As I read through some of these threads, especially Camaro vs. Mustang posts, ProudPony often makes the point that the next Mustang embodies exactly what its enthusiasts wanted in the new car. Is it even possible that the next Camaro can take in all suggestions from its enthusiasts? I mean just on this site you have

1) "Yaaay! retro!" Versus "Yuck! Retro!"
2) "More upright" Versus "3rd Gen/4th Gen low 'GT' look"
3) "SS rules!" Versus "Z28 is the best, period!"
(heck, some even argue whether it should be Z28 or Z/28 )
4) "Base V8 necessary" Versus "Forget the base V8 AND a Hi-Po V6!"

And I'm sure there's many more we can add. I'm very curious to see how Chevy will even pull off a successful Camaro when its fan base is, as a whole, so befuddled and in disagreement about even the most basic content.

I'm hoping this thread can bring about some real good discussion about how everyone envisions the next car, and just maybe by the time this fizzles out, we can come to some kind of common theme for the next Camaro! So....thoughts?

 

Maybe this can be a case for why Firebird should come back as well...

Maybe one can go evolutionary, and the other can go retro...

Please both camps.

Of course, when you subdivde it into several issues... you may need to have a Buick version, a Saturn version, and a Cadillac version as well.

 

Good thread.

I think if you start subdividing and creating a different car for each niche you make development/production costs through the roof and only end up carving up your target market. As much as I have disagreed with the full-retro stance, it is clear to me that we need ONE car that can appeal to everybody.

Thus, the more I consider the issue the more I think the next Camaro MUST split the difference between what it recently was and what it was at the beginning.

Retro..but not full out retro
Evolutionary...but not revolutionary.

We need a car that is somewhat smaller and lighter. That in itself will harken back to the beginning. I have no problem at all with doses of retro cues on a car that is very modern in overall character.

I think it is inescapable that the car must have some retro styling/cues to it. A car that takes a 4-5 year hiatus must reach back in order to regenerate brand/name identity and create some sort of continuity with previous iterations. No wonder GTO purists are so upset at the new one...in its basic formula it may be a good GTO but stylistically it is not connected to GTOs of yore at all.

In the end, GM must pull a rabbit out of its hat. It must produce a Camaro that is the best yet in terms of performance parameters. It must also have unprecedented utility/practicality for a 2 door coupe. And on top of all that it must have a proper size, shape and design that is at the same time modern yet instantly recognizable to aficianado's as a Camaro. If the cues are strong enough that the masses know its a camaro then its gravy, but I do not think universal name recognition is essential as long as it looks good and draws people to learn more about the name on the side of it.

 

Z28Wilson,
Good start. And good point too.

My insight is limited, but I'd like to share why I think there is such a strong and varied stance amongst Camaro guys.

It started out as a semi-compact, upright, 2+2-type car that was base-powered with a 6 and offered several options up to a mighty V8. It evolved a bit and became a championship-winning Trans-Am car. It evolved again and got a little lower, longer, and refined a bit, and options began to come and go, including SS and Z28. Enter the 3rd gen, with plenty of options again, from 4-bangers to the LT1's, and colors/packages galore from Berlinettas to RS's to IROC cars. The seating got even lower and the infamous hump appeared. The car that left us last year was even longer, heavier, and sleeker. Seating now resembled a lay-z-boy during Sunday's game, and the dashboard was huge. Power was unbeleivable, and handling was definitely class-best too. But the grocery-getting V6 was even light years from the old I-6 originals in stature, and the car just screamed performance - even in it's lowest form.

So where in that vast spectrum of offerings is there a void? NOWHERE. There was a Camaro for somebody somewhere in there, I'm sure. If you like the upright coupe seating, you probably like the first or second gen cars. You also would likely want to see some retro in the F5 harking back to that day. If you are 19 today and have only ridden in 3rd or 4th gen cars, you are probably more keen to the all-out performance and low-slung seating positions. Since that is what Camaro embodies for you, you would want to see the F5 come back as an "evolved" F4 that is now lower, sleeker (and probably faster with no regards for a V6) and even more awesome than the F4.

Again, maybe I'm grabbing at air here, but I think Camaro has been all things at some time during it's life, but never all things in the same relative model year. I think there are those who favor a certain model because it fit their specific tastes. The Mustang has kind of been the same old upright 2+2 from day one, with some heavy-hitting performers thrown in along the way. Except for the 71-73 models, it has remained fairly short and compact, with utilitarian appointments. It has also camouflaged those utilitarian traits from time to time to become a Boss 302 or a Cobra R model - with no rear seats, radios, and all-go goodies. In short, it hasn't totally morphed in body and shape the way Camaro has IMO. And maybe that's a small part of why there's so much disparity among what Camaro guys want versus Mustang guys? I dunno.

You sure have to admit, getting right out of a '67 Camaro and into an '02 Camaro is going to bring the differences out big-time. Not quite so shocking from a 65 Mustang to an '03 IMO.

 

The 2nd gens were not "upright" in their seating. They were just as laid back as the generations that followed. And just a point that is oft overlooked is that the 1st gen was no more than 1 inch taller in stance than any of the other cars. The 2nd gen was actually the lowest of all of them.

Yes the 1st gen was more upright in seating position, but it was still a low car for its day. I think we can have a lowslung coupe with a more-upright seat if the cowl height and interior packaging is done right.

And actually I think the laid back seating position is not THE negative, it was the fact that due to the super long hood which could not be seen, the laid back position became a detriment. In a shorter car with less front overhang and better forward visibility, I don't think a reclined seating style would be such a hard lump to swallow.

 

And here Ladies and Gentlemen we have our first "younger guy" who is partial to "lowslung seating"!
Welcome aboard sir, please be seated (lowly) and await our next contestant...

Next, will the older guy wanting more upright seating and reduced ingress stepover please step up...

J/K with you Chris - nothing personal!
I certainly don't have all the Camaro's dimensions in my head and I'm not going to search them all day either. Just based on my personal experiences, I think the F2 is not as bad as the F4 to get in/out of and the seats are not as "laid down". Again, just my opinion - the numbers may say otherwise and that's fine.

I tried not to concentrate on specifics, but generalizations. Even you admit there were differences in seating and that was my point - nothing more. The same will apply in everything else Camaro ever had.

As far as the seats go, your right in that a combo of shorter/lower hood, less dash, and more forward seating can overcome seat height requirements. I think for F5, you will need to take some of everything into play. The hood a little shorter, dash a little shorter, firewall a bit lower, and yes - seats a bit more vertical, to reach the overall package. Everyone is going to have to give a little and make compromises to make it work. A single-kid soccer mom that works and wants a hatchback, V6, and an automatic, maybe tickled with the F5 designs, but disappointed if it still forces her to be semi-prone when driving around on errands... ergo 1 more lost sale. And YES, I do see moms with 5 y/o's driving Mustangs while I'm at MY KID'S SOCCER GAMES!!! Camaros too, but more in Mustangs. It's just a lame example, I know. But I hope you see my point about compromising.

 

I am 28 years old...if that makes me a younger buyer then I guess I am, but I'm not an 18 yr old kid....I have my moments when my car's lack of practicality gets to me, and for those time I drive my wife's Blazer, LOL. But I will say that 90% of that impracticality comes from the mods...heads/cam can be sometimes hard to live with on a daily driver. Dead stock the car was a great daily driver.

I've been driving F-bodies since I was 17, so I guess you could say I'm quite used to the seating position. Once you learn the outside dimensions of the car, seeing the nose becomes irrelevant. I know how long it is from instinct and 11 yrs of driving these cars.

But yes I agree with your last paragraph, as it goes back to what I was saying in the beginning. We're all going to have to give up a little. Not-as-low seating, not as heavy, not as long, not quite upright but no more 68* windsheilds either. Not full retro but not 100% modern.

In the end it may end up as a car cursed by the Magazine reviewers as one foot in the past...like they've always complained. The car should not be built to please them, it should be built to please potential buyers.

 

The next Camaro, I just see that as an empty statement. GM could pull a fast one on us but in the state of the Automotive industry I just don't see them worrying about the Camaro, at least right now.

But for arguement sake: SS should be the king, should be a v6 model(very affordable also) and there should be 2 or 3 v8 models, and no retro they need to continue with a modern design as the Camaro has always been.

tom

 

Realistically its a generational issue.

New F-bodies were priced out of the range (and insurance) of many young enthusiasts. So naturally if they wanted F-bodies they had to buy older used models. Whereas the folks buying fully-loaded new F-bodies basically bought what they wanted and didn't worry about modding it until much later down the road. In some cases these folks were wannabe Vette owners without the bread to actually buy a Vette. However, in most cases they were true F-body enthusiasts.

Enter the GM influence.

Each generational change has been evolutionary for the F-bodies. Whereas, Ford decided to use "nostaligic" influences when they revamped the Mustang back in the mid 90's. Although initially some early Fox-body Mustang fans cried in horror, for the most part ponycar enthusiasts soon embraced the "new" direction. What was once old is now new again? GM never went in this direction, instead on evolving the mark with each new generation. Thusly, Mustang enthusiasts have been able to accept "nostalgic" influences in time.

If GM chooses to change directions and go retro with the 5th gen, F-body enthusiasts will eventually transition into the "new" way of thinking.

Everyone will have their opinions. However, once the 5th gen Camaro is revealed, I'm sure the debate will seriously start to heat up, just as it has for the "new" GTO.

 

I think that has a whole lot to do with it. Personally I've always liked the fact that Camaro has continually evolved and not recycled much of the same shapes and features of cars past. There's still some Camaro cues on the 2002 that you saw in '67...the black grill and wrap-around bar taillights are two instant ones I can think of. Even then, I don't think it's fair to make the leap from 1967 to 2002 like you can with Mustang. However I firmly believe that when you look at '69 to '70, then '81 to '82, then '92 to '93, you see the similarities between each previous generation. The similarities may be diluted out over time, with not as blunt a link to the original as Mustang has, but you can clearly see how the car has logically evolved (not so with a car like, say, T-Bird....now THAT'S a car with some screwed-up lineage. )

When we say "just make it look like a Camaro" what do we really mean? That's what everyone wants and is what the basis for a successful Camaro is for us, but when we can't really decide what a Camaro "looks like" we're pretty dead in the water, aren't we?

All my life the Camaro has been the low-slung, stylish sports car. So I guess that's what Camaro "looks like" to me.

 

I believe quality, ergonomics, and the overall size should be the main focus points for a fifth-gen Camaro (while maintaining a reasonable price of course). With those parameters met, a well-styled car (either retro, evolutionary, or mixture) will be successful. Pick one, just do a good job with it. With the Corvette, there will always be a nice doner-car for top-level performance and I don't see the car deviating from it's rwd layout.

In the end, if the car is compromising qualiy, comfort, and visibility it won't matter how fast it is or how well it handles. People need to be impressed by the car before they even turn the key. If a $21k Acura RSX can deliver these traits, a $24-28k Camaro should be able to match that while adding more performance.

 

From what I've read in the past on this board, there isn't going to be an F5. Sure there might be a 5th Gen Camaro, but it probably won't be based on an F-body chassis. The F-bod is dead isn't it?

 

Why don't we have a consensus? An interesting question.

Maybe because Camaro transcends age groups and generations. Everyone wants Camaro to be everything. The older guys want some sophistication, quality and refinement. The younger guys just want it to be cheap and fast. Most of us want it to be beautiful....I think some of us don't really care.

The key for GM is to make enough of us happy enough, to plunk down some green on a new Camaro.


PS

Z/28 (with a slash) RULES!!!!!!!

 

Keep the tradition where you can, but if you do like GM did and put that as priority, well you'll end up with the problem we have now, it won't sell. The SN95 mustang pleased the general buyer and even though it has little to nothing to do with the original, people still found tradition in it. GM needs to build a car that will sell, even if tradition has to be thrown out for it, yes I know, why name it a camaro if you're going to get rid of all it's history. You still have the purpose of the car intact, which is to grind the mustang and any dodge offerings into the pavement without looking back

 

If there is a new camaro it will be overpriced, like the silverado SS
$41, 689 good heavens, I just don't see it. It's higher in cost and slower than the lighting. GM should have put the money into the suspension and engine, not AWD. I think Gm is putting out some solid platforms, and if the customer wants performance, they will have to go aftermarket. The next camaro is slowly growing into a somewhat of a super car, along with a price tag. Look at the GTO, aroung $35,000. Back in the day, when people see an old man driving a corvette, it was to compensate for his short thingy, Today, when people see an old man driving a vette, he was saving for the car 10 years ago, and he can finally afford the payments of a vette.