"Cab forward" was more hype than substance. Where the manufacturer decides to put the start of the cab is determined by engineering realities, not at the whim of the marketing department. Every manufacturer wants to get the cab as close to the front of the car as possible in order to maximize interior volume vs. car length, but they have to deal with the realities of packaging a drivetrain and crumple zones in there. Do you think every other manufacturer just left 6" of unneeded space between the firewall and front of the car for the heck of it until Chrysler came up with this 'innovation'? The only innovative thing Chrysler did was wrap the chassis in a body that made the front of the car look smaller. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the LH cars were actually longer from nose to firewall than a Taurus or W-body because their longitudinal engine orientation doesn't package as well, but that's just a guess on my part.

As to where the rear wheels go, well that's a trade-off. Sure you can move them back to get a bigger passenger cell, but then you get a smaller trunk. Different manufacturers have different priorities.

In other words, there's no free lunch.

 

Caddillac was king of overhang
http://delivery.gettyimages.com/comp...4152464A5C534D

 

350Z and G35 coupe. Essentially the same car, save for G35 being a tad longer to accommodate 2 seats in the back. So they pushed the wheels out more. This gives G35 an edge in handling/cornering capabilities, and was mentioned as one of the reasons for achieving higher numbers than 350Z, as I read from one of the car magazines.

 

I was almost certain that the LH cars mounted the engine transversly, just like every other FWD car, except the early Eldarado's and Toronodo's. Are there any other FWD cars with the engine mounted longitudinal like this? And how exactly does it work, since the tranny would have to be at the back of the engine.

 

I'm aware that the laws of physics would govern that a car with shorter over-hangs would handle better than a car with long over-hangs. However, if there isn't a lot of mass in the over-hangs (the front over-hang of the 4th gen F-body was composed mostly of plastic parts), then the difference would not be nearly as great.

Form follows function, but it doesn't have to follow it at all costs.

 

Yeah, whatever happened to wide and low with deep dish wheels?

If someone made a car like this, people would LOVE it. They just don't know and buy what commercials tell them to.

This is why no average car today will ever be a classic like old Impalas, Bel Airs, Cutlasses, etc. are. The closest thing to a true modern classic would be the 96 Impala ss. Probably fbodies too.


Now everything is tall and skinny looking with rims that are flush with the tires. I know you have to do the wheel thing for FWD, but for RWD.....

 

Speaking of the 96 impala SS, it had 41.7" front/56.5" rear overhang!

One thing more overhang is good for is aerodynamics. With very little overhang the front of the car needs to be almost as tall as the tire. More overhang allows more of a slope there. The Enzo is a good example of this. Lots of front overhang but very little in the back.

Lots of overhang also allows a lot more crash absorbsion room.

 

I love the overhangs on our cars, they look so much cooler than these new cars. The taller car trend is lame too, it even shows up in the later 4th gens (probably because of the larger wheels). If you park your '93-'97 f-body next to a '98-'02 one ur car will be significantly lower in height unless they have a different suspension. Our 2002 SS has bilstein shocks and etc. so it is a few inches lower than normal. Compare an RX-8 to an RX-7 though, or a 350Z to a 300ZX, makes me sad.

 

If GM screws up the 5th gen.(as I think they will), 4th. generation F-bodies will be looked upon as the end of an era, because they were the closest thing to an uncompromising sports car that ever graced the coupe market. As far as overhangs are concered, they add an element of aggression when done right. No overhang makes the car look like it's missing somthing. Look at the side profile of the Velite and you'll see what I mean.

 

I dont see what you mean with the C6, and if the 4th gens were an "end of an era", THANK GOD! Sorry, but Ill never own one. They are good cars, but the chances of me owing a 4th gen are as good as me owning a Mustang. As far as performance, yeah they are great cars.
I dont see how you think GM will screw it up?

 

I wasn't talking about the C6, IMHO it has just the right amout of overhang. As far as GM screwing up the 5th gen, perhaps screw up was the wrong word. What I meant was that from the mid '70 onward, F-bodies presented a stark contrast to it's main competitor, the Mustang. The F-bodies kept an aggressive, very sports car-ish stance, while the mustang evolved into somthing else. Put a 3rd gen camaro and a Fox body mustang next to each other and you'll see what I mean. One looks sporty and aggressive and the other looks like an econobox (esecially the hatchback models). 4th gen's took this styling cue to an extreme, in some respects too much so(more overhang, a crazy windshield slope, etc.) From what I've been able to glean from lurking on this board, it seems the 5th gen will be similar in size and stance to the GTO. This isn't the direction the camaro should go in. The fact it looks like the 5th gen will be built on a mid to large size platform (Zeta) doesnt help matters. I for one hope that this LWB Kappa platform takes it's place as far as the Camaro is concerned.

 

4th gens mighta had more overhang but you definately had less of a chance of scraping the front (unless you had a 4th gen rs or sport appearance package)
trust me, my 3rd gen has the scrapes to prove it- with the factory gfx on it, it has way more of a chance of scraping

back to the topic though...i think overhang is a good thing and i agree with jackal, with too little it just looks like it's missing something
i think both the c5 and c6 look good, even though the c6 lost some definate overhang
i think the camaro needs the overhang though
it'll just look awkward without it, imo

 

Um, in case you didn't notice, Mustang was clobbering the F-body in sales throughout the 4th gen era, save 2 years out of 10.

To put this into perspective:

*GM spent twice as much money as Ford on designing the F-body since GM was selling it through 2 divisions.
*GM spent twice as much money marketing the cars as Ford, since it was being sold through 2 divisions.
*GM sold the car through a combined +/- 6,000 dealers while Ford was selling theirs through +/- 3,000 dealers.
*In the final 5 years, Mustang was outselling the F-bodies combined by at least 2 to 1.

In short, while a Ford dealer was selling an average of 60 Mustang per year, the f-body dealer (Chevy or Pontiac) sold just 10 Camaros or Firebirds when 60,000 per year was sold (less than 1 per month!).

This means GM MUST sell more Camaros next round or find a way to produce them far cheaper than the already cheap to make 4th gen.

This means either going after Mustang's market by making the next Camaro more Mustang-like & boosting sales or making the Camaro a spinoff of the Pontiac Solstice.

I have a 4th gen, but I'll say this: The 4th gen is dead, and it ain't coming back in any form.

 

I would hope that the Mustang is cheaper to make...its only been on the chassis for a good 25 years.
This new chassis should be interesting since as of right now, is the only car on it.

 

You know something, I'm getting so tired of the ridiculous "Camaro has to be more like the M*stang to be successful" remarks. They are some of the most ignorant comments anyone can make.

I agree that the car shouldn't be anything like the 4th Gen. That formula did not work and things like extreme windshield rake, bland, wierd, intergrated, too-rounded styling, unattractive rims, models that looked just like each other regardless of designation or engine, price, lack of advertising, not enough options or things to make them stand out or choices, increased length, almost impossible to work on engines, rear axles that weren't strong enough, and lack of factory interest are just some of the things that made the Camaro not sell. People base the Camaro on the 4th Gen too much because it was the last Gen. If the arguements that it should be more like a M*stang were true, the 3rd Gens would not have sold the way they did or have had the popularity that they had. Many don't realize that the Camaro alone outsold the M*stang 5 years from 82-92 and the combined F-Body sales dominated the M*stang 7 out of those 10 years. No other Gen did that, none. Everyone bought them, young, girls, whatever. They had that appeal and were just as handy if not more than a M*stang with the hatch. They have more room in the front and the back seats in both cars are nearly the same, don't wanna hear it. You can bet that if the 4th Gen had some different, really aggressive/angular and distinct looks that it would have sold way better from just those changes. When people compliment my car or when I go to cruises/shows I constantly hear the same thing, "These were the nice Camaros" or "These were so nice," and then I usually know what's coming, "But those new ones don't look good" or "I never liked the ones that came after these." This is much of the general public's perception besides those who own them. Looks are what people see first. IMO a 4th Gen is also more handy than it's competitor. Is it too big? Yes, maybe, but that is not something that will make a potential buyer say "oh no I don't want this now." To some people, that's a good thing. I'm not busting on 4th Gen's, I'm trying to make people realize something. I'm trying to reach real Camaro people here.

To many enthusiasts and people that like Camaros in general, the thought of a really M*stang-like Camaro is a complete turn off. Regardless of performance, regardless of which Gen they own. I know 1st's were more similar to the competitor than others, but they had a different kind of design and focus on performance. Anyone that truly knows the Camaro knows that Chevrolet wanted it to be more like the 2nd Gen's and even more sporty right from the start.

I agree that the car could be setup to be a little more "easy to use," but slightly. Stop blaming what the Camaro is known/loved for and what it was intended to be and instead blame the real culprit....the 4th Gen and the way it was forced to be managed.