The new Camaro is a go Options

[LT4Firehawk]

Having had several IRS cars (including 92 Vette and 01 Z06), the IRS isn't really a big benefit on a SMOOTH track. It is however, a HUGE benefit on the street or on a bumpy track. I've got an on ramp just down the street from my office that will literaly make an f-body "jump" several feet to the side when it hits specific expansion joints, whereas all my IRS cars (Vettes, Porsches, Volvos) remain calm and composed, even when going significantly faster than the f-bodies.

[Crazy Canuck]

CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) called me today and i'll pass an interview live tomorrow on my feedback on the anouncement of the new Camaro coming out... should be cool.
Was on it live when GM anounced the death of the f-body for 02.

[Rob Hood]

I'm still not totatly convinced it's the right body style from a retro perspective. It reminds me of a Transformers robot more so than a retro-recreation.

The Challenger is a more faithful reinvention of the original E-body, IMO. Its lines are much smoother and offer easier transitions from one body section to another than the new Camaro.

A lightweight (<3300 lbs) with close to 400HP would be a great vehicle, too. Maybe a "off-road" cam in the trunk for dealer install?? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Gotta have more rear gear options, too. At least a 3.73 offering; that would definitely be "retro!"

[Absolut Speed]

It's still 2.5 years away and my bet is that it will be a pig.

[RichJ]

I'm thinking that this car will be more of a cruiser like the GTO, than a hardcore motorsports sort of car. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing if it's really comfortable, but I wouldn't see one becoming a replacement for an older f-body or y-body in my garage.

[sgarnett]

I'm still not totatly convinced it's the right body style from a retro perspective. It reminds me of a Transformers robot more so than a retro-recreation.

The Challenger is a more faithful reinvention of the original E-body, IMO. Its lines are much smoother and offer easier transitions from one body section to another than the new Camaro.

A lightweight (<3300 lbs) with close to 400HP would be a great vehicle, too. Maybe a "off-road" cam in the trunk for dealer install?? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I like the Challenger better too, but don't like it's nose either. All of the modern "muscle cars" look really chunky to me, and remarkably similiar to each other. I suspect that part of the problem is the desire to package a very upright seating position while maintaining a low chopped look for the roof and a short overhang, all while being enslaved to historic "design cues". They all look like they need 6 inches shaved off the bottom of the body.

I have nothing against retro, but it seems to me that they should focus less on retro trademarks and more on retro style. One of my all-time favorite body designs is the XKE roadster, but if you try to grab the trademarks and abandon the style, you end up with, well, a late model Taurus. Ugh.

I think they need to do two very important things: Abandon the trademark mandates, but go more old-school in the design process.

I am absolutely no technophobe (I'm an ASIC engineer), but I think they depend a little too heavily on the cad designers, and not enough on the sculptors.

When you think about the really beautiful cars of the past 100 years, none of them look much alike, and none of them were slaves to what came before.

One sad reality, though, is that the low-slung seating position of the 4th gen and most sports cars doesn't sell to most women, and even the male car buyers have wives.

The key to the Camaro's success has always been great bang-for-the-buck performance. I hope they don't lose sight of that.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Aug 11 2006, 11:15 AM

[pknowles]

I'm going to wait and see what it looks like in person. Some photo angles from the front make the car look good and some make it look hideous. If they make it smaller then a 4th gen, I would consider it. If it's bigger then a 4th gen then it's going to be a big fat pig.

[poSSum]

While I fully expect to buy a convertible in '10 or '11 to replace the current SS as our summer driver & travel car, I doubt I'd even consider a hardtop for the track. I'd be far more inclined to go with a used Z06 if I ever replace the 1LE.

[Spooner]

The key to the Camaro's success has always been great bang-for-the-buck performance. I hope they don't lose sight of that.

I didn't buy my car for its looks. I wouldn't buy the new one for that either. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[BigEnos]

Less than 3600 will be a triumph of engineering IMHO.

It's not so much the engineers as it is everyone else at GM tying their hands behind their backs.

Andy,. I wouldn't buy one new either. I'll look for one two years old inj good shape hopefully manufactured after GM works out the first year's bugs.

*Exactly*. If the engineers can accomplish less than 3600lbs with all the crap they have to deal with it will be quite a feat. I'm not blaming the engineers, I'm acknowledging their plight!

I'll buy one new, but only after the initial hype wears down a little and GM gets past the usual first year weirdness ('93 Camaros with no MAF, a chip, different front brakes, etc/'97 'vettes with the strange fuel system/'01 Z06s with less HP/etc).

[rushman]

Irs may not be a huge advantage in itself, but if it opens the option for adjustable rear alignment, that can only be good.

As for weight, it seems like its quite the porker. Also, the concept had 18" and 19" wheels didn't it? I seriously hope it has a 17" wheel option, that is if it even will be a competative car to begin with (im speaking from an ax mentality here btw).

Less than 3600 will be a triumph of engineering IMHO.

It's not so much the engineers as it is everyone else at GM tying their hands behind their backs.

Andy,. I wouldn't buy one new either. I'll look for one two years old inj good shape hopefully manufactured after GM works out the first year's bugs.

*Exactly*. If the engineers can accomplish less than 3600lbs with all the crap they have to deal with it will be quite a feat. I'm not blaming the engineers, I'm acknowledging their plight!

I'll buy one new, but only after the initial hype wears down a little and GM gets past the usual first year weirdness ('93 Camaros with no MAF, a chip, different front brakes, etc/'97 'vettes with the strange fuel system/'01 Z06s with less HP/etc).

[rpoz-29]

I give a FRA* about it's appearance. Just give me a reason to believe Chevrolet is trying to do something "fun". (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) But, that's just me.



* Fat Rat's Ass.

This post has been edited by rpoz-29: Aug 11 2006, 05:29 PM

[Blainefab]

Styling doesn't matter much to me - put some big numbers on the doors, add a dam and a wing and it will look just fine.

The good things I see WRT race prepping these things:

Short overhangs - big problem on the 4th gen is 4' of junk fore and aft of the axles which makes for too much change in the height of the aero during pitch. Lot shorter is lots better: lower splitter that won't destroy itself under braking or on aprons, lower rear diffusor with a better chance at being more effective than a wing/spoiler

Small greenhouse: Gotta be 50# less glass compared to a 4th gen. Visibility usually sucks out of a race car anyway so I'll take the lower CG.

Interior space: Looks roomier inside, looks like a more vertical side window so more room for the halo - on a 4th gen I route the halo over top of the drivers head rather than have it alongside. The 5th gen may allow a straighter load path from main hoop to the Apillars.

Weight: Most of the excess of a street car is creature comforts so I would not be too put off by a 3700#+ curb wt. If you unbolt and remove everything (I mean everything) from a 4th gen, you're left with less than 700# in scrap steel, and that includes the big ass windshield and all the body filler. Steel is expensive so I don't expect the core chassis to be heavier than a 4th gen. This car will probably have 100# in the SRS system that will get tossed. A LSX/T56 drivetrain is a known quantity. GM already has a great IRS in the C6, hopefully they will use aluminum for the unsprung pieces, if not share PN's with the Vette.

IRS: I tracked/autocrossed my C5 at the same time I was developing my 4th gen in SCCA ITE - I found the IRS to be MUCH easier to drive at the limit than the solid axle - the IRS communicated much more about what the contact patches were doing and broadened the area where countersteering was effective. The IRS would recover gracefully from WOT oversteer at track out without backpedaling. With the same tires and brakes, it took a LOT of development to make the race Camaro turn faster laps than the street C5.

I'm looking forward to taking a sawzall to one ;-)

This post has been edited by Blainefab: Aug 12 2006, 06:29 PM

[rmackintosh]

I'm looking forward to taking a sawzall to one ;-)

I'm with ya Alan....can you say "Body in White"...... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[robz71lm7]

IRS: I tracked/autocrossed my C5 at the same time I was developing my 4th gen in SCCA ITE - I found the IRS to be MUCH easier to drive at the limit than the solid axle - the IRS communicated much more about what the contact patches were doing and broadened the area where countersteering was effective. The IRS would recover gracefully from WOT oversteer at track out without backpedaling. With the same tires and brakes, it took a LOT of development to make the race Camaro turn faster laps than the street C5.

I don't think anyone believes that IRS can't be made better. The question is will GM care enough to put a good IRS under it or an abortion like Ford did with the Mustang.

[Chris 96 WS6]

Oh it will be a pig to the FRRAX standards. There's no way the car could weigh 3200 lbs and be affordable in the price range it needs to be sold in.

It will be built in either Wilmington DE or Oshawa Ontario. Its down to those two.

As for retro...well yes its decidedly retro themed,but is it a literal interpretation of the '69? No, that's why I posted the pic, so you would see exactly what such a literal interpretation would have looked like. Instead, they decided to take a '69 and go forward with it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you have not seen the concept in person then you should reserve judgement. I have not seen any pictures yet that really captured the essence of the car.

Back to the weight...I'm not sure what you guys want out of GM.. Seems like FRRAXers want a corvette that is less expensive. Well, that's great for FRAXXers but this car has to appeal to about 100,000 people a year to survive. So you're going to get a capable car but not a road racer's dreammobile. You're also not going to get the road rocket stance and mission of the 4th gen, as that's more or less what drove the non-enthusiasts away to begin with.

The Dodge Challenger is going to come in about 4100 lbs. The Mustang is about 3700 lbs. The GTO is 3800 lbs. 3600-4000 is just what these kinds of cars weigh in today's age, with all the safety equipment that is required, etc, the only way to get weight down significantly is to make it a 2 seater or extensively use exotic materials. In either case you've just blown your target market and the car really isn't a "Camaro" anymore IMO.

I appreciate everybody here, but understand you are not a representative sample of the car buying public. The drag racers all want 3200lbs and a 12 bolt rear end, so I'm not just picking on you all....these same conversations are going on across the 'net.

Personally I'm a big fan of this car and I'll continue to defend it when I think criticism is unfair. GM is working their arses off to get us this car and I'm certain they'll do EVERYTHING they can within the budget they are granted and within the confines of the Zeta platform to give us a great performing car. I think IRS is the right decision for this car and by the time it hits the market probably every car in its class including Mustang will have IRS standard (Mustang is due for major updates in a year or 2).

Once it hits the streets in 2.5 yrs then we'll revisit the criticisms and decide which ones are warranted and which ones aren't. I remember a lot of whining and moaning in '96 about the C6 and the firebird nose, fat rear end and absolute hand wringing the motor was going to be a 346 and not exactly 350 cubic inches. 10 yrs later, does anybody really care?

[sgarnett]

FWIW, I liked the C5 from day one, and yes, an inexpensive 2+2 Vette is exactly what I want (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I tend to agree that IRS is the way to go for a new design. Of course, I hope it's a well designed IRS, but I think an old-school solid axle would be marketing suicide.

[robz71lm7]

Oh it will be a pig to the FRRAX standards. There's no way the car could weigh 3200 lbs and be affordable in the price range it needs to be sold in.

It will be built in either Wilmington DE or Oshawa Ontario. Its down to those two.

As for retro...well yes its decidedly retro themed,but is it a literal interpretation of the '69? No, that's why I posted the pic, so you would see exactly what such a literal interpretation would have looked like. Instead, they decided to take a '69 and go forward with it.

Well when I look up the definition of retro I read "Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; "retrospective" or "A fashion, decor, design, or style reminiscent of things past." To me it is retro and I never said it was a literal interpretation of the older Camaro. The C5 & C6 are both examples of what I want, they show Corvette heritage but are modern. A '99-'04 Mustang is another example. I'd like to see a car that is Camaro without looking so retro and artsy like products the other two American manufacturers are putting out. I guess I need to buy an import.

I appreciate everybody here, but understand you are not a representative sample of the car buying public. The drag racers all want 3200lbs and a 12 bolt rear end, so I'm not just picking on you all....these same conversations are going on across the 'net.

I'm fully aware of that, but I'm still going to complain about where American pony cars are going. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) Besides drag racers are (edited out)-so I'm going to ignore any parallels, relevant as they may be, drawn between us and them. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Once it hits the streets in 2.5 yrs then we'll revisit the criticisms and decide which ones are warranted and which ones aren't. I remember a lot of whining and moaning in '96 about the C6 and the firebird nose, fat rear end and absolute hand wringing the motor was going to be a 346 and not exactly 350 cubic inches. 10 yrs later, does anybody really care?

Personally I loved the '98+ cars the first time I saw them as well as the C5 in '97. I was never concerned with the displacement of the LS1, nor did I criticize it then. I also like the GTO.

I like the car if I ignore the front and rear-I just think it could use some tweaks. I could live with 37-3800 lbs myself. Although I swear there are some people that are such diehard GM leghumpers it's sickening. I'm not referring to you or anyone in this thread.

[LT4Firehawk]

I like the look of the car, but I honestly don't think we'll see one under around 3800-4000lbs. Let's face it, cars are getting heavier not lighter. Part of that is due to content (creature comforts) but a big part of it is also due to federal regulations and safety standards (airbags, extra door beams for side impact protection, more complex crumple zones, etc). The C5/C6, and especially the Z06 versions, are way outside the norm when it comes to pursuing a lightweight car. Even the new 911 Turbo is 3600lbs, which for a 2+2 high dollar sports car seems way heavy to me.

[prockbp]

wouldn't a 3800-4000lb car get worse fuel mileage than a 3400lb car? it seems like a 20-25mpg sports sedan would have a bit of trouble selling 100,000+ units per year...
unless the target customer is old people that have money, but when has that ever been the case for sport sedans?
old people that have money buy real sports cars

This post has been edited by prockbp: Aug 16 2006, 11:36 PM