Sorry, I had to

 

I won't get into the GTO argument again, but to be brief, your argument is flawed in several ways. The new GTO was not originally intended to be a GTO no. Neither was the 1964 LeMans. Pushihng that aside for a second, lets be real - the GTO is not selling because it looks outdated - not because of anything regarding its origins. If Americans have demonstrated anything over the past twenty years, its that they will buy a car regrdless of its origin, no matter how humble its roots (read, imports and fox body Mustang).

Of course, this is rather irrelevant because we are not talking about taking one car and making it a Camaro. Rather, we are talking about looking through the company's parts bin to make what otherwise would be impossible a reality.

These days, there simply are very few sports cars under $30,000 that are not parts bin creations. Both the Mustang and 350Z use a version of a luxury car platform that has been cheapened up. The Stang did it with a live rear axle and a 5-speed, along with cheaper materials all around. The 350 took out a lot of the sound deadening material for the base version, and gets its engine from the Maxima.

Well, in any case, don't worry. I don't think this Camaro is coming around the corner, as much as I would like it to.

 

If it had an origin of being designed to represent a GTO from the beginning, than it would never have looked like the current version and outdated. it was nothing more than a RUSH job to fillthe gap. Yes it looked outdated before it hit the showroom floor. I agree there, but I also have to say if GM actually designed the GTO from the ground up, it would have represented what people would expect from a new version.. You are missing my point actually in the fact that I was not talking about where the car was produced, but what it was originally designed for. The current Monaro was never intended to represent the GTO, and the public's response to it shows. I am more comparing how Ford from the first step to last concerning the Mustang, designed it to be a Mustang.

When we start talking rushing a Camaro together using a questionable platform in relation to the Camaro, and on top of that need to totally rely on parts bin designs, then GM has already shot itself in the foot, and needs practically a miracle to make it work, especially considering it's direct competition

 

Actually, EVERY GTO ever made (save the '74 Ventura based version) was basically an existing car that had the GTO name slapped on it.

I'll agree 100%. Actually, I'll extend it to not just "most" guys, but everyone who actually is a Camaro fan and actually is able to buy a new one.

All this "If I don't get IRS, I'm not going to play" people are just blowing smoke and posturing. If the next Camaro has hot looks, solid construction, powerful dependable powertrain, and a budget pricetag, they'll be in line with the rest of us.

One thing I've noticed when I switched from Mustang To Camaro is that there's a pronounced group of excusemakers & those in perpetual denial that come with the Camaro culture that didn't exist with the Mustang gang.

Mustang outsells Camaro?
"Well, with Firebird we outsell Mustang."

Mustang outsells both F-bodies by 2 to one?
"Well, Mustang sells to girls."

Mustang Cobra blows away LS1 F-bodies?
"So what. Mustang needs a supercharger." or even more ridiculous: "Well, I can buy aftermarket parts, and then my Camaro will blow away a Cobra."

And now the latest:
Instead of 150,000 cars, Mustang is selling 200,000 even though it has a live axles... more than half of the entire US coupe market!
"Well, the press gave Mustang a pass and the public let Ford get away with having a live axle."

Uh, OK.


Alas, someone who's actually serious about making a Camaro that will take on the Mustang in SALES, and doesn't suffer from "Performance Tunnelvision".



To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a hoot if the next F-body has IRS or not.

I really appriciate how my IRS Thunderbird SC is almost oblivious to rough road surfaces in corners and how the car sticks like glue with nothing more than a tire upgrade. But... my SC also weighs about 3800 pounds too!!!

My live axle '97 Camaro Z28 handles exceptionally well. It rides better than my SC in it's "handling mode" of the electronic suspension. With Mustang, Ford seems to have found a way to lessen the characteristic drawbacks of a live axle. Forget just cheaper, live axles are lighter in weight! The IRS on SN95 Cobras added 150 to 200 pounds!

If GM were to make an IRS that's lightweight and relatively inexpensive, count me in. It would be a good marketing tool over the Mustang. Besides, GM's performance cars have traditionally been about handling over drag racing off the showroom floor. However, if GM decided to go with a live axle & did as good or better tuning job than Ford did with the Mustang, I wouldn't mind in the least.

Ride & handling can be tuned in perfectly or screwed up completely in both configurations.

 

 

I have no Idea what a car with IRS feels like, don't care either I prefer a comfortable seat. The Camaro should weigh closer to 3000 lbs than 4000 lbs. Both the GTO and '03-'04 Cobras are bloated pigs. A good seat position, relatively light, and a design to capture females and the V6 crowd and the Camaro can live. If that happens then we can have an SS LS2 390 hp version or the Z/28 350 hp ~$25,000 version.

 

Thanks man, I was starting to feel like I was argueing with the deaf

Some of that denail you speak of might just be disbelief from the enthusiast few (tunnelheads I guess) who just can't fathom why more people buy what is on paper an inferior sports car. I would be groupd in that crowd, although for slightly different reasons.

Ford isn't gonna sell 150-200K because of IRS or a an axle out back...it's the only thing in it's segment.

Mentioning that, you think Chevy has an inclination of the uphill battle it has in front of it? My perception is not many people switch from Mustang to Camaro and vise versa. I'd be afraid that Chevy won't lure too many new 'Stang drivers into a Camaro because they've become part of the 'Blue Oval Faithfull", inspite of their delusion of driving a 'modern classic' (oh crap, I think I just opened another can of worms )

 

No, there's plenty of the "non-deaf" here.


I was once a "Blue Oval Faithful" & I was lured back to Chevrolet. I can't speak for all former Stang owners, but for me I came here when Ford went down hill as far as factory performance, started forgetting it's faithful, and the other side looked like it had something better (sounds familiar, doesn't it ).

To be perfectly honest, I don't see any way on earth GM can win over Mustang enthusiasts today or in the near future unless Ford screws up royally. Instead of sitting on their laurels since they all but own the coupe market, Ford is doing everything it can to grab every Camaro fan it can while GM screws up dragging it's feet.

Ford not only brought out a impressive base & GT Mustang, it brought out a Cobra to drool over without jacking up the price (adjusting for 2 years of inflation), preparing a T-top option for 2006, a Mach 1 or it's replacement (under the hood of all new Mustangs is the outline of where the hood scoop of this model will poke through the hood! ), and the likely return of the Special Service (re: Police) Mustang later in 2006, and a also likely companion "LX" type budget Mustang GT around the same time while the regular GT gets an engine upgrade.

Compare that with the best senario we can realistically hope for the Camaro:
* Out in 2007 as a 2008
* In base & "Z28" form.
* Higher performance models to be out a year or 2 later for the 2009 or 2010 model year. Just in time for the Mustang redesign.

Shift everything back 1 year if Camaro doesn't return till 2009.

In the "slide-ruler" age, GM answered the '65 Mustang just 2 years later in '67. How far ahead and how many years jump does the '05 Ford Mustang need to be for GM's entry to seem like a distant desparate joke in this supercomputer age where GM said it can get a car from idea to production in 18-24 months??? 3 years in 2008? 4 years in 2009? 5 years in 2010??

GM's going to have the deck stacked against it if Camaro's replacement doesn't come till 2008. If it's not till 2009, unless Ford implodes and goes belly up, GM may as well forget it.

 

I believe that Chevy would have the potential to lure away some current owners (or leasee if the timeing is right). What are the bulk of Mustang and Camaro sales? V6 daily drivers. If Chevy can make a superior V6 Camaro, at a competitive price (read as slightly less expensive with similar options) with great looks, that is packaged well, the Camaro could take some sales away. The bulk of the V6 buyers are not 'Blue Oval Faithfull'

 

I am sick of people saying the Camaro should be cheaper than the Mustang. Since the days of the 3rd gen, this hasn't been true. You should get a better car with the Camaro, and pay a higher price than a comparbly equipped Mustang(1-3K more).

 

No. Speaking for myself I can safely say there is no posturing or blowing of smoke on my part.

I have never owned ANYTHING other than GM. I have spent >$110K on new (two of them Camaros) GM vehicles in the last 14 years.

GM will not got one penny from me for a half assed 5th gen effort.


I do. And for the record I don't want struts either.


So does my '96 UNTIL I ENCOUNTER ROUGH PAVEMENT! These encounters are still unpleasant even with big $ Koni SA shocks.

Life is not a billiard table smooth skid pad. It is full of big time road surface imperfections which a properly engineered IRS will more capably deal with.

As for the acceleration wheel hop that the CTS-V and Corvette suffer, I'm willing to bet that were these vehicles equipped with a shock package containing the proper level of rebound damping we would not be hearing any complaints. GM shock calibrations for rebound generally suck for all of their vehicles.

I'm not buying that aluminum IRS linkage in a 5th gen would weigh more than a 10 or 12 bolt.

For the sake of argument, lets say this is so. You're forgetting one thing...that freakin' heavy axle is all UNSPRUNG WEIGHT. This is the major factor behind the unpleasant reactions over bumpy pavement. It also causes the car to feel "slow footed".



GM has some of the best engineering talent and ability. It's rarely shown in their products because of their practice of making vehicles that are just good enough.

It's time to expect more refinement and effort from the General for even everyday cars. Had they adopted such a policy a decade ago, maybe they wouldn't be struggling with market share and public perception today.

 

I don't know what car you're looking for, but it sure as hell isn't a Camaro.

 

So what youre saying is that when the new Camaro comes out, you expect a car that rattles, has poor interior quality, bad body panel fitment, BUT HEY, its cheap and has some power! I personally am sick and tired of hearing this. GM, if they are even thinking of bringing this car back, REALLY need to spend some time making it a decent piece. Im not saying pack it with features and use the best leather known to man and make the body tighter than Fort Knox, but if its even close to the 4th gen in anything other than price and power, i will be severly dissapointed.

 

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. I even hope they bring back the hump on the passanger side floor.

 

Yes it is EXACTLY that.

I can see your point though. If your definition of "Camaro" is a slapped together quick fix car, one that is just good enough to satisfy the less demanding customer and not a clear leader in any one area....then no, by your definition, I am not looking for a Camaro.


I am looking for a car that will put any other vehicle in or near it's price range on the trailer in every category.

I am looking for a car that will be a clear winner in any head to head comparison. No excuses, no BS single point losses to the gotta-have-it-factor.

I am looking for a car that shows some of GM's engineering muscle. A well thought out package, not a parts bin rush job that shows no respect for the sophistication and demands of their customers. We've put up with that garbage (ONE redesign on 20 YEARS?!) long enough.

I want a car that brings a heaping load of trickle down technology to a realistic price level. Tech such as that which is learned at Nurburgring and in wheel to wheel competition.

More than anything, I want a car that just starts to make all this hiatus crap worth it.