how long did it take to develop the camaro in respect to the mustang? the challenger? or any vehicle from toyota or honda? i didn't see this answer and really that is all that matters, the time to market in comparison to the competition.

 

Proudpony probably can supply better details than I can regarding Mustang. Basically, development work started onthe current Mustang as soon as the paint was dry on the then new Lincoln LS, so about 4 years or so total.

As far as the Challenger, I know for a fact planning was underway in mid 2003. Had an unexpected turn of a conversation with a key Chrysler person in a phone call wher he layed out the issues they were sorting through as far as marketing it. Though it wasn't called the Challenger at the time, and I was still thinking they were going to either do a version of their 4 passenger concept of a few years before or do a 2 door version of the Charger concept.

At that time, the business model that was leading was that the coupe had to be tilted to much higher performance than Mustang and it had to top the discontinued GM F-body. The thinking was that there was no way in hell they were going to sell in enough volume to justify the car, so they had to sell it at a much higher pricepoint than Mustang (or Camaro) sold. Also, the car couldn't directly compete against the Mustang because they would lose, so the car would have to be a little bigger. The theme was upscale performance.

It came out not long ago that when I was had that conversation, design work was already well underway, and by my guess, was roughly where the Camaro project was in the months before the Camaro concept came out.

In short, I'd say the Challenger had roughly a 2 to 3 year lead on the Camaro in starting development, was obviously much closer to production than Camaro when both showed up at the 2006 NAIAS, and made it to market a year earlier. Altogether, I'd say it took Chrysler about 5 years to get the Challenger through the system and probably 3-4 years in total to actually get the work done.

But keep in mind, when development started on Challenger, Daimler had all but killed off all new product at Chrysler, and it wasn't until the 300 and Magnum became huge sensations in that Daimler finally signed off on moving the Challenger towards production in 2005 and gave final approval in 2006.


While Camaro has been in gestation since at least 1998, first GM wound up scrapping development work they did on the Sigma/VE Camaro which was evidently a couple of years underway when killed. Then there was about 3 additional years lost where GM was legally bound (or at least it was in their extreme best intrest) to avoid any perception that they were even thinking of bringing Camaro back after they discontinued it in 2002.

Although there were Camaro-like designs being done in the meantime (under the guise of a Zeta-based Chevrolet "GTO"), actual designated Camaro design work didn't start till 2005. Concept went on display at the start of 2006. Bob Lutz didn't even wait for approval, so the Camaro had pretty much a continuous development process from the start of the 2006 car show season, so overall development time was roughly a very rapid 3 years from start to finish......a blistering 2 years from start of actual development to having the assembly line in place.

To some, it seems the Camaro took forever to get to market. But that is only because we got to see it from the moment it left the clay stage instead of just before it went on sale. Even the Challenger was shown unusually early.

The Camaro didn't set a record (I believe the Cobalt holds that title at 18 months), but for going from essentially an all new chassis (it's a all new version of Zeta: a short wheelbase version with front wheels located more forwards and less rear overhang... Challenger is essentially a chopped wheelbase LX with a low cost nose extention), the speed the Camaro was done is truely impressive.

 

how does the development time compare to honda, toyota, nissan, et al?

 

My perception of sitting in one of the IVER cars at Indy is, that you are sitting in a tight cockpit perched on top of a large car. And really, I don't mind the intimacy of the cockpit, that's a Camaro hallmark, it's the feeling of being perched on a large car that bugs me.


The roofline is marginally lower on the Camaro vs the Mustang, but I'm pretty sure the Camaro's beltline is higher than Mustang's though.

 

The Camaro doesn't even qualify there.

Not true. The V6 Genesis coupe is actually about 150 pounds lighter than the Mustang GT.


You know, I don't want to get too deep into this again Guy. I get VERY UNPOPULAR with management here when I point certain things out.

But, Camaro will weigh roughly 300 pounds more than Mustang and 450 pounds more than Genesis coupe - those will be prime competitors. You can try to qualify that, argue that, claim IRS adds HUNDREDS of pounds , split hairs, or spew a half page post of half baked "data" - but nothing changes that fact.

 

???? The only thing that isn't true about the Camaro is that it isn't in production yet. Oh, okay V8 Camaro starts at $30,995.

Why are you comparing a V6 to a V8?

Hyundai Genesis Coupe V6 = 3402 lbs. per Autoblog


Mustang V6 = 3352 lbs. per Edmunds


Camaro v6 = 3741 lbs.

3741 - 3402 = 339 lbs. Where do you get 450 lbs? Are you looking at the 4 cylinder version???

To me, 400 lbs, is not a lot of weight. Especially when you compare the refinement, power, performance, and other features of the Camaro over the Mustang and Genesis.

What would you sacrifice to get the weight down?

Size? - You would have to go WAY smaller.

Price? - This would be necessary in order to use premium materials. This would kill sales.

Stiffness? - Leads to reduced performance.

Ammenities? - Would kill sales by either their non-availability or the higher price needed to develop multiple configurations.

Time? - Additional time would be needed to develop an all-new light weight chassis, assuming it could be done cost effectively.

Performance/Handling? - If you use a cheap IRS or a solid rear axle. Also see stiffness.

Power? - Not much to be gained here unless you downsize the engines, downsize the power capabilities, downsize transmissions, differentials, etc.

 

400 lbs is not a lot of weight!? oye vaye.....

 

So we agree.

Take that up with Guy, I'm just responding to his statement......




As for the rest, honestly what can be said which hasn't been said already. Frankly I'm kind of bored to tears with it already. In the end, those who like this car will buy it, those who don't, will buy something else. End of story.

But getting back to the purpose of this thread - the way the Camaro was developed was the most convoluted, compromised, time consuming process I've ever seen. Yes, some good people put their hearts and souls into it, against all odds. But man alive, this is certainly not a process which should be repeated or praised.

 

I think a distinction should be made between the "go / no-go" decision making process, which is unforgivable, and the actual development process, which is pretty darned commendable.

 

There are new numbers for the Genesis V6 that actually put it a bit above the Mustang GT. 3549 pounds, to be exact.

http://www.hyundainews.com/Media_Kit...ifications.asp

Now, until a production model gets weighed on a scale by a 3rd party, we won't know for sure about any of these. But assuming GM, Ford, and Hyundai are accurate with their current numbers, the difference between the Hyundai and Camaro V6s is 6hp and around 200 pounds. The Camaro team had to design for a V8, and I think the V6 Camaro carries around some extra weight, due to it carrying along V8 structure. But if you want a V8, the Hyundai isn't in the picture. The 330 pounds over the Mustang V8 is an issue, but when you consider the extra 107hp and IRS and [what I'm guessing will be a] more modern design, I don't think the Camaro will be hurting in the comparison.

Now, about my "assuming GM, Ford, and Hyundai are accurate...", if the first tested Camaro SS is fully loaded and a magazine puts it on a scale, and the first number under curb weight is a '4', then we've got a problem. If someone in power is reading this, consider providing the 1SS models without moonroof for the first evaluations.

 

About the Mustang V6, that engine is so dated that in spite of the lighter weight (http://www.themustangnews.com/carnew...ations-432.htm has it at 3401 pounds), that the Camaro will likely get better gas mileage, in spite of the higher weight.

So if the Camaro V6 is faster and gets better gas mileage than the Mustang V6, will Joe Car Buyer really bother to go online and look these things up before buying the car like we obsessives do?

 

I guess that was to address the complaints about how the Camaro was too low and hard to get into.

What's an IVER car?


Btw, even if a get a G8, that doesn't automatically mean I wouldn't by a Camaro. It'll be around for a few years, at least.

 

I thought about that too. 2SS, auto, sunroof, 1/2 tank gas........4,xxx

Integration Vehicle Engineering Release. It's a prototype.

 

Arguing with Guy is pointless anymore..once he makes his mind up...[/thread]

In my mind...3 years to basically reskin a G8 into Camaro[/fail] no matter how you slice it. Especially considering Zeta was designed to accomodate a coupe from the start..how long ago did we see the Velite? Also, considering that the car will be the only Zeta made in it's plant, in the US, the fact that they did not use that time to reengineer and shave down weight on the platform is nonsense. I mean I am glad the car is here...but 2009 is a way worse time to be rolling out a new pony car vs. say early 2007.

 

They did shave weight down. It's quite a bit lighter than the G8 GT, and that's with the 20" wheels and tires that probably add 30 pounds themselves.