Not as tall, about the same length, wider, lower stance.

 

I voted for smaller because the 4th gen is big on the outside and small on the inside. just make the outside a tad smaller, mostly length. Then work on making the inside more spacious. In order for that, the wheelbase will, of course, be lengthened. Overhangs trimmed. Windshield less raked. RR pillar more upright. The roof panel might actually be longer if they decide to make it notchback, with a qtr window (if they do this, I'm certain the angled qtr belt line will be there, just like the 1st gen). Center console has a lot to do with how airy the interior feels as well as the depth of the dash and how puffy the inner door trim panels are. Floor board will probably be a little lower and seating position be a tad higher (taller roof), to avoid the "sitting in the tub" feeling. Don't expect a big trunk due to the gas tank and rr live axle set up in the back. I just hope they don't make a tall rr like the vette or stang to get more room. Though a tall rr deck is supposed to have better aerodynamics.

The width is fine, the length needs to be 187"-189" area. I'm sure the 5th gen will be taller to accomodate easier ingress/egress, though I prefer a short vehicle when it comes to performance, but cars are starting to get bigger nowadays, after 3 decades of downsizing. Therefor I'm certain when the new 'maro comes out it will be something like:

Wheelbase:107"-112"
length:189"
Height:54"

Not much difference, just a tad shorter overall length and taller to satisfy the general consumer to make the car easier to enter and exit. But visually, will look less bulky. The taller height will make the car look shorter as well. Overall this will give the car a more agile look.

On the 4th gen, the black out roof and the horizontal line at the base of the B-pillar makes it appear longer, if the qtr panel goes up the pillar and onto the roof as one piece like the 3rd gen it would have shorten up the look a tad.
The fender with with the bulge that flowed into the mirror on the 4th gen made the vehicle visually bigger as well. If you look at the Firebird/TA, it looks smaller because it doesn't do that, but the cowl panel sticks out like a sore thumb. When I drive my Camaro it looks big because I can see the whole width of the hood, and it's even taller than the dash.

I really hope it comes optional for a Navigation system, those suckers are very useful. 2nd on my wishlist are HIDs. Might be a tad much to ask for though. Even if GM decides to leave those out as options, what they REALLY need are better looking wheels. Give them some detail and make them agressive. None of that Impala, Malibu, and full size Chevy trucks/SUV look

 

Things I don't care about on a 5th gen:

*I don't care if the back seat is for "occasional use only". I have never bought a Camaro because of it's rear seat comfort. Nor not bought one because of the lack of it. Never. And to be perfectly honest, it's not a feature that I'm concerned about.

* I don't care if Camaro doesn't have the trunk space of a Taurus. Just don't care.

Wouldn't it be RIDICULOUS if the next gen Camaro is bigger than the next Holden built GTO? I mean wouldn't it be really RIDICULOUS?

 

Not critisizing, but my product design side needs to hammer this out:

Camaro = back seat mainly for storage
Monte Carlo/GTO = backseat to fit three across

I'm I understanding your (and others') wish list?

Here's another question for eveyone: Does the next Camaro need to outsell the Mustang?

Obviously it needs to sell in enough volume to stick around, and I'd like it to be a market leader, but does it need to be a sales leader?

I never had a (big) problem with the Mustang outselling the pervious car...I just figured that Mustang drivers were mostly a bunch of posuers who's like to tell you how good they think they drive while Camaro drivers were closer to true enthusiasts.

I'm afraid if GM builds a car to be a market leader rather than for a slightly different segment, we'll get a car that tries to be too much to too many people and not enough of a styling and technological evolution of where the last car left off.

 

Hold on. Let me plug in my crystal ball and set it to circa 2010 coupes.

What do we have here?

Mustang...is Mustang sized.

G6 coupe...approx. Mustang sized.

GTO...approx. Mustang sized.

Challenger...slightly larger than Mustang sized.

Anyone see an opportunity here?

-
-
-
-

Oh...what's this? The new RWD, 280hp, 2008 Tiburon........smaller than Mustang sized.

 

This is what I have been afraid of for some time. If the Camaro becomes a Chevy Mustang, then the car will be lame. That may be good enough for some, but not for me. If I wanted a coupe that is rather tame, then I would have bought a Mustang.

 

To add to this:

2005 GTO
Exterior
Length 189.8 Width 72.5
Height 54.9 Wheelbase 109.8
Curb weight 3725 Ground clearance ?
Interior
Headroom (F) 37.3 (R) 37.3
Hip room (F) 58 (R) 50.2
Leg room (F) 42.2 (R) 37.1
Shoulder (F) 59.7 (R) 51.7

The GTO and Mustang don't look too big in traffic, sitting next to the average sedan of today ~ Accord/Camry.

Personally, I'd sacrifice a little bit of upright seating for a lower roof-line. Further, my biggest concern is NOT overall size, but rather, WEIGHT! Keep the weight down, make the size competitive and I'm happy.

 

I can only hope it is as lame as the 1967-1969 Chevy Mustang was...
Nobody liked those at all, and we all know Chevy came out with the car only a scant 3 YEARS after the Mustang went on sale, so surely it wasn't "benchmarked".

Think about it...
Mustang and Camaro have always been classed similarly, so why is it that they should be soooo differentiated now? Mustang formula not working lately?
I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you don't want a car that is close to Mustang DNA, great, but don't call it Camaro, and don't expect them to be competitive in price/performance/value.

 

On another note, I think the Mustang is as big now as it needs to be - ever.
While I am a fan of the pigs of '71-'73, I also subscribe to the theory that they were breaching the "ponycar" envelope and treading into "musclecar" territory, a'la 4-door Torinos, LTD's, Impalas, Fury's, etc. In other words, they were portly and fat. That worked-out OK when the car had he 375hp 429 SCJ Drag-Pac and the engine bay was crammed full of under-rated NASCAR engine. But with a 302 - or even worse the 250ci I6 - it was no more than "tolerable" as a daily driver. Hard to park, poor visibility, large turn radius, etc. = not good.

Don't want to see the fit little car turn into a heavy-weight barge.

 

That formula makes a Mustang, NOT A CAMARO!

The 1st gen cars were from a different time so that comparison does not really hold true, all the muscle cars were like that until they evolved more. I like the Camaro to not repeat the past.

I don't want a car that is like a Mustang, I don't! There should be a definate differentiation between the Camaro and Mustang. People buy Camaros over Mustangs because they are different and offer the buyer with a different experience. If Chevy follows the Mustang DNA, then that differenciation becaomes less and less. That may work for the average joe who may want a Mustang but checks out a Camaro because the two are now very similar. The problem is that now you have a car that is trying to be too much to alot of people and is not trying to be bold and afraid of offending a few people. If you have noticed in the auto design world, automakers are moving towards more bold designs that capture the attention of buyers and make no excuses (see Cadillac, Merc, BMW, Nissan, ect). I think this should be done with the Camaro.

Since there is a GTO, maybe GM will make a smaller Camaro that is not too concerned about a back seat and cargo capacity and leave buyers who want a larger back seat and truck to go with a GTO. Driving a Mustang has never been a real sporty experience and I don't want to loose that in a Camaro.

 

...can they bring back the Ghia?......

 

Obviously, Mustang and Camaro are DIRECT competitors and will have a similar driving experience.

But there are those who have noted the new cars' increased mass compared to the SN95 and don't like it. Over 3/4 in this poll feel that way. (Yes, I know it may not be scientific, but if anything, this crowd is biased towards bigger ponycars).

So, If I were a GM product planner, I would take notes.

 

Indeed - point well-taken.
I am one of those who think the new Mustang is breaching the envelope as well - hence my follow-up post to the first one.

But on the other extreme, the next Camaro (or Mustang) should not emulate a Miata or MR2 either.

First and foremost, the car(s) need to be easy to live with on a daily basis. That alone mandates that they not be porky, fat barges that are hard to park, hard to drive, and hard to get in/out of.

 

Then IMO, you don't want a Camaro either.
You want a "cheap Corvette".
Rest of the conversation becomes moot after that.



Well, you haven't driven the right Mustang.
How many have you driven? What model? What drivetrain?
I can't argue your opinion to be right or wrong, but if you don't think Mustangs are "sporty", I question your ability to converse on this particular subject without bias.

There are a LOT of people driving Mustangs that would strongly disagree with you, and would probably put the smack down on numerous cars that you deem "sporty".

You are entitled to your opinion and I can (and will) respect that - but I think you are in the extreme minority when you claim a 300hp coupe, running in the 13's, and capable of outhandling the GTO is not "sporty".

I feel that the "recipe" of performance, price, size, value, reliability, liveability, etc that the Mustang (and former Camaro) subscribes to is a good recipe. If the new car doesn't maintain compliance to this recipe - change the name when you change the car.

 

No, I do want a Camaro. The Camaro has been significantly different than the Mustang since it's introduction and that's the way I like it.

It seems you might be a little offended that the Mustang formula doesn't appeal to everyone.





I have driven a 96' Cobra, 96' GT M5, 94' GT A4, and an 89' GT M5. Even the Cobra just felt like a fast sedan. IMO, even in the Cobra, driving it is not that sporty when compared to an F-body.

It has nothing to do with how fast the car is.

I have not driven an 05' so I can't comment on how it drives, but I have sat in them and they feel a little better than previous models but I don't feel that I am in anything special, performance wise.

I do think the Camaro should not have quite so radicle a design as the 4th gen. This mostly has to do with the windshield. I do believe that the designers and engineers can create a Camaro that looks great and still feels like a Camaro that drives very sporty and does not have a sedan feel.