The 16"s don't look right on the CTS and should have never been offered on a $30K+ car. 17"s and the CTSv 18"s look great.

 

Z284,

Would you agree on a 185.5"-187.5" long, 72.5"-74.5" wide, 108"-110" wheelbase 5th Gen? Anything less shouldn't even be considered for this kind of car.

And yeah, I can see people buying the tiny girly last Gen M*stangs because 4th Gens were huge looking and feeling, but that doesn't mean that the 5th Gen should be tiny or as little as they were either. A 3rd Gen no matter the year is basically a 188.0" car. The front bumper lower GFX is what added about 4" or so to the later cars as the early Z28 GFX were straight down with no overhang. The 85-92 revised bumpers were barely bigger. So if you look from the side or an angle where you can't see the very front of the GFX, you're essentially looking at a 188.0" car which is only 2" bigger than a 69 Camaro and about the same as the 05 M*stang. I've had people say that they think 3rd gens are smaller cars so I think you're view of a smaller car might be a little wacky. No Camaro should be smaller than the 67/68's. I always felt that they could have benefitted from being a little bigger too.

 

The LS2 might be lighter than the VQ35 (though I doubt it). Even if it is, the transmission, differential, clutch, etc., will all have to be heavier.

Recall back to when Holden replaced their iron block 5.0 with the LS1 5.7 back in 1999 (or was it '98). Even though the LS1 was lighter, the cars with the LS1 were a bit heavier, because all the other components in the driveline had to be strengthened.

 

If you want more power you just need a better drivetrain. If the G35 drivetrain is lighter then it is underbuilt IMHO.

I couldn't find the exact #'s but the LS2 is lighter than the Honda NSX 3.2L DOHC V6 so I wouldn't doubt that it is lighter than the VQ35

 

As much as it irritates afew people here.....I think the G35 coupe simply nails the size/proportions of what a successful 5th gen should be. Every time I drive my IROC, I am completely dumb-struck by what a big honkin' car it really is. It is just plain too big. It's ridiculous....by modern standards. But I accept it for what it is, a cool car from the '80s.

My daily driver is an SVT Contour. It's a 5 passenger sedan. It is FAR more useable than my Camaro could ever be. It can hold 5 adults...instead of the 2 adults and two kids that my Camaro can carry. It's wheelbase is 106.5" and it's overall length is 183.9". And yes, it's tidier dimensions make it more fun to drive and live with, than my Camaro.....FWD, V6 and all. Let that sink in.

If my 5 passenger, 4 door sedan works well at that size....there is absolutely no excuse.....NO REASON..... for a sporty 2+2 coupe....with far fewer demands on it's utility.... to need to be any bigger. And like I said before, except for a handful of guys here.....the rest of the world sees it the same way, I am not kidding.

 

The G35 is based on the same chassis as the 350Z... a sports car.

Have you ever seen anyone compare the original 240Z with a 1970-73 Camaro? Of course not... that Camaro was much bigger. That Camaro was not a sports car. In fact, no Camaro has ever been a sports car.

Let's compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Camaro and G35 shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentance.

 

While we're at it, how about adopting a Celica type platform for the next Silverado? Oooor....sell the GMT-900 to Toyota for the next gen Celica!1!! Brilliant! If the GMT-900 sells well then it has to sell well for Toyota! Its a perfect match!

 

This doesn't make any sense. The G35 drivetrain only needs to handle 298hp and 270 lb-ft. Why should it be designed to handle a 400/400 LS2?

 

Sorry jg, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Time to hit the sack. Good night.

 

Why not?

The point is, nobody compares previous gens of each vehicle to eachother, why should they now??

 

You're getting confused.

The 350Z is based on the FM sedan platform that underlies a bunch of four doors in Japan as well as the U.S. G35.

The 240Z had its own platform.

The 350Z is to the G35 coupe as the AMC AMX was to the AMC Javelin. And AMC also had the Hornet, which would be the equivalent of the G35 sedan in this analogy. I suppose 240Z enthusiasts should be complaining about how unfaithful the 350Z is to its heritage.

 

I've sat in the back of a G35 coupe and I've sat in the back of a Gen 4 Camaro. I'd much rather be in the back of the Camaro.

 

Platform sharing is not the issue...its just the overall size of each in comparison to eachother.

 

Huh? My comment that this is a response to was in itself a response to a command saying that we shouldn't compare a G35 to a Camaro, because of the 350Z being on the platform as the G35 and the 240Z being a lot smaller than the Camaro of the early 70s.

The whole discussion is a bit silly. The G35 is 10 inches shorter than the Gen4 Camaro, but that's just because the Infiniti designers worked hard to limit dead space overhangs and the Camaro designers didn't. If you shorten the Camaro as much as you can and expand the G35 so that the hood is long enough for a V8, they're essentially the same size.

Put another way, it's easy to add several inches just by adding dead space behind the front bumper and several more inches by adding a bigger trunk. Neither is going to increase weight much. Jaguar also adds 5 or 6 inches to the XJ8, which adds less than 100 pounds.

Oh well. Continue the discussion.

 

Wow Z284,

I'd have to say that this is somewhere that we completely and outright disagree about the Camaro. (in a friendly way of course ) Which is kinda weird, but still. I don't get how someone that is also big on Camaro history and being true to it can even want to do something so ludicris to it. How can you even compare those 2 kinds of cars to a sporty American Musclecar? They are not supposed to be import "sports" coupes or sedans and aren't meant to be. Does the Camaro need to be reduced in length? Sure, 3rds got smaller from 2nd Gens and it should happen again, but you want to take it to an extreme by making it a tiny car with no overhang at all. Guess what? That's not Camaro and that's not sporty. How is 185.5"-187.5" big? How is 187.8"-192.6" big on a trimmed, sharp designed car with GFX extensions? I think you are highly mistaking if you think the public wants a Camaro like you describe, look how many oppose it here, almost everyone. You think your V8/M5/G92?/.88-.92 g capable IROC-Z is huge and that makes it less fun than driving an economy car?!?! Come on already, what's going on here!?

Alot of cars have been getting bigger again, with the C6 as the exception. The Camaro has never been about being a useable focused car, you seem to be mistaking it for something else all of a sudden. I think you are a candidate for a Chevy Zeta coupe or a GTO or something like that maybe, not a Camaro. Let's not make the car something it's not and was never intended to be. It'd be better to not make it at all. Let's put Camaro emblems on the Cobalt, that'd be great! It'd be real little and that's what all Camaro enthusiasts and potential buyers want right?! Not in the slightest.

No tiny import sized Camaro for me. (and many many others I'll bet without doubt)