Lets talk weight and where it adds up...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I think what Charlie is talking about is relative appearance vs. actual size. The Camaro was designed to look "wide" whereas the Challenger is more "upright". Thus making the Camaro appear wider than it really is (although it is wide). It has more to do with overall perception and not an actual comparison of them side-by-side.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
I think what Charlie is talking about is relative appearance vs. actual size. The Camaro was designed to look "wide" whereas the Challenger is more "upright". Thus making the Camaro appear wider than it really is (although it is wide). It has more to do with overall perception and not an actual comparison of them side-by-side.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
You're missing my point. What I am suggesting is don't look at them side-by-side; instead look at them individually. The Camaro has the perception of being a bigger vehicle because of its "wide" look... regardless of reality. At least I think that's Charlie was talking about.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
You're missing my point. What I am suggesting is don't look at them side-by-side; instead look at them individually. The Camaro has the perception of being a bigger vehicle because of its "wide" look... regardless of reality. At least I think that's Charlie was talking about.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
It's hard for Charlie to be objective about the Camaro, given how much he wanted to see a Camaro the size and weight of a 3-series coupe.
Both the Camaro and the Challenger have very tall sides. I've seen new and old Challengers together, and the old one works much better to my eyes. Seeing the new Challenger by itself, it looks fine. It's only when put next to the old one that it looks chunky.
Since the new Camaro is taller than a '69, and it probably has a smaller window opening, it also will probably look chunky compared to a '69.
Both the Camaro and the Challenger have very tall sides. I've seen new and old Challengers together, and the old one works much better to my eyes. Seeing the new Challenger by itself, it looks fine. It's only when put next to the old one that it looks chunky.
Since the new Camaro is taller than a '69, and it probably has a smaller window opening, it also will probably look chunky compared to a '69.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I agree with you. IMO, the Challenger is a fat pig and the Camaro is more sporty... however others think otherwise because of the Camaro's aggressive wide stance, which gives the perception of it being bigger than it actually is. That's all I was trying to point out. (And failing miserably, obviously 
)
)
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Well not really. The 70.5 Camaro is pretty close to the size of the 2010 model. The biggest difference is in height (4 inches). Even weight isn't that far off. When you adjust for equipment, a 70.5 Z28 weighs about the same as a 2010 V6, has about the same horsepower and 1/4 mile numbers -- at least going by a period R&T test.
Go forward to the mid 70s smog, bumper, and safety mobiles, and the new one is actually lighter and much much faster, even with the V6.
Go forward to the mid 70s smog, bumper, and safety mobiles, and the new one is actually lighter and much much faster, even with the V6.
But the 2010 Camaro is styled after the smaller 1969 Camaro, not the 1970 1/2 model...
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Man oh man, you guys are vultures... 
Can we all agree that the Challenger is a large chunky car? Your expectation would be that a Camaro parked next to one would appear substantially smaller...no?
My impression when looking at the two of them from directly in front or directly behind is that they are the same size. And shockingly so. Sure the Camaro is shorter, but you don't see it from the front and rear perspectives mentioned.
Can we all agree that the Challenger is a large chunky car? Your expectation would be that a Camaro parked next to one would appear substantially smaller...no?
My impression when looking at the two of them from directly in front or directly behind is that they are the same size. And shockingly so. Sure the Camaro is shorter, but you don't see it from the front and rear perspectives mentioned.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
Plus I said competition, meaning the Mustang parked next to it in that pic, not appliances out on the road.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I have, and thank god it looked bigger than the Corolla it was next to. I feel that the 5th (although a little heavy) is pretty close to perfect. No one would have wanted to spend in the upper $30K's for a car they felt was "small".
Plus I said competition, meaning the Mustang parked next to it in that pic, not appliances out on the road.
Plus I said competition, meaning the Mustang parked next to it in that pic, not appliances out on the road.
Camaro is not a Corolla... that's why it's got that thumping V8 under the hood. Its proportion, stance and shape are both intimidating and menacing.
Looks alone, a chimp doesn't scare me but a gorilla does.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Several pictures of all 3 here. None quite straight on...
http://jalopnik.com/5302090/muscle-c...ger-vs-mustang
http://jalopnik.com/5302090/muscle-c...ger-vs-mustang
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
