I just don't understand this...

It seems to me that many of the performance enthusiasts that have harped for so long about how they want the car back, are already trying to destroy it.

"It better have ________ (engine/horsepower/brakes)", "It better not weight more than ________", "It better have a live a live axle so I don't have to worry about wheel hop", and the like are fine and all, but telling GM (via this or other means) that you won't buy it if it's not got these things right out of the box doesn't make much sense to me.

Look, I will be happy with: A quality built car, that looks like the concept car (with needed production changes like lighting and mirrors), with a good, middle-of-the road V8 that produces good power with decent fuel economy.

I don't want or need 30 MPG, if it means paying $5k more for the car. I'll take 15-20 MPG if it saves me that much money

I don't want or need 505 HP V8 engine factory, if it means adding $10k to the price. I'll take a good 350-430 HP version if it saves me that much money.

I don't need a rear end that will handle all the abuse that I can throw at it if it means adding $3k to the price. I will take a good, middle-of-the-road rear end that will give me years of trouble-free service if I'm not racing all the time.

I don't want or need to pay $5k more for a car made from a bunch of composite materials to reduce the weight of the car just so I can say that it's lighter than my 4th gen was. I'll take standard materials and a car weight close to what my 4th gen weighed if it saves me money.

We can't ask for and expect GM to give us 'EVERYTHING' we want, AND make it affordable for the masses. They just can't do that. They've got to make a car that the masses are going to want, and the majority of the buying public probably won't want these features. Shoot, half of them probably don't even care, or realize what they are or what they do?

Besides, you can always reduce weight, increase horsepower, beef up the rear end, and impove handling all at home. There's no sense in asking the factory to do all the work for you. Are you trying to price the car right out of the hands of the target audience? Are you trying to set GM up for failure?

I want the car, and I want it to be a great platform to start with, something that I can customize and make my own. I don't want GM to do all the work for me, what's the point?

 

Good post I agree on alot of that. I will be very happy with a car that looks like the concept and the LS2 power is fine with me for the Street.

 

DITTO!!!

 

So you want a Camaro with a 'middle of the road V8' that gets 15-20 mpg (not 30 mpg as advertised), as long as it saves you $5,000.

You'll take 350-430 hp (vs 505), if it saves you $10,000.

You'll take a glass rear end if it saves you $3,000.

You'll take a heavier Camaro as long as you can save $5,000.

So your looking for an overweight, gas hog, 350-430 hp Camaro with an exploding rear end for an out the door price of $8,000?

My advice to you:

Don't do the blue acid.

 

I agree with most of your post, but the above 2 points are kinda crazy.

With the 6spd LS1s, they were capable of getting ~28-30mpg on the highway. I think it'd be rediculous if we got a ~400hp car that had rating of ~20mpg +/- 1mpg.

I also think all the crap we put up with, with the 7 5/8" (?) 10 bolt rear end in the 4th gen, that 99% of us are fed up and done with glass rears. I believe that they (GM engineers, etc.) will tell you that THAT rear end was "middle-of-the-road". Well, I'm sorry, i'd like something a little stronger this time around, so I'm not concerned with running drag radials on a stock car.

Mike

 

I think he was exagerating on the mileage just to make a point and I agree with him.

On the rears, the 3rd and 4th gen rears were weak for us who liked to race which is a small percentage of people that actually buy these cars. Again, this was the point he's making.

I don't really care if they offer a standard bulletproof rear or not (it has to hold up to factory power - given). But it WOULD be nice if they had an optional bulletproof rear from the factory; that would be an option that I would check. If not, i'd upgrade it if I got serious into racing to where I destroyed it or something. But if I spend 35k on a new car, i'm not going to be ******* it at the track every weekend. I'll get a 4th gen if that's what I want to do.

 

My 3rd gen's BW 9 bolt is pretty bullet proof.

 

You got it man! Great post LWillmann!

 

I think he is making a bigger point then the specifics you pointed out.

Other than the gas mileage, I agree with what he is trying to say.

The car has to appeal to a wide audience, not just us, and that means the price has to be right.

I don’t want my rear to explode but I don’t need something to hold up to 600 lbs/ft launching on slicks…..if you get my drift…..and neither does the masses….

I’m not worried about the weight…..we know it will be just as heavy as the 4th gen

 

Well, just me, but I read it as a call to mediocrity. That's not the energy that we need in this stage of the game.

Again, just me....

 

If the top Camaro is equally as heavy as my SS, I'll be doing backflips.

 

I’ve posted this before, only some of you will understand. . .

Why can’t GM build a road going car equivalent of the Jeep Rubicon.

The 2007 Rubicon will have 32” Rock crawling tires. . . this would be like the new Camaro using a sticky summer tire (similar to found on an STI or EVO). The BFG Mud Terrains found on the Rubi is what many off-road enthusiasts throw on their trail vehicles. . . this isn’t a half-a$$ performance tire.

The 2007 Rubicon has Dana 44’s with Air lockers, and low gears, and an ultra low transfer case. . . this would be like the camaro coming with a 12 bolt rear (or at least something as strong as the TB SS rear.)

Heck, it even has electronic disconnecting front sway bar.

So, give me a 3500lb Z28 with a 12 bolt rear with 4.11’s and some sticky road race/ autocross tires from the factory.

mike

 

The problem with the weight thing is, it sounds like the car might not weigh close to what a 4th gen weighed.

 

I don't know if I would call it bulletproof, as it was dealing with much less power. The 9 bolts were stronger though, no doubt. Sucks GM didn't use those on the 4th gens.

 

Charlie, let's not put words in Lee's mouth. No where do I see that he said he'd settle for an "overweight" car with an "exploding rear end" and wants it for $8,000.

But I think he makes some great points. In what universe is a $30,000 425HP 6.2L Camaro SS with IRS that weighs 3800 lbs and is the fastest car in its class a failure?

In the CamaroZ28.com-It-better-have-an-LS7-and-be-2999-lbs-for-$25,000-dollars forum, aka the 5th gen forum.

The unrealistic expectations aren't new. How many times have we (meaning this forum) had this same debate over IRS or weight with 50% of people swearing not to buy it if it is IRS and the other 50% if it is live axle? Certain people love to pull an arbitrary weight out of the air and swear not to buy the car if it is over X lbs.

As far as the weight goes, its going to be heavier than anybody really wants it to be in an ideal world. But guess what? This isn't the ideal world.

It will weigh what it will weigh, period. It will come in at a comparable weight to its contemporaries given the limits of modern material costs, safety equipment, regulatory environment, content, etc.

We all need to remember that weight, rear end durability, etc. etc. is all dependent heavily on building a Camaro at a "Chevrolet" price point. Unless you guys have unlimited quantities of unobtanium you can donate to GM, you're probably not going to get the car of your dreams in all respects.

And for the last time I wish some of you guys would get it through your brains the car WILL BE IRS, PERIOD. Its over, settled, done etc. There will be no "12-bolt" in a Camaro. Hell that is an ancient rear end anyway and would itself be overweight and too inefficient for them to seriously consider in a new product that has to meet given MPG requirements, etc. Its great for racers but then again we don't have the same considerations as a car company, do we? Of course not, and that's the bigger point here.