Well i asked my celica board (www.celica.net) what they thought of the camaro, in specific the 4th gen. here is what i got...

http://celica.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb...c;f=1;t=008190

what do u guys think?

-EriC

 

There is some intelligence on that board.........

Lots of kind word from the other side.

 

Wow...I guess I shouldn't be surprised....for the most part very close to what is said here a lot... With the possible exception of this quote:

I wasn't aware this was any problem....but I read some odd stuff in our own LT1 forum sometimes.

Good idea jadedst and a good read too since there is a lot of assumption here about what import guys like or don't like. I'm guilty of that myself at times.

 

Just proves what I have said over and over...younger buyers respect the Camaro and generally desire it. If GM made a an entry level model that offered the content and performance of the RSX or Celica, had style (T-tops, decent bodywork or ground effects), and matched those imports in price they would have no trouble selling.

 

well my biggest motivation for the idea was that everyone on this board always wants to "take sales from the mustang." which obviously should be done. but camaro has many more competitors now, look at all the sporty imports. the next camaro needs to steal some of their sales to be competative.....

 

This is VERY valuable.

First, it's very valuable because of the misconceptions:

1) Camaros can't handle.

2) Camaros get bad gas mileage.

3) Camaros can't survive past 60,000 miles.

4) The 3800 was "weak".

5) Braking leaves something to be desired.

6) Expensive to maintain.


The terrific thing about every single one of these misconceptions is that they can be tackled via advertising/marketing.

We know:

1) Camaros CAN handle.

2) Camaros get phenominal gas mileage.

3) Camaros can last well past 60,000 miles.

4) The 3800 was no LS1, but it wasn't "weak" either.

5) A Camaro will smash your brain against the inside of your skull if you stand on the brakes.

6) For a performance car, maintenance costs are well within reason.


Just gotta get the message out for the 5th gen.

 

yup, what PacerX said..

I will admit, they do "feel heavy" though, which i think is because of the long hood and dash, and the thoguht that it will bite back if you do something stupid. Once you get past that, they are a blast to drive..


Add that to the fact that most people have driven an older Camaro with a well worn suspension and/or a person that is primarily into drag racing... which is another unfair stigma, the Camaro got labeled as the one-trick pony drag car.

 

Wow, I was really impressed with the constructive critisism!

 

A lot of mainly good comments on that board except for the milage comment:blah: Some similar complaints i have about the Fbodys (interior quality/room mainly). Im not sure why a few of them were against the V6s so badly. I can understand the 3.4s a little but even the 3.8s? Theyre not the beasts of the LT1s or LS1s, but theyre not that bad. Plus they are very good to learn on IMO.

 

well guys, just glad i can be of some service

 

I'm going to have to "dispute" these claims.

1) Yes camaros can handle, but its the perception of the driver which matters. Theres no way around saying that a Camaro "feels big" and even though performance numbers may not reflect this, the driving expereience is more important to a car buyer. This is especially true when the survey involves Celica owners, people whos cars come in under 3000lbs and slalom close to 70mph. (the new GTS) While our cars may have good grip, they slalom around 60mph and have big turning radiuses. These are things new car buyers notice.

GM needs to work on making hte car feel more nimble. Looking at the sports cars under $30k that have come out in the last 5 years, they are all nimble. (WRX, Evo, RSX, new Celica, 350Z) Obviously big hp numbers are not required to make people happy. While yes, big hp is important for a Camaro, the overall driving experience could be better in the F-bodies.

2. Gas milage. Once again its relative. I bet if you polled LS1 drivers on this board, they are getting around 16-18mpg in the city driving slow. The car was rated at 19/28 for a 6 speed. Now a 2003 V6 Accord which is rated at 21/30 will probably net you between 20-24mpg in the city. I cant say for sure, but it wouldnt suprise me if WRX, 350Z etc. drivers all got above 20mpg in the city as well. I've come to notice when comaring my milage to friends with V6 fwd sedans and coupes that they often get above what was rated on the window sticker. Sure, I'm driving a V8 sports car but looking at it objectivly, my gas milage while not being bad certianly isnt spectacular.

Gas milage isnt as important for older buyers who are finicancially stable, but for younger buyers who tend to have less to spend, it is a large consieration. Like I said, its all relative to your perspective and situation in life.

3. Lastly the 3800 being weak. I'm gonna have to go with them and say, yes it was kind of weak. If I had a V6 Camaro I'd liek to outrun the 4 cylinder import competition. You can show me articles where people have gotten low 15 second et's out of these cars but the majority of people in the V6 section are getting high 15s. This is where the "slower" import competition is running. Not to mention that the 4 cylinder cars were not only often quicker, but more nimble and got better gas milage. They are often more fun to drive, thus more appealing to young buyers.

Think about it, 2800lbs 180hp Celica that you can wind to 8400rpm which runs low 15s or 3500lb 200hp 6000rpm mid-high 15 second Camaro? Pretend youre a teenager car shopping, which sound more fun appealing lookign at numbers?

Not just weak in power and flare, but aftermarket as well. Young buyers who this car was targeted out could go and buy a Honda and have way more options for engine upgrades and overall vehicle custimization. You can argue that the Mustang V6 sells well, but the Mustang is not only much more practical but has an sizeable aftermarket and a "cool" image. I dont think the Mustang V6 is even really marketed as a "performance car" as much as the Camaro seemed to be in the catologues.

Just my opinions, rip them up as you guys see fit.

 

I am always puzzled about people saying that f-bodies can't handle. I think these are the people that have never driven one and just go along with ricer propaganda. I also think that maybe if the Camaro had better bolstered seats, this would help the driver/passenger feel the lateral forces instead of moving around in the seat and say "wow, this car really handles well".

The gas milage thing, well that's what you get when you have a 2-3 times more powerful car.

 

I used to beat my friends 3800 camaro every time with my alero .

I still don't think the camaro is a viable alternative for the sport compact crowd. That should be the next Grand Am's job along with the cavalier. I guess I just don't like the idea of a v-6 camaro. It's necessary to support the v-8 but it wont get any street cred.

 

and as you can see from the import guys, handeling and nimbleness (sp?) is a big deal. yes they all recognize that the car is bigger than most 4 banger sport cars, but still, im sure that GM could do a little better in this department, as well as hopefully shave some weight?

 

It would be nice to have a base Camaro with a blower so that the potential of the base would be much better. They could take the 3.5 and put a blower on it and get around 275 horses with low boost and then you would have a market like the GTP/Regal GS. Of course, there is that pesky cost thing, but maybe it could be done.
The last part of my post sounds like it belonged in a very long thread we had a few weeks ago.