I don't know what else to say... but the line of thought that any substantial amount of new car buyers would dismiss a car they are otherwise interested in because of 3 inches or so of length is LUDICROUS.

Hell, look at the 1982 Z28 vs the 1992 Z28!!

1982 Length: 187.8"

1992 Length: 192.6"

That is a full 4.8" of difference between the two... and NO ONE would be able to tell that difference by eyeballing the two cars!!!!

So you are telling me that someone who likes third gens, would dismiss a 1992 model vs a 1982 model because it is longer?!?!? NO WAY!!!

 

And who said Civic, we're talking about the G35. A '72 Impala sized car would sure have lots of interior and trunk room though, big sporty coupe selling points. Lots here might like that.

 

Suprise Suprise I agree with Darth. I think it's a bit illogical to be so focused on pure length and not a car's other merits. How will it handle? How will it ride? Will it tear up the 1/4 mile? These are the things I'm most concerned with. Beta, Zeta, whatever. If you want to talk dimensions how about height? Width? Cowl height? Beltline? NO ONE gets out a tape measurer when they look at cars on dealer lots. If the next Camaro is styled great and is 188 inches in length then heck, I'm not even going to notice.

 

I think you know I am using some extremes here to kind of make the point...

If they take the 4th Gen dimensions, and widen the wheel base, and shorten the overhangs, you could have a veyr nicely sized Camaro.

If they do as you are saying... shorten the wheelbase AND shorten the car... you'll could have a mini 4th Gen... smaller car, still with big overhangs.

 

Listen Darth, I can tell the difference between a G35 coupe and a GTO. I can tell the difference between an '04 Cobra and an '02 Trans Am.

Lots of people can....trust me. And you can't deny it.

You say you don't care about specific dimensions as long as it looks good. But if anyone suggests that Camaro should be the size of a contemporary sport coupe.....you and others scream, NO CIVIC!
You do see that there is something in between.
And you do see that the dimensions of a 3rd or 4th gen F-car have absolutely no relevance in this 21st century market.

 

I was going to say essentially the same thing... IMO, a Camaro should be a bit shorter than the goat, however, like you, I'm not going to nit pick over an inch or two.

My main concern with the Camaro are its proportions! The wheels need to be pushed out to the corners, much more so than the 4th gen. I has to have a long hood and short deck- it's a friggen pony car! It also needs decently sized wheels and tires, both in diameter as well as width (something every auto maker seems to have forgotten with the exception of BMW). I'm sick of all these new cars that appear as though they're riding on wheels/tires intended for golf carts.

On a side note, the G35 has quite a few features that add to its "heft". Ever driven one? It's a VERY quiet car. It's probably got over 100lbs in sound deadening material alone. It's got a dual firewall, gadgets galore, etc, etc... That stuff adds up very quickly...

Like I've said before, keep it simple stupid. It's a Camaro. As much as it pains me to say it, the Mustang is extremely successful due to the fact that they kept it a pony car, ie: a simple, fun, attractive, affordable sporty car.

 

Wheels base needs to grow on the 5th gen from 101 to 108-110, over all length need is get shorter from 193 to low 180's.

GTO dimensions aren't bad IMHO, but they are not perfect for a Camaro. The RWD coupe on the market that most fits (size wise) what a Camaro should be is a G35 in my book.

Making the GTO slightly bigger than the Camaro will give us consumers the option of choosing what size is most important to us while still enjoying a RWD V8 2+2 coupe.

 

I'm not saying make a mini 4th gen. Not at all. And I'm certainly not saying shrink the wheelbase. The wheelbase sweetspot is in the 110-113" range.

 

Anyone else notice the G35 and the GTO are the same overall height? Yet the GTO looks a lot taller. Lower waistline?

 

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/sze_muelue/index.html


Maybe it's a Muller-Lyer illusion.

 

I think the higher beltline on the G35 makes it appear that way. Have you driven or sat in a G35 or 350Z? The beltline is way too high for my taste...

 

wow, didnt even see that. I think that a higher belt line would give it a very short look as it will cut down on greenhouse size. Look at the 300's high belt line. It gives the car a very chopped look to it. I think soemething like that would deffinatly give the Camaro a less "sedan" like greenhouse, like on the GTO.

 

One problem with a higher beltline is it makes the wheels seem tiny and mis-sized...take a look at the CTS. If they don't get the proportions right the car will look stupid.

 

I guess you haven't looked at a Chrysler 300, a Dodge Magnum (the worst of the high beltline cars for rear visibility) or even the new 2005 Mustang. High beltlines are the way of the future. It's not something I'm crazy about, but the trend started with the Cadillac CTS and has kept going.

 

The wheels on the CTS look tiny and mis-sized because...well, they are tiny and mis-sized.

The only reason the Chrysler 300 doesn't have the "little tiny tire" look is because DCX opted for "custom" sizes. Before the LX cars, nobody had ever thought of producing 215/65R17 and 225/60R18 tires.

Chrysler isn't the only one to demand really HUGE sizes from the tire manufacturers. Look at Nissan's Armada. The standard 70-profile 18 inch tire are enormous, especially compared to the 16-inch treads on you average Tahoe.