what would be the point of a Epislon based Caddy. Wouldn't the car be similar in size and usefulness when compared to a CTS. And you will never get that nose heavy FWD car to handle as well as the more balanced RWD CTS. I don't see it happening.

 

No.
The CTS is substantially larger. Outside North America, the CTS is considered a large car. If Caddy wants a global presence in the 3 series/E-class segment, it needs a premium RWD architecture smaller than Sigma.

Epsilon is the right size, but IMO, the wrong architecture to achieve that goal. That's why I'm saying that Caddy ought to join the forces within GM who want "Beta". It'll be good for Caddy, and add more corporate political muscle to it's approval.

 

Personally, I'm the type of person who would take on Mustang head on. I would go after Mustang, not merely on a performance level, but I would go after it on sales volume as well. Even if to the point of making the Camaro more liveable.

That being said, I feel that Camaro tends to have people behind it that is content to let the car flounder in the intrest of keeping it a "4 passenger Corvette". Both at GM as well as here.

The general public is not intrested in a car that is lowslung & wide that puts performance ahead of being consumer friendly. Yet, that's exactly what many of the Camaro faithful are demanding, despite the fact that this could make a relatively low production, if not short lived Camaro. I wrote a thread September last year about how I felt enthusiasts were dooming the Camaro (and got more than a couple of intresting e-mails from a more than 1 person from GM).

If GM isn't going to go after the Mustang on sales volume, and the relatively few Camaro enthusiasts (when compared to Mustang enthusiasts) are listened to, then the only way Camaro is going to see the light of day again is if it's very cheap to develop & produce (one of the other reasons "Sigma" Camaro was killed off some years ago) & it has a relatively high profit margin since profit won't be made on volume.

Zeta is good for this, since it's a modular chassis that offers a great starting point. However, Kappa is even better since it is a chassis that is all but taylor made for a car like the Camaro.

For the record, I don't believe the next Camaro will be made on a Kappa. It can be done quickly and cheaply, but if what I'm told is true (Camaro is still on for 2007), I don't see any way it can get to production in 18-24 months.

If it's going to be in production between January and December 2006, it's going to have to be at the point of final approval, or close to it. This means that it would have had to be in development for the past few years (which it has).

I'm not saying "no way" and "it ain't gonna happen". Camaro wasn't part of Holden's Zeta program, and it isn't part of GM's regular design studio, so the people who actually know what's going on with Camaro can fit around a card table. It's just knowing the time & process it takes to get a car to market, I don't see it happening unless it's going to be delayed to 2008 or 2009, which I've been assured it hasn't.

 

If this could spawn a new architecture for a euro-Caddy, 9-3, etc where does this leave Epsilon II?

 

Sounds like it leaves Epsilon II out in the cold. I think it may end up like the GM 80 chassis a idea that cost a lot of money lost its basis a dried up like a tomato in the sun.

 

So its coming back on Kappa, late '07 as MY08? Seems reasonable.

Wouldnt have to worry about the hassle of pulling together something honoring a 40th anniversary model. Just catch back up at 45 in 2012.

 

I agree with guy,The camaro should go head to head with the stang.Make it a liveable,great daily driver with awsome power.My 94 Z28(daughters car now) is a awful car to run chores with,too low and hard riding compared to my '05 GT.If chevy could match the stang with good ride ,good handling and a killer LS2 they would have a winner.OH, and this time chevy needs to advertise the car and make it appeal to 20 somethings and baby boomers.JMO

 

i think you should look at a different car in chevy's stable if you want that
personally, i'm not looking for a chevy mustang

 

Agreed. I want a Camaro. Also, I'd think a car with alot more storage space was alot easier to run tasks with since there was fold down seats and a hatch. Low and wide is sporty, and that's a Camaro.

 

There has yet to be a "badge engineered" Epsilon, why would there be one now?

this isnt me wanting a Epsilon based Caddy over Beta, its your ignorant comment that bothers me.

 

So you don't want the Camaro to be a Ponycar. The Camaro needs to be a Ponycar, not a muscle car or a mid-size coupe. If it is not a Ponycar, it shouldn't be called Camaro. The Mustang is the Camaros direct competition. They will and should have some basic similarities.

 

As much as I may love the idea of a G35 sized Camaro, I think that a lower and shorter GTO Camaro would be a better option. More upright feel, but the car can still hold its own in the turns.

 

Epsilon II continues. My understanding is that Epsilon II is simply Epsilon...with all it's versions standardized. So that any Epsilon could be built at any Epsilon plant, anywhere globally.

As for the Euro Caddy, it will be based on the current 9-3 SAAB Epsilon.

 

One more thing about the Chevy Zeta Coupe.......

Things may change down the road, but right now this is how I see it being named.

-Most likely name: Something new.

-Next most likely name: Chevelle.

-Next most likely name: Monte Carlo.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Waaaaaaaaay down here: Camaro.

 

not saying they won't share anything in common but iirc the 3rd gen dominated about 8/10 years (combining birds/camaros) and they really didn't follow the mustang formula
i'm just saying let's keep it camaro, not turn it into a mustang with a different body