The 240SX is/was a great car. However it is not worthy of the name Camaro, even with a V8. Camaro has always been "The Hugger", something which the 240SX does not project. Its basically a poor man's 280Z with a back seat.

I want something the size of the current Mustang that says Camaro. That's not too much to ask, is it?

So some people say bigger than Mustang, some say smaller than Mustang and some say the Mustang is just right. We all have differing opinions on this; however, since the Camaro, if it returns, would do so as a "Mustang competitor"... I guess then there really is only one correct answer.

 

What does that mean, 'The Hugger?"

 

You really need to bone up on your Camaro history and lore.

However to answer your question... an advertising nickname GM penned on the Camaro that was originally first used in 1968 and has been revived at certain times along the way. "The Hugger" exemplifies a low slung, well handling RWD performance car. Each generation the Camaro has remainded true to "The Hugger" persona. Look at an early 2nd gen, a 3rd gen and even the last incarnation, 4th gen. You could point to any of those generations of Camaro and say, "now that's a Hugger".

I can picture in my mind's eye a very successful "The Return of 'The Hugger' Campaign" which draws on Camaro's heritage yet moves it into a more modern interpretation.

 

Ah. That's the first time I've ever heard hugger used with Camaro, outside of color.

 

The F550 is actually more like 2 inches longer, but nearly 8 inches wider, 1 inch shorter in height, and 900 pounds heavier than a 240SX.

Neil explained it well enough.

First you want a car smaller than the Mustang. Then I hear that the 4th gen is smaller than the Mustang if you take out the overhangs. Then I actually get a length that is barely shorter than Mustang. Then somehow 240SX sized is correct. I could understand the thinking if length was the only way you measure car size, but girth matters too. Ask any woman.

I could agree that less than Mustang length is acceptable. However, the car still needs to be wide. The car still needs to have a usable interior. The car still needs reasonable cargo space. The car needs space for powertrain and accessories. The car needs space for all the safety equipment. So how do you make a car smaller than Mustang when it needs to have essentially everything the Mustang has? Where are you taking the volume from? What are you compromising?

This is what I have wanted to know since page 4.

 

Funny, I'm 5'10", and if anything I feel more cramped in the Camaro than in the 240SX. In particular, it feels like the seat's too high. Definitely much more claustrophobic feeling in the Camaro. Harder to see traffic lights sitting in the Camaro, too. I have to kinda lean forward to look out from under the windshield header. As for cargo space, I think you should be able to get more under the hatch of a 240SX than you can in a 4th gen.

Note: I don't mind the Camaro being quite a bit wider than the 240SX. I just don't want it to have the huge sideview area that the new Mustang has.

240SX "too 1990's"? Like I said, I don't care for the styling of that car. But if the car underneath is "too 1990's", then the 4th gen is definitely "too 1960's"!

Camaro on the a Solstice platform? Why not?! Solstice is too big for what was supposed to be (small 2-seat sports car) anyway. Add a rear seat and stick an LS2 in that baby, keeping weight as near to 3000 lb. as possible, and WOOHOO!

To me, the Solstice already has TONS more "presence" than the slab-sided two-door sedan styling of the Mustang. "Presence", doesn't necessarily equate with "HUGE". As anybody here who caught the Ralph Lauren car exhibit at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts will attest.

 

Hey now.

I think it's a matter of creating a certain size as a criteria of the program, just like they did with the C6. Yup, you need all the stuff you mention. But the SN95 had it and still swallowed a motor larger than most '60's big blocks. The upcoming M3 will have all of that also, and have a 400 hp V8, and measure 178" long. The G35 (182") coupe will be the basis of the upcoming GT-R...it'll have all that stuff too. I believe the Mustang became the size that it is today, because Ford was unwilling to spend the money to tear up the DEW platform more than they already did.

I mean I just don't get it. If you can have comfortable 2+2 seating, a V8, RWD......essentially all the ingredience that make up a Camaro, why do you guys also want it to have performance sapping additional weight and girth, for no other reason other than to simply fullfil some undefined specification to have it have this "presence" thing. It just doesn't make sense to me. Someone 'splainit.

 

.

Despite being WAY down on power, the 240SX is more fun to drive.

Actually, it was a poor mans Z32 (1990+) 300ZX. And it actually hearkened back to the dearly departed original 240Z in a way that 300ZX did NOT.

But anyway, I don't want a car designed primarily to "project an image". I want it to be a beautiful and kick-*** design, but I want the beauty to be more than skin deep.

I say, if they use the Mustang as a benchmark, they're screwing up. Make it lightweight, copy the 240SX suspension and steering verbatim (wider track OK by me), and for God's sake no pseudo-retro yet CAD-sterile styling

Make it a NEW BENCHMARK for cheap, fun performance. I'd MUCH rather have a 300hp 3000 lb. Camaro than a 400hp 4000 lb. one, or even a 400hp 3500 lb. one.

Anyhoo, that's my viewpoint, which I know is probably 180deg out of phase with the majority of the F-bod community (exceptin' fer Z284ever and Sharker)!

 

This discussion has ceased being about size and has now become an equally entertaning squabble over proportion.

I give it 2 more pages until we're arguing over 'motions'

 

Nope. I'm also on record for sharing said viewpoint.

I too want my car to burn corners while being agile and responsive. No simple big tired numbers generator for me please. Think chassis dynamics.

But then again, I've also "matured" a bit in the last few years and no longer get so caught up in 60' times.

 

I recognize and celebrate the designs of the 60's for all they were...

...but this is MY time. 2005. Give me a design for it.

 

I'm agreeing with alot of these latest posts by Z28 and Dan...The next Camaro can be smaller and lighter than the last w/o losing prescence. I mean really, I don't want a car that's 3,500 lbs, not even 3,400...3,300, eh still a bit high...I'm sure you get my point. Why have the excess weight? Why have the excess size? Don't get me wrong I love my '97 Z/28 but at the same time, it's size and weight definetly hamper it at times. Give me something that performs awesome, looks killer, (keep that wide low look, and good profile), and is affordable, (and definetly don't use the new 'Stang as a benchmark, 'cause like Dan said, that would be a serious mistake), and I'll be sold

 

what about the 5th gens being close(if not exactly) the proportions of the first gen? think about what an 05 stang looks like next too any stang from 64-68, it's HUGE! what if the 05(retro or not, i'm just talking proportionally) was more in line with the 67-69s?

 

The Camaro is(was) a full sized car...why try to turn it into a "Sport-Compact"???(This is where the Cobalt SS competes...do we want more overlap?)
I think if they take a similar approach as they did with the '06 Vette, it will please almost everyone. (less overhang, slightly wider/longer wheel base, better use of area)

It is, what it is; build a much different car, call it something else.(my opinion)

I don't want a Cobalt with an LSx engine, and for sale to the vast majority, I don't think this is viable either.
How many people voting much "smaller" have actually driven an '05 Mustang "for more than a day, or test drive"???
It seemed pretty small to me.
I think it can be comparable to the Mustang, w/o being heavy or portly, and have MORE room inside...

 

I mean in general, not naming any names

SN95s are ok, but the interior always seemed cramped to me (6'3"). It just felt like it was too narrow in the cabin.

That's the thing. I don't think you should take space out of the cabin. I don't think the cabin should be noticeably narrower than in the fourth gen. The Camaro is not supposed to be uncompromisingly about performance. Besides, a wider car should mean a wider track and more of a sporty look (there's the proportion thing again).