I dunno...Camaro took 3 years from concept shown to when you can buy. That sounds like not much if you talking all new car. The problem is, this car is essentially a next generation of the GTO, or a reskin of the Pontiac G8. Although it is much different from the G8 that say Charger to Challenger...3 years IS a lot of time considering they did not start from scratch.

Sure some will say...it is almost a new car from the G8..but I don't buy that because the thing weighs so much. If you do a lot of reengineering that would have been fixed.

 

Get this man a beer

 

IIRC the show concept was more production ready than most show concepts, so it has certainly had significantly more than 3 years of development work.

 

If by "fixed", you mean 50 to 100 pounds lighter, then maybe.

But now that the first tests of the new 370Z have come in, only to reveal that the "lighter" 370Z is actually heavier than previous 350Z testers (the unibody is stronger and more rigid, and the 3.7 engine is 42 pounds heavier, matched against increased aluminum content and slightly smaller size), and now that Hyundai has quietly increased the weight specification of their Genesis Coupes (over 3500 for the V6 model), I remain more dubious than ever that there is any way to get significant weight removal from a mass market $31K 400+hp/tq IRS four seater with track-ready brakes, 20" wheels, airbags, market-expected body rigidity, competitive equipment levels, etc.

Everywhere I look out there, 6 cylinder 300hp cars are coming in from 3500-3750 pounds, and V8s are 3800+. The Lexus IS-F is the lightest 400+hp/nearly 400tq automatic out there at a bit over 3800 pounds, which makes it 100 pounds lighter than the equivalent Camaro SS. And before someone says, "it's a luxury car", take a look at what it has that the Camaro does not. An extra power seat, maybe a fancier audio system. But it also can afford to replace some steel pieces with aluminum.

Yeah, there's the Mustang that's about 300 pounds lighter, but it's down 100hp, has smaller wheels and tires, and a live axle. Add 20"ers, 100hp, and IRS, and then see where the Mustang is.

Now, we only have the preliminary weight specs on the Camaro, and if the testers are up at 4000+, then I will say, "yeah, it could have been lighter". But if it comes in at 3860, then a realistic appraisal has to be that it's not really all that heavy, and the Camaro team deserves more kudos and less criticism, because the way I see it, it would have been heavier if they'd just started with the G8, taken two doors off and called it a day.

Btw, C&D tested a stick-shift Challenger R/T, and it weighed 4164 pounds on the scales. They still liked it.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...cs+page-2.html

 

I don't think so. That car was on its own chassis. The work to adapt Zeta started a couple of months after the auto show concept debuted.

By the way, people might be interested in the Feb 2009 (or was it Dec 2008?) issue of Collectible Automobile. The lead story is about the development of the new Camaro.

 

Addressing Guy's original post, I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. The process of approving and creating the car from show concept in 1/06 to production in 3/09 might be the way GM should be doing business. I could buy that.

But it's the dead period from 8/2002 - 12/2005 that was unacceptable. The decision to kill Camaro was made back in the 90's, so their decade-long feet dragging of what to do with Camaro is the exact opposite of what I would consider "the way" to handle development of a new model, especially an enthusiast energizer like this particular model.

 

Camaro was done for relatively cheap too IIRC. While the product is just about perfect (although most would like it about 200lbs. lighter) they did take a long *** time bringing it to market. I took all those "have faith" posts by insiders back in 2003-2005 to mean that they were working on the Camaro then.

On a side note...will we ever see pictures of the RWD Zeta Impala?

 

I don't know how you argue with this. Yes, GM made the right decision stylistically (has enough reach) and with performance (IRS, 300hp DI V6), but their ineptitude got the car here many years later with many more pounds than it should have had.

I'm grateful it'll be here (hopefully) in the spring, but it's hardly the model development piece the Solstice is by GM standards.

 

What bothers me is when some people say the Camaro is a bloated overweight shell of its former self, yet they want a Camaro based on a BMW 3-series-like platform which currently is also a bloated overweight shell of is former self. For the most part, everything is bigger and heavier these days because of safety improvements.

That is not to say that manufacturers shouldn't look into making smaller and more efficient 4-passenger performance coupes, its just that to get there I don't want to see them limited to forcing to fit an archaic ICE/RWD platform.

 

1st and 2nd gen Camaros were based on the same chassis as a lowly economy car, the Nova. By today's standards, by the Camaro's "genre", it would be a a stylish Cobalt coupe.

There is no small RWD chassis at any of the big 3 automakers. To think that GM (or Ford or Chrysler) would create a special small RWD chassis just for the Camaro is foolish, as is the belief that a world class, V8 powered, 500 horsepower capable, IRS, 4 passenger car that's priced low enough for those with a household income less than $100K per year with can afford would be substantially lighter than it turned out. My challenge has been out for over a year now. Name a new car that does all this that weighs less.

The new Camaro is exactly the car everyone has demanded. If we're willing to go back to a live axle, to drop the V8 in favor of a V6, and drop the size down to that of a Cobalt-sized BMW 3 series (3,582 lbs w/ manual), we'll have a lighter car. But even that won't happen unless there is a high volume RWD Cobalt-like car from GM.

Then there's the idea of the car being ill suited to future CAFE standards.

If you see the Camaro as being ill suited to future CAFE standards, then you must look at the engine, in this case a 422 horsepower LS3 V8, as being ill suited to future CAFE standards. The new V6 fits in quite nicely. Nonetheless, the point of CAFE is fleet weighted averages. Because Camaro sales likely won't be huge (certainly no where near GM's Espilon or Delta cars, GM will likely be able to continue the current Camaro right on through the decade if they choose to and the sales are there.

As far as the public's buying habits, I don't know where we're looking to figure out what the public is buying. The top selling cars are mid sized sedans & sports coupes smaller than Mustang sell at such low numbers (even compared to the 4th gen Camaro) that one can't seriously think that Camaro's sales would increase by shrinking to that of a Mitsubishi Eclipse or a Hyundai's RWD Geneisis coupe (which again, is about 3500 pounds w/V6). Mustang's and Camaros set their own buyer patterns as history shows.

Final point...

and the only point I agree with you on...GM did take forever getting to the point where the Camaro went into development.

However, don't forget... I did research and wrote an article for PHR magazine that explained... IN DETAIL... why it took until the past few years before GM could even mention the word "Camaro".
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...aro/index.html

Like everyone else (and if there was a way to bring up posts here from the start of the decade) anyone will see that I was perhaps GM's worst critic on killing off the Camaro and tore shreads into every stated excuse given for the Camaro's demise and roasted GM at every turn over what seemed to be the most boneheaded move in recent memory.

Then I started digging around. One thing led to another. All the things I was finding out, and how they tied together was absolutely mindboggling. I felt this was far too good to just sit on, and there were thousands of others if not more who were just as angry at GM and saw through their excuses as I felt I was & was. In the end, I completely understood, and even sympathized with GM over not just killing the Camaro, but also treating the Camaro name like it was a virus. In the end, I was amazed that people at GM kept the Camaro around as long as they did.

I do NOT blame GM for the years it took to get Camaro back. There was a mountain of legal issues, GM would have been liable for alot of money it recieved in loans & grants, GM would have faced a potential firestorm from the CAW and Quebec government.

In the late 90s, GM started work on a Camaro that could be based on either the upcoming VE or Sigma chassis which I didn't include in my article... because I wanted to continue having sources (that Pontiac GTO concept of 1999 was a offshoot of that program). That programs was killed for many reasons, but the main ones were what I mentioned.


However, once the hurdles were cleared to bring Camaro back, the way it was done, the speed it was done, and the way it turned out IS the way GM should handle all it's future development. Cut through the bureaucracy, utilize their abilities and resources, focus on making the best product possible instead of what the competition has out at the time, and keep the eye on making the thing instead of looking for reasons to kill it.

That's the words of someone not on a crack pipe, but has never stated bluntly he'd never buy the new Camaro, and can see and admire the lengths ALOT of people went and the leap of faith key senior management at GM took to get the Camaro done.

Something GM NEEDS to do with all of it's vehicles under development.

If something's in a bunch, it isn't my panties.

 

Exactly. The 325i back in 1987 weighed about 2800 pounds. A 335i today weighs 3600. The new car is much safer, much faster, has many more comfort features, etc. I like light weight as much as the next person, but it's important to understand the environment manufacturers are in these days.

 

This is important to me. I first saw the Camaro in the flesh at Carlisle 2006 (Scott's team brought it, of course), and here we are 3 years later. To me, this is too long to maintain a critical mass of interest.

 

Ford does it for the Mustang and it is profitable on its own. Should Ford decide it would like to utilize the chassis more I am sure they could produce a sedan derivative and make money off of that (something I am surprised they haven't done).

Save the IRS and the Mustang again fits the bill. I am sure that Chrysler could shuttle out a RWD compact chassis that fits your bill rather well if they thought it would be profitable.

 

If you are a car enthusiast and also work in the car biz you will often find yourself walking a fine line.

The Camaro return has been very different than any other car I can think of. More has been shared than any time I can recall. The enthusiast community has been witness to the whole process.

I believe this is because there was a large contingent within GM that love the Camaro and knew the car returning was a necessary decision. The enthusiasm of the enthusiast community was a key to pressing the issue to approval.

Lots of folks put their neck in a noose in the effort. No thanks are expected other than one should buy the Camaro if it is the car for them.

My point being, really good cars stand on their own. Really good cars have champions inside the company that builds them. More importantly, there are champions in the form of customers waiting with cash in fist.

It's unfortunate some folks didn't either get the car they hoped for, or didn't receive it as soon as they would think is within their notion of what is expected.

What IS the result is a Camaro that will be more than some expect and a tremendous value for their hard earned dollars. It is a car folks will depend on and be a source of many miles and many years of fun.

For me, cars I have owned, or lusted after, have to deliver on a value and emotional bang for the buck.

The emotional is the big motivator for me.

Don't be confused, it has to start when I put the key in the ignition, and get me where I want to go...when I need to get there.

BUT... I want a car I have little issue with digging deep for every month to have a big grin at the floorboard side of the gas pedal, I want it to look good enough to make me want to look back over my shoulder when I walk away from it, I want it to be safe enough in order that I can afford to pay insurance and keep me alive so I can be pissed someone ran into it.

In my tenure with working to help GM and Chevy I have met lots and lots of folks who impress me with their willingness to make my automotive dreams a reality.

There are folks with the enthusiast's best interest at heart. Recognized or not, it's true.

 

Because they don't think they can make money off of it? Why are you so sure they could?


When the Mustang has 500hp, it gains a lot of weight, and it still doesn't have IRS. Why are you sure that Chrysler could do this? The Challenger is a couple of hundred pounds heavier than the Camaro.