Double Post

 

You have a point, some of the DNA included the long hood, sloping rear glass, taillight shape similarities and so on. But overall the 3gens were a lot more modern and striking, not just the looks either. PERFORMANCE, especially handling, took a major leap forward, thanks to new stiffness and enhancements in front suspension and steering. And after a couple weak years at the intro, the 3gens began having real power as well, compared to the smog-eqpt-impaired 2gens.

 

The 3rd gen were lookers when they came out, looking angular and missle-like at the same time, I still remember the 1st time I saw one in person (11pm in Akron Ohio, on my way back to Pittsburgh after visiting some relatives at a closed dealership).

Although they set new levels of handling (and as it turned out initially, ride harshness), it was a looong way from being a performance car. Though they had cross fire injection, 3rd gen Z28s were much slower then the previous year's 350 Z28, it had it's lunch handed to it by the new 2 BARREL Mustang GT.

One person here may not believe this, but the 1983 Camaro Z28 in top performance level, was no quicker in the quarter mile than a '78 Mustang II with 302 & 4 speed. The 305 Monza Spyders were even marginally quicker.


The 85 HOs put Camaro back in the performance game. It's just a shame the much lighter same year Mustang 5.0s had 15 more horse power and a bit more torque.

 

Those CFI car were painfully slow.

Here's some trivia for you. To save money, GM used the manifold base from the '69 Z/28 cross ram dual 4 barrel manifold.....as these castings were still available to GM.

What worked great for a 400 hp smallblock at 7200 rpm...with two Holley double pumpers; double pumping away....didn't work at all for the '82,'83 LU5.
At least they looked pretty neat...and it was pretty cool watching the hood mounted "air flaps" open when you floored it.

Basic hotrodding saved the day by '83. Chevy engineers took the basic LG4 4-bbl, added a Corvette L-83 cam, dual snorkel H.O. air cleaner, free flow exhaust, 3.73 gears and 5 speed....and suddenly the 190 hp ,L-69, Z/28 was back in the hunt again.

The prototype H.O. Z/28, cleaned everyone's clock at the "24 Hours Of Nelson Ledges" (if you've never heard of Nelson's Ledges...it was an annual racing institution in the '80's).

 

Heritage is all about engineering and design sensibilities, and whether we like it or not, the Mustang was at its best when Ford dared to step over the traces. From where I stand, the 1979 Fox-platform Mustang was the best looking of the breed, if only because Ford took a minimalist approach and ditched the tacky 60s styling details. Similarly, the Camaro gained its best styling in 1998 when the decade-out-of-date sealed beam headlamps got nixed. It was an effective break with the past, which is actually a GOOD thing.

Those of us who remember the 70s as the consumate decade of crap cars look back on the Mustang II as a wrong turning for Ford. The fact that it actually sold can hardly excuse the fact that it was a cynical design, something I can never say of the F4 Camaro.

 

Perhaps some here missed my words the first time around... so they are repeated for your convenience

The hottest 1981 Z28 350 gave 175 hp... the 1984 H.O. Z28 V8, 190.

 

Wait, I'm letting the shock subside.... 3...2...1...
OK - I'm with you again!
It's great that you are happy with the trends of the car, and I'm sure you are not the only one. But apparently you and about 39,999 other people weren't sufficient to propel sales into the 2003 MY and beyond.

Need I go back and dig up previous posts in which I proclaim my personal favorite F-bod? Mid '80's ('86 has special meaning) IROC does it for me best. So we agree on this... no? That doesn't do anything to help where the car went with F4, the corporate neglect, and through years of declining sales.

And the smell they were getting was of a dying horse, rotting limb by limb into oblivion... But MAN could that dying horse run fast!

I was referring to the Mullet Magnet, the Redneck Ride, and the car that best demostrates Pride in Primer on a daily basis. And even though I'm honest enough to admit that the LT1/LS1 cars had fantastic performance, their pure-performance approach ultimately became one of their biggest downfalls IMO. Sacrificing ergonomics, driveability, feild of view, etc DID AFFECT the cars heritage, at least insofar as it being easy to live with. Beleive it or not, the first Camaros WERE NOT intended to be low-volume, low-cost super performance machines. There actually were 6-cyl cars sold to women and youngsters, and runabouts accounted for a decent amount of sales... remeber those days?

I read this, and conclude that you don't really care what car comes out, as long as it... "looks like a screaming sport coupe, and has the power to back it up!" In reality, if the car didn't resemble ANY Camaro, you'd still be happy, right? So my thoughts are this, out of respect to all those who DO want a new Camaro that is reminiscent of it's past, why don't you let the Camaro name fall on fenders that resemble it's past, and let's all hope you get a whole new car that looks nothing like any camaro ever built? Maybe yours can look like the next evolution of the F4, something NEVER YET SEEN... a flatter, sleeker, smoother catfish that will outrun any Mustang, previous F-bod, and Corvette.

We've beat this to death. You know where I stand. Keep trashing the "dying T-bird"... and I'll hold my breath for the GTOA to accept the new GTO as warmly as you.

Maybe this would be a good time for someone creative to develop a new numeral system for us too, eh? The old base-10 stuff is so OLD, and everybody has copied it to death. Of course with electronic switches only having "on" and "off" we had a need for a base-2 system, but binary is old too now, and it's been copied to death - everybody uses that. Well then there's hexidecimal, but it's been used in too much arithmetic-phase code, so it's old too. Hey - wait a minute - there may be a reason these systems are still around... they WORK! Maybe they are using them because they are basic, fundamental, AND THEY WORK! To copy something COULD mean that the user couldn't create anything better - true - , but it COULD ALSO mean that they are acknowledging what works and continuing to use it BECAUSE it works, and WORKS WELL. In code-writing, there is a perceived "least-common-denominator", which encapsulates the most effective algorithm, written with the minimal amount of code - how do you improve on that? Any variation of that is going to be either wasteful, less efficient, or simply more complex - so why mess with it? Remember who said "imitation is the best form of flattery"?

Your grandparents would likely have warned you to "never outgrow your raisin' " or "never stray from your roots" too. Mine DID. I wonder why they said things like that?...

 

Man, I sure do love my 4th gen, much more than my previous 89 Firebird.

 

ProudPony - well you have a point about the narrow focus of acceptance of the most recent 4gen's. They excel mainly in one area - performance for the dollar. And yes, some attributes were sacrificed for that. It's a shame there wasn't a way to profitably produce them at the levels they sold at. Finally, it appears we both agree the FBody was a victim of neglect and changing product priorities (eg, SUV's).

That said though, it does nothing to refute the point that the styling was a success to many... even with 'strayed heritage'... and the performance has been key in that success. Regardless of where FBody production stands today - obviously it has ended - my 02 Trans Am is a success for me since it meets and exceeds my needs and was a great value to boot. Women don't like driving it? So what?

Just couldn't resist some name calling could you. You won't see me stooping to such antics. No matter how I feel about Mustangs and their owners, when I see one on the street, even in primer, I do not treat them with disrespect and stereotypes. If anything it reminds me of tooling around with my brother way back when in his primered 57 Chevy. Also on the web I don't shove stereotypes into a discussion.

How do you know their pure-performance approach didn't in fact extend their profitable lifespan by several years in their current form? You don't now, do you? I believe it actually did. They provided a real affordable performance alternative to the milder Mustang, for those whose priority was performance.

Please. What ergonomics does the Mustang offer, other than the command-style seating position? Except for that one difference, the FBody easily has equal or better ergonomics for just about every other attribute of ergonomics one could name. Field of view is slightly better on the Mustang, especially out the rear quarters. *yawn*. Goes back again to priorities. Performance on a budget is first in my book... then styling, then versatility. Whatever the FBody gave up in rear visibility, it gained back IMHO in more swoopy and dramatic styling, plus versatility of a hatchback and folding seat. How much lumber can a Mustang carry? Yet another area where the FBody smacks it down Uh-oh... only REDNECKS want to carry lumber right?!

No kidding? Thanks for the profound revelation. And even today the V6 Fbodies are true to that heritage. Sure it's a shame they don't appeal more to women and those unable to drive by looking thru mirrors. But you just don't get it do you? Call me selfish. I DO NOT CARE. I'm happy with mine!

I'm sorry, is that some kind of new crime?

Never did I berate those who want Camaro cues in the 5gen. If they want it, fine. I won't flip out if the 5gen has such details. I don't hold it against other fans if they prefer that either. I do however believe I am allowed to state MY preference, that being, that GM again go boldly into new directions with the next Camaro - whether it echoes the past or not, and that they not chain themselves timidly to old shapes (a strikingly sad current example being - the "new" Ford GT). I am disappointed you felt compelled to refer to the Camaro as a catfish, although I'm not surprised, having seen other frustrated Ford owners use the same epithet.

"dying TBird" - where did I say that? You seem to have me confused with another poster.

As for staying with what works because it works... sure there is some logic in that. In fact one of the new metrics in vogue now in object-oriented software design is how MUCH code you DO reuse, vs what you write anew. But if I followed your logic to the hilt, we'd all still be using 586 chips in our PC's. You see, it's the relentless push to improve and create new things that brings us cool new products like the CTS, the Avalanche, and the H2. Where's Ford's answers to those new and unique creations?

 

This is where you lose me... a success to HOW MANY? I think everyone in this forum agrees that if the styling HAD CHANGED at all over the last decade, the car would have sold better (provided the styling updates didn't make it look worse).

Also, I don't think it's wise to omit women, their desires in a car, and their pocketbooks from the car equation. Women have constituted a HUGE percentage of both Mustang and Camaro sales FROM DAY ONE. So we just have a difference in opinion here, plain and simple, agreed?

BDnF, I still don't think you understand me as a person. I personally have nothing BUT respect for the car. You asked me how the Camaro's heritage has suffered... I was pointing out a few ways. I never said I APPROVED of those categorizations, or condoned them. But if you are man enough to try and convince me that those stereotypes don't exist for the car, give it your best shot. If anything, I fight those stereotypes for the Camaro every chance I get, but public opinion is a hard thing to change - especially for one guy.

O' contrare, that is EXACTLY what I think. The level of performance is EXACTLY what kept the cars alive as long as it did. But the moral of that story - as so many here have said - is that performance alone will NOT keep a model alive indefinitely.
Don't make it so hard for me to agree with you on something!

Parallel park your T/A on a busy narrow street in a tight space, then try the same in a 2002 Mustang. Go to lunch, and offer to take 3 buddies with you in the T/A, then try it with a Mustang. Change your spark plugs, or install a set of headers on your T/A, then try it on a Mustang. THESE types of things are as important to some people, as your professed "performance on a budget" is to you. Just as I will accept your stance as a "performance purist" who is willing to accept shortcomings in some areas to afford you maximum performance, you should be willing to accept my (and millions of others') position as an "overall practical platform enthusiast". Just because it's practical doesn't mean it can't be fast, or fun either.

Hey Z284ever... is this the guy who asked you how much lumber you could carry in your car?!?!

Again, I'm glad you are happy! I would take an opposing view to the current V6 car being completely true to the heritage of the first ones - similar with the V8 cars... sure they both had V6s but then what? At least you could get a couple people in the back of a '68 without giving them concussions or requiring them to be contorsionists, and they could see the road through the winshield too

You have every right not to care about what women want in a car.
And in the interest of keeping the cars I love around for years to come, I'll be happy to offer them what they want. So please, send your "offended women buyers" my way to help fund my high performance niche models for me...





(re: "you don't really care what car comes out, as long as it... "looks like a screaming sport coupe, and has the power to back it up!" In reality, if the car didn't resemble ANY Camaro, you'd still be happy, right?")
No, not until you start pimping the name on a car that has NOTHING to do with the cars that CREATED the legendary name itself...
If it ain't a Camaro, let's not call it one, OK? For me, not just "any cheap high performance car" will do. The new Camaro should - no MUST - be related to the cars that created it's legendary name, otherwise, give it a new name and let it make it's own reputation.

Is THIS your idea of a frustrated Ford owner?

After this post, I'm letting this thing go. This conversation is going back into the same old areas we have all covered a bazillion times. The F4 was an AWESOME performer, there is no questioning that. But pure performance won't sell 200K units/year, not in the current market. As badly as I want to see the Camaro come back, I want it to come back right, or not at all.

Respectfully, Peacefully,
Proud.

 

I don't know about you, but every kid my age who knows aany thing about cars simply worships the ground that the post 98 T/A's drove one...however few could afford the $30,000+ price. Even a V6 Firebird couldn't be had for under $20K.

When i bought my car i wanted a Z28, but none were under my $25K price limit so i setled for a V6. Even then I wanted a car with ground effects because a base Camaro looks like an over grown first gen Chrysler Sebring. I really think if the Camaro had a bit of a sportier look in base form it would have sold better. Maybe redesigned ground effects I dunno. And don't make them a $1,000+ option

Of course arguing how the Mustang IIis flawed with a guy named Proud Pony is pointless. Maybe he should be Proud Pinto?

 

or Bucking Bronco!
or Mustang Mad!
or T-Bird Terror!
or Masked Marauder!

LOL!
Like, have a beer and a good day, eh?

 

Call me whatever you want, I still say it looks like a CATFISH.

 

I love my CATFISH SS.

 

A success - to those who bought them! Why didn't they sell more? There are a lot of reasons. People wanted SUV's... Demographics have been changing... GM put marketing emphasis on high-profit trucks and SUV's... plus likely other things too. Styling updates (which BTW I believe were a significant improvement in 1998) were only a nominal factor IMO.
Sure, sales to women are important. My point, which granted was stated poorly, was simply that I am very satisfied with my FBody, and the possibility women don't also like it is therefore a minor disappointment to me. It's great the Mustang is a success with women... and great it helps fund hi-po variants like the new Cobra and Mach I. However, even with women helping, the latest Mustang still has no model which is a bang-for-buck match for a lowly new Z28!
Huh? What's that got to do with "being a man?" Maybe you don't intend to perpetuate and reinforce the demeaning stereotypes you mentioned (and from other posts of yours, I tend to think you have good intentions)... but you should understand that simply repeating them reinforces them in people's eyes. You have every right to... but I also have a right to challenge anyone perpetuating stereotypes. I could say some about Mustang owners I have seen and known... but I refuse to out of respect.
If I lived somewhere I had to parallel park a lot, frankly, I'd move. I HATE urban living. Another reason Mustangs aren't for me! As for my back seat - answer me this. Why can I sit up straight in the back of my T/A, but not in the back of a new Mustang? And so pls tell me again, how is that a better seat? Another thing about ingress/egress... it is easier on a T-top Fbody due to the openings... which of course you cannot get on a Mustang. Changing spark plugs - why should I? I'm already putting out 310-350 hp, and they are good for 100k miles. Same deal with headers - why bother?
Maybe I'm not stating my opinion clearly. I don't care if the 5gen Camaro evokes a bunch of previous Camaro memories. If it does, that's fine too. I agree a bunch of people are drooling (not that there's anything wrong with that!) to have the next Camaro show "just the right amount" of heritage styling cues. I was simply saying that for me that is not a priority. The most important (in fact CRUCIAL) characteristics for the 5gen IMHO are brutal performance, great performance value, versatility, 2+2 seating, and styling that says at a glance: "sleek, muscular coupe!" Go ahead, GM, be bold! Make some more new Camaro history!