Why is saying a Camaro handles like a "Good Sports Sedan" bad?
05-10-2010, 03:44 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ballwin, MO
Posts: 1,182
The biggest "problem" with the 4th gen is that they tamed it / softened it up too much as an attempt to reach a wider audience. They actually took this a step farther later with the LS1 cars (taller springs - increased ride height) There's nothing wrong with the design (except for maybe that stupid caster bushing I keep destroying). It's just that the springs are too soft and the bars are too small.
The SLA design in principle is actually superior to the modified Mac strut arrangement on the 3rd gen. The double A arm gains camber in compression / roll where a strut car pretty much doesn't. Also, the 3rd gen arrangement not a true Mac strut because the spring is mounted inboard. This introduces a good bit of stiction into the strut and is why those cars tend to "crash" over sharp edged bumps.
However, this extra stiffness in conjunction with the bigger bars and heavier springs can make the car a better performer off the showroom floor. It certainly makes the car "feel" racier. The 4th gen feels more civilized in nature though and that is exactly what they were going for.
The rack and pinion in the 4th gens is actually more precise feeling but the ratio is slower than at least that of the 3rd gen I owned. I'll take the precision if I had to choose.
Properly modified and setup, there isn't a lot of diffeerence between the two. We both generally seem to wind up in the same ballpark as far as wheel rate (3rd gens generally run a heavier spring but it "appears" softer to the car since it is mounted so much farther inboard). I've more than doubled the stock front spring rate (292) on my car to 600 lb springs. (FWIW I'm at 150 in the rear, up from ~115) I've also upped the bar to a 35mm. Guess what? The car feels a lot more tossable than it did stock; much more like what most would associate with a 3rd gen.
True, the car is still bigger and heavier (I'm at ~3350 lbs) than a 3rd gen and I do have to cope with that. Still, as I've said, properly modified and set up, either design can get it done.
The SLA design in principle is actually superior to the modified Mac strut arrangement on the 3rd gen. The double A arm gains camber in compression / roll where a strut car pretty much doesn't. Also, the 3rd gen arrangement not a true Mac strut because the spring is mounted inboard. This introduces a good bit of stiction into the strut and is why those cars tend to "crash" over sharp edged bumps.
However, this extra stiffness in conjunction with the bigger bars and heavier springs can make the car a better performer off the showroom floor. It certainly makes the car "feel" racier. The 4th gen feels more civilized in nature though and that is exactly what they were going for.
The rack and pinion in the 4th gens is actually more precise feeling but the ratio is slower than at least that of the 3rd gen I owned. I'll take the precision if I had to choose.
Properly modified and setup, there isn't a lot of diffeerence between the two. We both generally seem to wind up in the same ballpark as far as wheel rate (3rd gens generally run a heavier spring but it "appears" softer to the car since it is mounted so much farther inboard). I've more than doubled the stock front spring rate (292) on my car to 600 lb springs. (FWIW I'm at 150 in the rear, up from ~115) I've also upped the bar to a 35mm. Guess what? The car feels a lot more tossable than it did stock; much more like what most would associate with a 3rd gen.
True, the car is still bigger and heavier (I'm at ~3350 lbs) than a 3rd gen and I do have to cope with that. Still, as I've said, properly modified and set up, either design can get it done.
05-10-2010, 04:35 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
If Chevy addressed the poor visibility complaint, then maybe resulting styling would be less appealing and they'd sell fewer.
This is why you can't just listen to those who complain.
05-10-2010, 05:49 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
That's something I've been pondering.... the styling is clearly a hit with people in all age groups, though it seems to me the younger may like it more than the older demographic.
If Chevy addressed the poor visibility complaint, then maybe resulting styling would be less appealing and they'd sell fewer.
This is why you can't just listen to those who complain.
If Chevy addressed the poor visibility complaint, then maybe resulting styling would be less appealing and they'd sell fewer.
This is why you can't just listen to those who complain.
05-10-2010, 10:56 PM
#34
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
I am willing to bet if you asked most people why they buy a Mustang.."class leading handling" is not super high on the list. Ford sold the crap out the Mustang for several years on the outdated Fox platform. Kids grow up dreaming of owning Mustangs long before they understand what skid pad numbers are. Same with Corvette. The Camaro kind of lost it's way because the 4th gen did not have any outright DNA that that most people could tie it back with Camaro's best days. Also hatch backs have lost popularity some. It was a great performing but also emotionless cruise missle. It also proved you can't sell a pony car on performance alone.
I guess my point is that pony cars are more about capturing peoples hearts than being fastest around the ring. That is why the Camaro is such a hit. People who have no clue what it is see the 5th gen and immediatly want to smile. It has been a long time since the Camaro had that kind of styling star power.
I guess my point is that pony cars are more about capturing peoples hearts than being fastest around the ring. That is why the Camaro is such a hit. People who have no clue what it is see the 5th gen and immediatly want to smile. It has been a long time since the Camaro had that kind of styling star power.
05-10-2010, 11:08 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I am willing to bet if you asked most people why they buy a Mustang.."class leading handling" is not super high on the list. Ford sold the crap out the Mustang for several years on the outdated Fox platform. Kids grow up dreaming of owning Mustangs long before they understand what skid pad numbers are. Same with Corvette. The Camaro kind of lost it's way because the 4th gen did not have any outright DNA that that most people could tie it back with Camaro's best days. Also hatch backs have lost popularity some. It was a great performing but also emotionless cruise missle. It also proved you can't sell a pony car on performance alone.
I guess my point is that pony cars are more about capturing peoples hearts than being fastest around the ring. That is why the Camaro is such a hit. People who have no clue what it is see the 5th gen and immediatly want to smile. It has been a long time since the Camaro had that kind of styling star power.
I guess my point is that pony cars are more about capturing peoples hearts than being fastest around the ring. That is why the Camaro is such a hit. People who have no clue what it is see the 5th gen and immediatly want to smile. It has been a long time since the Camaro had that kind of styling star power.
I think the issue is that for some folks, a smaller car could be more fun to drive. This thread started off comparing the Camaro and G8 to BMWs. Which BMW? 1, 3, 5, or 7? The current Camaro comes closest to a 6, which is a 2-door 5-series.
I can understand that some people think a Camaro should be more like a 3 or a 1, and that a 5 or 6 would not necessarily satisfy those who'd like an M3 or a 128i. That's not a knock against the 6-series, just a personal preference.
Would a smaller Camaro sell better? I don't know. But it would sell better to Charlie. It'd be great if Chevy/GM could offer two sizes to satisfy both the smaller-is-better and larger-is-better types.
Call one Camaro or Monza and the other Camaro or Monte Carlo (or Chevelle, or CSX 6.2 -- just kidding about the CSX
).
05-10-2010, 11:22 PM
#36
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
I always think of the Camaro as more M3 sized. I know without looking the dimensions put it probaly closer to 5 series. That being said..I think the current Camaro has enough testicular fortitude to satisfy 98 percent of the performance loving public out there.
There's fast on the track, and then there's fun to drive. They are two separate, but related, qualities.
I think the issue is that for some folks, a smaller car could be more fun to drive. This thread started off comparing the Camaro and G8 to BMWs. Which BMW? 1, 3, 5, or 7? The current Camaro comes closest to a 6, which is a 2-door 5-series.
I can understand that some people think a Camaro should be more like a 3 or a 1, and that a 5 or 6 would not necessarily satisfy those who'd like an M3 or a 128i. That's not a knock against the 6-series, just a personal preference.
Would a smaller Camaro sell better? I don't know. But it would sell better to Charlie. It'd be great if Chevy/GM could offer two sizes to satisfy both the smaller-is-better and larger-is-better types.
Call one Camaro or Monza and the other Camaro or Monte Carlo (or Chevelle, or CSX 6.2 -- just kidding about the CSX).
I think the issue is that for some folks, a smaller car could be more fun to drive. This thread started off comparing the Camaro and G8 to BMWs. Which BMW? 1, 3, 5, or 7? The current Camaro comes closest to a 6, which is a 2-door 5-series.
I can understand that some people think a Camaro should be more like a 3 or a 1, and that a 5 or 6 would not necessarily satisfy those who'd like an M3 or a 128i. That's not a knock against the 6-series, just a personal preference.
Would a smaller Camaro sell better? I don't know. But it would sell better to Charlie. It'd be great if Chevy/GM could offer two sizes to satisfy both the smaller-is-better and larger-is-better types.
Call one Camaro or Monza and the other Camaro or Monte Carlo (or Chevelle, or CSX 6.2 -- just kidding about the CSX
).
05-10-2010, 11:39 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
But size-wise, it's much close to a 6-series.
05-10-2010, 11:52 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
I just had a thought... would we care so much about Camaro's size relative to the BMW 3-series if Cadillac had a true 3-series rival?
That's what we really should be comparing - Cadillac to BMW.
If Camaro is actually comparable to a 6-series, then I'd think GM would be happy with that notion.
That's what we really should be comparing - Cadillac to BMW.
If Camaro is actually comparable to a 6-series, then I'd think GM would be happy with that notion.
05-11-2010, 12:00 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I just had a thought... would we care so much about Camaro's size relative to the BMW 3-series if Cadillac had a true 3-series rival?
That's what we really should be comparing - Cadillac to BMW.
If Camaro is actually comparable to a 6-series, then I'd think GM would be happy with that notion.
That's what we really should be comparing - Cadillac to BMW.
If Camaro is actually comparable to a 6-series, then I'd think GM would be happy with that notion.
No one would try to convince an M3 owner that he'd be just as happy with a 650i, or that the 650i handled well enough. But Chevy only has the one RWD coupe, and it has to fit all sizes. If they make the Camaro smaller, they may get complaints from those who like larger cars. SUV sales tell me that there are plenty of those in the U.S.
05-11-2010, 12:10 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Actually, I'd even look into buying the current car if it had a bigger back seat and it was NOT called Camaro.
I suspect though, that if the Camaro were a little smaller, a little lighter and a little bit more fun to drive, it really wouldn't turn off any buyers.
05-11-2010, 01:12 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I suspect though, that if the Camaro were a little smaller, a little lighter and a little bit more fun to drive, it really wouldn't turn off any buyers.
05-11-2010, 08:50 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
05-11-2010, 09:15 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: AR (PA born and fled)
Posts: 859
I believe that I've mentioned the same thing over the last few years.
If this car had the appropriate styling and was named...ohhh... let's say Chevelle, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. Ever. I don't have a problem with the car as much as I have a problem with what it is supposed to be. I'll explain....
IMO, this car is very much in line with what a Chevelle was / is. A relatively big, relatively heavy, powerful, stylish, well appointed, comfy, two door with acceptable handling but not really intended to be a corner burner. Therefore, I strongly feel that the 5th gen would carry the Chevelle flag much more effectively than it carries the Camaro flag. A Chevelle is not a Camaro and a Camaro is not a Chevelle. Two different cars with two different missions. Again, IMO.
When you give a car a hallowed name, there are both baggage and expectations to deal with. Some of us don't believe this car is a "proper" Camaro due to those expectations.
If this car had the appropriate styling and was named...ohhh... let's say Chevelle, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. Ever. I don't have a problem with the car as much as I have a problem with what it is supposed to be. I'll explain....
IMO, this car is very much in line with what a Chevelle was / is. A relatively big, relatively heavy, powerful, stylish, well appointed, comfy, two door with acceptable handling but not really intended to be a corner burner. Therefore, I strongly feel that the 5th gen would carry the Chevelle flag much more effectively than it carries the Camaro flag. A Chevelle is not a Camaro and a Camaro is not a Chevelle. Two different cars with two different missions. Again, IMO.
When you give a car a hallowed name, there are both baggage and expectations to deal with. Some of us don't believe this car is a "proper" Camaro due to those expectations.
05-11-2010, 09:50 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Yup, and I think this speaks directly to Branden's opening post. The Camaro drives great - for a sporty family sedan or a large Monte Carlo-esque coupe. As a Camaro, it misses my sweetspot.
05-11-2010, 11:47 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
