Good god guys get a grip!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 59
From: colorado
It's not a stripper at all. In fact it's pretty well equipped. It doesn't have an auto trans (+100 pounds over the T-5) or T-Tops (+30 pounds over coupe), but it has PW, PDL, tilt, and every performance option including engine oil cooler and dual cats.
And while we're on the subject of 3rd gens, a total strippo, (as in no AC, radio or power anything), I4/M4, Camaro coupe weighed under 2900 pounds.
And while we're on the subject of 3rd gens, a total strippo, (as in no AC, radio or power anything), I4/M4, Camaro coupe weighed under 2900 pounds.
Model Base Weight
IROC-Z 305 5.0 5-Speed 3,250
Formula 305 5.0 5-Speed 3,383
IROC-Z 350 5.7 Automatic Overdrive 3,341
GTA 350 5.7 Automatic Overdrive 3,476
guess again
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 854
From: neverneverland
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.
Oh, and the last part - and it's pure speculation by me - GME would have pushed for the new, smaller, lighter, architecture.
On a separate note, I'm getting more torn by the day on my next purchase. Having sat in a Challenger now (didn't get to drive), it isn't all that bad. If the V6 had the same power as the V6 Camaro I'd maybe even get one over the Camaro. And don't get me started on the Mustang. I haven't seen the production interior yet, but if it improves like I think it might be I (along with a lot of other people) are going to have a tough decision on our hands. What a horrible position to be in
...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Yeah, I gotcha. 2002, I think the frontrunner for Camaro might have been Sigma. Around 2005, (2004? whenever the Torana concept came out), there was some support for for an Alpha like architecture. That fiefdom thing, stomped it dead though. As you said, today would be a whole different story though.
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.
Don't sell GM's abilities short. They have some really top notch engineering. Engineering is not the problem. It's politics and leadership.
My ideal ponycar would be maybe half a foot shorter than the 5th gen and 400-500 pounds lighter, across the board. It would be small and light enough to get 35 mpg (that's CAFE +, my friend), from it's 220-ish hp, GDI, 2.3L I4, base motor. The V6 version, (3.0L?, 3.6L?) would hit 30+ mpg and be ABSOLUTELY thrilling to drive. And of course some version, let's say the Z/28, would pack a V8, let's call a Gen V 5.0L, with 425 hp, and near 30 mpg. I'd buy more than one.
Chery doesn't have to build it, GM will.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jul 24, 2008 at 04:36 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Actually, the Cobalt is quite abit smaller than that. This is more SN95 Mustang sized. Get used to cars getting smaller and lighter James, it's gonna happen VERY fast. Saab just announced that it's future cars will ride on one architecture smaller than originally planned. The 9-3 going from Epsilon II to Delta II and the 9-1 going from Delta II to Gamma. Today, Ford announced that it is essentially bringing over it's entire European car line. In a couple of years, a 190", 39xx lbs, Camaro, will be considered a HUGE car - like '72 Electra 225 huge.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Don't sell GM's abilities short. They have some really top notch engineering. Engineering is not the problem. It's politics and leadership.
My ideal ponycar would be maybe half a foot shorter than the 5th gen and 400-500 pounds lighter, across the board. It would be small and light enough to get 35 mpg (that's CAFE +, my friend), from it's 220-ish hp, GDI, 2.3L I4, base motor. The V6 version, (3.0L?, 3.6L?) would hit 30+ mpg and be ABSOLUTELY thrilling to drive. And of course some version, let's say the Z/28, would pack a V8, let's call a Gen V 5.0L, with 425 hp, and near 30 mpg. I'd buy more than one.
Chery doesn't have to build it, GM will.
My ideal ponycar would be maybe half a foot shorter than the 5th gen and 400-500 pounds lighter, across the board. It would be small and light enough to get 35 mpg (that's CAFE +, my friend), from it's 220-ish hp, GDI, 2.3L I4, base motor. The V6 version, (3.0L?, 3.6L?) would hit 30+ mpg and be ABSOLUTELY thrilling to drive. And of course some version, let's say the Z/28, would pack a V8, let's call a Gen V 5.0L, with 425 hp, and near 30 mpg. I'd buy more than one.
Chery doesn't have to build it, GM will.
It sounds like your primary complaint regarding the current gen is that GM didn't start on Alpha early enough for the it. But we know why this is, don't we? I mean, other than who said what when, it's all water under the bridge.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,011
Charlie,
The cobalt is 180" long for the coupe, so you are envisioning a 4" longer car? What will be, will be, but I guess I am old school, I kind of like bigger cars (not mid 70's land yacht big) like the length of my 91 Z28 (which by the way was 2.6" longer than the f5
).
]
BTW, are you going to Indy in September? Be nice to reacquaint and drink a beer.
The cobalt is 180" long for the coupe, so you are envisioning a 4" longer car? What will be, will be, but I guess I am old school, I kind of like bigger cars (not mid 70's land yacht big) like the length of my 91 Z28 (which by the way was 2.6" longer than the f5
).]
BTW, are you going to Indy in September? Be nice to reacquaint and drink a beer.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I'm keen to know Dale Earnhardt Jr's opinion on the test mule, however. I know he commented it has too much body roll but I didn't get his final analysis... he's surely someone whose opinion would be greatly respected, no matter how much subjective thought is expressed here without any of us having driven one.
He would know if the 5G has captured the Camaro spirit better than most!
Last edited by SSbaby; Jul 24, 2008 at 07:25 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Actually, the Cobalt is quite abit smaller than that. This is more SN95 Mustang sized. Get used to cars getting smaller and lighter James, it's gonna happen VERY fast. Saab just announced that it's future cars will ride on one architecture smaller than originally planned. The 9-3 going from Epsilon II to Delta II and the 9-1 going from Delta II to Gamma. Today, Ford announced that it is essentially bringing over it's entire European car line. In a couple of years, a 190", 39xx lbs, Camaro, will be considered a HUGE car - like '72 Electra 225 huge.
Another point, why would you settle for a 5.0L V8 (at GM’s additional expense) when an LS3 is virtually no heavier nor larger? And how would a 5.0L V8 be any more fuel efficient?
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 11,157
From: Nashville, TN area
I don't think that Chevrolet would fly him all the way to Australia to have him say those words only to ignore them.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
The LS3 is a Gen IV, I'm thinking more in terms of a possible Gen V. At this point a "5.0" is purely fictional, I'd imagine a reduced mass car could benefit CAFE-wise, from reduced displacement.
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,298
From: Detroit, MI USA
Thanks for continuing to post on here even though it has gotten pretty ugly on a few occasions. I am sure nobody is really happy with the weight and the engineers have probably lost sleep over the past few years trying to think of places where they could save a few pounds. I appreciate their efforts and am sure that this will be the best Camaro ever in many ways. I have maintained from day one that I will have one in my garage (still don't know convertible or coupe, SS or Z28, or what color but I will have one). There hasn't been a Camaro yet that I don't like and I know that the current team will work to ensure that there never is one that I won't like.
There have been a lot of complaints about this car and I've voiced my opinion on quite a few of them (how long it has taken, how much it weighs, and now this HUD thing). I've also come to the defense of people who complain about weight just because I think its a valid complaint. I don't mean to degrade the hard work that went into making this car and I know being an engineer myself that they worked hard to keep the weight down. I also know that they worked hard to make that weight as invisible as possible when your behind the wheel. I'll be glad when I finally get to sample their work. I'm proud to be a part of the Camaro cult (although I prefer to refer to you as Scott or Fbodfather, it just creeps me out when people just say 'father). Thanks for helping us keep the faith over the past 7 years and thanks for understanding that its our passion for the Camaro (and Firebird) that compells us to bring up every detail we aren't completely satisfied with.
There have been a lot of complaints about this car and I've voiced my opinion on quite a few of them (how long it has taken, how much it weighs, and now this HUD thing). I've also come to the defense of people who complain about weight just because I think its a valid complaint. I don't mean to degrade the hard work that went into making this car and I know being an engineer myself that they worked hard to keep the weight down. I also know that they worked hard to make that weight as invisible as possible when your behind the wheel. I'll be glad when I finally get to sample their work. I'm proud to be a part of the Camaro cult (although I prefer to refer to you as Scott or Fbodfather, it just creeps me out when people just say 'father). Thanks for helping us keep the faith over the past 7 years and thanks for understanding that its our passion for the Camaro (and Firebird) that compells us to bring up every detail we aren't completely satisfied with.
I know this sounds sarcastic -- but I swear that some must think that our engineers PURPOSELY made the car heavy........it's almost like 'well....now...let's see how we can make this car heavy - let's see how we can HURT OURSELVES in terms of CAFE --- oh -- wait -- we're all foolish and stupid and none of us own Camaros and Firebirds and live/eat/breathe them..........
Sorry - but I'm losing what little patience I have -- I have explained over and over again WHY it is nearly impossible to get a Camaro down to 3,500 pounds and at the same time offer what most people want at an AFFORDABLE price....
Dear GOD how many times have I heard about the axles or brakes in the 4th gen -- all due to weight concerns -- but it seems that some have selective memory.
I just wish I could drag a few people (BY THE EARS) into a meeting and make them sit there and listen to the thousands upon thousands of man-hours that went into trying to get this car right and pull weight out of it AND KEEP IT AFFORDABE...........
But -- as I keep pointing out -- (and getting ignored.....) the other two domestics are facing the same problem.........
SO........
Either:
>We in Detroit are all stupid and should listen to a few on this board that evidently know more than any of these engineers.........
or
>a few people on here might want to consider listening to those in the industry that perhaps know something.................
I apologize to most of you -- I really hate posting a thread like this -- but I'm running on very little sleep -- and I know how hard the team has worked on this car -- and I can't quite understand how a few people who are not even in this industry have evidently figured this car out completely - WITHOUT EVER HAVING DRIVEN IT.........
So -- to most of you -- please forgive me. To a few of you - sorry -- but it's a free country -- you can choose as you will.......but I have a long memory and I think I'm gonna serve up some words for you to eat...........
Last edited by Fbodfather; Jul 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 190
From: Chandler, AZ
Thanks for the post Fbodfather. I have tried to explain this also and some guys just don't get it. Hell, look at the BMW M3, the spent a ton trying to get the weight down and even put a carbon fiber roof and hood on it and still came out at 3700lbs. Given the balance of the car I would guess it will be just fine. Personally I appreciate all that you folks have done at GM to bring back my favorite car. I have owned a 69 and 94 so I am looking forward to a 2010 SS.
