Time to welcome back the Caprice!

 

I think you should do that anyway. Make sure its an L98 G92.

 

Ok, lemme dumb this one down for you, since apparently you have difficulty with the comparison, shall we?

A Camaro is a REAR WHEEL DRIVE CAR. A typical rear wheel drive car. Decent power, performance oriented tires, hmmm...gee, that sounds a little like a GTO, does it not? Does it matter if my Camaro was an '89, an '02, or a '67? Not really...its a RWD car with no traction control.

Now, a Grand Am is a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE CAR. Just like the mass, blah things millions of people drive these days. Doesn't matter if its an '85, an '02, or an '09...its a basic FWD car.

Now, the question is, does a RWD architecture do as well in snow as FWD without TC? Uh, no. Period. And MANY buyers (my own parents included) will see TC as nothing more than a "band aid" for a poor performing bad-weather car. They will shy away. Many of these people either a) had a RWD that was lousy (aka 3rd or 4th gen) or b) have heard from others, or gee, maybe even a CAR MANUFACTURER, that RWD is not optimal in snow. Are there any questions??

I don't mean to sound like a PITA, but the argument is entirely valid, far beyond some silly comment regarding comparing nothing more than an '89 Camaro to an '02 Grand Am...

 

Thats the one my friend I love sticks, but an LB9 just ain't gonna do it for me...I've been amazed how many beautiful low mileage IROCs have gone through eBay as of late. I want one sooooo bad....37 more E-Z payments on the Grand Am, then I can have one Hey, I need a driver, right??

 

They are around. I know of a few really low mileage Thirds right in my own town and around it. The only thing is that people are already starting to ask alot or too much sometimes for mint top model Third Gens. Buy while you can because you'll pay an incredible amount in a few years.

IMO you make good observations about RWD vs. FWD, and RWD can be good all year if you know what you're doing. Now just to get every1 else to believe it.

 

When you are comparing the perception of drivalilty of the two cars in a real world, daily driver situation, there is nothing qrong with this comparision.

Thousands and thousands of car shopper will do this very same comparison.

 

i don't know whats wrong with you guys but my camaro is better in the snow than my moms escort.

 

This is the same type of thinking that got the F-body in the perdicament that it's in now....GONE!

How much more clear can it be that the general public is NOT interested in super-low, ergonomically inefficient, ultimate-performance machines!

In society now, image is everything, taste is nothing! People, especially women, want to look good in these "sporty" cars, they're not interested in burning the tires off for a block, or hanging the rear end out on every city block corner.. As a matter of fact, how many of you actually USE your car's full capabilities on a daily basis (better yet, how many can do it LEGALLY)?

Look at the sales figures of V-6 F-bodies and mustangs vs. V-8's...What model (base v-6 or Z28) is the highest seller? What about the heavy influence of women buyers? How many WOMEN are on this board screaming for high performance muscle???

You all have to realize that people on this board are NOT an adequate reflection of the population as a whole. This board is for enthusiats, I'd like to see the results of customer surveys from Mustang buyers as to what they felt was important in their purchase...

I'm willing to bet a paycheck that performance is NOT the #1 reason for purchase (or they wouldn't have purchased any Ford in the first place )

What GM needs to do is exactly the opposite to what you are proposing: get back to the 1st gen formula: good ergonomics, sexy styling, and top-of-the-line performance WHEN OPTIONED CORRECTLY. That doesn't mean the the lower models have to be puny (3800 V-6 would be a perfect choice), but it should appeal to a greater mass than the performance nuts....

Just my .02

 

While I agree with most everything you have said (except the ergonomicsd of the 4th Gen... I thought everything was right where it should be)... I don't think Camaro needs to become a "2 door sedan"... That is what GTO is for... That is what Monte Carlo is for...

Let the Camaro be what it is supposed to be... Just make a quality car, and a realistic business plan.

 

Awhile back, someone mentioned that the Ford Thunderbird has been so many things over the years, it's hard to tell what exactly a Thunder bird is today. Same can be said for Camaro.

The 1st gen Camaro was basically what a stripped down version of the 2004 GTO would be. A good looking, nice sized, sporty car. The 2nd generation Camaro was 2nd fiddle performance-wise to the Firebird, and infact came very close to being cancelled in 1975 while the Firebird continuing. The 3rd gen, it became a road hugging GT 1st, with performance comming in 2nd! Finally, with the 4th gen came low slung, tire frying GT performance. Of course, with this comes collective amnesia where we think Camaro has always been a low slung, tire frying GT performance car.

Mustang's successful because it stuck with the ponycar formula, and has corperate commitment. I believe GM knows this. Which Camaro do you see in Chevy advertisements? The 1st gen. Also worth noting is that all low slung GTs are selling poorly now. Celica and Eclipse are also dismal sellers next to the more sports sedan-like Mustang.

I love my Z28's performance and gurgle but let's be honest here, if it wasn't for the LT1 or LS1, the 4th gen Camaro and Firebird wouldn't have lasted more than a couple years, let alone 10. For each of you who storms out mad if Camaro became a rebodied version of GTO, there's likely 5 buyers who would take your place, especially if it was faster & better made than the 4th gen.

I see GM's RWD performance splitting into 2 catagories. I see the "low cost" Solstice line of cars becomming the new low slung sports GTs, with the supercharged ecotec not only matching LT1 in performance, but with an aftermarket that will make them quicker than current LS1s. On the traditional (pony car) side, I see the new, so called "moderately priced" RWD "performance" chassis handling GTO, Camaro, and perhaps Cadillac as well, each with a variation of a long hood, short deck, 3 box design.

 

Interesting viewpoint, Guion...

In my head, Camaro has been "the closest thing to a Vette yet"... and that is what it should continue to be.

I Think ever since 1970, it's basically been a low-slung sports car for the masses.

My reason for lack of sales is simply relative poor build quality when compared to most other cars in todays market, and an aging design that was not freshened enough over it's lifespan.

Throw in a lack of marketing support, and I think that spells disater for any car line.

 

Yup, I mean the 1st Gen was only here for 3 years!! I admit liking them alot though, but not more than the low aggressive looking Thirds.

 

Just a point that I'd like to bring up.

The reason the 1st gen looks the way that it does (ie, upright), is because of the platform it was forced to use.

When Chevy realised it needed a Camaro....the only appropriate platform available was the new X-car, which was then nearing the end of it's developement.

Camaro needed to share many key structural components with the '68 Nova...including it's firewall.

Chevy designers weren't too happy about how this "compromised" the design of the Camaro...and thus were given a freer hand to make the 2nd gen more low slung....and that's the way it has remained until now.

BTW..I find the argument that the 4th gen failed because it's styling was just too swoopy, is THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I'VE EVER HEARD!

Uhmmm, lemme see...

The 4th gen failed, NOT because...

1) It had stale styling.

2) Was a sporty car, bigger than many SUV's.

3) Had poor ergonomics.

4) Had a chintzy interior.

5) Had poor/zero marketing.

6) Immolated itself in a cannabalistic model line up.

7) Had really, really, really ugly wheels.

8) I could go on...but don't want to appear to be piling on.

No sireee Bob. It wasn't any of those things. It must have been the swoopy styling.

Yeah....that's the ticket.

 

Yup, 2nds and Thirds sold great and they both ran for a long time.

 

Was in a rush yesterday and just wanted to clarify what I meant.

I'm not advocating Camaro going back to a 3 box design or staying a roadgoing GT. Just bringing up that Camaro has been alot of things over the years. Everything from a secretary's car, to a track runner, to what can be best called a Grand Tourer. It was a Muscle car in the form of the 454SS, a luxury car in the form of the LT, a futuristic car in the form of the early Berlinetta (remember that radio on a stick?) and the 4th gen that truly was a 4 passenger Corvette (though Chey advertized it that way as far back as the early 70s).

It's ridiculous to say the only true Camaro was a 1969, just as it's ridiculous to say Camaro has always represented the pinnacle of tire scorching performance, something it's only done the last 10 years out of 35.

Camaro has always been evolutionary. Each design has been a step (or a jump) forward in design, both in interiors as well as exterior design. If there is a Camaro "look" it's as a shovel nosed, single side window hatchback with T-tops (the way it's spent the majority of it's life). It doesn't have to stay that way with the 5th gen, but it should have some connection to the Camaro before it as all Camaros (except the 2nd gen) has done.

If GM can do it with a GTO based car, it should be interesting. I don't think they should go retro by any means, at the expense of 30 years of evolution. But at the same time, the next Camaro should be somewhat more practical to bring more people in, because us guys alone aren't enough to make an entire carline profitable for very long.