I didn't follow that explanation either. Maybe what he's trying to say is the concept designers had a 'window' of what Zeta could do, and the smallest possibility of that was represented by the concept. Now after development and some hard decisions that smallest possibility isn't possible (or someone made a claim/boast that wasn't realistic...I have seen that happen) and now we'll get a slightly bigger car, which shamefully as someone else posted, is 'merely competitive' instead of being better.

It's a moot point for me...what we're getting doesn't represent 'Camaro' on too many levels.

 

How so?

I'm troubled by the lack of T-tops, but other than that I expect the new car to better any previous generation in any tangible category.

 

That's what I'm saying Tim.

Although the concept tried to represent what they thought would be possible with Zeta, (which included safety requirements, etc.) - the actual production realities didn't allow Zeta to go quite that small. A couple of people who worked the concept, actually told me that the production car would end up slightly shorter in length than the concept. That was then.

When they got down to the real nitty gritty of re-engineering the platform for the Camaro, they found that the production version would need to grow.

 

Read my reply here:
http://www.automochatter.com/forum/s...ead.php?t=2470

 

I don't know if it's been said, but where are the pictures that you took? You did take pictures, right?!

 

Considering that the 2nd Gen Camaro had very obvious European GT styling influences, it makes your thoughts on Camaro kind of ironic and so I'd have to disagree in that respect. We can all see the obvious 1st-Gen lineage in the car, I agree. But there are still enough styling elements in it that both strike you as being Camaro yet unlike what you've seen before.

 

Please for the sake of an open arguement point what I haven't seen yet in the 5th gen, and a stlying line or suface fascet doesn't count. I fail to see any irony in pointing out the 2nd gen's characteristics

 

I like the Journey very much. I think the style is spot-on...aggressive without being over the top (it looks awesome in red). I like the fact it will have a 4 cylinder base model for hopefully ok MPG. I like the fact it has a 3rd row, however useful or useless it may be. The dash is a little odd, though. From an angle, the dash pod looks simply odd...like a Nissan IP plopped on an otherwise flat-ish dash. From behind the wheel, it looks better. Having the radio so low (under the HVAC controls, a la old-school GM!) looks weird at first, but if you're the type to drive and rest your hand on the shifter to change stations, it works beautifully. Materials? Nice cloth, hard dash and door panels = better than Avenger and Sebring...but what isn't? The Challenger is better with materials...the Ram is to the Journey interior what the Impala is/was to the Grand Prix...amazing.

 

yes inddedy, but a fair bit lighter, unless you go for the high zoot model.

 

I will say one thing...the Challenger in person does look shorter than it did on the turntable. I have no scientific proof of that, mind you...

If the Camaro is nearly as large as the Challenger, that will suck. Big time. That Challenger FEELS big...my Camaros FEEL small and tight, and I love that about them. I want a more trim car. If the Camaro is going that big, hell, give it 5 seatbelts

I will say one thing...the Challenger overall height and ride height is definitely unacceptable for a Camaro...too upright, which is one reason the back seat works so well. I will say one thing...the Challenger really makes a strong case for a real Monte Carlo. To me, properly done, a Camaro as a 2+2 and a Monte as true 5 passenger coupe really would appeal to different markets and different people. That Challenger feels entirely different than the Mustang behind the wheel.

Pics were not allowed

 

Before I got my new Mustang, I felt the same way about the F body cars, they flet way bigger than my fox or new edge car, my current car though seems very F bodyish in terms of percieved size.


Good thing the Dodge boys generally only have warm fuzzy memories to work on and can't bitch about the Challenger porking up or gaining size (lucky dodge).

 

I think this is where your argument falls flat
The idea of sports car gets tossed around way to much. Camaro though offen reffered to as a sports car in some groups is NOT. You want a sports car go buy a Vette, 911 , lotus or viper. Those are sports cars.
Camaro is a 2+2 car.. meaning it has done since day one dual purpose for everyone. The person that has to have a daily driver that does many things that sports cars dont. So yes Camaro has to be useful. But also go fast and have fun doing it.

If you cant intergrate daily life into this car..dont expect to sell alot of them..and GM is not doing that.
If you want Camaro to be a sports car...go buy a vette..thats GM's sports car..

 

Gotta love it when the excuse makers get going....

The Camaro is isn't even a 2+2 anymore. It's grown is size to being more a GT car. The problem with the last gen wasn't integrating you life into it, it was living with it. That had nohing to do with how much you could haul. It was too hard edged. The majority of the target market fo this car either single or a couple with no kids (sorry Charlie, but if ya wanna haul kids around get a sedan). Those people do not need a vast amount of trunk space or back seat room, but are looking for a stylish expersiion of their personality. Last time I checked, the Mustang didn't offer up too much to integrate your life, i.e. less than gracious trunk and tight back seats. If you need those two things you DO NOT NEED A SPORTS CAR/COUPE.

I stand by my arguement, justify what's happened to the car however you need to.

 

hp?

 

I'm with you Tim. I have both a sedan and an SUV for those purposes. I expect my Camaro to be a fun ponycar, not a family/utility vehicle.