91_z28_4me

The Fox cars didn't have the best/most modern crash protection did they?

Z284ever

JakeRobb

Why?

I submit the following for your consideration:



It looks just as good scaled down to me.

Of course, scaling down an entire car is massively more complex than scaling down an image (), but that's not the point. The point is that you can scale down the whole thing, and it will still look good. You'll alienate some of the taller potential buyers, but the 5th gen is already extremely accommodating in that regard, and so I would venture to say that not very many customers would be lost.

3rd and 4th gen Camaros are classified as "subcompact" by the EPA. That's the smallest size class there is. The 5th gen is a "compact," which is one size up.

To be honest, I think the 3rd and 4th gen feel roomier (due in large part, I suspect, to the hatchback, t-tops, and lower beltline -- more light gets in).

While I'd love for Camaro to be a BMW crusher, I don't think that's the right direction. Camaro needs to remain more affordable than 3-series.

I agree in spirit, but "nearly chest high"? Seriously? How tall are you? I'm only 5'8" and as I recall, it's roughly waist-high on me. I'll walk out to my coworker's new 1LT and check for you later.


This is, of course, your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but I think that what makes the 5th gen unique and desirable is the aggressiveness of its styling cues -- the sharp angles, the long hood, the stance.

The 2006 Camaro Concept was only significantly larger in width, which has essentially no bearing on how the wheels look.

I think the ideal wheel size on the 5th gen is 19". 20" is passable, but too big IMO, and 21/22 is excessive. However, I'm one of those crazy people that cares about weight, and about the fact that the tire sidewall is an important component in the car's suspension.

muckz

The European crash standards mandate a certain hood height. There's only so far you can bring the cowl down. What are you going to do with the rest of the car? Have 12" windows?

Some manufacturers get "around" this issue by using visual tricks, such as having "hips" at the front, and the hood rising an inch as soon as it's past the fender wells. Look at the latest BMW 5-series.

You can make the Camaro smaller, and I don't doubt the designers will do a good job with it, but the point is, you are limited by regulations.

Which tells you EPA's certification is way off.

Agreed. I don't even know why anyone thinks that BMW is Camaro's competition... it's not. ATS will be, hopefully. And CTS. Anyway, Camaro is a pony car, and that's where it will stay.


I agree that the most wheel a car should have is 19". 20" and beyond is for trucks. It's heavy. Rotational mass is not your friend. That's why I like BMW 3-series. With 19" wheels, it looks beautifully proportionate.

JakeRobb

It's based on interior volume. It's not intuitive, but I don't think it's "way off".

Z284ever

How do you know that I'm not a midget? Okay, I said that with abit of sarcasm, but nevertheless, it's high.

And contrary to some assertions here, GM Design has had to struggle to create a proportional design off of these hefty bones. Massive wheel openings with large diameter tires (18s, 19s, or 20s - they all require a 729 mm tire) is one example. Bolt a 3rd gen IROC-Z wheel or 4th gen SS wheel onto a 5th gen and see how it looks.

A smaller car lifts all sorts of styling restrictions to great proportions.

jg95z28

Those would be part of the "heritage" "retro" styling, not rice.

muckz

If the 4th gen is considered a sub-compact, it's way off. An 8-cylinder car that doesn't fit narrow parking spaces has no place in that category.

JakeRobb

I seem to recall seeing your picture posted here once or twice. You were at the 5th gen concept reveal in 2006. You seemed like a normal-sized guy to me -- almost certainly taller than I am.



I added some emphasis for you. Please read again.

Z284ever

Just an FYI, the concept was smaller than the production car. It was 4" shorter, had a shorter wheelbase and was about an inch or two lower IIRC. Also, it's proportions were quite abit different as well. Look carefully at the production car's dash to front axle length and compare that to the concepts for example. The concept's were longer (on a shorter car).

You know, alot of people say that the production car looks EXACTLY like the concept. I really disagree with that.

muckz

No need to be pedantic. It's a classification system that I do not agree with, because it tells little about the car other than interior volume.

SSbaby

Yeah, I know about the LSX conversions into BMWs... but if you are a manufacturer, you'd also leave some room in there for possible future developments, like twin turbos.

I know, I forgot to add that bit originally. But if the engines are getting smaller, then there is really only one alternative to boosting power - forced induction. Most V8s tend to be S/C because there is room above the V for it.

I do wonder how much room you need to have TTs with that smallblock, though. I dare say you cannot have something as small as a 3-series sized engine bay for a TT LSX.

JakeRobb

But that's what it's intended to tell you about the car. Engine size and exterior dimensions aren't relevant. The EPA's purpose for the classification is to tell you how much people/stuff you can carry with the car, which is useful when viewed alongside the fuel economy ratings.

Let's say I create a classification of cars for anything with great handling, and I include the Mazda Miata. Would you come up to me and tell me that the Miata has no place in that category because it doesn't have enough horsepower?

SSbaby

In an ideal world, you are correct. However, aesthetically, speaking you are compromising many aspects of the design itself.

Practically, you cannot just scale things down by 5% for example. The design/manufacturing process just doesn't work that way. Not only is it sometimes impractical from the moment you get into the car and sit in the seats, some items cannot be scaled down (like roof pillars and other structural components, engines, transmissions, washer reservoirs, stereos, seats (if you want to accommodate same sized adults) etc... and would eventually eat room from space for other components.

The scaled down car would always feel awkward to sit in. An average sized adult would instantly feel the difference from a scaled down car (say 15/16 = ~6% less real estate) compared to a smaller car, sized to accommodate the same sized person. Isn't that kinda obvious?

As muckz also pointed out, what about crash standards? I'm not sure a scaled down car would pass crash tests in the same way?

The point I wanted to make in regards to the wheel size was that Camaro shod with 20" wheels looks better than with 18" wheels... as do most cars i.e compare the standard car against the top of the range model. Still not convinced? Case in point, why are concepts always fitted with bigger sized wheels?

Z284ever

I don't think GM is too worried about fitting a twin turbo V8 into the 6th gen Camaro. First off, Ford has announced that it's turbo 5.0L won't fit in the Mustang's engine bay, and the SC'd 5.4 will probably be gone in three years. Thus leaving versions of the Coyote 5.0L to do battle with the Gen V smallblock for top pony car honors.

For me, a smaller, lighter Camaro, with a normally aspirated Gen V smallblock of 450+ or so horsepower is more than ample. In fact, it suits me just fine.