was more for the "drag racing type". Let that stigma form all you want.

Otherwise I totally agree... and totally disagree.

Offering a great interior and ride is important, as is fit and finish. Yes, GM's current "parts bin" stuff IS better then the 4th gen. That's very true. However true that is though, this "parts bin Camaro" cant have too much feel of it. It needs to compete with the mustang. So compete it against the mustang!!! Everything must meet the mustang standards in every way. No way around that. It'd be nice to be better, but that would take longer and drive up cost.

On launch they need something stupid. Again, back to the parts bin. If rumors of testing a CTS "Super V" with the LS7 are true (or if not, I dont care) get the engine bolted to a tranny and slap a rear on it. The LS7 will fit where the LS2 will. DO IT. The enthusiast is pissed off enough as is. We know this very well. So slap a 427 sticker on the side, yank the ECU out of the Z06 and drop her all in there. Rig it with as much power as team corvette will allow (I'm thinking 450hp to look even with the new GT500) and slap a window sticker on her and show her at the car show.

I think the 427 would be about as good an image as you can give to the Camaro. It never was the prettiest car, but it always had gusto. Slapping a new camaro on the showroom floor with the 427 would be cheap and fast. Faster then the base Vette in a straight line I hope. Cause that's too bad. It wont turn nearly as well or ride nearly as well, or look as smooth. Rolling out it would atleast show your average enthusiast and gearhead that somewhere, someone in Chevrolet still cared.

Parts bin? Yes. Cheap? Yes. Get a LS2 under the hood and get it cheaper then the mustang by $2000. If they can do that, they might have it made. The camaro was too expensive by several thousand dollars in the 4th gen era. Cant make that mistake again...

The average consumer will want an IRS. That's just how it is. Will they swallow a Solid in a Mustang? Sure. In a Camaro? Nope. Sucks to be the bow tie boy. Oh well. IRS standard. Thats the only way you'll still be able to offer a Solid and not REALLY piss off the press.

Again, IRS standard, Solid Rear as an option that drops the price for "all out straight line performance"... Sell it that way. The press might actually swallow it.

GM once had an ad (I've been trying to find an original and have it framed) of a lady in a barn between a camaro and a corvette. "We'll take on any two other cars in this magazine". They need marketing. They need cheap and fast. If it's only as refined (or slightly less) then the cobalt, so be it. It never was a really "nice" car.

EDIT: Marketing will be uber-important. Notice how well it payed off for the 2005 Mustang. Though I'd say take a different aspect. What about this.

If they went with styling like Kris Horton... Something... Take a 1st gen black Z28 camaro. Show it rolling into a garage to a long into riff of some song. Elapse time to show several seasons go by (or a few winters) while thats going and have air wrench noises in the backround. Just misc noise. Then it turns spring, the garage door starts opening, and the music kicks up, the new 5th gen rolls out and the announcer says "it took us a while, but we're back and better then ever". I'd say have it "growl" as a mustang drove by, but they cant do that.

The music needs to be something really catchy. Something honestly a "mullet" would love. The Camaro is the mulletmobile, isnt it?

I'd say "Back in Black" by ACDC. But thats just me. Perhaps "Born in the USA"? You get the idea. The Camaro was made to follow the Mustang and its time to do it again. The press may whine, but if it sells, it sells.

... "The all new Camaro. Mullet refined." "The all new Camaro, mullet not required" have fun with it....

And I hate the "parts bin" idea too, but waiting another 3-4 years is NOT an option.

Mustang's chassis is much removed from DEW. WAY removed.

Congrats to you!!! :bow:
You are the first to point out that "oversight" by EVOK.

The only thing common between the DEW platform and the DC2 (which S197 is built on) is the floor pan stampings. Ford actually spent considerable time and money developing a totally new platform JUST for the Mustang, one that offered the right handling, NVH, wheelbase (MUCH different than DEW), and flexibility for manufacturing (i.e. ridgidity for the convertible, live axle or IRS rear, and engine/drivetrain loading from the bottom of the car instead of the top, etc.). In fact, the DC2 platform was designed with more components similar to the Mazda 6 than the Lincoln LS, and the platform was designed with specific concessions to be run at the Auto Alliance facility.

While I totally agree that GM could raid a parts bin and come up with a competitive Camaro on the cheap (heck, the old LS1 is a stout beginning in it's own rights!), I don't think it is wise to "undersell" the amount of development that was just put into the Mustang's platform. It is certainly not a "close resemblance" of DEW.
Likewise, I think there could be considerable risk in "screwing up" the nameplate of the Camaro if the effort to keep it cheap became readily visible to the consumer. Maybe we should differentiate "cheap" from "low-cost"?

PacerX,

What does NVH mean, I have seen it a lot but haven't seen it defined?

As much as I want to see a new Camaro come to the market quickly, I want the car to be assembled in a efficient manner with high quality. Removing things like quiet steel and other items that attract people to a car such as the Mustang will only bring us back to the failure of the 4th Gen to sell when put up against the bargain price of the Stang.

When somone sits in this new corner cutter Camaro and test drives it and hears a ton of road noise, notices some things they dont like but could possibly live with, then sits in a New Mustang with the creature comforts, they are 9 times out of 10 more likely NOT to come back to the Camaro.

Like mentioned earlier in the thread, produce a quality car up to the mustang standards. There are plenty of resources available already in the parts bin to make the car with.

However, lets not cut corners and cheapen the car overall, or we will quickly be bitching again about GM killing the Camaro for building a cheap car that wouldnt sell after we bitched at them to build a cheap car. We would only be continuing a viscious cycle again, and imagine the already bias media salivating uncontrollaby to once more declare the death of the Camaro as they cream in thier pants as a domestic manufacturer screws it up yet again.

Also, building the car in Mexico=Bad Idea. It makes sense from a financial standpoint, but I can see the backlash already when enthusiasts and automotive press get a whiff of that and begin roasting GM over that because another American Icon car is outsourced outside of North America. Look at the flack they've caught from importing the GTO from Austrailia although it was a smart move IMHO.

Build the car right this time. Build the car efficiently this time. Build the damn car correctly this time and make sure the damn dealers dont mark the SOB up 10k from the MSRP.

Oh, one more thing, put a bullet in the beancounters calculators and accounting software and kick their tails to the curb. Put someone in charge of the company for once who has final say.

PacerX,

What does NVH mean, I have seen it a lot but haven't seen it defined?

Noise Vibration and Harshness

PacerX,

What does NVH mean, I have seen it a lot but haven't seen it defined?

Noise, Vibration, and Harshness.

These are quntifyable ride characteristics that depend on suspension, platform, fit/finish, and insulation qualities of the vehicle. They are varied by material selection and placement, suspension tuning, tire selection, chassis stiffness, and about 137 other variables, but the end result is how smooth and quiet the car appears to the driver/occupants.

Pacer makes a living a little closer to the chassis than I so he can probably expound in more detail. :thumb:

1. Live axle... Fine with me. YOu don't see the mustang getting raked over the coals for it. They're going to sell 200K cars with an old "outdated" live rear axle and even the new cobra will have it. Its all in how you publicize it. If its "what your customers want" and it is "so well sorted out you won't know the difference" then magazines won't give you grief over it, especially if it increases the bang/buck ratio. Hell, 2 yrs ago people that wanted an IRS 5th gen were in the minority. Now we're all too stuck up and refined to go back to live axle? Give me a break.

Just go back to the 3rd/4th gen rear suspension, same as the new mustang and theoretically the same that Nextel Cup cars use, albiet in a slightly different configuration with regard to the LCAs.

2. I'm more concerned about the FRONT suspension. Strut? That's going backwards in refinement level from the 4th gen. If it must be done it must be done, but can't we just do a carryover double A-arm from the CTS? That at least compensates for the live rear axle IMO.

3. Everything else I'm fine with. Just get SOMETHING to market that will sell and make a good margin per vehicle. GM's got to increase positive cashflow and a new 100K unit per year car wouldn't hurt market share any either.

30 months if they started TODAY. They'd have to do a year worth of navel gazing just to decide, so its a minimum of 42 mos the way I see it. 2009?

Just an FYI.....Mexico is as "North America" as Canada - just not as far north in North America. Something called "NAFTA" comes to mind too....for better or for worse.

I believe that most of the buying public wouldn't give a rats ass if the car was built off of a "borrowed" chassis, whether or not it had "quiet steel", and probably live axle or IRS. What they WOULD care about - in spades - is the following:

1) It can't be too expensive - think Mustang prices and NO MORE.
2) It must go fast. Period. (LSx easily takes care of that)
3) It must look like it goes fast. Period.
4) It must have a decent seating position (sorry, but riding on the ground and 'falling in/climbing out' just isn't going to hack it anymore).
5) It has to be well screwed together, but it doesn't have to be CTS-type screwed together, otherwise the price is going to go right through the roof and sales go right next door to the Ford house (again).
5) Above all, it must LOOK HOT. So long as most of the little stuff is taken care of, a hot looking car WILL SELL. Being a fast, V8, RWD coupe just isn't enough buy itself (got GTO?) - it must look the part. Oh, and did I mention it must be affordable?

Granted....many of us pickier folks that are a bit more "in the know", and certainly the critics at C&D and R&D and etc, etc, might frown at some of those things, but we only buy a very small fraction of cars. The new Camaro absolutely MUST sell more to the masses if it is to survive.

That is, of course, all just MHO.

5) Above all, it must LOOK HOT. So long as most of the little stuff is taken care of, a hot looking car WILL SELL. Being a fast, V8, RWD coupe just isn't enough buy itself (got GTO?) - it must look the part. Oh, and did I mention it must be affordable?


I agree with everything you said Bob. Key point on looks is it costs just as much to make an ugly car as a good looking car. All other things being equal, pretty sheetmetal and good looking sheetmetal should cost the same to make.

So hopefully bringing us an affordable car doesn't necessarily mean it has to be boring or ugly [crossing fingers!!!]

Oh yeah, I still don't really care anymore :D

I think Bob just nailed a big point...:thumb:

I've said before that when our old bow tie pals are conjuring up a new Camaro, they needed to keep KISS in mind...Keep It Simple Stupid...

Good looking, fast, cheap...sounds like my Camaro

IRS vs. solid rear - IRS would be nice, if they can do it at a good price, gimme! If not, oh well, just give me a solid rear that's dishwasher safe on the bottom rack...

I can't believe how many have focused on the live axle and not the mention of the Macphearson strut front suspension...it's 3rd gen all over again.

I could possibly live with an optional live axle......but NEVER again will I buy a McP strut car! This is 2005 people....

"Make it cheap, forget the frills, make it fast in a straight line, compromises are good, etc....." FOR CRYING OUT LOUD this is EXACTLY the car that DIED 3 years ago! You wanna' see it die all over again?!?! :death:

Do it right or forget it......

Once again....personal opinion...I think the vast majority don't care what kind of suspension is has - so long as it performs. Granted, if you can't get good performance out of xyz suspension, then there is an issue. But I think that most of us are far, far more critical of these things than the general buying public is - and while we want as close to perfection as possible (read: each individuals idea of perfection), the car won't be successful if it doesn't sell enough to sustain itself.

For evidence, only only has to look at Mustang.

I can't believe how many have focused on the live axle and not the mention of the Macphearson strut front suspension...it's 3rd gen all over again.

I could possibly live with an optional live axle......but NEVER again will I buy a McP strut car! This is 2005 people....

"Make it cheap, forget the frills, make it fast in a straight line, compromises are good, etc....." FOR CRYING OUT LOUD this is EXACTLY the car that DIED 3 years ago! You wanna' see it die all over again?!?! :death:

Do it right or forget it......

Three years? How about ten. And we still haven't learned anything.

The last thing we need is another benchmarking offer from GM. the G6 is nice, the LaCrosse is nice, but GM needs to do something thats better than nice and at a decent price point. I know they are broke or close to it, but somethings gotta give... :(

Couple of more thoughts:

- I'd rather have IRS in the back. just my opinion. I don't care about drag racing, I drive to make turns, and on top of everything else, in daily driving I love it when my heart skips a beat everytime the rear end 'hiccups' on certain road irregularities.

- Yes the Mustang is gonna sell close to 200K with an archaic live axle back there...also could be because it owns its own market.

- I know this will be hard to impossible for alot of us to admit or think about here, but you have to face the fact that the V6 cars make the majority of sales for both the Camaro and Mustang. If our car is to continue, the V6 cars have to sell. Therefore NVH is a factor as well as ride quality.

- I've been against struts up front just from a perception stand point, but...I've taken note that MB, Porshe, and BMW all very successfully use struts up front. Maybe GM can too? Save money with front struts to save the IRS rear? (although I'd rather have SLA for nothing more than bench racing purposes...and the envy of my 'Stang driving friend)

- If this is gonna be quick and cheap, forget about rear end options, it'll be on or the other.

Other parts bin areas to save money?:

- GTO seats, but cloth covered std?
- control stalks from a G6 or Malibu (are you really gonna notice?)
- CTS-V steering wheel and shifter?

As much as I'd love to have a new Camaro sooner ratehr than later, do we really want to settle for a parts bin car? Something that is slapped together just to get it out the door? Isn't this what got the damned thing sh*t canned in the first place?

If GM wants the camaro to be sucessful, it needs to be cheap, fast, and sexy, but at the same time, it need to be MODERN. Throwing a live axle and Mac front suspension may be enough to satify us enthusiasts, but as history has shown, there aren't enough of us to sustain the market. Normal average Joes are gonna have to love this car too, or it'll die again and probably for good.

As much as I'd love to have a new Camaro sooner ratehr than later, do we really want to settle for a parts bin car? Something that is slapped together just to get it out the door? Isn't this what got the damned thing sh*t canned in the first place?

If GM wants the camaro to be sucessful, it needs to be cheap, fast, and sexy, but at the same time, it need to be MODERN. Throwing a live axle and Mac front suspension may be enough to satify us enthusiasts, but as history has shown, there aren't enough of us to sustain the market. Normal average Joes are gonna have to love this car too, or it'll die again and probably for good.

I honestly think if you put the right 'wrapper' on it, the vast majority won't care where some parts came from, as long as it all works together.

This strategy would especially help the case for lower buck base models to be successful.

Isn't a sigma refresh supposed to happen before the release of the new CTS?

Well if that would be the case why don't you just give Chevy the old Sigma platform and let the Cadiliacs use the newer one?

I honestly think if you put the right 'wrapper' on it, the vast majority won't care where some parts came from, as long as it all works together.

This strategy would especially help the case for lower buck base models to be successful.

true, but given GM's approach to platform sharing, I'd be worried that it wouldn't be unique looking enough.

true, but given GM's approach to platform sharing, I'd be worried that it wouldn't be unique looking enough.

Historically this is true, but some recent example like the Maxx and G6 and Impala and Grand Prix gives my faith they can pull it off right and tight.

One thing that really bothers be about Sigma is the high firewall that is a concession to the design of the SRX.

I for one am not married to IRS. There are ways to make a solid axle car handle just as well as an IRS car. First gen Camaro owners have been doing it for years. However, although this plan follows the tradition of how the Camaro came about in the first place; (remember most of the parts and components had already been developed for the Chevy II), I don't like the idea of a parts-bin Camaro for the 21st century.

However, GM should build this car. Just call it something other than Camaro. (Chevelle?) That would also be more appropriate for other derivatives on the same platform, like Nomad as suggested by others.

I want a 5th gen Camaro that has been designed to be a Camaro from the ground up. Make it cheap, I don't care, just don't shortchange the image.

FWIW, if GM decides to make a "special edition" version Camaro built around the LS7, that is the car I plan to buy... REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

true, but given GM's approach to platform sharing, I'd be worried that it wouldn't be unique looking enough.

Chevy TrailBlazer and SSR share a platform. I'd say they are unique enough.

The only thing that would really worry me about how a Camara described above might look is this (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=351545).

I would want a Camaro to stand out in a crowd - not blend in with its stablemates (ala GTO - and no offense intended to you GTO owners).

That parts bin Camaro would be really hard to pull off. However, I think with a few tweaks it could be viable. I'm skeptical of the powertrain choices, and I am worried about the suspension and rear axle choices. I am worried about some of the cost cutting measures. I agree with Bob that looking good, feeling good, and moving good are the most important factors. However, if this car is not more refined than the Mustang in everyday situations it will fail.

This is how an engineer will tell you how this will pan out.

There are three options: 1.) it'll be all new, 2.) it'll be here tomrorrow, 3.) it'll be cheap...

You can have two of those. Pick wisely.....

This is how an engineer will tell you how this will pan out.

There are three options: 1.) it'll be all new, 2.) it'll be here tomrorrow, 3.) it'll be cheap...

You can have two of those. Pick wisely.....

Personally, I'd go with 1 & 3.

I can put up with a wait if it's priced right and looks good and is built good.

Chevy can do this. Here is the formula: great power (LS1 or LS2 & V6) + great styling (so that chicks will want to buy it, too) + great price ($20K-$28K) + great advertising (I don't think I've EVER seen a Camaro comercial) = a great car w/ a $hit load of sales!

Ford has done this w/ the Mustang. The local Ford dealerships can't keep them in stock! It CAN be done. Chevy needs to stop making cars for rental companies and start making them for regular people. They can rebadge a GTO for all I care, I'll take it! I'd buy a Corvette if it had a back seat (kids). People in general want fast fun cars or big honking trucks/SUVs. I have both. (Z28 & Z71 Suburban)

GM as a whole needs to $hit or get off the pot.

* Somone fwd this to Bob Lutz

I don't get why everybody is so gung-ho on this car costing the exact same amount of $$$ as a Mustang. I would rather have the Camaro command a $1000-$2000 premium over a comparable Mustang and be a much better car. That includes an IRS(that works, no wheelhop), 3.6 DOCH V6 standard, a base V8~320hp, faster than a Mustang GT. Then make the LS2 V8 optional. The car also needs to have a higher quality feel(nicer interior, quiter, etc.) than the Mustang.

Basically I think what was proposed seems like a half-a@@ed effort. That could potentially work if all these parts put together work brilliantly and give us a better performing and higher quality car than the Mustang. Realistically a Camaro like the one proposed would not turn out well IMO. If we are raiding the parts bin and cost cutting, I think the beancounters will cut the costs until it bleeds.

One more thought....will a McPherson strut even work on a Sigma?

Why spend all the time & $$ to go backwards in front suspension design? Gotta' validate it, crash test it, etc......

Jumping over a quarter to pick up a nickel.....

If GM wants to sell 100,000 to 200,000 Camaros, chicks have to like it and buy it. I've seen a handful of '05 Mustang GTs, but I see the V6 version everywhere (they're like roaches). I think I've seen more '05 GTOs and C6 Vettes than Mustang GT's.

The preceeding paragraph means that the seating position needs to be improved (girls don't know s**t between live axle and IRS) or else it won't sell. Then you can have your Z/28 LS2 equipped with a choked off exhuast ~350 hp, SS LS2 w/390 hp, and the SS LS7 w/ 450-480 hp (for those with cash to burn).

If GM wants to sell 100,000 to 200,000 Camaros, chicks have to like it and buy it. I've seen a handful of '05 Mustang GTs, but I see the V6 version everywhere (they're like roaches). I think I've seen more '05 GTOs and C6 Vettes than Mustang GT's.

The preceeding paragraph means that the seating position needs to be improved (girls don't know s**t between live axle and IRS) or else it won't sell. Then you can have your Z/28 LS2 equipped with a choked off exhuast ~350 hp, SS LS2 w/390 hp, and the SS LS7 w/ 450-480 hp (for those with cash to burn).

I agree and I think all that is needed to sell tons of V6 models (and therefore subsidize our performance models) is this:

-practical exterior dimensions
-good visibility/upright seating position
-catchy styling that's not too boy-racer
-price competitive with Mustang V6, hopefully actually CHEAPER since the Mustang still has the name/history advantage.

I think this strategy could work if tweaked a little.

It obvious by the replies in this thread that the market is split between a solid axle and IRS. But I do agree that making IRS standard would "one-up" the Mustang. But I'll take my Camaro with a live axle, thank you. :)

Engine choices and making power are not a problem.

How about this line-up:
Base: 3.6L V6 225hp
RS: Standard 3.9L V6 250hp, Optional 5.3L 300hp V8
SS: Standard 6.0L LS2 V8 350hp, Optional 6.0L LS2 V8 375hp
Z/28: Standard 6.0L LS2 400hp, Optional 7.0L LS7 475hp

Ok, I'll admit to wishful thinking for having 5 different engines, but they're there, why not use them!

Engine choices and making power are not a problem.

How about this line-up:
Base: 3.6L V6 225hp
RS: Standard 3.9L V6 250hp, Optional 5.3L 300hp V8
SS: Standard 6.0L LS2 V8 350hp, Optional 6.0L LS2 V8 375hp
Z/28: Standard 6.0L LS2 400hp, Optional 7.0L LS7 475hp

Ok, I'll admit to wishful thinking for having 5 different engines, but they're there, why not use them!

That is too many engines,

3.9L V6 250HP (base)
LS4 = 350HP (GT competition)
LS2 = 400HP (Mach 1 competition)

Then offer a limited edition ZL1 (500-1000 cars?) with the 500HP LS7 for $40K to put up against the Cobra. If its isn't super limited edition then it will step on the Vettes toes and will never happen

SS: Standard 6.0L LS2 V8 350hp, Optional 6.0L LS2 V8 375hp
Z/28: Standard 6.0L LS2 400hp, Optional 7.0L LS7 475hp

Ok, I'll admit to wishful thinking for having 5 different engines, but they're there, why not use them!

Have you all been paying attention to how the Z28/SS matchup was originally done. Z28 was the handling based car with good power. SS was the drag strip bruiser. Why would you invert the formula. :confused:

I doubt the 3.6 OHC engine is cost effective for the base car. I think we'd see the 3.9 in 240 or 250 hp trim.

I agree and I think all that is needed to sell tons of V6 models (and therefore subsidize our performance models) is this:

-practical exterior dimensions
-good visibility/upright seating position
-catchy styling that's not too boy-racer
-price competitive with Mustang V6, hopefully actually CHEAPER since the Mustang still has the name/history advantage.

Exactly the points I should have made in my post. And as far the engine I just wanted to see how nice it would be to have an LS7 powered Camaro (nice isn't it). But the power and the engines are definitely there.

Have you all been paying attention to how the Z28/SS matchup was originally done. Z28 was the handling based car with good power. SS was the drag strip bruiser. Why would you invert the formula. :confused:
Where on earth did you come up with that bs? :irk:

Exactly the points I should have made in my post. And as far the engine I just wanted to see how nice it would be to have an LS7 powered Camaro (nice isn't it). But the power and the engines are definitely there.

Yes, and the car doesn't have to be loaded up with content either. Chevy buyers don't want all that garbage and quite honestly its never been "Camaro" to be all gadety. Not that I wouldn't mind some things being optional but especially the base cars need to be value value value. A Camaro V6 is not going to compete with a G35 for a buyer.

And the interior doesn't even have to be a knockout, just reasonably ergonomic for today's standards and not too cheap on fit & finish. I think for the price range people are going to expect cheapish materials, but as long as its relatively rattle free and knobs don't break off in your hand I think its sufficient.

I'm not going to take sides on this thread, but I'd like everyone to consider a few things:

1. This is going to have to be a "MUST DO" with the people who approve vehicles:

If you pile on IRS, tons of Camaro unique components, and little or no structural sharing, quite bluntly there will be no 5th gen Camaro: PERIOD! However, if there are ways to cut enough cost to where the car will be very low cost to manufacture, and has the potential to grow sales (not canabalize from other GM cars), it will be a car GM will trip over themselves to approve & get to market quickly.

2. The public simply doesn't care if a good, well designed RWD car has IRS or not:

Mustang sales are well above expectations. Ford expected to sell 150K Mustangs this year. Ford built in the capacity to sell 175K at Flat Rock. Ford is now bumping up production to 200K, and there's still a substantial waiting list. Sure, IRS is a glamor item to many enthusiasts, and perhaps there can be a luxury or top model that can have that. But the idea that IRS is needed to have a successful RWD car has just been obliterated.

3. Something everyone has completely missed: GM will be without an affordable performance car after the 2006 model year!

Holden will be phasing out VZ production starting in about a year. GM's contract & Monaro production are scheduled to end at the close of 2006. 2007 (2008 model year) was initially planned as the production start of GM's new Zeta based RWD sport coupes. If Zeta has been cancelled since late last year, that means any coupes planned off that structure is dead. That means GM would have no affordable coupes available from the end of next year.


Yea. Uh Huh Guy you know what's going on buddyy. Evok does know what's going on. Guy...check out the Underground (now......umm Offground due to legalities I think).

Uh..I just came across a good idea from another member that would be good to post over here. It...uh...just happened to fit in with the imaginary sport bike analogy I posted some time ago. That's all. :)

That means GM would have no affordable coupes available from the end of next year.

Again!

Just had to add that...hehe! I'm sure the success of the Mustang has not fallen on deaf ears at GM. Heck they've mentioned it a number of times on GM tv.

Again!

Just had to add that...hehe! I'm sure the success of the Mustang has not fallen on deaf ears at GM. Heck they've mentioned it a number of times on GM tv.

After all that's gone wrong at GM lately, and I'm still optimistic.
Wonder why? :think: ;)

Heck they've mentioned it a number of times on GM tv.

Wha? What channel is that?

After all that's gone wrong at GM lately, and I'm still optimistic.
Wonder why? :think: ;)

Yeah, I wonder....You and a certain somebody else here me thinks knows something good! :p

I thought we deterimed quite a while ago that IRS, in and of itself, doesn't add all that much cost to a car as opposed to a solid axle... I thought that was determined to be an "old wives tale"??? :confused:

1. This is going to have to be a "MUST DO" with the people who approve vehicles:

If you pile on IRS, tons of Camaro unique components, and little or no structural sharing, quite bluntly there will be no 5th gen Camaro: PERIOD! However, if there are ways to cut enough cost to where the car will be very low cost to manufacture, and has the potential to grow sales (not canabalize from other GM cars), it will be a car GM will trip over themselves to approve & get to market quickly.


Thats the typical bean counter mentality that got GM in trouble as it is. if they think that they have to make a cheap car then people will smell that and stay away. There are plenty of Mustang unique parts on the new stangs and look at how well they are doing. GM must be willing to maybe spend a little bit more money, up the price by $1000 and put out a car that is superior to the mustang in everyway. If magazines see that GM has done this and made it a cool looking car (thats how it has to look - cool. like the mustang) to get the "got to have it" rating. If GM sees that the new Camaro is the same old stuck up were not going to spend money to make a good car then ull never see the got to have it rating and thus flop.

Most people who buy these cars want a cool car. they dont care about performance but it has to look cool inside and out. Thats why the mustang is so successfull. Even the most diehard Camaro guys think the mustang looks cool and are tempted to cross the line to the dark side.

bottom line. I want an IRS. I have been waiting for years for a new camaro and will still wait (as we have to) until they get it out. but i would rather wait an extra year if itll make the difference between a good car and a great car.

After all that's gone wrong at GM lately, and I'm still optimistic.
Wonder why? :think: ;)

I dont wonder why you're optimistic, I wonder what has you optimistic! :D

Espicially considering Red Planet posted and said he was offered to retire and decided to stay... :bow:

I'm not going to take sides on this thread, but I'd like everyone to consider a few things:

1. This is going to have to be a "MUST DO" with the people who approve vehicles:

If you pile on IRS, tons of Camaro unique components, and little or no structural sharing, quite bluntly there will be no 5th gen Camaro: PERIOD! However, if there are ways to cut enough cost to where the car will be very low cost to manufacture, and has the potential to grow sales (not canabalize from other GM cars), it will be a car GM will trip over themselves to approve & get to market quickly.

2. The public simply doesn't care if a good, well designed RWD car has IRS or not:

Mustang sales are well above expectations. Ford expected to sell 150K Mustangs this year. Ford built in the capacity to sell 175K at Flat Rock. Ford is now bumping up production to 200K, and there's still a substantial waiting list. Sure, IRS is a glamor item to many enthusiasts, and perhaps there can be a luxury or top model that can have that. But the idea that IRS is needed to have a successful RWD car has just been obliterated.


I'm fairly convinced you just took a side despite your declaration at the top of your post :D

I thought we deterimed quite a while ago that IRS, in and of itself, doesn't add all that much cost to a car as opposed to a solid axle... I thought that was determined to be an "old wives tale"??? :confused:Just as IRS is always better than a solid axle for performance handling? :D

Just as IRS is always better than a solid axle for performance handling? :D


A fine point, but I'll argue that IRS is just about ALWAYS going to handle non-perfect roads that everyone drives on daily... we can't forget tjis is a road car first and foremost.

Agreed. However, as I said earlier, I'm not married to IRS if it means the difference between having a Camaro or no-Camaro.

Agreed. However, as I said earlier, I'm not married to IRS if it means the difference between having a Camaro or no-Camaro.

Ya, if it came down to that one item being the deal breaker, then, yes, I'd be willing to concede it....

However, we come full circle to my original reply... if IRS is not actually a significantly more expense prospect...then it I say do what most buyers would perfer... and I think that would be IRS.

It's been mentioned that to be successful, the female buyer must be a part of the buying demographic... a smoother street ride would help accomplish this. The solid axle setup *IS* harsh over bumpy roads... it's just a fact.

After having owned RWD solid axle cars, and IRS cars, there is no question I'd perfer IRS. There may or may not be a small advantage to a solid axle at a drag strip or at race track, but again, I think we have to focus on the fact that 98% or so of these cars are NOT going to be competitvely raced.... they are going to be cars that people drive in the real world.

Also, having standard IRS would give the new Camaro something to brag about over the Mustang, and after years and years and years of all the magazines bitching about the "ancient solid axle"... you'd think that they'd go nuts over the IRS in a Mustang - Camaro comparo test.

Also, having standard IRS woudl give the new Camaro something ot brag about over the Mustang, and after years and years and years of all the magaizines bitching abou tthe "ancient solid axle"... you'd think that they'd go nuts over the IRS in a Mustang - Camaro comparo test.
Come on, you know what would happen... the Camaro would lead in every category across the board and in the end Mustang would win due to magical bonus points because of the "retro" solid axle. :D

Come on, you know what would happen... the Camaro would lead in every category across the board and in the end Mustang would win due to magical bonus points because of the "retro" solid axle. :D

No, it would win due to magical bonus points because of the name "Mustang" that conjures up such romanticism from magazine editors.

just like the elusive magical bonus points German cars get for being German.

Come on, you know what would happen... the Camaro would lead in every category across the board and in the end Mustang would win due to magical bonus points because of the "retro" solid axle. :D

I think the 'Stang would win because Car&Driver's "gotta have it" catagory makes the rest of the test irrelevant. :bs:

:lol:

A hilarious trio of repsonses! :D

(and probably true as well! :o )

The Mustang is selling well NOT because of a IRS,Its selling well because of its styling,as hard as some of you retro haters seem to admit to.The GT is selling beyond expectations because it looks killer,has 300hp and you don't sit on the floor and,it has a huge useable trunk.This Camaro idea IS copying Ford,but,it will flat out work.The styling just has to appeal to many(retro touches are a must).Give it a 400hp LS2 Call it a Z28,don't make my 43 year old butt sit on the floor and Im in.

I thought we deterimed quite a while ago that IRS, in and of itself, doesn't add all that much cost to a car as opposed to a solid axle... I thought that was determined to be an "old wives tale"??? :confused:

One way to look at it is this:
You walk into an auto parts store that carries fully assembled rear ends. On one shelf you have a live axle assembly and on another you have an assembly that's independent rear suspension. Both are for the same vehicle, and both have the same availability.

Is the price on them going to be close? :no:


Thats the typical bean counter mentality that got GM in trouble as it is...

Yes, but because they starved products.

Ask any 2 people on here, and they'd prefer IRS if price is no object. But you have to think strategically my friend. The Pontiac Fiero was created as a 4 cylinder, mid-sized, parts bin, low priced commuter car. Intresting how the engine bay could accept a V8, and that Pontiac had wanted a Corvette level car for many years, isn't it? :)

At issue here is creating a car that GM's Product Planning Comittee simply can not resist. A car utilizing existing GM components, made in a low cost efficient factory, that not only fills a product gap but also has a generous profit margin and can expand market share by at least 1 point...singlehandedly!

You know looking at the Fiero, one can always go and add stuff later AFTER you actually get the thing produced. Right? ;)


I'm fairly convinced you just took a side despite your declaration at the top of your post :D

There's a method to my madness. ;)

So tell me what it costs to put a live axle in a platform that was designed for IRS?

What about adapting 30+ year old technology (McPherson struts) into a platform that was designed for LSA front suspension?

You know looking at the Fiero, one can always go and add stuff later AFTER you actually get the thing produced. Right? ;)


ya but i would rather not have to spend another couple thousand dollars after installation and void my warranty when it should hve been done right in the first place?

So tell me what it costs to put a live axle in a platform that was designed for IRS?

What about adapting 30+ year old technology (McPherson struts) into a platform that was designed for LSA front suspension?

Beat me to it.

I fail to see how it would be cost effective to adapt a platform to a whole other set of suspension components. Especially when they would be unique to only that model.

Why not use the IRS from the kappa cars? It can obviously be a low cost suspension.

This idea could be easily adapted to the Kappa platform. Why start with a premium car chassis and cut it down when there is a great, RWD platform out there, made in a plant that has plenty of extra capacity. A platform that doesn't have a cowl height problem. Not to mention Sigma has issues with T-Tops, Kappa would not.

Disclaimer: This would be a modified Kappa platform, basically the Torana chassis.

Once again, wouldnt adding a Live axle and MacPherson Struts in the front, ADD cost because of the necessity to test them and adapt them to a platform designed for SLA fronts and IRS in the rear :confused: :confused: :confused:

Why not use the IRS from the kappa cars? It can obviously be a low cost suspension.

I doubt it would hold the power of a V8 combo....

I doubt it would hold the power of a V8 combo....
What about Corvette's IRS? :think:

What about Corvette's IRS? :think:

It's a trans/axle...again, not made for Sigma/Zeta/Beta/VE, etc.... Just Y bodies...unfortunately. :(

I doubt it would hold the power of a V8 combo....

It shoud it is the same IRS that is in the CTS and I would assume CTS-V.

It shoud it is the same IRS that is in the CTS and I would assume CTS-V.

Exactly...no need to re-invent the wheel here.... :cool:

So the Kappa (CTS), IRS could work, in theory.

ya but i would rather not have to spend another couple thousand dollars after installation and void my warranty when it should hve been done right in the first place?

You are misreading my cues.

When I said you can always add stuff after you actually get the thing in production, I wasn't talking about YOU going in and adding stuff. ;)

If Pontiac went to GM's board with a proposal for a Pontiac high performance sports car in the late 70s, they would have been slapped down so hard thier parents would feel it. However, when they came up with a low investment, high profit 2 passenger commuter car, it nearly sold itself.

The Fiero was sold to management as a 4 cylinder commuter car. Yet from the start, it was engineered to accept a V8, and had a unibody structure far stronger and capable than even the Corvette of the day.

In the time after the Fiero came out Pontiac added a sports version and revised suspension pieces that dramatically improved handling. Pontiac then added a V6. Then Pontiac added a swoopy body that looked nothing like a commuter car. Then Pontiac added electric steering. If Fiero had continued a few more years, it would have had a V8. An LT1 V8! :eek:

GM is in a cash crunch. Nothing is likely to be approved unless it's a truck or "core" vehicle (where CEO Rick Wagoner's now going to focus the cash) unless it's an overpowering business case that can't be ignored.

Again, once you clear the big hurdle get something produced & on the streets, if you make engineering allowences, you can always go back and add on things.

You think Team Mustang didn't the D2C to accept IRS later? ;)

GM is in a cash crunch. Nothing is likely to be approved unless it's a truck or "core" vehicle (where CEO Rick Wagoner's now going to focus the cash) unless it's an overpowering business case that can't be ignored.



Wouldn't a gapping hole in Chevys line up be "an overpowering business case that can't be ignored."

Again, once you clear the big hurdle get something produced & on the streets, if you make engineering allowences, you can always go back and add on things.


I remember reading somewhere waaaaay back when the 4th gens debuted that allowances and room were left under the car for a future introduction of IRS.

Never happened did it? The money obviously went somewhere else and the car died. The 5th gen needs to be top of the class right out of the gate or it will be dismissed as yet another half hearted GM failure.

Does anybody else remember this 4th gen IRS story?

You are misreading my cues.

When I said you can always add stuff after you actually get the thing in production, I wasn't talking about YOU going in and adding stuff. ;)



oooh. my bad. ya that is a little different.

alright but what are the advantages of putting LRA in a chassis originally planned for IRS? wouldnt that cost more for development/testing, etc.

So the Kappa (CTS), IRS could work, in theory.


Is the Kappa (Solstice/Sky) IRS the same one used in the CTS / Sigma?!? :confused:

The point about cost involved in reverse engineering a double a-arm front susp into a strut front is valid.

The point about the cost to dumb down an IRS chassis to a live axle is not.

Do you guys realize how simple the mounting is for a live axle in an F-body? There are literally four mounting points. The panhard bar, the 2 LCAs and the tq arm. That's it. You re-use the same shock mounting points and probably the same spring perches. All you're talking about are some small additional stampings that can be welded on.

Is the Kappa (Solstice/Sky) IRS the same one used in the CTS / Sigma?!? :confused:

I thought that they were similar, but it may have been the concept. :confused:

To all the people adamantly opposed to this "cheapened" Sigma:

If what you're looking for is a quiet, refined, vehicle with IRS and a sophisticated handling setup, than the car you seek is already on the market. It's called the CTS-V. Its got an LS6 V8, Quiet Steel in abundance, IRS, and an awesome handling setup tuned at Nurenbering. Oh, btw it costs about $50,000.
Seriously people, how do you think GM could produce the car you all are asking for at a price we will be willing to pay? A lot of people here say that the GTO is too expensive at $35,000, well you can't lower the price on a car with out giving something up. If you think Ford didn't have to compromise on the Mustang your kidding yourselves. Just sitting in it, one can certainly tell that the interior uses materials a step below those found in luxury vehicles. It uses the live axle setup. I'm sure people in the know with the Ford can relate many more cost cuts. I'm not bashing the Mustang - this is the way it needs to be done. The essence of a pony car is that it provides performance at a low cost for those who don't care about extras.
Finally, does anyone doubt that a vehicle produced on sigma, no matter how cheapened, would not be extremely refined and athletic? Even without its quiet steel, and with a mcpherson strut setup, sigma is an incredibly rigid, well engineered platform. Interestingly, no one had a problem when an economical alternative to sigma was given a fancy name like "zeta."

To all the people adamantly opposed to this "cheapened" Sigma:

Interestingly, no one had a problem when an economical alternative to sigma was given a fancy name like "zeta."

I was never a fan of the Zeta Camaro idea. I don't want a Sigma based Camaro either.

Evok put that business case together I believe in oh about a day or two to say the least. There's no reason why he should not be hired by GM. He has a knack for the business and more importantly knows how it works. Far and away better then the "suits" at GM does.

What Guy is trying to say is. Get the case there. Let them build it. THEN add the performance line to it.

It really is that simple folks.

To all the people adamantly opposed to this "cheapened" Sigma:...............

It's not that we're opposed to the idea (well we are to certian elements)....it's just that no-one has explained how adapting (yes, it would require major re-engineering) not only a live axle, but Macpherson struts to a platform that was not designed to use these archaic parts.

Think about the differences in un-sprung weight between a live axle and an IRS.....then take into account NVH and chassis flex differences in the two different suspension desgins. GM doesn't just weld on a few brackets and calls it done.

Same with the front suspension. LSA uses entirely different attachment points and structural reinforcement points than a Macpherson strut design does......apples and oranges.

Then add in all the validation and durability testing, crash testing, sub contracting, etc............ suddenly we're stepping over a quarter to pickup a nickel.

Bottom line here is that it's not as easy or as cheap as it sounds......

Evok put that business case together I believe in oh about a day or two to say the least. There's no reason why he should not be hired by GM. He has a knack for the business and more importantly knows how it works. Far and away better then the "suits" at GM does.

What Guy is trying to say is. Get the case there. Let them build it. THEN add the performance line to it.

It really is that simple folks.

I beg to differ......like someone already said, if it isn't part of the initial program it'll never get done....before some suit kills it all over again because of poor sales. Use the Fiero example again......by the time they got it close to being right (as they initially intended), they killed it off due to poor sales.

In today's market, you only get one chance to get it right........before the competition does it right and kills you.

Doug Harden - you are using GM's old way of thinking, not the new "make it or break it" way of thinking, which we have yet to see but will soon. The Solstice is the #1 example of Mr. Lutz work. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Zeta was Mr. Lutz baby. Do you really think he would let something as easy, obvious, and well thought-out as this slip under his nose considering the car nut that he is? I highly doubt it. Lutz is a RWD, performance oriented car guy through and through. This model outlines what should be hitting GM's design center right now.

So tell me what it costs to put a live axle in a platform that was designed for IRS?

What about adapting 30+ year old technology (McPherson struts) into a platform that was designed for LSA front suspension?

The live axle and struts would save about 1000 bucks per car by my estimates compared to the sigma IRS. At least. Yes there would need to be some structural modification to sigma, especially in the rear. But it is not as critical to FMVSS. The biggest development issue would be the fuel tank. Packaging and design most likely would have to change from sigma to accomodate the live axle. An issue but not a show stopper.

To all that want an IRS, don't want the car built in Mexico, want more this and that, don't want struts. GM already told you tough. Zeta is cancelled and is cost prohibitive. Do you want a Camaro or not? You have to sell the V6's in order to build the business case for the V8.

PS I think BMW uses struts up front!

PS I think BMW uses struts up front!

Yes but only on its relatively "entry level" 3 series. I'm sure they've put a lot more money into refining their strut setup than a Camaro would get from GM. I just don't want to backwards in terms of SLA to strut here, I'm on board with everything else.

The live axle and struts would save about 1000 bucks per car by my estimates compared to the sigma IRS. At least. Yes there would need to be some structural modification to sigma, especially in the rear. But it is not as critical to FMVSS. The biggest development issue would be the fuel tank. Packaging and design most likely would have to change from sigma to accomodate the live axle. An issue but not a show stopper.

Is that including engineering and development costs or just hard parts costs? In GM's current cash crunch, where's that money supposed to come from?

To all that want an IRS, don't want the car built in Mexico, want more this and that, don't want struts. GM already told you tough. Zeta is cancelled and is cost prohibitive. Do you want a Camaro or not? You have to sell the V6's in order to build the business case for the V8.

PS I think BMW uses struts up front!

I keep hearing the word "cancelled".......but I also hear that it's only cancelled here in the US.......but then I read Scott say this on another forum.....

.....There was a note leaked to the press from the top of the corp to our engineers and designers about "Zeta" and it essentially said to 'stop all work"

It did NOT say "and throw everything away"

...read between the lines.....also read Bob Lutz's comment on his webblog....he nearly hits you over the head saying that we're working on a V8 RWD performance coupe among other things.

What's REALLY happening is that there are only so many engineers and so much money and so much time .....many are being pulled off projects to pull ahead the new Silverado/Suburban/Tahoe/Avalanche ..and TrailBlazer right behind them.....we MUST get them to market sooner...our future depends on it...once that happens, work continues on other vehicles......(and you know what I'm talking about when I say 'other vehicles.''
....

It sounds like Guy's "period of mis & dis-information" is in full swing......

Yes but only on its relatively "entry level" 3 series. I'm sure they've put a lot more money into refining their strut setup than a Camaro would get from GM. I just don't want to backwards in terms of SLA to strut here, I'm on board with everything else.

And the 3-Series is the rag mags best pick all the time. Hell half the people in the real world would not know the difference between a transmission and an emission. Proper development will sort out the suspension tuning. This is about execution, not trying to appease the rag mags with unnecessary cost and buzz words. If it works who cares. How does this board respond when any of the idiotic rag mags call the OHV Vette motor yester-tech because it is push rod? If it works for the application does it really matter?

Just an FYI.....Mexico is as "North America" as Canada - just not as far north in North America. Something called "NAFTA" comes to mind too....for better or for worse.

I believe that most of the buying public wouldn't give a rats ass if the car was built off of a "borrowed" chassis, whether or not it had "quiet steel", and probably live axle or IRS. What they WOULD care about - in spades - is the following:

1) It can't be too expensive - think Mustang prices and NO MORE.
2) It must go fast. Period. (LSx easily takes care of that)
3) It must look like it goes fast. Period.
4) It must have a decent seating position (sorry, but riding on the ground and 'falling in/climbing out' just isn't going to hack it anymore).
5) It has to be well screwed together, but it doesn't have to be CTS-type screwed together, otherwise the price is going to go right through the roof and sales go right next door to the Ford house (again).
5) Above all, it must LOOK HOT. So long as most of the little stuff is taken care of, a hot looking car WILL SELL. Being a fast, V8, RWD coupe just isn't enough buy itself (got GTO?) - it must look the part. Oh, and did I mention it must be affordable?

Granted....many of us pickier folks that are a bit more "in the know", and certainly the critics at C&D and R&D and etc, etc, might frown at some of those things, but we only buy a very small fraction of cars. The new Camaro absolutely MUST sell more to the masses if it is to survive.

That is, of course, all just MHO.

I know this is like 5 pages ago, but I read this and HIGHLY disagree.

Most people dont buy Camaros. Most people buy Camry, Accords, and Impala's. Most people dont care, right.
But Camaro owners are "most people". Camaro people V6 to V8, are enthusiast-minded. Ask a Camry owner if they have a V6 or a 4cyl, and most will look at you as if there was such a choice(trust me, I see it daily).
As a Camaro owner what they have, and I bet that not only will you get the engine but a list of other things. Where its built and what its built with are MAJOR parts of the equation.

It DOES need to be very tight. People, especialy enthuisats, like to feel that they are special. How would you feel if you went into car A that costs 25k. It felt right, but interior wasnt put together right, and poor fitment and lack of cool features. Go over to car B that stickers for 26k, but has fantastic fit ment, and more options even for an additional 1k in price. Which would you buy? GM needs to get all of it right. Not just engine, but everything from seats, to shifter, to how the steering wheel feels in your hands and the layout of the guages. Sweat the details, and GM is starting to pick up on that big time.
If I could get a Camaro that was fitted together as well as a GTO or CTS, that felt right, and outperformed the Mustang not just in a few, but ALL catagories, and for an additional 1-3k...I think that I could justify the extra cash, and I know im not alone.
Out of the 100k-150k Camaro's sold, how many do you actualy think will go into drag racing? How many of the 200k Mustangs will ever see major track duty? Its nice to please the enthuiasts, but you also have to please the daily driver guy or gal. You have to please the guy's wife with teh car, and not that its a rough, fuel hogging monster. Everything needs to be taken into consideration.

So to just slap some parts bin crap together, plop some 2nd rate seats in it, just to make some die hard Camaro fans happy...Ill pass. I dont want to sacrafice the Camaro name cause people want it NOW.
I would rather like to see a Sigma Camaro. Nice high belt line gives it that sinister look, wide stance, and suspension that is taken from the Nurburing tested CTS-V and STS-V, then THAT my friends is a Camaro.
Not some gathering of parts.

I would rather like to see a Sigma Camaro. Nice high belt line gives it that sinister look, wide stance, and suspension that is taken from the Nurburing tested CTS-V and STS-V, then THAT my friends is a Camaro.
Not some gathering of parts.

That is NOT a Camaro. That is a CTS-V or STS-V, cars that both sell for over $50,000. I wouldn't be concerned about interiors. As I said before, "2nd rate" GM seats (I think Evok originally said from the G6 - very nice) are perfect for a car like the Camaro. If you want a car that has everything - the gorgeous interior, power, sophisticated suspension - buy a GTO or CTS-V. They cost more for a reason. Camaros always provided awesome acceleration and great handling for a cheap price. It did this w/out an expensive setup. A new Camaro could do just the same, and would have an infinitely better interior to boot.

Reading some of these replies has depressed me a bit. Whatever GM does, a segment of the Camaro community is going to vocally bash this car. If they produce a polished, refined coupe some are going to say it isn't worth the money and moan about how GM forgot about the "essence" of the Camaro. If they build it inexpensive, people are going to bitch about interior peices and say that GM "cheaped out." And of course, most poeple (including myself) want it NOW.

Still waiting................tap tap tap..........

I know this is like 5 pages ago, but I read this and HIGHLY disagree.

Most people dont buy Camaros. Most people buy Camry, Accords, and Impala's. Most people dont care, right.
But Camaro owners are "most people". Camaro people V6 to V8, are enthusiast-minded. Ask a Camry owner if they have a V6 or a 4cyl, and most will look at you as if there was such a choice(trust me, I see it daily).
As a Camaro owner what they have, and I bet that not only will you get the engine but a list of other things. Where its built and what its built with are MAJOR parts of the equation.

It DOES need to be very tight. People, especialy enthuisats, like to feel that they are special. How would you feel if you went into car A that costs 25k. It felt right, but interior wasnt put together right, and poor fitment and lack of cool features. Go over to car B that stickers for 26k, but has fantastic fit ment, and more options even for an additional 1k in price. Which would you buy? GM needs to get all of it right. Not just engine, but everything from seats, to shifter, to how the steering wheel feels in your hands and the layout of the guages. Sweat the details, and GM is starting to pick up on that big time.
If I could get a Camaro that was fitted together as well as a GTO or CTS, that felt right, and outperformed the Mustang not just in a few, but ALL catagories, and for an additional 1-3k...I think that I could justify the extra cash, and I know im not alone.
Out of the 100k-150k Camaro's sold, how many do you actualy think will go into drag racing? How many of the 200k Mustangs will ever see major track duty? Its nice to please the enthuiasts, but you also have to please the daily driver guy or gal. You have to please the guy's wife with teh car, and not that its a rough, fuel hogging monster. Everything needs to be taken into consideration.

So to just slap some parts bin crap together, plop some 2nd rate seats in it, just to make some die hard Camaro fans happy...Ill pass. I dont want to sacrafice the Camaro name cause people want it NOW.
I would rather like to see a Sigma Camaro. Nice high belt line gives it that sinister look, wide stance, and suspension that is taken from the Nurburing tested CTS-V and STS-V, then THAT my friends is a Camaro.
Not some gathering of parts.
We all have our opinions.

I bet you dimes to dollars that the "average" 4th Gen Camaro owner couldn't tell you the city, province, or country that their car was built in. Most probably couldn't tell you the difference between a drum brake and a disc brake, or which one was on their car. As most of us know, the vast majority of Camaro owners don't read this Forum, and some of them are even women (perish the thought).

When did I say the car had to be built like crap? Let me look back at my post.....

....ok, disregarding that I screwed up the numbering, I said it can't be too expensive, needs to be fast, needs to look fast, needs a decent seating position, has to be well screwed together (not CTS-like, cause then the cost is CTS-like), and it has to look hot.

Please tell me which of those things you disagree with. Should it be expensive? Should it be slow? Should it look slow? Should it have a bad seating position? Should it be screwed together as well as a CTS - or perhaps worse than a [insert junk car here]? Should it look cold?

A rather small percentage of (mostly) the V8s drag race. An even smaller percentage go into autocross/road racing. More importantly (and likely to your point), how many will care that it does/does not have an IRS, so long as the ride/handling is good?

Everyone is looking at the Camaro from the eyes of the performance version. That is great and all, but Big Al made a damn good point. You need the base version to cater to the masses. This is what will keep the Camaro alive if it is to come back. The performance version needs to be well thought out for sure, but the overall car has to be able to attract many to be able to suport volume in sales.

The 4th gen Camaro was built for the enthuisats in mind, not the masses. The Camaro needs to do both well. Personally I think the low end versions is what will really show the Camaro's success. Cause when it comes down to it, the lower end version will keep the Camaro alive. If you build a car from a parts bin that is not up to par concerning the lower end models fit and finish wise and design, the performance version could be the best in class, but will not support the overal product.

If we assume that something like Evok's recipe is followed, then the door would be open for an AWD Camaro RS. There is your ticket to higher volume in a Camaro, and Camaro's ticket to a Car Of The Year award.

If we assume that something like Evok's recipe is followed, then the door would be open for an AWD Camaro RS. There is your ticket to higher volume in a Camaro, and Camaro's ticket to a Car Of The Year award.


:bow: Agreed 100%

If we assume that something like Evok's recipe is followed, then the door would be open for an AWD Camaro RS. There is your ticket to higher volume in a Camaro, and Camaro's ticket to a Car Of The Year award.


NO!

Looks like 1964 1/2 to 1967 all over again. :)

I like the idea.

So we're swaping an LS2 into a thirdgen?

IZ28 should be happy.

So we're swaping an LS2 into a thirdgen?

ahahaha....give or take. Thirdgen with a stiffer chassis.
Point is people who buy a Camaro expect a certain performance aspect, and throwing in that BIG 14 bolt rear end into a Sigma, and parts binning the interior (again) is not what I wanted in a Camaro.
A live axle to me, in a modern sports coupe, is OLD. Outside of the Mustang, I cant think of another sports car ranging from 25-40k that uses it.

As for the "expensive" GTO, I would like to recall the price of SS and WS6's when loaded. It was about the same price as the GTO. GTO got better everything, and still keeps close to the Fbody's price. I dont see what would be send the price of the Camaro through the roof if they used IRS, especialy when the chassis was designed for IRS. Its not like they had to come up with a NEW set up. I think that the cost would be the same, either to keep IRS in production, or develop a live axle set up for Sigma.

Would parts binning the interior really be that bad? Realistically we'd only be talking about switchgear, controls, door handles and maybe a steeringwheel. Things I don't think anyone would notice in an overall newly design interior.

I think it could be exectued right. Although I get the feeling I'm one of the more progressive around here.

As for the "expensive" GTO, I would like to recall the price of SS and WS6's when loaded. It was about the same price as the GTO. GTO got better everything, and still keeps close to the Fbody's price.


KEY point.

A live axle to me, in a modern sports coupe, is OLD. Outside of the Mustang, I cant think of another sports car ranging from 25-40k that uses it.


You just answered your own question. Mustang (and Camaro) is not a "sports car", it is a Pony Car. There's a distinct, though perhaps subtle, difference.

Pony cars are 2+2, and are all about bang for the buck.

Sports cars are 2 seaters and are premium cars. The key to a successful Camaro is the PONY CAR formula, because that sells V6 cars a lot better than a sports car formula would.

Aren't we really splitting some fine hairs now?....

Most people classify the Camaro and Mustang as 'sports cars', not 'pony cars'. Most people being defined as the non-enthusiasts, non-hard core drivers.

The V6 cars qualitlies are gonna make or break the entire line, that means as good a street ride as possible with a sporting nature (again my defintition for the V6 (!) car).

Why is Sigma all of a sudden the right platform? Because its there?

Wasn’t the tall cowl height Sigma has the reason we discussed it wouldn’t be a good choice of platform the Camaro’s design?

Wasn’t it decided that reengineering the cowl height to make it more appropriate for Camaro’s style would be very expensive and not worth it.

I know a platform can be stretched and shrunk without much problem, but why hasn’t anyone brought up cowl height on Sigma?

A CTS tall cowl would not look good for Camaro.


On the topic of rear ends….

I don’t mind a live axle on the base car if it will truly save money. Save an IRS set up for the top model Camaro or as a pricey option. Like someone said we don’t need a $35,000 base car. Cut out the fancy stuff and go head to head with the Mustang.

Historically this is true, but some recent example like the Maxx and G6 and Impala and Grand Prix gives my faith they can pull it off right and tight.

One thing that really bothers be about Sigma is the high firewall that is a concession to the design of the SRX.

It was brought up but not discussed. It's been over shadowed by the IRS vs. solid axle debate.

I remember reading somewhere waaaaay back when the 4th gens debuted that allowances and room were left under the car for a future introduction of IRS.

Never happened did it? The money obviously went somewhere else and the car died. The 5th gen needs to be top of the class right out of the gate or it will be dismissed as yet another half hearted GM failure.

Does anybody else remember this 4th gen IRS story?

Sounds pretty interesting, but I'm pretty sure the aft portion of the 4th gen is nearly identical to the 3rd gen's.

You just answered your own question. Mustang (and Camaro) is not a "sports car", it is a Pony Car. There's a distinct, though perhaps subtle, difference.

Pony cars are 2+2, and are all about bang for the buck.

Sports cars are 2 seaters and are premium cars. The key to a successful Camaro is the PONY CAR formula, because that sells V6 cars a lot better than a sports car formula would.

Can a brother get a "Halelujah" from the crowd! :bow:

THIS man's got the message.

You can "kind-of" turn a pony car into a sports car, but you can't go the other way. Yet the secret to making a car successful is selling it to the masses... and the "masses" do not want to pay $40k for a dedicated two-seat land missile. :no:
They want every day liveability and low operating costs. That's what better be offered to them or the car will be a short-lived pipe dream.

...I keep hearing the word "cancelled".......but I also hear that it's only cancelled here in the US.......but then I read Scott say this on another forum.....

Scott has also brought up the question of what is Zeta anyway? regarding Zeta's cancellation.

Zeta cancelled here in the US. The person running the program here is back in Australia. There are no longer current plans to make "Zeta" here in the US. GM press release itself stated the program was cancelled here.

However, Holden will also be working with GM on other future RWD programs.

It sounds like Guy's "period of mis & dis-information" is in full swing......

:lol: OK, wiseguy. We'll see what comes up.

PS I think BMW uses struts up front!

Yes but only on its relatively "entry level" 3 series. I'm sure they've put a lot more money into refining their strut setup than a Camaro would get from GM. I just don't want to backwards in terms of SLA to strut here, I'm on board with everything else.

I believe they use struts throughout their entire lineup all the way upto the 7 series and the now-dead sub-150k Z8 roadster flagship.

Porsche also makes extensive use of struts since it is on all their Boxsters and 911's.

But Chris is right in that BMW and Porsche put in alot of time and $$ tuning and refining their strut setups, something GM probably wouldn't do for a camaro.

But that doesn't mean they CAN'T get a strut front suspension to handle well without spending too much $$$. Subaru's like the STi and WRX and Mitsu's EVO are all relatively affordable, employ struts, and handle really well. As long as the chassis and the rest of the suspension is done/tuned right, struts would be perfectly fine in my book.

But like everyone else, i'd prefer the SLA setup. As for the rear, i could live with a live axle if GM were to go that route. I have lived with it for the last 5 years and have no real complaints. A refined ride would be the only noticeable plus and i wouldn't really rank ride quality as a high priority in a car like the camaro. So while i'd welcome an IRS setup, i wouldn't raise stink if GM decides they'll stick with a live axle. Just give us a rear-end that's durable...that would be my priority. I'd rank that higher than an IRS on my priority list.

Does anybody realize how few cars actually have independent rear suspension?

No trucks have it. No larger SUVs except the Explorer have it. Minivans don't have it.

Most FWD cars don't even have it.

I'm just not sure why or when IRS became the mandatory point of entry for rwd cars to be considered legitimate when there's so many other vehicles on the road that are FWD with a solid dummy axle for the rear.

Does anybody realize how few cars actually have independent rear suspension?

No trucks have it. No larger SUVs except the Explorer have it. Minivans don't have it.

Most FWD cars don't even have it.

I'm just not sure why or when IRS became the mandatory point of entry for rwd cars to be considered legitimate when there's so many other vehicles on the road that are FWD with a solid dummy axle for the rear.


I could be wrong, but I was under the inpression that almost all FWD cars today have IRS setups....???

EDIT: Just did a spot check of a few Chevrolets... Monte Carlo and Malibu both have 4 wheel independant suspensions... I would think it is fairly common...

Where on earth did you come up with that bs? :irk:

1st gen Z/28 - 302 ci was the only available motor. It was concieved to compete in the Trans Am series.

2nd gen Z/28 - 350 ci was the motor. To my knowledge there has never beena large ci option for the Z28.

1st and 2nd gen SS' were available with large displacement. Therefore the Z28 should not get the highest diplacement/power option offered.

Logical now. No need to get testy.

They need:

Base/RS - some V6, auto (5/6 speed no cost option), and they can leave the 10-bolt.

Z28 (RS available) - 5.3 V8 (maybe 6.0 optional), auto/6speed, 12-bolt (IRS ipotentially optional.

SS - 6.0 standard (option for LS7), heavy duty auto/6speed, 12-bolt (maybe the big 14-bolt, and IRS options).

The parts are laying around drivetrain wise.

1st gen Z/28 - 302 ci was the only available motor. It was concieved to compete in the Trans Am series.

2nd gen Z/28 - 350 ci was the motor. To my knowledge there has never beena large ci option for the Z28.

1st and 2nd gen SS' were available with large displacement. Therefore the Z28 should not get the highest diplacement/power option offered.

Logical now. No need to get testy.

They need:

Base/RS - some V6, auto (5/6 speed no cost option), and they can leave the 10-bolt.

Z28 (RS available) - 5.3 V8 (maybe 6.0 optional), auto/6speed, 12-bolt (IRS ipotentially optional.

SS - 6.0 standard (option for LS7), heavy duty auto/6speed, 12-bolt (maybe the big 14-bolt, and IRS options).

The parts are laying around drivetrain wise.
First of all... man does not live by cubic inches alone. There were many a 1st gen Z-28's in their day that smoked big blocks at the drag strip. This is a fact.

Secondly, the Z-28's engine displacement was based on a SCCA rule of a maximum of 5.0L for Sedan Class A. Once GM got them to lift the production limit (1970) the Z-28 got the 350 LT-1 while still being required to meet the 5.0L limit in competition. (FWIW. Trans Am prepared Z-28's were actually closer to 305 cid.)

Z-28 has always been the top all-around Camaro, even though SS always had more displacement. (Although not neccessarily more HP.) SS was for straightline accelleration only.

However, for a 5th gen line-up... as I see it... ;)

Camaro V6
Camaro SS 6.0L V8

... and then about 12-18 months down the road... ;) a special edition race version (much like Z06) called Camaro Z28, with the LS7 on board. :bow:

:D

However, for a 5th gen line-up... as I see it... ;)

Camaro V6
Camaro SS 6.0L V8

... and then about 12-18 months down the road... ;) a special edition race version (much like Z06) called Camaro Z28, with the LS7 on board. :bow:

:D

I'm assuming you and everyone else out there saying LS7 understands its a pipe dream. GM's not going to pull the exclusivity of their $75,000 Supercar down by putting the LS7 in a Camaro. Its just not going to happen.

Expect the LS4 standard with 6.0L maybe optional on the SS and and then 6.0L standard on the Z28 with Z06 style suspension and braking upgrades.

this makes a fantastic business case in GM's current situation, and would probably sell a ton of cars.

the models/options i'd like to see are:

base = v6, live rear axle
Z/28 = 375hp 5.7L V8 with live rear axle
Z/28 RS = 375hp 5.7L with IRS
SS = 425hp 6.0L with live rear axle

I'm assuming you and everyone else out there saying LS7 understands its a pipe dream. GM's not going to pull the exclusivity of their $75,000 Supercar down by putting the LS7 in a Camaro. Its just not going to happen.

I might be waaaaaaaaayyyy off base here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ford thinking of putting their much more exclusive gt engine into a special mustang ? If I'm right, why can't gm do the same ?

Do it right or don't do it at all.

If you want to bring a F5 into the same criticism ****storm of the previous generations than think cheap,cheap,cheap.

Only one reasonable option exists. Take a 05 stang GT as the bench mark and match it on price, performance, and style.

Rushing the GTO to market wasn't a problem b/c the car exceeded almost everything GM has had in NA. Rushing a camaro only means the mags have a field day saying GM rushed it and the stang killed it.

I like the ideas but i'm worried the execution of the deal might leave some problems.

I'm assuming you and everyone else out there saying LS7 understands its a pipe dream. GM's not going to pull the exclusivity of their $75,000 Supercar down by putting the LS7 in a Camaro. Its just not going to happen.

Expect the LS4 standard with 6.0L maybe optional on the SS and and then 6.0L standard on the Z28 with Z06 style suspension and braking upgrades.

I don't see that either fromt a price point issue. IMO, I'd like to see the Z28, if it will be a specialial performance model, have a lighter weight but just as powerful (or more powerful) engine for better weight distribution.

Performance is more than just hp and torque....

Just throwing it out there.

I could be wrong, but I was under the inpression that almost all FWD cars today have IRS setups....???

EDIT: Just did a spot check of a few Chevrolets... Monte Carlo and Malibu both have 4 wheel independant suspensions... I would think it is fairly common...

And the new Golf and Jetta
And Saturns
And Volvos
And Hondas
And Toyotas
And Grand Prixs, Luminas, Regals from the '90's (which if you weren't aware used a transverse leaf spring (ala 'Vette) in the first FWD generation).

I'm not married to it, but I'll be mighty dissapointed if there isn't IRS

In reference to the GTO price above....$34k is too much for a traditional "Z28" type of car. Not a big deal for a loaded (emphasis on loaded) SS or WS6, but too much for the mainstream V8 RWD Pony car - especially given that its direct competition can be had for $25k-$29k.

I'm assuming you and everyone else out there saying LS7 understands its a pipe dream. GM's not going to pull the exclusivity of their $75,000 Supercar down by putting the LS7 in a Camaro. Its just not going to happen.

If that's the case, then they wouldn't be offering the LS7 in crate engine form...

... but THEY ARE! ;)

So maybe if GM doesn't build a LS7 powered Camaro, somebody else WILL. :D

If that's the case, then they wouldn't be offering the LS7 in crate engine form...

... but THEY ARE! ;)

So maybe if GM doesn't build a LS7 powered Camaro, somebody else WILL. :D

Yeah, like GMMG?

I think offering a crate motor and offering it in a car for sale with a full dealer warranty are two totally different things. Your average customer, even if he can afford it, isn't going to buy a crate motor and adapt to whatever car he has. I can gaurantee you very vew C6 Z06 buyers would be willing to buy a base C6 and an LS7 crate motor instead if the Z wasn't offered.

The LT5 was available as a crate motor for a brief time too but you never saw anything other than the Vette with it from the factory.

The LT4 and LS6 are both offered as crate motors but other than SLP's batch of LT4 cars neither motor made their way into Fbodies, so I fail to see the corollary there.

What about giving the Z28 the L92 or something.

I will gladly accept a solid rear axle……………The next time I am looking to buy a TRUCK OR OX CART. I will not purchase a new car, built in this decade, with a solid axle. Sorry isn’t going to happen.

Strut front suspension: This is an inferior design to what the 4th gen had.
Solid Rear axle: This is inferior to almost every other car on the planet

“Mustang has this configuration and it is doing well”……So what! This approach will be another case of GM taking a competitor’s vehicle that is already in production; spend 3 to 4 years to develop their own generic version; just to end up with a mediocre car that is almost as good as what the competion has been building for years.

I have seen members of this board criticize GM, multiple times, for this exact approach to vehicle development. Now suddenly this is OK for the next generation Camaro. I don’t think so!

GM has been trying this half baked, half azzed, parts bin, bargain basement, “close enough”, “almost good enough” approached to building cars for years. This my friends is why their market share and their reputation are in the crapper.

The only way GM is going to improve their situation is to start building world class vehicles, that are leaders in their target market segments, and that are superior to offerings from the competition. This proposal for a 5th gen. will absolutely not be world class, It will not lead its market segment and it will be lucky to be as good as the competition. Why even bother?

After the long wait that we have had to endure, I can’t believe how many people here are willing to accept this. I guess it goes to show you. If someone gets hungry enough, they will eat anything that’s put in front of their face.

Not me. There are other reausturants out there, and I am no longer settling for “Fast Food”.

The L92 will probably be introduced into whatever GM wants as top dog. I see an SS/Z28 battle happening. I would just like to point out that of the two models, which one was the race model, and which one followed the "muscle car" rule of big engine+small car?
Last time I checked, the SS didnt win any Trans Am races. There wasnt an IROC SS.
But I will agree that it would look funky at having Cobalt SS, Malibu SS, Trailblazer SS, Silvy SS, SSR, Impy SS, Monte SS, and possible Nox SS and Aveo SS....and then having a Z06 and Z28.
Doesnt flow, but eh oh well.
I say have teh Z28 with teh big brakes and Recaro seats, while the SS gets leather and DVD nav. Price them the same, same engine, just make them the "Odd Couple".

I might be waaaaaaaaayyyy off base here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ford thinking of putting their much more exclusive gt engine into a special mustang ? If I'm right, why can't gm do the same ?

It's close, but different. No aluminum block, no dry-sump oiling system, less boost/different, etc... They cut costs somehow. But the end result is a potent 450-500hp/tq engine.

I don't know how much the Ls7 costs, but i'm sure the GT500's blown 5.4 with twin screw blower isn't cheap either, and Ford managed to get it into a 40k car. GM probably can get an Ls7 type engine with 427ci, but without the fancy/expensive stuff the ls7 has like titanum rods/valves, dry sump, etc... into a Camaro and have it rated at 450hp without really breaking the bank. But they most likely won't want to. Not when even the $50k CTS-V will be regulated to Ls2 come 2006. So when the CTS-V doesn't even get the Ls7, you know there's no way in hell a camaro will.

Camaro people V6 to V8, are enthusiast-minded. Ask a Camry owner if they have a V6 or a 4cyl, and most will look at you as if there was such a choice(trust me, I see it daily).
As a Camaro owner what they have, and I bet that not only will you get the engine but a list of other things. Where its built and what its built with are MAJOR parts of the equation. .

I may give you enthusists , but in a very generic way . Most Camaro and mustang buyers are enthusist in the fact they want to drive something with personality , it has to be sporty and affordable and it has to look COOL :cool:

I would bet my lifes savings that more than 3/4's of mustang and camaro/firebird owners , if asked if they wanted IRS ....would not know how to answer . And the same people , I would go farther to say , probably could not tell the difference in the manners of the 2 rear ends if they drove them back to back the way most people normally drive . And then 1/2 the people that said they wanted IRS probably just say so because motor trend and car and driver do .

I will gladly accept a solid rear axle……………The next time I am looking to buy a TRUCK OR OX CART. I will not purchase a new car, built in this decade, with a solid axle. Sorry isn’t going to happen.

Strut front suspension: This is an inferior design to what the 4th gen had.
Solid Rear axle: This is inferior to almost every other car on the planet

“Mustang has this configuration and it is doing well”……So what! This approach will be another case of GM taking a competitor’s vehicle that is already in production; spend 3 to 4 years to develop their own generic version; just to end up with a mediocre car that is almost as good as what the competion has been building for years.

I have seen members of this board criticize GM, multiple times, for this exact approach to vehicle development. Now suddenly this is OK for the next generation Camaro. I don’t think so!

GM has been trying this half baked, half azzed, parts bin, bargain basement, “close enough”, “almost good enough” approached to building cars for years. This my friends is why their market share and their reputation are in the crapper.

The only way GM is going to improve their situation is to start building world class vehicles, that are leaders in their target market segments, and that are superior to offerings from the competition. This proposal for a 5th gen. will absolutely not be world class, It will not lead its market segment and it will be lucky to be as good as the competition. Why even bother?

After the long wait that we have had to endure, I can’t believe how many people here are willing to accept this. I guess it goes to show you. If someone gets hungry enough, they will eat anything that’s put in front of their face.

Not me. There are other reausturants out there, and I am no longer settling for “Fast Food”.
I'm just not sure what kind of car you think a Camaro is supposed to be. It's not a pure bred sports car, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Camaro's purpose was and should always be to provide incredible performance to the budget minded enthusiast. When you talk about producing a car that goes as fast as cars twice its price, you have to expect that something must be sacrificed in order to get it down to $25,000.

I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.

Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.

I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.

I'm just not sure what kind of car you think a Camaro is supposed to be. It's not a pure bred sports car, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Camaro's purpose was and should always be to provide incredible performance to the budget minded enthusiast. When you talk about producing a car that goes as fast as cars twice its price, you have to expect that something must be sacrificed in order to get it down to $25,000.

I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.

Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.

I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.


:bow: :bow: :bow: The most direct and accurate post on this entire thread! :thumb:

BTW: It's great to see debate focused on a 5th gen Camaro again, and thanks to Evok for a very interesting and plausable idea.

When was the last time there was a new discussion on a future Camaro that not only wasn't a re-hash of another conversation or attracted attention from certain people at GM, but scored 11 pages in just a few days? :)

...and then they read auto rags bashing their new purchase up and down because of the "ancient" architecture and poor choices executed by the manufacturer :rolleyes:

Hmmm....if a person won't buy a new Camaro with an "ancient" live axle (that could probably still do a great job), would you buy one with an "ancient" pushrod V8 (that could no doubt still do a great job)? After all - this is the 21st century, and every other potential competitor has overhead cams, at least 3 valves per cylinder, and usually variable cam timing. Must Camaro have the same in order to be a viable choice? Further, the LSx engine would have to come out of GM's "parts bin". If we can't do that for suspension parts, then I suppose we'll have to upgrade that ancient engine architecture - a brand spanking new 3V/4V variable-cam timing OHC 5.x/6.x L engine should be just the ticket, I think.

/sarcasm

Hmmm....if a person won't buy a new Camaro with an "ancient" live axle (that could probably still do a great job), would you buy one with an "ancient" pushrod V8 (that could no doubt still do a great job)? After all - this is the 21st century, and every other potential competitor has overhead cams, at least 3 valves per cylinder, and usually variable cam timing. Must Camaro have the same in order to be a viable choice? Further, the LSx engine would have to come out of GM's "parts bin". If we can't do that for suspension parts, then I suppose we'll have to upgrade that ancient engine architecture - a brand spanking new 3V/4V variable-cam timing OHC 5.x/6.x L engine should be just the ticket, I think.

/sarcasm

How much has the V8 changed since 1916? And how much has the live-rear axle changed since 1916?

I'm assuming you and everyone else out there saying LS7 understands its a pipe dream. GM's not going to pull the exclusivity of their $75,000 Supercar down by putting the LS7 in a Camaro. Its just not going to happen.

Expect the LS4 standard with 6.0L maybe optional on the SS and and then 6.0L standard on the Z28 with Z06 style suspension and braking upgrades.


Isn't the LS4 for front drive applications :confused: ?

How much has the V8 changed since 1916? And how much has the live-rear axle changed since 1916?

Don't know. Don't know.

I guess my point wasn't well made. Oh well.

...and then they read auto rags bashing their new purchase up and down because of the "ancient" architecture and poor choices executed by the manufacturer :rolleyes:


This is a real dilema.......the "word on the street" reaches nearly all consumers...especially sport coupe/pony car buyers. These buyers don't do this on a whim.....they don't want to "wear last years clothes".

I have NO idea why Ford is getting a pass on their use of a buggy axle.....and the cheezy plastics on the interior.....not to mention the sloppy shifters, etc..... Maybe it's because there's nothing really to compare it to.

Either way, if GM half @$$ed a new Camaro....especially after killing it in the first place....and believe me, if the used both a live axle and Macpherson struts.....along with obvious parts bin assemblies, Chevy would be crucified!

Every magazine cover, website and message board would be filled with vilification of GM for FAILING to fix what was wrong in the first place.

You can NOT go off half c o c k e d in today's market.

Price is important....
Styling is right behind price....
Quality will kill you if you don't achieve it....

Chevrolet lost it's heart when it lost the Camaro.

The very thing that, while it may have not been a sales leader, it still caused people to look twice as they passed the dealerships and the kid in all of us longed to buy THAT car instead of the SUV or sedan that our more practical side told us we should buy.

It put people in the showrooms.

Corvette does not do the same thing....it is easily dismissed because of it's two seater configuration AND it's price. Corvette has always just been a wet dream for the masses....but the Camaro WAS achievable....

It is more obvious now than ever that Chevrolet has lost it's direction and it's ability to connect to the consumer on a emotional level.

Trucks are tools.....

SUV's and sedans are basic transportation.....

The Camaro represented the LOVE of the automobile and the passion of driving...

You can't fix that with a bandaid......but you sure as hell better fix it soon.....REAL soon.

Let me put another arguement for IRS, the V6 base cars. Granted people are not going to know and only a few really care have back there, but....they will care alot how it rides.

It's been stated here alot that at a few of us are keenly aware that the success of the model line depends hugely on the acceptance of the base or lower end models. Having driven live axle and IRS sport(y) cars, the IRS definately feels better on the street.

I think IRS offers a huge benefit to the non enthusiat driver, which will then be beneficial to the whole line.

Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?

Now for the counter arguement, the Mustang has a solid axle, if it's good for them it's good for us. No, not really. One of GM's shortfalls with new models is they benchmark existing competitors models, which are soon redesigned leaving the GM product behing the 8-ball again very quickly. Plus, I've heard it suggested that Ford may have used the solid axle becuase with no direct competition there was no justification to spend the $$ on IRS. Giving the Camaro IRS leapfrogs the competition AND put's on even playing ground with more premium cars like the RX-8 and 350Z. Remember 'Bang for the Buck'?

And about cost, whose to say a solid axle is less expesive on the whole? Part for part, maybe (I've never looked into it), but, rework an IRS chassis for a truck's rear end (including tuning, crash testing, NVH and the rest) and after you spread that investment over the life cycle of the chassis (amoritization?), it very well might cost the same as IRS.

Let me put another arguement for IRS, the V6 base cars. Granted people are not going to know and only a few really care have back there, but....they will care alot how it rides.

It's been stated here alot that at a few of us are keenly aware that the success of the model line depends hugely on the acceptance of the base or lower end models. Having driven live axle and IRS sport(y) cars, the IRS definately feels better on the street.

I think IRS offers a huge benefit to the non enthusiat driver, which will then be beneficial to the whole line.

Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?

Now for the counter arguement, the Mustang has a solid axle, if it's good for them it's good for us. No, not really. One of GM's shortfalls with new models is they benchmark existing competitors models, which are soon redesigned leaving the GM product behing the 8-ball again very quickly. Plus, I've heard it suggested that Ford may have used the solid axle becuase with no direct competition there was no justification to spend the $$ on IRS. Giving the Camaro IRS leapfrogs the competition AND put's on even playing ground with more premium cars like the RX-8 and 350Z. Remember 'Bang for the Buck'?

And about cost, whose to say a solid axle is less expesive on the whole? Part for part, maybe (I've never looked into it), but, rework an IRS chassis for a truck's rear end (including tuning, crash testing, NVH and the rest) and after you spread that investment over the life cycle of the chassis (amoritization?), it very well might cost the same as IRS.


I strongly agree with everything here... I've been trying to say a lot of this, but I think you stated it very well! :bow:

The most important pieces, IMO are ride quality for V6 (read: bulk of build) cars for people who are going to compare the ride to other cars, and leapfrogging, rather than copying the compitition.

Just because it uses a live axle doesn't mean GM would be "copying". My bet is that it would have four wheels/tires too - just like Mustang

Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?

Yessir - perhaps not as often, but it seems to be an issue (especially for Z06s): http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=812129

[QUOTE=Bob Cosby]Just because it uses a live axle doesn't mean GM would be "copying". My bet is that it would have four wheels/tires too - just like Mustang[QUOTE]

I'm not saying 'copy' exactly. Let me use this example:

The new Cobalt uses a rear suspension design VERY similar to the current generation Golf. This is a huge improvement to the old model, and it's been praised by the automotive press so far as I've read (latest Motor Trend picks the Cobalt SS over the Neon SRT-4). The Cobalt uses independent traling arms and fluid filled bushings with a twist beam tying everything together. I think it's a 'quasi-irs" set up.

Now, this is great but...I've read a few places that it's not as responsive as a Focus or Civic that use IRS, and...the next generation Golf has IRS. Now how good will the Cobalt's handling be, on the road and during bench racing? And only 2 years into it's, life cycle.

I will admit (before anyone else has a chance) that this could turn out to splitting hairs, but it's indicitive of the process in general.

I'm just not sure what kind of car you think a Camaro is supposed to be. It's not a pure bred sports car, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Camaro's purpose was and should always be to provide incredible performance to the budget minded enthusiast. When you talk about producing a car that goes as fast as cars twice its price, you have to expect that something must be sacrificed in order to get it down to $25,000.

I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.

Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.

I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.

Ah, yes! Somebody finally gets it. :bow:

Ah, yes! Somebody finally gets it. :bow:

Ah no, that's not right. Yes that does describe the car that has a loyal following here and other ENTHUSIAST sites. That's also the same car that DID NOT SELL WELL to the general public, almost got axed in '97 and finally in '02.

The new Camro need to be more than what it was, FOR THE BASE CARS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF SALES WILL BE!

It can't be "crude"....
The interior must be more than mearly 'functional'....
It has to appeal to the widest audience possible to be viable.

The same CANNOT be said of the new Mustang. It's interior is much better than the previous. It's no longer a crude chassis (despite a truck rear end).

Chevrolet lost it's heart when it lost the Camaro.

HERE!!! HERE!!! I too have felt that Chevy has been missing its "heartbeat" since 2002. Chevy used to be the cool brand at GM, even back in the 80's when we had a bitchin' Camaro and a cool RWD Monte Carlo SS. I long for those days again.

Back on topic, Camaro WILL NOT GET the free pass the Mustang got for its suspension choice. Drag racers wanted it....ok sure....but again these are cars where 98% of its duties will be on real world roads....bumpy, pothole scarred....a more compliant suspension under everyday circumstances should be priority #1 at the very least on the secretary special V6's. End of story.

HERE!!! HERE!!! I too have felt that Chevy has been missing its "heartbeat" since 2002. Chevy used to be the cool brand at GM, even back in the 80's when we had a bitchin' Camaro and a cool RWD Monte Carlo SS. I long for those days again.

Back on topic, Camaro WILL NOT GET the free pass the Mustang got for its suspension choice. Drag racers wanted it....ok sure....but again these are cars where 98% of its duties will be on real world roads....bumpy, pothole scarred....a more compliant suspension under everyday circumstances should be priority #1 at the very least on the secretary special V6's. End of story.

Hey! I think someone got it! :bow:

:p

Let's list the number of RWD cars that still have a live axle......

1. Mustang
2. Crown Vic
3. Large Caddies?
.................others?

Let's list the number of RWD cars that still have a live axle......

1. Mustang
2. Crown Vic
3. Large Caddies?
.................others?

Doug the only Caddies with live axles are the Escalades. The DTS is FWD and the rest are on Sigma.

HERE!!! HERE!!! I too have felt that Chevy has been missing its "heartbeat" since 2002. Chevy used to be the cool brand at GM, even back in the 80's when we had a bitchin' Camaro and a cool RWD Monte Carlo SS. I long for those days again.

Back on topic, Camaro WILL NOT GET the free pass the Mustang got for its suspension choice. Drag racers wanted it....ok sure....but again these are cars where 98% of its duties will be on real world roads....bumpy, pothole scarred....a more compliant suspension under everyday circumstances should be priority #1 at the very least on the secretary special V6's. End of story.

Good point.

But i don't get how the mustang gets a free ride? A live axle is STILL a live axle. Magazines have grilled them for it, but people will still buy them. The reason mustang still sells well with it is because the majority of consumers really don't know difference and only know what they see on the outside. Go walk up to a typical v6 mustang owner and ask them whether they have a live axle or an IRS back there. 20 bucks says 98 out of 100 won't even know. Outside of the real enthusiasts that know the cars like the back of their hand, the general public really is blind on this matter. That's NO excuse to go with a live axle, but i don't really think a live axle would spell automatic doom for a 5th gen.

I think things like a more attractive/appealing quality interior/exterior as well as solid performance figures and some good marketing are more cruicial to the sales success of the 5th gen than the type of axle that resides in the rear. Some may find the live axle a turn-off on the mustang, but many more find the overall package attractive, especially for the price. As long as the Camaro's overall package is attractive, the type of rear won't make much of a difference in terms of sales success imo.

Just my 2 cents. I personally have a lot of concerns, priorities, and stuff regarding the 5th gen, but a live vs IRS is the least of my worries. But that's just me *shrug*. Like i said earlier, i'd rather see a solid/durable axle for once be it IRS or live as far as the rear is concerned.

Let's list the number of RWD cars that still have a live axle......

1. Mustang
2. Crown Vic
3. Large Caddies?
.................others?

Same can be said about the use of leaf spring on the rear suspension (ala vette) vs traditional coil-overs or pushrods over OHC. Yes, pusrods aren't as smooth as OHC and they don't have the breathing capability uptop like the OHC cars, but they still have their pluses and get the job done right? That and they've come a long ways.

Same with live. I've driven IRS equiped performance cars, and given the nature of high performance cars, the ride quality almost always sucks period given the stiffly sprung and low-slung nature of such cars. Outside of having an IRS for namesake, does anyone really think that an IRS will provide a significant improvement over a properly done up live axle in terms of handling and ride quality....Key word here is SIGNIFICANT. And does this ride quality rank high in a pony car purchases?

I'm not opposed to IRS btw, just playing devils advocate:D. I really don't think a live axle automatically spells doom for a 5th gen. I don't think it'll make it or break it either.

Mano-o-days, has this thread been going in circles?!?!

Know what? The axle thing is a smoke screen right now for false images to appear on. I find it hard to believe that if GM put a Camaro on dealers lots with a decent interior, good tranny, enhanced LS1, and fresh new sheetmetal, that most of you guys wouldn't consider it at all because it has a 10-bolt or 12-bolt under it. :bs:

Get this straight...
Refinements cost MONEY.
Technology costs MONEY.
Designwork costs MONEY.
Testing costs MONEY.
Tooling costs MONEY.
Training costs MONEY.
Documentation costs MONEY.

All of these need to be done to introduce a new subassembly into a production line, and more. Camaro (and Mustang) are not about refinement, comfort, and technology... never have been, never should be either. GM vas the Vette for that market, and now the GTO too. Why would they want yet another $40k or higher vehicle on the lots?!?!

For Chrissake, keep the d@mn car simple, basic, and sporty... PERIOD!
Give 'em the IRS, and they'll want SLA. Give them SLA and they will want coil-overs. Give them coil-overs and they will want Nav systems. Give them NAV systems and they will want DVD players. and so on ad-infinitum. And of course, they will want all this stuff with no increase to the base price. BLAH!
If you want a technologically advanced RWD V8, go buy a Caddy CTSv, Vette, or GTO and take your mortgage with you. But do me (and the other poor working stiffs in the world that just want to go fast on the cheap) a huge favor, leave the Camaros (and Mustangs and Firebirds) true to their roots and heritage and leave the "technology arguments" at home. Hell, I'm even leary about Ford pioneering a VVT-3V motor in the pony car, much less do I care about an IRS in a sub-20k car for teeny-boppers or twenty-somethings to go to school in.:no:

Instead, how-bout we concentrate on things that will REALLY matter to a buyer, like colors, wheel packages, options lists, interior layout, interior quality, sheetmetal design, fit and finish, windshield acreage, dashboard acreage, ease of maintenance, limited editions, scoops and decals, engine/tranny options, T-tops, sunroofs, convertible models, exhaust systems, stereo packages... and so forth.
I can GUARANTEE these things will sell a car off a lot faster than any IRS option.


PS - to all the naysayers of live axles...
You should do a little research before you start harping on the Mustang's new 5-link units. They are getting great reviews from everyone that ACTUALLY DRIVES ONE instead of spreading internet chatter. Also, the live axle was chosen in public opinion polls and focus groups - not 100% of which were drag racers either.
I'm getting tired of people thinking Ford "got away with something" by putting a tube under the Mustang.... no wait, they DID get away with something... 200,000 SOLD VEHICLES, that's what they got away with! 200,000 people eager to throw their money at a car. It does sound like they "got away" with something, now doesn't it? Happy customers... think about it.

Mano-o-days, has this thread been going in circles?!?!

Know what? The axle thing is a smoke screen right now for false images to appear on. I find it hard to believe that if GM put a Camaro on dealers lots with a decent interior, good tranny, enhanced LS1, and fresh new sheetmetal, that most of you guys wouldn't consider it at all because it has a 10-bolt or 12-bolt under it. :bs:

Get this straight...
Refinements cost MONEY.
Technology costs MONEY.
Designwork costs MONEY.
Testing costs MONEY.
Tooling costs MONEY.
Training costs MONEY.
Documentation costs MONEY.

All of these need to be done to introduce a new subassembly into a production line, and more. Camaro (and Mustang) are not about refinement, comfort, and technology... never have been, never should be either. GM vas the Vette for that market, and now the GTO too. Why would they want yet another $40k or higher vehicle on the lots?!?!

For Chrissake, keep the d@mn car simple, basic, and sporty... PERIOD!
Give 'em the IRS, and they'll want SLA. Give them SLA and they will want coil-overs. Give them coil-overs and they will want Nav systems. Give them NAV systems and they will want DVD players. and so on ad-infinitum. And of course, they will want all this stuff with no increase to the base price. BLAH!
If you want a technologically advanced RWD V8, go buy a Caddy CTSv, Vette, or GTO and take your mortgage with you. But do me (and the other poor working stiffs in the world that just want to go fast on the cheap) a huge favor, leave the Camaros (and Mustangs and Firebirds) true to their roots and heritage and leave the "technology arguments" at home. Hell, I'm even leary about Ford pioneering a VVT-3V motor in the pony car, much less do I care about an IRS in a sub-20k car for teeny-boppers or twenty-somethings to go to school in.:no:

Instead, how-bout we concentrate on things that will REALLY matter to a buyer, like colors, wheel packages, options lists, interior layout, interior quality, sheetmetal design, fit and finish, windshield acreage, dashboard acreage, ease of maintenance, limited editions, scoops and decals, engine/tranny options, T-tops, sunroofs, convertible models, exhaust systems, stereo packages... and so forth.
I can GUARANTEE these things will sell a car off a lot faster than any IRS option.


PS - to all the naysayers of live axles...
You should do a little research before you start harping on the Mustang's new 5-link units. They are getting great reviews from everyone that ACTUALLY DRIVES ONE instead of spreading internet chatter. Also, the live axle was chosen in public opinion polls and focus groups - not 100% of which were drag racers either.
I'm getting tired of people thinking Ford "got away with something" by putting a tube under the Mustang.... no wait, they DID get away with something... 200,000 SOLD VEHICLES, that's what they got away with! 200,000 people eager to throw their money at a car. It does sound like they "got away" with something, now doesn't it? Happy customers... think about it.


Some issue with this:

1) If you use GTO as a comparision, it's already been noted that a comparably equipped 4th Gen Camaro SS or TA WS6 would be priced only slightly less... and that car has been gone for 3 years, so it's price would have slid upwards over that time to boot.

2) If you take away the LS1/LS2, standard leather, 6 disc stereo, and a host of other things that GTO comes with standard, and plug in base Camaro pieces (V6, cloth interior, standard CD radio, etc...) your price would amazingly fall into an area that might only be a tad higher than what an acceptible Camaro base price would be.

3) Yes, if a live axle was used, most people from this site would probably buy it anyway... however, there are LOTS of people who want a comfortable riding sporty car... A LOT of people thought my 89 RS and 99 Z28 rode rough.... and the V6 buyers can easily go buy a FWD car, because they get the ride they want... (remeber that GRAND AM was listed as an alternative by Mustang buyers ahead of Camaro!!!!!) and they don't care about the drive wheels as much as they don't care about the type of suspension in the rear.... but they will feel the difference, and it could swing them in a different direction.

Yes, it is working for Mustang right now, but as recent history has shown... a new Camaro will probably have to be better than the Mustang to grow it's buyer base. Especially in the base car market.

ProudPony........take a deep breath.

This thread started as someone's idea that you could simply hang a buggy axle and struts (on a chassis that was never designed for them) and snatch up the rest of the parts out of the recycle bin and whalla...a Camaro could be born.

The debate about a live axle versus an IRS is a spin-off of that flawed premis to wit, those of us who would rather they "do it right or not at all" are simply arguing for the Camaro to not return as a re-run of the 3rd gens........and thereby be crucified by the automotive press causing yet another death of a species.

Honestly, IF a suitable platform (not convinced Sigma is or ever was "suitable") could be designed for either (as was the Mustang's platform) then there would be NO question that the entry level models should use whatever is cheaper and an IRS setup be reserved for the SS & Z/28.

But that's not the premis of this thread.......parts bin engineering is what's being tossed about like it's no big deal.....the axle/strut debate is a wish for advancement and longetivity of the design......

I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.

I totally disagree with this mindset. The GTO nameplate was not elevated into a status that nothing could represent it. That is ridiculous. What GM did was take an existing car and slap a nameplate of GTO on it. That is why the GTO has not seen great success. It is not rocket science.

GM needed to start from the ground up concerning the GTO and build a car that matches the stigma.. The new GTO fell way short, considering it was never designed with the GTO nameplate in mind to begin with.

On that note, GM just cannot make the same mistake over again and again.. Throwing together a parts bin Camaro would be suicide. Yes it would be great to have a new Camaro come out soon, but in reality it would fail and fail big time.

The Camaro's direct competition would be of course the Mustang. What Ford did with this latest car was amazing. They started from scratch, and used the Mustangs history and influence over the years to build a car that represents the Mustang to the tee... that is now almost an icon status, selling like hotcakes..

There is no way in hell a rush job Camaro thrown together from a parts bin to rush it for Camaro lovers satisfaction would come close to the Mustang. The only way for the next generation Camaro to succeed is to dedicate a ground up perspective for the Camaro, and grab the influence over the many existing years, and build a car ture to it's image. That is the key. A car that can also sell large volumes in the lower end models.

The Mustang did just that, and did it well.. The GTO did not , and we all can see the result of that. A rushed Camaro from the parts bin would accomplish nothing more than another failure.

Some issue with this:

1) If you use GTO as a comparision, it's already been noted that a comparably equipped 4th Gen Camaro SS or TA WS6 would be priced only slightly less... and that car has been gone for 3 years, so it's price would have slid upwards over that time to boot.

2) If you take away the LS1/LS2, standard leather, 6 disc stereo, and a host of other things that GTO comes with standard, and plug in base Camaro pieces (V6, cloth interior, standard CD radio, etc...) your price would amazingly fall into an area that might only be a tad higher than what an acceptible Camaro base price would be.

3) Yes, if a live axle was used, most people from this site would probably buy it anyway... however, there are LOTS of people who want a comfortable riding sporty car... A LOT of people thought my 89 RS and 99 Z28 rode rough.... and the V6 buyers can easily go buy a FWD car, because they get the ride they want... (remeber that GRAND AM was listed as an alternative by Mustang buyers ahead of Camaro!!!!!) and they don't care about the drive wheels as much as they don't care about the type of suspension in the rear.... but they will feel the difference, and it could swing them in a different direction.

Yes, it is working for Mustang right now, but as recent history has shown... a new Camaro will probably have to be better than the Mustang to grow it's buyer base. Especially in the base car market.

My thought's exactly. The market has changed since the days of the 'simple' car and to be successful a new Camaro will have to sell to more than just the 'poor working stiff'. It'll have to sell to the college students, the secretaries, the automotive technofiles, etc.

WE, on this board, represent the MINORITY. Hell, I'm in the minority because I really DO NOT want the seating position to change.

ProudPony........take a deep breath.

This thread started as someone's idea that you could simply hang a buggy axle and struts (on a chassis that was never designed for them) and snatch up the rest of the parts out of the recycle bin and whalla...a Camaro could be born.

The debate about a live axle versus an IRS is a spin-off of that flawed premis to wit, those of us who would rather they "do it right or not at all" are simply arguing for the Camaro to not return as a re-run of the 3rd gens........and thereby be crucified by the automotive press causing yet another death of a species.

Honestly, IF a suitable platform (not convinced Sigma is or ever was "suitable") could be designed for either (as was the Mustang's platform) then there would be NO question that the entry level models should use whatever is cheaper and an IRS setup be reserved for the SS & Z/28.
Here is the point of common grounds, and the MAIN point of a successful return of the Camaro. We agree 100% here.
So long as the IRS was available for the upscale models, or available as a cost-add option on the lesser model, I am 100% on-board thusfar.

But that's not the premis of this thread.......parts bin engineering is what's being tossed about like it's no big deal.....the axle/strut debate is a wish for advancement and longetivity of the design......
Understood, and agreed in large part. But in all fairness, you have to admit that there were LOTS of REALLY GOOD PARTS in the F4 that would be welcomed right back into the fold in a repackaged F5. Why wouldn't a 330hp LS1 be a good competitor to a 300hp Mustang? 3.8l to the 4.0l? What was really wrong with the 6spd manny or auto behind the LS1? The same F3 or F4 platform as-is... no, I don't think so. But many other items would go well.

Don't worry, I'm not menstrual over it... I just think some folks are playing that one card too heavily in this F5 formula. :cool:

Agreed..... :D

I think a person's perception of a better ride would be achieved with a better seating position. Getting into a camaro is like getting into a race car (nothing wrong with that but girls don't want that). The Mustang apparently is not like that, easy to get in and easy to get out of.

As for choice of engine people are bringing the LS1 back from the dead, I don't see how Chevy could take a step backward in performance regarding their smallblocks. Hell, they could slap a gen 1 350 in the Camaro and it would wipe the floor with the Mustang GT.

The God Damn Mustang comes with a solid axle. Put a damn solid axle on the damn Camaro. Geez already.

Isn't the 350Z a "parts bin" car? It seems to be doing pretty well.

yeah man I tell ya what man that dang ole' Mustang comes with a dang ole' solid axle man so put a dang ole' solid axle on the dang ole' Camaro man, dang ole' geez I tell ya what man.
Sorry, I had to :)

I totally disagree with this mindset. The GTO nameplate was not elevated into a status that nothing could represent it. That is ridiculous. What GM did was take an existing car and slap a nameplate of GTO on it. That is why the GTO has not seen great success. It is not rocket science.

GM needed to start from the ground up concerning the GTO and build a car that matches the stigma.. The new GTO fell way short, considering it was never designed with the GTO nameplate in mind to begin with.

On that note, GM just cannot make the same mistake over again and again.. Throwing together a parts bin Camaro would be suicide. Yes it would be great to have a new Camaro come out soon, but in reality it would fail and fail big time.

The Camaro's direct competition would be of course the Mustang. What Ford did with this latest car was amazing. They started from scratch, and used the Mustangs history and influence over the years to build a car that represents the Mustang to the tee... that is now almost an icon status, selling like hotcakes..

There is no way in hell a rush job Camaro thrown together from a parts bin to rush it for Camaro lovers satisfaction would come close to the Mustang. The only way for the next generation Camaro to succeed is to dedicate a ground up perspective for the Camaro, and grab the influence over the many existing years, and build a car ture to it's image. That is the key. A car that can also sell large volumes in the lower end models.

The Mustang did just that, and did it well.. The GTO did not , and we all can see the result of that. A rushed Camaro from the parts bin would accomplish nothing more than another failure.
I won't get into the GTO argument again, but to be brief, your argument is flawed in several ways. The new GTO was not originally intended to be a GTO no. Neither was the 1964 LeMans. Pushihng that aside for a second, lets be real - the GTO is not selling because it looks outdated - not because of anything regarding its origins. If Americans have demonstrated anything over the past twenty years, its that they will buy a car regrdless of its origin, no matter how humble its roots (read, imports and fox body Mustang).

Of course, this is rather irrelevant because we are not talking about taking one car and making it a Camaro. Rather, we are talking about looking through the company's parts bin to make what otherwise would be impossible a reality.

These days, there simply are very few sports cars under $30,000 that are not parts bin creations. Both the Mustang and 350Z use a version of a luxury car platform that has been cheapened up. The Stang did it with a live rear axle and a 5-speed, along with cheaper materials all around. The 350 took out a lot of the sound deadening material for the base version, and gets its engine from the Maxima.

Well, in any case, don't worry. I don't think this Camaro is coming around the corner, as much as I would like it to.

the GTO is not selling because it looks outdated - not because of anything regarding its origins

If it had an origin of being designed to represent a GTO from the beginning, than it would never have looked like the current version and outdated. it was nothing more than a RUSH job to fillthe gap. Yes it looked outdated before it hit the showroom floor. I agree there, but I also have to say if GM actually designed the GTO from the ground up, it would have represented what people would expect from a new version.. You are missing my point actually in the fact that I was not talking about where the car was produced, but what it was originally designed for. The current Monaro was never intended to represent the GTO, and the public's response to it shows. I am more comparing how Ford from the first step to last concerning the Mustang, designed it to be a Mustang.

When we start talking rushing a Camaro together using a questionable platform in relation to the Camaro, and on top of that need to totally rely on parts bin designs, then GM has already shot itself in the foot, and needs practically a miracle to make it work, especially considering it's direct competition

I totally disagree with this mindset. The GTO nameplate was not elevated into a status that nothing could represent it. That is ridiculous. What GM did was take an existing car and slap a nameplate of GTO on it. That is why the GTO has not seen great success. It is not rocket science.

Actually, EVERY GTO ever made (save the '74 Ventura based version) was basically an existing car that had the GTO name slapped on it. :lol:

Know what? The axle thing is a smoke screen right now for false images to appear on. I find it hard to believe that if GM put a Camaro on dealers lots with a decent interior, good tranny, enhanced LS1, and fresh new sheetmetal, that most of you guys wouldn't consider it at all because it has a 10-bolt or 12-bolt under it. :bs:

I'll agree 100%. Actually, I'll extend it to not just "most" guys, but everyone who actually is a Camaro fan and actually is able to buy a new one.

All this "If I don't get IRS, I'm not going to play" people are just blowing smoke and posturing. If the next Camaro has hot looks, solid construction, powerful dependable powertrain, and a budget pricetag, they'll be in line with the rest of us. :)

I'm getting tired of people thinking Ford "got away with something" by putting a tube under the Mustang.... no wait, they DID get away with something... 200,000 SOLD VEHICLES, that's what they got away with! 200,000 people eager to throw their money at a car. It does sound like they "got away" with something, now doesn't it? Happy customers... think about it.

One thing I've noticed when I switched from Mustang To Camaro is that there's a pronounced group of excusemakers & those in perpetual denial that come with the Camaro culture that didn't exist with the Mustang gang.

Mustang outsells Camaro?
"Well, with Firebird we outsell Mustang."

Mustang outsells both F-bodies by 2 to one?
"Well, Mustang sells to girls."

Mustang Cobra blows away LS1 F-bodies?
"So what. Mustang needs a supercharger." or even more ridiculous: "Well, I can buy aftermarket parts, and then my Camaro will blow away a Cobra."

And now the latest:
Instead of 150,000 cars, Mustang is selling 200,000 even though it has a live axles... more than half of the entire US coupe market!
"Well, the press gave Mustang a pass and the public let Ford get away with having a live axle."

Uh, OK. :rolleyes:


The new Camro need to be more than what it was, FOR THE BASE CARS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF SALES WILL BE!

It can't be "crude"....
The interior must be more than mearly 'functional'....
It has to appeal to the widest audience possible to be viable.

The same CANNOT be said of the new Mustang. It's interior is much better than the previous. It's no longer a crude chassis (despite a truck rear end).

Alas, someone who's actually serious about making a Camaro that will take on the Mustang in SALES, and doesn't suffer from "Performance Tunnelvision". ;)



To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a hoot if the next F-body has IRS or not.

I really appriciate how my IRS Thunderbird SC is almost oblivious to rough road surfaces in corners and how the car sticks like glue with nothing more than a tire upgrade. But... my SC also weighs about 3800 pounds too!!! :shock:

My live axle '97 Camaro Z28 handles exceptionally well. It rides better than my SC in it's "handling mode" of the electronic suspension. With Mustang, Ford seems to have found a way to lessen the characteristic drawbacks of a live axle. Forget just cheaper, live axles are lighter in weight! The IRS on SN95 Cobras added 150 to 200 pounds! :eek:

If GM were to make an IRS that's lightweight and relatively inexpensive, count me in. It would be a good marketing tool over the Mustang. Besides, GM's performance cars have traditionally been about handling over drag racing off the showroom floor. However, if GM decided to go with a live axle & did as good or better tuning job than Ford did with the Mustang, I wouldn't mind in the least.

Ride & handling can be tuned in perfectly or screwed up completely in both configurations.

Sorry, I had to :)

:lol: :bow:

I really appriciate how my IRS Thunderbird SC is almost oblivious to rough road surfaces in corners and how the car sticks like glue with nothing more than a tire upgrade. But... my SC also weighs about 3800 pounds too!!! :shock:



I have no Idea what a car with IRS feels like, don't care either I prefer a comfortable seat. The Camaro should weigh closer to 3000 lbs than 4000 lbs. Both the GTO and '03-'04 Cobras are bloated pigs. A good seat position, relatively light, and a design to capture females and the V6 crowd and the Camaro can live. If that happens then we can have an SS LS2 390 hp version or the Z/28 350 hp ~$25,000 version.

Alas, someone who's actually serious about making a Camaro that will take on the Mustang in SALES, and doesn't suffer from "Performance Tunnelvision". ;)

Thanks man, I was starting to feel like I was argueing with the deaf :thumb:

Some of that denail you speak of might just be disbelief from the enthusiast few (tunnelheads I guess) who just can't fathom why more people buy what is on paper an inferior sports car. I would be groupd in that crowd, although for slightly different reasons.

Ford isn't gonna sell 150-200K because of IRS or a an axle out back...it's the only thing in it's segment.

Mentioning that, you think Chevy has an inclination of the uphill battle it has in front of it? My perception is not many people switch from Mustang to Camaro and vise versa. I'd be afraid that Chevy won't lure too many new 'Stang drivers into a Camaro because they've become part of the 'Blue Oval Faithfull", inspite of their delusion of driving a 'modern classic' (oh crap, I think I just opened another can of worms :p )

Thanks man, I was starting to feel like I was argueing with the deaf :thumb:

...My perception is not many people switch from Mustang to Camaro and vise versa. I'd be afraid that Chevy won't lure too many new 'Stang drivers into a Camaro because they've become part of the 'Blue Oval Faithfull", inspite of their delusion of driving a 'modern classic' (oh crap, I think I just opened another can of worms :p )

No, there's plenty of the "non-deaf" here. :D


I was once a "Blue Oval Faithful" & I was lured back to Chevrolet. I can't speak for all former Stang owners, but for me I came here when Ford went down hill as far as factory performance, started forgetting it's faithful, and the other side looked like it had something better (sounds familiar, doesn't it ;)).

To be perfectly honest, I don't see any way on earth GM can win over Mustang enthusiasts today or in the near future unless Ford screws up royally. Instead of sitting on their laurels since they all but own the coupe market, Ford is doing everything it can to grab every Camaro fan it can while GM screws up dragging it's feet.

Ford not only brought out a impressive base & GT Mustang, it brought out a Cobra to drool over without jacking up the price (adjusting for 2 years of inflation), preparing a T-top option for 2006, a Mach 1 or it's replacement (under the hood of all new Mustangs is the outline of where the hood scoop of this model will poke through the hood! :eek: ), and the likely return of the Special Service (re: Police) Mustang later in 2006, and a also likely companion "LX" type budget Mustang GT around the same time while the regular GT gets an engine upgrade.

Compare that with the best senario we can realistically hope for the Camaro:
* Out in 2007 as a 2008
* In base & "Z28" form.
* Higher performance models to be out a year or 2 later for the 2009 or 2010 model year. Just in time for the Mustang redesign.

Shift everything back 1 year if Camaro doesn't return till 2009.

In the "slide-ruler" age, GM answered the '65 Mustang just 2 years later in '67. How far ahead and how many years jump does the '05 Ford Mustang need to be for GM's entry to seem like a distant desparate joke in this supercomputer age where GM said it can get a car from idea to production in 18-24 months??? 3 years in 2008? 4 years in 2009? 5 years in 2010?? :no:

GM's going to have the deck stacked against it if Camaro's replacement doesn't come till 2008. If it's not till 2009, unless Ford implodes and goes belly up, GM may as well forget it.

My perception is not many people switch from Mustang to Camaro and vise versa. I'd be afraid that Chevy won't lure too many new 'Stang drivers into a Camaro because they've become part of the 'Blue Oval Faithfull", inspite of their delusion of driving a 'modern classic' (oh crap, I think I just opened another can of worms :p )

I believe that Chevy would have the potential to lure away some current owners (or leasee if the timeing is right). What are the bulk of Mustang and Camaro sales? V6 daily drivers. If Chevy can make a superior V6 Camaro, at a competitive price (read as slightly less expensive with similar options) with great looks, that is packaged well, the Camaro could take some sales away. The bulk of the V6 buyers are not 'Blue Oval Faithfull'

I am sick of people saying the Camaro should be cheaper than the Mustang. Since the days of the 3rd gen, this hasn't been true. You should get a better car with the Camaro, and pay a higher price than a comparbly equipped Mustang(1-3K more).

All this "If I don't get IRS, I'm not going to play" people are just blowing smoke and posturing. No. Speaking for myself I can safely say there is no posturing or blowing of smoke on my part.

I have never owned ANYTHING other than GM. I have spent >$110K on new (two of them Camaros) GM vehicles in the last 14 years.

GM will not got one penny from me for a half assed 5th gen effort.


To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a hoot if the next F-body has IRS or not. I do. And for the record I don't want struts either.


My live axle '97 Camaro Z28 handles exceptionally well. So does my '96 UNTIL I ENCOUNTER ROUGH PAVEMENT! These encounters are still unpleasant even with big $ Koni SA shocks.

Life is not a billiard table smooth skid pad. It is full of big time road surface imperfections which a properly engineered IRS will more capably deal with.

As for the acceleration wheel hop that the CTS-V and Corvette suffer, I'm willing to bet that were these vehicles equipped with a shock package containing the proper level of rebound damping we would not be hearing any complaints. GM shock calibrations for rebound generally suck for all of their vehicles.

live axles are lighter in weight! The IRS on SN95 Cobras added 150 to 200 pounds! :eek: I'm not buying that aluminum IRS linkage in a 5th gen would weigh more than a 10 or 12 bolt.

For the sake of argument, lets say this is so. You're forgetting one thing...that freakin' heavy axle is all UNSPRUNG WEIGHT. This is the major factor behind the unpleasant reactions over bumpy pavement. It also causes the car to feel "slow footed".



GM has some of the best engineering talent and ability. It's rarely shown in their products because of their practice of making vehicles that are just good enough.

It's time to expect more refinement and effort from the General for even everyday cars. Had they adopted such a policy a decade ago, maybe they wouldn't be struggling with market share and public perception today.

No. Speaking for myself I can safely say there is no posturing or blowing of smoke on my part.

I have never owned ANYTHING other than GM. I have spent >$110K on new (two of them Camaros) GM vehicles in the last 14 years.

GM will not got one penny from me for a half assed 5th gen effort.


I do. And for the record I don't want struts either.


So does my '96 UNTIL I ENCOUNTER ROUGH PAVEMENT! These encounters are still unpleasant even with big $ Koni SA shocks.

Life is not a billiard table smooth skid pad. It is full of big time road surface imperfections which a properly engineered IRS will more capably deal with.

As for the acceleration wheel hop that the CTS-V and Corvette suffer, I'm willing to bet that were these vehicles equipped with a shock package containing the proper level of rebound damping we would not be hearing any complaints. GM shock calibrations for rebound generally suck for all of their vehicles.

I'm not buying that aluminum IRS linkage in a 5th gen would weigh more than a 10 or 12 bolt.

For the sake of argument, lets say this is so. You're forgetting one thing...that freakin' heavy axle is all UNSPRUNG WEIGHT. This is the major factor behind the unpleasant reactions over bumpy pavement. It also causes the car to feel "slow footed".



GM has some of the best engineering talent and ability. It's rarely shown in their products because of their practice of making vehicles that are just good enough.

It's time to expect more refinement and effort from the General for even everyday cars. Had they adopted such a policy a decade ago, maybe they wouldn't be struggling with market share and public perception today.


I don't know what car you're looking for, but it sure as hell isn't a Camaro. :)

I don't know what car you're looking for, but it sure as hell isn't a Camaro. :)
So what youre saying is that when the new Camaro comes out, you expect a car that rattles, has poor interior quality, bad body panel fitment, BUT HEY, its cheap and has some power! I personally am sick and tired of hearing this. GM, if they are even thinking of bringing this car back, REALLY need to spend some time making it a decent piece. Im not saying pack it with features and use the best leather known to man and make the body tighter than Fort Knox, but if its even close to the 4th gen in anything other than price and power, i will be severly dissapointed.

So what youre saying is that when the new Camaro comes out, you expect a car that rattles, has poor interior quality, bad body panel fitment, BUT HEY, its cheap and has some power! I personally am sick and tired of hearing this. GM, if they are even thinking of bringing this car back, REALLY need to spend some time making it a decent piece. Im not saying pack it with features and use the best leather known to man and make the body tighter than Fort Knox, but if its even close to the 4th gen in anything other than price and power, i will be severly dissapointed.

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. I even hope they bring back the hump on the passanger side floor. :lol: :rolleyes:

I don't know what car you're looking for, but it sure as hell isn't a Camaro. :)
Yes it is EXACTLY that.

I can see your point though. If your definition of "Camaro" is a slapped together quick fix car, one that is just good enough to satisfy the less demanding customer and not a clear leader in any one area....then no, by your definition, I am not looking for a Camaro.


I am looking for a car that will put any other vehicle in or near it's price range on the trailer in every category.

I am looking for a car that will be a clear winner in any head to head comparison. No excuses, no BS single point losses to the gotta-have-it-factor.

I am looking for a car that shows some of GM's engineering muscle. A well thought out package, not a parts bin rush job that shows no respect for the sophistication and demands of their customers. We've put up with that garbage (ONE redesign on 20 YEARS?!) long enough.

I want a car that brings a heaping load of trickle down technology to a realistic price level. Tech such as that which is learned at Nurburgring and in wheel to wheel competition.

More than anything, I want a car that just starts to make all this hiatus crap worth it.

:bow: :bow:

I am sick of people saying the Camaro should be cheaper than the Mustang. Since the days of the 3rd gen, this hasn't been true. You should get a better car with the Camaro, and pay a higher price than a comparbly equipped Mustang(1-3K more).

For the Camaro to survive, it must have strong V6 sales. Pricing the Camaro 1-3k more will NOT help the Camaro stay alive. How many times since the 3rd Gen did the Camaro out sell the mustang? We should get a better car with the Camaro however; we should get it at the same or a little lower. Put a Equally equipped Camaro and Mustang next to each other. I would say for the average Joe (or Jane) most will go with the one that looks the best (Their opinion) and/or has the lower price.

GM needs to lower the MSRP on their cars to get rid of the rebates anyway. Why price the Camaro higher to begin with just to tack on rebates to bring the price down to a comparable level with the Mustang?

BTW, When you buy your Camaro, I'm sure the dealer won't mind adding on an extra 1-3K for you. :rolleyes:

guionM: Ride & handling can be tuned in perfectly or screwed up completely in both configurations.I agree, wheel hop can be nearly eliminated by correcting rear geometry, for take offs. And varying spring rates with road sensing strut/shocks and more than 1/2" of rubber on a 17" or 18" wheel. Ofcourse this may NOT end up being an "All out B@lls-to-the-Walls" configuration, but I believe a better ride can be had w/o compromising much performance. (And could be totally upgradeable.. :D )(The Vette's I've ridden in jarred badly on rough roads too, I believe due more to the non-existent sidewall rubber than anything else.)

But i don't get how the mustang gets a free ride? A live axle is STILL a live axle. Magazines have grilled them for it, but people will still buy them. The reason mustang still sells well with it is because the majority of consumers really don't know difference and only know what they see on the outside. Go walk up to a typical v6 mustang owner and ask them whether they have a live axle or an IRS back there. 20 bucks says 98 out of 100 won't even know. Outside of the real enthusiasts that know the cars like the back of their hand, the general public really is blind on this matter. That's NO excuse to go with a live axle, but i don't really think a live axle would spell automatic doom for a 5th gen.


Now lets go into the scenarios here:
Camaro has live rear axle:
Magazine says "The Camaro's return from hiatus has come back with a live rear axle that GM has tuned to make a ride comporable with the Mustang's. It has similar handling as the mustang as well. It boils down to personal preferance here."
Camaro has IRS
Magazine says "The Camaro returns with IRS which gives it an edge on the Mustang. It outhandles the Mustang and has a much better feeling ride. Even though the Camaro costs a little bit more than the Mustang every penny is worth it. Go out and pick up a Camaro"

Also with all the rebates GM offered and downsized their public opinion to a car "i got because it was cheaper and i could afford it better" i would think that a better Camaro (than the mustang) that costs around $1000 more would really help bring their image up.

Now lets go into the scenarios here:
Camaro has live rear axle:
Magazine says "The Camaro's return from hiatus has come back with a live rear axle that GM has tuned to make a ride comporable with the Mustang's. It has similar handling as the mustang as well. It boils down to personal preferance here."
Camaro has IRS
Magazine says "The Camaro returns with IRS which gives it an edge on the Mustang. It outhandles the Mustang and has a much better feeling ride. Even though the Camaro costs a little bit more than the Mustang every penny is worth it. Go out and pick up a Camaro"

Or they say "Mustang handling feels familiar, since it's using a suspension setup that was first used on the 1982 third gen f-bodies."

To put in my $.02 on the suspension debate: I really don't give a hoot so long as the ride is halfway decent. My '94 Z will tell you where every crack and expansion joint is. That's not a way to sell cars. Doesn't matter if it's LRA or IRS, it's got to be good.

Now that I've got that out of the way...

I've got a parts-bin question that I doubt anyone will be able to answer, but I want to try to get off of suspension.

1) All work was stopped on Zeta, yes. But, how far did they get before they switched projects? Exactly what pieces are ready for testing? (I highly doubt this one will be answered, but I threw it out to get people thinking)

And, for the follow-up...

2) How compatible are Zeta and Sigma? If it is true that the cowl height is too much, could you plug in the front of Zeta to get rid of that height? I've heard that Zeta was supposed to be modular; how modular is it? And, how much is done?

Does GM's all-encompasing "parts-bin" include vehicles still in design/testing? What about it's "offshore" divisions? How much testing does something from Europe or Australia, or even Canada have to go through to be certified for US use?

Actually, EVERY GTO ever made (save the '74 Ventura based version) was basically an existing car that had the GTO name slapped on it

We are not in 1974 now are we.


If the GTO is to be a success, I think they should have a lower end model to support the performance version.. Lower end model that was designed in the first place with the GTO in mind, like in the past..So you could technically slap a GTO badge on it with performance options and it would work. Lower model optioned vehicles coud support the performancre model. Not just slap a badge on a Monaro and make it a niche vehicle, on a car that never had the GTO in mind when designed.. That obviously did not work well. And they need to do it to reflect the past GTO's image. Current version did NONE of this well.

Lower end model that was designed in the first place with the GTO in mind, like in the past..
That is never how it worked.

I feel that GM has two options regarding a new Camaro:
1) make it a parts-bin niche vehicle and make 40,000 - 50,000 a year and sell every one made (and be happy about it). Make a Z28 and an SS only, and make them faster than a Mustang GT and GT500. Include T-Tops but no convertible to save on costs.
or
2) make a world class car that appeals to a variety of people, not just enthusiasts. This would include v6, Z28, SS, convertible (available on all models), and every year or so offer a special model (RS, Berlinetta?).

Option 1 could conceivably get to market quickly, and be good enough to keep the Camaro faithful happy (for the most part). Option 2 would take longer to develop and produce, but would sell more and compete more directly with the Mustang offerings. Option 1 would probably make every drag racer happy, and it may work initially, but when the enthusiasm for a new Camaro wears off, would they still be able to sell 40,000+ a year. Option 2 makes more sense from a money-making standpoint, but unless it really is a world class car, and they advertise and perform updates/refreshes on a regular basis, it will see sales fall as well. My only problem with option 2 is that I don't see Camaro outselling the Mustang except for maybe a brief year or two, UNLESS GM takes it seriously and does build a world class car that beats the Mustang in every category. Even then though I question whether a Camaro could consistently beat Mustang sales, because it's appeal is not as wide-spread as the Mustangs. Because of this, it worries me that IF GM did make a world class Mustang beater, and it didn't out-sell the Mustang, they would pull the plug permanently, figuring they gave it their best shot and it still wasn't good enough.

Yes it is EXACTLY that.

I can see your point though. If your definition of "Camaro" is a slapped together quick fix car, one that is just good enough to satisfy the less demanding customer and not a clear leader in any one area....then no, by your definition, I am not looking for a Camaro.


I am looking for a car that will put any other vehicle in or near it's price range on the trailer in every category.

I am looking for a car that will be a clear winner in any head to head comparison. No excuses, no BS single point losses to the gotta-have-it-factor.

I am looking for a car that shows some of GM's engineering muscle. A well thought out package, not a parts bin rush job that shows no respect for the sophistication and demands of their customers. We've put up with that garbage (ONE redesign on 20 YEARS?!) long enough.

I want a car that brings a heaping load of trickle down technology to a realistic price level. Tech such as that which is learned at Nurburgring and in wheel to wheel competition.

More than anything, I want a car that just starts to make all this hiatus crap worth it.


:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

The problem with a limited run Camaro is the same that GM has with all there short run niche vehicles.
1- limited numbers so less people can get them, which gives you market adjustment, which then pisses off enthusiasts that really want the car but cant afford the added cash, which lets sales tank and desire fall off and then GM has to boost it with a larger engine and hood scoops....sorry, thats the GTO.

It needs to be a volume car that people with V6 can enjoy the same style and performance as the guys and gals who pay for the big V8. That is what the alure is of the Mustang and the 300. That is what GM needs.

Yes it is EXACTLY that.

I can see your point though. If your definition of "Camaro" is a slapped together quick fix car, one that is just good enough to satisfy the less demanding customer and not a clear leader in any one area....then no, by your definition, I am not looking for a Camaro.


I am looking for a car that will put any other vehicle in or near it's price range on the trailer in every category.

I am looking for a car that will be a clear winner in any head to head comparison. No excuses, no BS single point losses to the gotta-have-it-factor.

I am looking for a car that shows some of GM's engineering muscle. A well thought out package, not a parts bin rush job that shows no respect for the sophistication and demands of their customers. We've put up with that garbage (ONE redesign on 20 YEARS?!) long enough.

I want a car that brings a heaping load of trickle down technology to a realistic price level. Tech such as that which is learned at Nurburgring and in wheel to wheel competition.

More than anything, I want a car that just starts to make all this hiatus crap worth it.

Thanks Chewy!

I don't have alot of time to type....but you said it all for me.

You are the man! :thumb:

Wow, I just came to this website to ask this very question...and someone created a thread with a reply. Good thread bro. I still have to read pages 2-14, but my question was going to be "what will GM/Chevy do DIFFERENT from the past?" In other words, it already had a bigger engine, more sporty look, and options...but it was not enough to compete with the original pony car. :confused:

Do you care if that show-stopping Camaro costs $35-$40k?

it already had a bigger engine, more sporty look, and options...but it was not enough to compete with the original pony car.I think if any failure can be linked to the car itself, it would have to be "Eye Appeal", inside and out. Remember, EYE APPEAL = BUY APPEAL..
The Camaro was MORE about the JOB and lost sight of the Driver/Passenger, and their ergonomic needs and pleasing the visual creature we are.
I'm 6'2" @ 240lbs, and the 4th gen seats were just plain uncomfortable to me. The lumbars particularly. The unibody wasn't stiff enough..etc..
GM should look at ALL the POPULAR modds that were done to Camaro's and use that for direction on WHAT WAS INADEQUATE with the Camaro's.(At least as options)(Mechanical and Appearance wise) Not exact parts, but themes and directions of what the people who buy these cars like. The Power and performance were'nt a big issue, except maybe braking, weak rear ends or like.
It should'nt simply be about "doing one better than the Mustang", but "TAKING IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL!"

Do you care if that show-stopping Camaro costs $35-$40k?

Wasn't this the price of an SS/WS6 in 2002?

Content will dictate costs at different trim levels. Platform sharing is the ultimate key to cost containment.

I think it will be a struggle to hit the low $20k entry price point....in 2008's dollars....I "think" it'll range between $25k and the low $40k's.....but they'd better not cut the "wrong corners" or it'll be lights out for good.

Wasn't this the price of an SS/WS6 in 2002?

Exactly.

MSRP for a 2002 WS6 coupe - $31,185
MSRP for a 2002 WS6 CE coupe - $35,285

First link that I stumbled across (http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/convertibles/pontiac/firebird/2002/)

Wasn't this the price of an SS/WS6 in 2002?

Content will dictate costs at different trim levels. Platform sharing is the ultimate key to cost containment.

I think it will be a struggle to hit the low $20k entry price point....in 2008's dollars....I "think" it'll range between $25k and the low $40k's.....but they'd better not cut the "wrong corners" or it'll be lights out for good.

Exactly.

MSRP for a 2002 WS6 coupe - $31,185
MSRP for a 2002 WS6 CE coupe - $35,285

First link that I stumbled across (http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/convertibles/pontiac/firebird/2002/)
What did a typical 2002 Z28 MSRP for?

WS6's were supposed to be a "step up" from the T/A and/or Formula (and they more or less were, though performance improvements were marginal at best). Further, T/As had a higher MSRP than the average Z28. I would expect a WS6-type of car to be priced at or near the same price as a Cobra - just like they always have been. In that case, I'd have no problems with it. If that were the price of your "typical" Z28-type Camaro, then I would have a problem with it (that is my opinion, of course).

Personally, I don't see anything in this thread that yells "cutting corners," unless your only metric is that the 5th Gen Camaro must be on a Camaro-specific chassis with virtually everything being Camaro-specific.

So I ask again, as the question wasn't answered (not that you have to): Would you be willing to pay $35k-$40k for a 5th Gen Camaro that you describe in previous replies above?

FYI....the $35k WS6 quoted above is a "Collectors edition" and hardly representative of the MSRP on the majority of 2002 LS1 F-bodies. For that matter, in the link provided, Formula Coupe's were listed as having an MSRP of $25,865 - almost $10k less than the CE.

So I ask again, as the question wasn't answered (not that you have to): Would you be willing to pay $35k-$40k for a 5th Gen Camaro that you describe in previous replies above?

I am by no means well off but I could personally justify $35K for a properly executed Z28 if they folded the ideals of the original into the new car.

In present day terms, this means that I could justify $35K for a Z28 if they followed in the footsteps of the ZO6. No I don't mean it HAS to have the LS7, but it does have to be a top line no fluff model that is ready for battle just like the ZO6.

Keep in mind that I don't take such a cost figure lightly as my '96 stickered for less than $21K. Of course this was due in part to my careful option selection. I didn't check off any boxes on the order sheet that didn't make the car faster or corner harder. ;)

..If the GTO is to be a success, I think they should have a lower end model to support the performance version.. Lower end model that was designed in the first place with the GTO in mind, like in the past..So you could technically slap a GTO badge on it with performance options and it would work. Lower model optioned vehicles coud support the performancre model. Not just slap a badge on a Monaro and make it a niche vehicle, on a car that never had the GTO in mind when designed.. That obviously did not work well. And they need to do it to reflect the past GTO's image. Current version did NONE of this well.

Which brings us back to the point made that started this exchange: People's tendancy of revising what the car actually was. GTO was ALWAYS barely nothing more than a mid-sized family-rental car with a V8 from a large car and a GTO badge slapped on it, much the same way all muscle cars of the day were.

No, it didn't have a chassis engineered for it.

No, it didn't have a low end model (unless you got the Tempest or LeMans it was based on)

Yes, the GTO was an afterthought model and always was.

You can make the case that this time around, the new GTO is the most unique, single purpose, and special GTO ever made since it shares it's chassis with no other vehicle available in the US.

.......
So I ask again, as the question wasn't answered (not that you have to): Would you be willing to pay $35k-$40k for a 5th Gen Camaro that you describe in previous replies above? ....

I'm with Chewy....I would fully "expect" to pay mid to high $30k's for the Z/28 that a few of us have fought for so hard.

Personally, as long as the Camaro is on a shared platform that allows it to be profitable at a lower units/sold level, I don't see why a Camaro has to fill all the shoes a Mustang does. GM has many other cars to fill the entry level voids already in place.

Do you care if that show-stopping Camaro costs $35-$40k?

I can very well image certain Camaro variants falling into that price range.....just like they did in the final years of the 4th gen.

But that doesn't necessarilly mean that you must bring less expensive Camaro variants in....only if they carry a suspension designed by John Deere.

GM will be selling a product soon, which will have it's most rigid structure and most advanced suspension components of any car in GM's global parts bin. This product will cost you LESS than 20K. It is Kappa.

Here's another question to ponder.

How much more does the Cobra's 5.4 blocked, 4 valve headed, supercharged inducted and intercooled - motor cost, vs a really inexpensive 450-475 hp LSx motor?

Bet you could buy lots of forged alloy control arms and bullet proof half shafts for the difference.

In regards to many comments made on page 15, you have to keep in mind that manufacturers are thinking mainly of the general public, and not automotive enthusiasts. I've read a lot of credit being given to Ford for its upgrade in hp for 05, but I wouldn't be so quick to do so. Most mid sized sedans had the same hp as the 04's and it was only catching up to the extinct f-bodys and mid-sedans.
The general public is interested in image and aestetics more than anything else, and the price is dependent more on the image than quality/quantity.

GM will be selling a product soon, which will have it's most rigid structure and most advanced suspension components of any car in GM's global parts bin. This product will cost you LESS than 20K. It is Kappa.



I glad someone else finally brought up Kappa in this thread, besides me.

GM has many other cars to fill the entry level voids already in place. What other RWD, 4 seater sports cars does GM sell in the entry level? Not every wants a Cobalt or can have a solstice. The Camaro needs to fill that void and at it should start under $20k.

I'm fine with struts and no IRS. I guess IRS could be added later for a top model maybe, but lets be real, the car would be fine without it and some actually prefer that. IMO though, everything has to still be done better than the M*stang and every other aspect should have more attention to detail. Hopefully it can be done.

Evok worked within CEO Wagoner's guideline regarding GM's new focus on "core" vehicles. GM is putting their resources towards the new full size trucks, high volume sedans, and high profit Hummers and Cadillac.

Zeta for 2008 has been cancelled, and now won't be out before the 2010 model year if then. Let's say I'm wrong about there being a Zeta offshoot that's unaffected, and a Zeta based Camaro is also a casualty of all this. Say there's already a design and alot of the legwork is already done.

Now, you have a choice of either sitting on your hands and doing something else till you're allowed to start up again (there is a stop work order on all North American Zeta), or you can put together a program that will cause those who have to approve new vehicles to see this as a must have. That means the car has to use existing parts, and most important of all: it has to have a larger than usual (for a car) profit margin!

Evok so far seems to be the only person to have come up with a real solution here, instead of alot of bellyaching, posturing, or proclaiming what they won't buy.

Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. Camaro was always an evolution of a simple means to go quickly and handle well for a little money (save those who paid WS6 or SS prices for a $22K F-body). A Camaro with equal or greater visual impact of the Mustang with an interior that is at a minimum of the same quality of the new Cobalt that rides & handles better than the 4th gen at a price that's competitive to equally equpted Mustangs is going to sell well, regardless as to it's suspension. Each person headed for the door over that will likely be replaced by 3 who simply don't care.

A person is going to see a picture of the car in a book or magazine, go to the local dealer and sit in it, test drive it a few blocks, maybe do a few miles on the freeway, and if they like what they see & feel and the price is right, they're going to sign the paperwork and drive off the lot in one.

Before we get to that point, we have to create a car that GM management will trip over themselves to get on the streets.
Selling the car at a substantially higher price than the competition will kill it.
Selling it with traditionally thin car profit margins will kill it.
Settling for low production numbers will kill it.
Selling it as a niche vehicle will kill it.
The car MUST use existing & shared parts or it won't get made.

Now that we have a bit of reality and guidelines to work from, let's come up with a alternative plan to Evok's if you don't like his. :think:

How can we come up with a idea of chassis and the like if we dont know what the truth is or not?
Can Sigma's cowl be changed?
How flexable is Kappa?
Can Sigma be widened, but not lenghtend?
Will Caddy let Sigma go?
How interchangeable is Zeta to Sigma?
How interchangeable are parts of 355/360 into Kappa, Sigma or Zeta?
How will things like this effect design?

......Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. Camaro was always an evolution of a simple means to go quickly and handle well for a little money (save those who paid WS6 or SS prices for a $22K F-body). A Camaro with equal or greater visual impact of the Mustang with an interior that is at a minimum of the same quality of the new Cobalt that rides & handles better than the 4th gen at a price that's competitive to equally equpted Mustangs is going to sell well, regardless as to it's suspension. Each person headed for the door over that will likely be replaced by 3 who simply don't care.

And it died because of this kind of thinking...5+ year old benchmarking is killing GM. "Just good enough" just isn't going to cut it any more.

Today, we have many other competitors than just the Mustang.

A person is going to see a picture of the car in a book or magazine, .........

.....A magazine that will crucify GM for building a car with struts and a live axle. I can see the headlines now........"Chevy, killed the Camaro only to wait 5-10 years to build a re-run of the 1982 Camaro"

Those kinds of headlines will doom the Camaro all over again.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"


.....The car MUST use existing & shared parts or it won't get made.

On this point we very much agree...

Now that we have a bit of reality and guidelines to work from, let's come up with a alternative plan to Evok's if you don't like his. :think:

Then the issue of struts and a live axle need to be dropped.....it's been shown that it would actually increase costs to re-engineer a modern platform to use these archaic parts.

Doug, just so you know....there is a very convincing business plan at GM...done by engineering....showing that using the current Sigma suspension on any future Sigma variants......is CHEAPER than re-engineering Sigma for a new cheaper/crappy suspension.

If we don't end up getting the "already engineered" good stuff...it'll be because of politics....pure and simple!

As for as the other parts........there's not a car made (in any affordable segment) that does not already use the parts bin......so who really cares? Just use the good parts, for the parts that really matter.

No-one wants to realize that they bought a $30k car with parts out of a $20k car....



As far as "my plan"......

Sigma has expensive suspension "pieces"....isn't there a cheaper way to build these pieces without re-designing the entire thing?

Sigma still has the tall firewall......so maybe we need look elsewhere....:think:

How hard would it be to use the Sigma IRS under a stretched Kappa?

Hell, Lutz himself is quoted in HotRod this month laughing about the prospect of HotRod coming out with an article a few months after Kappa hits the ground, showing how to stuff an LS* into it.

Remember, they didn't think an LS* would fit in a Colorado/Canyon either....and it's already been done.

Finally, it's not like Kappa couldn't use a few more variants to help it's plant utilization & profitability picture...... ;)

I am by no means well off but I could personally justify $35K for a properly executed Z28 if they folded the ideals of the original into the new car.

In present day terms, this means that I could justify $35K for a Z28 if they followed in the footsteps of the ZO6. No I don't mean it HAS to have the LS7, but it does have to be a top line no fluff model that is ready for battle just like the ZO6.

Keep in mind that I don't take such a cost figure lightly as my '96 stickered for less than $21K. Of course this was due in part to my careful option selection. I didn't check off any boxes on the order sheet that didn't make the car faster or corner harder. ;)

I'm with Chewy....I would fully "expect" to pay mid to high $30k's for the Z/28 that a few of us have fought for so hard.

Personally, as long as the Camaro is on a shared platform that allows it to be profitable at a lower units/sold level, I don't see why a Camaro has to fill all the shoes a Mustang does. GM has many other cars to fill the entry level voids already in place.

Ok. We simply have different views of what we would like to see, based on our wants and biases. No biggie. :)

FYI...an LS7 option would likely be VERY expensive, given things like titanium rods and dry sump oiling.

How much more does the Cobra's 5.4 blocked, 4 valve headed, supercharged inducted and intercooled - motor cost, vs a really inexpensive 450-475 hp LSx motor?

Bet you could buy lots of forged alloy control arms and bullet proof half shafts for the difference.
LOL. You might be right. Something to consider though....that parts and pieces of that motor aren't really cutting edge or unusual anymore. The heads have been around now for years, the iron block has been used in the trucks for years, and even the blower and intercooler stuff has been around a while. Still not cheap by normal LS1 standards, but not that out of line either.

Evok worked within CEO Wagoner's guideline regarding GM's new focus on "core" vehicles. GM is putting their resources towards the new full size trucks, high volume sedans, and high profit Hummers and Cadillac.

Zeta for 2008 has been cancelled, and now won't be out before the 2010 model year if then. Let's say I'm wrong about there being a Zeta offshoot that's unaffected, and a Zeta based Camaro is also a casualty of all this. Say there's already a design and alot of the legwork is already done.

Now, you have a choice of either sitting on your hands and doing something else till you're allowed to start up again (there is a stop work order on all North American Zeta), or you can put together a program that will cause those who have to approve new vehicles to see this as a must have. That means the car has to use existing parts, and most important of all: it has to have a larger than usual (for a car) profit margin!

Evok so far seems to be the only person to have come up with a real solution here, instead of alot of bellyaching, posturing, or proclaiming what they won't buy.

Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. Camaro was always an evolution of a simple means to go quickly and handle well for a little money (save those who paid WS6 or SS prices for a $22K F-body). A Camaro with equal or greater visual impact of the Mustang with an interior that is at a minimum of the same quality of the new Cobalt that rides & handles better than the 4th gen at a price that's competitive to equally equpted Mustangs is going to sell well, regardless as to it's suspension. Each person headed for the door over that will likely be replaced by 3 who simply don't care.

A person is going to see a picture of the car in a book or magazine, go to the local dealer and sit in it, test drive it a few blocks, maybe do a few miles on the freeway, and if they like what they see & feel and the price is right, they're going to sign the paperwork and drive off the lot in one.

Before we get to that point, we have to create a car that GM management will trip over themselves to get on the streets.
Selling the car at a substantially higher price than the competition will kill it.
Selling it with traditionally thin car profit margins will kill it.
Settling for low production numbers will kill it.
Selling it as a niche vehicle will kill it.
The car MUST use existing & shared parts or it won't get made.

Now that we have a bit of reality and guidelines to work from, let's come up with a alternative plan to Evok's if you don't like his. :think:
Bless thee. :)

........Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. Camaro was always an evolution of a simple means to go quickly and handle well for a little money (save those who paid WS6 or SS prices for a $22K F-body)........

Besides, this is what my first memories of Camaro ads told me...... ;)

http://www.camarosource.ca/new_site/camaro_graphics/1968.jpg

:bow: :bow: :bow:

The car MUST use existing & shared parts or it won't get made. If cost is the real enemy here, I'll ask this once again...

How can it be more economical to A) adapt a platform to another set of suspension components and B) perform another round of crash test certifications?

Wouldn't it be far cheaper to use what is already on the platform? Economy of scale and all that. Shock calibrations, bushing durometers, and spring rates could all be unique with minimal outlay.

I'm just not buying the fact that a live axle / strut set up would be cheaper here. I may be ignorant but it strikes me as completely illogical. Convince me...


Now that we have a bit of reality and guidelines to work from, let's come up with a alternative plan to Evok's if you don't like his. :think:

I have no idea what it would cost to morph Sigma into a suitable Camaro.

How much actual development work has been done on a larger Kappa? (Torana). Is it still too far away from an engineering / cost standpoint to be used?


As a side issue and a bit off topic, if a larger Kappa is still a nonstarter...what is going to fill out Wilmington's production capacity? I've not seen anything mentioned about this for some time. There's sizable gap there that could be filled just about perfectly by a certain model.

Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. Camaro was always an evolution of a simple means to go quickly and handle well for a little money (save those who paid WS6 or SS prices for a $22K F-body). :


The times, they are a changin' my friend.

When the first Camaros came out, you could buy new Jaguars and Ferraris with suspensions which weren't a whole bunch more sophisticated than the setup under Camaro.

Today, sub 20K econo/commuters come with top shelf suspension pieces. Mazda 6 for example.

Of course a future Camaro will share lots of parts from the GM parts bin. Lucky for us...lots of great pieces will already be engineered and certified.

Trailblazer SS may be nice....but I think I'm looking for abit more (an understatement :eek: ) out of the the dynamics of my 5th gen Z/28.

The parts are there...let's use them. Oh, and lets save the truck parts for the trucks.

Besides, this is what my first memories of Camaro ads told me...... ;)

http://www.camarosource.ca/new_site/camaro_graphics/1968.jpg

:bow: :bow: :bow:

My favorite Camaro ad of all time. Bless thee kind sir. :bow:

However, I tend to agree with guionM on this one. :D

Now that we have a bit of reality and guidelines to work from, let's come up with a alternative plan to Evok's if you don't like his. :think:

1. Stretch/strengthen Kappa to fit a V8. Use a solid axle rear and fixed roof. If the solstice comes in under 20k base, then making these modifications should make it even cheaper.

2. This idea is really off the wall: Lower the colorado frame and put a coupe body on it. It has already been shown to fit a V8. The S10/Sonoma frame was based off of the G-body, why not go the other way around?

Randy

1. Stretch/strengthen Kappa to fit a V8. Use a solid axle rear and fixed roof. Randy

Switching the Kappa to a Live axle would have the same cost problems as putting a live axle on sigma.

My idea for a base V6 (the bread and butter of Camaro survival):

Start with the extended Kappa that was used for the Nomad and Curve 107" wheelbase, track is 60 inches up front and 61 in the rear.

Copy the engine cradle modification (if it was changed from the other kappas) from the Torana TT36 concept. If it can hold a Twin turbo 3600 V6, it will hold a LSx engine for performance V8 versions. I can't see how a car with a 60" track width would need much modification to accept a V6/8.

Use Kappas current suspension set-up. No reason to send extra money trying to put a Live axle in a place where it was never intended to be. This would also give the base Camaro an advantage over the base Mustang in the eyes of the average consumer.

Transmission: Standard Aisin 5-speed manual transmissions and optional 4L65-E 4-speed automatic. EDIT: If cost allow, use the 6 speed manual from the GTO as the standard transmission. Another advantage over Mustang.

I'm not sure how much testing was done or would need to be done on the Extended Kappa.

This would be built in Wilmington which will fill much needed capacity.

The biggest part is cost. It needs to start under $20k to be successful and it Must be better than the mustang at the same price.

:)

Switching the Kappa to a Live axle would have the same cost problems as putting a live axle on sigma.

My idea for a base V6 (the bread and butter of Camaro survival):

Start with the extended Kappa that was used for the Nomad and Curve 107" wheelbase, track is 60 inches up front and 61 in the rear.

Copy the engine cradle modification (if it was changed from the other kappas) from the Torana TT36 concept. If it can hold a Twin turbo 3600 V6, it will hold a LSx engine for performance V8 versions. I can't see how a car with a 60" track width would need much modification to accept a V6/8.

Use Kappas current suspension set-up. No reason to send extra money trying to put a Live axle in a place where it was never intended to be. This would also give the base Camaro an advantage over the base Mustang in the eyes of the average consumer.

Transmission: Standard Aisin 5-speed manual transmissions and optional 4L65-E 4-speed automatic. EDIT: If cost allow, use the 6 speed manual from the GTO as the standard transmission. Another advantage over Mustang.

I'm not sure how much testing was done or would need to be done on the Extended Kappa.

This would be built in Wilmington which will fill much needed capacity.

The biggest part is cost. It needs to start under $20k to be successful and it Must be better than the mustang at the same price.

:)now that would sell.

...2. This idea is really off the wall: Lower the colorado frame and put a coupe body on it. It has already been shown to fit a V8. The S10/Sonoma frame was based off of the G-body, why not go the other way around?

Randy

Colorado framed car has already been done it was called the bel air (http://www.usatoday.com/money/gallery/welburn/contenttemplate1.htm)

I would like to let it be known that Kappa already uses a version of the CTS's rear suspension. The V6 cars and the V series may have different rear ends but both should fit with NO problem. I think GM may be rethinking the Kappa+ concept. They certainly need to do something to fill up Willmington. We really need to find out what that will be before people start running around saying it is confirmed and gets put into the auto mags, so don't take it as fact that the Camaro is on a modified Kappa (which I suggested the first time we heard about the Tubular platform and Rumble.

PS was Rumble Zeta or was that something else? I would really like to know.

I would like to let it be known that Kappa already uses a version of the CTS's rear suspension.

I thought that was the case.

the Tubular platform and Rumble.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

What is Rumble??? :confused:

link (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148234&highlight=rumble+platform)

Damn just answered my question, Rumble=Zeta. I was kinda hoping it was a 2nd unknown RWD chassis.

link (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148234&highlight=rumble+platform)

Damn just answered my question, Rumble=Zeta. I was kinda hoping it was a 2nd unknown RWD chassis.
Thanks. I never heard it refered to as "rumble".

It wasn't referred to that for very long. Actually we heard a few things and then it went dead until the Zeta name as applied to it.

Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. Camaro was always an evolution of a simple means to go quickly and handle well for a little money (save those who paid WS6 or SS prices for a $22K F-body). A Camaro with equal or greater visual impact of the Mustang with an interior that is at a minimum of the same quality of the new Cobalt that rides & handles better than the 4th gen at a price that's competitive to equally equpted Mustangs is going to sell well, regardless as to it's suspension. Each person headed for the door over that will likely be replaced by 3 who simply don't care.
:

Maybe "World Class" is the wrong term, as we really mean "Class Leading"! We realize world class would also mean expensive. What we mean is a car that is the leading car in it's class, beating the Mustang in every category, plus the leading bang-for-the-buck car! It should be attainable using the parts bin, assuming they use the correct parts from the bin. I don't car whether it has a live axle or IRS, as long as it handles better than the rest of it's class (and why couldn't IRS be an option?). It should be styled to take your breath away, have a class-leading interior, and be rattle-free. It's time for GM to be a leader again, instead of continually playing catch-up and making vehicles almost as good as the competition, they should be leading by example!!!

link (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148234&highlight=rumble+platform)

Damn just answered my question, Rumble=Zeta. I was kinda hoping it was a 2nd unknown RWD chassis.

Actually, I said "Rumble" was based on the Zeta:

"GM has/is developing a "performance chassis" that will handle it's high performance cars. This was touched on in GM's press release regarding it's new engine & transmission plant last winter. This is the "rumble" chassis.

In short, it's based on GM's upcomming full sized RWD cars due for production in about 36 months.

Rumble wasn't exactly a Zeta.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me
link

Damn just answered my question, Rumble=Zeta. I was kinda hoping it was a 2nd unknown RWD chassis.


Actually, I said "Rumble" was based on the Zeta:

Quote:
"GM has/is developing a "performance chassis" that will handle it's high performance cars. This was touched on in GM's press release regarding it's new engine & transmission plant last winter. This is the "rumble" chassis.

In short, it's based on GM's upcomming full sized RWD cars due for production in about 36 months.


Rumble wasn't exactly a Zeta.


[Horshack voice] Ohh, Pick me. PICK ME!!![/Horshack voice]

SPORT BIKE!!!

edit: because the quote button ownez me :(

So, if Zeta is off for NA, would chassis based on Zeta be off too?

Sigma
Zeta
Kappa
Rumble

The plot thickens...

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong but I'm pretty sure that Kappa is in no way related to Zeta or Sigma. It's much more similar to the C5 platform than anything else.

Chewy,

He is just listing RWD platforms not complimentary platforms.

So, if Zeta is off for NA, would chassis based on Zeta be off too?

Sigma
Zeta
Kappa
Rumble

The plot thickens...

Indeed. :think:

Whoa...where did this "Rumble" come from? Can we be thrown a bone here!! First off, doesnt fit the "greek life" chassis set up.

I still would like to know how close Zeta is to Sigma.

Give us a V8, long wheel base, 2+2 hardtop Solstice, call it Camaro, price it from ~25-30K, and call it a day. You could also make a V6 version, but I don't see something as small as Kappa being a very practical, mainstream, high volume car. Unless you can make Kappa a whole lot larger than the Sky/Solstice.

Give us a V8, long wheel base, 2+2 hardtop Solstice, call it Camaro, price it from ~25-30K, and call it a day. You could also make a V6 version, but I don't see something as small as Kappa being a very practical, mainstream, high volume car. Unless you can make Kappa a whole lot larger than the Sky/Solstice.

Consider the size of the Extended Kappa (a la Nomad and Curve):

The wheelbase of the Nomad and Curve is 107 inches.
The wheelbase for the first and second gen. Camaro: 108 inches.
Third and fourth gen.: 101 inches.
Front and rear track are almost the same as well.
First gen. Being 59 inches
Fourth gen. Is 60 inches.
Our kappa examples: 60 inches up front and 61 in the rear.
The height of the cars.
The Curve is 49 inches
The past generations Camaro is either 49 or 51 inches.
I won’t include the width or total length of the cars because that is effected be the shape of the body and the overhang in front and back.

The Wheelbase and trackwidth of the extended Kappa is right in line with past generations and would/could provide as much room or even more than the 4th Gen due to the longer wheel base.

Just some food for thought. :D

1 thing that everyone should keep in mind if you plan on converting a IRS to live axle: The floor pan will need to be modified. You need to make room for the axle to move up and down with the suspension.

Randy

[QUOTE=guionM]
Let's be blunt here, Camaro was never a world class, sophisticated piece of automotive wonderment. [QUOTE=guionM]

Your right it was never world class, it was never refined, it was never sophisticated. It is also no longer in production. Maybe those things are related?

[QUOTE=guionM]that rides & handles better than the 4th gen[QUOTE=guionM]

This is exactly what most of this so called "posturing" is trying to accomplish. How exactly do you expect this to happen? Lets face it, the live axle on the 4th gen was done pretty well ( I am talking vehicle dynamics, not strength. Relax drag racers). The reality of the situation, that some don't seem to get, is that there are legitimate and real limitations / weaknesses to a solid axle. GM has pretty much taken this approach as far as it can go. At some point, you reach a limit and there is no more room for improvement. You cannot tune out the laws of physics.

Consider the size of the Extended Kappa (a la Nomad and Curve):

The wheelbase of the Nomad and Curve is 107 inches.
The wheelbase for the first and second gen. Camaro: 108 inches.
Third and fourth gen.: 101 inches.
Front and rear track are almost the same as well.
First gen. Being 59 inches
Fourth gen. Is 60 inches.
Our kappa examples: 60 inches up front and 61 in the rear.
The height of the cars.
The Curve is 49 inches
The past generations Camaro is either 49 or 51 inches.
I won’t include the width or total length of the cars because that is effected be the shape of the body and the overhang in front and back.

The Wheelbase and trackwidth of the extended Kappa is right in line with past generations and would/could provide as much room or even more than the 4th Gen due to the longer wheel base.

Just some food for thought. :Dthe curve is 156in long.i like that.alot.