That's fair enough, but if you want all this in a faster, cheaper and better model than the GTO, you're dreaming. It'd be commercial suicide to undercut your own products like that ...

 

......and that's why it needs to be different than GTO.

 

Whats your suggestion then if it can't be on the VE platform??


The aura around this car has built up that much, that no matter what they build people will be upset...

 

As if people here weren't already in a frenzy. Here's a comparison that should give some of you a little piece of mind.

2003 Accord Coupe
Wheelbase (in.)__105.1
Length (in.)_____187.6
Height (in.)______55.7
Width (in.)______71.3
2003 Mustang GT
Wheelbase______101.3
Overall Length___183.2
Cab Height______53.2
Overall Width____73.1
2002 Monaro (2004 GTO)
Wheelbase (in.)__109.8
Length (in.)_____188.5
Height (in.)______55.0
Width (in.)______72.48
2002 Camaro
Wheelbase (in.)__101.1
Length (in.)_____193.5
Height (in.)______51.2
Width (in.)_______74.1
Study Concept X
02 Camaro in Italics, GTO in bold
Wheelbase (in.)__101.1<101.3<X<105.1<109.8
Length (in.)_____183.2<X<187.6<188.5<193.5
Height (in.)______51.2<X<=53.2<55.0<55.7
Width (in.)_______71.3<72.48<73.1<X~=74.1??

As I said the Study car was SS Concept based. It was slightly longer than the Mustang, shorter than the Accord, wider than both cars, about as tall as the Mustang, and had a wheelbase in between the Accord and Mustang. I can not accurately say if the concept's width was wider than a 4th gen's (it seemed about the same to me), It was wider than both cars there though. The car did NOT seem sedanesque. Look at the Width and Height of the SS concept and where it lines up in the above comparison.

SS Concept
Height (in.)______53.0
Width (in.)_______76.0

 

5th Gen dimensons IMO:

Wheelbase: 101"
Length: 185"
Height: 49.0-49.5"
Width: 72.5-75"

 

"Better looking" is always subjective...but GTO and Camaro can absolutely co-exist and not cannibalize sales. The GTO is and should be what it always was, the more grown-up muscle car. It has more interior comforts, features, roominess, a softer, more forgiving ride....but still has guts under the hood.

The Camaro is the faster yet less well-appointed car (I don't care about the highest grades of leather being used on the seats like I would expect in a GTO, or a dash awash in brushed aluminum trim, or having room for two 6'3" adults to stretch their legs out in the back seat....) To understand how this would work, you have to understand the mission of each car. You have to understand what each car has been all about in the past. You have to understand the group of people that each car has been marketed to.

Let's hope GM understands as well.

 

All very interesting observations Z284ever, and on the surface would prove very disturbing to me as well. However you have to take into account the fact that F-body wasn't getting any of these things because it was getting the axe (or hiatus or whatever). Remember the old "we fought tooth-and-nail to get a million bucks for special wheels for the 35th Camaro"?

 

The new GTO is not the same as the old GTO in that it is smaller relation to what the GTO has historically been. Also keep in mind that size wise, it is only slightly larger than the Mustang. I don't see what all the fuss abount making a Camaro off VE is anyway. I mean it will be much more recognizable than if it was built off Sigma with a high cowl.

Also keep in mind that the VE probaly can be made in different sizes and wheelbases...


I just think somepeople need to have something to complain about or thier day isn;t complete....

 

That's not a bad start...but I'd make the wheelbase a couple inches longer. Length is good. The height....that's damn low....If I took my car that low I'd have to buy 2" lowering springs and give up an inch of headroom to lower the roof. You're talk'n Ford GT height here.

 

Thank's Danno for helping to put the frenzy to rest.

The Monaro is structurally a Commodore sedan for costs reasons. Holden did this car for pennys of what GM North America could have done this, and was made to be profitable selling just 5,000 cars per year for 3 years! The extra 18,000 cars per year for 2004-2006 is no doubt going to make Holden serious bank!

This time around, Holden is going to have a far bigger budget to do a more racy car that will include GTO and MAY also include a new ETC and Camaro as well. Who said anything about this body being an upright 2 door sedan? A 3 box design, yes. A 55" tall 2 door sedan? Not necessarily. This "performance chassis" will no doubt sell in far greater numbers than the current Monaro/GTO will, over a greater period of time. So the money is on this chassis having a unique structure even though it will probally be based on the upcomming VE.

Assuming Camaro and GTO is sharing this structure (we're still just speculating here), and Danno's input, this would seemingly mean a wider, lower, and likely meaner looking GTO and Monaro, and a Camaro that returns to the long hood/short deck formula of the original pony cars, with a bit of testosterone thrown in. Sort of like the last Cuda's and Challengers.

 

Unless something unforseen occurs, VE looks like the platform.....and that's fine. But Camaro shouldn't just be a stripped Monaro/GTO, with a chrome spear on the grill.

I hope that GM spends the extra money to differentiate the Camaro visually and image wise.


As far as the "aura" built around this car.....I think that you are right. GM finds itself in the unusual position (for GM) of having a strong image...but no car. I hope that they can bring us a product that lives up to this image. I am life long Camaro enthusiast.....and I really hope that they don't blow it.....I will accept no excuses.

 

I hate to go back to Nissan, but I really compare this situation to what they have right now. On the same platform you have the 350Z and the G35 coupe/sedan....and most people would never know these cars are virtually identical under the skin. Plus the fact that these two cars cater to two very different kinds of buyers....I have no problems with Camaro and GTO being on VE together. We just want to make sure that the cars are differentiated enough both in looks and content.

 

Thanks Danno. Looks like you've done your homework!

From those dimensions, it sounds like the concept has the proportions of a slightly scaled up Mustang. A couple of inches longer in length and wheelbase, an inch or so shorter in hieght.

If that was supposed to represent a Camaro...I was really hoping for more agressive proportions. Even the current Monaro has it's wheels pushed out further towards the corners.

Did you get the impression that it had the same proportions as the current Mustang?

 

well, if the GTO will be as fast as the LS1 F boby ( maybe a bit faster) why would GM create a new Camaro slower than the 4th gen

I didn't say that the new Camaro has to have better handling, it just needs to be faster than the GTO..aka faster that the last LS1 F'bodys (2002) (drag) and good handling..
I didn't say better looking,...maybe a new Camaro will be better looking for me than the GTO, but maybe not for you..so everybody will have their own opinions, the Camaro has to look more sporty that the GTO of course.
IMO

 

It'd look great. If the wheelbase being longer improved things like handling than I'd be all for it, but I'd want it to be that low because its not only good for handling but a low car just looks good, not too low though. I said 49.0"-49.5", IROC-Z's are 49.8" and a 68 Camaro is 51.5", so you see it's not that much. And I think 185" would be a great length. A wide car looks great too and holds the road nicely so IMO 75" would be the max for the whole effect. All that, a Cd. of about .32, and a weight of about 3,200lbs. = $$$$.