Not everything can be easily quantified by numbers, they are deceiving. Despite the longer wheelbase and shorter overhangs, in real life the g35 is small inside...

I don't believe this to be true, it needs a more Upright stance, as most new millineum cars are trending. I don't want an Exotic Camaro, like an NSX or C5...but this is MY opinion....In fact most people I spoke to agreed that climbing in and out of a fourth gen was a tiring task.(Low-Slung,same of the 3rd Gen...)And I don't see how the style of a Camaro, true to form, would promote such a low height.

I think the G35 is a good start, but slightly small.(btw, g35 M6 = nearly 3600lbs....)

 

Just exactly this one thing has cost another Camaro a new home...

A coworker's father-in-law is going through a mid-life crisis of sorts. My coworker and I have been going to Mustang shows for a few years, and I recently found him a 1993 SSP Mustang. As we were restoring it, the father-in-law decided to get in on the attention, and bought a '94GT at the state auction. After driving it for a few months, he found a 2000 Camaro B4C package (at the state auction again) - and jumped on it because it was faster and sleeker than the GT. He sold the GT to my buddy (Tim) and his wife. Tim informed me at the Mustang show last Saturday that his father-in-law is now wanting to sell the Camaro, and get another Mustang (he was eyeballing a restored '88 GT with T-tops that was for sale at the show). He claims that he and his wife (both in their 50's) have a hard time getting in and out of the car - #1 reason they want to sell it. #2 reason is transmission problems and repair costs since they have owned it (about 1 year now). The last reason (pure speculation on my part) is that they want to bring something to all the Mustang shows that Tim and I are attending and showing in - I think he feels sort of left out now. He and his wife come to every show, but just look around and sit and talk - I think Kurt wants to show something with us... peer pressure can be a biotch!

At any rate, to ask Kurt (the father-in-law) why he is looking to sell, his first words are "it's too hard to get in and out of".

Shame too, because I am the first to admit the car looks and drives awesome. All black, alloys, windows are now smoke-tinted about 20%... it looks sweet. North Carolina Highway Patrol unit, still has NCDOT stickers inside on dash and glovebox. Never had the external light bar, and the decals were peeled right off the factory paint so it looks like new.

Back to the topic - I think taking the entire chassis too low would be a mistake. The base units need to be 100% oriented to daily liveability and easy utility, and sitting with your butt-cheeks a mere 10" off the ground is not going to get the car rave reviews for seating position, visibility, or easy ingress/egress.
No, it shouldn't be 55" tall either... but there is a happy medium ground in there somewhere, and that is what GM needs to struggle to optimize. The high-performance units can always go back to shorter, stronger springs and suspension geometry to lower the car 1-2" without any problems whatsoever.

 

On a different note ...

I finally made it out to autocross last night for the first time this year.

There's a 2005 Mustang GT driven by a great guy that was running a 2001 Mustang GT the last few years. I think he's even more into Mustang than I am into Camaro. I went for a ride along with him and chatted with him about his impressions of the '05. From a performance perspective, he figures his '05 completely stock except for R-compounds (Kumho's) is 2 seconds FASTER on a 60 second course than his modded '01 was. It also appears he may win the overall PAX indexed championship here this year. On raw times he is nipping hard at S2000 and modded Miata times ...on a very tight course.

I may just have to eat some crow about not wanting the 5th gen to be a "Chevy Mustang" ... except that I really, really want IRS, which I trust we are going to get.

What I'd also love to see is a 2005 Mustang GT vs 2002 Camaro SS test.

BTW ....he loves the '05 as a car outside of competition as well. Personally, I thought it was nice, but would have a hard time getting used to the really high beltline.

 

My!

What a lively discussion.

(or should I say 'disagreement!)



One thing to keep in mind......

We DID keep the hard core enthusiast in mind as the 4th gen got older and older........take a look at the engine..........

(and I'll say it again.....anyone who thinks the 4th gen was a pig......show up at Spring Mountain Motorsports Park.....get in, buckle up, shut up.....and observe as I make you scream like a lil school girl!



(just had a root canal.....those pills are making me say things again!)

one last thought...........

for those who think the 4th gen is hard to get in and out of:

"Mom" Settlemire will be at the Camaro/Firebird Reunion.......(www.corvettemuseum.com)....with her fourth gen Camaro....(yes, she's prejudiced)........she's 80 (looks 60s).......and if you tell her that, I'd suggest you run.....'cause she'll beat you with whatever she's got in her hand at the time......)

(but it IS something we need to address........)

 

Glad to hear confirmation you'll be there, as I imagined you would be. Up for a cz28.com breakfast summit???

I gotta get Doug on this one...

 

And as long as your keep the hardcore enthusiast in mind as well as the masses, I will always be interesting in the Camaro. The 4th gen was absolutely too bad *** to ignore.

 

MEBBE!!!

 

Oh boy...I'm PM'ing Doug and poSSum right now...a couple of us need to hijack you some morning

 

MEBBE!!!

 

In the spirit of keeping this lively discussion (disagreement) going...

No, that's not what's being said.

What's being said is that the only way the next Camaro is going to survive is bringing in new customers. No one's damning the enthusiasts, but GM shouldn't bend over backwards kissing the enthusiasts that seem bent on creating a Camaro that's not going to expand it's appeal beyond the hard core group. This is a group that couldn't even keep the old Camaro going

BTW: Camaro sales began it's disasterous sales plunge once the '98 and it's way more powerful LS1 came out... so much for the enthusiasts carrying a car.

Camaro's always had a "mommy" platform. What's new?


It's happened before. It's called the 4th gen. Beancounters were happy because the chassis was essentially an improved 3rd gen, Quebec was essentially paying GM to keep a factory at Ste. Therese, the 4th gen's extensive plastic body panels were cheaper to make than stamped steel, and the engine & transmission essentially came from other paid programs.

OK. Show me from a GM source where you read that you are getting a bloated live axle Camaro?

Not one person I know who is familiar with what's being created calls it bloated, or claims it's going to have a live axle.

(bold and red so no one misses it )


The 4th gen was just over 53" tall, and only the 4th gen was 74-75" wide, so I agree.

The G35's sub-GTO sales figures of about 13K annual sales to the Mustangs 190K+, for starters.

NOW yer gittin the picture!


1. Unless you plan on auditioning to be an adult film star, an inch or so isn't an issue.

2. AnThe G35 comparison is a total package. The G35 is an upright coupe, that's probally about 55" tall. The new Mustang is barely longer than the SN95. The '05 Mustang's percieved size is gained from it's increase in width, and a flatter and longer hood.

3. Just because Red didn't draw the car doesn't mean he had nothing to do with it.

 

The new Mustang is substantially larger than the SN95. It's about 5" longer and FAR bulkier in most every other dimension. The SN95 is closer to G35 sized than S197 sized.



I believe that was for SIX months, not annual. G35 coupe far outsells GTO. Any one year of G35 coupe sales exceeds ALL '04/'05 GTO's sold here combined.


GM source? First they have to officially admit that there actually is a Camaro.

At any rate the live axle threat appears dead. On to the next issue........

 

By G35 formula I'm referring to a relatively long wheelbase, short body, upright coupe that looks swoopy especially compared to the Mustang. I am not referring to an expensive, fully loaded, V6 only, zero heritage coupe.

January can't come soon enough!

 

When has Camaro ever matched that formula?

Not that it's a bad formula; its just not "Camaro".

• Distinctively modern aerodynamic styling for a clean functional appearance
• Small, highly maneuverable size with packaging for four passengers
• A very broad range of available performance capability
• Quick, sharply defined roadability with a firm, yet comfortable ride
• "Cockpit-type" interiors for close driver identification
• An evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, basic design approach to maintain maximum value to the customer
• Wide Selection of mechanical and appearance equipment to allow customer tailoring to his needs and desires'

Now that's a "Camaro" formula.

In all seriousness though. Camaro has to have a long hoodline and short rear deck, otherwise its not a Camaro. Camaro also has to handle like a ponycar. The G35/350Z is a cool sports car, but its not a Camaro. Could you imagine comparing a late seventies 280Z to a late severties Z28... EVER?

 

Late to the party, I know, but for what it's worth, here's my 2 1/2 cents! What I say below doesn't necessarily represent what I think would sell best, or what is necessarily feasible; but rather what my desires, as a lifelong Camaro enthusiast, are for a new Camaro. If I can't present what I want here, where can I?!
Even non-savvy buyers can and do recognize the ride and handling deficiencies of a live axle. My wife feels insecure driving the Camaro based on how the car lurches around and tries to change lanes over uneven pavement, but she LOVES driving the 240SX. She feels the live axle whether she knows what it is or not. That said, I don't think a new Camaro *has* to have IRS.
She also recognizes that the Camaro feels much bigger and heavier (which of course it *is*), which also makes her more uncomfortable driving the car. So whether or not she knows Kappa from Sigma, I think she would be able to tell the difference between a 3600+ lb. and a 3200- lb. new Camaro (with a definite preference for the latter). I'm not saying a Sigma Camaro would definitely be 3600 lb. or that a Kappa Camaro would definitely be 3200 or less (though starting with a lighter platform would seem to me to be a better choice for weight). Just that lighter weight is more desirable than overweight.
Not me. I want a smallish, relatively lightweight, relatively cheap, decently-powered, basic rwd 2+2 performance-oriented coupe (as opposed to a convertible). Nobody makes one these days. I see a potential market niche!
Agreed. But again, I'm only trying to put my opinion for what *I* want out there. Surely this forum is the place for such opinions. I certainly don't expect that my desires will dictate GM's design goals entirely.
That said, what the market wants in 2008/2009/2010 might be a LOT different from what it wants right now. Particularly if gas prices continue to rise.
Are we to only be cheerleaders for GM, whatever they're doing? I think it's perfectly appropriate to voice concerns over weight when it *appears* they're going to base it on a bigger, heavier car.
There are alternative IRS designs that are relatively cheap, lightweight, and not prone to axle hop. I'm thinking Chapman struts (where the control arms pivot parallel to the longitudinal axis of the car) should be an effective solution. I wouldn't have any problems getting over the lack of multilink setup if there are significant cost and weight savings. Again, that said, I'm still in the market for a live-axle car IF the weight really is kept down. I would NOT be impressed with a Camaro that stuck with a live axle in part to keep weight down, but still weighs closer to 3600 than 3200.

If true (I have no reason to doubt it, word seems to be that the Kappa can't be easily made into a 2+2), fine, let them base one on a bigger heavier platform. If they can get the weight WAY down, I'm there. If not, OK, others will accept it whatever it weighs. I'm just letting *my* particular preferences and concerns be known in advance.
To be honest, I know what I want, and if/when someone makes it, I'll buy it. Whether its name is "Camaro" or not. I would very much LIKE it to be a Camaro, though.
I'm only slamming the car IF it winds up north of 3400 lb with IRS, or maybe 3250 lb. with a live axle. Mainly I'm voicing my CONCERN that the car will be well over that figure if it's based on a 3800-4000+ lb. Cadillac platform.

I'm very open to being pleasantly surprised!

And I do realize I don't represent the typical potential Camaro buyer!

Just making making my desires known on the OFF chance that:
a) somebody listening actually CARES
b) they can actually influence the car's development in a lighter-weight direction

I am NOT advocating for "a lighter-weight Camaro or NO Camaro"!
By all means, if it can't be light weight, it should be made ANYWAY! I just won't be nearly as interested in buying one. But I wouldn't want OTHER enthusiasts here to be deprived!

Certainly they shouldn't terminate development just because I *think* the path they *appear (to me)* to be on makes me think it's going to wind up a bit on the heavy side.

 

Does that describe a G35, or an '05 Mustang better?

Other than wheelbase a 69 Camaro is dimensionally closer to a G35 than to an '05 Mustang.