That's a sketch by Sangyup Lee, who designed the 5th gen. This was an early design sketch.

 

It's no "guess". It IS the cartoon version of the 5th Gen. Notice the artist's signature (who it is)?

 

Trust me, it was no effort (or believe it was, if that makes you feel better). However, I can't find your post with "references". I can only find where you disagree, and where you wanted to add a qualifier.

So I ask again - what is the correct definition, and is this simply your personal idea (which is fine), or are you referring to some reference/authoritative opinion that you might be able to show all of us?

Sure. Which definition do you want? Personally, I wouldn't define a Camaro or Mustang as a "compact" car, but then again, in this particular instance, we're talking about the government classifications, and not some reasonable interpreter of reality.

Concur.

But back to the pony car definition, please.

Thank you. And believe me...I wouldn't go to any trouble for you. Honest injun.

 

Good. So you agree with me. And Z284ever's sig is truly meaningless.

https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=45

Nothing more to add. Discussion over. Good night.

Now back to regular viewing.

 

Nope, I don't agree with you. Also, if you'll notice, you chose one of the four definitions on that page - which happened to deal with the new-at-the-time Mustang. Guess you kinda pick the one that helps your cause, and ignore the others, huh?

I understand. And I understand why you would want this discussion to be over. If I were in your shoes, I would do the same.

Though I wouldn't cherry-pick comments....but I digress.

Good night. Or good day, in your case.

Bob

 

Nope. I interpret it literally. It's just some others are shifting the goal posts... and applying the modern day term to both Camaro and Mustang and redefining what they literally should be...

If Camaro and Mustang always were pony cars, then they also are today! Nobody can change that definition! No matter about size or weight as they certainly aren't compacts (in any definition of the word).

I don't think you understood my reasoning as you didn't bother reading my input in the entire thread. But that's OK because I know you're not the sort of person to admit you misunderstood.

Carry on if you wish. I know not to take you too seriously, anyway.

 

Please bring T-tops back. I'm not buying the arguments for not having them.

They were such an integral component to the F-body experience. Taking the t-tops off my 89 Formula in college and cruising just made the world's troubles melt away. They weren't gay like a sunroof and didn't have the soft top issues of a convertible.

Though I've never driven a targa, I'd be open to that option.

 

I'd honestly like to see a complete redesign for the 6th Gen.

In the 60s/70s I can understand a car weighing as much as they did because of components. IMO there's absolutely no reason for a car in 2010 to weigh so much.

69 Camaro, which the 5th Gen was inspired by.

186 Inches Long
51.1 Inches Tall
74 Inches Wide
3435 Curb Weight

5th Gen Camaro
190.4 Inches Long
54.2 Inches Tall
75.5 Inches Wide
3860 Curb Weight


While I think it's great that overall the Camaro is smaller than the current gen Mustang and Challenger, it's really apples to oranges when I'm considering the 135i from BMW. 300HP, 6 Speed Manual, RWD and it weighs less than my 4th gen Z28.

I'm also with Shockwave on the overhead option. I'm more of a Targa fan than a T-Top fan, but give people something other than just a convertible.

 

Nope. It seemed like you were denying what you'd previously stated.

Yep.

My main agenda is a balanced discussion. The current Camaro is the most successful car that GM has had in quite a long time. Some of the discussion of the next gen should reflect that.

Simply coming out with a Camaro M3 will not ensure anything like the current level of success.

 

If Chevy had the luxury of having two RWD coupes, that would be best. A larger one with a V8 for those who want that, and a small one with a top engine of a V6 for those who want small. But then you split the volume, raising the cost of all of them.

For targas, T-tops, etc., you can't please everyone. some really want it. Some don't. It does increase the weight of a car to design for T-tops, while also impairing rigidity. So there's a cost unless you design two distinct body shells. To please everyone, they need to build about two dozen different Camaros to cover all shapes and sizes (heck, there's probably someone out there who'd like FWD).

 

Screw the Chevy having the luxury, It's GM in the end.

If you want a Large Coupe with a V8 I'm sure the CTS-V coupe will be out soon enough.

Want to make it as cheap as a Chevy? The make the large coupe car an Impala (Available in both 2Dr and 4Dr) and make the Camaro smaller.

Nor do I want a reasonably sized Camaro to have a V6 as the top option for the engine. The Camaro is supposed to have a V8 and I understand that, but there's honestly no reason for the car to be so large nor weigh so much.

I understand that the Targa/T-Top option adds weight AND cost to the vehicle, but hey, if the options aren't there then I'll gladly spend my money on a car that fits what I want to drop $30k plus on.

 

I didn't say luxury.


That would be the two RWD coupe option. That'd be great if GM could make the economics work. (I hope you don't mean FWD Impala)

If it's all about what I want, that's something different. I want a smallish car with a big V8. I don't want any added weight for giant wheels, holes in the roof, etc. I want restrained good looks with a decent-sized green house. Reading that, what I really want is an updated 4th gen ('98 to '02) with less overhang and no T-top option.

If I get half of what I want, I'll be happy
I also think it would be a mistake for GM to give me everything I want.

 

When the ATS gets released, we'll get a basic idea of what sort of general dimensions and proportions the Camaro will have to work with. That's not to say that the Camaro's wheels and things won't be moved around some, to get it's pony car proportions, but at least we'll get a reference point.

I also hope that base models can look fairly agressive with smaller wheels - maybe even 17's. If it does, then 18's or 19's or 20's will look very agressive with a proper stance.


Regardless of which direction the exterior goes, the interior needs to be completely modern. A shifter and steering which feels good in your hands would be nice too.

And 4 round tail lights.

 

Four round tail lights would be a nice update to my 4th gens.

I agree with the modern interior request. The interiors of the 50s and 60s are great to look at these days, but they don't work so well in a modern car, in my humble opinion.

I'm really curious how they will fit the small block into a car designed for an I-4 and V6. I can imagine a number of different possibilities, and I doubt that I've imagined all of them.

I really hope that the I-4 Cadillac model isn't heavier just to make a V8 Camaro possible, though I do want a V8.

 

As a matter of interest, did you know that the VE wheel studs are a completely different size and layout to that of the VZ's. In other words, the VE's wheels will not fit onto VZ and vice versa. I assume Camaro's is the same.

Why am I bringing this up? The bigger studs are engineered for heavy duty action, which the 20" wheels tend to go through. I don't understand this 17" wheel nonsense? Where does that come from? Wheels of 17" diameter is last century's design specification. I guess some things are best left to the engineers at GM to decide what is best...



Does that mean the base model (say a V6) will be the one you lust after, purely from a weight-saving perspective?