That is simply not true! One cannot ignore the impact of power and torque. If it were true, this Kia Rio would be a fun car:



Nope. Not with 110 HP.

 

Oh come on Big. Now you are being ridiculous. If I posted a a picture of a Peterbilt semi or Caterpillar bulldozer could we ignore the impact of their power and torque on fun to drive?

 

...depends. What would the Semi, or the bulldozer be doing? I could think of a few fun things about those two.

 

I see that you're in Puerto Rico. Did they sell an LS3-powered GTO down there, or was that a typo? If they did, details?

A bobtail (unladen) semi tractor can be quite fun to drive. Not the way a Camaro is fun to drive, but those things can MOVE.

They even have racing semi tractors! I'll admit that it's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen, but still.

 

Your examples were far out into the irrelevant extreme; mine was not. Plenty of heavy, powerful vehicles are designed to be a blast to drive. Dodge Charger SRT8... Pontiac G8 GT and upcoming GXP... Mercedes CLK63-AMG (3950 lb, 500 hp)... Jaguar XKR (3850 lb, 420 hp). (I haven't even begun talking about trucks - like the Hummer H2, the Trailblazer SS, and the Jeep Cherokee SRT8). What lightweight, low-power, low-torque coupes and sedans are a lot of fun to drive? My point - power/tq are a MUCH more essential ingredient for driving fun, than is low weight.

 

I think that both a Mercedes SL65 AMG and a Lotus Exige would be a blast to drive. In totally different ways, but still fun. There is more than one way that a car can be fun. And no, neither formula fits what I envision as ideal for Camaro.

 

The Dodge is at least 4"-6" taller and the weight I listed was from the AWD version and was still only 3738#...so I still ain't buying it.

BTW, unless you have production measurements, how can you say they're similar in size? They're obviously different......Camaro is noticeably smaller....

 

After going back and looking at all the mule pics I could, which are smaller than the concept, I can't see how the Camaro would end up @ 4,000lbs...

 

I agree with Z284ever on this for the most part. You just can't escape the performance penalty of extra mass without a lot more power, even though it isn't nearly as expensive to add power to a car with less weight. Now sure you could make a 600HP 4300lbs Camaro, but it won't handle as well as a 3500 or even 3700lbs one.

Some seem to think the Camaro should be the big personal cruiser coupe type car like a Monte Carlo or Thunderbird, which is clearly the wrong class.

 

I see it that way, too....but I think the width aspect is skewed in that pic. I'm 99.9% sure that Camaro is going to be wider than the Avenger. based solely on the fact that Fbodfather said it's gonna be wider than a 'Vette, and the Avenger is just about as wide as a 'Vette.

 

C6 is listed as 72.6 in. wide while the Avenger is 71.8 in. wide....

 

Who here is impressed with 1/4 mile times, lap times, mpg, or any other performance (or non-performance number) from the 500 HP GT500? Care to guess why I ask that question?

I, for one, am not. The only thing it has going for it is that it is stupidly easy to modify (and hell on all the drivetrain parts when you do).

 

Plenty, I would wager. I suppose it depends on your definition of "fun".

-Honda S2000
-Solstice/Sky
-Mazda Miata
-Toyota MR2
-Mazda RX8
-(older, lighter) BMW 3-series
-Subaru WRX
-Even older Honda Civics and Accords are viewed as fun cars to drive for many.

The secret to a fun-to-drive car is striking a great balance between heft and power. As Bob said, the GT500 for many does not provide the total experience that the old '03 and '04 Cobras do. Brute force is good, but it isn't the only requirement.

 

and even the 03/04 cobras are pigs.

 

At least, that's what we thought 4-5 years ago....