91_z28_4me

Why couldn't they make money off it? They do it with a 150k/year coupe/vert. Because the added volume that a sedan would offer (and I am sure you will agree that a sedan always offers a larger potential market than a coupe will) easily makes up for any additional tooling, engineering, and design costs.

Your right it doesn't have IRS, which I mentioned. But it IS available with 500 hp, it does have its own specific chassis, and it is offered at a low price (and that is the point I was trying to make).
Because Chrysler is smaller and lighter than GM and Ford and they certainly have the ability to produce a volume RWD chassis quickly, quietly, and cheaply. The LX cars are IIRC the lowest priced RWD sedans on the market (coming at or beating the Mustang for the lowest RWD 4 seater). The Challenger is heavier than the Camaro because it is simply a rebodied sedan and a profitable one at that. It fills up the plant and sells at premium prices while building excitement (something the Camaro may or may not do).

Raven99

jeebus, the 5G Camaro isn't even out on the street yet & I'm tired of seeing it / prolly the most media over-saturated car (that has yet to even hit the showrooms) ever. And yes that interior (binnacle and steering wheel) still looks bizarre.

teal98

I don't know. I haven't done the market analysis. Ford must have. I can speculate. The speculation would go along the lines of while the Mustang is a nice sporty coupe, a relatively crude, live axle, RWD sedan that would sell for more $$ than a more sophisticated, more spacious FWD sedan might not be a big seller. It would appeal to me, but I'm not the typical buyer.

But mostly, I was wondering how you could be sure that Ford is missing out on a moneymaker here.

Yeah, the Mustang is a special case. I don't think Chevy could count on the same volume for a Camaro, even if they sold a clone of the Mustang. The Mustang chassis started with the DEW98, though many changes were made, and DEW98 only continues in the Jag XF, where again, many changes were made. I guess you could say the Jag XF and the Mustang are cousins.

Well, maybe. Your assertion was that "Chrysler could shuttle out a RWD compact chassis that fits your bill rather well if they thought it would be profitable." If you're correct, then they must not think it would be profitable.

guionM

Todd, you've put the cart before the horse. You are also ignoring how (in retrospect) what a bunch of spoiled brats we all are.


Backtrack to 2004. We all were in year 2 of being up in arms over the fact GM wouldn't even mention the name Camaro. We all wanted to see something... anything.. regarding news of or ideas of Camaro. There were a contengent of chronic whiners who saw no reason why GM couldn't show us cars that were just starting in the development process, and you couldn't tell these people any different.

GM obliged, and almost as soon as the embargo on the Camaro name was lifted, GM got a design together, got it made as a concept car, and got it out on the car show circuit.

GM also has been transparent about the stages in develoment the Camaro has been in, even as far as going through the unprecedented step of running development mules around without cammoflage.

What's remarkable about all this, is despite GM letting us see the car from the very start, being very open about the car's development and where it is, there are still people who simply do not understand a cars development process who would likely be the same people who would complain about GM keeping things secret in the 1st place.


To top it all off, the Camaro was done in almost record time (GM knocked off at least a year of development time on the Camaro).

There is a clear choice here.

1. GM keeps the car secret until it's ready to be introduced, and goes back to secret "focus groups" instead of the general public to get reaction to designs, or...

2. GM does what they did with the Camaro, being open about the development process, keeping enthusiasts up to date with what stage the car was at.

GM didn't have to do the Camaro the way it did. It could have simply kept the thing secret and not admit or confirm anything, and not show any Camaro whatsoever at an auto show or public event until it was ready for production.... which in this case would have been just a few months ago at Indianapolis.

That's the schedule it normally follows in the car business. They show the car mere months before it's in showrooms to generate intrest.


But there's one final, important, and unavoidable fact....

THE RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE CAR SHOW CIRCUIT IS WHAT GOT THE CAMARO RAMMED GM'S APPROVAL PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE KILLED IT OTHERWISE.

Camaro is the only new North American rear wheel drive car outside of Cadillac due over a 4-5 year period that wasn't either cancelled or shelved, although it was the least practical and likely least profitable of them all. This includes a whole line of Zetas, new C7s, and even (now apparently) the Alpha.

So before we start bashing GM for "taking too long" to bring out Camaro (which is 100% false), we really need to think through what the alternative would have been.

guionM

Like the 3rd gen Camaro which used the lowly Chevrolet Vega and not much higher Monza as a jump off point, the Mustang used an existing platform as a starting point for the Mustang: The DEW98 platform. The same one that underpined Lincoln LS, Ford's Thunderbird, and the Jaguar S-type, and currently is the platform used by the new Jaguar XF.

The Ford Mustang was supposed to use a DEW "lite" chassis, which is in many ways what the Camaro is to the Zeta. That platform was too expensive enable the Mustang to sell at the pricepoint it needed to be profitable.

Instead, Ford took as much cost out of the DEW, and what they ended up with they call the D2C (D-class, 2-door, Coupe).

The key differences between the DEW and the D2C are in the suspension. The double wishbones up front are replaced with struts, and more famously, the rear has a live axle insted of IRS.

Ford does infact make money on the Mustang. The business plan for the Ford Mustang takes into account the buying cycles of sporty coupes that can go from extremely high to very low in a year or so. Ford also has a baked in restyling cycle. By the time a new mustang design hits the streets, Ford usually has the design direction locked in for the next one, usually 3-4 years away.


The context this conversation is being used (that GM could create an all new chassis for Camaro) doesn't hold up unless the intent is to create a minimally expensive, strut front suspension, live rear axle Camaro off of a Sigma chassis. That would be the GM equivlent... and it would actually give GM a bigger profit margin. However, the idea that GM (or even Ford) would whip up an all new chassis from the ground up is simply untrue.

Coupes aren't automatically lighter than sedans. In many instances, coupes are heavier than sedans. Challenger R/T is marginally heavier than the Charger. The Cadillac CTS coupe will be marginally heavier than the CTS sedan. Adding an extra set of doors doesn't instantly make a car heavier since you are essentially replacing one structure with another.

Another item is that smaller means lighter. In and of itself, it doesn't if all else stays the same.

Taking a foot off or adding a foot onto the Camaro isn't going to result in a huge amount of weight change. Most of the hard core weight of a vehicle is in it's drivetrain and suspension components.

Take the Chevrolet Camaro. Say we simply wanted to shrink them down, say, SN95 Mustang size. We still have the heavy IRS system, which all we did was take a few inches out of the width. We still have large (and heavy) disc brakes at all 4 corners. The drivetrain of an LS3 that is built to take the punishment of over 400 lbs/ft of torque is still there.

In the end, what we end up is similar to what Ford ended up with with the Cobra. A car weighing 3665 (versus the SS's 3860). Keep in mind, that the Cobra doesn't exactly give the confidence of a chassis that can handle all that power without tearing itself apart, while the solid Camaro SS on the other hand by every account seems like it can easily handle alot more without a hiccup.

On the other hand, if we start talking about a car centered around a more powerful V6 (say the 3.6 DI running around 320hp), then we can take weight out of the suspension and drivetrain, use smaller, lighter brakes, maybe take a few pounds out of the chassis, and we'd have a Camaro the same size, but a whole lot lighter.


The current Mustang and Camaro are roughly the same size. The new Mustang GT weighs 3520. The Camaro SS weighs 3860. Both carry pretty close to the same amount of steel in their bodies.

What's different between the 2 of them that would account for the weight?

Meanwhile, despite being bigger than both, the Dodge Challenger R/T is much closer in weight to the Camaro SS than the Camaro SS is to the Mustang GT (despite the Challenger using less relatively light weight aluminium and more steel in its drivetrain & suspension). What is similar between the two that would make that possible?

Heavy duty, high capacity, Independent Rear Suspension.

rlchv70

It seems to me that the Volt is using a similar approach to the Camaro in the development process. At least in the aspect of being open to the public.

Z284ever

The irony here, is that we have someone (you), who feels that the the mass of the Camaro is the most perfect damned thing since sliced bread - but has no aspirations to buy one, and we have someone else (me), who has aspirations to buy one or more Camaros, but is put off from doing that by it's bulk and mass, (and to a lesser extent by it's bizarrely ghastly IP, center stack and steering wheel).

Z284ever

How can I forget? You remind us of that story c-o-n-s-t-a-n-t-l-y.

teal98

Charlie, if you're going to post, at least try to make it relevant. You know that you're mis-characterizating my posts. I now recognize your use this tactic when you get boxed into a corner.

I don't like heavier cars any more than you do, and you know that. I've bought two Camaros in the last 11 years (a '98 and an '02), and you know that (at least I've posted it before in these discussions). I joined this site years ago to learn more about the new Camaro, with the thought that I might buy one, so in addition to my aspirations for buying one being irrelevant to the discussion, you're wrong.

The fact is that all cars have gotten heavier. You glommed on to the 370Z being lighter than the 350Z. Now we know that it isn't. The G37 sedan gained nearly 100 pounds in the upgrade from G35. The new Mazda 3 weighs nearly 3000 pounds (a bit more than the old 323 and Protege, eh?). I could go on and on.

So now we come to a new Camaro that's about 400 pounds heavier than the '93 model, with tons of upgrades to engine, transmission, suspension, chassis, safety, etc. It's not what I would want. But excuse me for trying to have a balanced view and a realistic assessment. If you would just step back from your unrealistic expectations, you'd see that the new Camaro is actually very competitive in weight with the other cars available in 2010 -- the V8 version especially.

Regarding bulk, the Camaro is a whole 2.3" longer, 1.6" wider, and 1.4" shorter than a Mustang. It's about 3" shorter in length than my 2002. It's very close in size to the '70.5 model.

You have choices. If you want a small 6 cylinder coupe, you can get a 128i or 135i. If you want the lightest IRS V8, you can get an M3. You'll pay $$ for those options. If you want a 315hp solid axle V8, you can get a Mustang GT. But if you want a $31K IRS 400hp/400tq RWD coupe, the Camaro is a great option, and there's no lighter four seater anywhere close in price.

Now if you want to complain about the IP, center stack and steering wheel, that's a matter of taste, so whatever you feel about that is between you and yourself. I might even agree there. I've said before that I don't like the tiny greenhouse, and that might be enough to keep me from buying one, though I won't be able to make that judgment until I actually sit in one.


By the way, as a not totally irrelevant aside, the Feb '09 Car and Driver compares new the dual clutch M3 and 911. The M3 has more power (414 to 345 but torque is about the same at ~270 for both) but due to an additional 400 pounds (3700 versus 3280, IIRC), acceleration is neck and neck. They liked the M3 better for spirited driving, and it won the comparison.

teal98

Right. By opening up a larger gap in the body, you need additional reinforcement elsewhere. The pillars between doors in sedans are integral to the body's structure.

Z284ever

Boxed in a corner? Please. Do you think I'm a frightened squirrel or something?

I'm simply basing that statement on a previous conversation we had, where you said you'd prefer buying a G8 over a Camaro.

And for someone not liking heavier cars anymore than me, you sure expend alot of energy defending them and even trying to convince me that I should personally accept them. Nothing wrong with that. Discussion forums would be pretty boring without any "discussion" - but come on, let's call a spade a spade.

teal, I don't know if you've seen the production car in person yet or not. But if you haven't, when you do, you'll see what I mean about 'bulk". Especially from the high cowl forward, there is quite a surprising amount of Challenger rivalling mass.The fenders swallow those 20's like they're 16's. Some people might like that, for me, not so much.

teal98

Cornered squirrelly bugger.


I go back and forth. I like the shape of the G8 better. But I like the engines and focus of the Camaro. Since there is not much difference in size, it'll come down to which I like better when I've been in both. Unless I pull the trigger on a G8 prematurely.

There you go again. It's a diamond!

Actually, I'm not defending heavy cars per se, I'm defending the Camaro, presenting as evidence, other cars. We may not like how heavy cars have gotten, but it's due to regulatory and market pressures. The Camaro is subject to them, unfortunately.


I've not seen it outside of an auto show. It sounds like you're talking about perceived bulk. That may be why the greenhouse looks so small -- because of a high beltline. What's it like behind the wheel?

If 18s look fine on a G8, I wonder why not on the Camaro?

Big Als Z

I will sit somewhere between Charlie and Guy.
We all know that Camaro could have been worse, and we know that Camaro could be better. But in the grand schem of things, I think what we got will appease 90% of the Camaro enthusiasts out there. The other 10 will range from the box with an engine guys that want a 12 bolt running behind a M-21 which has been bolted to the back of a 454 in a car that has no ac, radio, with lexan replacing glass, and the others that want a lighter, smaller, less powerful Camaro.

As for development time, Ill give GM the years of 01-04 to keep quiet any development for Camaro. Ill wave off the concept time of 05 to 06. The concept rode in on a half a sigma, half a VZ platform if I recall.

I think that GM focus on the car at hand, look at market trends for the segment, and hit a target for a better car 3x what they currently have.
Current Malibu is a compeditive car because it aimed higher then the 04 did. The 04 was aimed at 00-02 Accords and Camrys, and IMO its on par or better then either of thoes cars. But problem is by 04, the only car still around was the Camry. The Accord grew and developed into a better sedan.
GM needs to keep moving foward with thier innovations. They just cant make a bunch of great cars, and then let it slide for years. Malibu was the first time that GM has doen such a massive upgrade for any car in such a short time period. The new Nox is also a great addition, and the Cruze will filli n for Cobalt beautifuly.

GM needs to really watch market trends better then they do. Why the Orlando is not going to be made here is rediculious. There is no reason that GM could dream up to convince me of anything else. The Beat, ok Ill give you, but the Orlando is a must. Make it in America and sellit all over the world and take advantage of the low dollar vs the Euro.

SSbaby

I think the best thing about the Camaro is its 'heritage' design - it's basically timeless. Even if it is late to the party, it will not only look fresher than Mustang and Challenger (IMHO), it will ride and handle waaaaay better.

GM's designs usually age rather quickly... like when their competitors come out with their next generation vehicles only a year later. In regards to Camaro, it's a credit to GM's designers that they are able to come up with a design that is so attractive today even if the silhouette is basically a 2000 design. However, not every car will be a heritage design theme so GM will need to keep up with the latest designs and cutting edge technology for all its future products if it wants to survive beyond this decade.

guionM

Dead on points all around.

Anyone who doesn't like the Camaro's weight, simply buy something that you do like.

If you feel GM made the Camaro too heavy:

1. Name another V8 powered, 4 passenger, rear drive, independent rear suspension, mass produced, sub-$30,000 car anywhere on the planet that weighs less. Even the significantly smaller BMW M3 weighs 3,740.... and costs 56 large.

2. Name what you are prepared to give up in order to reach your targeted weight:

Horsepower? Less horsepower has a cascading effect of cutting weight in other areas of the car that quickly adds up.

Performance? Smaller brakes mean less weight. So does lighter suspension components and driveline pieces, which also mean less performance.

IRS? The biggest single thing you can do to cut weight. It takes alot to just do an IRS and it's madatory cradle. Even V6 powered IRS cars much heavier than you'd expect.

Even a small, RWD, IRS V6 Hyundai Genesis coupe weighs as much as a significantly larger, V8 powered live axle Mustang GT.

Simply stating that a Camaro is overweight with no supporting examples from other similar vehicles, no examples of what should be given up to achieve that weight, or even how a should-be weight number isn't simply a random number pulled out of thin air doesn't lend itself to serious, practical discussion or consideration.