Can '06 Z/28 run with these bad boys...... [Archive]

BadIroc

06-22-2002, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by ponchoV8:
If they give the upcoming C6 an even stronger motor than the current Z06, GM could always carry the current LS6 over into the next Camaro, plus it would save on developmental costs. I think 405hp would easily put a lighter, next-gen F-bod well into the 12's.

Agreed, even the 4th gen LS1's now with a couple simple bolt ons can get into the high 12's easy, and then can run low to flat 13's all day long. interesting to wait and see, what ever the C6 will get it'll be interesting what the F5 will get, hell even the GTO might get a detuned vette motor as well hmmmmmmm http://web.camaross.com/bb/smile.gif

------------------
1988 Camaro IROCZ "MIDNIGHT CRUIZERS"
305 ci Tuned Port 700R4
3"Exhaust/Flowmaster 80 series muffler/Dynomax high flow cat/CutOut
hypertech chip/k&n filers, cut MAF screen gutted air box
"Theres no replacement for displacement"
My Iroc web page....
www.geocities.com/bobfitz82/index.html (http://www.geocities.com/bobfitz82/index.html)

Z284ever

06-22-2002, 09:49 AM

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Chevy steps up to the plate on this.

BTW...it's only a matter of time before people start swapping pulley/exhaust/chip on '03 Cobras and routinely start running ELEVENS!!!! YIKES!!!!

Darth Xed

06-22-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Z28Wilson:
I don't see GM using a new motor in the C6 while giving the next Camaro the LS6 as a "hand-me-down". This isn't the way it's done these days. It's cheaper to simply, ahem, "de-tune" the latest Vette powerplant for use in other applications than to keep building 2 completely different V8's. Just look at the jump from the LT1 to LS1.



Z28Wilson is right on the money! It would be impracticle for GM to run 2 lines of engines, when one will do...

I like the idea of seperate engines, but I doubt the costs would make it even a consideration.

Antz97ZNJ

06-22-2002, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Z284ever:
One of the Ford magazines tested an '03 Cobra, an '03 Mach 1 and for good measure, a '02 BMW M3 in the quarter mile.....they ALL ran in the 12s!

What motor will Chevy give the next gen Z/28 (without stepping on the C6s toes) to run with these bad boys???
Incase u havent heard they stop making fbodies and there no plan in the new future of them bringin them back

Z284ever

06-23-2002, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Z28Wilson:
I don't see GM using a new motor in the C6 while giving the next Camaro the LS6 as a "hand-me-down". This isn't the way it's done these days. It's cheaper to simply, ahem, "de-tune" the latest Vette powerplant for use in other applications than to keep building 2 completely different V8's. Just look at the jump from the LT1 to LS1.



I also agree here. I can see the C6 with a Gen IV smallblock of about 6.4 liters (LS7?)...with the Z/28 getting a 6.0 liter version.

kizz

06-23-2002, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Darth Xed:

It would be impracticle for GM to run 2 lines of engines, when one will do...

I like the idea of seperate engines, but I doubt the costs would make it even a consideration.


Meanwhile, the current Silverado / Sierra gets one V6 and FIVE, yeah FIVE V8 options... what a crock.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am (Y84), LU5/WS6/CC1/G80/J65/etc. 3,070 orig. miles (6/20/2002) - http://ohok.com/82recaro
1985 Base Firebird, F41/LB8/GU5/etc. CB radio, 142kmiles. http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsfb.jpg
1984 Firebird S/E, WS6/LL1/MD8/etc. All original, 102kmiles. Sold 5/02 http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsse.jpg

Z284ever

06-23-2002, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by kizz:
Meanwhile, the current Silverado / Sierra gets one V6 and FIVE, yeah FIVE V8 options... what a crock.



I'm one of those who would just love to see more powertrain variety in the next Camaro.

Right now Ford has 3 V8s in the Mustang, (really 4 if you include the auto and 5 speed versions of the 4.6 in the Mach 1).

How cool would a Camaro be with the choice of 3 or 4 V8s!

Darth Xed

06-23-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by kizz:
Meanwhile, the current Silverado / Sierra gets one V6 and FIVE, yeah FIVE V8 options... what a crock.



Do the math... How many Silverados / Sierra are sold... how many Camaros / Firebirds are sold?

Things make a little more sense when you look at it realistically...

Z284ever

06-23-2002, 07:22 PM

This is sort of a ..."what came first, the chicken or the egg" argument.

The Mustang, which is good for about 150,000 units a year has four different engines.

Is that because it can, since it sells so many more units than the F body....or is having so many choices one of the reasons it sells so many more units than the F body?

Z28Wilson

06-23-2002, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Z284ever:
This is sort of a ..."what came first, the chicken or the egg" argument.

The Mustang, which is good for about 150,000 units a year has four different engines.

Is that because it can, since it sells so many more units than the F body....or is having so many choices one of the reasons it sells so many more units than the F body?

Mustang sold well when it was just V6, GT, and Cobra. These special editions aren't going to make a huge difference in sales numbers. I honestly don't think the 4th Gens would've sold a ton more if there was a "base V8" car, especially in the last few years.

------------------
Mark

94 Z28, Red, A4, 3:23
Lone Mods--LPE CAI, !Lapeer Dragway.
(Hey, I'm a college boy I can't afford gobs of bolt-ons!)

Best time: 14.658 @ 95.1
with SES light on and Driver off! (First and only time at track)

The F-body will NEVER die.

Z284ever

06-23-2002, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Z28Wilson:
I honestly don't think the 4th Gens would've sold a ton more if there was a "base V8" car, especially in the last few years.



I agree. I was really day dreaming about multiple engine choices in a 5th gen.

As for the 4th gen...you are so right. GM could have offered 10 engine choices....and that wouldn't have saved it.

Chris 96 WS6

06-23-2002, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Z284ever:
I agree. I was really day dreaming about multiple engine choices in a 5th gen.

As for the 4th gen...you are so right. GM could have offered 10 engine choices....and that wouldn't have saved it.



I've been saying this for almost 10 years now. It was a huge mistake not offering a base v8. The L99 baby LT1 would have been perfect from 93-97 and of course one of the small displacement Gen 3 blocks would have been great from 98 to now. I know it adds a whole new cost dimension, but if it boosts sales 20% then you have the revenue to justify it. Only if you could prove sales would not increase significantly does it not make sense.

I know Settlemeyer has said it does not increase sales enough on paper to justify the cost, but it simply runs counter intuitive to the basics of consumerism, which is give people choices.

------------------
Owner, Nashville Speed & Performance (http://www.nashvillespeed.com/)

1996 Trans Am WS6 (http://www.nashvillespeed.com/projectcar.htm)

RiceEating5.0

06-24-2002, 01:08 AM

I like the base v8 idea.

Some scenario's

1. kid wants a v8 f-bod but parent's don't like the idea of their son powering a 320+ hp v8 car. They'd more likely accept a 260-280hp version.

2. Not everyone wants an ultra high hp v8 for what ever reason it might be. Some want a car with a some decent punch and not a knockout. In other words, a car that's fast but not too fast.

3. Insurance might be somewhat cheaper and gas consumed less making it more economical. Insurance rates and gas mileage are 2 of the major things that deter people from going with a v8.

4. A base v8 would be more affordable giving the buyers more options. Like in the old days, you could buy the exact car that you wanted.

I think this'd boost sales somewhat.

The base v8 on the mustang which is the Gt's is very popular.

kizz

06-24-2002, 03:01 AM

I agree that a milder V8 would've helped the F4 to sell more. In the third gen, 82-92, there were always about four engines to choose from. That's about right for a wide target audience. Started out with one L4 (duke!), one V6, and two V8's (1982), then towards the end, it was one V6 and three V8's (1992), and inbetween it was the same thing.. more engines to choose from than anything 93+ . All the V8's were derivatives of each other. I think it would've been worthwhile to have a mild V8 rated about halfway between the 3800 and the LS1.. too late now though.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am (Y84), LU5/WS6/CC1/G80/J65/etc. 3,070 orig. miles (6/20/2002) - http://ohok.com/82recaro
1985 Base Firebird, F41/LB8/GU5/etc. CB radio, 142kmiles. http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsfb.jpg
1984 Firebird S/E, WS6/LL1/MD8/etc. All original, 102kmiles. Sold 5/02 http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsse.jpg

Chris 96 WS6

06-24-2002, 11:39 AM

There are also purists who like a coupe with a v-8 but don't necessarily want the top model, for insurance and other reasons. And I can't tell you the number of middle aged women I see driving v8 91-92 rally sports to the grocery store.

Some folks also simply like the v8 sound and the knowledge that there are 8 cyls under the hood, be they purists or not. V8s are percieved as superior to a V6, even if they are equal in power in reality.

Why do you think pickup trucks have gotten so HUGELY popular with adult males over the last 12 years? They are really the only v8 RWD vehicles out there that are reasonably affordable and have some testosterone to them. The truck fad is not all about utility and practicality, yes they can haul stuff but they aren't easy to get in and out of or to park at wal-mart. Why do you think every friggen truck out there seems to have glass packs and 4inch slash cut duals coming out the back? These are guys with these trucks, guys that in the '80s would have been driving v8 F-bodies, maybe not Z28s or IROCs, but they want a V8 nevertheless.

I see the base v8 option as a sales booster for the older buyers who simply want the V8, perhaps a lot of convertible buyers. I also see it boosting the 18-25 range, the buyers who want an F-body that can be perceived as having performance potential but cannot afford the price or the insurance on a Z or SS. I just think back to high school...everybody with a RWD '80s coupe & a V8 had at least some respect performance wise. V8 cutlasses and regals were very popular because they were cheap but with a good looking set of wheels and an exhaust sytem they took on a cool, performancy persona.

------------------
Owner, Nashville Speed & Performance (http://www.nashvillespeed.com/)

1996 Trans Am WS6 (http://www.nashvillespeed.com/projectcar.htm)

formula79

06-24-2002, 11:59 AM

My question is if GM could offer the F-body with multiple engines...why can't they now. Far as crash testing aren't the 5.3L and 4.8L truck engines just LS1's with different bore and stroke? I couldn't imagine it would be that hard to get them certified

PacerX

06-24-2002, 12:33 PM

A few things would have helped the Camaro, multiple engine choices are not one of them.

1) How about some STINKING MARKETING???? The only Camaro advertisements anyone ever saw were posters.

The only times you EVER saw a fourth generation F-body in a commercial were:

An insurance company ad with the WS6 fishtailing down a wet road and some stooge telling everone not to buy their kid a fast car because little Johnny will kill himself. BUY AN F-BODY AND KILL YOUR CHILDREN. Terrific.

An ad showing a Camaro billowing steam on the side of the road and some poor, tiny, oriental girl calling for help on her cell phone. Wonderful. At least nobody mentioned serial killers in the ad.

A Chevrolet ad that shows a FIRST GENERATION convertible ('67 methinks) doing a burnout at a dragstrip. WTF??? Why not a FOURTH GENERATION convertible doing a burnout at a dragstrip?!?!? Chevrolet was STILL SELLING THOSE AT THE TIME.

The ONLY decent ad was the Pontiac ad for the Trans Am showing it destroying some car at a stoplight. Ummmm... seeing as how more Camaros are sold than Firebirds, couldn't somebody have splurged for ONE ad?

2) How about a model change in less than 10 years? Ok, it was only nine for the F-body... unless you count the suspension in back, then it was nearly 20. Hello? Anybody home? 10 year old body styles DO NOT SELL WELL. The freshening in 1998 was welcome, but didn't really address the key issues. Like the overhangs. Maybe getting rid of that hump on the passenger side floor board that was there to clear a catalytic converter THAT WASN'T UNDER THE FLOOR BOARD ANY MORE.

3) For the love of God, I have yet to understand why money was placed into certain components while others were neglected.

Number one LS1 F-body mod? A lid. Why NO ONE at Chevrolet came to the realization that intake noise is a GOOD THING to 99% of Z28 and SS owners is beyond me. AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TOO. PROBABLY could have paid for getting that damned hump out of the floorpan.

The clutch, prior to the advent of the Z06 clutch, was pathetic. Here's some advice.... Beat the living crap out of clutches on durability cars. If you need any help on how to do it, give me a call.

4) Related to #3... How about supporting the aftermarket? GM wants to be in the aftermarket business.... How about a Stage 2 LS1/LS6 head for less than $2000 from GM Performance Parts? How about making a complete LS1 to LS6 conversion available for a reasonable amount of money? We need a better rear end also - how about a GM Performance Parts 12-bolt for Camaro and Firebird?

***END RANT***

Z28Wilson

06-24-2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6:

Only if you could prove sales would not increase significantly does it not make sense.


That's the whole point. I have to believe that GM researched the possibility of a base V8 in the 4th Gen cars, but found it to be unprofitable. They aren't going to take a "let's just try it and see" approach, unless you wanted the F-body run to end even earlier than it did.

------------------
Mark

94 Z28, Red, A4, 3:23
Lone Mods--LPE CAI, !Lapeer Dragway.
(Hey, I'm a college boy I can't afford gobs of bolt-ons!)

Best time: 14.658 @ 95.1
with SES light on and Driver off! (First and only time at track)

The F-body will NEVER die.

Z284ever

06-24-2002, 03:35 PM

Generally I'm a big proponant of powertrain choice. I hope we see more choice if there is ever a 5th gen.

As for the 4th gen...honestly...I believe it was beyond being helped by more engine choices....especially in the past few years.

You can only take a twenty year old platform and ten year old body (which to me looked dated in '93), and thirty year old proportions so far, before it's too late.

It was just too late for the 4th gen.

Chris 96 WS6

06-24-2002, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Z28Wilson:
That's the whole point. I have to believe that GM researched the possibility of a base V8 in the 4th Gen cars, but found it to be unprofitable. They aren't going to take a "let's just try it and see" approach, unless you wanted the F-body run to end even earlier than it did.



SS has said that they did look at it. There is such a thing as flawed analysis though, and I'd have to think their analysis was lacking in some way. This just makes way too much sense not to do it. Call me thick-headed but that's what I think.

IZ28

06-24-2002, 06:39 PM

I disagree with some ideas expressed here against the 4th Gen. While Third Gen's today, IROC-Z 350's and Z28's are still a car to have more than the new 1's most of the time, I feel that the 4th Gen could have done great if some things were different. I also feel that if the looks were alot better and there were more engine choices it would have made a REAL difference even if they didn't advertise and make other changes that they should have. Some wanna say it wouldn't, but I've talked to MANY people in person about these things and they all agree too. I know people that bought Third Gen 2.8's and TBI's over top model 4th's. The cars just were not done right, although fast, but that 1 thing alone, as we've seen with this Gen, will not sell a car by itself.

[This message has been edited by IZ28 (edited June 26, 2002).]

PacerX

06-25-2002, 10:50 AM

Come on bro, the 2.8 and 5.0 liter 3rd gens were an embarrasment. The first thing anybody with a brain does when he wants to build a performance car out of the 305 3rd gen is REPLACE THE MOTOR.

I'd prefer one absolutely fantastic high horsepower motor and one more pedestrian 6 cylinder.

The part of the equation that folks are missing in this multiple motors discussion is that it costs money to mount extra motors in a vehicle. The number of parts proliferate quickly, transmission controls have to be revamped, it confuses the aftermarket, and complicates service.

Face a couple of facts... the full-size trucks lead the way for V8 engine development. They justify the money spent on the motors for the Camaro/Firebird by supplying the volume to make the components economically viable. A variation of those motors would be possible, but merely changing from the LS1 to the 4.8 liter would cost tons of money in drivetrain programming and development.

Save that money and spend it on the killer V8 instead.

For V6 engines, Camaro/Firebird follow the W and H bodies, that's why we got the 3.8 instead of the 3.4 later in the 4th generation's life. The high volume cars made the 3.8 V6 economically feasible in the 4th generation.

Anybody who goes after a 2.8 3rd gen when he/she can easily afford and LS1/LT1 4th gen needs his/her head examined. People who buy 3rd gen 2.8's ARE NOT in the market for a performance car.

Motors were NOT the issue with the 4th gen cars. The 3800 is a great motor, and the LS1 is a world class motor by any definition.

4th generation issues:
Styling? Yes. Clutch and rear axle? Yes. Marketing? Yes. Packaging? Yes. Quality? Needs improvement. Aftermarket? Needs improvement.

Engines?

F**K NO.

JasonK94Z

06-25-2002, 01:10 PM

What '06 Z28?

Chris 96 WS6

06-25-2002, 01:27 PM

I think were' talking about new car buyers here, Pacer X. Anybody in the market for a v6 thirdgen isn't in the market for ANY new car no matter what the engine. But there are thousands, millions of people who buy new cars because they want a new car, and even if a used v8 f-body was as cheap as a new v6er, perhaps they simply don't want the v8 and the want a new car.

jrp4uc

06-25-2002, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by JasonK94Z:
What '06 Z28? 

Exactly.

Originally posted by PacerX:
For V6 engines, Camaro/Firebird follow the W and H bodies, that's why we got the 3.8 instead of the 3.4 later in the 4th generation's life.

If the trend continues to use a family sedan variant as the base engine, it'll be hard to forsee what's going on in 4 or 5 years. As it stands, you have a 200hp V6, ~280hp SC V6, then the ~350hp LS1 and ~400hp LS6 V8s. I think a lineup something along the lines of the following may work for a 5th gen.

1. Base V6
2. V6 SC (RS type car)
3. No holds barred V8 *detuned* from Corvette (Z28 or SS, as debated--maybe just use Z28/SS name)

I would allow appearance options stating at the RS-up with the option to delete them off the V8 for more of a sleeper or subtle look. This would negate the "appearance only" benefits of the current SS/WS6 and create more of a personal "made-to-order" feeling with customers which was some of the fun of the originals. Seems like dealers would only order SS and WS6 cars the last couple years anyways; they became a lot more common.

[This message has been edited by jrp4uc (edited June 25, 2002).]

PacerX

06-25-2002, 02:02 PM

I honestly don't believe the supercharged V6 has a market, unless it's the base engine. But that means the cost goes up at least a couple of thousand dollars for the base car.

What would be more helpful might be a base V6 that doesn't pay the titanic insurance penalty that the big V8's pay and is marketed straight at younger women. This would most likely mean a smaller, lighter car (easy to do if the overhangs are kept small ***COUGH***).

Then, make sure it is absolutely clear in the minds of the insurance scam-artist criminals... ummmm, the insurance companies... that the base V6 IS NOT the equivalent of the big V8.

***SAD FACT***
The Camaro lost the sales war in the V6 category, not the high performance V8 one.

Then, two things can be done...

Keep the same power level V8 for the Z28 as the SS (like now). Or make the SS a true step above in the performance department by spending less money on $3000 hoods and $1500 wheels and dumping that money ***GASP*** into the motor, clutch and rear end. Much like the difference between a Cobra and a GT.

kizz

06-25-2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by IZ28:
While Third Gen's today, IROC-Z 350's and Z28's are still a car to have more than the new 1's most of the time, I feel that the 4th Gen could have done great if some things were different. I also feel that if the looks were alot better and there were more engine choices it would have made a REAL difference
I've talked to MANY people in person about these things and they all agree too. I know people that bought Third Gen 2.8's and TBI's over top model 4th's. The cars just were not done right

Originally posted by PacerX:
Come on bro, the 2.8 and 5.0 liter 3rd gens were an embarrasment. The first thing anybody with a brain does when he wants to build a performance car out of the 305 3rd gen is REPLACE THE MOTOR.

Save that money and spend it on the killer V8 instead.

Anybody who goes after a 2.8 3rd gen when he/she can easily afford and LS1/LT1 4th gen needs his/her head examined.

hang on a minute PX, .. if the "killer V8" comes packaged in an ass-ugly design, aka F4, then a big chunk of the targeted audience will buy elsewhere, and they did. You may still buy it because you're about out-&-out performance and looks are priority #2, but that's not how it always works. I think he's talking about car design and first impression. When you see spy shots and such for the *very first time* , you don't think about the motor.. you think about the looks. He's right about many people still preferring F3 over F4 for looks. There's no dispute about the LS1 being superior to anything during F3 (excluding 89 TTA). But think about the design for a minute. When most people first saw the 1982 f-body the first time, they would think "subtle, understated, livable, widely popular, a base design with many possibilities, relatively true to its heritage". On the flipside, most people I know that saw the 1993 f-body for the first time, their first impressions were "steroids and crackpipes, a design already doped up beyond class, doomed by its own nature". Not to mention the lack of updates that was to follow.. I'm not asking you to agree but that is a very widespread opinion and there's no getting around it. The reviewers were saying the same thing. Think about the timelessness factor. How timeless is the design, and how well will it be received a long time from now, like 20 or 30 years? This is one area where the F3 dominates the F4 by a wide margin. F4 is blatantly 90s, stuck in a by-gone era of frills and instant gratification while F3 actually has some class that will survive the test of time more successfully. Just wait and see. F3 is still cheap, still plentiful, so they're still bastard cars for teenagers, but in 20 more years it won't be that way, and they'll still be coming around and buying the 2.8's and the 5.0's (if they haven't all broken down by then, heh), not to mention the TTAs and GTAs, special editions, etc. Like I said, the F4 is superior in the engine department, period. But there are things other than that to think about when you're in the market. Just my opinion.

------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am (Y84), LU5/WS6/CC1/G80/J65/etc. 3,070 orig. miles (6/20/2002) - http://ohok.com/82recaro
1985 Base Firebird, F41/LB8/GU5/etc. CB radio, 142kmiles. http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsfb.jpg
1984 Firebird S/E, WS6/LL1/MD8/etc. All original, 102kmiles. Sold 5/02 http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsse.jpg

Z28Wilson

06-25-2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by kizz:
When most people first saw the 1982 f-body the first time, they would think "subtle, understated, livable..."


Funy how you say "liveable". The F3 has about the same exterior and interior dimensions and the same level of "livability" (entry vs. exit, seating position, cargo space, rear leg room, etc. etc.) as the current generation. Styling aside, it's the reason I keep saying the 4th Gen was never going to do as well as the 3rd. It's a different time, different markets, with basically the same car. People tolerated more in the 80's in their cars than they do now. GM probably couldn't see it coming back in the late 80's-early 90's when the F4 was under development.

------------------
Mark

94 Z28, Red, A4, 3:23
Lone Mods--LPE CAI, !Lapeer Dragway.
(Hey, I'm a college boy I can't afford gobs of bolt-ons!)

Best time: 14.658 @ 95.1
with SES light on and Driver off! (First and only time at track)

The F-body will NEVER die.

Z284ever

06-25-2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by kizz:
hang on a minute PX, .. if the "killer V8" comes packaged in an ass-ugly design, aka F4, then a big chunk of the targeted audience will buy elsewhere, and they did.


ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!

And regarding livability....the 3rd gen obviously had it's issues. But one thing that I noticed is...no 3rd gen owner ever complained about the cat converter hump. Why? Maybe because they were so pleased with the styling that that the hump seemed trivial.

Z28Wilson

06-25-2002, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Z284ever:
But one thing that I noticed is...no 3rd gen owner ever complained about the cat converter hump. Why? Maybe because they were so pleased with the styling that that the hump seemed trivial.


As I said, I firmly believe that people were much less picky about their cars in the 80's than today. And, I've never personally heard a 4th Gen owner complain about the hump at least until the cat was moved from under there in 95 or 96 (it was a necessary evil up to that point)...probably the first I heard of the complaining was in this forum some time ago...and I think the "hump bashing" was actually started by Mustang people.

------------------
Mark

94 Z28, Red, A4, 3:23
Lone Mods--LPE CAI, !Lapeer Dragway.
(Hey, I'm a college boy I can't afford gobs of bolt-ons!)

Best time: 14.658 @ 95.1
with SES light on and Driver off! (First and only time at track)

The F-body will NEVER die.

[This message has been edited by Z28Wilson (edited June 25, 2002).]

Z284ever

06-25-2002, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by JasonK94Z:
What '06 Z28? 

The one we're dreaming about.

PacerX

06-25-2002, 10:45 PM

Hmmmm....

I never considered the 4th gens ugly, but hey.... I own an Aztek also.

My only styling gripe with the 4th gens were the overhangs... and that might have had more to do with the wasted weight than the overhangs themselves. Oh... I think the wheelwells are too large also. To much space between them and the tire. Never liked the black painted area on the outside of the headlamps either....

K, that's it.

One thing I hated about the 3rd gens.... LOUVERS on the hatch glass. God, those are ugly. But I guess some folks like them.

And yer right, I buy power. So, I'll forgive styling issues, if I can recognize them.

One more point... I literally don't fit in a Mustang (6'3"), so somebody needs to make sure the next Camaro doesn't get that small.

Z284ever

06-25-2002, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by PacerX:

One more point... I literally don't fit in a Mustang (6'3"), so somebody needs to make sure the next Camaro doesn't get that small.

I wouldn't worry about that. The Camaro could actually gain interior space while it loses a whole bunch of exterior legnth.

The upcoming GTO for example is described as a large four passenger, two door sedan with alot more interior room than a 4th gen.

...it's also half a foot shorter.

guionM

06-25-2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by PacerX:
Hmmmm....

I never considered the 4th gens ugly, but hey.... I own an Aztek also.



http://web.camaross.com/bb/eek.gif

Z284ever

06-26-2002, 01:00 AM

...getting back on topic.

If the next Camaro is slightly lighter and substantially tidyer, (exterior dimension wise), with a well developed chassis and 400+ hp smallblock (probably a segment power benchmark by then),in the top performance model,(read Z/28),.... I believe our imaginary '06 Z/28 will not only run with the big dogs....but will also eat them!

stevil

06-26-2002, 03:19 AM

LOL! http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif You guys are funny, saying 3rd gens look better than 4th gens... comparing them to each other, blah, blah, blah... http://web.camaross.com/bb/confused.gif

Different times, differnt styles... get over it.

Your comparing the wrong things... Whats important is that the cars looked better than the competition, the Mustangs. And they have been. http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif

Its really a matter of opinion.

------------------
FormulaV8.com (http://www.FormulaV8.com) · 1994 Formula · A4 · 3.23
13.45 @ 102.5 MPH w/ 1.9 60' | 267 rwhp | 307 tq/lbs | 3535 lbs
"I know for a fact he is NOT an Easter bunny"

[This message has been edited by stevil (edited June 26, 2002).]

IZ28

06-26-2002, 03:22 AM

PX,

You might lack in the taste department, but it seems you also obviously do not know the Third Gen like I do. There are definetly people that buy the Third's for performance reasons. The top cars of the Third Gen were great. They did it all, aerodynamics, looked better/cooler in and out, incredible handling, (better than 4th's also) had more int. room, you could actually work on them, braked nicely, sounded better, have smaller dimensions, and L98 G92's average 14.20 in good condition with a 6.0 0-60, and those times and things are easy to improve. And more. Yes I do know people who bought really slow Third's over 4th's. (yes there were some slow Thirds, not as much as the 2nd Gen though) Matter of fact I know many. The L98 was and still is no joke. LB9 5-Speed G92's were pretty good also. TPI and the feel of Torque it gives IMO are more fun that the LT1 and LS1's "it doesn't feel like were going that fast" feel. Its not like LT1's were that much better, seriously. My friend has the 35th Anniversary SS with all the optional SLP stuff (what they need SLP for I'll never know) and a 4bbl 380HP 84 Z28, and we both agree the L98 (a real SBC also) has "that" feel more than they do when you floor it and for around town driving. So watch what you say. http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif I know the LS1 is a faster engine. Its good for mods too, if you wanna work on an engine half way in the dash. The Third's design is something every1 did and will always like. The 4th's is something almost every1 doesn't or never liked.

[This message has been edited by IZ28 (edited June 26, 2002).]

jrp4uc

06-26-2002, 08:47 AM

I'll repost my comments from another topic (funny how we have all these different topics, but they all wind up being about the same thing?!)...

Ok, I'll be the first to list all of the flaws of the 4th gen, but I'll certainly defend it compared to the 3rd gen. Widely loved? Well I'm not in that group. I'd take a '98-'02 SS or WS6 over any 3rd gen. I always thought the styling of those Camaros was too boxy and squared off. The last years of the 3rd gen Firebirds were respectable, but that's about it. I'm not a big fan of the "IROC" designation either (yes, I'm familiar with the series). Maybe I'm swayed by all the run-down, beater 3rd gens I see (4th gens are getting cheap enough, you'll see more in that condition too). 4th gens don't have the rust to worry about or as susceptible to little dings all over the place. Oh yeah, they're a ton faster too.

Ok, now that I got that out...we need a replacement for that lousy 4th gen with oversized doors, wheel wells, dash, nose, cat hump, and Fisher Price interior. http://web.camaross.com/bb/wink.gif http://web.camaross.com/bb/biggrin.gif

------------------
-JERRY-
'02 Impreza WRX
'88 Fiero Formula
'90 Sunbird LE For Sale (http://www.autotrader.com/findacar/vdetail.jtmpl?car_id=92902165&dealer_id=&certified=n&max_price=&start_year=1990&end_year=1990&address=45014&search_type=&make=PONT&model=SUNBIR&min_price=&distance=25&advcd_on=n&advanced=n&color=&car_year=1990&ac_afflt=none)
Formerly owned: '93 Firebird Formula