I for one am not married to IRS. There are ways to make a solid axle car handle just as well as an IRS car. First gen Camaro owners have been doing it for years. However, although this plan follows the tradition of how the Camaro came about in the first place; (remember most of the parts and components had already been developed for the Chevy II), I don't like the idea of a parts-bin Camaro for the 21st century.

However, GM should build this car. Just call it something other than Camaro. (Chevelle?) That would also be more appropriate for other derivatives on the same platform, like Nomad as suggested by others.

I want a 5th gen Camaro that has been designed to be a Camaro from the ground up. Make it cheap, I don't care, just don't shortchange the image.

FWIW, if GM decides to make a "special edition" version Camaro built around the LS7, that is the car I plan to buy... REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

 

Chevy TrailBlazer and SSR share a platform. I'd say they are unique enough.

 

The only thing that would really worry me about how a Camara described above might look is this.

I would want a Camaro to stand out in a crowd - not blend in with its stablemates (ala GTO - and no offense intended to you GTO owners).

 

That parts bin Camaro would be really hard to pull off. However, I think with a few tweaks it could be viable. I'm skeptical of the powertrain choices, and I am worried about the suspension and rear axle choices. I am worried about some of the cost cutting measures. I agree with Bob that looking good, feeling good, and moving good are the most important factors. However, if this car is not more refined than the Mustang in everyday situations it will fail.

 

This is how an engineer will tell you how this will pan out.

There are three options: 1.) it'll be all new, 2.) it'll be here tomrorrow, 3.) it'll be cheap...

You can have two of those. Pick wisely.....

 

Personally, I'd go with 1 & 3.

I can put up with a wait if it's priced right and looks good and is built good.

 

Chevy can do this. Here is the formula: great power (LS1 or LS2 & V6) + great styling (so that chicks will want to buy it, too) + great price ($20K-$28K) + great advertising (I don't think I've EVER seen a Camaro comercial) = a great car w/ a $hit load of sales!

Ford has done this w/ the Mustang. The local Ford dealerships can't keep them in stock! It CAN be done. Chevy needs to stop making cars for rental companies and start making them for regular people. They can rebadge a GTO for all I care, I'll take it! I'd buy a Corvette if it had a back seat (kids). People in general want fast fun cars or big honking trucks/SUVs. I have both. (Z28 & Z71 Suburban)

GM as a whole needs to $hit or get off the pot.

* Somone fwd this to Bob Lutz

 

I don't get why everybody is so gung-ho on this car costing the exact same amount of $$$ as a Mustang. I would rather have the Camaro command a $1000-$2000 premium over a comparable Mustang and be a much better car. That includes an IRS(that works, no wheelhop), 3.6 DOCH V6 standard, a base V8~320hp, faster than a Mustang GT. Then make the LS2 V8 optional. The car also needs to have a higher quality feel(nicer interior, quiter, etc.) than the Mustang.

Basically I think what was proposed seems like a half-a@@ed effort. That could potentially work if all these parts put together work brilliantly and give us a better performing and higher quality car than the Mustang. Realistically a Camaro like the one proposed would not turn out well IMO. If we are raiding the parts bin and cost cutting, I think the beancounters will cut the costs until it bleeds.

 

One more thought....will a McPherson strut even work on a Sigma?

Why spend all the time & $$ to go backwards in front suspension design? Gotta' validate it, crash test it, etc......

Jumping over a quarter to pick up a nickel.....

 

If GM wants to sell 100,000 to 200,000 Camaros, chicks have to like it and buy it. I've seen a handful of '05 Mustang GTs, but I see the V6 version everywhere (they're like roaches). I think I've seen more '05 GTOs and C6 Vettes than Mustang GT's.

The preceeding paragraph means that the seating position needs to be improved (girls don't know s**t between live axle and IRS) or else it won't sell. Then you can have your Z/28 LS2 equipped with a choked off exhuast ~350 hp, SS LS2 w/390 hp, and the SS LS7 w/ 450-480 hp (for those with cash to burn).

 

I agree and I think all that is needed to sell tons of V6 models (and therefore subsidize our performance models) is this:

-practical exterior dimensions
-good visibility/upright seating position
-catchy styling that's not too boy-racer
-price competitive with Mustang V6, hopefully actually CHEAPER since the Mustang still has the name/history advantage.

 

I think this strategy could work if tweaked a little.

It obvious by the replies in this thread that the market is split between a solid axle and IRS. But I do agree that making IRS standard would "one-up" the Mustang. But I'll take my Camaro with a live axle, thank you.

Engine choices and making power are not a problem.

How about this line-up:
Base: 3.6L V6 225hp
RS: Standard 3.9L V6 250hp, Optional 5.3L 300hp V8
SS: Standard 6.0L LS2 V8 350hp, Optional 6.0L LS2 V8 375hp
Z/28: Standard 6.0L LS2 400hp, Optional 7.0L LS7 475hp

Ok, I'll admit to wishful thinking for having 5 different engines, but they're there, why not use them!

 

That is too many engines,

3.9L V6 250HP (base)
LS4 = 350HP (GT competition)
LS2 = 400HP (Mach 1 competition)

Then offer a limited edition ZL1 (500-1000 cars?) with the 500HP LS7 for $40K to put up against the Cobra. If its isn't super limited edition then it will step on the Vettes toes and will never happen

 

Have you all been paying attention to how the Z28/SS matchup was originally done. Z28 was the handling based car with good power. SS was the drag strip bruiser. Why would you invert the formula.

 

I doubt the 3.6 OHC engine is cost effective for the base car. I think we'd see the 3.9 in 240 or 250 hp trim.