Z28Wilson, just a few points. I won't re-quote everything said. Nice town you're in BTW

1) Mustang, I could certainly see Ford bringing out a smaller next gen Mustang but I'd be quite shocked if it was any lighter. Ford won't or can't spend the cash to make the car into a Foxbody like weight again at least not at this stage of the game. Next gen maybe.
So to me if the base Camaro and LS3 model are at the Mustang and GT weight that’s not too bad, considering the that’s not far from the LS1 F-bodies.

It's flat out hard to make a car light these days, safety features we all not only demand but expect, FMVSS that must be adhered to and all the creature comforts that if one brand won’t give you another will. But if any company on earth has the resources to make it happen GM can.

2) Zeta-Camaro. Zeta isn’t dead, it’s on the shelf. I can’t tell you how many projects that don’t even get public attention get shelved at GM all the time. I’ve been involved with vehicles within 24 months of production that get put to rest and then brought back in 6 months. Make no mistake if GM didn’t think they could go forward with the Camaro and make money on the end they would not. GM is in the car making business and they are not new at it either. All the issues we debate here and many more we don’t were put in front of the board and were studied long and hard before Mr. Wagoner opened his mouth about this car.

3) Supercharged Camaro. My point was that the Mustang uses an iron block to hold the power. I’m still thinking there is another engine that is N/A for the top performance Camaro. But if it is to be a supercharged LS engine then I agree better or for worse. Many of us think the GT500 is way too heavy and I agree but make no mistake that car can run the numbers and has major power potential.

 

would anybody here be upset if GM came out with a compact RWD coupe or sedan named anything other than Camaro? start off with an efficient 4 banger and top it off with either a turbo 6 or a small V8.

 

+2. Better to kill the Camaro than to subvert its heritage and brand by morphing it into a teeny, turbo-I4 subcompact. To me, the Camaro has always been akin to a K-Bar combat knife, not a switchblade. It's hefty, well-balanced in your hand, and devastating to foreign adversaries

 

Cobalt Coupe has more room than my 4th gen did. I'd be happy with a Camaro that small.

 

"Pony cars" have traditionally been compact cars, although they weren't downsized to the extent of other car lines. If anything the latest generation has grown larger as they try to cover the old "personal luxury coupe" market and parts-share with fullsized sedans.

 

The 4th gen was a subcompact based on interior classification was it not?

 

It's interior was, but overall the 4gen is a midsize car - and its RWD design could not give it the packaging efficiency of a FWD. That fact will remain in force - unless those pining for a 'Camaro-lite' opt for FWD too

 

Interesting....

Interesting at how unfocused Camaro's image has become.

One group wants a large, heavy, personal luxury car. Something along the lines of a Monte Carlo or Regal. They want this car to be named "Camaro". In fact, they are so extreme in this view, that if their large, personal luxury car is not named "Camaro", they feel that the mark should be killed forever .

Another group wants a smaller, lighter, more efficient, perhaps even sportier, ummm, ponycar. Something along the lines of an SN95 Mustang, 3 series BMW or G37. They want this car named "Camaro" as well. No one in this group has called for it's death yet.

The US government on the other hand, couldn't give two ***** on what this car is, or what it is called or whether it lives or dies. All they care about is, if GM builds it, they want it to average 35 mpg by 2020.

 

You're assuming that CAFE will stay as it is, too. I could see it going well over 35mpg, at least for many states (though it would not be called CAFE).

People on this forum can make whatever demands they want about V8s, etc., because that's easy. But GM actually has to build a car that makes a profit, which implies not paying fuel consumption penalties -- at least not big ones.

A smaller Camaro with a base 4 cylinder would be a great idea. If you can get it down to 3000 pounds, a 180hp 4 cylinder would be plenty of engine for people who want a stylish coupe with good handling and good fuel economy. A performance model with a 300hp V6 at 3200 pounds would be a fine step up. Or do that with a 2.4l turbo 4.

A top model with a V8 would be great, but I'm not gonna say "Don't build it without it!" because that's not realistic. I also don't want to add 150 pounds to the 4 and 6 cyl models, so that they can sell a few V8s.

 

What about the third group? The ones that want a lighter, more efficient, sportier pony car, without sacrificing the Camaro's heritage of affordable V6 and V8 performance.

I would rather see the Camaro killed off than see it lose its heritage.

 

I thought that was Charlie's 2nd group.

I have to agree with Charlie, there seems to be an element here that refuses to accept that the car has always been smaller, tighter, and more nimble because now they're none of those things anymore and simply want the name on anything they can fit into to get them into never land.

I'll say it again, the Camaro's heritage from day one was a handler that went like bat **** and aimed squarely at the youth(ful) generation looking for personal style and persona over practicality (that's NOT saying it can be impractical...just beating the counter argument group to the punch).

The world has changed and technology and energy situations both mean a hi-po V6 will leave you missing only the V8 rumble. And I'll get over it, it'd be a small price to pay for progress.

 

Problem is that its hard to target a Camaro at the "youth generation" because by the time they've met all the other qualifications, its too expensive for the Civic crowd. So they look for older buyers with fatter asses and people who want to sit in the backseat and groceries in the trunk and etc.

Anyways I don't envy them because they have a lot of different expectations to balance.

 

Another call to kill it off.

Actually, as Tim said, this would be the second group.

 

How unfocused its become? welcome to 1982 What is this mark you speak of? Isnt the S95 bigger than a 3 series? The preproduction height is shorter than the current mustang. Everyone is throwing around their perceptions of what Camaro is because the Fbod has been all over the place. The first gen doesnt even have an F in the vin. One of the struck down names GMini was because GM did not want its name associated with the car incase if failed. Noone knew what the term Camaro meant. Here we are 40 years later arguing which of the many missionstatements fits camaro or should we add a new one to the mix? Ford even found a definition for Camaro in 67 in a spanish dictionary that meant shrip. In contrast, Mustang is an English word obviously meaning fast horse that Ford stuck with promoted and kept the formula the same through the years.

Would a smaller car be Camaro? Well wasnt the 65-66 mustang smaller than the 67? The first gen Camaro front end and cowl was the size it was because it had to share it with the Nova. Not a bad thing I think the 69 is perfect in looks but certain things good or bad were dictated to it.

Suppose Camaro moves to Alpha and drops to a or a 1 series size? Does that mean no more Zeta at all and if not what do you call the previous Camaro sized car? Or should Alpha get a new name? I know there are Monza fans here but Vegas and Monzas I think are ugly. I would not buy a 4cyl or another V6 Camaro. Nothing short of a V8 so I would hope the Alpha would accept that. I was really hoping that production would be closer to the M3

My whole point is Camaro to me should be V8 2+2 RWD sports car. I never cared for the width of a 4th gen much less the 5th. I dont care if its on a Zeta or an Alpha as long as I like what it is. So far I really do. Because Camaro has to me had a very loose definition by every meaning of the word, that lets us/enthusiasts/GM leeway and debate where we want to go next.

 

I'm not saying the Camaro shouldn't be smaller or lighter than the Concepts, but we haven't seen a production model yet to want something even smaller and lighter.

I think some people would like the Camaro name on a SportCompact Euro/Japanese fighter, as much as others want a Monte size cruiser.
I want something in the middle!...

From the beggining it was a mid-sized car, not a compact.
There were many smaller, lighter, more nimble cars roaming the street.
There were Corvair/Monza's, Fiat Spyders, Triumph's, MG's, Healey's, Astin's, Jags, Alfa Romeo's, even the Cobra's, T-Birds and Vettes were a little smaller.

As for handling...a 396ci motor in a leaf sprung rear coupe on polyglas tires wasn't exactly a great handler. Not until the '69 DZ 302 Z28's did we see Power and Handling.

Actually Camaro, took after the GTO formula; sticking a BIG motor in a midsized coupe, and made it heavier than its Nova II sibling.

And while noone's disputing the performance abilities of a modern high strung V6.
I would miss the torque as well as the Rumble.

By the "Original" formula, while having a V6 is acceptable, a top power V8 motor like an LS? motor should be top dog, for the near forseeable future.
What I said was, "If the Camaro must make such drastic changes as to become a SportCompact class, pocket rocket; I'd rather they kill off the name and use Corvair/Monza or something more befitting.