Good god guys get a grip!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
So why do I care? Because I'm taking the big picture, 10,000ft view here on the Camaro brand. Shortly, serious discussions will start on a 6th gen. If/when the 5th gen falls short on it's sales numbers, I don't want that to crucify to 6th gen. I don't want some GM dweeb in a suit to go into a meeting and say:" See, we gave the enthusiasts EXACTLY what they wanted, and this product's sales performance fell short. I say let's kill any further discussion about Camaro or it's future".
I needs to be known AND VERBALIZED, that yes WE KNOW, that this car is compromised. And we want GM to know that we know. That if this car fails, don't blame the Camaro brand or the "ponycar concept". Blame it on the fact that this particular product hits off center on the ponycar formula.
I needs to be known AND VERBALIZED, that yes WE KNOW, that this car is compromised. And we want GM to know that we know. That if this car fails, don't blame the Camaro brand or the "ponycar concept". Blame it on the fact that this particular product hits off center on the ponycar formula.
But, I also wonder if you are afraid of the opposite, as well. What happens if the car IS a big hit? Then "some GM dweeb in a suit" can go into a meeting and say, "the Camaro was a big hit at 3800lbs, let's save some more money and go up to 4000lbs for the 6th gen."
But, with CAFE, I don't think GM can afford this. They will need to lightweight all models and platforms. What we need is for Camaro to be a big hit NOW so that it sticks around for a while.
There were lots of other choices that they could have used for the 5th gen, but they would have resulted in a larger investment, higher priced car, less content, lower quality, and/or longer time to market. I think they chose the best option available at the time.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 694
From: Brighton, IL
Point is, just as it's been stated time and time again, this car is built for the masses. It's got to appeal to more than just the gearheads that make up this website. Besides, this car is going to do 90% of what we want right out of the box. Of course we are going to have to mod it to make it perform the way we like but that's the case for every car (including our beloved 4G and the Shelby.)
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Well Jeff, if that's what Scott is saying - and perhaps he is - there is something very wrong with this picture. The fact that GM couldn't deliver such a product for less than that.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jul 24, 2008 at 09:40 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
I think this is key to understanding your position, Charlie.
But, I also wonder if you are afraid of the opposite, as well. What happens if the car IS a big hit? Then "some GM dweeb in a suit" can go into a meeting and say, "the Camaro was a big hit at 3800lbs, let's save some more money and go up to 4000lbs for the 6th gen."
But, with CAFE, I don't think GM can afford this. They will need to lightweight all models and platforms. What we need is for Camaro to be a big hit NOW so that it sticks around for a while.
There were lots of other choices that they could have used for the 5th gen, but they would have resulted in a larger investment, higher priced car, less content, lower quality, and/or longer time to market. I think they chose the best option available at the time.
But, I also wonder if you are afraid of the opposite, as well. What happens if the car IS a big hit? Then "some GM dweeb in a suit" can go into a meeting and say, "the Camaro was a big hit at 3800lbs, let's save some more money and go up to 4000lbs for the 6th gen."
But, with CAFE, I don't think GM can afford this. They will need to lightweight all models and platforms. What we need is for Camaro to be a big hit NOW so that it sticks around for a while.
There were lots of other choices that they could have used for the 5th gen, but they would have resulted in a larger investment, higher priced car, less content, lower quality, and/or longer time to market. I think they chose the best option available at the time.
Getting back to PacerX's point about maybe GM feeling that the ponycar formula doesn't work for them any longer, and that's why we have such a large, heavy car. Okay. I get that. GM is in the business to make money, and if that's the formula which they have determined works, go for it. If this thing sells 100,000 units annually throughout it's lifecycle, man, they nailed it - and I just need to go find myself a different marque to revolve my automotive world around. That's fair.
But I'll tell you what I suspect is actually the real deal, (and I'm sure Scott will come in for a strafing run on me if he disagrees), for a variety of financial and internally political reasons, Zeta was chosen for Camaro. Is Zeta ideal for a Camaro? I'd say not really. But it was cheaper than Sigma and GM was going to build a buttload of sedans off of it. Well, it was cheaper anyway. I don't know what Camaro's current business plan looks like, but considering all the cancelled Zetas, it's financials are probably pretty well in the crapper by now. So, so much for cheaper.
OTOH, GM could have developed a new smaller, RWD architecture, which Camaro could have shared with afew other products, (fuel efficient products which would not have been cancelled like Zeta). It would have been a far better investment of developement money, considering current events, but I think the timing wasn't right for that to fit in with GM's organization of fiefdoms and turf wars. Boy, I sure bet some people regret that now.
At any rate, the car is what it is. GM would be foolish not to put anything but the best face on it now. I hope it sells. Really I do, even if this one is not for me.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jul 24, 2008 at 10:07 AM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Rather than showing the dimensions, I'll do one better and show you the comparison itself:
I'm comparing the Camaro SS M6 to the 2008 M3 Coupe. I used the PDF from Chevy for all specs on the Camaro. The M3 exterior specs came from bmwusa.com, and the interior specs are from a few assorted car sites.
Exterior
Camaro's overall length is 4.7% greater than M3.
Camaro's overall width is 3% less than M3.
Camaro's overall height is 3.4" less than M3.
Camaro's wheelbase is 3.3% greater than M3.
Camaro's front and rear track is 5.1% greater than M3.
Camaro's curb weight is 4.2% greater than M3.
Camaro's weight distribution is 0.8% more front-heavy than M3.
Interior - front
Camaro's headroom is 2.9% less than M3.
Camaro's legroom is 1.4" greater than M3.
Camaro's shoulder room is 1.1% less than M3.
Interior - rear
Camaro's headroom is 5.9% less than M3.
Camaro's legroom is 11.3" greater than M3.
Camaro's shoulder room is 25.7% less than M3.
Clearly, Camaro's back seat doesn't compare to M3's. Nobody ever said it did.
Ignoring the back seat, though, I think it's clear that Camaro and M3 are quite similar in size.
I'm comparing the Camaro SS M6 to the 2008 M3 Coupe. I used the PDF from Chevy for all specs on the Camaro. The M3 exterior specs came from bmwusa.com, and the interior specs are from a few assorted car sites.
Exterior
Camaro's overall length is 4.7% greater than M3.
Camaro's overall width is 3% less than M3.
Camaro's overall height is 3.4" less than M3.
Camaro's wheelbase is 3.3% greater than M3.
Camaro's front and rear track is 5.1% greater than M3.
Camaro's curb weight is 4.2% greater than M3.
Camaro's weight distribution is 0.8% more front-heavy than M3.
Interior - front
Camaro's headroom is 2.9% less than M3.
Camaro's legroom is 1.4" greater than M3.
Camaro's shoulder room is 1.1% less than M3.
Interior - rear
Camaro's headroom is 5.9% less than M3.
Camaro's legroom is 11.3" greater than M3.
Camaro's shoulder room is 25.7% less than M3.
Clearly, Camaro's back seat doesn't compare to M3's. Nobody ever said it did.
Ignoring the back seat, though, I think it's clear that Camaro and M3 are quite similar in size.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 854
From: neverneverland
I hear you.
Getting back to PacerX's point about maybe GM feeling that the ponycar formula doesn't work for them any longer, and that's why we have such a large, heavy car. Okay. I get that. GM is in the business to make money, and if that's the formula which they have determined works, go for it. If this thing sells 100,000 units annually throughout it's lifecycle, man, they nailed it - and I just need to go find myself a different marque to revolve my automotive world around. That's fair.
But I'll tell you what I suspect is actually the real deal, (and I'm sure Scott will come in for a strafing run on me if he disagrees), for a variety of financial and internally political reasons, Zeta was chosen for Camaro. Is Zeta ideal for a Camaro? I'd say not really. But it was cheaper than Sigma and GM was going to build a buttload of sedans off of it. Well, it was cheaper anyway. I don't know what Camaro's current business plan looks like, but considering all the cancelled Zetas, it's financials are probably pretty well in the crapper by now. So, so much for cheaper.
OTOH, GM could have developed a new smaller, RWD architecture, which Camaro could have shared with afew other products, (fuel efficient products which would not have been cancelled like Zeta). It would have been a far better investment of developement money, considering current events, but I think the timing wasn't right for that to fit in with GM's organization of fiefdoms and turf wars. Boy, I sure bet some people regret that now.
At any rate, the car is what it is. GM would be foolish not to put anything but the best face on it now. I hope it sells. Really I do, even if this one is not for me.
Getting back to PacerX's point about maybe GM feeling that the ponycar formula doesn't work for them any longer, and that's why we have such a large, heavy car. Okay. I get that. GM is in the business to make money, and if that's the formula which they have determined works, go for it. If this thing sells 100,000 units annually throughout it's lifecycle, man, they nailed it - and I just need to go find myself a different marque to revolve my automotive world around. That's fair.
But I'll tell you what I suspect is actually the real deal, (and I'm sure Scott will come in for a strafing run on me if he disagrees), for a variety of financial and internally political reasons, Zeta was chosen for Camaro. Is Zeta ideal for a Camaro? I'd say not really. But it was cheaper than Sigma and GM was going to build a buttload of sedans off of it. Well, it was cheaper anyway. I don't know what Camaro's current business plan looks like, but considering all the cancelled Zetas, it's financials are probably pretty well in the crapper by now. So, so much for cheaper.
OTOH, GM could have developed a new smaller, RWD architecture, which Camaro could have shared with afew other products, (fuel efficient products which would not have been cancelled like Zeta). It would have been a far better investment of developement money, considering current events, but I think the timing wasn't right for that to fit in with GM's organization of fiefdoms and turf wars. Boy, I sure bet some people regret that now.
At any rate, the car is what it is. GM would be foolish not to put anything but the best face on it now. I hope it sells. Really I do, even if this one is not for me.
Your "turf war" comment does prove a good point though. If GME had the smoke they do now back in 2005, how would things be different? I'd venture to guess very different...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
So you are saying they should have spent ~$1B on a from scratch platform of mostly niche rwd vehicles, selling ~250k total units worldwide instead of ~$350M on adapting an existing platform to sell what was going to be ~175k incremental worldwide units? Granted since that decision 75k units (or more) have dropped out of that equation, but they didn't know that then.
Your "turf war" comment does prove a good point though. If GME had the smoke they do now back in 2005, how would things be different? I'd venture to guess very different...
Your "turf war" comment does prove a good point though. If GME had the smoke they do now back in 2005, how would things be different? I'd venture to guess very different...
I'm not privy to how much GM spent on the Camaro, but that $350M sounds reasonable. Add that to the $1+ billion already spent on Zeta, and divide that by how many G8's, Camaros, and possibly other Zetas which may or may not materialize. It's the stingy man who spends the most. In this case Camaro will bear a huge cost burden. As things turn out, the irony is, that it's possible that Zeta will end up being the most expensive road Camaro could have taken.
Oh, and the last part - and it's pure speculation by me - GME would have pushed for the new, smaller, lighter, architecture.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jul 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I know that suggestion is a little over the top, but as long as we're talking hypothetical, perhaps you can lay out a business plan for your "ideal ponycar" that works and name a manufacturer that can pull it off better than GM. I'm seriously asking, because as an engineer and project manager that puts out multi-million dollar projects every day, I just don't see it.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Charlie, I agree that GM couldn't, but then who could? Perhaps if we gave the plans and specs to Chery, they could come up with a 3400-lb car that looks like the Camaro SS and sell it for less than $30,000 MSRP. But would it be safe? Would it last more than 18 months without falling apart? Would it have a warranty of any kind? Would it perform as well as the "real" Camaro?
I know that suggestion is a little over the top, but as long as we're talking hypothetical, perhaps you can lay out a business plan for your "ideal ponycar" that works and name a manufacturer that can pull it off better than GM. I'm seriously asking, because as an engineer and project manager that puts out multi-million dollar projects every day, I just don't see it.
I know that suggestion is a little over the top, but as long as we're talking hypothetical, perhaps you can lay out a business plan for your "ideal ponycar" that works and name a manufacturer that can pull it off better than GM. I'm seriously asking, because as an engineer and project manager that puts out multi-million dollar projects every day, I just don't see it.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Charlie, I agree that GM couldn't, but then who could? Perhaps if we gave the plans and specs to Chery, they could come up with a 3400-lb car that looks like the Camaro SS and sell it for less than $30,000 MSRP. But would it be safe? Would it last more than 18 months without falling apart? Would it have a warranty of any kind? Would it perform as well as the "real" Camaro?
I know that suggestion is a little over the top, but as long as we're talking hypothetical, perhaps you can lay out a business plan for your "ideal ponycar" that works and name a manufacturer that can pull it off better than GM. I'm seriously asking, because as an engineer and project manager that puts out multi-million dollar projects every day, I just don't see it.
I know that suggestion is a little over the top, but as long as we're talking hypothetical, perhaps you can lay out a business plan for your "ideal ponycar" that works and name a manufacturer that can pull it off better than GM. I'm seriously asking, because as an engineer and project manager that puts out multi-million dollar projects every day, I just don't see it.
I am confident it will be received as a much better car than anything else in the segment.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
The Mustang is under 3500 pounds and doesnt cost 60k. How did Ford do it? IRS does not add 450 pounds to the weight of a car and the Mustang has a heavier motor.
I am surprised at the dimesions of the BMW 3 compared to the Camaro, especially the width of the car.
I am surprised at the dimesions of the BMW 3 compared to the Camaro, especially the width of the car.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 253
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 59
From: colorado
Not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China...
My '89 weighs around 3350 pounds. Heavy I guess, compared to the lightest5.0 Mustang - the LX sedan. I seem to remember a well optioned Celebrity weighed about the same as a 3rd gen and the Lumina was around 3500-3600 pounds. So it weighs less than a GM10. Waaaaaaaay less than a B-body Impala/Caprice though.
My '89 weighs around 3350 pounds. Heavy I guess, compared to the lightest5.0 Mustang - the LX sedan. I seem to remember a well optioned Celebrity weighed about the same as a 3rd gen and the Lumina was around 3500-3600 pounds. So it weighs less than a GM10. Waaaaaaaay less than a B-body Impala/Caprice though.
1989 Chevrolet Camaro Drivetrain List
Yr Model Trans Engine
code/type CR Displ. HP Torque Induc-
tion Manual
std. Manual
opt.
(G92) Auto
std. Auto
opt.
(G92)
89 RS M5,A4 LB8 V6 8.9:1 2.8 (173) 135@4900 160@3900 MFI 3.42 ---- 3.42 ----
89 RS M5,A4 LO3 V8 9.3:1 5.0 (305) 170@4400 255@2400 TBI 3.08 ---- 2.73 ----
89 IROC-Z M5,A4 LO3 V8 9.3:1 5.0 (305) 170@4400 255@2400 TBI 3.08 ---- 2.73 ----
89 IROC-Z A4 LB9 V8 9.3:1 5.0 (305) 195@4000 295@2800 TPI ---- ---- 2.73 ----
89 IROC-Z M5 LB9 V8 9.3:1 5.0 (305) 220@4400 290@3200 TPI 3.08 ---- ---- ----
89 IROC-Z M5 LB9 V8 9.3:1 5.0 (305) 230@4600 300@3200 TPI ---- 3.45* ---- ----
89 IROC-Z A4 L98 V8 9.3:1 5.7 (350) 230@4400 330@3200 TPI ---- ---- 2.77* ----
89 IROC-Z A4 L98 V8 9.3:1 5.7 (350) 240@4400 345@3200 TPI ---- ---- ---- 3.27*
*Borg-Warner rear axle
