trm0002

Last night's local news had a GM Powertrain rep stating that the Camaro will be in Buffalo this weekend. I CAN NOT CONFIRM THIS. It does make sense that it indeed would be given the car show and anniversary. Just FYI for anyone in the Buffalo,NY area

Dragoneye

Yeah, it was there, alright.

The Red RS. VERY beautiful in person! Just like the concept...pictures just DO NOT do this car justice!! I so happens that I saw the Challenger the day before -- and the Camaro definitely appears smaller in every dimension.

EDIT: Here's my two favorite shots, and a link to the rest:
RS Pics
Enjoy!

trm0002

Great looking car, wasn't it? Just wish they had the hood open. Glad my deposit is down.

trm0002

Except maybe the rear wheel base. The Camaro is AWFUL (in a good way) wide in the rear end with the flares over the tires.

Dragoneye

yeah...there was more than one person staring at it who wanted that...it might have been nice for them to roll down the window's too...but I can see problems occurring with that on such an expensive prepro...

I agree. It's strange -- when you look at the front straight-on, and then the rear straight-on, they seem noticeably different in width. Not a bad thing at all. But that's unusual for a car, I think.

trm0002

Maybe they just didn't want to confuse people with a V8 (as I was told) being under the hood with RS vs SS badging and front grille.

TrickStang37

how much wider are the rear wheels from each other compared to the front?

TrickStang37

it's just an optical illusion. the front and rear have the same exact track. unless your talking about the v6, which is a whopping .4" more.

BTW, the v8 camaro is only ~ 1/2" wider in the rear track than a Challenger.

Dragoneye

Oh, I know. But that's what I mean; the design execution on the Camaro is fantastic!

trm0002

It is an illusion that it's decidedly different. I'm not saying it's 10 " different but the tire size f->r, in and of itself, skews the numbers. 245/45/20 frt; 275/40/20 rear. That's 1.2" wider per tire in the back and they didn't offset it towards the inside of the car... The rear fender flares (IMO) are "wider" than the front also. I can't prove it but I'll bet a tape measurer across the front of the car will be 4 inches shorter than one across the widest part of the back.

TrickStang37

i bet they are the same. this pic doesn't seem to indicate any significance to width in the rear:


there's probably another overhead shot lurking somewhere.

trm0002

Tell me this isn't deceiving if the front and rear are the same...

99SilverSS

And you won't be able to prove it either. As listed earlier the track is the same for the SS front to rear and .4 inch wider for the V6. The car has a coke bottle shape and the front end is wide and has a slower taper back to the rear end of the doors and then a faster increase in taper out to the rear track. If seen from the plan view.

trm0002

"Track" is one thing- well, two if you count Palin's son. Anyways, track, as I know it (could be wrong) is wheel hub to wheel hub, not outside of tire to outside of tire. Not that it's a huge difference but it would make the rear outside to outside tire dimensions 2.4" wider in the back. In addition, I'm really talking about widest part of car to widest part of car. I think the flares in the back are larger than those in front, hence the car is "wider" in the rear.

99SilverSS

Not much to debate until we have more measurements. Along with track there is wheel offset that can push more of the rim/tire under the fender. History would say a front engine car would have its widest point near the front wheels.
Here is another picture from the front. In this pic it looks like the front is wider. Just an optical illusion.
http://gm.wieck.com/forms/gm/previewpage?049070