Oh, and what are the wheelbase lengths that are being thrown around? A long wheelbase would be outstanding! Better ride, better handling!!!

 

186" wheelbase? think you mean length there
But theres no way a V6 would weigh less then the Z28

 

That's my whole point...the relentless effort increases the cost of the car. Go back and re-read All Corvettes are Red. There's a specific tradeoff Hill sets up...so many dollars or pennies per ounce shaved off. The lighter parts are more expensive.

Do you want your Camaro to approach the C6 in MSRP? It is strictly my opinion that the "relentless efforts", if above and beyond what's been engineered into Zeta, will drive up the cost of the car beyond acceptable Camaro pricing and may break the business case all together since the car may end up either not sharing parts with other Zetas or driving up the cost of all Zetas.

 

Haha, yeah, I meant overall length, not wheelbase. But if you read what I wrote, I say that the Z28 would weigh less than 3450, and the V6 would be right at that weight, with the SS being a little more than that because of some of the extra stuff.

 

thats what I thought

But I did read what you wrote, " I say that the Z28 would weigh less than 3450, and the V6 would be right at that weight"

Your saying the V6 would be 3450 and the Z28 would be less.

Are you purposing a stripper Z28 with crank window and no air ect?
Otherwise there is no way the Z28 would be less the the V6.

 

Im not proposing a stripper Z28, but from what Ive hear around here about the upcoming Z28, its supposed to be the road rocket of the bunch and the SS is gonna be the more luxuory version. Maybe Chevrolet could use a little bit of the weight cutting they have worked on in the Corvette and use it towards the Z28. Maybe have two versions of the Z even. Like a standard performance version, then a "racing" version, with some significant weight savings, but obviously at an increased price. Just a cool little dream!

 

Well, let's just say that I disagree.

The choices that you are suggesting are:
A) A nearly two ton Camaro.

or

B) A nearly $40K Camaro.

Either one, completely destroys Camaro's formula. A Corvette doesn't cost 40-50K, strictly because of all the exotic componentry....it costs that much....because that's what the market will bear. Yes Virginia, Corvette has a hefty profit margin.
Pontiac has already publically announced on it's own website, that the Solstice will go for "around" $20,000. The Solstice is essentially a 7/8ths Y-car...with lots of alloy parts...including it's entire suspension. AROUND $20,000.

Aluminum is quickly becoming a mainstream material today...it's not purely exotica...as it used to be, and doesn't cost OEM's as much to use, as it used to either. And GM has big plans for titanium also. It has partnered with a number of companies to bring the cost of titanium components down to reasonable levels. One of the partners is Arvin Industries....which developed the C5 Z06 titanium exhaust system, cost effectively. GM chose titanium here, not only for it's weight, but also to learn how to work with it more cost efficiently. My understanding is that Arvin has formed an alliance with GM to develop other titanium parts and systems for GM .

Proper engineering, both from GM and it's suppliers can also hold down weight...usually at little or no additional cost. Sweat the details...and you'll sweat off afew pounds, also.

And of course there is that REALLY significant size issue, which has literally consumed this board for the past couple of weeks. Less mass equals less weight. Basic physics.

If I understand what you are saying....I get the impression that you don't feel that GM has the technical ability or resources to develop a proper Camaro. And we should not be overly picky about the final product.

I disagree and I disagree strongly.

 

If GM doesn't do the Camaro right, and it doesn't blow away the competiton in peformence, price, and style, then I say that GM should just not even bother selling a new Camaro.

 

Thank you for your opinion.

You are mischaracterizing me again however....

I think GM certainly has the technical capability to give us the proper camaro, but A) who's definition of proper, yours? and b) will your ideal Camaro be too expensive to sell in sufficient numbers.

I think you are being somewhat unrealistic about what is possible at a given price point for GM to deliver to us.

I think 3900lbs is "nearly two tons". 3600-3700 isn't "nearly two tons". It is right in the middle of the pack with other comparable products from other manufacturers at that weight.

What you are proposing is the smallest Camaro we've ever had.

 

I say they should just do what Ford did.

Have similar dimensions and dumb down a upscale chasiss a bit.
The new Mustang is a great deal. If Ford can do it---GM can do it better

 

I wish everybody here in love with the G35 would just go buy one already.

I do not want a Chevy G35, I want a Camaro.

Exactly who decided the G35 was the benchmark car for the 5th gen? Nobody at GM I can be certain.

If I wanted a G35 I'd go buy one. The bigger Mustang screams "muscle" and "grand tourer" to me much more than the somewhat smallish and luxury-emphasized G35. The Camaro was originally GM's answer to the Mustang, not to the G35. THe G35 is NO pony car and never will be.

Lets be vary wary of mission creep/drift here. As I've said a dozen times in the last two weeks lets have a Camaro that stays true to its real heritage, not to the heritage as interpreted and seen through the eyes of a few people in this forum who are trying to steer the debate in a certain direction.

 

Why, you're welcome! It seems everyone has one around here....don't they.



Maybe not necessarilly the smallest....but at least as small.

But if it were the smallest ever......so what?

Smallest ever.
Fastest ever.
Best handling ever.
Best looking ever.
Most fun ever.
.....all of those things.....

It seems that we have substantially different visions for Camaro.....I don't think anything's going to change that.

 

Just for some moral support and a FWIW...I am also solidly in the "smaller Camaro" category.


A little background for context...

I am 33 years old.

I have owned a 1968 327 A3 and a 1991 305 RS M5. I currently own a 1996 Z28 M6 hard top. The '91 and '96 were bought new.

I autocross the crap out of my '96. Used to drag race it quite a bit back east.


I want a smaller Camaro DESPITE the fact that I am 6' 0" / 230 lbs and my everyday vehicle is a 2003 Silverado 2500 HD 4x4 extended cab.


No real tech here but I've gotten to wondering about the backgrounds and profiles of those in both "camps".

 

I am 30 years old and got my first F-body at 17 and have never gone any amount of time w/o owning one since. I've owned an '85 LG4 Camaro Coupe, a 1988 Iroc-Z, and the current car. I've done almost all the work to all three of them, and I'm not a showcar guy. Make it faster or else!

I have at least a dozen books on F-bodies and have been cruising F-body related internet sites since 1998. I have been the president of the Middle Tennessee F-body association for 2.5 years and am a founding member of the club. Where I'm coming from is being a diehard fan of the F-body since I was 10 when my older brother picked up a beautiful metallic blue 1977 Firebird. I think I have a pretty good handle on what Camaro has been since the beginning.

And I'm a liberal arts major (no engineer here!) with a masters degree. Seems like most folks around here are either in the computer field or some kind of engineer. Not me.

So that's my background, since you were wondering.

I think if everybody agrees they want a smaller Camaro, then lets all admit that such a thing is acually changing the Camaro formula. Albiet not a great deal, but still, its a difference from claiming the "true" heritage of the car.

If the Camaro was to ever have "gone small", the 3rd gen would have been it. THe mustang shrank a bunch, but GM decided the Camaro, while it did shorten up some, was going to stay what it always has been.

I like the 1st gen as much as anybody, but I do think it is valid to say the 1st gen is not the essence of all 35 years of Camaro heritage. A car that ran all of 3 years and shared platforms with Nova cannot be considered to be everything that embodies Camaro. That would fly in the face of 32 years more history. In 1970, the F-body got its own platform. One can safely say the 2nd gen represents the first Camaro that was exactly what designers/engineers wanted it to be, not a hurried piece-together of a car based on another platform. If you want to see what the unihibited Camaro is, see 2nd through 4th gens, not 1st gen.

 

So true Camaro = big and fat? Not your exact words but close enough .

If it's a change for the better, than that's one part of the camaro's "true" heritage i'd personally be willing to sacrifice.

I don't think anyone of us want a miata-like camaro, but on the other hand, a smaller camaro with an overall length near or a tad bit south of 185" would be a welcome imo.

I look at the 4th gens and all i see is un-needed bulk. @ 193.50 inches, the 4th gens were definitly pushing it big time. I chuckled everytime i parked it next to my old mans Astro van and made note of how much longer the Z was. Not a good attribute for a performance car.