Just on another topic in regards to this poll...

What does GM, Ford etc... have that makers (particularly Japanese) of other coupes do not have?

Heritage!

Without drawing on past designs for inspiration, GM have nothing to link itself to its successful past. People can relate to that, even if they were only young and not even old enough to remember.

To come out with a 'Supra', RX8, or 'GTR' clone is to instantly alienate the target market that GM has successfully attracted to the 5G. Let's face it, not all 5G owners were previous Camaro (or even GM) owners. And not all GM fans will be drawn to a 6G which is aimed to compete head on with the above cars.

To that end, it's OK to vote "Something completely fresh" but nobody is giving any clues as to what sort of styling direction that car should take. How about some interesting ideas?

For instance, if this Chevrolet SS Concept were produced in 2003, would people relate to it and recognise it instantly as a Camaro? Not in my view but I can see it was a fresh outlook back in 2003.

 

You interpret one of four interpretations literally, and then apply a selected word to the other interpretations. IE...you cherrypick it to fit your particular idea of what you want it to be. Cute. Of course then you decided that your opinion on the matter should apply to everybody else. That's where you go off the reservation. It has nothing to do with anybody else "shifting the goal posts". Don't believe Charlie has changed his stance (I certainly haven't changed mine).

You know, that wasn't even a very good try. I'm disappointed.

Who said they always were? Didn't we discuss earlier about GM wanting to get away from the "Pony Car" moniker with the new Camaro?

Ok, then nobody can change the 1st of those 4 definitions that were quoted. Do you know what the was? Do you realize that 1st definition did not have the all-important-to-you "relative" statement in there?

Maybe you don't understand what foot notes are?

Also, being such an expert on the subject, what is GM's definition of "Pony Car"?

Not true. The Government classifies them as such, do they not? I don't agree with it, but then again, I don't get to classify cars for the government. I don't *think* you do either?

I think I understand just fine. I understand that in your eyes, Camaro and everything associated with it is essentially automotive perfection. Hey, that's your opinion, and that's fine. But it would be wise to understand that some of us understand that this is what biases your judgement.

But its all good.

It's that old "I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong" syndrome, huh? Darn it.

For not taking me very seriously, you sure do reply a lot (selectively though it may be).

Oh, and I wanted to thank you for giving us your permission to vote something other than your choice in this poll...

That's awful nice of ya!

Bob

 

Think of what came in a 69 and then what is in the 2010, lots more safety gear, electronics, IRS, bigger transmission, bigger brakes, etc.. it is to see why it is 400lbs. heavier.

 

The fact that it offers so much more content/safety features and is ONLY 400lbs. heavier seems pretty unreal. They're packing a lot more into this package than they were 40+ years ago..

 

Once Cadillac decided that Alpha should be package protected for a V6, then there was room for a V8. At that point, Alpha was essentially computer math, so the deed was done. The "I4 only" Alpha existed only on some engineer's computers. The LSx motor weighs no more than a HFV6, in fact I think it may even be less by a handful of pounds.

Whatever a V6 Alpha weighs, maybe add 50-100 pounds for a V8, mostly for heavier drivetrain, etc., to support the torque of a smallblock.

 

You don't think cars like the Supra have heritage? Nissan's GTR or Z cars? Mazda's RX7 which passes down it's heritage to the RX8?

Also, a "fresh design" doesn't mean "no heritage". A fresh design doesn't mean you go from looking like a Camaro to VW Beetle.

I really have a hard time figuring out where you're coming from. All I can come up with is that you never want to see one hair on the head of the current car altered - EVER. Into infinity.

Is it because this Camaro is developed in Australia off of an Australian architecture? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious.

 

The point is that 17" wheels can look very aggressive on a car with the right overall proportions. The 4th Gen SS's 17" wheels look ridiculous on the 5th Gen, but look good on my 4th. Why do you think that is?

See above. That's probably because "last century's" cars were less chunky.

Who has ever proposed such a thing?

 

3435 lbs is about the weight of a fully loaded 1st gen Camaro. The base Camaros were closer to 3100-3200 lbs.

However, you're way off base that a modern version shouldn't weigh as much as a car from the 60s/70s. Back then the electronics were much simpler, as were the suspension, brakes, emissions equipment and safety equipment. Air bags? There were none.

Even if all GM did was take a 69 Camaro shell and then modernize it to meet today's standards, it would still best the 60's classic its based upon by at least 1000 lbs. Some people may think the 2010 Camaro is heavy, however a 69 Camaro body with modern components would weigh much more.

You say you're also considering a BMW 1-series. While that may be your cup of tea, in no way should it ever be considered competition for Camaro. Even the 3-series is a stretch IMHO. Pound for pound, the only BMW I consider Camaro-like is the 6 series. (I'm sure that'll stir up a few people's blood.) In all honesty, the only other German coupe I personally would cross-shop would be the Audi S5. (But there's no way I could ever afford one.)

People need to get off this "compact" argument. Back in the day when Camaro was considered a true "compact" most large cars were 17-feet long. That's no longer the case in today's world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for GM building a cheaper version of the ATS for Chevrolet. I am just not convinced that such a car needs to be called Camaro, especially when they have such a winning formula with the current Camaro. (By winning I'm referring to its early sales success in a down economy.)

Now if you were to tell me that GM is working on an Alpha-plus based 6th gen Camaro prototype with similar proportions to the Zeta Camaro, yet with a potential weight savings while still maintaining the current model's heritage styling, then I might change my tune. However a complete redesign on a BMW 1-series sized platform?

 

FWIW, at the time (2005) when I put 17" wheels on my '67 Camaro I thought they were a bit excessive. However after time they now actually appear small. They certainly are aggressive compared to the 15" wheels on my other '67 Camaro, which would have been the biggest available back in the day. I agree though, just because bigger wheels are the current fashion, there's no need to go bigger than necessary just to say you've got the biggest wheels. Performance should also be an important factor. Heck, my '95 Z/28 still has the factory 16" salad shooters and I think it looks good.

 

I have 15's on my 99 Cobra.

And personally, I would like to see a 6th Gen get down in the 1-series range for size. That said, GM is in the business of selling cars. The current car is selling quite well, so its hard to imagine they will wish to stray from this formula too awful much in the 6th gen. Too bad for me, I guess....but I'm obviously not part of GM's target with the 5th Gen Camaro.

 

Yecch. Yes, Camaro has grown into somewhat of a GT car, for better or worse. By the way, Edmunds describes the 6-series as follows:

The 1-series is a bit extreme, at least, on the outside. Here is what I'd love to see in an Alpha/Alpha "Plus" Camaro: 200 pound weight loss for each trim level. Similar interior room. "Tighter" exterior dimensions. SHORTER COWL (goes a long way toward eliminating the sedan look and feel). Heritage styling. If they can do all that, I'm throwing a parade.

 

Ya know, I thought that might almost be too small (I figured some would squawk about interior room) but then I looked up some interior dimensions (from Edmunds).

Front Shoulder Room
2010 1-Series 56"
2010 Camaro 56.9"

Rear Shoulder Room
2010 1-Series 55"
2010 Camaro 42.5"

Front Leg Room
2010 1-Series 41.4"
2010 Camaro 42.4"

Rear Leg Room
2010 1-Series 32"
2010 Camaro 29.9"

And these come from Motor Trend:

Front Head Room
2010 1-Series 37.9"
2010 Camaro 37.4"

Rear Headroom
2010 1-Series 37.1"
2010 Camaro 35.3"

I think you get the point. What's really amazing to me is the rear seat comparison. I even had to cross-check the rear shoulder numbers on another site to make sure it wasn't a typo. I know Camaro has always had a tight back seat, and it has never bothered me. That's what you expect in a *cough* Pony Car. It's just amazing how they managed to take a full-size sedan architecture and produce such a coffin out of the rear seating area.

 

You could do the same comparison with an Impala and Malibu and get similar results. (I have.) Yet would you consider them the same size or class of vehicle?

 

I actually like the TALL COWL. Sit inside a 1st gen Camaro and compare. They also had a tall cowl, yet in retrospect, it feels taller than the cowl in the current Camaro. But then again, like the 5th gen Camaro, the original Camaro was also based off of a sedan. (As was its pony car competition, the original Mustang.)

Food for thought?

 

My only point was that a smaller car on the outside does not mean interior sacrifice. I think the 1-Series is a bit too small on the outside to make that Camaro "presence" statement on the street. However, the 3-Series would hit the sweet spot in that regard quite nicely.