Some thoughts on Mustang....
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by Z284ever
I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.
It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.
It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.
I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.
It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.
It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,547
From: Panhandle of West Virginia
Originally posted by IZ28
These are the things that have made the Camaro the better overall performance car throughout its history. They sold great until the 4th Gen, and that, says something to me. The Camaro formula worked and worked great....until then. I've said before that I don't want a GTO-like car or Chevrolet M*stang and I mean it. You don't see F*rd making a F*rd Camaro. They might compete in the same market, but they are cars with 2 different characters and Camaro people want Camaros. Make it higher, less wide, less flashy, (well it can still be flashy) reduce its dimensions too much, compromise it's performance for usefulness and guess what? That's not a Camaro anymore. I have to say, the more I hear about the 5th Gen the more skeptical I become about it being true to the car that we know and want. I just hope the opposite happens. The Camaro has it's own unique image of coolness and that needs to be kept.
These are the things that have made the Camaro the better overall performance car throughout its history. They sold great until the 4th Gen, and that, says something to me. The Camaro formula worked and worked great....until then. I've said before that I don't want a GTO-like car or Chevrolet M*stang and I mean it. You don't see F*rd making a F*rd Camaro. They might compete in the same market, but they are cars with 2 different characters and Camaro people want Camaros. Make it higher, less wide, less flashy, (well it can still be flashy) reduce its dimensions too much, compromise it's performance for usefulness and guess what? That's not a Camaro anymore. I have to say, the more I hear about the 5th Gen the more skeptical I become about it being true to the car that we know and want. I just hope the opposite happens. The Camaro has it's own unique image of coolness and that needs to be kept.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
[QUOTE]I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.
Ditto:
It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size
It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Z284ever
I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.
It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.
It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.
I don't think the 4th gen failed simply because it was a NO-COMPROMSE car. Not at all. It failed partly because it was a COMPROMISE car.
It had a great motor alright (both LT1 and LS1)...but it's compromises came in the form of an old platform, outdated styling, poor build quality, horrible ergonomics and enormous size.
It was compromised from day number one. Sometimes I'm surprised it sold as well as it. It's the compromises that made it unpopular.......NOT THE LACK OF COMPROMISE.
Symantics.
I honestly think we are making the same point using different words here.
You say "ergonomics were compromised for performance"...
I say "Performance came first - no compromise for ergonomics"...
SAME BASIC MEANINGS - DIFFERENT WORDS.
And FWIW, I could care less about how old the platform is/was - the car was still kick-a$$-fast, handled exceptionally, and was cheap (in Z28 trim anyways). Mustang still sells like crazy on a foundation that is (basically) 24 y/o. So that one doesn't fly as a "compromise" for me at all.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by 90rocz
ProudPony, what you all don't seem to get is that, every car CAN'T be everything to ALL people, true?..
TRUE - a Mustang can't double-duty as an F-250 SD or a Lincoln Town Car.
BUT, you have to admit that the closer it comes to "being everything to ALL people", the more people are going to like - and eventually BUY - the car. And when sales volume is important (when is it not?), more buyers is a good thing.
So why try to make every car fit everyones wants?
See blue statement above. Volume = $.
As far as perfomance goes, I still believe a NO-COMPRIMISES stand for cars like the Camaro is a good selling point. That's not to say it can't put some comprimises in its interior ergenomics, or exterior styling etc...
Only if you are trying to sell 20k units / year. I reiterate... not EVERYBODY wants a rocket. SOME (in fact MOST) PEOPLE simply want a fast-looking car, and don't want to spend for the big V8, 6-speed, fancy suspension, or added insurance costs. Remember, slow (as in 0-60 over 6 sec) does not have to mean "4-door family car", or "ugly".
There are FAR too many "bleed-over" models out there. About the only thing that sets them apart is cosmetics...Variety is the Spice of Life...remember?
Not sure what you mean by bleed-over? But I sure know what you mean by VARIETY... as in a V6 and 3 - V8's, as in 4 or 5 sub-variants of the same car, as in 3 tranny choices, as in a rainbow of colors to choose from, as in leather, vinyl, cloth, or suede inserted seating, as in 5 wheel styles, as in 3 body styles (2 since 1994), as in $17k to $55k sticker prices...
yeah, I have to agree with you... VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE, and a pretty darn good seller of vehicles too if people can find or order the exact car they want!
Now if you are saying Variety as in "I wanna go fast, do I pick a Camaro or a Vette... that is VERY limited variety IMO.
I'm glad you didn't mention the T-Bird turbo coupe, that same 2.3L didn't last half that long in them..
I know of many 300K+ "V8" Chevy/GMC pickups running around in my area, there's just a LOT less strain on a larger motor to pull almost the same weight around in the same driving conditions, and you use a LOT less throttle to move it too!..
Back to the specs, power usage, stress and strain on engine components type of verbage...
Do I sense Mr. Gearhead coming out again?
I love to talk this stuff too - I can wear out a keyboard on topics like this with you... point is Joe Blow DOESN'T CARE - we do, but he doesn't. Yet he/she spends as much or more on basic cars than we gearheads ever will, so they deserve to get recognized. Man, they are "funding" development of my TOYS! I want to keep them happy... don't you see that?
Too good, there's no such thing..
It just forgot to drag along some appealing styling in and out...as appealing to more than just us "Gear Heads" who liked the aero advantage on 150mph+ runs...
If they ponder a more "slow and useful" path for the Camaro, MAY IT REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!
If you insist that Camaro be an all-out performance car or nothing, you may well get your wish... RIP.
There are numerous problems with that kind of take-it-or-leave-it approach...
1) Chevy already has a "pure-performance" car - the Vette.
2) Why would Chevy invest the $ to develop a whole, separate, low-volume car to cater to performance nuts in the $40k range, when the Vette is here now?
3) Why would GM fund a project that would (if successful) compete against the Vette for sales in the very same showroom, especially without the added benefit of profit from huge volume sales of cheap-to-produce base (read V6 or base V8) cars?
4) If you bring all of the GM fold in to play, the picture gets even WORSE imo, because now you have to take into account the new great-performing Pontaics like Grand Am, Grand Prix, and of course GTO. Not to mention the Cadillac line up, Saabs, and others.
I guess my point is, a new Camaro almost HAS to compete for ponycar market share, not high-performance market share. While Camaro was around, GM developed other cars to fill the performance market, the economy market, the family market, the grocery-getter market, etc. - you know these other models, Corvette, Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu, etc. Camaro was there to fill the ponycar market demographics - and that is where the current void in Chevy's line-up exists. Successful ponycars have base units, mid-levels, and high-performers, but they always bring value and low-cost into play. If you don't cover all these bases, you are encroatching into other markets somehow, and you will fail as a ponycar competitor - plain and simple.
So, IMO, either bring back Camaro as a "Camaro", to compete in the entire ponycar fray, or let it RIP.
ProudPony, what you all don't seem to get is that, every car CAN'T be everything to ALL people, true?..
TRUE - a Mustang can't double-duty as an F-250 SD or a Lincoln Town Car.
BUT, you have to admit that the closer it comes to "being everything to ALL people", the more people are going to like - and eventually BUY - the car. And when sales volume is important (when is it not?), more buyers is a good thing.
So why try to make every car fit everyones wants?
See blue statement above. Volume = $.
As far as perfomance goes, I still believe a NO-COMPRIMISES stand for cars like the Camaro is a good selling point. That's not to say it can't put some comprimises in its interior ergenomics, or exterior styling etc...
Only if you are trying to sell 20k units / year. I reiterate... not EVERYBODY wants a rocket. SOME (in fact MOST) PEOPLE simply want a fast-looking car, and don't want to spend for the big V8, 6-speed, fancy suspension, or added insurance costs. Remember, slow (as in 0-60 over 6 sec) does not have to mean "4-door family car", or "ugly".
There are FAR too many "bleed-over" models out there. About the only thing that sets them apart is cosmetics...Variety is the Spice of Life...remember?
Not sure what you mean by bleed-over? But I sure know what you mean by VARIETY... as in a V6 and 3 - V8's, as in 4 or 5 sub-variants of the same car, as in 3 tranny choices, as in a rainbow of colors to choose from, as in leather, vinyl, cloth, or suede inserted seating, as in 5 wheel styles, as in 3 body styles (2 since 1994), as in $17k to $55k sticker prices...
yeah, I have to agree with you... VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE, and a pretty darn good seller of vehicles too if people can find or order the exact car they want!
Now if you are saying Variety as in "I wanna go fast, do I pick a Camaro or a Vette... that is VERY limited variety IMO.
I'm glad you didn't mention the T-Bird turbo coupe, that same 2.3L didn't last half that long in them..
I know of many 300K+ "V8" Chevy/GMC pickups running around in my area, there's just a LOT less strain on a larger motor to pull almost the same weight around in the same driving conditions, and you use a LOT less throttle to move it too!..
Back to the specs, power usage, stress and strain on engine components type of verbage...
Do I sense Mr. Gearhead coming out again?
I love to talk this stuff too - I can wear out a keyboard on topics like this with you... point is Joe Blow DOESN'T CARE - we do, but he doesn't. Yet he/she spends as much or more on basic cars than we gearheads ever will, so they deserve to get recognized. Man, they are "funding" development of my TOYS! I want to keep them happy... don't you see that?
Too good, there's no such thing..
It just forgot to drag along some appealing styling in and out...as appealing to more than just us "Gear Heads" who liked the aero advantage on 150mph+ runs...If they ponder a more "slow and useful" path for the Camaro, MAY IT REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!
If you insist that Camaro be an all-out performance car or nothing, you may well get your wish... RIP.
There are numerous problems with that kind of take-it-or-leave-it approach...
1) Chevy already has a "pure-performance" car - the Vette.
2) Why would Chevy invest the $ to develop a whole, separate, low-volume car to cater to performance nuts in the $40k range, when the Vette is here now?
3) Why would GM fund a project that would (if successful) compete against the Vette for sales in the very same showroom, especially without the added benefit of profit from huge volume sales of cheap-to-produce base (read V6 or base V8) cars?
4) If you bring all of the GM fold in to play, the picture gets even WORSE imo, because now you have to take into account the new great-performing Pontaics like Grand Am, Grand Prix, and of course GTO. Not to mention the Cadillac line up, Saabs, and others.
I guess my point is, a new Camaro almost HAS to compete for ponycar market share, not high-performance market share. While Camaro was around, GM developed other cars to fill the performance market, the economy market, the family market, the grocery-getter market, etc. - you know these other models, Corvette, Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu, etc. Camaro was there to fill the ponycar market demographics - and that is where the current void in Chevy's line-up exists. Successful ponycars have base units, mid-levels, and high-performers, but they always bring value and low-cost into play. If you don't cover all these bases, you are encroatching into other markets somehow, and you will fail as a ponycar competitor - plain and simple.
So, IMO, either bring back Camaro as a "Camaro", to compete in the entire ponycar fray, or let it RIP.
Last edited by ProudPony; Jan 22, 2004 at 08:41 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by ProudPony
HEY YOU... Don't turn my half-empty glass upside down like that!
Symantics.
I honestly think we are making the same point using different words here.
You say "ergonomics were compromised for performance"...
I say "Performance came first - no compromise for ergonomics"...
SAME BASIC MEANINGS - DIFFERENT WORDS.
HEY YOU... Don't turn my half-empty glass upside down like that!
Symantics.
I honestly think we are making the same point using different words here.
You say "ergonomics were compromised for performance"...
I say "Performance came first - no compromise for ergonomics"...
SAME BASIC MEANINGS - DIFFERENT WORDS.
This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?
Nothing....that's what.
It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!! !!
None of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jan 22, 2004 at 09:54 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
But you see Proud......THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES.........let me repeat.....THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES!!!!!
This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?
Nothing....that's what.
It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!! !!
Non of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.
This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?
Nothing....that's what.
It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!! !!
Non of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.
I agree with you here... styling was not updated enough throught the car's lifespan... build quality, while better than past Camaros, was not up to the rest of the world... exterior dimensions? Well, I like it to be bigger, but the overhangs were excessive... yes...
Only thing is, I think the F4 Camaro (and Firebird) had GREAT ergonomics. Everything was exactly where it should be, and it was very comfortable to drive... especially a manual... which DEFINATELY can not be said for Mustang, unless you like smashing your knuckles into the radio when you shift into 1st, 3rd, and 5th...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
A quick note...
THANKS ...
To everyone in this forum for having such a long, yet enjoyable and informative thread!
I, personally, have enjoyed this thread as much as any other in the last year or so. It has provoked thought from everyone, and we have all done a great job expressing ourselves without flames or obnoxious sarcasm.
Kudos to all!
THANKS ...
To everyone in this forum for having such a long, yet enjoyable and informative thread!
I, personally, have enjoyed this thread as much as any other in the last year or so. It has provoked thought from everyone, and we have all done a great job expressing ourselves without flames or obnoxious sarcasm.
Kudos to all!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Z284ever
But you see Proud......THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES.........let me repeat.....THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES!!!!!
This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?
Nothing....that's what.
It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!! !!
None of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.
But you see Proud......THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES.........let me repeat.....THE PERFORMANCE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPROMISES!!!!!
This argument never made sense to me. What do poor ergonomics, outdated styling, poor build quality, excessive exterior dimensions have to do with better performance?
Nothing....that's what.
It was just a way to bundle up all of these negatives into one "excuse " ....and say "we compromised for the sake of performance"........................BULLSH!T!!!!!! !!
None of those things had anything to do with performance or a better performance image.
At least 98% of it anyways. So long as we agree (mutually) to the actual issues, and not how we describe them.
Here's my exception...
The exterior of the car probably WAS initially designed in the early '90's with aerodynamics as a major player. Wide, sleek, and pointy is more aero than blocky and tall. When your hood rakes a 10 degree angle and is only 20" off the ground at the highest point, it's hard to attach a windshield that's nearly vertical to it... so the windshield lays down too, now it has to be 3-feet long to offer the necessary field of view... etc.
Performance related to styling - ehhh, 50/50 maybe?
Stripes and wheels - definitely NOT. Shape of the body - definitely SO.
That one we have to play carefully, and not "categorize", or we have done just what you said was "BULLSH1+" - we are grouping excuses.
Now everything else - I'm totally with you.
Performance is no excuse for rattling dashboards and hatches.
Performance has nothing to do with where parting lines are in molds.
Performance has nothing to do with a 3/8 inch gap at the front of the door, and a 1/8 inch gap at the rear.
Performance has nothing to do with a 10" dead air space in the doors and rear quarters.
Performance has nothing to do with ***** that break off, or LED's that stop working.
Performance has nothing to do with window motors that die - with or without frequent use.
And so on.
You are also correct in that "people" find one inexcusable "reason" for something being insufficient, then try to shovel all the other shortcomings into the same pail. It's not fair or honest to the car to do that either.
But you have GOT to admit one thing here Charlie, GM set out to make the F4 the fastest ponycar... and that they did. On the streets, in Camel GT, IMSA, and so on. It was a bad ****** when it debuted. We can hardly argue that performance was severely compromised for any "ergonomic" issue, can we?
It's what has happened SINCE 1994 that I have some probs with. And I think my position is shared - almost exactly with yours - unless I have a bad read on you after 2 years of posting together.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Darth Xed
Only thing is, I think the F4 Camaro (and Firebird) had GREAT ergonomics. Everything was exactly where it should be, and it was very comfortable to drive... especially a manual... which DEFINATELY can not be said for Mustang, unless you like smashing your knuckles into the radio when you shift into 1st, 3rd, and 5th...
Only thing is, I think the F4 Camaro (and Firebird) had GREAT ergonomics. Everything was exactly where it should be, and it was very comfortable to drive... especially a manual... which DEFINATELY can not be said for Mustang, unless you like smashing your knuckles into the radio when you shift into 1st, 3rd, and 5th...
One has to admit the F4 was harder to get in and out of - especially with a briefcase or bag of groceries you are grabbing from the pass. seat while getting out on the driver's side. It takes a ballfield to swing open the 4' long doors too - not good in tight, tiny parking spaces like at Wally-World these days. These are "ergonomic" issues too.
As for me, I'm 6"-1", 17.5"neck, 38" arms, weight 197, and have a 36" inseam. I fit into my cars just fine - except the '93 vert which has limited seat travel due to the top well. My only gripes are that I have to lean forward out of the seata bit to change radio stations or adjust the volume. Also, the shift into 5th is a stretch, but I don't have to lean forward to get it.
Worse gripe is having to lean over and open the glovebox, then reach the fuel door release every time I fill up.
On the other side, I quite enjoy the left foot rests in my cars - as I can stretch my legs a bit with C/C on, and keep the blood flowing. My knees are nowhere close to any dash or steering wheel collisions.
I think the stretch and reach thing has been blown out of proportion in the Mustang like the cat hump in the Camaro.
Sure, I would like to see the shifter canted towards the driver and slightly rearward for better all-around movement. I would also like to see the radio moved rearward in the console... put the climate controls, T/C buttons, and other infrequently used gadgets in the "harder-to-reach-while-reclined" positions. SOme of that has been addressed in the 05, but I don't think it's all good yet. I'll let you know after I've had a chance to drive one for a few days!
Just pickin' nits here, that's all!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally posted by ProudPony
But you have GOT to admit one thing here Charlie, GM set out to make the F4 the fastest ponycar... and that they did. On the streets, in Camel GT, IMSA, and so on. It was a bad ****** when it debuted. We can hardly argue that performance was severely compromised for any "ergonomic" issue, can we?
But you have GOT to admit one thing here Charlie, GM set out to make the F4 the fastest ponycar... and that they did. On the streets, in Camel GT, IMSA, and so on. It was a bad ****** when it debuted. We can hardly argue that performance was severely compromised for any "ergonomic" issue, can we?
I really get a good laugh when people try to characterize themselves as some sort of modern day Samurai or Jedi Knight or something..... "Yes Grasshopper, I accepted the car's shortcomings....because it was THEY....that gave me the uncompromised performance. You can see my toughness by the choices I am willing to make".
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Z284ever
Oh yeah, it was fast for sure. But that performance came from it's powertrains....NOT from it's shortcomings. Compromises came from it's COMPROMISES, not it's performance.
I really get a good laugh when people try to characterize themselves as some sort of modern day Samurai or Jedi Knight or something..... "Yes Grasshopper, I accepted the car's shortcomings....because it was THEY....that gave me the uncompromised performance. You can see my toughness by the choices I am willing to make".
Oh yeah, it was fast for sure. But that performance came from it's powertrains....NOT from it's shortcomings. Compromises came from it's COMPROMISES, not it's performance.
I really get a good laugh when people try to characterize themselves as some sort of modern day Samurai or Jedi Knight or something..... "Yes Grasshopper, I accepted the car's shortcomings....because it was THEY....that gave me the uncompromised performance. You can see my toughness by the choices I am willing to make".
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by ProudPony
Subjective points, but valid.
One has to admit the F4 was harder to get in and out of - especially with a briefcase or bag of groceries you are grabbing from the pass. seat while getting out on the driver's side. It takes a ballfield to swing open the 4' long doors too - not good in tight, tiny parking spaces like at Wally-World these days. These are "ergonomic" issues too.
Subjective points, but valid.
One has to admit the F4 was harder to get in and out of - especially with a briefcase or bag of groceries you are grabbing from the pass. seat while getting out on the driver's side. It takes a ballfield to swing open the 4' long doors too - not good in tight, tiny parking spaces like at Wally-World these days. These are "ergonomic" issues too.
I still want to see a low-to-the-ground approach to any F5... hopefully they can improve the entry and exit issues like they did from the C4 to the C5 Corvette.
As for me, I'm 6"-1", 17.5"neck, 38" arms, weight 197, and have a 36" inseam. I fit into my cars just fine - except the '93 vert which has limited seat travel due to the top well. My only gripes are that I have to lean forward out of the seata bit to change radio stations or adjust the volume. Also, the shift into 5th is a stretch, but I don't have to lean forward to get it.
Worse gripe is having to lean over and open the glovebox, then reach the fuel door release every time I fill up.
On the other side, I quite enjoy the left foot rests in my cars - as I can stretch my legs a bit with C/C on, and keep the blood flowing. My knees are nowhere close to any dash or steering wheel collisions.
I think the stretch and reach thing has been blown out of proportion in the Mustang like the cat hump in the Camaro.
Sure, I would like to see the shifter canted towards the driver and slightly rearward for better all-around movement. I would also like to see the radio moved rearward in the console... put the climate controls, T/C buttons, and other infrequently used gadgets in the "harder-to-reach-while-reclined" positions. SOme of that has been addressed in the 05, but I don't think it's all good yet. I'll let you know after I've had a chance to drive one for a few days!
Just pickin' nits here, that's all!
I had no problem at all in my 99 Z28 M6... it was one of the most comfortable cars to drive...
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,531
I spent last weekend in a rent-a-stang while on a trip. I'm not biased against Mustang. Heck, it's the closest thing to a F-body out there now! I just prefer an F-bod. I'm smaller at 5'7" and 160lbs. These are some things that stuck out to me:
-Yuck! They gave me purple....or is it blue?!?
-Trunk opening is TINY!! I could barely get my duffle bag in there. It's a little on the small side too. Gimmee my hatchback back!!
-Shifter is too hard a reach (and I had an auto). In my Camaro my hand comes right to the shifter. IMO that's unforgivable in a performance oriented car.
-Felt like I was sitting on top of the car. Maybe it just takes getting used to, but I felt uncomfortable during faster turns. I definitely prefer the seating position of my Camaro. But, to each his own.
-Visibility is pretty good.
-Hey! I can see the hood! 1st time in years!
-Pretty good rattle coming from the back and it's only got 500 miles on it!
-Nice Stereo System!!
But still it's a little too hard to reach.
My only real complaints are the seating position and the shifter. I still remember the first time I drove a Camaro. Not seeign the hood is a little intimidating, but the seat and "cockpit" fit like a glove. One drive and I was sold. Combine that with the power difference at the time and I made my decision.
-Yuck! They gave me purple....or is it blue?!?
-Trunk opening is TINY!! I could barely get my duffle bag in there. It's a little on the small side too. Gimmee my hatchback back!!
-Shifter is too hard a reach (and I had an auto). In my Camaro my hand comes right to the shifter. IMO that's unforgivable in a performance oriented car.
-Felt like I was sitting on top of the car. Maybe it just takes getting used to, but I felt uncomfortable during faster turns. I definitely prefer the seating position of my Camaro. But, to each his own.
-Visibility is pretty good.
-Hey! I can see the hood! 1st time in years!
-Pretty good rattle coming from the back and it's only got 500 miles on it!
-Nice Stereo System!!
But still it's a little too hard to reach.My only real complaints are the seating position and the shifter. I still remember the first time I drove a Camaro. Not seeign the hood is a little intimidating, but the seat and "cockpit" fit like a glove. One drive and I was sold. Combine that with the power difference at the time and I made my decision.
Last edited by Joe K. 96 Zeee!!; Jan 22, 2004 at 12:03 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,029
Almost all of which is being remedied in the 2005. Ford is listening! I actually prefer sitting higher up though. I'm 6'3", 38" inseem and 196lbs. Getting in and out of the Camaro is a chore for me. The comfort is fine, but I don't like feeling like my butt is two inches from scraping the ground 
I don't like leaning so far back either or not seeing the front of the car. The long doors are an issue with me also (not that the doors on my 93 T-Bird were much better).
I don't like leaning so far back either or not seeing the front of the car. The long doors are an issue with me also (not that the doors on my 93 T-Bird were much better).