Time for a reality check on the 5th gen

Some of these posts are going off the deep end, and are actually getting pretty bizzare.

Lets look at some facts:

1. Camaro currently does not exist on the market. It's deader than a doornail.
2. Mustang beat the pants off of the F-bodies.....combined!!!
3. GM is not a charity organization.
4. Bigger engines do squat in the marketplace.
5. The current Mustang is selling in amazing numbers.... with a live axle..... at it's current size.
6. Mustang at last count was outselling all sporty coupes combined by something like 70%.
7. It takes about 5 years to get a car from scratch to the showroom.
8. GM is going to find the cheapest way to produce a good product (if Kappa was cheaper than Sigma, don't you think GM wouldn't have used it?).



Now, some realities:

1. The only way Camaro will survive is to pull in new buyers.
2. Buyers don't care about live axles, GVW, and think Kappa and Sigma are fraternities.
3. Buyers want praticality in there coupes and don't want small cars! When they do, they want 4 cylinder FWD econocars.
4. Just like in the 1960s, the public's reaction to Mustang is dictating what anyone who wants to compete will create.
5. You can call the general public all the names you want because of this, but you matter less than they do in the grand scheme of things because they outnumber you something like 1000 to 1 of Camaro buyers, and you don't even want to know how we compare in the entire sporty coupe market.
6. IF GM were bringing out a Camaro in 2008, you aren't going to change anything now (it's too late), so there's no reason to slam what they may be working on.


Want to demand things? Be reay to accept these things:

Independent rear suspension:
*Heavier or more expensive car.
*Cost to be taken out elsewhere (fewer option choices, struts, quality of materials...)
*Axle hop
*Higher price for top engines (heavier duty driveshafts, differential, IRS components)

Kappa based Camaro:
*The death of a Camaro some people have spent years of time and effort to bring this far.
*Instead of seeing a Camaro in a reasonable time, starting over and not seeing one till 2009CY or later.
*GM not getting involved in the pony car market at all (are you ready to gamble on what management will be around in 2008 or 2009 when approval has to be given?).
*The press of Ford & Chrysler competing in a market that GM seems unable to (think it's bad now??).
*A 7+ year gap in Camaro production (what was a Camaro again?).


If you actually ARE a Camaro enthusiast, and ACTUALLY want Camaro to live and succeed, then you have to accept reality:
*An engine in a box won't cut it.
*Pushing Camaro's return back 5 years isn't going to do it any favors.
*Sending it's price upwards isn't going to make it competitive.
*Making it small isn't going to wash with the public the 5th gen needs to bring in.
*And finally, no matter how many polls we make here, we aren't even enough of a market to justify a change of stereo systems let alone taking Camaro away from it's roots and moving it in a direction contrary from sales numbers and market studies.



If you want to create a whole new Camaro direction, then please allow those of us who actually care about the name and want the car to survive and actually compete with the Mustang in sales and profit to GM (and therefore ensuring there will be future Camaros), to support the one some in GM are trying to get to market now first.

Or at the very very least, lets wait till we actually see what the Camaro custodians at GM have come up with before we slam a car we haven't seen yet.

Pretty please! :p

Not sure what you just said, but I have $200 dollars saved towards my 5th gen down payment.

Not sure what you just said, but I have $200 dollars saved towards my 5th gen down payment.

It's called a rant. :lol:

Ok, but while I see what you are talking about, Ford is selling its Mustangs because they did listen to thier enthusiasts. We might not make up the majority of sales, but most enthusiasts are die-hard to a certain brand. I never see A Camaro towed behind and F350, or a Mustang behind a 3500 Silvy.
But thats not the point. The car must drive people to buy it, and make them semi-enthuisats.
On the other hand, I know that GM has the full power to make us happy with large V8's that offer power all over the spectrum. I know that they will give us a great car with what they have. I would like to see a more modern chassis, but if they can offer a great handling ride with a live axle and struts (which I have no doubt they can), then I will be more then happy to put my hard earned money twards a nice red Z28.
I guess its more along the lines of bragging rights and the like.
GM and the Camaroites inside GM know what the Camaro needs to be, and not some sort of 4 seater Vette.

1. The only way Camaro will survive is to pull in new buyers.
2. Buyers don't care about live axles, GVW, and think Kappa and Sigma are fraternities.
3. Buyers want praticality in there coupes and don't want small cars! When they do, they want 4 cylinder FWD econocars.
4. Just like in the 1960s, the public's reaction to Mustang is dictating what anyone who wants to compete will create.
5. You can call the general public all the names you want because of this, but you matter less than they do in the grand scheme of things because they outnumber you something like 1000 to 1 of Camaro buyers, and you don't even want to know how we compare in the entire sporty coupe market.
6. IF GM were bringing out a Camaro in 2008, you aren't going to change anything now (it's too late), so there's no reason to slam what they may be working on.

AMEN to that. Completely agree.

I pull my TA behind a F250.:p Cuz I couldn't afford a duramax though.LOL

I understand what GuionM is saying....and I agree. They 'base' package needs to be able to sell lot hotcakes to support the financial needs for the hi-po versions for the real enthuesiests.

for the hi-po versions for the real enthuesiests.

So only real enthusiasts will buy a hi-po version and anyone else is not a real enthusiast? :rolleyes:


Back to topic


Great points Guy!

I understand what GuionM is saying....and I agree. They 'base' package needs to be able to sell lot hotcakes to support the financial needs for the hi-po versions for the real enthuesiests.

I really don't think that's what he's saying.

If we want Camaro to return... if we want the spirit of Camaro to survive... we're going to have to accept what will end up being GM's version of the 2006-7 Mustang. We need to stop bitching about what the Camaro is not, or never has been. If you want a Kappa sized IRS RWD coupe, go buy a flippin' BWM and leave Camaro alone. GM is going to come up with something to compete with Ford... something that's going to be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

you think the hordes of V6 Mustang drivers are Performance Enthuesiests?? HA

06-07 camaro. Do we really think we are going to see one that soon?

As long as what comes to the market is flexible, as in if someone wants to have the look, and a good car, they can buy the V6 model. For me, I won't be interested in anything less than a Z28, or SS. So, the Z28 or SS better be competitive with the highend pony car market and right there with the Mustang Cobra, or Challenger R/T(?). Quite frankly, I will be a lost sale forever (or atleast until I can aford a Vette) if they botch the Z28 or SS.

If GM can't make a performance version that I would be interested in, its their own fault. FWIW, they will have had the better part of a decade to getting this car to the market. More than Ford did with the Mustang, and a sub par product won't be acceptable to me.

I am afraid of the Camaro being the next Silverado SS. Eevn when released 5 years after the Lightning, it wasn't a sporty package, was weaker than the competition, and nothing I would be proud to own.

3. Buyers want praticality in there coupes and don't want small cars! When they do, they want 4 cylinder FWD econocars.


Define that for me Guy. What is small, but I guess more importantly what is not small.

Some more stuff to firm up the reality check:

Forget about Kappa.
Forget about a live axle.
Some things are set in stone as we speak, some are not.
January will reveal sort of a sneak peek tease and not a carbon copy.


And one question for everyone...
I gather from Guy's post the feeling that the Camaro needs to be an exact copy of the Mustang to have a chance of success. Is that true?

My opinion, FWIW, is that if GM choose to mimic the Mustang with Camaro, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee them success. I make reference to Chrysler's success with their Dodge Charger (OK, so it's not a 2-door)... both different type of vehicles that sell by the bucket load. Now if Chevy can discover the same formula that uniquely characterize Ford/DC's latest efforts... they'll be onto a winner.

I don't agree that Camaro should follow Mustang down the same road. Being late in the game, GM must offer something more, something a little different. Mustang is Mustang... and as I've stated before, I wouldn't change a thing on the car... excepting the engine. ;)

I gather from Guy's post the feeling that the Camaro needs to be an exact copy of the Mustang to have a chance of success. Is that true?
I don't agree that Camaro should follow Mustang down the same road. Being late in the game, GM must offer something more, something a little different.

A rhetorical question for you guys and others that want to see a "different" approach...
Just exactly how much can you change the Camaro before it's not a Camaro anymore?

While I certainly don't propose slapping a Camaro badge on a Mustang and calling it a day, I also don't think it is fair to the Camaro name to move it into a totally different class of car either. If that is the desired market - fine, go for it... but do it under a different name and let the Camaro badge RIP.

I posted before - Camaros, Mustangs, Chargers, Javelins, Cudas, and the like were ALL cars that borrowed technology and parts from other lines. The first Mustang was a reskinned Falcon for heaven's sake. These cars have NEVER been noted for setting new benchmarks for technology, fit/finish, ride quality, NVH levels, visibility, or anything else as far as I am aware. So why should they become exclusive now? Why put the top-line parts and technology into what has almost always been the economically sporty version of "BASIC TRANSPORTATION"?
Maybe, just maybe, the 200k people that plopped down $20k-something for a Mustang this last year did it because they like the looks, like the feel, and like the price. Not one single time have I heard anybody say anything about missing an IRS under their V6. In fact, everyone I've talked to from car shows, race tracks, and grocery store parking lots - they are all very happy with their cars.

I guess I'm saying that I'd rather see the Camaro come back true to it's roots and compete against Mustang and Charger, than see it come back and compete against BMWs, Infinitis, and Nissans. If GM wants to field such a car - that's great - really, I am all for it... but please call it something else like a Commodore, Commander, Commanche, Compadre, Corrado, Compote, Corridor, Comstock or something... but not Camaro.

The Thunderbird is a great example of a name that has lost identity...
When I say Thunderbird, do you think 1955 2-seater performance, do you think 1969 Landau with 429ci, do you think 1976 Brougham with a 302-2v, do you think 1980 Fox-body 'bird with 302 or V6, do you think 1987 Turbo Coupe with 5spd, do you think 1989 SouperCoupe with 5spd or 1989 Elan with a V6 auto, do you think 1995 T'bird LX with a 4.6L auto, do you think 2003 2-seater 3.9L convertible? This name has been used on so many platforms and in so many markets now, that "Thunderbird" is just a generic Ford name to most folks - sad for Ford, and not something I would like to see happen to a name with the history that Camaro has. :no:

you think the hordes of V6 Mustang drivers are Performance Enthuesiests?? HA

Did I say they are "Performance" enthusiasts? No

Can the V6 Mustang drivers be real enthusiasts?

Yes they can be, now get over it!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthusiast
someone who is very interested in a particular activity or subject

And one question for everyone...
I gather from Guy's post the feeling that the Camaro needs to be an exact copy of the Mustang to have a chance of success. Is that true?

Be an exact copy? No

Use the same basic formula. Ponycar Formula if you will. Except Chevy must improve on it where it can.
> IRS is one area they are doing this.
> If Chevy offered a base V8, without a Z28 or SS attached, that would be another area.
> For comparable models, offer a better overall car for a equal or better price.
> Win the performance war in all models
> Better gas mileage

One thing Chevy should do is find out what Mustang buyer don't like about their car; what Camaro owners don't like about their car; and what the general buying public believes is wrong with the Mustang and ponycars in general, and fix those issues. Notice I didn't say they should focus on what the enthusiast crowd wants...

Some of these posts are going off the deep end, and are actually getting pretty bizzare.

Lets look at some facts:

1. Camaro currently does not exist on the market. It's deader than a doornail.
2. Mustang beat the pants off of the F-bodies.....combined!!!
3. GM is not a charity organization.
4. Bigger engines do squat in the marketplace.
5. The current Mustang is selling in amazing numbers.... with a live axle..... at it's current size.
6. Mustang at last count was outselling all sporty coupes combined by something like 70%.
7. It takes about 5 years to get a car from scratch to the showroom.
8. GM is going to find the cheapest way to produce a good product (if Kappa was cheaper than Sigma, don't you think GM wouldn't have used it?).



Now, some realities:

1. The only way Camaro will survive is to pull in new buyers.
2. Buyers don't care about live axles, GVW, and think Kappa and Sigma are fraternities.
3. Buyers want praticality in there coupes and don't want small cars! When they do, they want 4 cylinder FWD econocars.
4. Just like in the 1960s, the public's reaction to Mustang is dictating what anyone who wants to compete will create.
5. You can call the general public all the names you want because of this, but you matter less than they do in the grand scheme of things because they outnumber you something like 1000 to 1 of Camaro buyers, and you don't even want to know how we compare in the entire sporty coupe market.
6. IF GM were bringing out a Camaro in 2008, you aren't going to change anything now (it's too late), so there's no reason to slam what they may be working on.


Want to demand things? Be reay to accept these things:

Independent rear suspension:
*Heavier or more expensive car.
*Cost to be taken out elsewhere (fewer option choices, struts, quality of materials...)
*Axle hop
*Higher price for top engines (heavier duty driveshafts, differential, IRS components)

Kappa based Camaro:
*The death of a Camaro some people have spent years of time and effort to bring this far.
*Instead of seeing a Camaro in a reasonable time, starting over and not seeing one till 2009CY or later.
*GM not getting involved in the pony car market at all (are you ready to gamble on what management will be around in 2008 or 2009 when approval has to be given?).
*The press of Ford & Chrysler competing in a market that GM seems unable to (think it's bad now??).
*A 7+ year gap in Camaro production (what was a Camaro again?).


If you actually ARE a Camaro enthusiast, and ACTUALLY want Camaro to live and succeed, then you have to accept reality:
*An engine in a box won't cut it.
*Pushing Camaro's return back 5 years isn't going to do it any favors.
*Sending it's price upwards isn't going to make it competitive.
*Making it small isn't going to wash with the public the 5th gen needs to bring in.
*And finally, no matter how many polls we make here, we aren't even enough of a market to justify a change of stereo systems let alone taking Camaro away from it's roots and moving it in a direction contrary from sales numbers and market studies.



If you want to create a whole new Camaro direction, then please allow those of us who actually care about the name and want the car to survive and actually compete with the Mustang in sales and profit to GM (and therefore ensuring there will be future Camaros), to support the one some in GM are trying to get to market now first.

Or at the very very least, lets wait till we actually see what the Camaro custodians at GM have come up with before we slam a car we haven't seen yet.

Pretty please! :p

Thank you.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but holy crap, things have gone off the deep end.

There are some things I want and some things don't want... I may get some, I may not get others (Example, I want the IRS, and I don't want a 69-inspired car styleing-wise... looks like I may win the former, and lose the latter... so be it.)

I understand what is being said here but you can't criticize people who have genuine concerns about a future Camaro. In some instances it seems like there is a "just accept what you get" mentality and I think that is wrong. I myself am very passionate about a few issues while others don't bother or affect me as much, but I am not going to buy a Camaro just because it says "Camaro" on the fenders. We are a small part of the buying public but we demand a lot from our cars and this especially goes for a Camaro.

It is true that you can't take certain rumors as fact but since we don't have anything concrete to look at, then people are natuarally going to voice thier opinions.

The bottom line is, if the new Camaro does not satisfy most of my needs, then I will not buy the car, no matter how good it is supposed to be for the general public.

Some of these posts are going off the deep end, and are actually getting pretty bizzare.

Lets look at some facts:

1. Camaro currently does not exist on the market. It's deader than a doornail.
2. Mustang beat the pants off of the F-bodies.....combined!!!
3. GM is not a charity organization.
4. Bigger engines do squat in the marketplace.
5. The current Mustang is selling in amazing numbers.... with a live axle..... at it's current size.
6. Mustang at last count was outselling all sporty coupes combined by something like 70%.
7. It takes about 5 years to get a car from scratch to the showroom.
8. GM is going to find the cheapest way to produce a good product (if Kappa was cheaper than Sigma, don't you think GM wouldn't have used it?).



Now, some realities:

1. The only way Camaro will survive is to pull in new buyers.
2. Buyers don't care about live axles, GVW, and think Kappa and Sigma are fraternities.
3. Buyers want praticality in there coupes and don't want small cars! When they do, they want 4 cylinder FWD econocars.
4. Just like in the 1960s, the public's reaction to Mustang is dictating what anyone who wants to compete will create.
5. You can call the general public all the names you want because of this, but you matter less than they do in the grand scheme of things because they outnumber you something like 1000 to 1 of Camaro buyers, and you don't even want to know how we compare in the entire sporty coupe market.
6. IF GM were bringing out a Camaro in 2008, you aren't going to change anything now (it's too late), so there's no reason to slam what they may be working on.


Want to demand things? Be reay to accept these things:

Independent rear suspension:
*Heavier or more expensive car.
*Cost to be taken out elsewhere (fewer option choices, struts, quality of materials...)
*Axle hop
*Higher price for top engines (heavier duty driveshafts, differential, IRS components)

Kappa based Camaro:
*The death of a Camaro some people have spent years of time and effort to bring this far.
*Instead of seeing a Camaro in a reasonable time, starting over and not seeing one till 2009CY or later.
*GM not getting involved in the pony car market at all (are you ready to gamble on what management will be around in 2008 or 2009 when approval has to be given?).
*The press of Ford & Chrysler competing in a market that GM seems unable to (think it's bad now??).
*A 7+ year gap in Camaro production (what was a Camaro again?).


If you actually ARE a Camaro enthusiast, and ACTUALLY want Camaro to live and succeed, then you have to accept reality:
*An engine in a box won't cut it.
*Pushing Camaro's return back 5 years isn't going to do it any favors.
*Sending it's price upwards isn't going to make it competitive.
*Making it small isn't going to wash with the public the 5th gen needs to bring in.
*And finally, no matter how many polls we make here, we aren't even enough of a market to justify a change of stereo systems let alone taking Camaro away from it's roots and moving it in a direction contrary from sales numbers and market studies.



If you want to create a whole new Camaro direction, then please allow those of us who actually care about the name and want the car to survive and actually compete with the Mustang in sales and profit to GM (and therefore ensuring there will be future Camaros), to support the one some in GM are trying to get to market now first.

Or at the very very least, lets wait till we actually see what the Camaro custodians at GM have come up with before we slam a car we haven't seen yet.

Pretty please! :p

I agree 100% people here live in a fantasy world. I am suprised they buy any products at all. They seem to have a "Imust have it completly customized my way from the factory or I wont spend a dime" attitude. On a site like this you would think that they would realize that a car has to appeal to the masses. For guys like us..........thats what the aftermarket is around for.

Good Points.

I'm just waiting for the 5th Gens to come out so the Used car values will drop on a 02' SS M6 Vert... *heeh*

I would look at a 5th gen, but if prices are where I expect them to be (SS $30+) then with two toddlers I'll be buying a 4th gen. But an SS model short of $29- then I might be interested...)

I gather from Guy's post the feeling that the Camaro needs to be an exact copy of the Mustang to have a chance of success. Is that true?

There is always room to improve, but Yes, generally speaking as far as basic layout.

It's just that most successful organizations study history and know that to follow a successful product or service with a better product or service has less risk. Granted, when they follow they try to market it as new and innovative.

Hot damn talking about hitting the nail on the head. :bow: to Guy on this one.


*And finally, no matter how many polls we make here, we aren't even enough of a market to justify a change of stereo systems let alone taking Camaro away from it's roots and moving it in a direction contrary from sales numbers and market studies.


Mmmhmmmm...been saying that for months. Maybe now that Guy has said it somebody will take it seriously.

guionM and ProudPony show up with a dose of common sense again.

Define that for me Guy. What is small, but I guess more importantly what is not small.
I'm not Guy, but I'm going to say that a car that is:
Length: 162.8in
Width: 64.1
Wheelbase: 90.7in
is very small, perhaps you could say classic Datsun small.

Length: 177in
Width: 68.1in
Wheelbase: 99.4in
is pretty small; some think the 350Z should be based on this, even though a 350Z is shorter.

Length: 169.6in
Width: 71.5in
Wheelbase: 104.3in
Smallish and only seats 2, but weighs 3247 unloaded.

Length: 182.2in
Width: 71.5in
Wheelbase: 112.2
This is about right; seats 4.

Length: 187.6in
Width: 74in
Wheelbase: 107.1in
Some people act like this is the largest car ever made. About right, however.

Length: 189.8in
Width: 72.5in
Wheelbase: 109.8in
Some people act like this is the largest car ever made too. It is at the upper limit.

All of the mystery cars are real. Four are from Nissan, one is from Ford, and one is from GM.
And one question for everyone...
I gather from Guy's post the feeling that the Camaro needs to be an exact copy of the Mustang to have a chance of success. Is that true?
Hey that is not a bad idea. Chevy can get a deal like they made to sell the Corolla as a Prism.

4. Bigger engines do squat in the marketplace.

Wrong.

5.7L and 6.1L HEMI, those are pretty damn big engines and while the 6.1 is more rare and only in the SRT's, the 5.7 is real common and a big seller. Its called MDS and it lets big engines do squat and more in the market place ;)

The only thing I have continually dissented upon is that retro = success. I'm all for heritage...maybe if GM had a retro Camaro first, I'd have a better impression of the idea. But coming out with a retro Camaro 3 years after Ford had a retro Mustang out makes Chevy look like a bunch of un-creative "me toos." Think the HHR has bad hype for being a PT rip off? You just wait...

With that said, IRS vs. a live axle is not a crisis. What I really want is aggressive styling, a few basic power goodies, a t or targa top, a V8 and a stick for about $26k. If we can do that, and it doesn't have the blunt-nosed look of the Mustang (last time I checked, sporty did not = a brick for a nose), I will buy one. Without a doubt. I doubt I'm alone in that statement. Consider this...they sold 140k Mustangs in '03. They will sell 200k in '05. So, they gained 60k in sales. Well gee, shouldn't they? This was the first all-new Mustang in TWENTY SIX YEARS, people. It SHOULD sell an extra 60k units! Did it ever occur to some of you that it sells sometimes solely because its a Mustang? News flash...it could have also been a sportier, evolutionary design, and it would have sold well too...

However, I can accept a live axle. I love pushrod engines. I don't need a world class interior...something with the quality of a G6 would be great IMO. I want it to handle great (which we can do with a live axle if needed), go great (which it will), and look great (which it can). That's all. Make it bigger than a Mustang, that's fine too. I actually prefer something bigger, and as guion said a bigger car would make it more practical.

I'm not knocking the 5th before I see it...but that's the thing. I want to see it. If it looks to retro, mark my words...the press will have a field day bashing it as being a wanna-be Mustang, and it will not have nearly the mass market appeal the Mustang did. That's just my .02. And while I think its great to follow some of the Mustang (or should I say PONY CAR) formula, we don't need to carbon copy the playbook here.

06-07 camaro. Do we really think we are going to see one that soon?
Of course not! I said it would be GM's version of the 06-07 Mustang, just like the 1967 Camaro was GM's version of the 1965 Mustang. I'm guessing 2008 at the earliest.

As long as what comes to the market is flexible, as in if someone wants to have the look, and a good car, they can buy the V6 model. For me, I won't be interested in anything less than a Z28, or SS.
As am I. However, we my friend are in the minority. Most Camaro buyers will select the base model.

My opinion, FWIW, is that if GM choose to mimic the Mustang with Camaro, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee them success.
Why not? It worked out pretty well the first time didn't it?

A rhetorical question for you guys and others that want to see a "different" approach...
Just exactly how much can you change the Camaro before it's not a Camaro anymore?
Amen! :bow: Listen to the Ford guy people. ;)

Be an exact copy? No

Use the same basic formula. Ponycar Formula if you will. Except Chevy must improve on it where it can.
> IRS is one area they are doing this.
> If Chevy offered a base V8, without a Z28 or SS attached, that would be another area.
> For comparable models, offer a better overall car for a equal or better price.
> Win the performance war in all models
> Better gas mileage

One thing Chevy should do is find out what Mustang buyer don't like about their car; what Camaro owners don't like about their car; and what the general buying public believes is wrong with the Mustang and ponycars in general, and fix those issues. Notice I didn't say they should focus on what the enthusiast crowd wants...
Someone else that "gets it." :thumb:

5.7L and 6.1L HEMI, those are pretty damn big engines and while the 6.1 is more rare and only in the SRT's, the 5.7 is real common and a big seller. Its called MDS and it lets big engines do squat and more in the market place ;)
Wow! So a 5.7L is a "big engine". And here GM has been calling that size motor a "small block" for almost 40 years. Chrysler is simply capitalizing on the HEMI phenomena, and its been what... only a handful of years that they've been doing this? With gas prices flying through the roof you're going to see a much bigger emphasis on fuel economy and technologies like DisplacementOnDemand in the coming years. The trick will be creating a performance RWD V8 that can still pull near 30 mpg on the highway... not some fancy gimmick from marketing to sell cars.

Define that for me Guy. What is small, but I guess more importantly what is not small.

I think it's safe to guess he means compact (as in compact, midsize, fullsize). Yes, the original Camaro was considered "compact" by the standards of the day; in today's nomenclature, Mustang/Camaro is a midsize car. Corvette would be considered compact (174.6").

I don't want the 5th gen to be as long as the 4th (193.5"). The '05 Mustang GT is 187.6" and that seems reasonable. I assume length is the dimension you are concerned about.

No one is proposing an exact clone of the Mustang. Camaro is has been a response/"copy"/Chevy version of a Mustang from inception, the car that defined the segment. It makes sense that a Camaro will not deviate too greatly from what the modern definition of Pony car is.

Fortunarely, we are experiencing a time when GM is offering a multitude of performance cars. Those unhappy with a midsize coupe can look to the Cobalt (180.5") and Solstice (157.2") with its pending hi-po derivatives.

Or at the very very least, lets wait till we actually see what the Camaro custodians at GM have come up with before we slam a car we haven't seen yet.

Okay, right after we work ourselves into a tizzy over optional AWD . :eek: :p

I think the new camaro should have 6 wheels and be able to go out on the lake. Think "Amphibian". That's what *I* want GM............. ;) ............... ;)

We break down what the 5th Gen needs to succeed here on a daily basis. But I’m going to say the next Camaro pretty much needs to find the “cool factor” in the publics eye.

Corvette has always just been cool.
The new 300s are cool.
The Hemi phenomenon is cool, even though half the people I talk to don’t even know what a Hemi is other than their engine.
Of course the new Mustang has the cool factor.

I could go on but I’ll get to the point.

Like its been repeated here many times the buying public doesn’t know about or care about IRS, or motor size or many of the other things we talk about here.

So what makes up the cool factor?

Hot Style- something that turns your head, god forbid even if it’s retro

Daily livability – “roomy” nice interior (its going to have to do better than the 4th gen, though I’m not too worried with the current GM interiors)

Competitive Price- It got to be right there with Ford and Dodge/Chrysler. Period.

Everything else we complain about can be worked into the equation but those 3 marks have to be hit for this car to be hit. I still think the engine is a lesser factor to the base car buyer.

These are the 3 things people look at when they buy a car right off the bat. These make the new owner feel cool. This is where the 5th gen needs to go.

While I certainly don't propose slapping a Camaro badge on a Mustang and calling it a day, I also don't think it is fair to the Camaro name to move it into a totally different class of car either. If that is the desired market - fine, go for it... but do it under a different name and let the Camaro badge RIP.




As usual Proud, I pretty much agree with you, but I just want add something.

Mustang to Ford is a whole 'nuther deal than what Camaro is to GM. Mustang just isn't Ford's ponycar, it is FoMoCo's coupe. Where GM has the Corvette, GTO, G6 coupe/convertible, MonteCarlo, Cobalt Coupe, etc.... Ford has the Mustang.

It must successfully straddle ALL of these segments with one car....the Mustang. Not too big, not too small, not too cheap, not too expensive, not too fast, not too slow, not too pretty, not too dull. It's the whole ball of wax for Ford.

And it does it pretty successfully too.

But GM doesn't need to fill all these segments with one car. So does it really need to copy Mustang in every exquisite detail, every mm, every theme?
I don't think so.

In fact with all this "Camaro must be an exact duplicate of Mustang to succeed" mania, we forget one thing....no one at GM has EVER forcast that the 5th gen Camaro will come anywhere close to Mustang's sales volume. NEVER! Depending on who you talk to, the guess is Camaro will sell 30-60% of Mustang. Maybe there is an opportunity for Camaro to be slightly different than Mustang yet still fall within the same segment. Maybe Camaro can be....ummm....even...better. Maybe...just maybe Camaro can attract people other than just the ones who cross shop only Mustang. Seems like a non -politically correct thing to say around here lately.

Maybe it would be good if Camaro was just alittle different than Mustang,

As usual Proud, I pretty much agree with you, but I just want add something.

Mustang to Ford is a whole 'nuther deal than what Camaro is to GM. Mustang just isn't Ford's ponycar, it is FoMoCo's coupe. Where GM has the Corvette, GTO, G6 coupe/convertible, MonteCarlo, Cobalt Coupe, etc.... Ford has the Mustang.

It must successfully straddle ALL of these segments with one car....the Mustang. Not too big, not too small, not too cheap, not too expensive, not too fast, not too slow, not too pretty, not too dull. It's the whole ball of wax for Ford.

And it does it pretty successfully too.

But GM doesn't need to fill all these segments with one car. So does it really need to copy Mustang in every exquisite detail, every mm, every theme?
I don't think so.

In fact with all this "Camaro must be an exact duplicate of Mustang to succeed" mania, we forget one thing....no one at GM has EVER forcast that the 5th gen Camaro will come anywhere close to Mustang's sales volume. NEVER! Depending on who you talk to, the guess is Camaro will sell 30-60% of Mustang. Maybe there is an opportunity for Camaro to be slightly different than Mustang yet still fall within the same segment. Maybe Camaro can be....ummm....even...better. Maybe...just maybe Camaro can attract people other than just the ones who cross shop only Mustang. Seems like a non -politically correct thing to say around here lately.

Maybe it would be good if Camaro was just alittle different than Mustang,
GM tried that with the Camaro. It did not stay true to its ponycar roots, unlike the Mustang which did. The result, we got an awesome performance car that couldn't sell if its' life depended on it...opps it did and it went on "hiatus". When the camaro was more of a pony car, it did compete more for Mustang sales and even IIRC beat the mustang on a few occasions.

So this is your list of GM alternatives for the Mustang: "Corvette, GTO, G6 coupe/convertible, MonteCarlo, Cobalt Coupe". With all that why bring the Camaro back?!? There was an uproar from all of us when someone from GM mentioned this (I can't remember who right now)

A little different is good...a completly different type of car is bad

As usual Proud, I pretty much agree with you, but I just want add something.

Mustang to Ford is a whole 'nuther deal than what Camaro is to GM. Mustang just isn't Ford's ponycar, it is FoMoCo's coupe. Where GM has the Corvette, GTO, G6 coupe/convertible, MonteCarlo, Cobalt Coupe, etc.... Ford has the Mustang.

It must successfully straddle ALL of these segments with one car....the Mustang. Not too big, not too small, not too cheap, not too expensive, not too fast, not too slow, not too pretty, not too dull. It's the whole ball of wax for Ford.

And it does it pretty successfully too.

But GM doesn't need to fill all these segments with one car. So does it really need to copy Mustang in every exquisite detail, every mm, every theme?
I don't think so.

In fact with all this "Camaro must be an exact duplicate of Mustang to succeed" mania, we forget one thing....no one at GM has EVER forcast that the 5th gen Camaro will come anywhere close to Mustang's sales volume. NEVER! Depending on who you talk to, the guess is Camaro will sell 30-60% of Mustang. Maybe there is an opportunity for Camaro to be slightly different than Mustang yet still fall within the same segment. Maybe Camaro can be....ummm....even...better. Maybe...just maybe Camaro can attract people other than just the ones who cross shop only Mustang. Seems like a non -politically correct thing to say around here lately.

Maybe it would be good if Camaro was just alittle different than Mustang,

This is what I have been saying as well.

I want a Camaro that is different than the Mustang, that is what drove me to this car in the first place. I think the Camaro should not try to be all things to all people or you will have a not-so-special, maybe genaric coupe. I think that a lot of poeple think that if the 5th gen is anything like a 4th gen, then it will fail, but I don't think that is true at all. Packaging seems to be the main problem so fix that and make sure the mechanicals and interior are fully modern and competitive with the industry leaders. Mix in the segment leading performance of the Camaro and some kick-ass styling and you have a big hit on your hands.

I also agree that the Camaro should strive to be different than the Mustang but also better. I have always said that there is a great oportunity here to really break away from the Mustang's shadow and really soar. How about a Camaro that is an alternative to the Mustang, not just in name, but in experience, looks, performance, ect. That is what the Camaro has been and I think should remain.

This is what I have been saying as well.

I want a Camaro that is different than the Mustang, that is what drove me to this car in the first place. I think the Camaro should not try to be all things to all people or you will have a not-so-special, maybe genaric coupe. I think that a lot of poeple think that if the 5th gen is anything like a 4th gen, then it will fail, but I don't think that is true at all. Packaging seems to be the main problem so fix that and make sure the mechanicals and interior are fully modern and competitive with the industry leaders. Mix in the segment leading performance of the Camaro and some kick-ass styling and you have a big hit on your hands.

I also agree that the Camaro should strive to be different than the Mustang but also better. I have always said that there is a great oportunity here to really break away from the Mustang's shadow and really soar. How about a Camaro that is an alternative to the Mustang, not just in name, but in experience, looks, performance, ect. That is what the Camaro has been and I think should remain.

I totally agree, and I have many time myself said I don't want a "Chevy Mustang"...

That said, if the new Camaro has similar dimensions or weight to the Mustang... that doesn't by any means it's a "Chevy Mustang"...

GM tried that with the Camaro. It did not stay true to its ponycar roots, unlike the Mustang which did. The result, we got an awesome performance car that couldn't sell if its' life depended on it...opps it did and it went on "hiatus". When the camaro was more of a pony car, it did compete more for Mustang sales and even IIRC beat the mustang on a few occasions.

So this is your list of GM alternatives for the Mustang: "Corvette, GTO, G6 coupe/convertible, MonteCarlo, Cobalt Coupe". With all that why bring the Camaro back?!? There was an uproar from all of us when someone from GM mentioned this (I can't remember who right now)

A little different is good...a completly different type of car is bad


Your forgetting that the Camaro has a wide range of models that spans a large segment of the population, we are not just talking about a Z28 or SS here. I think that all the cars mentioned could be alternatives to a Camaro for a particular buyer.

I am always surprised when peole say that the Mustang has always stayed true to it's roots more than the Camaro. What would you call the Mustang II or the fox bodies? Just because Ford decided to dust off one of thier old designs doesn't mean that they have always stayed true to thier roots.

That said, if the new Camaro has similar dimensions or weight to the Mustang... that doesn't by any means it's a "Chevy Mustang"...

I agree.

GM tried that with the Camaro. It did not stay true to its ponycar roots, unlike the Mustang which did. The result, we got an awesome performance car that couldn't sell if its' life depended on it...opps it did and it went on "hiatus". When the camaro was more of a pony car, it did compete more for Mustang sales and even IIRC beat the mustang on a few occasions.

So this is your list of GM alternatives for the Mustang: "Corvette, GTO, G6 coupe/convertible, MonteCarlo, Cobalt Coupe". With all that why bring the Camaro back?!? There was an uproar from all of us when someone from GM mentioned this (I can't remember who right now)

A little different is good...a completly different type of car is bad

If you are referring to the 4th gen...that's not exactly what I had in mind. It's performance could not overcome it's lack of appeal to most people.

Also, I'm sure you can imagine someone cross shopping a G6 convertible with a Mustang convertible, or base Mustang with a Cobalt. Heck, I know people who cross shopped GP GXP with a Mustang GT even.

If you are referring to the 4th gen...that's not exactly what I had in mind. It's performance could not overcome it's lack of appeal to most people.

Also, I'm sure you can imagine someone cross shopping a G6 convertible with a Mustang convertible, or base Mustang with a Cobalt. Heck, I know people who cross shopped GP GXP with a Mustang GT even.


I said this before...........I dont see why someone would cross shop those cars.....................

Your forgetting that the Camaro has a wide range of models that spans a large segment of the population, we are not just talking about a Z28 or SS here. I think that all the cars mentioned could be alternatives to a Camaro for a particular buyer.

You're right, I forgot that the factory offered a wide range of models in the last gen. a SS and Z28 which were pretty much the same car with different badges and a base V6 model. Didn't the RS option die with the redesign? The Camaro started out with a wider range of models back in the 60s and 70s and most of the 80s but that seems to be where it started going south. The fox bodies and the SN95 Mustangs were more true to the original ponycars than the 3rd and 4th Gen ever hoped to be. The new Mustang still stays true to that and I'm not talking about styling.

Yeah, with a Cobalt SS and a Monte Carlo with V6 and V8s available, Who needs a Camaro? Right? :rolleyes:

I am always surprised when peole say that the Mustang has always stayed true to it's roots more than the Camaro. What would you call the Mustang II or the fox bodies? Just because Ford decided to dust off one of thier old designs doesn't mean that they have always stayed true to thier roots.


Ford did make some deviations along the way. The Mustang II came about because (at least this is one reason I remember hearing about) Ford realized the Mustang had grown to big and they wanted to make it smaller like the original. The mustang II was a horrible car IMO but Ford didn't stay with something they knew wasn't going to work.

The Mustang II came about because (at least this is one reason I remember hearing about) Ford realized the Mustang had grown to big and they wanted to make it smaller like the original. The mustang II was a horrible car IMO but Ford didn't stay with something they knew wasn't going to work.My grandmother owned one. I believe it was even a 4 cylinder automatic. What a POS. :rolleyes:

My grandmother owned one. I believe it was even a 4 cylinder automatic. What a POS. :rolleyes:

First year it was only available with a 2.3 I4 or a 2.5 or 2.8 V6. That was a great move Mr. Iacocca.

Length: 182.2in
Width: 71.5in
Wheelbase: 112.2
This is about right; seats 4.


Agreed. Even if the wheelbase stretched to 113.4 and the overall length to 185.

My grandmother owned one. I believe it was even a 4 cylinder automatic. What a POS. :rolleyes:


I owned a Cobra II with a built 302 that put just over 300hp to the wheels. It was a fun little car if a little dangerous feeling. It has a bad rep. Nothing was too good during those dark days.

Monzas were pretty good. Especially the Cali 305s.

I said this before...........I dont see why someone would cross shop those cars.....................

And yet it happens.

RP has told us that the second choice for many buyers on the previous V6 Mustang wasn't a V6 Camaro but a Grand Am coupe.

BTW, rlsedition once posted that Pontiac saw the GP GXP as an alternative to the guy who wanted a Mustang GT but also had kids.

That said, if the new Camaro has similar dimensions or weight to the Mustang... that doesn't by any means it's a "Chevy Mustang"...

Very good point! Getting a car that has similar dimensions to its main competitor does not have to be a negative thing or a compromise. It does not have to drive the same way or look the same either. It can still be its own car with its own unique qualities.

As Guy alluded to, we ( a relatively small group of hardcore ethusiasts on an internet message board) constitute the minority of Camaro buyers. Does that mean that opinions and wants shouldn't be brought forward? Absolutely not! I would hope that GM would stick out their ears and listen to some of "our" wants and maybe put them in the suggestion box. But, to expect that the majority of the car will be tailored to this group is unrealistic IMO. Would I love for it to happen, sure! Maybe that would happen if enthusiasts accounted for a much larger percentage of new sales, but we do not. The guy down the street or the lady at the bank are the ones that will keep the car alive. Getting purchases from the general pubic is the key.

Let's, just for a second, take off the enthusiast glasses and look at things from GM's point of view or even from that of the often hated beancounters. On one side (choice 1), you have a competitors rough sketch (it doesn't have to be an exact copy) of a vehicle that has proven to be a success in the marketplace. On the other hand (choice two), you have the choice to deviate heavily from the "other guy's" plans and make something unique. Choice #2 is certainly the more glamorous and exciting choice, and it could pay off big if the car is a sucess and creates its own niche........on the other hand it could fall flat on its face. At this time, also consider that your company is experiencing serious financial difficulties. Choice #2 offers the chance to either hit a home run, or strike out. Choice 1 affords the opportunity to arrive at second or third base standing up. I don't think it's too difficult to understand why GM may be leaning towards choice #1. Again, this isn't based on any facts, it's simply my personal view of the situation. GM may or may not actually use the Choice #1 or Choice #2 setup complete with baseball analogies. ;)

As to those who state that they will not purchase a 5th gen if it does not meet every one of your requirements, I applaud your resolve. It certainly is your right not to purchase the car if it isn't everything that you want. However, I doubt GM will lose too much sleep if it loses ~15,000 hardcore enthusiast sales yet picks up 60,000 additional sales to the general public. Just my $.02.


-Mike

RP has told us that the second choice for many buyers on the previous V6 Mustang wasn't a V6 Camaro but a Grand Am coupe.



Because Chevy made a Camaro that was not much more than an engine in a very big box with a very small place to sit. Not a winning combo.

Sadly, I lost track of the news on the 5th gen, and I don't care. If it comes out, it comes out. If it doesn't, I don't care anymore. I'll buy an older gen, or get a used C5, or even consider a Ford. They axed one of my favorite cars, and I just won't buy anything new from them again, especially if they butcher something or screw it up. If they want to sit on their ass, fine, I'll go buy something else. I'm not waiting up for anything anymore.

This was the first all-new Mustang in TWENTY SIX YEARS, people. It SHOULD sell an extra 60k units! Did it ever occur to some of you that it sells sometimes solely because its a Mustang? News flash...it could have also been a sportier, evolutionary design, and it would have sold well too...



Jason, you made my point better than I did.

The Mustang was going to sell....regardless.

It would have sold even if it were not retro. It would have sold even had it not grown in mass. Hell, the old one sold as many in it's final year...when it was old, tired and people knew a new car was coming, as the 4th gen Camaro/Firebird (combined) did in it's best year. No one was saying that Camaro should become a carbon copy of Mustang then.

But I guess some here and some at GM are saying it now. Deviate slightly and you are a heretic. Go one inch smaller than Mustang....and you're told people don't want it smaller and it won't sell, (for some mysterious and unspecified reason). Want it abit more sophisticated than Mustang and you're told people don't want it more sophisticated and it won't sell, (for some mysterious and unspecified reason), question Mustang's retro design...and you'll get something else. Don't drink the Kool Aide - and you're a trouble maker and will ruin this site. Please..... :mad:
And to make matters worse, if you do in fact have a dissenting view on any of this, you supposedly don't have Camaro's best interests at heart.

Someone want to explain to me what's going on at this internet discussion forum?

One thing Chevy should do is find out what Mustang buyer don't like about their car; what Camaro owners don't like about their car; and what the general buying public believes is wrong with the Mustang and ponycars in general, and fix those issues. Notice I didn't say they should focus on what the enthusiast crowd wants...

i dont agree with that. if the do that what will get is a 4 door fwd semi sporty but very econimical sedan or possibly crossover stationwagon looking thing with a base 130hp four and optional 230hp v6. the things the genral public dosnt like about pony cars are, 2 doors, rwd, little room inside, small trunk. take a look around while out driving, the general public wants 4 doors, economy and room. oh and suvs, in any shape and size. i personally dont want a z28 with a v6 and fwd with 4 doors do you?

also the whole irs thing, i personally dont want irs, too expensive, do you really want to pay high 20s and 35+ for base and top end camaros respectivly? i dont. the 03 cobral had irs and coincedentially the 07 cobra does not. why because the performance gain is not worth the extra cost. if you want irs get a gto or a vette. dont say the gtos too expensive because if the new camaro has irs it will cost just as much.

also i dont think the new mustang would be selling as well if it was not retro. it took the styling cues of the best looking mustangs ever and modernized them which along with the lack of any real competition in its class is making people who would have not otherwise taken a second look at the mustang, think about buying one, all without loosing the other poeple who love mustangs. i for one, being a hardcore dodge and chevy guy have toyed with the idea from time to time and if dodge or chevy dosnt at least show me some to look foward to ill probally be in the market for a 07 cobra, as long as my finantial situation allows for it that is.

Jason, you made my point better than I did.

The Mustang was going to sell....regardless.

It would have sold even if it were not retro. It would have sold even had it not grown in mass. Hell, the old one sold as many in it's final year...when it was old, tired and people knew a new car was coming, as the 4th gen Camaro/Firebird (combined) did in it's best year. No one was saying that Camaro should become a carbon copy of Mustang then.

But I guess some here and some at GM are saying it now. Deviate slightly and you are a heretic. Go one inch smaller than Mustang....and you're told people don't want it smaller and it won't sell, (for some mysterious and unspecified reason). Want it abit more sophisticated than Mustang and you're told people don't want it more sophisticated and it won't sell, (for some mysterious and unspecified reason), question Mustang's retro design...and you'll get something else. Don't drink the Kool Aide - and you're a trouble maker and will ruin this site. Please..... :mad:
And to make matters worse, if you do in fact have a dissenting view on any of this, you supposedly don't have Camaro's best interests at heart.

Someone want to explain to me what's going on at this internet discussion forum?


I agree on all points.

Your first paragraph refers to the "Mustang Factor". It doesn't matter what Ford puts up, if it is called Mustang, it will sell and sell well. So the new Mustang is selling and suddenly we have to have a Mustang clone in order to be viable in the marketplace. That's BS.

"And to make matters worse, if you do in fact have a dissenting view on any of this, you supposedly don't have Camaro's best interests at heart."

Yes, and I don't agree with this mentality either.

If they come out with a Camaro, cool. If one comes out and its not to your likings, BUY SOMETHING ELSE. People on this site may say otherwise but truthfully the Camaro is just a name, you guys need to stop complaining about the details. If the 5th gen does happen I hope it wont be anything like the previous generations unless its the 1st gen. In my opinion the 2nd gens were ugly, 3rd gens looked good but has performance problems and the interiors were junk, the 4th gens look a little bland and had quality problems also. Im just saying its not going to be able to satisfy everyone and it will probably be too expensive for half of us to afford.

And to make matters worse, if you do in fact have a dissenting view on any of this, you supposedly don't have Camaro's best interests at heart.

Someone want to explain to me what's going on at this internet discussion forum?

I agree. Pretty pathetic of someone to questions someone else enthusism for the Camaro just because they differ in opinion. :mad:

i dont agree with that. if the do that what will get is a 4 door fwd semi sporty but very econimical sedan or possibly crossover stationwagon looking thing with a base 130hp four and optional 230hp v6. the things the genral public dosnt like about pony cars are, 2 doors, rwd, little room inside, small trunk. take a look around while out driving, the general public wants 4 doors, economy and room. oh and suvs, in any shape and size. i personally dont want a z28 with a v6 and fwd with 4 doors do you?

Ok. Since when would Mustang owners want their Mustangs to be a 4 door, fwd sedan or wagon? I don't know...er...wait, yes I do...there are many things that the 3rd and 4th gen owners didn't like about their cars. Chevy must take those items from both cars into consideration. Now, about the general public. Those are the people who would consider a ponycar type car but for some reason they would either buy a Mustang or some other sporty car. Take those suggestions and consider them. If you can impliment some of the suggestions and keep it the Camaro within it segment (pony car) and not turnoff more customers in the process, it will only help the car.

also the whole irs thing, i personally dont want irs, too expensive, do you really want to pay high 20s and 35+ for base and top end camaros respectivly? i dont. the 03 cobral had irs and coincedentially the 07 cobra does not. why because the performance gain is not worth the extra cost. if you want irs get a gto or a vette. dont say the gtos too expensive because if the new camaro has irs it will cost just as much.

Two reasons I believe IRS is a good choice for the next Camaro.

First. It can give the Camaro a marketing edge over the Mustang. Most enthusiasts can tell the difference between IRS and a SLA. The average consumer has no clue but, their perception is that it is a far superior and Chevy needs to use this perception. Have you seen the Honda Ridgeline commercials? Yep, it talks a lot about its' 4 wheel IRS.

Second. What other RWD car does Chevy or GM for that matter that uses a SLA? None I could think of. Sigma, Kappa, Y-car, VZ and VE are all IRS. Camaro is going to be a parts bin car so, unless they are going to use a trunk axle, it will be a IRS and it shows consistancy with-in the corp. Both will help.

also i dont think the new mustang would be selling as well if it was not retro. it took the styling cues of the best looking mustangs ever and modernized them which along with the lack of any real competition in its class is making people who would have not otherwise taken a second look at the mustang, think about buying one, all without loosing the other poeple who love mustangs. i for one, being a hardcore dodge and chevy guy have toyed with the idea from time to time and if dodge or chevy dosnt at least show me some to look foward to ill probally be in the market for a 07 cobra, as long as my finantial situation allows for it that is.

Ford will probably get an extra 40 to 50 thousand units from that. I guess it paid off.

Ok. Since when would Mustang owners want their Mustangs to be a 4 door, fwd sedan or wagon? I don't know...er...wait, yes I do...there are many things that the 3rd and 4th gen owners didn't like about their cars. Chevy must take those items from both cars into consideration. Now, about the general public. Those are the people who would consider a ponycar type car but for some reason they would either buy a Mustang or some other sporty car. Take those suggestions and consider them. If you can impliment some of the suggestions and keep it the Camaro within it segment (pony car) and not turnoff more customers in the process, it will only help the car.

i agree with this, but at first you said, at least its what thought you said maybe i misunderstood, take what the gereral public dosnt like about pony cars and do that. the things i mentioned were things they dont like anout pony cars.


First. It can give the Camaro a marketing edge over the Mustang. Most enthusiasts can tell the difference between IRS and a SLA. The average consumer has no clue but, their perception is that it is a far superior and Chevy needs to use this perception. Have you seen the Honda Ridgeline commercials? Yep, it talks a lot about its' 4 wheel IRS.

i still dont agree with the irs, yes youre right it could give the camaro a marketing edge, but it would also give it about a $5000 higher price tag making a car thats competing with a 26K mustang gt around 31K, thats a big number to swallow for a lot of people. i like the sla because i like to drag race, its better for that purpose, but thats not the issue at hand. if they can do it and keep it cheap fine but i dont think its possible.

Second. What other RWD car does Chevy or GM for that matter that uses a SLA? None I could think of. Sigma, Kappa, Y-car, VZ and VE are all IRS. Camaro is going to be a parts bin car so, unless they are going to use a trunk axle, it will be a IRS and it shows consistancy with-in the corp. Both will help

this on the other hand is a point i didnt think about, and truly it would be better to deal with trying to keep cost down with an existing platform, but sucking up the extra cost of the irs with multiple cars an the same platform than making a whole new one just so it can have a sla. but honestly its not that difficult to go back and forth or throw an sla of a platform the dosnt have one, they did it with the mustangs in 03, base gt, mach 1 had sla and the cobra had irs. still that said i dont want a truck axel under there. i still think theyll pass the extra cost on to us and end up pricing it our of reach for a lot of people. i remember this with a certain other vehicle, that has sold disturbingly well anyway. the ram srt-10, when shown as concept it was supposed to be priced "competivily with the lighting" which would have sugessted arould 35K or a bit more. that day at the autoshow was that last time it was ever uttered and what we got was a very fast v-10 truck that was around 45-50k, when they could have dont the exact thing, by putting a supercharged v-8 in the thing and it could have hit the 35K price point. it happens all to much in this day and age that things get over complicated and pricy and we are the ones who suffer for it. pretty soon there wont be any affordable muscle type cars from anyone.

personally i like the retro looks. if they made a camaro the looked damn near like the 69 id be first in line, that might not be the most popular opinion here but thats how i feel, plus im afraid of what they might do it if they took an all new approach, because i feel like most of the designers out there now are on crack with things like the element, scions, ridgelines and dakotas and durangos running around out there. i know there not pony cars but this ugly phase cars are going through is beginning to effect different classes of cars also.

For the love of God.

No one is saying they want a Mustang clone, or that GM is building one.

The Mustang formula works.

The Camaro has always been a Mustang competitor.

Put two and two together. :rolleyes:

You guys that want a smaller, sportier, IRS, AWD coupe should be getting an AWD version of the Cobalt SS. For the rest of us, give us the Camaro we want. :irk:

Sometimes I think there are some of you that just throw crap against the wall to see what sticks and gets folks' panties in a bunch. :p

For the love of God.

No one is saying they want a Mustang clone, or that GM is building one.

The Mustang formula works.

The Camaro has always been a Mustang competitor.

Put two and two together. :rolleyes:

You guys that want a smaller, sportier, IRS, AWD coupe should be getting an AWD version of the Cobalt SS. For the rest of us, give us the Camaro we want. :irk:

Sometimes I think there are some of you that just throw crap against the wall to see what sticks and gets folks' panties in a bunch. :p
:bow: I'd like to add, you are spot on with your last point!

For the rest of us, give us the Camaro we want.

Which is what?

Actually that thing you posted from Zazarine's book acouple of weeks ago hit the nail on the head, I think.

Which is what?
A pony car. :D

A pony car. :D

Yeah, post that thing if you get a chance, jg.

Yeah, post that thing if you get a chance, jg.

What, the bit from Zazarine's book? :confused:

What, the bit from Zazarine's book? :confused:

Yeah, that one.

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389720

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389720

BINGO!!!

THAT is the formula!

'When work began on the F-car in August 1964, a set of specific baselines were established by Chevrolet for the final design:

Distinctively modern aerodynamic styling for a clean functional appearance
Small, highly maneuverable size with packaging for four passengers
A very broad range of available performance capability
Quick, sharply defined roadability with a firm, yet comfortable ride
"Cockpit-type" interiors for close driver identification
An evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, basic design approach to maintain maximum value to the customer
Wide Selection of mechanical and appearance equipment to allow customer tailoring to his needs and desires'


There it is...
As far as I'm concerned the frickin' holy grail of Camaroness.

i agree with this, but at first you said, at least its what thought you said maybe i misunderstood, take what the gereral public dosnt like about pony cars and do that. the things i mentioned were things they dont like anout pony cars.



I should have worded that a little bit better.

i still dont agree with the irs, yes youre right it could give the camaro a marketing edge, but it would also give it about a $5000 higher price tag making a car thats competing with a 26K mustang gt around 31K, thats a big number to swallow for a lot of people. i like the sla because i like to drag race, its better for that purpose, but thats not the issue at hand. if they can do it and keep it cheap fine but i dont think its possible.

I think you are over estimating the cost of adding the IRS to the Camaro. The IRS will not be made from the expensive alloys, instead, it will use much cheaper steel. IIRC a few of the people in the know stated in a thread about IRS vs SLA that the cost was only a few hundred dollars because they are using cheaper steel.

BINGO!!!

THAT is the formula!

I only have a problem with the term "small". In the mid 1960's it meant a 1st gen sized Camaro. In today's terms it means a much smaller vehicle. While I agree the 4th gen was a land yacht; we shouldn't be expecting a Cobalt-sized Camaro.

I think proportionally something along the lines of the current GTO would suffice provided it is lower-slung (i.e. shorter) and wider.

06-07 camaro. Do we really think we are going to see one that soon?

No. But I'd be willing to bet 08 if GM lifts their moritorium on spending on their RWD program

Define that for me Guy. What is small, but I guess more importantly what is not small.
Cobalt.


And one question for everyone...
I gather from Guy's post the feeling that the Camaro needs to be an exact copy of the Mustang to have a chance of success. Is that true?

If you mean size, yes. If you mean design, no.

Camaro came into existance because of the Mustang.

Mustang stayed true to what it was, Camaro did not.

Mustang is here selling 200,000 cars per year. Camaro is in it's grave because it couldn't compete.

Any questions? ;)

Wrong.

5.7L and 6.1L HEMI, those are pretty damn big engines and while the 6.1 is more rare and only in the SRT's, the 5.7 is real common and a big seller. Its called MDS and it lets big engines do squat and more in the market place ;)

And those stand alone designs and extremely UN-Chryslerlike quality and the fact that the only thing that's like the LX cars is a 25 year old Panther chassis Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis had nothing to do with the car's success? ;)

something between cobalt and mustang would be perfect size wise.

Wrong.

5.7L and 6.1L HEMI, those are pretty damn big engines and while the 6.1 is more rare and only in the SRT's, the 5.7 is real common and a big seller. Its called MDS and it lets big engines do squat and more in the market place ;)

I know Guion already responded to this, but I just wanted to reiterate to make it clear.

You're wrong.

Lx cars sell because they are a liveable package, they are dynamic (in both looks and drive), they are well priced, and present a completely different proposition to the marketplace than what is being offered. Hemi only helps the case. Guion's post about an engine in a tin can is exactly right, an engine does not make sales, it only helps.

EDIT: Allow me to extrapolate a little more on that: an engine is a major proponent of what goes into the sale of a car; engine and transmission feel are both major selling points. However, so are design, packaging, right size, value, up-to-dateness, etc, etc....

A rhetorical question for you guys and others that want to see a "different" approach...
Just exactly how much can you change the Camaro before it's not a Camaro anymore?

While I certainly don't propose slapping a Camaro badge on a Mustang and calling it a day, I also don't think it is fair to the Camaro name to move it into a totally different class of car either. If that is the desired market - fine, go for it... but do it under a different name and let the Camaro badge RIP.


The Camaro must have roots to its past. For my money, it must out-handle and out-power the Mustang. It must look georgeous in a value package that is desireable. The lighter they build it the better... that would also mean size should be as small as is 'practical'.

Just my 2c.

Lets look at some facts:


5. The current Mustang is selling in amazing numbers.... with a live axle..... at it's current size.
6. Mustang at last count was outselling all sporty coupes combined by something like 70%.
7. It takes about 5 years to get a car from scratch to the showroom.
8. GM is going to find the cheapest way to produce a good product (if Kappa was cheaper than Sigma, don't you think GM wouldn't have used it?).





This only serves to cement the fact in my mind that styling and design should be a number one priority in designing a car [future GM car, and all cars, will prove this]. It is especially important in the coupe market, where buyers are already sacrificing practicality for the sake of good looks. Style, style style!

A huge reason for Mustang's success is style. It has made a splash since it went on display at the auto shows. People didn't care about the engine then. Nobody had driven it and seen its capibilities. Nobody had touched the interior, but yet this car drew as big a crowd as the Cadillac Sixteen, another car that sells on, you betcha, style!

Of course, the Mustang continues to gain an audience because of the well thought out package it is. And that is why I could not agree with Guion more. Let GM worry about the details, I know it's in the right hands if the car they are shooting for is the Mustang. Yes, I would love for it to be a little smaller, maybe like 185 OAL (though for my extreme tastes, around 182 would be perfect), but I am not going to bitch and whine when the right car with the right styling with the right name we all know and love is coming! Get off your soapboxes, and start complaining when some real evidence showed up. Like the time when we all found out the Torrent would have a 3.4L engine for the "performance division" and tarnished that division's name yet again!

To add to the fact that Mustang is selling 200,000 units... and that isn't enough apparently for some folks, but.... that is the most they can build! That's the build capacity! Otherwise they probably would have built a lot more.

I agree. Pretty pathetic of someone to questions someone else enthusism for the Camaro just because they differ in opinion. :mad:

Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion, even if it's wrong. :lol:

Look, before GM is going to commit billions of dollars producing the thing, they are going to study the living daylights out of it. Being that they have been studying and doing research to some degree or another for damn near a decade, and many people have worked to all levels of frustration to get the car back, the idea that anyone's opinion here is going to weigh more, or be more correct than what Red and the gang he works with has come up through research, and sales figures of it's competition with is ludicrious.

For those who have memory lapse, Mustang created Camaro. And like it or not, it's the sales success of the current Mustang that's broken the logjam and got things moving for the 5th gen. If you can't handle that fact, I'm sure Red has some more of that fantastic kool-aid he's tempted to chug when he comes here and listens to all us "devoted" Camaro enthusiasts tell him he doesn't know what he's doing, and he's created a pig of a car....though no one has seen the thing. :lol:



Look, I personally would love a G35-like Camaro. I recall saying that back in '03, and many times over since. If I were king of the world, I'd create a Mitsubishi sized car with RWD and an LS2. But I'm perfectly honest enough to say my idea would run Camaro into the ground, because while I'd win over plenty of hard core enthusiasts, I would have turned off the car to plenty of people. I can be honest enough to say my opinion of what the next Camaro should be wouldn't be in the best intrest of Camaro having a future.

The difference here is that I'm willing to compromise to make sure Camaro HAS A FUTURE. As long as the basics are right. A better looking, quicker, and better made sporty coupe than the other guys come up with.

I WANT the next Camaro to sell like crazy.
I WANT the next Camaro to guarantee they'll be another.
I WANT a Camaro that's going to win over new buyers, and not just Camaro bobbleheads.
I'm willing to give a bit in order to do this.

Wanna talk about who's more devoted to Camaro?

Want to debate who's more committed to Camaro's future?

You want to talk about someone who's going to walk the walk, not just talk the talk??

Line forms to the left.

Throw the dice and take your chances. :death:

... and not just Camaro bobbleheads.


ROFLMAO! There's a new one, LOL.

so when you say 2008 does that mean 2007 model year?

so when you say 2008 does that mean 2007 model year?

At high speed with no complications, we're talking 18 -24 months from final approval to production.

I suspect the car is farther along than is let on, but I doubt it's near final approval yet.

January starts the 2007 model year. I'd say that makes it pretty much makes a 2007 Camaro a perfect poster child for the word "impossible". :(

Doesn't the fact that Camaro will be late to the party change the dynamics somewhat? Usually, the expectations from buyers is greater of the latecomer... it shouldn't be a me-too car? (that's a question, btw :D )

'When work began on the F-car in August 1964, a set of specific baselines were established by Chevrolet for the final design:

Distinctively modern aerodynamic styling for a clean functional appearance
Small, highly maneuverable size with packaging for four passengers
A very broad range of available performance capability
Quick, sharply defined roadability with a firm, yet comfortable ride
"Cockpit-type" interiors for close driver identification
An evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, basic design approach to maintain maximum value to the customer
Wide Selection of mechanical and appearance equipment to allow customer tailoring to his needs and desires'

Perfect! I tried to use it as my sig but it wouldn't fit.

For those who have memory lapse, Mustang created Camaro. And like it or not, it's the sales success of the current Mustang that's broken the logjam and got things moving for the 5th gen. If you can't handle that fact, I'm sure Red has some more of that fantastic kool-aid he's tempted to chug when he comes here and listens to all us "devoted" Camaro enthusiasts tell him he doesn't know what he's doing, and he's created a pig of a car....though no one has seen the thing.



Look, I personally would love a G35-like Camaro. I recall saying that back in '03, and many times over since. If I were king of the world, I'd create a Mitsubishi sized car with RWD and an LS2. But I'm perfectly honest enough to say my idea would run Camaro into the ground, because while I'd win over plenty of hard core enthusiasts, I would have turned off the car to plenty of people. I can be honest enough to say my opinion of what the next Camaro should be wouldn't be in the best intrest of Camaro having a future.

The difference here is that I'm willing to compromise to make sure Camaro HAS A FUTURE. As long as the basics are right. A better looking, quicker, and better made sporty coupe than the other guys come up with.

I WANT the next Camaro to sell like crazy.
I WANT the next Camaro to guarantee they'll be another.
I WANT a Camaro that's going to win over new buyers, and not just Camaro bobbleheads.
I'm willing to give a bit in order to do this.

I love those words! They precisely nail how I feel as well (well except for the part about wanting a tiny 5gen :D ). It's so cool to see someone say that here! THIS is one of the reasons I come to this site. :)

5th gen production is still too far off to nail down, it will not be 2007 but more likely 2009-10. I think alot will depend on the concept car this winter at NAIAS. Hopefully we will see a road worthy concept and if reception is hot then it will be pushed forward for production ASAP. But what if reception is cool to the concept will Camaro be put of the back burner again and pushed out further from production? I for one hope GM gets the concept right.

Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion, even if it's wrong. :lol:

Look, before GM is going to commit billions of dollars producing the thing, they are going to study the living daylights out of it. Being that they have been studying and doing research to some degree or another for damn near a decade, and many people have worked to all levels of frustration to get the car back, the idea that anyone's opinion here is going to weigh more, or be more correct than what Red and the gang he works with has come up through research, and sales figures of it's competition with is ludicrious.

For those who have memory lapse, Mustang created Camaro. And like it or not, it's the sales success of the current Mustang that's broken the logjam and got things moving for the 5th gen. If you can't handle that fact, I'm sure Red has some more of that fantastic kool-aid he's tempted to chug when he comes here and listens to all us "devoted" Camaro enthusiasts tell him he doesn't know what he's doing, and he's created a pig of a car....though no one has seen the thing. :lol:



Look, I personally would love a G35-like Camaro. I recall saying that back in '03, and many times over since. If I were king of the world, I'd create a Mitsubishi sized car with RWD and an LS2. But I'm perfectly honest enough to say my idea would run Camaro into the ground, because while I'd win over plenty of hard core enthusiasts, I would have turned off the car to plenty of people. I can be honest enough to say my opinion of what the next Camaro should be wouldn't be in the best intrest of Camaro having a future.

The difference here is that I'm willing to compromise to make sure Camaro HAS A FUTURE. As long as the basics are right. A better looking, quicker, and better made sporty coupe than the other guys come up with.

I WANT the next Camaro to sell like crazy.
I WANT the next Camaro to guarantee they'll be another.
I WANT a Camaro that's going to win over new buyers, and not just Camaro bobbleheads.
I'm willing to give a bit in order to do this.

Wanna talk about who's more devoted to Camaro?

Want to debate who's more committed to Camaro's future?

You want to talk about someone who's going to walk the walk, not just talk the talk??

Line forms to the left.

Throw the dice and take your chances. :death:


Here's what I get out of this Guy.

If you ruled the world, you'd make a Camaro an inch smaller than the SN95. But since you don't, you would sacrifice that, because - only an S197 sized Camaro will save the Camaro marque .

What's that about kool-aid? ;)

PS

Red hasn't designed this car. :)

Small, highly maneuverable size with packaging for four passengers

Interesting, huh?Well, it must be taken in context, back then, it was small compared to most of the "land yachts"...still...there were Austin-Healy's and Triumph's running around much smaller, even Corvair's... :think:

Sadly, I lost track of the news on the 5th gen, and I don't care. If it comes out, it comes out. If it doesn't, I don't care anymore. I'll buy an older gen, or get a used C5, or even consider a Ford. They axed one of my favorite cars, and I just won't buy anything new from them again, especially if they butcher something or screw it up. If they want to sit on their ass, fine, I'll go buy something else. I'm not waiting up for anything anymore.They never "Killed it" bro, just faked it's death, and put it on the Witness Protection Program... :D ...for a little strategic repositioning.(Shh-h-h-h-h) ;)

Doesn't the fact that Camaro will be late to the party change the dynamics somewhat? Usually, the expectations from buyers is greater of the latecomer... it shouldn't be a me-too car? (that's a question, btw :D )
The original Camaro came late to the party as well. ;)

The original Camaro came late to the party as well. ;)

Yes, but back then GM dominated the market... now they have to choose their product intros carefully.

Look, I personally would love a G35-like Camaro. I recall saying that back in '03, and many times over since.

What part of the G35 formula doesn't work? :confused: Compared to the Mustang it's 6" shorter on a 5" longer wheelbase, marginally taller with the same rear head room and more rear legroom. In essence all Chevy needs to do is wrap a tight coupe package onto the CTS platform with a lower cowl and we have ourselves the perfect 5th gen. :)

You guys that want a smaller, sportier, IRS, AWD coupe should be getting an AWD version of the Cobalt SS. For the rest of us, give us the Camaro we want. :irk:

You conveniently forgot the V8 and the rear bias AWD. Would 6" shorter than a Mustang on a longer wheelbase be considered a "small" car?

Yep, the G35 coupe dimensions are pretty good.

Yep, the G35 coupe dimensions are pretty good.
The G35 is too tall to be a Camaro. :rolleyes:

Through Jan-June '05 the G35 coupe has sold 13,331 units here. Would that be enough to justify a G35ish formula for a Camaro? Isnt that about how the 01-02 Camaro sold??

(The Sedan sold over 21K units through June, btw)

Through Jan-June '05 the G35 coupe has sold 13,331 units here. Would that be enough to justify a G35ish formula for a Camaro? Isnt that about how the 01-02 Camaro sold??

(The Sedan sold over 21K units through June, btw)

We're talking size, not formula. The G35 is a one trick pony in the GTO genre.

Through Jan-June '05 the G35 coupe has sold 13,331 units here. Would that be enough to justify a G35ish formula for a Camaro? Isnt that about how the 01-02 Camaro sold??

(The Sedan sold over 21K units through June, btw)

and just when everyone stops liking a certain formula GM is going to chime in?

comon we need some inititive... make a larger solstice, with just as much boom and thus we get a big bang theory... :D

Through Jan-June '05 the G35 coupe has sold 13,331 units here. Would that be enough to justify a G35ish formula for a Camaro? Isnt that about how the 01-02 Camaro sold??

Well the G35 is pricey, and doesn't have near the name recognition a Camaro would. We're strictly talking basic dimensions here, not copying everything right down to the cupholders. :lol: I'm sure there are many cars that are just about the 2005 Mustang's size, and don't sell extremely well...that's because they aren't Mustangs, not because the size is wrong.

Just throwing stuff out there to keep in mind.

30,000 units a year is NOT going to cut it for the 5th gen. Keep in mind that was 30,000 a year each for 2 cars....60,000 total...and they still got killed off, partly for internal political reasons but killed off none the less.

I think it can be safely said that if the cars were a booming success flying off the lots that despite the CAW and St. Therese contract issues a way would have been found to save the cars. So ultimately, 60,000/yr wasn't enough.

I think you're looking at a scenario where the Camaro is going to have to sell at least 80,000/yr to stay afloat. I'd bet they are shooting for 100,000/yr though.

The G35 is too tall to be a Camaro. :rolleyes:
Tell me about it. It is 3.6 inches taller than a fourth gen, and 0.4 inches taller than Mustang. That practically makes it a monster truck like the GTO, which is 0.1 inches taller than G35. The fourth gen didn't sell because it was too tall. The 5th gen needs to have a height of 45 inches or less!!! ;)

..In essence all Chevy needs to do is wrap a tight coupe package onto the CTS platform with a lower cowl and we have ourselves the perfect 5th gen. :)

Who is to say they aren't doing just that?

Except the already stated struts instead of SLA front and a cheapened IRS.

Who is to say they aren't doing just that?



I don't know if anyone says they're not doing that. If they are, put me down as being in the "happy camp". :D


As to height, I'm fully expecting to see something in the 54 - 55 inch range.


While I can appreciate those who want an even smaller and lighter F5 for autocross and/or road course adventures, IMO a used C5 ZO6 or a Solstice/Sky are the GM offerings that would fit that application better.

The original Camaro came late to the party as well

09-10 model year is a long way off. the new camaro and challenger are both shooting for this time frame. they need to get them out sooner or there not just going to be late to the party, there gonna miss it.

Tell me about it. It is 3.6 inches taller than a fourth gen, and 0.4 inches taller than Mustang. That practically makes it a monster truck like the GTO, which is 0.1 inches taller than G35. The fourth gen didn't sell because it was too tall. The 5th gen needs to have a height of 45 inches or less!!! ;)

Very funny. :rolleyes: However, a Camaro should be not taller than 50-52 inches and it needs to be at least 74-75 inches wide.

The G35 is narrower in width and track than both the Mustang and the GTO. The G35, while shorter in length than the others, also has a longer wheelbase.

I want a Camaro that out handles Mustang and GTO. Giving it a narrower track, longer wheel base and making it taller isn't going to cut it. :p

Seems like more contradiction going on here. It seems like some people tell you that the Camaro has to be all things to all people and damn the enthusiasts. Yet in another breath (read: thread) that same someone will tell you that it can't be built unless there is a sedan/larger platform to base it off of.

That brings me to this. If the 5th gen is going to have to a have a "mommy" platform for which to base it's chassis, then why does it have to be a high volume seller? Shouldn't the "mommy" platform suffice for the volume sales. Thereby leaving the 5th gen to be more of an enthusiast's vehicle. Notice, I don't mean I want it to be niche or alienate anyone, but surely there's room to make the enthusiasts and bean counters happy with this formula.

The bean counters get their volume of sales out of the platform and the enthusiasts, both within and outside GM, get a great car.

So far, from all the recent threads, only Z284ever is making sense. I don't want another bloated live-axle Camaro. I've got one, and while I don't see it's equal in the marketplace right now, a clone would be a waste. It needs to be smaller (yes, by 1" would suffice for now), lighter and more modern than the competition. If the intent is to make another "me too" brick on wheels, then I'll say "no thanks".

Yep, the G35 coupe dimensions are pretty good.

That's what I think of when I think of a smaller Camaro. I love how Cobalt sized is an example of tiny somehow, that car is as big as a 2001 Camry

Except the already stated struts instead of SLA front and a cheapened IRS.

When Reuss said that, I figured it was what we were getting as the under-pinnings for a new Camaro. I was actually pretty happy about it, as Sigma now has some years on the race track in the CTSv-R program, and look what the C5-R program did for the new Z06. Guess I figured too early?

I really hope that GM can talking about this car soon, these roller coasters are getting old.

That's what I think of when I think of a smaller Camaro. I love how Cobalt sized is an example of tiny somehow, that car is as big as a 2001 Camry
Yeah, in actuality I think that the G35 is really on the small side of acceptable for a 5th gen (height notwithstanding). As Darth Xed is fond of pointing out, the absolute dimensions are not as important as the proportions and style however.

I am not happy with the 5th is going with struts on the front, if that is a fact. Seems like a step backwards.

As long as the Camaro stays RWD, has a V8 available, has a manual transmission available, and is a 2dr sports coupe not a 4dr (none of those little RX-8 and Saturn style doors either) I will look very seriously at the F5s. Everything else I don't really care which way they go with it (modern vs retro, IRS vs Solid, hatch vs trunk) as long as they don't screw it up.

Also, I would love for it to come out for the 40th Anniversary in 2007, even if it was a limited mid year run (like the 70 1/2 Camaros). I really think that would be great for all parties involved. I really don't expect it to happen, because they would pretty much have to have something sitting in a garage surrounded by armed guards that is production ready and already been approved and is able to be built on an exsisting assembly line, and that just isn't very likely. I think 2008 would be ok. 2009 is pushing it. By 2010 Hyundia and Chrysler will also have their pony out or coming out, and GM will have a lot of aggrevated F-body enthusiasts and a car based on info they gathered 5yrs earlier (translation: they better have a dang good car if they want to be competitive) :( .

David

HAZMATT:

Yep, the G35 coupe dimensions are pretty good. Not everything can be easily quantified by numbers, they are deceiving. Despite the longer wheelbase and shorter overhangs, in real life the g35 is small inside...

Tell me about it. It is 3.6 inches taller than a fourth gen, and 0.4 inches taller than Mustang. That practically makes it a monster truck like the GTO, which is 0.1 inches taller than G35. The fourth gen didn't sell because it was too tall. The 5th gen needs to have a height of 45 inches or less!!! I don't believe this to be true, it needs a more Upright stance, as most new millineum cars are trending. I don't want an Exotic Camaro, like an NSX or C5...but this is MY opinion....In fact most people I spoke to agreed that climbing in and out of a fourth gen was a tiring task.(Low-Slung,same of the 3rd Gen...)And I don't see how the style of a Camaro, true to form, would promote such a low height.

I think the G35 is a good start, but slightly small.(btw, g35 M6 = nearly 3600lbs....)

In fact most people I spoke to agreed that climbing in and out of a fourth gen was a tiring task.(Low-Slung,same of the 3rd Gen...)And I don't see how the style of a Camaro, true to form, would promote such a low height.

Just exactly this one thing has cost another Camaro a new home...

A coworker's father-in-law is going through a mid-life crisis of sorts. My coworker and I have been going to Mustang shows for a few years, and I recently found him a 1993 SSP Mustang. As we were restoring it, the father-in-law decided to get in on the attention, and bought a '94GT at the state auction. After driving it for a few months, he found a 2000 Camaro B4C package (at the state auction again) - and jumped on it because it was faster and sleeker than the GT. He sold the GT to my buddy (Tim) and his wife. Tim informed me at the Mustang show last Saturday that his father-in-law is now wanting to sell the Camaro, and get another Mustang (he was eyeballing a restored '88 GT with T-tops that was for sale at the show). He claims that he and his wife (both in their 50's) have a hard time getting in and out of the car - #1 reason they want to sell it. #2 reason is transmission problems and repair costs since they have owned it (about 1 year now). The last reason (pure speculation on my part) is that they want to bring something to all the Mustang shows that Tim and I are attending and showing in - I think he feels sort of left out now. He and his wife come to every show, but just look around and sit and talk - I think Kurt wants to show something with us... peer pressure can be a biotch!

At any rate, to ask Kurt (the father-in-law) why he is looking to sell, his first words are "it's too hard to get in and out of". :(

Shame too, because I am the first to admit the car looks and drives awesome. All black, alloys, windows are now smoke-tinted about 20%... it looks sweet. North Carolina Highway Patrol unit, still has NCDOT stickers inside on dash and glovebox. Never had the external light bar, and the decals were peeled right off the factory paint so it looks like new.

Back to the topic - I think taking the entire chassis too low would be a mistake. The base units need to be 100% oriented to daily liveability and easy utility, and sitting with your butt-cheeks a mere 10" off the ground is not going to get the car rave reviews for seating position, visibility, or easy ingress/egress.
No, it shouldn't be 55" tall either... but there is a happy medium ground in there somewhere, and that is what GM needs to struggle to optimize. The high-performance units can always go back to shorter, stronger springs and suspension geometry to lower the car 1-2" without any problems whatsoever.

On a different note ...

I finally made it out to autocross last night for the first time this year.

There's a 2005 Mustang GT driven by a great guy that was running a 2001 Mustang GT the last few years. I think he's even more into Mustang than I am into Camaro. I went for a ride along with him and chatted with him about his impressions of the '05. From a performance perspective, he figures his '05 completely stock except for R-compounds (Kumho's) is 2 seconds FASTER on a 60 second course than his modded '01 was. It also appears he may win the overall PAX indexed championship here this year. On raw times he is nipping hard at S2000 and modded Miata times ...on a very tight course. :eek:

I may just have to eat some crow about not wanting the 5th gen to be a "Chevy Mustang" ... except that I really, really want IRS, which I trust we are going to get.

What I'd also love to see is a 2005 Mustang GT vs 2002 Camaro SS test.

BTW ....he loves the '05 as a car outside of competition as well. Personally, I thought it was nice, but would have a hard time getting used to the really high beltline.

My!

What a lively discussion.

(or should I say 'disagreement!)

:D

One thing to keep in mind......

We DID keep the hard core enthusiast in mind as the 4th gen got older and older........take a look at the engine..........

(and I'll say it again.....anyone who thinks the 4th gen was a pig......show up at Spring Mountain Motorsports Park.....get in, buckle up, shut up.....and observe as I make you scream like a lil school girl!

:D

(just had a root canal.....those pills are making me say things again!)

one last thought...........

for those who think the 4th gen is hard to get in and out of:

"Mom" Settlemire will be at the Camaro/Firebird Reunion.......(www.corvettemuseum.com)....with her fourth gen Camaro....(yes, she's prejudiced)........she's 80 (looks 60s).......and if you tell her that, I'd suggest you run.....'cause she'll beat you with whatever she's got in her hand at the time......)

(but it IS something we need to address........)

Glad to hear confirmation you'll be there, as I imagined you would be. Up for a cz28.com breakfast summit??? :D

I gotta get Doug on this one...

We DID keep the hard core enthusiast in mind as the 4th gen got older and older........take a look at the engine..........


And as long as your keep the hardcore enthusiast in mind as well as the masses, I will always be interesting in the Camaro. The 4th gen was absolutely too bad ass to ignore.

Glad to hear confirmation you'll be there, as I imagined you would be. Up for a cz28.com breakfast summit??? :D

I gotta get Doug on this one...

MEBBE!!!

:D

Oh boy...I'm PM'ing Doug and poSSum right now...a couple of us need to hijack you some morning :D

Glad to hear confirmation you'll be there, as I imagined you would be. Up for a cz28.com breakfast summit??? :D

I gotta get Doug on this one...

MEBBE!!!

:D

In the spirit of keeping this lively discussion (disagreement) going... ;)

Seems like more contradiction going on here. It seems like some people tell you that the Camaro has to be all things to all people and damn the enthusiasts. Yet in another breath (read: thread) that same someone will tell you that it can't be built unless there is a sedan/larger platform to base it off of.

No, that's not what's being said. :lol:

What's being said is that the only way the next Camaro is going to survive is bringing in new customers. No one's damning the enthusiasts, but GM shouldn't bend over backwards kissing the enthusiasts that seem bent on creating a Camaro that's not going to expand it's appeal beyond the hard core group. This is a group that couldn't even keep the old Camaro going

BTW: Camaro sales began it's disasterous sales plunge once the '98 and it's way more powerful LS1 came out... so much for the enthusiasts carrying a car.

If the 5th gen is going to have to a have a "mommy" platform for which to base it's chassis, then why does it have to be a high volume seller?

Camaro's always had a "mommy" platform. What's new?


I don't mean I want it to be niche or alienate anyone, but surely there's room to make the enthusiasts and bean counters happy with this formula.

It's happened before. It's called the 4th gen. Beancounters were happy because the chassis was essentially an improved 3rd gen, Quebec was essentially paying GM to keep a factory at Ste. Therese, the 4th gen's extensive plastic body panels were cheaper to make than stamped steel, and the engine & transmission essentially came from other paid programs.

from all the recent threads, only Z284ever is making sense. I don't want another bloated live-axle Camaro...

OK. Show me from a GM source where you read that you are getting a bloated live axle Camaro?

Not one person I know who is familiar with what's being created calls it bloated, or claims it's going to have a live axle.

(bold and red so no one misses it ;) )


Very funny. :rolleyes: However, a Camaro should be not taller than 50-52 inches and it needs to be at least 74-75 inches wide.


The 4th gen was just over 53" tall, and only the 4th gen was 74-75" wide, so I agree. :)

What part of the G35 formula doesn't work?

The G35's sub-GTO sales figures of about 13K annual sales to the Mustangs 190K+, for starters. :)

....But what if reception is cool to the concept will Camaro be put of the back burner again and pushed out further from production?

NOW yer gittin the picture!


Here's what I get out of this Guy.

If you ruled the world, you'd make a Camaro an inch smaller than the SN95. But since you don't, you would sacrifice that, because - only an S197 sized Camaro will save the Camaro marque .

What's that about kool-aid? ;)

PS

Red hasn't designed this car. :)

1. Unless you plan on auditioning to be an adult film star, an inch or so isn't an issue. ;)

2. AnThe G35 comparison is a total package. The G35 is an upright coupe, that's probally about 55" tall. The new Mustang is barely longer than the SN95. The '05 Mustang's percieved size is gained from it's increase in width, and a flatter and longer hood.

3. Just because Red didn't draw the car doesn't mean he had nothing to do with it. :)

2. AnThe G35 comparison is a total package. The G35 is an upright coupe, that's probally about 55" tall. The new Mustang is barely longer than the SN95. The '05 Mustang's percieved size is gained from it's increase in width, and a flatter and longer hood.



The new Mustang is substantially larger than the SN95. It's about 5" longer and FAR bulkier in most every other dimension. The SN95 is closer to G35 sized than S197 sized.



The G35's sub-GTO sales figures of about 13K annual sales to the Mustangs 190K+, for starters. :)

I believe that was for SIX months, not annual. G35 coupe far outsells GTO. Any one year of G35 coupe sales exceeds ALL '04/'05 GTO's sold here combined.


OK. Show me from a GM source where you read that you are getting a bloated live axle Camaro?

[b][color=red]Not one person I know who is familiar with what's being created calls it bloated, or claims it's going to have a live axle.

GM source? First they have to officially admit that there actually is a Camaro.

At any rate the live axle threat appears dead. On to the next issue........

The G35's sub-GTO sales figures of about 13K annual sales to the Mustangs 190K+, for starters. :)2. AnThe G35 comparison is a total package.

The G35 is an upright coupe, that's probally about 55" tall. The new Mustang is barely longer than the SN95.


By G35 formula I'm referring to a relatively long wheelbase, short body, upright coupe that looks swoopy especially compared to the Mustang. I am not referring to an expensive, fully loaded, V6 only, zero heritage coupe.

January can't come soon enough! :D

By G35 formula I'm referring to a relatively long wheelbase, short body, upright coupe that looks swoopy especially compared to the Mustang.
When has Camaro ever matched that formula? :irk:

Not that it's a bad formula; its just not "Camaro".


Distinctively modern aerodynamic styling for a clean functional appearance
Small, highly maneuverable size with packaging for four passengers
A very broad range of available performance capability
Quick, sharply defined roadability with a firm, yet comfortable ride
"Cockpit-type" interiors for close driver identification
An evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, basic design approach to maintain maximum value to the customer
Wide Selection of mechanical and appearance equipment to allow customer tailoring to his needs and desires'


Now that's a "Camaro" formula. :D

In all seriousness though. Camaro has to have a long hoodline and short rear deck, otherwise its not a Camaro. Camaro also has to handle like a ponycar. The G35/350Z is a cool sports car, but its not a Camaro. Could you imagine comparing a late seventies 280Z to a late severties Z28... EVER?

Late to the party, I know, but for what it's worth, here's my 2 1/2 cents! What I say below doesn't necessarily represent what I think would sell best, or what is necessarily feasible; but rather what my desires, as a lifelong Camaro enthusiast, are for a new Camaro. If I can't present what I want here, where can I?!

2. Buyers don't care about live axles, GVW, and think Kappa and Sigma are fraternities.
Even non-savvy buyers can and do recognize the ride and handling deficiencies of a live axle. My wife feels insecure driving the Camaro based on how the car lurches around and tries to change lanes over uneven pavement, but she LOVES driving the 240SX. She feels the live axle whether she knows what it is or not. That said, I don't think a new Camaro *has* to have IRS.
She also recognizes that the Camaro feels much bigger and heavier (which of course it *is*), which also makes her more uncomfortable driving the car. So whether or not she knows Kappa from Sigma, I think she would be able to tell the difference between a 3600+ lb. and a 3200- lb. new Camaro (with a definite preference for the latter). I'm not saying a Sigma Camaro would definitely be 3600 lb. or that a Kappa Camaro would definitely be 3200 or less (though starting with a lighter platform would seem to me to be a better choice for weight). Just that lighter weight is more desirable than overweight.
3. Buyers want praticality in there coupes and don't want small cars! When they do, they want 4 cylinder FWD econocars.
Not me. I want a smallish, relatively lightweight, relatively cheap, decently-powered, basic rwd 2+2 performance-oriented coupe (as opposed to a convertible). Nobody makes one these days. I see a potential market niche!
5. You can call the general public all the names you want because of this, but you matter less than they do in the grand scheme of things because they outnumber you something like 1000 to 1 of Camaro buyers, and you don't even want to know how we compare in the entire sporty coupe market.
Agreed. But again, I'm only trying to put my opinion for what *I* want out there. Surely this forum is the place for such opinions. I certainly don't expect that my desires will dictate GM's design goals entirely.
That said, what the market wants in 2008/2009/2010 might be a LOT different from what it wants right now. Particularly if gas prices continue to rise.
6. IF GM were bringing out a Camaro in 2008, you aren't going to change anything now (it's too late), so there's no reason to slam what they may be working on.
Are we to only be cheerleaders for GM, whatever they're doing? I think it's perfectly appropriate to voice concerns over weight when it *appears* they're going to base it on a bigger, heavier car.
Independent rear suspension:
*Heavier or more expensive car.
*Cost to be taken out elsewhere (fewer option choices, struts, quality of materials...)
*Axle hop

There are alternative IRS designs that are relatively cheap, lightweight, and not prone to axle hop. I'm thinking Chapman struts (where the control arms pivot parallel to the longitudinal axis of the car) should be an effective solution. I wouldn't have any problems getting over the lack of multilink setup if there are significant cost and weight savings. Again, that said, I'm still in the market for a live-axle car IF the weight really is kept down. I would NOT be impressed with a Camaro that stuck with a live axle in part to keep weight down, but still weighs closer to 3600 than 3200.

Kappa based Camaro:
*The death of a Camaro some people have spent years of time and effort to bring this far.
If true (I have no reason to doubt it, word seems to be that the Kappa can't be easily made into a 2+2), fine, let them base one on a bigger heavier platform. If they can get the weight WAY down, I'm there. If not, OK, others will accept it whatever it weighs. I'm just letting *my* particular preferences and concerns be known in advance.
If you want to create a whole new Camaro direction, then please allow those of us who actually care about the name
To be honest, I know what I want, and if/when someone makes it, I'll buy it. Whether its name is "Camaro" or not. I would very much LIKE it to be a Camaro, though.

and want the car to survive and actually compete with the Mustang in sales and profit to GM (and therefore ensuring there will be future Camaros), to support the one some in GM are trying to get to market now first.
Or at the very very least, lets wait till we actually see what the Camaro custodians at GM have come up with before we slam a car we haven't seen yet.
Pretty please! :p

I'm only slamming the car IF it winds up north of 3400 lb with IRS, or maybe 3250 lb. with a live axle. Mainly I'm voicing my CONCERN that the car will be well over that figure if it's based on a 3800-4000+ lb. Cadillac platform.

I'm very open to being pleasantly surprised!

And I do realize I don't represent the typical potential Camaro buyer!

Just making making my desires known on the OFF chance that:
a) somebody listening actually CARES
b) they can actually influence the car's development in a lighter-weight direction

I am NOT advocating for "a lighter-weight Camaro or NO Camaro"!
By all means, if it can't be light weight, it should be made ANYWAY! I just won't be nearly as interested in buying one. But I wouldn't want OTHER enthusiasts here to be deprived!

Certainly they shouldn't terminate development just because I *think* the path they *appear (to me)* to be on makes me think it's going to wind up a bit on the heavy side.

[list]
Distinctively modern aerodynamic styling for a clean functional appearance
Small, highly maneuverable size with packaging for four passengers


Does that describe a G35, or an '05 Mustang better?

Other than wheelbase a 69 Camaro is dimensionally closer to a G35 than to an '05 Mustang.

I'm only slamming the car IF it winds up north of 3400 lb with IRS, or maybe 3250 lb. with a live axle.

I've been reading your rants about weight for a while now, and I'm sorry, but you really are living in a dream world with these figures. The new Corvette Z06 is a two-seat sports car with a special hydroformed all aluminum chassis and still weighs over 3100 pounds. How on God's green Earth is GM going to produce a 2+2 Camaro that only weighs a couple hundred pounds more, using vastly more inexpensive methods of production to keep the cars affordable like Camaros should be?

I would be very happy with a well-done IRS V8 Camaro tipping the scales at 34xx pounds. That is really all we can ask for. I know this uber-flyweight Camaro is just your opinion, but I can tell you right now, if that is what you're looking for, the next Camaro will not be your car.

I've been reading your rants about weight for a while now, and I'm sorry, but you really are living in a dream world with these figures. The new Corvette Z06 is a two-seat sports car with a special hydroformed all aluminum chassis and still weighs over 3100 pounds. How on God's green Earth is GM going to produce a 2+2 Camaro that only weighs a couple hundred pounds more, using vastly more inexpensive methods of production to keep the cars affordable like Camaros should be?

I would be very happy with a well-done IRS V8 Camaro tipping the scales at 34xx pounds. That is really all we can ask for. I know this uber-flyweight Camaro is just your opinion, but I can tell you right now, if that is what you're looking for, the next Camaro will not be your car.

Agreed.

And even the 34xx weight of the 4th Gen is without a lot of equipment that will have to be on a 5th gen....

I've been reading your rants about weight for a while now, and I'm sorry, but you really are living in a dream world with these figures. The new Corvette Z06 is a two-seat sports car with a special hydroformed all aluminum chassis and still weighs over 3100 pounds. How on God's green Earth is GM going to produce a 2+2 Camaro that only weighs a couple hundred pounds more, using vastly more inexpensive methods of production to keep the cars affordable like Camaros should be?

I would be very happy with a well-done IRS V8 Camaro tipping the scales at 34xx pounds. That is really all we can ask for. I know this uber-flyweight Camaro is just your opinion, but I can tell you right now, if that is what you're looking for, the next Camaro will not be your car.

the original camaro weighed around that... perhaps scales have changed just like the SAE, but I'm putting a bet on Camaro could get lighter... and lets see that old camaro didnt have fiberglass all around it was all metal...

the original camaro weighed around that... perhaps scales have changed just like the SAE, but I'm putting a bet on Camaro could get lighter... and lets see that old camaro didnt have fiberglass all around it was all metal...

Uhhhh...you're joking right? The original Camaro also didn't have air bags...anti-lock brake systems...heck no computer equipment at all...its structure didn't have to conform to any hard-line safety standards, the cars had no modern-day comforts or conveniences that everyone today would demand...should I continue?

So what the new Camaro loses in the use of fiberglass and aluminum engine blocks it puts back on with all these modern car requirements, and then some.

I've been reading your rants about weight for a while now, and I'm sorry, but you really are living in a dream world with these figures.

Perhaps. Again, I'm only saying what I want. If it truly CAN'T be done, I'll turbo or LS1 a 240SX.

The new Corvette Z06 is a two-seat sports car with a special hydroformed all aluminum chassis and still weighs over 3100 pounds. How on God's green Earth is GM going to produce a 2+2 Camaro that only weighs a couple hundred pounds more, using vastly more inexpensive methods of production to keep the cars affordable like Camaros should be?
They have a veritable ARMY of HIGHLY capable engineers and designers. If it were made a priority, I have no doubt they could do it. But of course I don't expect that it WILL be made a priority just because that's what one voice in the wilderness wants!

I would be very happy with a well-done IRS V8 Camaro tipping the scales at 34xx pounds. That is really all we can ask for.
What did I just say?
"I'm only slamming the car IF it winds up north of 3400 lb with IRS..."
I know this uber-flyweight Camaro is just your opinion, but I can tell you right now, if that is what you're looking for, the next Camaro will not be your car.
I will be VERY surprised if it is. But like I said, I'm TOTALLY OPEN to being surprised!

I've been reading your rants about weight for a while now, and I'm sorry, but you really are living in a dream world with these figures. The new Corvette Z06 is a two-seat sports car with a special hydroformed all aluminum chassis and still weighs over 3100 pounds. How on God's green Earth is GM going to produce a 2+2 Camaro that only weighs a couple hundred pounds more, using vastly more inexpensive methods of production to keep the cars affordable like Camaros should be?

I would be very happy with a well-done IRS V8 Camaro tipping the scales at 34xx pounds. That is really all we can ask for. I know this uber-flyweight Camaro is just your opinion, but I can tell you right now, if that is what you're looking for, the next Camaro will not be your car.

The 99-04 Mustang GT's weighed in only alittle more then a c5 corvette. It could be done, even considering new crash standards that will affect the 5th gen. If alot of this techno crap finds its way onto a new Camaro, which it most likely will, I hope to see an options list removing some of it. I know that the days of things like ps, pw, pl delete are gone, but I hope there are at least a few options to keep some of this weight adding stuff off of the car.

They have a veritable ARMY of HIGHLY capable engineers and designers.

"Highly capable", yes. "Miracle workers"? :think: As I said in a previous post, with the ever-toughening crash standards, the creature comforts and features that modern cars must have to sniff success, and the GM parts-bin pieces that will need to be used to keep Camaro the common man's performance car, 3200 pounds is simply out of the question. Not saying I like it either, I'm just being a realist.

What did I just say?
"I'm only slamming the car IF it winds up north of 3400 lb with IRS..."

I know, to which I replied I'd be very VERY happy with an IRS Camaro weighing just north of 3400 pounds. Where I'm thinking of an affordable, practical Camaro you're thinking of a streamlined purpose built race-car Camaro. Nice vision, ain't happenin. :(

The 99-04 Mustang GT's weighed in only alittle more then a c5 corvette.

Yup, considering everything involved both the SN95 Mustang and the 4th Gen F-body did a commendable job holding weight down...and they still weighed nearly 3500 pounds!!!! The C5 vert weighed what, 3250 pounds? If 250 pounds is "close"...I don't think you realize what it takes to shave even 50 pounds off the weight of a car....going to an expensive all-aluminum frame on the new Z06 saved just 100 pounds compared to the old one! Now you tell me, how do you propose to drop 300 pounds or more off the next Camaro, keeping the same configuration with no use of exotic materials?

Uhhhh...you're joking right? The original Camaro also didn't have air bags...anti-lock brake systems...heck no computer equipment at all...its structure didn't have to conform to any hard-line safety standards, the cars had no modern-day comforts or conveniences that everyone today would demand...should I continue?

So what the new Camaro loses in the use of fiberglass and aluminum engine blocks it puts back on with all these modern car requirements, and then some.

so computers gotta weight a lot? i'm sure my computer is much more powerful then anything in any car and it doesnt way 300lbs...

they have computers that weigh single digits... and air bags, i dont forsee those being more then 5 lbs each so maximum of 25lbs if u have some side impact ones or whatever... anti lock brakes, lets just put that with the computer... most new advancements only come through electronics so why should the cars weigh 300 lbs more?

i mean are the seats getting heavier? what about gas is gasoline heavier these days? or maybe its the light bulbs? all the plastic dash board? something has got to be the cause?
most likely its laziness in the engineers or for assembly line efficency...
if they can get the 154" solstice at 2800 lbs... stretch it by about 40 inches and whala we got a camaro that weighs 3450 lbs...
ugg... back to where we started... 194" car is too heavy... ugg...

Yup, considering everything involved both the SN95 Mustang and the 4th Gen F-body did a commendable job holding weight down...and they still weighed nearly 3500 pounds!!!! The C5 vert weighed what, 3250 pounds? If 250 pounds is "close"...I don't think you realize what it takes to shave even 50 pounds off the weight of a car....going to an expensive all-aluminum frame on the new Z06 saved just 100 pounds compared to the old one! Now you tell me, how do you propose to drop 300 pounds or more off the next Camaro, keeping the same configuration with no use of exotic materials?

we are build a car from the ground up we can worry about weight...

its just when its already built its hard to discount it...

weight will also be partial to the price, if the can build it with less steel it will be more profitable, or affordialbe, on a small token, but the c6 is not totally rebuilt from the c5... they share probably the same chasis... or a modified version, but its still the same car in essence

we are build a car from the ground up we can worry about weight...

First of all, the new Camaro is most certainly not being built new "from the ground up." In fact, the next Camaro we know for certain will be based on some kind of affordable RWD sedan. So right away we aren't talking about nimble little sports car here. In regards to your first post, would you PLEASE stop and think about how much different cars were back then. What are on today's cars you couldn't get back then? How much more steel does a structure need to make it comply with today's crash standards? An air bag only weighs 5 pounds? Umm no. Not only do you have the bag itself, you have the compartment that holds the bag, the components that trigger the inflation in an accident, the sensors in the front end that trigger those components...this is just one part of a vehicle that is mandatory today that no one dreamed of 40 years ago. So please, go back and re-read my post about cutting weight on the C6 Z06. Cutting 300 pounds from a vehicle is more difficult than you can imagine.

so computers gotta weight a lot? i'm sure my computer is much more powerful then anything in any car and it doesnt way 300lbs...

they have computers that weigh single digits... and air bags, i dont forsee those being more then 5 lbs each so maximum of 25lbs if u have some side impact ones or whatever... anti lock brakes, lets just put that with the computer... most new advancements only come through electronics so why should the cars weigh 300 lbs more?

i mean are the seats getting heavier? what about gas is gasoline heavier these days? or maybe its the light bulbs? all the plastic dash board? something has got to be the cause?
most likely its laziness in the engineers or for assembly line efficency...


Umm......are you being serious :confused: ? There is no comparison between the materials or equipment used in a 1969 Camaro and the vehicles of today. Here are just a few things to consider:

-How much of a priority were sound deadening materials, carpet thicknesses, etc in '69?
-Yes, I would wager that seats may be heavier today. Afterall, did the '69 use a power seat track, thicker cushioning, have power lumbar adjustments, heated seats, whiplash protection, etc?
-How many modules (aka computers) did the '69 have? In additon to that, how do the wiring harnesses compare?
-As was mentioned, things such as air conditioning, air bags, and fuel injection systems added on pounds.
-How much does a 14" wheel and tire combo weigh compared to today's 17-18" packages?
-Chassis stiffness, side impact protection, plastic quality, large disk brakes, crash requirements, stereo/dvd/Nav systems, all the various electric motors, etc.

These are just a few of the things that have added weight. Alone, they may not seem like much, but they do add up.


-Mike

Umm......are you being serious :confused: ? There is no comparison between the materials or equipment used in a 1969 Camaro and the vehicles of today. Here are just a few things to consider:

-How much of a priority were sound deadening materials, carpet thicknesses, etc in '69?
-Yes, I would wager that seats may be heavier today. Afterall, did the '69 use a power seat track, thicker cushioning, have power lumbar adjustments, heated seats, whiplash protection, etc?
-How many modules (aka computers) did the '69 have? In additon to that, how do the wiring harnesses compare?
-As was mentioned, things such as air conditioning, air bags, and fuel injection systems added on pounds.
-How much does a 14" wheel and tire combo weigh compared to today's 17-18" packages?
-Chassis stiffness, side impact protection, plastic quality, large disk brakes, crash requirements, stereo/dvd/Nav systems, all the various electric motors, etc.

These are just a few of the things that have added weight. Alone, they may not seem like much, but they do add up.


-Mike

I agree. I don't usually coment on this type of stuff, but there are some truly dense people on here. Sure they "could" make it that light, but it would not be at a reasonable price point. As a sidebar a friend of mine has a 2002 1SC Z28. It was something like 3350 lbs when he bought it. It now about 3100-3170 lbs, and it looks like a theft recovery vehicle. No bumper supports, 1 race seat, no sound deadening, and added a cage. He shaved about 300 lbs (added some back for the cage ~ 200lbs net loss), and it is basically a drag car now and not useful for much else.

Umm......are you being serious :confused: ? There is no comparison between the materials or equipment used in a 1969 Camaro and the vehicles of today. Here are just a few things to consider:

-How much of a priority were sound deadening materials, carpet thicknesses, etc in '69?
-Yes, I would wager that seats may be heavier today. Afterall, did the '69 use a power seat track, thicker cushioning, have power lumbar adjustments, heated seats, whiplash protection, etc?
-How many modules (aka computers) did the '69 have? In additon to that, how do the wiring harnesses compare?
-As was mentioned, things such as air conditioning, air bags, and fuel injection systems added on pounds.
-How much does a 14" wheel and tire combo weigh compared to today's 17-18" packages?
-Chassis stiffness, side impact protection, plastic quality, large disk brakes, crash requirements, stereo/dvd/Nav systems, all the various electric motors, etc.

These are just a few of the things that have added weight. Alone, they may not seem like much, but they do add up.


-MikeHowever back in 1969 there was far less aluminum, plastic, carbon fiber and other materials that are used today to lighten weight. Back then, everything was steel. The entire dash assembly on a 69 Camaro was steel. On a 2002 Camaro it was mostly plastic. Those 14" wheels were steel wheels. On a 2002 Camaro, aluminum wheels. The 69 Camaro engine block was steel. '02 LS1 was aluminum. '69 exhaust manifolds, brake rotors, bumpers, etc???

Sure the 69 Camaros had minimal emissions, no modern electronics and safety measures to speak of. However, today's vehicles use so many lightweight materials and technologies that to suggest one can compare the two by taking the weight of 36 year-old technology Camaro and adding modern safety requirements and electronics into the equation, just flat doesn't make sense.

However back in 1969 there was far less aluminum, plastic, carbon fiber and other materials that are used today to lighten weight. Back then, everything was steel. The entire dash assembly on a 69 Camaro was steel. On a 2002 Camaro it was mostly plastic. Those 14" wheels were steel wheels. On a 2002 Camaro, aluminum wheels. The 69 Camaro engine block was steel. '02 LS1 was aluminum. '69 exhaust manifolds, brake rotors, bumpers, etc???

Sure the 69 Camaros had minimal emissions, no modern electronics and safety measures to speak of. However, today's vehicles use so many lightweight materials and technologies that to suggest one can compare the two by taking the weight of 36 year-old technology Camaro and adding modern safety requirements and electronics into the equation, just flat doesn't make sense.

My 14 in steel wheels and 215/70/14 tires on my 1986 Cutlass were not appreciably different than the 17's on my SS. My 1999 exhaust manifolds are not light by any means, the braking assemplies are larger, and the dash assembly is twice the size of a 69 Camaro. Even if it is a third of the weight it is still twice the material. A 69 had slider adjustments for the climate controls. Most cars now have an electronics setup. The electonics crap is just plain heavy. My power drivers seat is twice the weight of the manual passengers seat.

It is possible to make vehicles LIGHTER and CHEAPER. We have better materials now, better construction techniques, and much better analysis capabilities. Consider the revolution in sportbikes over the past 10-15 years. A ~1993 GSXR-1100 weighed close to 500 lb. and cost close to $14,000. A new GSXR-1000 weighs close to 400 lb., and costs ~$11,000. Even without adjusting for inflation, new bikes are WAY cheaper and WAY lighter. Throw in the crash protection requirements (bikes don't have to have airbags, crumple zones, 5mph bumpers, etc) and modern cars SHOULD be capable of at least holding the line on weight. They haven't been (GM is actually better than most in this regard). Difference is that sportbike buyers DEMAND light weight and maximum track performance capabilities (though they seldom know what to DO with those capabilities!). Most car buyers apparently want to drive around in bank vaults (low low NVH). I want a 4-wheeled sportbike!

However back in 1969 there was far less aluminum, plastic, carbon fiber and other materials that are used today to lighten weight. Back then, everything was steel. The entire dash assembly on a 69 Camaro was steel. On a 2002 Camaro it was mostly plastic. Those 14" wheels were steel wheels. On a 2002 Camaro, aluminum wheels. The 69 Camaro engine block was steel. '02 LS1 was aluminum. '69 exhaust manifolds, brake rotors, bumpers, etc???

Sure the 69 Camaros had minimal emissions, no modern electronics and safety measures to speak of. However, today's vehicles use so many lightweight materials and technologies that to suggest one can compare the two by taking the weight of 36 year-old technology Camaro and adding modern safety requirements and electronics into the equation, just flat doesn't make sense.

Without getting this thread too off topic, I certainly agree that two vehicles with almost 40 years between them are very difficult (if not impossible) to compare. In fact, that was what I was trying to get at. Just to clarify, I was not purposely trying to compare a '69 and '02 Camaro. I certanly agree that weight can't just be "added" on to a completely different car. There is definitely more to it than that. However, the idea that a vehicle today has no reason to weigh more than something that was produced 30 something years ago just didn't make sense to me.


-Mike

Sure the 69 Camaros had minimal emissions, no modern electronics and safety measures to speak of. However, today's vehicles use so many lightweight materials and technologies that to suggest one can compare the two by taking the weight of 36 year-old technology Camaro and adding modern safety requirements and electronics into the equation, just flat doesn't make sense.

The scary part is, I have taken into account some of the lighter materials used on today's cars compared to those in '69....and the 4th Gen was still heavier.

I want a 4-wheeled sportbike!

May I suggest the Lotus Elise?

An Elise would be WONDERFUL!
In fact I don't *really* want the new Camaro to be a "4-wheel sportbike".
But I don't want it to be a luxury sedan, minus the luxury and 4-doors, either.

As a sidebar a friend of mine has a 2002 1SC Z28. It was something like 3350 lbs when he bought it. It now about 3100-3170 lbs, and it looks like a theft recovery vehicle.

To verify ... I started with a 99 Z28 that scaled 3,350 stock when I bought it. With the following changes I got it all the way down to 3,100 lbs :rolleyes:
- Tubular K-member
- Tubular upper & lower control arms
- Tubular LCA, PHB, Torque Arm
- delete AC, AIR, CC
- Headers, no cats
- remove carpet, headliner, rear sail panels & rear seat
- remove entire sound system, head unit, speakers and wiring
- remove air bags and lower dash trim
- remove power windows, locks and mirrors and all wiring
- stock seats (driver power) replaced with Sparco Evo's
- remove spare tire, jack and all the hatch area carpet/liners

Weight adders:
- STB, SFCs, Optima yellow top in the spare tire well with fat cables running to the starter.

If Chevy brings a well equipped V8 5th gen in under 3,500 lbs I will consider it a success. :)

I want a Camaro that:

weighs 100 lbs
has 2000hp
gets 200MPG
and costs $500


heres to dreaming.......................................... ........

To verify ... I started with a 99 Z28 that scaled 3,350 stock when I bought it. With the following changes I got it all the way down to 3,100 lbs :rolleyes:
- Tubular K-member
- Tubular upper & lower control arms
- Tubular LCA, PHB, Torque Arm
- delete AC, AIR, CC
- Headers, no cats
- remove carpet, headliner, rear sail panels & rear seat
- remove entire sound system, head unit, speakers and wiring
- remove air bags and lower dash trim
- remove power windows, locks and mirrors and all wiring
- stock seats (driver power) replaced with Sparco Evo's
- remove spare tire, jack and all the hatch area carpet/liners

Weight adders:
- STB, SFCs, Optima yellow top in the spare tire well with fat cables running to the starter.

If Chevy brings a well equipped V8 5th gen in under 3,500 lbs I will consider it a success. :)

just curious why you bought the damn thing? Sounds like you woulda saved alotta money without the power options...

- Tubular K-member

How do you like yours? Brand? I've been thinking about snatching one up, but have heard several people that have had the aftermarket units crack on them.


-Mike

7. It takes about 5 years to get a car from scratch to the showroom.
6. IF GM were bringing out a Camaro in 2008, you aren't going to change anything now (it's too late), so there's no reason to slam what they may be working on.


2008/2009 was never the plan. This was only from guesses by people on the internet. It was said that Chevy ".... is evaluating proposals to revive the classic performance-car nameplate in 2009-2010 on a new low-cost rear-wheel-drive platform", in 8/4/05.

5+5 is 10. :D

4 wheel motorcycle (nearly literally)
http://www.arielatom.com/04/frames.htm

Or get an Ultima GTR, or a Lotus...

Half the guys here have really no idea what's going on. Lazy engineers? Wow. That's just plain rude.

"You can make it cheaper by using less steel" - wouldnt be too sure of that one. Does the cost of design and manufacture outweigh the savings from less material?

Do some of you know how much all the silly wiring in a 4th gen weighs? JUST the wiring?

Do you know WHY GM cant put BMR style components on its cars from the factory?

Do you know how much weight the upgraded brakes and ABS systems weigh?

Think a 69 Camaro seat in any car crash will keep you even half as safe as one in a 2002?

Think a 69 will take a high speed, high damage crash and keep its occupants alive with the same probability?

Think a 69 Camaro is anywhere near as "safe" at high speeds with its lack of modern aerodynamics?

Your stupid desktop computer isnt rated for the shocks, heat/cool cycles on the road, it isnt rated for the dust contamination, it probably crashes all the freaking time as is, and it certainly cost you a lot to buy as well! Want to tack on that price to a new camaro? Stick your desktop in the backseat of a 4th gen and see if it will turn on every time you start the car, no matter what the temp you find it at, every freaking time, for even 3 years. Then hit a whole mess of big potholes... It will break. Sorry! Notice the operating temperatures on the manuals and data sheets for your components. They cant handle the possible -30 to 120+ degree range!!

A 5th gen fbody weighing 3400lb and under I too would consider an accomplishment. Cause for every bit of weight you take out over the years, more sensors, technology, wiring, and SAFETY EQUIPMENT get in.

If you want a Camaro to handle like a little compact rally car on rails, get one - but a Camaro isnt it. Accept it and move on. Get an Atom, or a GTR, or a Lotus. But if you realize Camaros have never been the "uber-handler" of Chevy's lineup, were always a little big and heavy, were always a "common man's" or "working man's" car, were always a little short on fit and finish... but a decent car at a decent price that performs great for what it is- then there might be a car for you.

"Lazy Engineers".... wow.... Some of you guys are about as ignorant as they come. Its also obvious that some of these same people have never worked in a real world environment with deadlines, restraints, budget problems, manpower shortages, and everything else that comes with actually working in the field.....

We're the minority, and GM needs to sell a lot more base suspension v6 automatic cars then it does top handling and performing models with a slick manual tranny and t-tops. And when the masses cry out for cheap and cheap and cheap (but still nice) - dont think you're so important that you'll get your way over those masses. GM would like to keep all the sales it can - but selling a few hundred more v6 models instead of a handful more 1LE Z28's is a stupid question. We come 2nd. Accept it.

Let me make something perfectly clear............

we DO care what you as a group have to say.

But....just looking at this thread will tell you that you as a group can't decide what the car should be. And when the next V8 RWD coupe comes to market, I can hear some of you gushing.....and some of you cursing. Got news for ya.....that's the way it is when you're talking about an automobile that inspires such passion. Some of you might not like it.......but don't start throwing accusations around unless you know the whole story.

I get extremely upset when I hear "lazy engineers" and "if they even care" and such. Do you really think I'd visit this site...and take the slams we take ...if WE DIDN'T CARE?????

(sorry.....just a lil hot under the collar today....)

You can be assured that there are people who really do care and put their all into products.....esp. when speaking of a car with such a rich heritage.

Mr. Chadwick.....you brought up some very good points....thank you!

Off-topic:

Red:

I just wanted to express a sincere thanks to GM for a prompt and thorough response to the Katrina disaster. Even in difficult times, they are the most willing to support and provide. Thank you.

On a side note, is it reasonable for me to hope for some cool RWD cars (besides Caddies and vettes) within a couple years (couple meaning '07 ;) ) from GM? You don't have to answer :bow: :)

I guess 'we' enthusiasts are letting just off some steam on the forum... we're sick to death hearing about how Toyota are making squillions selling boring, mundane but dependable transport and yet GM are doing likewise... without the $ucce$$.

We're all rooting for GM, it's just that some people express themselves with more intent than others... that includes those who actually own a Camaro, and those who aspire to owning one.

I want a 4-wheeled sportbike!

Here we go again... :rolleyes: Haven't you learned anything yet from that other thread?

Your ride is here: http://www.pontiac.com/solstice/index.jsp?brand=home :D

Let me make something perfectly clear............

we DO care what you as a group have to say.

But....just looking at this thread will tell you that you as a group can't decide what the car should be. And when the next V8 RWD coupe comes to market, I can hear some of you gushing.....and some of you cursing. Got news for ya.....that's the way it is when you're talking about an automobile that inspires such passion. Some of you might not like it.......but don't start throwing accusations around unless you know the whole story.

I get extremely upset when I hear "lazy engineers" and "if they even care" and such. Do you really think I'd visit this site...and take the slams we take ...if WE DIDN'T CARE?????

(sorry.....just a lil hot under the collar today....)

You can be assured that there are people who really do care and put their all into products.....esp. when speaking of a car with such a rich heritage.

Mr. Chadwick.....you brought up some very good points....thank you!


And hence, the name of this thread..... reality check. :lol:

Just take 20 minutes or so and read this entire thread. If you were an outsider getting some feeling on what a new Camaro should be, by the time you get to the end, not only would you need a valium, you'd still have no idea what we want.

You'd also have a feeling you were Alice and just fell down a rabbit hole, and reality was suspended.

*An intense debate about 4" of length?
*A 3200 pound Camaro?
*Lazy GM engineers?
*GM NOT prefering to take the most cost effective way to solve a problem?
*Expecting a $20,000 Camaro to be built the same way as a $45,000 Corvette, let alone a $60,000 Z06?

I'm 100% confident that the people who are sheparding the "Camaro" through the system know what the car represents, and is aware of what is and isn't a Camaro.

I was hard on GM for not coming to the sites and asking enthusiasts what they are looking for like Ford did with the Mustang. But Mustang sites that I know of are quite a bit more uniform and consistent than here, so going one on one the way GM has been doing is probally better under the circumstances.

I started this thread as a bit of a rant against "Panic Rumors" that really had no basis in anything other than opinion.

My idea is simply to wait and see what's going to happen. That's what Design Studies and "Concept" cars are all about.... FEED BACK!

Sure, you can "Take action" now. But seriously... is anyone going to take someone else seriously if the person is wrong because they don't have the right information??

Wanna influence the Camaro? Wanna give input? Wanna make a difference?

When the "design study" comes out, check it out for yourself, and THEN let GM know what you think via mail & e-mails if you don't get a chance to talk to the reps there. You may help fine-tune the car, or your ideas may help create a path for the 6th gen, or you may end up contributing to killing Camaro once and for all before it's even approved. It'll all be up to public response.

Getting worked up now is futile, useless, and pretty stupid. Wait till you see the car and GM's listening. Then let 'em know what you think.

Sounds fair to me. ;)

Here we go again... :rolleyes: Haven't you learned anything yet from that other thread?

Your ride is here: http://www.pontiac.com/solstice/index.jsp?brand=home :D

I LOVE the Solstice. BEAUTIFUL! But it is down on power for its weight, and consequently is very slow. Consider it has barely more hp than a Miata, and is 400+ lb. heavier. And I don't really want a roadster. If they build a Solstice coupe turbo, I'll probably buy it.

But I REALLY want a 300hp v8 2+2 coupe that isn't a damn porker. Is that so wrong of me?

we DO care what you as a group have to say.
But....just looking at this thread will tell you that you as a group can't decide what the car should be.Should all Camaro enthusiasts have to be a homogeneous bunch, of one single opinion? I'm assuming that any powers that be monitoring this thread are smart enough to look at the differing opinions and take them into account, or not, as warranted. Surely they wouldn't look at a thread like this and just say "My God! I can't figure out what 'they' want! I give up!"

And when the next V8 RWD coupe comes to market, I can hear some of you gushing.....and some of you cursing. Got news for ya.....that's the way it is when you're talking about an automobile that inspires such passion. Some of you might not like it.......but don't start throwing accusations around unless you know the whole story.Just voicing my concerns, that a Camaro based on a bigger heavier platform will be (for me anyway) too big and heavy. I haven't gotten an ounce of reassurance. I do still hope to be pleasantly surprised!

I get extremely upset when I hear "lazy engineers" Let it be known that *I* NEVER referred to "lazy engineers". In another thread I referred to automakers IN GENERAL (NOT their engineers!) as "lazy" regarding making weight a priority.
and "if they even care" and such. Do you really think I'd visit this site...and take the slams we take ...if WE DIDN'T CARE?????Having been repeatedly informed that my opinions on weight are irrelevant, I threw the "if somebody listening actually cares" comment in to prevent the inevetible responses saying that what I think doesn't matter. I came off sounding very sarcastic, but my intent was to point out that I REALIZE that weight might not be a priority for many of us, or the public at large. In which case, if GM doesn't CARE that weight is a very important TO ME ONLY, who could blame them?
But of course, my *secret hope* is that somebody with power/authority WILL see my little posts and say to himself "My God, this voice in the wilderness is absolutely RIGHT. We MUST excorsize as much weight as is practically possible!" :D

I'm sure I come off as a rank *******, but I don't mean ANYTHING personally. I *am* looking forward to the '06 NAIAS Camaro concept, whether it meets my desires for lighter weight or not.

Let me make something perfectly clear............

we DO care what you as a group have to say.

But....just looking at this thread will tell you that you as a group can't decide what the car should be.

Just make it a car that you would be happy with and proud to own and that you feel is worthy of the name "Camaro" and I know I'll like it. ;)

Yup, considering everything involved both the SN95 Mustang and the 4th Gen F-body did a commendable job holding weight down...and they still weighed nearly 3500 pounds!!!! The C5 vert weighed what, 3250 pounds? If 250 pounds is "close"...I don't think you realize what it takes to shave even 50 pounds off the weight of a car....going to an expensive all-aluminum frame on the new Z06 saved just 100 pounds compared to the old one! Now you tell me, how do you propose to drop 300 pounds or more off the next Camaro, keeping the same configuration with no use of exotic materials?

Maybe you should research it alittle more. The Mustang GT from 99-04 weighed in around 3250, making it alittle more than a c5. Ford did do a commendable job of keeping the weight down. The Fbody was alot closer to that 3500lb mark you mention.

Having owned and driven both SN95 Mustangs and 4th Gen Camaros I can honestly say there really is no comparison between the two. The driving experience in the Mustang has a huge fun factor (having a supercharger doesn't hurt) however it doesn't come close to matching the shear joy of driving the Camaro on the open road. The SN95 Mustang has that big-motor in a little car feeling, whereas the 4th gen Camaro is much closer to that original ponycar formula, even if it its a bloated pig. The Camaro just feels like a more solid car and a cockpit size worthy of large-sized adults. I feel like a sardine when I drive the Mustang. I'm only 5-10, but even with my seat all the way back I really can't get comfortable in it. I've never had that problem in the Camaro. Now if you could fit a 4th gen sized cockpit in a SN95 sized package, you might have something there. However, I don't think its possible, nor do I think that would truly fit the Camaro "formula" persee.

Maybe you should research it alittle more. The Mustang GT from 99-04 weighed in around 3250, making it alittle more than a c5. Ford did do a commendable job of keeping the weight down. The Fbody was alot closer to that 3500lb mark you mention.

I beg to differ. F-body hardtops are around 3,350. My SS vert, with SFC's is 3,580. These are "real" weights, not "spec" weights.

Again........rest assured that weight IS a priority!

C.A.F.E. Standards are such that weight has to be a priority......moreover, with Gasoline prices skyrocketing.......you betcha it's a priority.....and it has been for years.

Keep in mind that weight saving material....such as Titanium and such.....is expensive. It's a matter of balance ...(both figuratively and literally) and .. price does enter the picture when you're looking at 'affordable'..........

In fact, there are reasons why 'bigger' components weren't used in the 4th gen....and it came down in many cases, to weight.


One thought.........who was one of the chief engineers on the 4th Gen?

John Heinricy.

What does John Heinricy do besides work for GM???????????????

One thought.........who was one of the chief engineers on the 4th Gen?

John Heinricy.

What does John Heinricy do besides work for GM???????????????

He races...and wins! :thumb:

.....What does John Heinricy do besides work for GM???????????????

He does the job you're going to hire me for when he retires......right!?!?!? ;) :p

Maybe you should research it alittle more. The Mustang GT from 99-04 weighed in around 3250, making it alittle more than a c5.

3250? :lol: Where in the heck are you getting your numbers?

He races...and wins! :thumb:


very good!!!!

3250? :lol: Where in the heck are you getting your numbers?


:lol: Maybe if you add 600 lbs!!! They came in at the same or higher than a 4th gen... Most more...

I beg to differ. F-body hardtops are around 3,350. My SS vert, with SFC's is 3,580. These are "real" weights, not "spec" weights.

I don't find that hard to swallow. Still 100lbs heavier than the GTs were 99-04 though.

3250? :lol: Where in the heck are you getting your numbers?

Go post over at www.stangnet.com or www.corral.net. See what they weigh. There are more than a few guys who have actually weighed them.

Here are some websites too, if you are too lazy to ask the owners.

http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/99fordmustanggt.html

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/43923/page009.html

http://www.kron4.com/global/story.asp?s=2591120

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/Sports_Convertibles/2001_Ford_Mustang_Bullitt.S184.A3714.html

These are just a few links a googled, I would get more but I am headed out the door. As I said earlier, maybe you should do your research.

Maybe if you add 600 lbs!!! They came in at the same or higher than a 4th gen... Most more...

There is only one Mustang that is even remotely close to the weight you mention, and it could beat the piss out of any fbody in a stock for stock race.
Of course I am talking about the Cobras, and they have always in more. Way to be uninformed.

To verify ... I started with a 99 Z28 that scaled 3,350 stock when I bought it. With the following changes I got it all the way down to 3,100 lbs :rolleyes:
- Tubular K-member
- Tubular upper & lower control arms
- Tubular LCA, PHB, Torque Arm
- delete AC, AIR, CC
- Headers, no cats
- remove carpet, headliner, rear sail panels & rear seat
- remove entire sound system, head unit, speakers and wiring
- remove air bags and lower dash trim
- remove power windows, locks and mirrors and all wiring
- stock seats (driver power) replaced with Sparco Evo's
- remove spare tire, jack and all the hatch area carpet/liners

Weight adders:
- STB, SFCs, Optima yellow top in the spare tire well with fat cables running to the starter.

If Chevy brings a well equipped V8 5th gen in under 3,500 lbs I will consider it a success. :)

His and yours are pretty much a carbon copy of one another.

and driven both SN95 Mustangs and 4th Gen Camaros I can honestly say there really is no comparison between the two. The driving experience in the Mustang has a huge fun factor ... however it doesn't come close to matching the shear joy of driving the Camaro on the open road. ... I feel like a sardine when I drive the Mustang.

I agree with those ^^^. I feel cramped (6'0" 200lb) in a SN95. Its fast, but it doesnt get me excited, and never has. A friend of mine had been playing with the SN95's for a long time, took one ride in my car and after getting out immediatly declared that the Mustang just didnt feel as fun! Sure you "fall into" your seat, the visibility isnt that great, but when it comes to feel - its just a little different, which I hope some of us love :p

Now in terms of bloated pig, I think the overhangs were bit much and it was a little heavy - but not that bad!

And "we cant agree on a 5th gen" Of course we cant! I have put very little into my car's ability to turn. I want straight line power. But there are guys I know that cant drive hard with the t-tops in cause they fly out. Others have huge stereos. Others for cruising. It doesnt matter - thats why most of us dont own stock cars. We're the nuts that if we dont like something, we'll complain, but we will eventually change it.

And think of it this way - would you rather spend the extra dough on a 5th gen with a road-race suspension from the factory (lets say the car is $1500 more expensive with the Bilsteins and upgraded swaybars and such) or would you rather spend the $1500 yourself LATER and put the HAL shocks and the swaybars and such from the brand you prefer! Honestly it makes even more sense for US to not want everything predetermined for us (and have to pay for it) if you look at it that way.

I'm confident what we get will make me happy from the performance aspect. I'm just worried what I'll think about the exterior and interior styling.

Anybody know how I can get tickets to the show in January? :cool:

sorry red... didnt mean to affend you.

I'm just saying, they could make cars as light as they wanted, price point plays a rather big role, but so does enthusiasts... in a vehicle like the camaro, it will be sold primarly by word of mouth, GM doesnt want to pay for advertisement if they can get away without it...

ugg i knew i didnt want to get into this topic

I beg to differ. F-body hardtops are around 3,350. My SS vert, with SFC's is 3,580. These are "real" weights, not "spec" weights.
My non power equipped, non big stereo, non leather 1996 Z28 hardtop put 3480 up on the digital scale display at Englishtown. My brother's 1999 30th Anniversary WS6 put up about 3500 IIRC (yes it was actually a bit heavier than my car).

Those numbers are about as "real" as you will find.

Since we're throwing weight around, in 2000 my '94 LT1 Z28 with practically no options (cruise, wipers, remove rear hatch) and 5/8 tank of gas weighed in at 3350-ish w/o driver at the Harrisburg Pro Solo event.

It was weighed using individual scales at each wheel.

I guess I should also say that my car is a bit lighter now since being converted to an autocrosser (LS1 brakes, AC delete, GC coilovers).

How much lighter is uncertain since some weight has been added back in (solid 35mm sway bar :D ).

Go post over at www.stangnet.com or www.corral.net. See what they weigh. There are more than a few guys who have actually weighed them.

Here are some websites too, if you are too lazy to ask the owners.

http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/99fordmustanggt.html

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/43923/page009.html

http://www.kron4.com/global/story.asp?s=2591120

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/Sports_Convertibles/2001_Ford_Mustang_Bullitt.S184.A3714.html


Interesting...those weights still seem a bit optimistic when you consider that the much smaller C6 Z06 with an aluminum frame weighs only about 100 pounds less, although it has to have beefier hardware for the LS7. I distinctly remember Mustang guys rejoicing that the new GT "didn't gain much weight" over the 2004 GT, but the '05 weighs 3500 pounds according to C&D. I wouldn't exactly call a 300 pound weight gain "no big deal." :confused:

Seems there was a wide range of weights you could get on the SN95...according to Car and Driver the Mach 1 weighed 3479 pounds...and of course we all know about the portly 3600#+ Cobra.

The next Camaro's structure will have to handle LS2 horsepower (and beyond). Asking a car that still seats 4 to handle this while weighing 3200 pounds is beyond optimistic, if the SN95 proved anything else.

sorry red... didnt mean to affend you.

I'm just saying, they could make cars as light as they wanted, price point plays a rather big role, but so does enthusiasts... in a vehicle like the camaro, it will be sold primarly by word of mouth, GM doesnt want to pay for advertisement if they can get away without it...

ugg i knew i didnt want to get into this topic

no offense taken.....

.......but I don't agree that we could make cars as light as we wanted. The Z06 is a perfect example. Look at the weight savings.....aluminum hydroformed rails versus steel......carbon fiber front fenders and inner fenders....even the window glass is thinner in a Z06 than a regular Corvette...but trust me, the added cost is substantial....

Word of mouth is everything......BUT......the number of buyers that put a big premium on weight is small compared the the total. (note I said "big premium"....)

Further, if a next gen V8 RWD is to succeed, it has to do numbers.

The next Camaro's structure will have to handle LS2 horsepower (and beyond). Asking a car that still seats 4 to handle this while weighing 3200 pounds is beyond optimistic, if the SN95 proved anything else.

AMEN to that.

The next Camaro's structure will have to handle LS2 horsepower (and beyond). Asking a car that still seats 4 to handle this while weighing 3200 pounds is beyond optimistic, if the SN95 proved anything else.

Yes flexi-flopper baby! but what a wonderful thing when your going drag racing. IIRC Machs also had the additional bracing that Bullit cars recieved making both slightly heavier than the GT.

Wanna get real light, consider the 79 to 93 cars which could easily be trimmed down to 2900 or so pounds with ease, the lightest "street legal" looking cars even down to a spare 2800 lbs or there abouts. Only problem if you fart, you'll deform the floor pan (case in point after a slight fender bender in my 91 there are stress cracks in the floorboard near the drivers seat, a not uncommon problem with these cars)

Further, if a next gen V8 RWD is to succeed, it has to do numbers.
Does this mean it has to look timid? Wasn't there something about girls not wanted to buy a Camaro cause they thought they were too fast?

Does this mean it has to look timid? Wasn't there something about girls not wanted to buy a Camaro cause they thought they were too fast?

Well cartoonishly musclular doesn't sit well either. My favorite 4th Gen was the regular old formula firebird. Sporty without resorting to steriod induced muscularity. At the other end was the steven segal of f-bods, a fully loaded Firehawk with ram it eveywhere add ons.

Go post over at www.stangnet.com or www.corral.net. See what they weigh. There are more than a few guys who have actually weighed them.

Here are some websites too, if you are too lazy to ask the owners.

http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/99fordmustanggt.html

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/43923/page009.html

http://www.kron4.com/global/story.asp?s=2591120

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/Sports_Convertibles/2001_Ford_Mustang_Bullitt.S184.A3714.html

These are just a few links a googled, I would get more but I am headed out the door. As I said earlier, maybe you should do your research.



There is only one Mustang that is even remotely close to the weight you mention, and it could beat the piss out of any fbody in a stock for stock race.
Of course I am talking about the Cobras, and they have always in more. Way to be uninformed.


This cannot be RussStang. Defending the Mustang?

And openly stating the '03 Cobra will "beat the piss out of any f-bod?"

Honestly, I thought Mustang GTs and Camaro Z28s weighed about the same. But you have set the record straight.

Why do people continue to compare Cobras and F-bodies? They are in different car classes.

I think an '03 Cobra and an '02 SS would be a driver's race myself...
I drag race a lot and see them both running from low 13's to high 12's.(stock with DR's.)

FWIW, IMHO, my bone-stock '95 Z/28 A4 would blow the doors off our '96 GT 4.6L (Vortech S-1 supercharger and 5-speed). I don't think it'd even be a contest. :D

This cannot be RussStang. Defending the Mustang?

And openly stating the '03 Cobra will "beat the piss out of any f-bod?"

Honestly, I thought Mustang GTs and Camaro Z28s weighed about the same. But you have set the record straight.

I know you think I am loyal Chevy guy or whatever, due to our last z06 conversation, but I am just trying to keep the records straight here in regards to some of the information that goes around here.

Sure you "fall into" your seat, the visibility isnt that great, but when it comes to feel - its just a little different, which I hope some of us love

You got that right.

Just ran across this thread and thought I'd share some thoughts.
I have owned at least one example of every gen f-body made, two mustangs, and one challenger. Overall, my favorites have been the Camaros. I currently own a 99Z28 and a 91RS. I will be in the market for a new vehicle within the next 2 years. I have seriously considered the "Cobra" '07 Mustang. I really like the new Charger SRT-8 as well. I'm at a stage where I don't mind terribly spending $40,000 on a new car I love. I have driven the new Mustang GT and absolutely love the styling and price! If GM can make a pony car that competes or betters the new Mustang, I'll be very pleased to buy one.
I gather that in January there is supposed to be an unveiling of a Camaro prototype at some kind of show??? I don't follow the boards enough to know what the initials meant. If someone could chime in here I'd be thankful, meanwhile, I'll try and search it out.

My gut feeling on a possible new Camaro: Build it, price it from $28,000 to $40,000 (depending on options) and I'll buy it. Anything I don't like I can change through the aftermarket.

KevinD

Why do people continue to compare Cobras and F-bodies? They are in different car classes.

lol but the v6 and GT stangs dont stand up when comparing perfomance so why compare? The cobra is the only real competition and in the 03,04 models it accually can put down better numbers although its not naturally asperated...

no offense taken.....

.......but I don't agree that we could make cars as light as we wanted. The Z06 is a perfect example. Look at the weight savings.....aluminum hydroformed rails versus steel......carbon fiber front fenders and inner fenders....even the window glass is thinner in a Z06 than a regular Corvette...but trust me, the added cost is substantial....

Word of mouth is everything......BUT......the number of buyers that put a big premium on weight is small compared the the total. (note I said "big premium"....)

Further, if a next gen V8 RWD is to succeed, it has to do numbers.


perhaps not, but i know that I can whip something up that is nothing near the weight of the vette that would probably be able to clean its clock on the track, with the same engine, probably might be more expensive due to design... and most likely out handle the z06...

perhaps not, but i know that I can whip something up that is nothing near the weight of the vette that would probably be able to clean its clock on the track, with the same engine, probably might be more expensive due to design... and most likely out handle the z06...
What track? In the 1/4 yeah probably but it would get killed on the road course by the Z06. If you make it as a road car it will get killed in the 1/4 AND you would be spending more to do it, AND it wouldn't be street legal, AND it wouldn't have a warrenty.

perhaps not, but i know that I can whip something up that is nothing near the weight of the vette that would probably be able to clean its clock on the track, with the same engine, probably might be more expensive due to design... and most likely out handle the z06...

Just an FYI - that is a BIG statement to make.... You KNOW you can? I wouldnt be so certain that you can create something (heavier or lighter, I cant tell from your comment) that is better than the vette that would clean its clock at the track with the same engine and more than likely out handle the Z06. Comon now....

More expensive by design sure. Thats easy. Its called design a hand built tube chassis and go from there (but realize the chassis now has a totally different purpose! A tube chassis cannot be compared to a mass produced high volume car!). LS2 and AWD, drop the center of mass 4", get rid of the ground clearance, put the engine in the back with the rear diff, transmission and suspension bolted together and a carbon fiber body... End up with an Ultima GTR.

But to say you KNOW you can, again - what makes you so sure? I dont mean to really raze on you - but some of your comments on this thread have stirred up some emotion - realize dropping a comment like that off the cuff (as a car salesman) compared to teams of passionate engineers comes off with a very bad tone...

And to say you can do it all yourself top to bottom? I'd bet money you couldnt. You might be able to "steal" basic geometry and suspension components from other cars and such, but to do all the work yourself would take a lifetime or more for the chassis top to bottom, ideal gearing, coeff of drag etc. Even the best out there dont start from scratch. And to say you can "whip it up" makes it seem like you think its easy.

And if its that easy - please, feel free to explain.

Just an FYI - that is a BIG statement to make.... You KNOW you can? I wouldnt be so certain that you can create something (heavier or lighter, I cant tell from your comment) that is better than the vette that would clean its clock at the track with the same engine and more than likely out handle the Z06. Comon now....

More expensive by design sure. Thats easy. Its called design a hand built tube chassis and go from there (but realize the chassis now has a totally different purpose! A tube chassis cannot be compared to a mass produced high volume car!). LS2 and AWD, drop the center of mass 4", get rid of the ground clearance, put the engine in the back with the rear diff, transmission and suspension bolted together and a carbon fiber body... End up with an Ultima GTR.

But to say you KNOW you can, again - what makes you so sure? I dont mean to really raze on you - but some of your comments on this thread have stirred up some emotion - realize dropping a comment like that off the cuff (as a car salesman) compared to teams of passionate engineers comes off with a very bad tone...

And to say you can do it all yourself top to bottom? I'd bet money you couldnt. You might be able to "steal" basic geometry and suspension components from other cars and such, but to do all the work yourself would take a lifetime or more for the chassis top to bottom, ideal gearing, coeff of drag etc. Even the best out there dont start from scratch. And to say you can "whip it up" makes it seem like you think its easy.

And if its that easy - please, feel free to explain.

so a car salesman cant have ambitions of being something better?

I have all my life been interested in mechanics and as i age, i continue to redesign more and more complex concepts from an engine to entire automotive designs...

I have recently been inspired to work in the automotive industry as an engeneer but from what i hear they dont pay too well, so why should I?

Comon you can honnestly tell me that what is on the market today is the best possible thing we can think up? and that no one can improve upon it? even a lowly car salesman?

No i couldnt do it all myself, I'm not familiar enough or specialized enough to design an engine from top to bottom nor an alternator or certain things, but to have already working parts I could design a better vehicle. Automotives has too many things in it to make anyone an expert and someone to proclaim them a know it all would be idiotic.

sure I think its easy, but thats because I have passion and no matter the task as long as someone is enegrized it will be easy.

I know I can do wonders for any industry given the proper education, I feel I'm a talented thinker. and no one can take that away from me nor change my feeling about that. and I have confidence in my innovations and less then conventional thinking... but perhaps thats why I'm so sure of myself is because I wouldnt build it the same way.

but to test my own ambions I have plans to build my concept(vehicle), as well convert my current hyundai to an awd perfomance hybrid, but until I have a bit of money they are just thoughts being refined in my mind. and occationally on small scraps of paper.

What track? In the 1/4 yeah probably but it would get killed on the road course by the Z06. If you make it as a road car it will get killed in the 1/4 AND you would be spending more to do it, AND it wouldn't be street legal, AND it wouldn't have a warrenty.

how can you be so sure?

definatly no warrenty, but why are you so sure that a better design can not be built? probably a team of engneneers designed the z06, but I'm sure if one had to do it by himself, that one could fully be capable of designing each innovation that makes the z06 so great. so why couldnt someone that wasnt affiliated with the making of the z06? dont underestmate the abilities of one man. I'm not einstin, but neither are any of those guys... Einstin once said, "its not that I'm any smarter, it's that I stick with problems longer"

how can you be so sure?

definatly no warrenty, but why are you so sure that a better design can not be built? probably a team of engneneers designed the z06, but I'm sure if one had to do it by himself, that one could fully be capable of designing each innovation that makes the z06 so great. so why couldnt someone that wasnt affiliated with the making of the z06? dont underestmate the abilities of one man. I'm not einstin, but neither are any of those guys... Einstin once said, "its not that I'm any smarter, it's that I stick with problems longer"
I can be sure because GM spent a BUTLOAD of money with the best of the best, people who designed the C5 then the C6 then they went and got Alcoa (aluminum experts) to help design the chassis. They are a HUGE multi national corporation who has more money to sped on production costs than most men or women will make in a lifetime. And for YOU to think that YOU could do better is just ASSININE. Do you realize that the Saleen S7 would get its rear kicked by the C6 Z06? Do you realize that for its time it WAS top of the food chain.

So you (who has never built a car from the ground up) think that you can get enough divine inspiration to build a car that betters the Z06 just because you are a talented thinker? :rolleyes:

To say that something can't be improved is stupid, do you not think that there will be a new Z06 in a few years? What I am saying is that GM has the BEST road car and one of the fastest 1/4 cars ever made and it is less than $70,000. The only things that touch it are exotics that cost in excess of $120,000. Now you think that you can do better than these monsters go ahead and try.

Please I am a very unique person and I consider myself to be a 'talented thinker' also. Perhaps I should stroll into the CDC and say "I want to cure aids, now I know there has been MILLIONS spent working on treatments that have failed BUT hey I am a talented thinker and I CAN DO IT!!!"

See how crazy that sounds? That is why we all think you are full of crap!

Do you realize that the Saleen S7 would get its rear kicked by the C6 Z06?



It would? Somehow I really doubt that, considering even the old one made more horspower than the vette, and weighed a few hundred pounds less, and has a better weight distribution over the drive wheels. I cannot see the new z06 even coming close to running with a new 750hp S7 either, that car is said to reach 230 mph, and boogies its ass off pretty quickly getting there too. And it is still lighter than the vette.

The new z06 is a great car, and I would without a doubt buy one if I had a money tree in my back yard, but it has not all the sudden become the end all be all of performance cars. Dollar:Performance ratio very easily yes, straight out best performing no.

how can you be so sure?

definatly no warrenty, but why are you so sure that a better design can not be built? probably a team of engneneers designed the z06, but I'm sure if one had to do it by himself, that one could fully be capable of designing each innovation that makes the z06 so great. so why couldnt someone that wasnt affiliated with the making of the z06? dont underestmate the abilities of one man. I'm not einstin, but neither are any of those guys... Einstin once said, "its not that I'm any smarter, it's that I stick with problems longer"


One thing is for certain, you are definatly no Einstein...

It would? Somehow I really doubt that, considering even the old one made more horspower than the vette, and weighed a few hundred pounds less, and has a better weight distribution over the drive wheels. I cannot see the new z06 even coming close to running with a new 750hp S7 either, that car is said to reach 230 mph, and boogies its ass off pretty quickly getting there too. And it is still lighter than the vette.

The new z06 is a great car, and I would without a doubt buy one if I had a money tree in my back yard, but it has not all the sudden become the end all be all of performance cars. Dollar:Performance ratio very easily yes, straight out best performing no.
D*mn forgot about the Turbo one. I was thinking vs the NA LS6 powered model.

I can be sure because GM spent a BUTLOAD of money with the best of the best, people who designed the C5 then the C6 then they went and got Alcoa (aluminum experts) to help design the chassis. They are a HUGE multi national corporation who has more money to sped on production costs than most men or women will make in a lifetime. And for YOU to think that YOU could do better is just ASSININE. Do you realize that the Saleen S7 would get its rear kicked by the C6 Z06? Do you realize that for its time it WAS top of the food chain.

So you (who has never built a car from the ground up) think that you can get enough divine inspiration to build a car that betters the Z06 just because you are a talented thinker? :rolleyes:

To say that something can't be improved is stupid, do you not think that there will be a new Z06 in a few years? What I am saying is that GM has the BEST road car and one of the fastest 1/4 cars ever made and it is less than $70,000. The only things that touch it are exotics that cost in excess of $120,000. Now you think that you can do better than these monsters go ahead and try.

Please I am a very unique person and I consider myself to be a 'talented thinker' also. Perhaps I should stroll into the CDC and say "I want to cure aids, now I know there has been MILLIONS spent working on treatments that have failed BUT hey I am a talented thinker and I CAN DO IT!!!"

See how crazy that sounds? That is why we all think you are full of crap!

okay, but these cars are made by people, so that means someone has to start somewhere? at age of 20 a person is dismissed of any tallents until he has a deploma in his hand. then he is capable of doing something, but GM requires a masters before they even look at a resume... and by that point he should be able to look at a blue print, but then of course he still doesnt know anything, and only the best of the best that work for GM, can work with the Corvette design.

Just because I respond in this forum, just because I'm a car salesman, I am discounted of credibility, no thats probably not it, its the fact I hold myself high, and I know what I'm capable of. I'm full of crap probably, accually I've heard usually everyone has about 20 lbs in them at all times, now I dont know if that is true then I'm probably about 1/8 crap, but not full yet...

no one is einstien, in accuality he wasnt all that special, just had nothing to lose so he went public with his philosophys, something no one else would do at the time, even if the people who had the same ideas as Einstien.
He was dedicated, and dedicated his life to it, but like almost all mathematicians discover everything they are going to discover before their mid 20's... so why does GM only hire people with a masters degree? people who are out of their prime?

Sure I'm not going to get respect, but as long as you realize that a better model can be built for cheaper, and lighter...

okay, but these cars are made by people, so that means someone has to start somewhere? at age of 20 a person is dismissed of any tallents until he has a deploma in his hand. then he is capable of doing something, but GM requires a masters before they even look at a resume... and by that point he should be able to look at a blue print, but then of course he still doesnt know anything, and only the best of the best that work for GM, can work with the Corvette design.

Just because I respond in this forum, just because I'm a car salesman, I am discounted of credibility, no thats probably not it, its the fact I hold myself high, and I know what I'm capable of. I'm full of crap probably, accually I've heard usually everyone has about 20 lbs in them at all times, now I dont know if that is true then I'm probably about 1/8 crap, but not full yet...

no one is einstien, in accuality he wasnt all that special, just had nothing to lose so he went public with his philosophys, something no one else would do at the time, even if the people who had the same ideas as Einstien.
He was dedicated, and dedicated his life to it, but like almost all mathematicians discover everything they are going to discover before their mid 20's... so why does GM only hire people with a masters degree? people who are out of their prime?

Sure I'm not going to get respect, but as long as you realize that a better model can be built for cheaper, and lighter...
We aren't dismissing you because you post on a forum or because you are a salesman. We are dismissing you because you think you know more than people who have been studing and designing cars for most of their lives. They make it a point to understand EVERYTHING they can about the part or parts they are responsible for. You however, by your own admission, have little to NO knowledge of these systems. And yet you think you can do better, that sounds really egocentric.

I know my limits and in order to better help people I am going to continue my education, that is how I will earn the respect needed to do what I want to in life. You want to build cars then go start your own company with your own money OR go back to school and get the required degrees to be looked at by the people with the cash and the opportunities, until then you are just a rambling monkey.

We aren't dismissing you because you post on a forum or because you are a salesman. We are dismissing you because you think you know more than people who have been studing and designing cars for most of their lives. They make it a point to understand EVERYTHING they can about the part or parts they are responsible for. You however, by your own admission, have little to NO knowledge of these systems. And yet you think you can do better, that sounds really egocentric.

I know my limits and in order to better help people I am going to continue my education, that is how I will earn the respect needed to do what I want to in life. You want to build cars then go start your own company with your own money OR go back to school and get the required degrees to be looked at by the people with the cash and the opportunities, until then you are just a rambling monkey.

okay, egocentric maybe, usually a bit shy, but... this is the first objection i will agree is probably true. I know my limits, and you know yours, GM is coming out of the hole, and they wouldnt want to build the best they could GM is capable of better then the z06, but why introduce it all at once, lets give baby steps so we have some ideas 4-5 years later...

The last time I showed a fellow friend my concept he believe that no one would want it, although he confirmed my beliefs about the performance.

okay, egocentric maybe, usually a bit shy, but... this is the first objection i will agree is probably true. I know my limits, and you know yours, GM is coming out of the hole, and they wouldnt want to build the best they could GM is capable of better then the z06, but why introduce it all at once, lets give baby steps so we have some ideas 4-5 years later...

The last time I showed a fellow friend my concept he believe that no one would want it, although he confirmed my beliefs about the performance.
Nice flame war guys...take it to PM

Nice flame war guys...take it to PM
I'm done on this thread... ugg... lol and please dont fill my pm box

for the record there are two of these threads? wow how did that happen?

I can be sure because GM spent a BUTLOAD of money with the best of the best, people who designed the C5 then the C6 then they went and got Alcoa (aluminum experts) to help design the chassis.

My company spent a much-smaller buttload of money to get Alcoa to "help" us design the chassis for our 250-400cc equivalent electric motor scooter. They were next to useless. We did our own design (myself and our CAD jockey), throwing out most of their suggestions to use some of their proprietary methods that would only have cost us more money to have a less efficient structure. In the end their report acknowledged that our design was cheaper, stronger, and lighter :D

We also had Getrag do some gearbox work for us. We had to redesign that as well. Their design as structurally deficient, and their analysis was WRONG (constraints inconsistent with reality). We're now working with DESC/Tremec (same folks that made/make the Fbody, C5, C6, and GTO 6-speed trannies). Now THOSE guys have their shiznit TOGETHER!

Of course, GM obviously has all their ducks in a row before they go to a supplier, and they get a LOT more serious attention than the small company I work for does.

But still, a big-name company doesn't *necessarily* imply efficient, or even ADEQUATE, design.