Camaro Chief Engineer:"we've called Jenny Craig"!
01-30-2007, 08:28 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
I have to figure that something like GPS Nav has such a nice profit margin that GM would be throwing money away to not offer it as an option.
But then again GM is probably too complicated for mere mortals like me to ever understand.
But then again GM is probably too complicated for mere mortals like me to ever understand.
01-30-2007, 09:40 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Roseville, MI, USA
Posts: 1,496
I'm with you Guy.
It seems pretty clear in this case that weight loss may be minimal, however shared costs to drive the price down could be what is in store.
More models, etc. to help share the R&D (naturally that's how it always goes) and a Pontiac model that is sure to be priced higher than a Camaro will help GM gauge the true price the Camaro *should* come in at.
Just my opinion.
It seems pretty clear in this case that weight loss may be minimal, however shared costs to drive the price down could be what is in store.
More models, etc. to help share the R&D (naturally that's how it always goes) and a Pontiac model that is sure to be priced higher than a Camaro will help GM gauge the true price the Camaro *should* come in at.
Just my opinion.
02-01-2007, 09:09 AM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oshawa - Home of the 5th-gen
Posts: 5,308
I don't care if the interior is 2 milk crates, just give me the 6.2 supercharged in a car that weighs under 3700lb's. Just think what this thing would run, the 03-04 Cobra's are still kicking @ss on the streets and this is an even more powerful engine combo. I would really like to see another 1SC package like my old one but I don't think that is gonna happen anymore according to Scott.
For once we're actually getting Scott's own confirmation that they're obsessing about the weight of the car ... we don't even need to discuss the benefits of lower weight (if you can't appreciate it, you fail "Cars 101" 
) ... and yet people are scratching their heads and wondering why somebody could possibly want an "engine in a box"?!?! 
Guys, if you don't care much about weight, but like a little performance, there's a car built for you ..... it's called a Cadillac!!
The rest of us will take our "engine in a box" which was EXACTLY the design intention of the original "pony cars" ... the biggest engines, in the smallest, lightest weight cars 
. I'll take mine in a 2009 version, thanks.
02-01-2007, 09:49 AM
#49
Disciple
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
... and if Cadillac were to build a 2 door, 4 seat, V8, RWD, drop top, I'd cross shop it and let you have your "motor in a box".
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for weight reduction, BUT, the reduction has to be designed in starting at the structure, NOT by decontenting the car. I've lost track of how many times I've heard guys say, "I would have brought the Camaro, but my wife......."
02-01-2007, 10:02 AM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
However, only time will tell. If the production car ends up with tons of plastic panels, and aluminum (where steel would normally be) and a higher sticker price, then I'd say yeah, they obsessed over the weight.
Guys, if you don't care much about weight, but like a little performance, there's a car built for you ..... it's called a Cadillac!! The rest of us will take our "engine in a box" which was EXACTLY the design intention of the original "pony cars" ... the biggest engines, in the smallest, lightest weight cars . I'll take mine in a 2009 version, thanks.
The rest of us will take our "engine in a box" which was EXACTLY the design intention of the original "pony cars" ... the biggest engines, in the smallest, lightest weight cars . I'll take mine in a 2009 version, thanks.
Let me just say this. The number of buyers that would like an "engine in a box" type vehicle is so minute outside these circles that no respectable manufacturer would ever consider such a proposal. In other words, don't hold your breath.
Last edited by jg95z28; 02-01-2007 at 10:07 AM.
02-01-2007, 12:55 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Statesboro, GA
Posts: 159
A respectable manufacturer once made the perfect candidate for an "engine in a box".
They were called General Motors, and the car was the 4th gen Camaro. And we saw how that turned out.
But if they decide to go to hardcore into luxury, then we are just going to end up basically having a Chevrolet Charger, which is on the losing end of WAAYYY to many races for my taste.
02-01-2007, 01:09 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oshawa - Home of the 5th-gen
Posts: 5,308
AS I've been saying for -- let me see-- FOREVER -- is this: Weight is our enemy -- we need to do whatever we can to reduce it. That said -- we also have to bring the car in at an affordable price.......so it IS a balancing act. We have to think out of the box on this one..........and we are!
... he didn't say they're "obsessed" ... but I think it's pretty clear that WEIGHT (or lack thereof) is a major objective in the DESIGN of the Camaro, so it's not like it's a finalized car with things being REMOVED ... I'd say they're (trying to) build it without too much "extra" added .They DID obsess over the weight of the C6Z, but I realize that the price made up where the weight lacked
.
Originally Posted by jg95z28
Originally I was going to respond to that part, but I have learned not to argue with you when you think you're right. Let me just say this. The number of buyers that would like an "engine in a box" type vehicle is so minute outside these circles that no respectable manufacturer would ever consider such a proposal. In other words, don't hold your breath.
Let me just say this. The number of buyers that would like an "engine in a box" type vehicle is so minute outside these circles that no respectable manufacturer would ever consider such a proposal. In other words, don't hold your breath. ..... I am just kidding, don't get your knickers in a twist!!!
But I do agree with you on that. While we around here might love a bare-bones, no frills added kind of Camaro, the "Joe Q public" average car buyer WANTS that extra crap, so yeah, we're going to get it
. But I just wish (or hope?) that they have the options broken down nicely so that you don't automatically get all those "ticky boxes" checked off, and that, perhaps, there are still "choices" for manual vs. power accessories and the like? Should I hold my breath for that?? Nope. Will I not buy the car if it doesn't work out like that? Probably won't affect my decision.
While I agree (and my opinion hasn't changed since the early, early days of discussing the 5th-gen) that we should "be prepared for" or "accept" a Camaro that's in the neighborhood of ~3800 lbs., I still "believe" that they're setting a TARGET weight that is much, much lower than that. Whether or not they can achieve it is yet to be found out, but the comments which were the basis of this thread, and Scott's own words still give me "hope" that a ~3500 lb Camaro is not long forgotten
.
02-01-2007, 05:30 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 150
While I agree (and my opinion hasn't changed since the early, early days of discussing the 5th-gen) that we should "be prepared for" or "accept" a Camaro that's in the neighborhood of ~3800 lbs., I still "believe" that they're setting a TARGET weight that is much, much lower than that. Whether or not they can achieve it is yet to be found out, but the comments which were the basis of this thread, and Scott's own words still give me "hope" that a ~3500 lb Camaro is not long forgotten .
.Everybody wins.
Except Ford.
