Yes I am aware...but I also said "on that platform"...
And I've never bought a new GM vehicle

The thing is, back then they could get away with it because of the gas crisis and all of that. If we went through another gas crisis, I would be more understanding...but if they just flatly came out w/ a new 4 banger Camaro in '07 or whatever on this platform... that would be the end of it for me...

 

I don't remember a gas crisis from 82-86. I could be wrong though. The 2.8L, 3.2L, and 3.4L V6 camaro's weren't exactly performers. But becuase they had 6 cylinders they are ok?

I'd bet the base engines on the 1st and 2nd gen were real dogs too!

Nothing against you, but I really don't understand how you would swear off an entire Camaro line because of the number of cylinders on the base engine....Unless of course you couldn't get a V8. Then I would understand.

 

Thats what I'm talking about. Branden said something about having a 'superchaged' I4 as the performance powerplant. Fawk that.

 

Aaaahh....Now that I agree with!!!

 

I 100% agree... top Camaro must have a V8... however, I think the S/C was meant as an aftermarket bolt on through the dealerships... that has been mentioned before... by Scott actually.

 

No way you're going to see a Camaro that weight, and unless you want a Corvette the size of a Miata, you can count that out too (pick up the book "All Corvettes Are Red" and see how hard it was to bring Corvette in at the weight the C5 ended up!).

Think I'm kidding? Ford's Focus weighs 2700 pounds base with a 4! A Miata pushes 2400 lbs with a featherweight 4 cylinder drivetrain (so a V8 with all related heavy duty components might be 2800, or slightly more. The final "light weight" RX7s weighed just under 2,800 lbs, and their rotary engines weighed relatively nothing. Finally, Mitsubishi Eclipse (V6 and FWD) weighs in at just about 3,000 pounds.

Of course, you can extensively use alumunum (a softer metal that only Audi, the new Jaguar, and the deceased Prowler used), which is roughly twice as expensive as steel for the frame and chassis components. But.... would you actually want to pay for it?

Doubt it.

 

No what I meant is that an I4 would be be the base engine. A 140 HP I4 would probaly be as fast as the 3800 V6 in the less than 2800lb Solstice. Then GM can sell superchargers through the dealers and probaly give near LT1 performance.

The Z-28/SS or whatever model however would be V8 powered. If an Opel gets the V8 I am sure the Camaro would

 

Actually many companies are looking into ULSAB and monocoque style aluminium chassis, and even better design for mass production is hyrdoformed frame rails and safety measures, and "hang" the plastic body onto the chassis... you can attain a torsionally stiff chassis that can deform in its crush zones, as well as protect its occupents with ease.

I mean come on, its about whats cheapest these days, the profit margin is immense when compared to some companies and they are afraid to lose this instead of making a better product.

If small companies can take fabric and glue and make the world's strongest and safest chassis' for relatively low cost material's wise, why can't big automakers research the tooling to do so.

They aren't all engineering wizards I hope you know, many private companies have better ideas and products than the largest of automakers.

 

If I wanted a lightweight car with a decent powered (forced induction) 4/6 banger, I'd be posting on a riceboy site somewhere, not on CamaroZ28.com.

Call it what you will, my lack to adapt and change with the times, but IMHO if something comes with the Camaro nameplate, it should be heavy, it should be loud, and it should have an appearance that is intimidating, not fancy.

I have no problem with the tubular platform. I think it's pretty cool and will make a great car. Heck, one day I may even want a car on that platform. But don't brand it as a Camaro or Firebird, those names don't fit on such a "pretty" car.

 

I think that is what I just said... (Base I4 in Camaro with dealer-available S/C... Z28 or SS would be V8 powered.)

(Well, I should say I thought I said all that except the part about 2800lbs... I'm with Guion on that one... no way in hell Camaro comes in at that weight and is still a "Camaro". It'd be tiny.

 

Why should a Camaro be "heavy"? Don't you want a more nimble, tossable car? The next Camaro will not be a featherweight, nor should it be but I would think 3200 or 3300 pounds is an achievable goal. The next Camaro better not be over 16 feet long, either. Yes it should have a tough presence, but that can be had in a vehicle with shorter overhangs....

 

I think that would be a great start. Less than 190" long, and about 3200 with a V8 should be doable. A bigger C5 weighs about 3200, so why not.

Personally, I'd like a Eclipse sized LS1 powered Camaro with roughly the same sized tires as the 4th gen. But that's just me.

 

Beware of strange lunar eclipses and locusts.....because I agree with Wilson.

 

If I wanted a nimble tossable car I wouldn't have owned 4 Camaro's and a Firebird. My IROC handled more than well enough for me, and if I had gotten the good suspension on my 4th gen it would have been as good if not better. My image of the Camaro has always been a decent sized car, with lots of power. That's what a Camaro is to me. I loved the fact that my 1978 Camaro got sandwiched between 2 Hondas and ended up with a couple new dents while the Hondas were totaled.

I also like the length of the Camaro. Especially that long front end. It is the type of styling I have always preferred. The Camaro had a set style from 1967 til 2002. It was a decent sized car, with a long front end, small backseat, and lots of power.

Now I'm not saying I won't go out and buy a new Camaro if it had radical styling changes. If it was a good performance car made by GM and was affordable, it will probably be the next car I buy as around the time it's rumored to come out is what I can finally get out from under these payments I'm making on a V6 Camaro I don't really enjoy driving too much. But if it doesn't fit the styling criteria that all the other generations of Camaro have adhered to, it won't be a "Camaro" to me. It will be the performace car put out by GM I could afford.

I guess I'm just on the other side of the coin. I don't see any reason to put the Camaro name on a car that is unlike any of the other Camaro's that have ever been made.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the next Camaro should be in the mold of the traditional long hood/short rear deck style. The problem with the Camaro's length today is that it isn't necessary. It is the overhangs that really add a "plump" and sloppy appearance to the cars. I still love the styling, but let's clean up some of the things that have plagued the car (in most people's opinions).

I'm not calling for a Miata-sized Camaro. Lopping a few inches off the front and back, along with a well-designed interior, would provide a better car both inside AND out.