It strikes me that basing a future F-body on sedan mechanicals will compromise the car from the standpoint of performance driving. Even the ultra-expensive BMW Z8 is overly heavy, and a bit too tall, as a concequence of using sedan based suspension components.

Could a 2+2 Camaro be based on the upcoming C6 Y-body? By stretching the wheelbase, rear passenger accomodations could easily equal or better those of he current F4. Moreover, the issue of production costs could be overcome by using steel stampings, or better yet, a De Dion rear axle, in place of the expensive forged alloy IRS of the Corvette.

Here's the basis of my concept:

1. Y-body+

Extend the wheelbase of the Corvette by 200-300mm (8-12 inches). Real 2+2 seating, not a 3 passenger rear "bench," would be the likely result.

2. Retain the rear mounted transaxle (Tremec T-56/4L60E or a replacement automatic).

This design offers superior weight distribution and really spacious footwells - compare the pedal layout of the current Corvette with the Mustang.

3. Substitute a de Dion rear axle for the current IRS setup.

A de Dion design offers superior packaging and weight. The use of a de Dion WITH a rear transaxle was proven by Alfa Romeo from the 1970's onward (Alfeta,Milano, Zagato SZ/RZ, etc) and in the current MCC Smart. Better yet, the de Dion rear axle eliminates the possibility of unwanted camber changes, even without complex multilink designs. http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_s...on1.htm#DeDion

4. Offer an F5 Camaro with the new all alloy LS1 5.3liter V8 as the base engine.

This motor offers 290hp and 320lb/ft of torque on 87 octane gas, and should be exceptionally cheap to produce due to the enormous economies of scale. Moreover, a credible V8 base model would keep the car affordable and obviate the need to develope the Tremec T-45 5-speed for the rear transaxle.

5. A Y-body based Gen5 Camaro would weight in at 3000-3100 pounds, if attention was paid to keeping suspension design simple and lightweight. I doubt the same weight goal could be met using the 3600lb. Sigma Platform CTS as a base.

In my estmation, a Corvette based Camaro Gen5 should fall in a range between <$25k to $35,000 plus for high-end models. Acceleration of a 5.3liter LS1 engined car would be the equal of the 2002 LS1 if the weight was kept near 3100lbs. Flagship performace models could employ high compression versions of the 5.3, much like the current Escalade with the 6.0, or any engine in the Corvette range.

To be truthful, I see future production volumes around 50,000 units per year - with heavy, long-term demand. A Pontiac badged model should bolster the total volume to 70,000. To make a viable 100,000+ car per year production run, GM would really need to extend the carline to the Buick nameplate (Wildcat, anyone?) and invest in a truly viable overseas distribution network.

If the target is from 150-250,000/year, then GM will have to produce a Mustang clone. In this more likely eventuality, GM will fall vicitim to the same cyclical sales cycle, producing V6 models for the rental fleets just as Ford does with the current Mustang.

 

There is no way they are going to take a $40,000 base platform and decontent it to a $25-30,000 price point. Where are they going to cut more than $10K out??? Assuming they leave the V8? Remember most of the Vette options are on top of the $40K.

If Camaro is going to cost more than 30K in today's dollars, count me out.

Look at the Infiniti G35 coupe. A great looking RWD, M6 coupe, starting at $29K. Take the luxury crap out of it, drop in a pushrod V8 (which must cost less to produce than a multi-cam V6) and you'd easily have a ~~25K sports coupe. Why can't GM (the largest auto company in the world) do this? Because they don't want to.

 

How did the LS1 Z28 offer nearly the same powertrain as the C5 Corvette at $15,000 to 20,000 discount? Part of the price disparity was profit, and part was in repayment of one time engineering costs. Then there's the issue of economies of scale...

What alot of people forget, though, is the amount of "gold plating" that went into the Corvette. How about the composite steel/balsa-core floor pan. That particular feature was meant for refinement as much as weight savings. The same goes "up-market" Cadillac/Oldsmobile switchgear. There's alot of ways of cutting costs in a $40k+ vehicle - manufacturers just don't look as hard as they might when a carline is both successful and profitable.

Personally, I think that reinventing the Mustang would be a waste of time for GM. There are just too many sedan based coupes and "sports car" coming on to the market. Even the new 350Z isn't as "sporting" as it should be - blame the fact that the car is compromised by its Infiniti G35 underpinings. On the other hand, there are precious few 2+2 coupes being based upon a true sports car.

 

Sounds like it could make for a very good car, if they could, or rather, would give it a try. Make the 5.3 liter the base engine, and offer the LS1 as the hi-po option. I think GM could do it. I don't think they would, though.

 

A C6 based "F-Car" won't happen.

Remember the 1999-2000 Corvette Hardtop that was supposed to be noticibly cheaper than the coupe? Well, it wasn't all that much cheaper and was a flop until the LS6 saved it from being a total flop...

Not to mention that basing a 'common' car on the Corvette platform would be unacceptable to the Corvette crowd... a lot of them don't even like the whole XLR situation.

 

How did the LS1 Z28 offer nearly the same powertrain as the C5 Corvette at $15,000 to 20,000 discount? Part of the price disparity was profit, and part was in repayment of one time engineering costs. Then there's the issue of economies of scale...

It was on a different, less expensive platform with conventional unibody construction (vs. hydroformed frame) and use of traditional materials. It has a conventional drivetrain (vs. rear mount tranny) and a live rear axle.

Taking a couple of hundred bucks out of a platform is a huge engineering challenge. How would you take out 10-15K? That balsa floor pan doesn't come close. Neither does switching to a solid rear (ugh). Both cars had one time engineering charges. Both also used a similar powertrain, and many other standard GM components, so economies of scale were already there to some extent. Sure, there are lots of ways to cut costs - but not 25-35%

 

I was just going to mention that.

F-owners: "GREAT!! The new Camaro will be on the Corvette chassis!!!"
Vette owners: "Great. The new Camaro will be on the Corvette chassis. "

A step up for F-body owners, a step down for Corvette owners.

If GM wanted, they could take the old C5 platform and use that as a F-car plateform instead. There's an idea, albeit a far fetched one. It's already there, been tried and true, and won't be on the new C6 plateform (C5 owners may be pissed though)

 

Amen. The Camaro was supposed to be the poor man's Vette, they even advertised as much in the early years. I don't need leather, memory seating, HUD, computerized suspension crap (the real name of it escapes me right now) and all that other high dollar stuff. I need a V8,RWD,2+2,good handling,attractivly priced, mean looking, sports car.
I need a Camaro!!
How hard is that GM?

 

It ain't the 70s anymore and I think WAY too much is made of the whole notion that vette owners care that the f-body shares major portions of ithe y-bod powertrain and has comparable performance.

You have two camps of vette owners: a) the ones who know nothing or very little about their cars and could care less - the sunday drivers and then you have b) the semi and hard-core gear-heads who are fully aware that their cars are powered by almost indentical LS1 mills in both f and y platforms.

In group a) most of these guys are ignorant of the component sharing and hence could care less and in group b) well, these not gonna stop buying a vette, just because of some platform sharing.

Sure there is the small % of snobs who deride the f-bod and feel it somehow degrades the vette's image , but these people are not the masses.

I own both and sure couldn't give a rats a$$.

Then as for the 5th gen on a C5 Y-bod platform. Well... anyone know what will happen to the tooling for the C5? How much is going to be re-used for c6. If was just headed for the decomissioning - then why not reuse it for the F5? Move it all to another plant and then build the new f-bod, with a nod to reducing complexity and cost of course (as someone pointed out above). Yes - I realize that this is all a giant, huge oversimplification - I'm just adding fuel to the debate to see what comes out of it .

 

It's good to get some perspective from someone who owns both a Vette and a Camaro. Considering that the only thing we really know about the C6 is that it will be a narrower more compact car, it is probably too soon to say if it will use "new" tooling. The only thing I know for sure is that they will be keeping the rear-transaxle design.

I remember a few years back when GM was kicking around the idea of making the Corvette a product line seperate from Chevrolet. It is a pity that they didn't give that idea some more consideration. Perhaps the Camaro died because it was made an orphan instead of a sibling of the successful Corvette range.

 

I think its a great idea!

 

Seems odd that anyone thinks a Corvette based Camaro would be cheap or lightweight. When you look at all the effort & expense of making the C5 (read "All Corvettes Are Red" if you have no clue), then realize that the Camaro's chassis dates back to 1983, it's almost laughable to think that just because they share engines, Corvette is somehow "gold plated", and really costs as much to make as Corvette.

If GM couldn't afford to continue to make Camaro on a budget based 3rd gen chassis, how can they afford to sell a sub $30,000 Camaro on a Corvette chassis?

 

I can think of 12 grand you couls take out of the vette to make it camaro possible. The added profit of incresed production dealers make 6 grand on every vette and GN mamked the same. Cut the profits in half. Like most cars in the 25-30k price range and then the cost of a larger production. Cut all the gizmos and we have 25-30k camaro.

 

What gizmos would you cut out of a Corvette to make a $25,000 Camaro?

 

less expensive dash, cheaper ASR, Tire pressure monitor, Guage cluster quailty, driver info center, Not as nice seats, solid roof, base raidio, plus all the other things listed above. Between the dealer and GM they make 8 g's minimum or more. Spred the cost of the car over another 100K units. 40-*gs =32, production cost reduction 32-3 g's = 28 grand minus a few gizmos 25 and a half. Maybe even cheaper. Thats how I came up with it.

PS - Less expensive wheel tire combo and smaller brakes like the 4th gen had.