LOL, so, you are saying they should have made a Camaro, with a V-8(whether YOU want one or not, the segment DEMANDS a big, powerful V-8) weighing the same as or LESS than a Corvette; and then priced it within spitting distance of a Mustang? OK man, this Camaro apologist (great term by the way) wishes you well in your fantasy land.
I seriously do have to question, however, why some people, yourself included, are even here anymore. The car is what it is, if you are that disgusted with it, MOVE ON.

 

x2

Right. If people want a 2-ton car that seats 2 people and gets crappy gas mileage, they will buy it. Also, the new Camaro has NO MORE interior room than it's predecessor, yet weighs 500+ lbs more.....interesting. Something tells me that more than 10-15 people are going to be turned off by those kinds of things.
If a car weighs 2 tons, it should be able to carry at least 4 ADULTS and their stuff comfortably. I guess that means the Challenger and the G8. If a person wants 2 seats in a real performance car that's not a pig, that means Corvette. Where does the Camaro fit again?

Hoss, you might want to rethink that statement.
For 35 YEARS, the Camaro was within 200-300lbs of a Corvette. Now, the Camaro is 800lbs heavier than the Corvette. I could give a great big flying crap about the Mustang, because parts and technology haven't "trickled down" from it to the Camaro. The Camaro has ALWAYS been a "poor man's Corvette"; now it isn't even close.

Is that real enough?

In closing and in the spirit of the new Camaro
"Bedeeabedeeabedeeabedeea, that all folks."

 

Dan, let's not go crazy here. Sub-3200 pound Camaros with V8s were rare 40 years ago, when you didn't have things like crash standards and plain-ol' power options (windows, locks, etc.) Heck, look at all they had to go through just to get the Corvette Z06 down to that point. Modern V8 power is a weight changer, there's no doubt about it.

3500-3600 pounds is the sweet spot for a modern day, 2+2, V6 or V8 powered "pony" car IMO.

 

Oh? So now I can't even agree with someone? Dude, forget about me, I'm just an insignificant peon.

If this car doesn't succeed, certainly as you say, consumer economics will be factor. Economics (fuel prices) is also driving consumer demand. Consumers are demanding lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient products. You can stick your head in the sand and say it ain't so if you want, but you are just fooling yourself.

Oh yeah, and then there's CAFE.

This car's stunning sheetmetal will have people looking at it - sure, but will they buy, (I mean real people not the other 10-15 people on this board), in numbers that GM requires? And if they don't, is that it for Camaro?

I fear for this car. I fear that it's the wrong package for the times. And the way GM has been slashing programs, if this car doesn't move on the sales floor - the Camaro brand will be crucified for it.

That's where I'm coming from....

 

is the mustang slated for a complete redesign yet? i dont mean a new front bumper, i mean a whole new car.

id guess somewhere around 2015 right?

maybe the 5th gen will be like the first gen and only last a few (successful) years, and then the 6th gen mustang and camaro will come at the same time.


edit:
just found this article
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...6/1023/CARNEWS

also according to the specs sheet the 5th gen is 190.4" long. 75.5" wide, and 54.2" tall.

the stang is 187.6", 74", and 54.5".


the camaro has shorter overhangs and a pointier front end, so i dont think youll feel those extra couple inches at all. plus its a little less tall which goes a long way to looking smaller. but theyre still both too big. the challenger even more so.

 

Since when did this car weigh 2 tons, have only 2 seats, and get crappy gas mileage? Funny, how everyone is still ignoring the fact that this car is going to perform better than its predecessor in every way while still being priced close to the same as it did almost 10 years ago. Regardless of its weight "disadvantage"! It's continuing down the same traditional line that it always has. Who gives a damn about weight if it can perform better or equal to its competition as well as to cars built with a similar architecture (V8, 2+2, RWD) that cost double? It's completely arbitrary at this point. You might as well doom the Camaro to failure because the mirrors are an inch wider than its predecessor which is going to cause excessive drag therefore slowing the car down.

Let's rethink your statement here. So the Camaro has the same V8 in a 2+2 format without all of "exotic" build materials and somehow it doesn't fit the "poor man's Corvette" formula? Give me a break. As I stated above the weight of this car will mean nothing when "real" track testing is done. Especially to the average consumer. The REAL truth is that this car is still going to perform just behind the Corvette for <75% of the price. Just like its always been.

Fbodfather himself (as well as a numerous others) have tried to explain to you to no avail. I never said you were insignificant but in the grand scheme of things you make up a very, very small percentage of the population. Hell, this entire message board makes up only a small percentage of the potential Camaro buyer population.

I do agree that the public is going to turn towards lighter more fuel efficient cars but we're still several years away from the 70's gas crisis part duex. Even so the weight of the Camaro isn't going to be anywhere near the "axe murderer" that you are making it out to be. The Mustang and Challenger will also take a dramatic hit once we reach that point if they haven't doen a complete makeover. By then hopefully all three manufacturers will have sold enough cars to make an all new versions. So am I sticking my head in the sand or are you claiming that the sky is falling?

If a car runs the 1/4 in the low 13 to high 12 second range bone stock, pulls .90+ g's on the skidpad, and can stop on a dime all while giving an exception fit and finish, ride quality, and eye catching good looks then what does it matter what it weighs? Especially if its equal to or better than the rest of the cars in its segment in terms of price, fuel economy, and performance.

 

Welp, bookmark this post and open it in 30 months. We'll know then.

 

I know this didn't respond to my post, but there was an interesting point here.

I don't think anyone is debating what is possible. But in this case, a few of us are saying that the Camaro is competitive (I'd say midpack) with other cars of similar or smaller size & power. Here you're saying it should be better than everything else. I.e. pointing out what other cars its size or smaller with similar power weigh doesn't carry much weight (pun unintentional).

So relative to your assertion that it *IS* possible and your experience in vehicle design and structures, I'd be interested in your comments on the following.

1. Jag went to a lot of effort to make their XK light weight by giving it an all aluminium (brit spelling since it's British ) unibody. Yet their XK-R is barely lighter than the Camaro, making adjustments for equipment. Any idea why it's that heavy?

2. Any guesses how much money it would cost to drop, say, 100 pounds from a Malibu (let's work with another Chevy, but if you're rather use it instead, feel free)?

 

Bah, half the problem is that they're designing the car for the people who originally liked the camaro when they were first coming out. Now you've all gained 100 lbs and have hip problems and want some cooshy ride and the car had to grow with you!

They should be making a product for young guys (and girls that like guy-toys. If I wanted a poodle I'd buy...you know...a poodle). Affordable performance. Show of hands: is a 33k V-8 car affordable performance?

If the v-6 is to be the regular Mustang GT hunter, which it appears to me is the case, then I'll have a tough time deciding between the two. The mustang will be faster, due to ~150lbs lighter weight and a V-8 that's putting out the same (or slightly better) horsepower and way more torque, while the Camaro is more refined. Unless ford pulls of a miracle, the revised mustang in '09 is not going to be as "nice" as the camaro.

Problem is I don't really give a rats *** about refined. A solid axle is fine with me, because I've driven cars with both and while there's a slight ride penalty, the live axle HANDLES, as in at the limit performance, great, so long as it's well set up. And I don't want leather or gizmos or anything, because my first *new* pony car is going to be the one that I KEEP. I plan on purchasing, and keeping it for many years, and then restoring it when it's old and beat up, and then keeping it even longer. And why would I pay a bunch of extra money for leather and gizmos when I'm going to be replacing them?

 

OK, OK, you got me. The Camaro has 2 "adult" seats and 2 "little people" seats.

Wow, just wow. So let me get this straight. You think that a Camaro with 14hp less and 800lbs more weight is going to perform "close" to a Corvette? What's your definition of "close" anyway? Would about 10 car lengths at the end of the quarter mile fit your definition of "close"? Like you said, they basically have the same engine, so Mr. Newton, please tell us the determining factor in the performance disparity between the two cars. That's just one measure, the rest of the quantifiable measures are sure to be just as "close".
Also, if you think the Camaro has "always performed just behind the Corvette", you need a history lesson on these cars. In case you were just born in the 21st century, there have actually been models of the Camaro that have outperformed the Corvette. However, with this generation Camaro, that will never happen. Again, it's not even close. Oh well, hopefully a lot of women and young people spring for the V6.

Mid 13s isn't too impressive when you have 422hp. Kind of like a Mustang GT500 that runs high 12s with 500hp. .90g on a skidpad? Wow, that's still not as good as a 1985 Camaro IROC-Z with an "old-tech" suspension and 245/50R16 tires. Again, not impressive.

Let me put this another way by using an analogy.

Let's say I'm looking for a woman to have "fun" with - not an everyday relationship, but "fun".
I see a personal ad of a woman with a face picture and she's completely hot. I read on and her ad says she weighs 300lbs. That's not my idea of "fun"; maybe yours but not mine. When I say I'm looking to have "fun" with a woman, I'm looking for someone who can move, someone I can toss around a bit. Unless you're a 400lb power lifter, you aren't going to be tossing a 300lb woman around. Anyways, again, the woman may have a gorgeous face and the best personality on the planet, but I'm looking to have "fun", the weight is just too much. Maybe if I were looking for an everyday long-term relationship, MAYBE I MIGHT be able to look past the weight, but.....

Get the picture?

 

The only cars in its "class" (lower-cost rwd V8) are the Mustang and Challenger. Both were also built on 4-door luxury sedan platforms and are also overweight (the Mustang less so, the Challenger a more so. Any other cars that have "similar power" are luxury cars which cost a lot more and sell to people who aren't the least bit worried about $5, $7, $10 or more gasoline. Different market there, and one that demands bank-vault doors, a high ratio of sprung to unsprung mass, and isolation from the outside world.

The 350Z is worth mentioning, as its performance and price points are similar. It's based on the 1st gen G35, another 4-door luxury sedan (with a 2-door version as well), and it's also grossly overweight compared to what it could/should have been. It has less power, but I bet its engine is barely if any lighter than an LS V8. And remember POWER doesn't add nearly as much chassis weight as WEIGHT itself does. Anyway, this pig of a Z weighs 3300 lb., 560 lb. lighter than the new Camaro. The 370Z will be lighter-weight, they must be divorcing it from the G chassis (new G has gained a lot of weight).

It is built for a different market (see above). Jaguar builds LUXURY cars, not sports cars. And they build cars for people who are largely uninfluenced by gasoline prices. At ~3650 lb. the Jag is lighter relative to its LUXURY car competition. And it *is* significantly lighter than the new Camaro.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: You can't "add light weight" after the fact. It's too late for this Camaro. You could spend a ton of money now and save only tens of pounds.

Here's hoping for a 6th-gen built on a much smaller/lighter platform.

 

Will do.

Just like it's always been.


The fact that you want to resort to name calling really speaks alot about you. Yes, there have been F-bodies that have out performed the Corvette (my Firehawk is an example of that.) And yes a stripper 1LE or B4C Camaro from the mid 80's can pull .90+ g's on a skidpad. However both of these cars were rare extremely niche market cars. Who's to say that SLP, or GMPP isn't going to offer a spring and shock package that will allow the new Camaro to pull almost 1 g or better?

Also when the 3rd gen f-bodies were running mid to low 14's stock the Corvette's were about a 1/2 second faster. Moving to 4th gens the f-bodies were running mid to high 13's stock while the Corvette's were about a 1/2 second faster. Now towards the end of the 4th gen some of the f-bodies were running close to what an auto LS1 Vette would run but the mph still wasn't there. So skip forward to today and the current LS3 Corvette runs somewhere in the mid to high 12's. Guess what the new Camaro is slated to run? That's right, about a 1/2 second slower. It maybe a little more than that so I'll give you a little bit of cake here but the gap isn't going to be so large as you desperately want it to be.

The truth is I think that you are bitter because they didn't build the exact car that you wanted. Even though the majority here knows that GM had to build a car to best suit the masses (no pun intended) you still want a car that clearly isn't a Camaro. If you don't like the car then don't buy one. Plain and simple. Why anyone is still crying about the weight even though it was rumored that it was going to be this heavy for almost a year now is beyond me. What's done is done. The new Camaro looks great, will perform even greater, and will do so while staying affordable. I've tired of repeating myself so as soooo many on this board has said before:

"Wait till you drive it yourself."

/endthread.

 

There's some fair points made here, but it really is time this same old debate stopped ruining threads...especially when it ends up the same way every time.

 

I cannot wait to for the day someone takes a stock 00-02 ls1 fbody vs. a stock 5th SS.

All this will be put to rest...

All things being equal driver wise......what will the results be ?

I am going to say that it could go 1/2 car length for the winner.

rwhp dyno for 00-02 fbody 315rwhp
rwhp dyno for ls3 380 rwhp

that is 65 more hp

weight for 4th gen 3400 vs 3900 is 500lbs

1/4 mile argument is 65rwhp vs 500lbs, also IRS vs Solid

We'll see I am waiting.....I just keep waiting.......cmon , I don't wanna wait anymore........

 

No, really it won't...

Even if the F5 puts 5 car lengths on the F4, or ANY number of car lengths...

It should have put more.



I KNOW this car is not designed with guys like me in mind (those who are quite content with a giant engine surrounded by plastic... and little else...), but the car is too heavy for my needs.

The weight instantly makes me think "used Corvette" instead of "new Camaro", I want to go fast and the 700-800lbs. weight difference between a Corvette and a F5 just can't be ignored.

Were I to spend equivalent money on both cars, no matter what I do, dollar for dollar the used Vette is still going to put 7 to 8 car lengths on the F5.

Now, AGAIN... that might not be a bad thing in total... the car HAD TO grow up, and guys like me weren't a big enough market.