I hope and wish we don't see yet another thread succomb to the heavy-dead-horse curb weight debate

That said... I agree with Dragoneye. Chevy needs to be wise about the Camaro's materials. An exotic-material Camaro at $42,000 or worse, simply would not sell. It just doesn't fit the image of the car.

In reality, there's likely a wide tolerance for a hefty Camaro - AS LONG AS a few conditions are met:
1. Price/value remains mainstream vs. the competition (eg, Mustang)
2. Features (XM, leather, sunroof, etc) are not sacrificed
3. Performance, quality are not sacrificed

What some don't seem to understand yet, is the sheer fallacy of the new CAFE as it now stands. Certainly, CAFE was due for some kind of tightening. But it's all about the details. And the details, I still maintain, are on an unwavering collision course with stark realities in America. Camaro is not alone in this dilemma. Light pickups, comfy-sized crossovers with good interior volume, mid-lux sedans... the list goes on and on...Americans love their roomy, capable, powerful vehicles. They haul soccer teams... stoves... boats... campers... ATV's... snowmobiles... you name it. The new CAFE is just not gonna fly as is here. Americans will revolt, congress people will come under severe heat, and mark my words, the new CAFE will be heavily revised in coming years. In the meantime though, I can fully understand GM must be ready for the worst case (no revision).

Back on the interior - I agree 100% with FBF they need to follow the majority response on this car... it can't be everything for every possible buyer.

 

I have no doubt that people rave about the exterior, but the question is about the interior. Are you saying that the interior, by itself, has recieved rave reviews?

 

The problem is, weather CAFE is a crock or not, articles have been popping up everywhere about programs that have been haulted or cancelled due to factors in the market that are related to vehicle efficiency. Cadillac V8 program scrapped, rwd Impala scrapped, most zeta cars scrapped, and the most troubling one of all, the C7 project is apparently on hold. If these programs are in jeopardy, what does that say about a relatively low volume Camaro? Remember, the Camaro is not a Corvette. A Corvette will always be there..........

I have a hard time believing any standards will be relaxed in the comming years, especially with the Dems controlling Congress.

 

It indeed is a new world, unfortunately the changes are now mandated by forced selection according to the mandates of the idiots at Disney On The Potomac. Let's be realistic here, while I am concerned about the weight of a new vehicle (as everyone should be), would there be this much concern if CAFE standards were not in place and the free market was the real determining factor? I don't think so, unfortunately we are being ever trained to focus our wants/desires on what is "politically correct" rather than our true feelings. Sure I'd like to have a 3,200 pound new Camaro, but I'd also like to be able to afford it. Where do you think a lot of this extra weight is coming from? Can you say crash standards and other legislated/mandated "improvements", indeed since at least the late '60s there has been a continuing trend of adding weight to meet these mandates. My '69 Z/28 had an AIR pump and all of the associated tubing, hoses, HP sapping pulley, etc. that my '67 RS Camaro did not have. Over the years since then there has been much added weight, side impact beams, air bags, catalytic converters, etc., it goes on and on. If the government would ever realize that we can't legislate enough safety standards to protect every moron wandering our streets and highways and that our artificial mileage standards are not addressing the real root of the problem, perhaps we could move forward freely and let the marketplace determine what is best. Back on topic, I'm not ready to pass judgement on the interior based on some incomplete prototype renderings. The exterior has maintained a great look and I trust them to do a similar good job on the interior.
Clyde

 

See, that's an interesting question. Does it matter? Do you know anyone who is going to buy JUST a 2010 Camaro interior, and set it up in their living room for lounging in?

No. The entire CAR must be taken in context.

I highlighted the key phrase. It's the Dems who got this whole mess going... and it will be the Dems who pay for it when Americans vote. If they don't lose their majority in 2008, they most certainly will by the mid-cycle elections in 2010 (IMAO).

 

Amen, 100%. And the bottom line is - the free market cannot be legislated away. If Americans perceive CAFE has gone overboard and it's harshly limiting their lifestyle, Americans will do something about it... at the ballot box.

It's funny you mention all the safety regs. My Dad always says he wishes they would design cars so everyone drives with their nose out in front of the car (I know, it's ridiculous )... then we'd be amazed how few accidents happen. Too many folks today think airbags and ABS make them somehow invincible and above the laws of physics.

And I agree about the trust thing too

 

I understand that but it almost seemed like a side step of the question concerning the interior. Of course no one just looks at the interior but the importance of the interior can not be underestimated. Was that not the number one complaint about the 4th gen? The die hards won't care, but the people who GM is trying to court with the new Camaro will care. People went to the Mustang because the interior was more user friendly, upright, and familiar. It wasn't the performance, it wasn't the handling, it wasn't for any stat or option in a brochure. To say that the interior plays only a minor role is crazy.


I don't see the Dems loosing thier majority in Congress anytime soon, unless a Dem gets in the white house.............but then the veto looms. It's not looking good. I hope I am wrong.

 

Crash standards are an unbelievably complex set of standards which add LOTS of weight and affect every aspect of car design. I'm all for safe cars and all, but some of the things that automakers have to design in are alittle ridiculous.

 

Did I miss the part where Scott said the majority of responses have been positive for the interior?

 

I have to somewhat agree with him. I remember riding up in the back window of our car when I was very young.
Before the days of "antilocks" and "air bags" and energy eating crumple zones.
People drove like they had a lot more sense then.
Every car doesn't need and shouldn't be overengineered to Volvo or Mercedes standards...I agree.
We need more emphasis on driver's training, including accident avoidance and defensive driving, to a degree...before we hand over a license to everyone who can breathe.

 

........and I think if you go back and look at my posts over the past year, I have been SAYING THAT........and the point has always been that we'd LOVE to have it come in at 3,000 pounds (just as I'd love to be sleeping with Sandy Bullock and Daisy Fuentes tonite.......) -- but every engineer will tell you that to do this car right -- it simply can't be done and bring it in at a Camaro price with a 5-star crash rating........all around..........

 

No -- what I am saying is that there are a few 'naysayers' on this (and other boards) - and they are in the minority.....and they say the same thing about the exterior as they say about the interior.........

 

Let me ask you (as a collective group) a few questions:

When was the last time you took a petition to a club meeting or car show and had people write letters or sign petitions to change CAFE to a free-market-- or perhaps insist on a realistic energy plan in this country?

When was the last time you asked your state and federal officials to pass a comprehensive Driver Education Plan?

Someone a few posts above talked about the absurd laws that continually get passed by a cowardly electorate...........

 

Both of them!

You dog...

 

Your right, we should be doing something about it instead of just complaining. To tell you the truth I never even thought about it.