Disappointed.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 224
From: Lincolnwood IL
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,082
From: San Juan PR
You know... There is something I want to make clear right now which maybe made people think everyone is bashing the car.
I may be disappointed in the weight of the car, but I am NOT disappointed at the car.
Take care.
I may be disappointed in the weight of the car, but I am NOT disappointed at the car.
Take care.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
We may need to look at this another way. There are two different schools of thought for the Z28. One is a light, nimble; N/A SBC with road racing roots and the other is the top model, big HP brand that in this day in age means all the best toys and highest price.
We could agree that the original Z/28 formula used by GM to compete in Trans Am has changed when it lost the slash!
The Z/28 the option code turned into Z28 the brand/model and since then it's never been the same.
There are many asking GM to go back to that original formula when actually they haven't built a Z/28 in many respects since 1969. For many years the Z28 was just the V8 Camaro. For some years they decided to mold one brand Z28 into another IROC. But none of the Z28's since 1969 have been true to the formula of a Trans Am spec road racer for the street. GM isn't in the business of selling road racing cars on the street. They are in the business of selling many Camaros.
Obviously many of us here has chosen to accept the Z28 whether it be a 2nd, 3rd or 4th Gen variant and yet we've all managed to love them in some degree or another. Yet now many are mad at GM because the Z28 isn't like the 1st Gen. Mad because it's too heavy or won't perform on the road course. Mad that it won't get an N/A engine. Where were these complaints the last 3 Gens? Because unless you've had and still love the 1st Gen Z/28's you have not loved the original formula but accepted what GM has given us since 1970.
So have the last 3 Gen Z's earned their honor to carry the name? Because if they have then no matter what direction GM takes the Z with the 5th Gen it too will be worthy of the name. It's a brand now and this formula has been working for much longer than the original.
We could agree that the original Z/28 formula used by GM to compete in Trans Am has changed when it lost the slash!
The Z/28 the option code turned into Z28 the brand/model and since then it's never been the same.
There are many asking GM to go back to that original formula when actually they haven't built a Z/28 in many respects since 1969. For many years the Z28 was just the V8 Camaro. For some years they decided to mold one brand Z28 into another IROC. But none of the Z28's since 1969 have been true to the formula of a Trans Am spec road racer for the street. GM isn't in the business of selling road racing cars on the street. They are in the business of selling many Camaros.
Obviously many of us here has chosen to accept the Z28 whether it be a 2nd, 3rd or 4th Gen variant and yet we've all managed to love them in some degree or another. Yet now many are mad at GM because the Z28 isn't like the 1st Gen. Mad because it's too heavy or won't perform on the road course. Mad that it won't get an N/A engine. Where were these complaints the last 3 Gens? Because unless you've had and still love the 1st Gen Z/28's you have not loved the original formula but accepted what GM has given us since 1970.
So have the last 3 Gen Z's earned their honor to carry the name? Because if they have then no matter what direction GM takes the Z with the 5th Gen it too will be worthy of the name. It's a brand now and this formula has been working for much longer than the original.
Regarding the 3rd gens, the early Z/28's were very focused, it just took GM powertrain awhile to catch up with some good motors. And during the IROC-Z28 era, if you knew which boxes to tick off, you could get yourself a plenty serious piece.
As far as the 5th gen, I'd like to see some things accomplished with it. I'd like to see a well defined model hierarchy - with the Z/28 as a critical component. I'd also like to see the Camaro move upmarket slightly. Nowadays, RWD, V8, V6 are all considered premium items. This pressure to keep Camaro "cheap" (whatever that's supposed to mean), is not good for the brand - unless it reverts to a cheap FWD platform, which no one wants to see.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
There have been times when GM really focused the Z/28. At other times they slipped abit. It seems to me that when it was focused, it created such a powerful enough image, which allowed it to coast unfocused for awhile - if you know what I mean. Pity that it hasn't always had a internal and influential champion, which could keep the Z/28 brand focused and on target at all times.
Regarding the 3rd gens, the early Z/28's were very focused, it just took GM powertrain awhile to catch up with some good motors. And during the IROC-Z28 era, if you knew which boxes to tick off, you could get yourself a plenty serious piece.
As far as the 5th gen, I'd like to see some things accomplished with it. I'd like to see a well defined model hierarchy - with the Z/28 as a critical component. I'd also like to see the Camaro move upmarket slightly. Nowadays, RWD, V8, V6 are all considered premium items. This pressure to keep Camaro "cheap" (whatever that's supposed to mean), is not good for the brand - unless it reverts to a cheap FWD platform, which no one wants to see.
Regarding the 3rd gens, the early Z/28's were very focused, it just took GM powertrain awhile to catch up with some good motors. And during the IROC-Z28 era, if you knew which boxes to tick off, you could get yourself a plenty serious piece.
As far as the 5th gen, I'd like to see some things accomplished with it. I'd like to see a well defined model hierarchy - with the Z/28 as a critical component. I'd also like to see the Camaro move upmarket slightly. Nowadays, RWD, V8, V6 are all considered premium items. This pressure to keep Camaro "cheap" (whatever that's supposed to mean), is not good for the brand - unless it reverts to a cheap FWD platform, which no one wants to see.
A choice between a $45,000 Corvette and a $45,000 Camaro (of any stripe) is no choice at all. The Vette will murder it, just like it murdered the SSR (which was more like a sibling mercy killing of a retarded step-brother than an actual murder...) and everything the Japanese and Germans have thrown at it for 50 years.
Rule #1 of being sucessful in the performance car industry:
Don't bring your price points to a level where they end up competing with the Corvette. You'll just get your a$$ handed to you.
*
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
You'd be wrong. At 3,700 pounds I'd strongly consider one next year. At 3,500 pounds I'd have to have one yesterday.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
The upper limit of the Camaro market is very, very clearly defined by the Corvette.
A choice between a $45,000 Corvette and a $45,000 Camaro (of any stripe) is no choice at all. The Vette will murder it, just like it murdered the SSR (which was more like a sibling mercy killing of a retarded step-brother than an actual murder...) and everything the Japanese and Germans have thrown at it for 50 years.
Rule #1 of being sucessful in the performance car industry:
Don't bring your price points to a level where they end up competing with the Corvette. You'll just get your a$$ handed to you.
*
A choice between a $45,000 Corvette and a $45,000 Camaro (of any stripe) is no choice at all. The Vette will murder it, just like it murdered the SSR (which was more like a sibling mercy killing of a retarded step-brother than an actual murder...) and everything the Japanese and Germans have thrown at it for 50 years.
Rule #1 of being sucessful in the performance car industry:
Don't bring your price points to a level where they end up competing with the Corvette. You'll just get your a$$ handed to you.
*
I feel that there was so much pressure on the Camaro to come in at a $20K (or thereabouts), base price - like the Mustang.
And how did that affect decision making on the Camaro?
To be "cheap", they based it off of an existing large sedan architecture, instead of creating a new more appropriate one. This "cheap" architecture already has about a billion and a half dollars invested in it - not so "cheap". Quite abit more than an all new, perhaps more germain, clean sheet architecture would have cost. Most of the programs which would share cost with it and make it "cheap" are either dead or on death watch.
So to get "cheap", we've got a car which is 300-400 pounds too heavy, and at the end of the day, it won't be cheap at all.
It's the stingy man who pays the most....
Last edited by Z284ever; Jul 31, 2008 at 12:06 PM.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
That's all neither here nor there (to nobody in particular).
They're not going to make a stripped down premium car. Forget it. But they can take this pig and beef it up. Take what handling it does have to offer, and improve the acceleration, too. Like the GT500, like the SRT...and possibly compete with those who would buy the GTR, Corvette, or used Z06.
That's what (some) people want. There is market for it. And putting in an existing engine (LS7, etc.) is essentially a zero-cost option for GM. But in typical Detroit fashion...why give the customers what they want?
...
Would I want it lighter? Definitely. I've said in an earlier post that once I heard the weight that I've started considering other cars. But given the weight, the best thing you can do is couple it with an LS7.
They're not going to make a stripped down premium car. Forget it. But they can take this pig and beef it up. Take what handling it does have to offer, and improve the acceleration, too. Like the GT500, like the SRT...and possibly compete with those who would buy the GTR, Corvette, or used Z06.
That's what (some) people want. There is market for it. And putting in an existing engine (LS7, etc.) is essentially a zero-cost option for GM. But in typical Detroit fashion...why give the customers what they want?
...
Would I want it lighter? Definitely. I've said in an earlier post that once I heard the weight that I've started considering other cars. But given the weight, the best thing you can do is couple it with an LS7.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
That's all neither here nor there (to nobody in particular).
They're not going to make a stripped down premium car. Forget it. But they can take this pig and beef it up. Take what handling it does have to offer, and improve the acceleration, too. Like the GT500, like the SRT...and possibly compete with those who would buy the GTR, Corvette, or used Z06.
That's what (some) people want. There is market for it. And putting in an existing engine (LS7, etc.) is essentially a zero-cost option for GM. But in typical Detroit fashion...why give the customers what they want?
...
Would I want it lighter? Definitely. I've said in an earlier post that once I heard the weight that I've started considering other cars. But given the weight, the best thing you can do is couple it with an LS7.
They're not going to make a stripped down premium car. Forget it. But they can take this pig and beef it up. Take what handling it does have to offer, and improve the acceleration, too. Like the GT500, like the SRT...and possibly compete with those who would buy the GTR, Corvette, or used Z06.
That's what (some) people want. There is market for it. And putting in an existing engine (LS7, etc.) is essentially a zero-cost option for GM. But in typical Detroit fashion...why give the customers what they want?
...
Would I want it lighter? Definitely. I've said in an earlier post that once I heard the weight that I've started considering other cars. But given the weight, the best thing you can do is couple it with an LS7.
Having guys making big $$$ per hour hand-build motors in small volumes is not a recipe for controlling costs.
It's good for performance and image... but not for cost.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
I agree completely. There should be some daylight, pricewise, between Camaro and Corvette. But getting back to GM's "target fixation" with the Mustang and it's ultimate effects on Camaro...
I feel that there was so much pressure on the Camaro to come in at a $20K (or thereabouts), base price - like the Mustang.
And how did that affect decision making on the Camaro?
To be "cheap", they based it off of an existing large sedan architecture, instead of creating a new more appropriate one. This "cheap" architecture already has about a billion and a half dollars invested in it - not so "cheap". Quite abit more than an all new, perhaps more germain, clean sheet architecture would have cost. Most of the programs which would share cost with it and make it "cheap" are either dead or on death watch.
So to get "cheap", we've got a car which is 300-400 pounds too heavy, and at the end of the day, it won't be cheap at all.
It's the stingy man who pays the most....
I feel that there was so much pressure on the Camaro to come in at a $20K (or thereabouts), base price - like the Mustang.
And how did that affect decision making on the Camaro?
To be "cheap", they based it off of an existing large sedan architecture, instead of creating a new more appropriate one. This "cheap" architecture already has about a billion and a half dollars invested in it - not so "cheap". Quite abit more than an all new, perhaps more germain, clean sheet architecture would have cost. Most of the programs which would share cost with it and make it "cheap" are either dead or on death watch.
So to get "cheap", we've got a car which is 300-400 pounds too heavy, and at the end of the day, it won't be cheap at all.
It's the stingy man who pays the most....
Also, I don't think this car is particularly "cheap." I just think they kept their costs low by recycling another platform...but never past that savings on to us. This car costs the same as other cars from competitors that were completely new platforms.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 213
It's not like saying you want to put a different engine architecture into the car with a lot of capital investment...or putting a s/c engine in requiring a lot of unique components. An LS7 would cost GM virtually nothing.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Think about how many Z06s are built now, then add 5,000 (or more) engines per year to that total. Each is hand built. You're going to have to hire more engine assemblers (and train them) or switch LS7 production to an automated line. Either way, you're talking about investment here.
Last edited by Z28Wilson; Jul 31, 2008 at 12:24 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
I agree completely. There should be some daylight, pricewise, between Camaro and Corvette. But getting back to GM's "target fixation" with the Mustang and it's ultimate effects on Camaro...
I feel that there was so much pressure on the Camaro to come in at a $20K (or thereabouts), base price - like the Mustang.
And how did that affect decision making on the Camaro?
To be "cheap", they based it off of an existing large sedan architecture, instead of creating a new more appropriate one. This "cheap" architecture already has about a billion and a half dollars invested in it - not so "cheap". Quite abit more than an all new, perhaps more germain, clean sheet architecture would have cost. Most of the programs which would share cost with it and make it "cheap" are either dead or on death watch.
So to get "cheap", we've got a car which is 300-400 pounds too heavy, and at the end of the day, it won't be cheap at all.
It's the stingy man who pays the most....
I feel that there was so much pressure on the Camaro to come in at a $20K (or thereabouts), base price - like the Mustang.
And how did that affect decision making on the Camaro?
To be "cheap", they based it off of an existing large sedan architecture, instead of creating a new more appropriate one. This "cheap" architecture already has about a billion and a half dollars invested in it - not so "cheap". Quite abit more than an all new, perhaps more germain, clean sheet architecture would have cost. Most of the programs which would share cost with it and make it "cheap" are either dead or on death watch.
So to get "cheap", we've got a car which is 300-400 pounds too heavy, and at the end of the day, it won't be cheap at all.
It's the stingy man who pays the most....
I think we got a Zeta based Camaro because it was the only business case in town that worked. So no Zeta, no Camaro. Heck if the Camaro program had been delayed 6-8 months more we wouldn't have a new Camaro. That's how close all of this was.