Instead of talking about a Solstice-based Camaro, why not develope a Camaro/Firebird and then leverage the cost of this platform by building some other cars off of it? And if these other cars include a Solstice/Sky/Bengal, then why not? Just as long as they are not Camaro Clones.

The idea here is to make as much a business case as possible to get our Camaros back. Think HOLDEN! Many unique vehicles with few unique platforms!

 

Yes but I have been saying that all along anyways...I had this discussion months ago actually

 

I'm sure this comment won't go over well, but didn't RP also shoot down the possiblity of importing Holdens? Not to say there weren't different issues involved with that, but things aren't always as off-limits as they seem.

I'm not really pulling for one platform over another, just keeping an open mind. I want the best Camaro that can be produced while staying true to its heritage.

 

To be honest, the main reason they never imported Holdens as the Camaro is that they couldn't get the car close to the Camaro's heritage within a certain investment level. You look at the Camaro of teh last 30 years and there is not one thing that looks remotely similar to the Monaro..It would have taken a major design investment to get the car to be the Camaro we know. The GTO on the otherhand fit the bill perfectly styling wise and they were able to get by with just a few changes.

 

Um....actually jrp4uc said Holdens not Camaros. And Redplanet DID shoot down the idea of bringing Holdens (ESPECIALLY MONAROS) to the US.

Hotrodtod74, what you posted confuses me. Are you saying it's wrong to develop a Camaro off a chassis from theSolstice, Bengal, and Sky, but it's OK to develop a Solstice Bengal, & Sky off a Camaro chassis? Kind of flips the debate to the same conclusion doesn't it?


Now, Back to playing the Devil's Advocate:

I think a couple have missed my point here. Being that the Solstice is WRONGLY being associated as a Miata sized vehicle without actually comparing the size of Solstice & Miata, I'll restate my case from a different angle (hard to walk away from a good debate).

GM has made clear that there will be a "sigma volume" car. Because sigma represents a set of components such as front & rear suspension, front end structure, and firewall, under the skin sigma could be anything. If you look under the structure of the 1st & 2nd gen Camaros, you will see a Nova. Anyone who has put both cars on a lift know that the underside of a 3rd or 4th gen Camaro bears an uncanny resemblence to a 1972 Vega! So to say Camaro has never had it's roots or it's engineering starting point in cheap or low priced cars is delusional and dishonest.

That said, maybe, just maybe the 5th gen will be based on something more substantial this time and will in fact be sigma based. But to think a low priced Camaro will be a rebodied Cadillac CTS or STS is also not very realistic. Yet judging by what seemes to be 60% of the posts here, most would sit out a $32-35,000 Camaro Z28, and rant on how Camaro has become too expensive to the average person.

Of course everyone wants a special Camaro-only chassis, but is there anyone who realistically expects that to happen?

Now, say for a minute, this "sigma-lite" suspension set ended up on a Solstice, a car that is structually in the size ballpark as Camaro (check the front & rear track, the cowl & front end....it IS in Camaro's ballpark structurally speaking). The choice was to spend resources on completely redoing a CTS or rebodying a Bengal (the only one of the trio that's a 2+2 & close to Mustang's size) which will be using the same suspension anyway, is designed from the start to be reasonably priced, and is already paid for, then why not?

 

..I'm a little late to this debate.....but have they actually given the Solstice a final platform yet?

I thought the show car was a parts bin buggy and the actual final platform hadn't been decided yet (probably has, but what is it?)

Final size and ability of the platform to handle the projected power levels will ultimately decide the Camaro's foundation..........but I do remember Scott saying something to the effect of "think Sigma" some time ago....

 

Yes thats what he said. I don't think we're getting a Camaro from that platform, let them get it all right IMO.

 

No one ever said that they wanted a Miata-sized Camaro, which is what I believe RP was addressing.

Were a Solstice-based Camaro to be built, it is GOING TO BE A 2+2, NOT MIATA-SIZED. The Bengal is supposed to be a 2+2 also....

For the last time:
FWD AND RWD chassis ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. When people talk about "parts bin" engineering a platform, that DOES NOT include changing it from FWD to RWD.

You can keep some elements of the body structure, but not a whole lot.

RWD cars have a big thing called a driveshaft running right down the middle of the vehicle. Sacrificing the room taken up by a driveshaft on the interior in every FWD car you build on the same platform is STUPID - it isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, FWD cars have the engines pointed 90 degrees away from RWD cars, and have to package the transaxle cross-car at the same time. A transverse I4 + transaxle is WIDER than even a big block mounted longitudinally.

Furthermore, a transverse I4 is a LOT SHORTER fore and aft than ANY OF THE RWD engine mountings. This means that the "thermal event separator" (DO NOT CALL IT A "FIREWALL") and cowl are positioned too far forward in the vehicle to take a longitudinally mounted engine.

Front suspension systems ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE between FWD and RWD due to the fact that you have halfshafts sticking out in the FWD car, and the transverse engine and transaxle push the suspension mounting points outboard.

Likewise, the rear suspension systems are radically different.

There is NO WAY on God's green earth that a J-car/Delta is going to provide a ton of components to this car, and if it does provide some, you aren't going to care about them anyway. Honestly, do you really give a **** if a J-car and a Solstice-based Camaro share seat belt retractors????

Now, automatically discounting a Camaro off this platform is downright silly, especially since the BENGAL is supposed to be a 2+2 and sell a WHOPPING 10,000 units.

It would take some REALLY SCREWED UP GM MATH to come up with the idea that selling 10,000 2+2, Solstice-based Bengals is somehow better than selling 100,000 2+2, Solstice-based Camaros AND 10,000 2+2, Solstice-based Bengals.

But, given the history with the SSR (which I will refer to in the future as the SS-WHY????).... anything can happen.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
[B]
Hotrodtod74, what you posted confuses me. Are you saying it's wrong to develop a Camaro off a chassis from theSolstice, Bengal, and Sky, but it's OK to develop a Solstice Bengal, & Sky off a Camaro chassis? Kind of flips the debate to the same conclusion doesn't it?

Short answer #1: YES
Short answer #2: NO
It would seem to me that when we say a Solstice-based Camaro it means you develop a platform for Solstice/Bengal/Sky first and then try to make it work for a Camaro. To me this is unacceptable because first, the other three cars are probably never going to see a V-8, second, I don't want GM to just throw us F-Car people a bone by building a Camaro off a chassis designed mainly for 4cyl and 6cyl engines. I want a new Camaro to be done right the first time. So if they can develop a new Camaro first and then leverage costs by using a modified version of the platform (or components from) for the S/B/S then that would be OK with me.

Also consider that we do not know much, if anything, about the platform for the S/B/S.

 

Thanks for clearing that up PacerX, I was getting a little flustered that I wasn't making it clear that a production Solstice was not going to be a J-car, Delta, or anything else FWD based. As I pointed out, GM will have only 2 RWD chassis components. Therefore, inevitabily Solstice & Camaro will share many pieces.

My question was and still is this: Spend many millions to create a structure off the CTS for these components, and pay more (just a wild guess, $35K) and have more weight (a not-so-wild guess is 3,500 lb Z28...not far fetched, check CTS's weight), or create a Solstice based structure to attach these same pieces, that is capable of handling a high powered V8, is already paid for, will create a Z28 that's roughly the same weight as a Corvette (under 3,200 lbs), and will be no more expensive (and maybe even cheaper) than the current Camaros, without any difference in handling or performance.

If these chassis are still being developed, I don't think it's unrealistic to think the capability to engineer in whatever needs to be done to make these cars Z28 capable.

The point's that seem to be comming out against this seem to be more psychological (having Camaro share chassis whith what's concieved to be a lessor car), without knowing if this really is a lesser car. Whadda you think?

 

I agree. It seems everyone has it stuck in their heads that it would be a lesser car, without the car even being final. I can understand (and wholeheartedly agree) when they say that the Camaro should not be a compromise, but the definition of a compromise seems to vary wildly.
If the solstice/bengal ends up offering a good RWD 2+2 platform for the new Camaro without sacrificing what the Camaro was/is, then who cares where it came from?

 

If it was done like that then it sounds good I have to admit.

 

Did some digging...

I am now 100% sure that the Bengal, Sky, and Solstice are approved, which is major...so the rumor is confirmed..

As for the Camaro being based of the Solstice platform, there are no plans for that to happen at this point and any change in that direction is highly unlikely...

I know there are some people here who think if they argue a rumor enough they can make it fact. That simply is not going to happen here

IMO we should be angry that Lutz approved these three low volume roadsters while the Camaro sits on the back burner

 

I don't think "anger" is deserved by those left at GM after the "Zarrella Dark Days"......their mouths are "silenced" and their hands are tied.....at least for the immediate future....

Personally, I think we should celebrate GM's return to performance and attempts at leadership in the industry........it's sure as hell a LOT more than we had to look forward to just a few years ago...at least we're seeing something besides butt ugly SUV's!

Enjoy the offerings from GM in the next few years and just because a car isn't called Camaro, doesn't mean it isn't going to be a performer and a ton of fun to drive......we'll get our 5th gen....in all due time......

 

Bob Lutz is becoming the best source of inside information at GM. He seems to be very open about what GM is doing, long before we're able to "confirm" things it seems !

I don't know what's going on with Camaro, and until I get a couple of e-mails saying otherwise, & I accept it. My next car is likely to be a GTO, the UTE based El Camino (it's alot closer to reality than you may think! ), or the new Mustang (once they work the inevitable bugs out) unless there's new news about Camaro by my purchase time.

What I am arguing is the logic of moving to this chassis that Solstice is developing, especially if Buick is going to have a 2+2 based on this same chassis.

It's a good healthy mental exercise, and despite what some may say or think, or want to believe, for all we know, there may be some truth to some of the things that come out in all this.