IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 Forum Rules 
Solo PerformanceHotpart.comBlaine Fabrication.comUMI PerformanceUnbalanced Engineering
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Message from the 5th gen Camaro Team
pknowles
post Jul 21 2008, 07:54 PM
Post #21


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,427
Joined: 12-February 04
From: Huntingtown, MD
Member No.: 193



Same trans as the 6 speed S197 Mustangs and V8 only available in the SS. The 2.07 2nd gear and 3.45 rear gears will be nice on an autocross course! Stock class is out of the question, no 20 inch rubber.

This post has been edited by pknowles: Jul 21 2008, 07:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rmackintosh
post Jul 21 2008, 07:55 PM
Post #22


Senior Member
******

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,226
Joined: 24-December 03
From: Danville, CA, USA
Member No.: 27



I said it before....I will say it again.......

The interior is a new low for GM interiors......absolute DEAL BREAKER!
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
00 SS
post Jul 21 2008, 08:39 PM
Post #23


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,197
Joined: 13-February 04
From: Hudson, Colorado
Member No.: 197



I'll reserve judgement on the interior until I see one in person. The interior styling isn't that big of a deal to me as long as it's functional and not repulsive. The pictures do not repulse me. For me, the materials, etc. are not nearly as important as function, good seats and a good driving position. Simple is good. I don't like too many gadgets or buttons which is my biggest complaint about the G8 interior. Most seem to think it's one of the best GM interiors, but I don't like it that much. The center stack just seems unnecessarily over complicated and most of the buttons are too small.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Major_Lee_Slow
post Jul 21 2008, 08:48 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 651
Joined: 3-September 05
From: Chicagoland
Member No.: 876



I am really concerned about the weight. 3800 lbs. I think I'll take a "wait and see" position and let someone else do the development work for solo racing. Maybe if GM did their homework, the car just might handle cause it has independent suspension. I wonder if it has as much adjust-ability as the Solstice?

I am not interested in buying one for street use (too much traffic and too many tickets), so I could care less about all the gadgets, like usb and blue tooth.

This post has been edited by Major_Lee_Slow: Jul 21 2008, 08:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rmackintosh
post Jul 21 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #25


Senior Member
******

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,226
Joined: 24-December 03
From: Danville, CA, USA
Member No.: 27



QUOTE (00 SS @ Jul 21 2008, 03:39 PM) *
I'll reserve judgement on the interior until I see one in person. The interior styling isn't that big of a deal to me as long as it's functional and not repulsive. The pictures do not repulse me. For me, the materials, etc. are not nearly as important as function, good seats and a good driving position. Simple is good. I don't like too many gadgets or buttons which is my biggest complaint about the G8 interior. Most seem to think it's one of the best GM interiors, but I don't like it that much. The center stack just seems unnecessarily over complicated and most of the buttons are too small.



I am the same....I would have "put up" with a LOT in terms of a "typical" GM interior.....but this interior DOES repulse me.....it is HIDEOUS! I too will wait to see it in person, but I have yet to see it in a light that is even CLOSE to acceptable..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rob Hood
post Jul 22 2008, 01:19 AM
Post #26


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,086
Joined: 16-January 04
From: Chandler AZ
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (rmackintosh @ Jul 21 2008, 03:29 PM) *
QUOTE (00 SS @ Jul 21 2008, 03:39 PM) *
I'll reserve judgement on the interior until I see one in person. The interior styling isn't that big of a deal to me as long as it's functional and not repulsive. The pictures do not repulse me. For me, the materials, etc. are not nearly as important as function, good seats and a good driving position. Simple is good. I don't like too many gadgets or buttons which is my biggest complaint about the G8 interior. Most seem to think it's one of the best GM interiors, but I don't like it that much. The center stack just seems unnecessarily over complicated and most of the buttons are too small.



I am the same....I would have "put up" with a LOT in terms of a "typical" GM interior.....but this interior DOES repulse me.....it is HIDEOUS! I too will wait to see it in person, but I have yet to see it in a light that is even CLOSE to acceptable..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)



Concur. The interior has got to go. Somebody has to perform an "ugly-ectomy" and install something that looks like people with 20/20 vision designed it. Which "focus" group did GM test this with??? Couldn't GM at least design a dash similar to the Vette? This thing makes me think that ET's face is in the dash and his two eyes are staring back at me... And move the console gauges up to the dashboard. That was wrong in 1969 and it's wrong 40 years later.

20" wheels...gag. Do I have to wear my hat sideways and duck down low when driving?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TSHACK
post Jul 22 2008, 01:53 AM
Post #27


Member
*

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 25-January 08
From: Red Bluff Ca.
Member No.: 2,094



QUOTE (Rob Hood @ Jul 21 2008, 06:19 PM) *
QUOTE (rmackintosh @ Jul 21 2008, 03:29 PM) *
QUOTE (00 SS @ Jul 21 2008, 03:39 PM) *
I'll reserve judgement on the interior until I see one in person. The interior styling isn't that big of a deal to me as long as it's functional and not repulsive. The pictures do not repulse me. For me, the materials, etc. are not nearly as important as function, good seats and a good driving position. Simple is good. I don't like too many gadgets or buttons which is my biggest complaint about the G8 interior. Most seem to think it's one of the best GM interiors, but I don't like it that much. The center stack just seems unnecessarily over complicated and most of the buttons are too small.



I am the same....I would have "put up" with a LOT in terms of a "typical" GM interior.....but this interior DOES repulse me.....it is HIDEOUS! I too will wait to see it in person, but I have yet to see it in a light that is even CLOSE to acceptable..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)



Concur. The interior has got to go. Somebody has to perform an "ugly-ectomy" and install something that looks like people with 20/20 vision designed it. Which "focus" group did GM test this with??? Couldn't GM at least design a dash similar to the Vette? This thing makes me think that ET's face is in the dash and his two eyes are staring back at me... And move the console gauges up to the dashboard. That was wrong in 1969 and it's wrong 40 years later.

20" wheels...gag. Do I have to wear my hat sideways and duck down low when driving?



YUP & don't forget your pants 1/2 way down. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rmackintosh
post Jul 22 2008, 01:59 AM
Post #28


Senior Member
******

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,226
Joined: 24-December 03
From: Danville, CA, USA
Member No.: 27



QUOTE (Rob Hood @ Jul 21 2008, 08:19 PM) *
QUOTE (rmackintosh @ Jul 21 2008, 03:29 PM) *
QUOTE (00 SS @ Jul 21 2008, 03:39 PM) *
I'll reserve judgement on the interior until I see one in person. The interior styling isn't that big of a deal to me as long as it's functional and not repulsive. The pictures do not repulse me. For me, the materials, etc. are not nearly as important as function, good seats and a good driving position. Simple is good. I don't like too many gadgets or buttons which is my biggest complaint about the G8 interior. Most seem to think it's one of the best GM interiors, but I don't like it that much. The center stack just seems unnecessarily over complicated and most of the buttons are too small.



I am the same....I would have "put up" with a LOT in terms of a "typical" GM interior.....but this interior DOES repulse me.....it is HIDEOUS! I too will wait to see it in person, but I have yet to see it in a light that is even CLOSE to acceptable..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)



Concur. The interior has got to go. Somebody has to perform an "ugly-ectomy" and install something that looks like people with 20/20 vision designed it. Which "focus" group did GM test this with??? Couldn't GM at least design a dash similar to the Vette? This thing makes me think that ET's face is in the dash and his two eyes are staring back at me... And move the console gauges up to the dashboard. That was wrong in 1969 and it's wrong 40 years later.

20" wheels...gag. Do I have to wear my hat sideways and duck down low when driving?


I KNOW!

Its not like it is hard to design an interior these days.....there has to be studies out there up the but about what people like and want. Keep it simple and go a bit retro if you want.....I agree the guages down low are dumb.....and were dumb....but I didn't mind the homage to the old car with them....just put unnecessary guages in them.....battery.....fuel.....a digital clock...etc.

But that thing in RETRO/FUTURESHOCK and it doesn't work on ANY Level!!!! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
35th_Anniversary...
post Jul 22 2008, 03:13 AM
Post #29


Chapter 11 Racing
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,166
Joined: 15-February 04
From: Houston, Republic of Texas
Member No.: 207



looks like they need liposuction... 386X lbm is way too much. And 20" wheels?

I think GM needs people with common sense....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poSSum
post Jul 22 2008, 03:22 AM
Post #30


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 368
Joined: 22-September 05
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 892



Here's some pix of the car in Royal Oak when it went out to meet the public tonite.

http://imageevent.com/face440/jeffs5thgenpics

As an aside, I think Chevy builds what most here seem to be clambering for .... a slightly used 'vette. It's not that they didn't "hear" us, I thinks it's that the hardcore track junkie isn't really the intended market.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rob Hood
post Jul 22 2008, 04:08 AM
Post #31


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,086
Joined: 16-January 04
From: Chandler AZ
Member No.: 130



I don't think that it's that some here aren't the intended market, but it's plain ol' aesthetics. That dash is just ugly. If GM were to truly reincarnate a 1969 dash, its leading edge would be much closer to the driver and the two main gauges would be in deep circular recesses, just like the Vette of the same year.

They really could have put the console gauges (or other more important gauges like oil pressure/temp) to the right of the primary gauges, and the steering wheel would not inhibit viewing them. There are some gauges placed in between the primary gauges and that may be the oil pressure et al, so this may be moot. I do wonder how well the gauges will read in transitioning light, as depending on where you are on the track, time of day, amount of sunshine, that could be a concern.

The radio assembly looks like the face of Number 5's stepsister...

The console looks too high as it goes back. Again, another ergonomic issue GM didn't address.

I do like the colors they chose (charcoal/gray).

I can't believe GM went with a sunroof....another way to reduce headroom! Thanks... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
z28jeff
post Jul 22 2008, 12:28 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 458
Joined: 11-October 05
From: Uniontown, Pa
Member No.: 917



Unless I missed it, I didn't see a listed weight of the V6 model. I would assume it's at least 100 lbs lighter. Mabey better balanced? But I did see a listed hp of near 300, and torque rated at 273 lb-ft, available with a FE2 "sport suspension" and 6-speed manual. Except for being a little down on torque, those numbers aren't far from my LT1 car.
I wonder how that car would stack up in today's f-stock class? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/gr_confused.gif)
As far as interior...who cares? This is supposed to be a performance car. Interior is the last thing on my priority list for a car like this. As long as I can sit in the drivers seat for a few hours without severe back pain, that's good enough for me.
I think they need a 1LE model more now than ever. I want one WITHOUT:
Bluetooth phone connectivity
Premium Boston Acoustics audio system
USB connectivity
Ultrasonic rear parking assist
Remote vehicle starting system
OnStar
XM Satellite Radio

Save that crap for the Malibu's and Impala's. A real Camaro doesn't need it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poSSum
post Jul 22 2008, 03:00 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 368
Joined: 22-September 05
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Member No.: 892



QUOTE (z28jeff @ Jul 22 2008, 07:28 AM) *
Unless I missed it, I didn't see a listed weight of the V6 model.


3,741 LT Manual http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro/explorecamaro/features/


QUOTE (z28jeff @ Jul 22 2008, 07:28 AM) *
I wonder how that car would stack up in today's f-stock class? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/gr_confused.gif)


- heavier than 4th gen
- down on torque
- single piston brakes front and rear
- FE2 suspension vs. FE3 for the V8 (and GM Performance Division is probably working on something better yet)
- under-tired

I don't think it would stack up well at all.

I didn't find anyone on the brand team that was receptive to my suggestion that the "SS" brake and suspension be made optional on the V6 car. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rmackintosh
post Jul 22 2008, 03:52 PM
Post #34


Senior Member
******

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,226
Joined: 24-December 03
From: Danville, CA, USA
Member No.: 27



QUOTE (z28jeff @ Jul 22 2008, 07:28 AM) *
Unless I missed it, I didn't see a listed weight of the V6 model. I would assume it's at least 100 lbs lighter. Mabey better balanced? But I did see a listed hp of near 300, and torque rated at 273 lb-ft, available with a FE2 "sport suspension" and 6-speed manual. Except for being a little down on torque, those numbers aren't far from my LT1 car.
I wonder how that car would stack up in today's f-stock class? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/gr_confused.gif)
As far as interior...who cares? This is supposed to be a performance car. Interior is the last thing on my priority list for a car like this. As long as I can sit in the drivers seat for a few hours without severe back pain, that's good enough for me.
I think they need a 1LE model more now than ever. I want one WITHOUT:
Bluetooth phone connectivity
Premium Boston Acoustics audio system
USB connectivity
Ultrasonic rear parking assist
Remote vehicle starting system
OnStar
XM Satellite Radio

Save that crap for the Malibu's and Impala's. A real Camaro doesn't need it.


I think your proposed "DELETE" list show that this car is NOT just a performance car. In fact given its weight and other stats given here....I dare say it is targeted VERY LITTLE in its current form to "TRUE" performance engthusiasts.

Now, it MAY be targeted to nostalgia folks.....but I doubt VERY MUCH that any true '69 fans have nostolgia for anything inside that car but for MAYBE the guages on the floor..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
00 Trans Ram
post Jul 22 2008, 09:24 PM
Post #35


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,766
Joined: 10-April 04
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 303



Well, I think that this just made up my mind. I'll be getting a G8 GT. I was hoping that something in this car would persuade me that I could fit 2 kids in the back and be able to use it as a daily commuter with some real potential for racing down the road.

But, I think I'll just stick with my current racecar and use the G8 as a strict DD.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CMC #37
post Jul 23 2008, 04:39 AM
Post #36


CMCer
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,932
Joined: 12-February 04
From: the sticks near VIR
Member No.: 194



Looked at all the stuff, finally, and really there was nothing much I can talk about still as it relates to the Z28. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Rest assured the Z28 is in very capable hands. I did not see that program listed anywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rob Hood
post Jul 23 2008, 05:07 AM
Post #37


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,086
Joined: 16-January 04
From: Chandler AZ
Member No.: 130



Yeah well somebody needs to call Jenny 'cause this thang's a PIG!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rushman
post Jul 25 2008, 04:38 AM
Post #38


As fast as poor can be
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 622
Joined: 25-May 04
From: Buffalo, NY
Member No.: 349



Pretty disappointed in the stats from an AX point of view. 20 inch wheels.....bleh... this isn't a Lincoln Navigator, no wonder it needs 14 inch brakes.

Might be good in SP if enough weight can be shaved off of it and a sane size rim fitted to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
prockbp
post Jul 25 2008, 05:29 AM
Post #39


Advanced Member
**

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 440
Joined: 25-December 03
From: Newport Beach, California
Member No.: 41



What a piece of shit.

3800 pounds, 23mpg-- idiots.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
00 Trans Ram
post Jul 25 2008, 01:29 PM
Post #40


Experienced Member
***

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,766
Joined: 10-April 04
From: New Orleans, LA
Member No.: 303



QUOTE (prockbp @ Jul 25 2008, 12:29 AM) *
What a piece of shit.

3800 pounds, 23mpg-- idiots.


Don't hold your true feelings inside - tell us what you really think!

BTW, I'm about to purchase a G8GT, so I've been spending time on a few of their boards to learn about the car. There's a thread over there about the new Camaro. Seems like they kind of like it. Here's one post that I think sums it up nicely:

QUOTE
I am now seriously reconsidering my choice of the G8 GT as my next vehicle.

GM has “toned down” the styling ( inside & outside ) of the production Camaro – to the point where it no longer looks ( to me ) like a cartoon or parody of the 1969 version.

It looks to me like there might be several advantages – and few disadvantages [ FOR ME ] in choosing the Camaro over the G8 GT:

1 – It appears that ( with a much larger estimated annual production – of 80,000 to 100,000 ? ) and with it being built in Canada, instead of OZ, the Camaro will be something that one can actually order. Much like other GM automotive products.

Meaning: I could select the exact options I want and do not want, color, etc. – and in 6 or 7 weeks have the car.

[[ The G8 ‘tagging’ system & associated allocation system has meant that ‘my’ ( small ) dealer has had only 1 G8 GT, so far . . . and no way currently to order one equipped as I’d want. ]]

2 – It appears that the Camaro will be offered with a choice of interior colors - choices that include something besides black or black \ red. Like gray \ titanium – as in my current Corvette, for example.

3 – It appears likely that the V8 Camaro will be noticeably quicker than the G8 GT. GM is now saying ‘officially’ that the Camaro SS \ V8 with 6L80 automatic will be quicker than the G8 GT with the same A6.
Chevy says: 0 – 60 = 4.6 \ Quarter = 13.3.
Pontiac says \ said: 5.3 \ 13.8.

4 – GM \ Chevy have repeatedly stated that the pricing will be reasonable “. . . We expect it to be very competitive with the Mustang." - Cheryl Pilcher, Chevrolet Camaro product manager.

My interpretation of these statements is that a Camaro SS V8 with automatic & Brembo Brakes & a sunroof - and with interior trim I’d buy - would have an MSRP in the $33K - $34K range. Comparable to a G8 GT 2009 – and well under a G8 GXP, I expect. Perhaps even a bit less than $33K. We shall see how aggressively Chevy actually does set the base & option MSRPs – though we will probably not know until close to year’s end, it appears.

5 – It even appears that the Camaro may not require me to immediately change the exhaust system! Indications are that the V8 may actually sound like a V8 – right off the production line! Wow!

6 – Available with shift paddles on the steering wheel – I have had these now for a while, on 2 different GM vehicles – I like them & I am used to them.

7 – A HUD is even expected - by later next year.

8 – ** PERHAPS ** Chevy will have resolved the issues with the 6L80 automatic trans. – reported in the 2008 G8 GTs, and in 2006 & 2007 Corvettes. ** MAYBE ** . . .

Oh, and it can be equipped with a Torque Gauge. [ ???? ]

The disadvantages [ again: FOR ME ] are few.

0.5 – I will have to wait longer to buy.

1 - I like having a back seat – but would prefer the associated rear doors, on the G8 GT, as well. But I have managed with no rear seat at all now for a couple of years.

2 – The styling is not quite as appealing to me as the G8 GT. And I will need to see a few production examples in person – to verify that the styling really is something I will be OK with.

But based on what I have seen recently, I think it will be OK. Enough that I will now likely wait until Camaros start appearing at dealers before I decide what to do – where I had previously expected to try purchasing a G8 GT sometime this Fall.


Shift paddles, HUD, ???

This is the main problem. The Camaro may/may not be a nice car. But, when you are comparing it against a 4000lb, 4-door, touring car - there's something wrong. As I said in response to this post, the Camaro should be about the following words/sentiments: value, simple, horsepower, no-frills, good running gear, presence. It's not about being "comfortable" by having the latest in technology or interior materials.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 9th May 2025 - 11:14 PM