Exactly. Proper sports cars have always been 2 seaters. Ergo, A Camaro has never been a sports car. It got more sports-car-like as they went along, but in the beginning it was much more sedan like than sports car like, specifically because it shared platforms with the Nova II.

 

Whatever, Chris....you still owe me lunch.

 

I'd buy you lunch anyway Charlie! Then we could compare psych professors!

 

We can argue semantics all day, and perhaps it was my mistake for making it an issue in the first place, but the point is there are lots of cars classified or marketed as "sporty coupes" that have absolutely nothing in common with what Camaro is, was or should be in the future.

Anyone rememeber the original ads for the Sporty Paseo coupe? "100 Horsepower, Wow!"

 

You can take that up with Toyota and every other company that has made a two door sedan.

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/toyot..._overview.html

For now, I'll just assume that you think you know more than you do.
It has happened to me on occasion, too.

 

That one is more difficult and is open to interpretation. You could use a tight definition and say that it has two seats and a removable roof, but that would exclude the RX-8, which I called a sports car. You could say that it is a light car that is low to the ground with direct steering and a feeling of smallness. I'll run into problems with "light", "low to the ground", "direct steering", and "feeling of smallness", I suspect.

I could ask 100 people to look at a car and if 51 or more say it's a sports car; otherwise it isn't.

In my case, I think the Camaro (which I really enjoy driving) is a little too big and heavy feeling to be considered a sports car. And that the RX-8, which may or may not be a sports car by different definitions, drives like one. Or at least drives how I think a sports car will drive.

I don't think I've proven anything.

 

Hey buddy, I already backed off in the post before the one I just quoted of yours. Perhaps it wasn't necessary to take the little shot at me in your last sentence? Or do you feel more important now?

 

I didn't see that until later. I was responding to your post two pages earlier, which was the first one that the reply email took me to. Mostly, the "shot" was a response to the tone of the previous one -- "flat wrong", "BY DEFINITION", etc. It was actually pretty mild I thought. I even admitted that it has happened to me (and that was actually the last sentence).

I actually am somewhat amazed that we have 8 pages on this thread discussing whether the car should be 190" or 184" long, and how strong the feelings are.

My main preference would be for lighter, and I don't care that much how long or wide the car is. It would be nice if it has at least as much interior room as the '93 - '02 model, also.

 

If the G35 had a V-8, it would be the "perfect" Camaro.

 

G56?

 

While I think the G35's proportions are right on, IMO, for a future Camaro, it's styling is not.

Not, that I don't like it.......frankly, I think it's beautiful....but I think more people would accept it as a concept here, if it had appropriately "Camaro" styling.

 

no its 3435 lbs http://www.edmunds.com/used/2003/inf...767/specs.html

 

Believe it or not, that's for the auto. Their 6-speed sport edition is heavier, which comes at 3512. Figures from inifiti.ca

 

This board is full of opinions, so here's mine:

I thought that Focus and Civic were simply sport compact hatchbacks.
Camry, Accord are just coupes. Sporty? What's so sporty about them? They are mainstream vehicles, just as Monte Carlo is a coupe.

Mustang, G35, Camaro - they are sporty coupes.

Sports car is something like Corvette and Viper.

For what it's worth.

 

G45....