Okay, I've seen some conflicting input on this. So let's settle this here and now with this poll.

Let's hurry, we probably only have afew more years to hash this out!

 

I want a modern Camaro car.

 

It's going to have to compete with the new 'stang and 350Z in both price, handling and quality. IMO, the only way to do that is with a modern chassis and much better quality

 

ditto.

 

I want a modern Camaro so bad that I can taste it.

I'd like a chassis at least as good as the 350Z and DEW based Mustang.

I'd like quality at least as good as Toyota and Honda.

I'd like power at least comparable to the'03 Cobra.


.....and I want it all at a Chevy price.

 

and the camaro must be able to get some nice trim!

hey, ugly drunk guys need help too!

 

Can't find any ladies impressed with your '94?

 

Even if the Camaro comes back, I wont buy a new one. Optioned out the way I want it, every Camaro/TA I've seen was around $26,000. There is no way I'd spend $26,000 on a car I'll only drive for 5-6 months out of the year.

Used is another thing though. So I do hope it comes back, but I'll buy one used if I do decide to get a Camaro.

 

This illustrates how you can frame a question so you can get the results you want. It's kind of like asking a "yes or no" question like, "Have you stopped beating your dog?"

I could see a low-slung, more performance oriented Camaro in the future. There again, it would be a mistake not considering a return to more rugged and durable performance cars. The term "truck-based" is something of a misnomer, if only because some "truck" platforms have come so close to conventional passenger car practices. When Ford is putting out "truck-based" SUVs with rack-and-pinion steering and IRS, I think the distinction is being lost.

There is no reason why a body-on-frame car has to rattle, or handle poorly. Quite the opposite is true - full framed construction staves off the rattles that come with age.

 

Redzed, I'm a really simple guy. I believe if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck....then it's a duck (or is that truck?).

I applaud Ford's efforts to bring modernity to their trucks...the Explorer's IRS not only gives better ride/handling but allows a third row of seats without an expensive tear up as in the Trailblaizer.

But we are talking about GM here. And if GM goes with a live rear axle/ full frame architecture for an inexpensive car....it will be truck based as in the Bel Air concept.

 

But if GM ever decides to go with a hydroformed rail construction (as in C5) vs unibody on a modern new Camaro......I could live with that too.

 

.....maybe we can get someone with an engineering background like PacerX, etc., to give us a pros and cons of body on frame vs unibody construction?

 

heh, i think its safe to say, we want it all!

If they redesign the Camaro correctly, I assume they'll be able to design and build a higherpo car thats doesn't have many features, but is well put together for a reasonable cost.....

 

I think GM is finally starting to pull their heads out of their butts on this one - Using similar engines and drivelines in cars and trucks, using identical engines (vette and camaro for a while now) and will continue to do so - as it's cutting costs for them, which they need to do.

Looking at the plant expansion for the Sigma Chassis (was another thread) I'm HOPING they use the extra #'s for both the new Caddy' car and a Camaro - which would no longer be an Fbody at that point - but with rumors of a GTO that would stay (a SOLID 2+2) and people saying the current f-body backseats are worthless, perhaps the Camaro will just join on as a "stripped down" version of the vette. It would mean better handling numbers for the Camaro, fewer parts for GM to build, and a few other benefits. Just change the body, that'll make a huge difference. But somehow, I dont see that happening.

 

I think that you are right!

We don't necessarily require any non-perf gizmos...and Toyota, Honda, et al, have proven that top notch quality doesn't need to cost an arm and a leg.