More GTO news....
08-13-2005, 11:25 PM
#31
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by holeshot
So basically the current state of the union, so to speak, is as follows:
We have to wait until 2009 or 2010 to get an overgrown, overweight, Retro Pig! Wow! Just add a solid axle in there and my nightmare will be complete.
We have to wait until 2009 or 2010 to get an overgrown, overweight, Retro Pig! Wow! Just add a solid axle in there and my nightmare will be complete.
Luckily, the solid axle is now dead after a brief scare. Now on to the next objective.....
08-14-2005, 12:27 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melb, Aust
Posts: 848
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by Z284ever
I see the Torana as analagous to our Camaro/Nova.
I wonder how accepting Australian enthusiasts would be to Monaro sized Torana? Because, that's what a GTO/Monaro sized Camaro would be to me.
I wonder how accepting Australian enthusiasts would be to Monaro sized Torana? Because, that's what a GTO/Monaro sized Camaro would be to me.
08-14-2005, 08:15 AM
#34
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by AnthonyHSV
Do we know that the next Monaro will be a derivative of VE/Zeta or something else??
Last edited by Z284ever; 08-14-2005 at 08:19 AM.
08-14-2005, 09:54 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Beyond the Sun
Posts: 123
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by shadydavy 95 TA
If I remember right, the last time we had a thread like this we thought GTO was dead in ~2007, and the Camaro's shared platform it was going to be built on was gone. Now history repeats itself. Only this time the GTO stays heavy/gets heavier and the Camaro is a porker as well. Folks, I think it's time to realize that the Camaro's shoes have grown bigger than any car can fill in it's absence (I realize this has been said before), and some are going to talk doom and gloom even after the car gets released. It will be too retro, not be a Cobra killer, cost too much, be too late, be too much or not enough of everything.
Even if we get a detuned LS7 Camaro some here will still hate it because it's not a twin screw FI motor. If we get a bargain Z-28 that blows everything in it's price segment away, it will be too little too late, have a *gasp* live axle, or have a too plasticky interior. It's the same reason people are so quick to point out that the GTO doesn't sell and bash the car, till you tell them it's a limited run vehicle and NOT an F-Body replacement. People are bitter towards GM for killing the F-cars and WANT to see GM fail, despite what they may say.
What I am trying to say is this: Some people's minds are made up that no matter what GM rolls out in 20XX...it's not gonna be good enough. And they like it that way.
Even if we get a detuned LS7 Camaro some here will still hate it because it's not a twin screw FI motor. If we get a bargain Z-28 that blows everything in it's price segment away, it will be too little too late, have a *gasp* live axle, or have a too plasticky interior. It's the same reason people are so quick to point out that the GTO doesn't sell and bash the car, till you tell them it's a limited run vehicle and NOT an F-Body replacement. People are bitter towards GM for killing the F-cars and WANT to see GM fail, despite what they may say.
What I am trying to say is this: Some people's minds are made up that no matter what GM rolls out in 20XX...it's not gonna be good enough. And they like it that way.
Are there people like this? Maybe.
It is quite possible, however, that some of these people are misunderstood.
Perhaps they have more passion for this particular name plate than they know what to do with.
Perhaps their true motivation is for this car to be as good as it possibly can be, if and when it ever comes out.
Perhaps, if they thought GM was heading down the wrong track, they would be quick to voice out in attempt to push them in the right direction.
Now if this enthusiasm is perceived as negative or as “GM bashing” by some, so be it. The big picture is more important than perception.
08-14-2005, 10:04 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lincolnwood IL
Posts: 224
Re: More GTO news....
I gotta agree with Z284ever, I am very concerned that the next gen Camaro will be heavier and larger than I would prefer it to be.
[my own rant] I also have growing concerns about the styling. Everybody, including me, loves '69 Camaros. But I don't necessarily want the new Camaro to be a heavy-handed copy of '69 Camaro styling features - which is the direction the new Camaro appears to be going, from what I can deduce from the countless hints posted on the subject. This disappoints me because the opportunity is there is there for GM stylists to create a NEW look and direction for the Camaro. An opportunity to create a new styling standard for other manufacturers to scramble to knock off.
Going retro is just a cop out in my book. Too safe and too predictable. The easiest, safest thing for a car designer to do is to take already established aesthetics from previously successful designs and slap them onto a "new" vehicle and call it "retro" or an "homage" to an icon.
It takes little skill or creative aptitude & even less courage to design cars like that. That's why you see so many photoshopped retro designs by everyday folks (non-designers) on the internet. Retro is too easy. Retro is too safe. GM has something like three dozen studios full of the worlds best designers. Having them design retro cars is a waste of their talent, IMO.
My bottom line: while a Retro 69-like next gen Camaro would look good, maybe even great, I would still see it as a wasted opportunity by GM stylists to set NEW design standards. A lost opportunity to Lead.
[my own rant] I also have growing concerns about the styling. Everybody, including me, loves '69 Camaros. But I don't necessarily want the new Camaro to be a heavy-handed copy of '69 Camaro styling features - which is the direction the new Camaro appears to be going, from what I can deduce from the countless hints posted on the subject. This disappoints me because the opportunity is there is there for GM stylists to create a NEW look and direction for the Camaro. An opportunity to create a new styling standard for other manufacturers to scramble to knock off.
Going retro is just a cop out in my book. Too safe and too predictable. The easiest, safest thing for a car designer to do is to take already established aesthetics from previously successful designs and slap them onto a "new" vehicle and call it "retro" or an "homage" to an icon.
It takes little skill or creative aptitude & even less courage to design cars like that. That's why you see so many photoshopped retro designs by everyday folks (non-designers) on the internet. Retro is too easy. Retro is too safe. GM has something like three dozen studios full of the worlds best designers. Having them design retro cars is a waste of their talent, IMO.
My bottom line: while a Retro 69-like next gen Camaro would look good, maybe even great, I would still see it as a wasted opportunity by GM stylists to set NEW design standards. A lost opportunity to Lead.
08-14-2005, 11:19 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by ADV1
Fact of the matter is that GM already knew a 4-door car like this would be a success because they had it about 10 years ago and killed it! It was the Impala SS with the LT1. This is the same make up for the Charger! I say when they do the IMPY the right way with RWD they best make it right and install a HEMI competing engine (LS2)and market as such!
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Good points....and hopefully the Camaro's saving grace.
My perceptions are that tidy dimensions right now, are not even percieved by GM as an issue to potential Camaro buyers. In fact, GM may be so transfixed by the current Mustang...that if Camaro comes out alittle bigger and alittle heavier....it will be deemed "close enough". "Close enough" for me would be more acceptable if it's alittle smaller and alittle lighter.
This is what I think.....
For those who strongly prefer a smaller, sportier, lighter car...than say the current GTO....now would be the time to voice your concerns.
Because:
1) I believe this issue is not even recognized as an issue by GM.
2)It may not yet be too late affect an outcome.
My perceptions are that tidy dimensions right now, are not even percieved by GM as an issue to potential Camaro buyers. In fact, GM may be so transfixed by the current Mustang...that if Camaro comes out alittle bigger and alittle heavier....it will be deemed "close enough". "Close enough" for me would be more acceptable if it's alittle smaller and alittle lighter.
This is what I think.....
For those who strongly prefer a smaller, sportier, lighter car...than say the current GTO....now would be the time to voice your concerns.
Because:
1) I believe this issue is not even recognized as an issue by GM.
2)It may not yet be too late affect an outcome.
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Luckily, the solid axle is now dead after a brief scare. Now on to the next objective.....
IRS is either light-weight and expensive, or heavy and not as expensive. No free rides here.
Originally Posted by Raven99
I gotta agree with Z284ever, I am very concerned that the next gen Camaro will be heavier and larger than I would prefer it to be.
[my own rant] I also have growing concerns about the styling. Everybody, including me, loves '69 Camaros. But I don't necessarily want the new Camaro to be a heavy-handed copy of '69 Camaro styling features - which is the direction the new Camaro appears to be going, from what I can deduce from the countless hints posted on the subject. This disappoints me because the opportunity is there is there for GM stylists to create a NEW look and direction for the Camaro. An opportunity to create a new styling standard for other manufacturers to scramble to knock off.
Going retro is just a cop out in my book. Too safe and too predictable. The easiest, safest thing for a car designer to do is to take already established aesthetics from previously successful designs and slap them onto a "new" vehicle and call it "retro" or an "homage" to an icon.
It takes little skill or creative aptitude & even less courage to design cars like that. That's why you see so many photoshopped retro designs by everyday folks (non-designers) on the internet. Retro is too easy. Retro is too safe. GM has something like three dozen studios full of the worlds best designers. Having them design retro cars is a waste of their talent, IMO.
My bottom line: while a Retro 69-like next gen Camaro would look good, maybe even great, I would still see it as a wasted opportunity by GM stylists to set NEW design standards. A lost opportunity to Lead.
[my own rant] I also have growing concerns about the styling. Everybody, including me, loves '69 Camaros. But I don't necessarily want the new Camaro to be a heavy-handed copy of '69 Camaro styling features - which is the direction the new Camaro appears to be going, from what I can deduce from the countless hints posted on the subject. This disappoints me because the opportunity is there is there for GM stylists to create a NEW look and direction for the Camaro. An opportunity to create a new styling standard for other manufacturers to scramble to knock off.
Going retro is just a cop out in my book. Too safe and too predictable. The easiest, safest thing for a car designer to do is to take already established aesthetics from previously successful designs and slap them onto a "new" vehicle and call it "retro" or an "homage" to an icon.
It takes little skill or creative aptitude & even less courage to design cars like that. That's why you see so many photoshopped retro designs by everyday folks (non-designers) on the internet. Retro is too easy. Retro is too safe. GM has something like three dozen studios full of the worlds best designers. Having them design retro cars is a waste of their talent, IMO.
My bottom line: while a Retro 69-like next gen Camaro would look good, maybe even great, I would still see it as a wasted opportunity by GM stylists to set NEW design standards. A lost opportunity to Lead.
2. Most all of you guys wanted IRS over live axle. See previous quote's answer.
3. We haven't seen the actual car yet, so why slam it??? We just have a good idea of the direction. Full width grill, wheel "swishes", more creased appearence. To date, there hasn't been a bad word said or sent to me about the design direction by those who've seen it, and when one insider critic calls the design "Bad A**", I'm more likely to believe him.
Last edited by guionM; 08-14-2005 at 11:23 AM.
08-14-2005, 11:54 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Posts: 2,947
Re: More GTO news....
I still think Pontiac would be better suited with a comparable version of the Camaro, said Trans Am, and leave the high end coupes to Buick(GNX, or that convertible?) and Cadillac...and bring them up to a level to compete with Lexus and BMW.
Last edited by 90rocz; 08-15-2005 at 12:52 PM.
08-14-2005, 12:06 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Korea
Posts: 164
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by holeshot
Are there people like this? Maybe.
It is quite possible, however, that some of these people are misunderstood.
Perhaps they have more passion for this particular name plate than they know what to do with.
Perhaps their true motivation is for this car to be as good as it possibly can be, if and when it ever comes out.
Perhaps, if they thought GM was heading down the wrong track, they would be quick to voice out in attempt to push them in the right direction.
Now if this enthusiasm is perceived as negative or as “GM bashing” by some, so be it. The big picture is more important than perception.
It is quite possible, however, that some of these people are misunderstood.
Perhaps they have more passion for this particular name plate than they know what to do with.
Perhaps their true motivation is for this car to be as good as it possibly can be, if and when it ever comes out.
Perhaps, if they thought GM was heading down the wrong track, they would be quick to voice out in attempt to push them in the right direction.
Now if this enthusiasm is perceived as negative or as “GM bashing” by some, so be it. The big picture is more important than perception.
We've been through this before. GuionM trying to allay our fears, and Z284ever telling us that all is not as it should be. What was correct with the percieved death of the GTO was something somewhere in the middle, and it'll probably be that way again with this rumor.
08-14-2005, 01:15 PM
#41
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by guionM
You are grossly underestimating GM regarding their potential Mustang copmpetitor.
Live axle idea was for weight & cost savings. What we are now likely to get is a car that's going to be around 200# heavier than it would have been with that live axle.
IRS is either light-weight and expensive, or heavy and not as expensive. No free rides here.
IRS is either light-weight and expensive, or heavy and not as expensive. No free rides here.
IRS is more complex than a live axle, sure..... but it certainly doesn't carry the weight penalty that you suggest. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the weight difference in a properly designed and executed IRS is miniscule.
1. Every account has the next "possible" F-body shorter than the 4th gen, so any thought of it being too big is ludicrous.
08-14-2005, 01:44 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lincolnwood IL
Posts: 224
Re: More GTO news....
Z284ever wrote: "... Well, of course it's shorter than the 4th gen. The 4th gen was ridiculously long....longer than most of GM's full sized SUV's. Merely being shorter than that is not nearly enough. It NEEDS to be the size of a modern ponycar."
My thoughts exactly! I am sure that the next gen Camaro will be shorter than the current one. I am also very sure that it will be significantly taller and more upright, as well as just as heavy as before, if not heavier. If GM could engineer the C6 Vette to be smaller, lighter, more powerful and NOT significantly more expensive than the C5 Vette, then there is absolutely no reason they can't do the same with the Camaro.
I am looking forward to the Next Gen Camaro. I just signed up for a GM card to start earning savings for one! (with how much I'm spending on gas weekly, I figure the points will add up quickly!) I just think this is a golden opportunity for GM to really make a really special vehicle of the Camaro. An opportunity they may not be taking full advantage of.
My thoughts exactly! I am sure that the next gen Camaro will be shorter than the current one. I am also very sure that it will be significantly taller and more upright, as well as just as heavy as before, if not heavier. If GM could engineer the C6 Vette to be smaller, lighter, more powerful and NOT significantly more expensive than the C5 Vette, then there is absolutely no reason they can't do the same with the Camaro.
I am looking forward to the Next Gen Camaro. I just signed up for a GM card to start earning savings for one! (with how much I'm spending on gas weekly, I figure the points will add up quickly!) I just think this is a golden opportunity for GM to really make a really special vehicle of the Camaro. An opportunity they may not be taking full advantage of.
Last edited by Raven99; 08-14-2005 at 01:46 PM.
08-14-2005, 02:25 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by Z284ever
No, I don't think so. In fact, my perception is that certain aspects are coming together nicely. Some other aspects may require a course correction. Now I know you've said in the past that you feel a GTO sized or larger Camaro would be perfect. In that case, you will be happy. I however, will not.
GTO isn't Camaro. Vice versa. That's where the misconception is.
Live axle proposal was to save cost - pure and simple. Luckily, the good guys were able to shoot that one down. Weight never even came into the decision making process. Again, more Mustang emmulation syndrome.
IRS is more complex than a live axle, sure..... but it certainly doesn't carry the weight penalty that you suggest. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the weight difference in a properly designed and executed IRS is miniscule.
Charlie, you're killing me!
I'll leave this one to any engineers here who want to take a crack at this.
Well, of course it's shorter than the 4th gen. The 4th gen was ridiculously long....longer than most of GM's full sized SUV's. Merely being shorter than that is not nearly enough. It NEEDS to be the size of a modern ponycar.
It's not that the car is actually "large" per se.....
it's that larger than you feel a "modern-day" pony car needs to be.
Now I see where you're coming from.
I also feel a modern pony car should be roughly a RWD Mitsubishi Eclipse with an V8 engine, and I suspect you do too.
If one considers the Mustang very large, then perhaps they might also consider a competing possible Chevy pony car large as well. But if one considers something marginally shorter than a Monte Carlo large (say perhaps... what the size of the next GTO may be), then that possible Chevy pony car isn't large at all, and hardly a pig.
It's all a matter of relativity my friend.
Originally Posted by AnthonyHSV
Do we know that the next Monaro will be a derivative of VE/Zeta or something else??
That's also why I know any "Camaro" isn't going to be GTO sized.
Last edited by guionM; 08-14-2005 at 02:28 PM.
08-14-2005, 02:50 PM
#45
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: More GTO news....
Originally Posted by guionM
I also feel a modern pony car should be roughly a RWD Mitsubishi Eclipse with an V8 engine, and I suspect you do too.