I don't see the problem here either. Just because the external dimensions are rationalized doesn't mean that the interior will be so small only hampsters will be comfortable. With modern packaging and the wheels pushed out to the corners there should be no problem whatsoever having a 05 Mustang-ish or GTO -ish wheelbase.

For myself, 108 is a magic number as it was the first gens wheelbase. Besides that puts it between the two aforementioned vehicles. With the longer than-it-has-been-for-almost-25-years wheelbase, and modern packaging, it could be one hell of a spacious yet intimate car with much more appropriate dimensions.

I find it almost laughable that the Camaro, because of it's interior was classed as a compact when it's exterior dimesions screamed intermediate. Well, not quite as laughable as the new Magnum being classified as a truck.

 

Great, yet another useless "4 seater."


Guy, your last post about how the Velite gives the appearance of "big" is very true, and reminds me of the Buick Y-Job. They did a lot to make the car look "big" when it really wasnt.
The very large front grill, as well as the bulges and everything makes it look like a boat, but again with different sheetmetal with more agressive lines, I think the car will look much different.

And is it me, or is the SN95 much larger then the G35?

 

I believe so. I saw a G35 on the street yesterday. There's no way in H.E.doublehockeysticks a Camaro should ever be THAT small.

 

G35 Coupe = 182.2 " in length.
Mustang = 183.2"
Ford Explorer = 189.5"
Hummer H2 = 189.9"
2002 Camaro = 193.5"

You guys don't have a problem with that?

 

That's all the difference?

I'm surprised because the G35 I saw yesterday looked much smaller than my Mustang. However, its TOO small IMO.

 

2 things with that is the back seat will be useless. SN95's have a very tight back seat, and the G35 is equaly worthess.
I needs to be bigger.

 

1"....that's the difference. IMO, that's about perfect for a 5th gen, too.

But, don't you have a problem with Camaro being longer than an H2?????? Because, I think it's nothing short of simply ridiculous.

 

Why stop there? Let's make Camaro a 5 seater while we're at it. How about a third row?

 

Yeah, I'm thinking it's too much of a pain to get in and out of the back also. It should definately be a four door.

 

Forget about comparing numbers and compare what the cars actually look like.

Sure my 4th gen is long, but its still a hot looking car and proportionate for the way its styled. My 96 Mustang GT looks proportionate and its a heck of a lot shorter. The G35 is just too damn small to ever be a Camaro. Yes its the same size as the Mustang, but it looks like a small sports car based on its proportions. Compare the H2??? Why? Its a flippin SUV and a SHORT one at that.

You can't simply compare apples and oranges and you can't base everything on the length of a car that you haven't seen or doesn't even exist (in production trim) at this point.

 

The length is not nearly as outrageous to me as the short wheelbase as a ratio to overall length. on the 4th gen nearly 50% of the car is outside the axles. I think anything at or under 190 inches in length is fine as long as the wheelbase is significantly longer than 101 inches.

 

Anyone ever notice that since 1967 the Camaro's interior has remained roughly the same size but the exterior has grown by leaps and bounds? And as others have pointed out....all while other cars were shrinking on the outside and growing on the inside.

 

THANK YOU! Z284Eever you gush about how the '05 Mustang looks and feels but in pure dimensions you do realize that the car is a paltry 4 inches shorter (actually less!) than a 4th Generation Camaro, right? It isn't pure numbers of a car; a car can have length if it wears it well. That said, I do feel Camaro needs to tidy up the dimensions. No shorter than 185 inches and no longer than 190. Put the car in that window, add just a touch more usability in the back seat and you've got ideal Camaro dimensions IMO. Styling is a whole other topic.

 

Exactly. Read it over and over again until it is understood.

 

Ummmmm, no.

First, I wasn't gushing about the '05 Mustang...I was describing it. In fact, if you go back and read what I wrote...I believe that I mentioned the '04 Mach 1, Ford had on display there, seemed sportier than the '05 GT to me....when viewed externally... because of Mach 1's shorter length. The SN95 is 4" shorter than the '05. That mere 4" altered my perception of which car appeared more sporty. Frankly, I'd like the '05 better if it were abit shorter....all of it out of the rear overhang.

Second, the '05 Mustang is more than 4" shorter than a 4th gen....the '05 Mustang is 187.6" long...the 4th gen is 193.5".