The new Camaro is a go Options

[Chris 96 WS6]

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

Well first of all its not a sedan, it is a coupe; and for that matter its not really a sports car by the classic definition.

Second, with cylinder deactivation and a 6 speed auto with 2 overdrives or a t56 I expect 28-30mpg out of the V8 versions. Expect the V6 to get 30mpg easily.

Weight has more of an impact on in-town MPG since you're accelerating more mass at every green light, but its not as detrimental to steady cruise on the highway.

[pknowles]

I understand that cars are getting heavier, but I think there is a major problem when a 2007 4x4 Land Cruiser is ~4300 lbs and a Camaro is ~3900 lbs. Heck my mom's old 4x4 Bronco II fully loaded was only ~3400 lbs. I think if they hit 3600 lbs for the stripper model, then everything will be fine.

[Chris 96 WS6]

http://www.5thgen.org/forum/showthread.php?t=501

This is a Q&A I did with Scott Settlemire. He talks about curb weight and refers to the Challenger's abundance of mass, and also discusses the chances of a "stripper" model...

[prockbp]

Well first of all its not a sedan, it is a coupe; and for that matter its not really a sports car by the classic definition.

Second, with cylinder deactivation and a 6 speed auto with 2 overdrives or a t56 I expect 28-30mpg out of the V8 versions. Expect the V6 to get 30mpg easily.

Weight has more of an impact on in-town MPG since you're accelerating more mass at every green light, but its not as detrimental to steady cruise on the highway.

sedan: a 2- or 4-door automobile seating four or more persons and usually having a permanent top

coupe: a 2-door automobile often seating only two persons; also : one with a tight-spaced rear seat

are you telling me that the new camaro doesn't have a rear seat?... and if it does have rear seating then it fits the definition of a sedan...


since when did people stop driving in town?

This post has been edited by prockbp: Aug 18 2006, 03:12 AM

[Chris 96 WS6]

Sedans have 4 doors, coupes have 2 doors. The number of seats is irrelevant to that designation. Anybody remember the 3rd gen Camaro base model was called the "Sport Coupe"? I owned one. Chevrolet must have been as ignorant as I apparently am on the difference between a coupe and a sedan.

To me, true sports cars have only two seats, which is why I said Camaro isn't a "sports car".

As for MPG, where did I say nobody drives in town? I was simply tempering your weight/MPG assertions by stating that the weight won't effect highway driving as much as city driving. Calm down (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

Well, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. It'd definately be nice if they offered a "stripper" model w/only power windows/locks/mirrors, cruise, and A/C (and leaving off side airbags, HUD, big stereo, heavy seats, t-tops, etc.). Also be interesting if they offered standalone options for a lightweight hood, 18x11 wheels, rear seat delete, radio delete, and maybe something else...

Ok, the 2nd part was dreaming. :-)

Mark

[JKnight]

Sedans have 4 doors, coupes have 2 doors.

That's not really the definition of a sedan, although that's commonly how the tiles fall. Witness the new Mercedes Benz four door coupe. Here's one definition of sedan that can help MB make a 4 door coupe, and a Camaro a 2 door sedan:

"sedan" refers to a fixed-roof car with at least four doors or any fixed-roof two-door car with at least 33 cubic feet of rear interior volume, according to measurements based on SAE standard J11OO.

It's this world with so many shades of grey that we now live in.

Jason

[prockbp]

Sedans have 4 doors, coupes have 2 doors. The number of seats is irrelevant to that designation. Anybody remember the 3rd gen Camaro base model was called the "Sport Coupe"? I owned one. Chevrolet must have been as ignorant as I apparently am on the difference between a coupe and a sedan.

look in a dictionary.. or even google it...

any generation camaro is a sedan by definition of the word SEDAN

[beuke23]

it's a coupe sedan... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[slowTA]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif) I can't believe this conversation has come down to the (apparently complex) definition of a word. I would expect this type of argument to be right next to a thread about what floormats have the best light up logos or which wiper blades smell best.

I'll say this about the car. It looks prety cool and with a bunch of work it can be a better performer than what we're driving now. Hopefully it will combine the best of what is available while being popular enough to put GM back on the map. It shouldn't be a porker for the simple reason that gas is too expensive... no matter where or how you drive. Like everyone here, I want GM to build me a reliable, comfy, fast, cheap, and easily repairable car. The vette does all of that except for the price. I don't really care about looks, but that front end doesn't look very aerodynamic. I would like to see it in a windtunnel.

I think side airbags are going to be required in the next few years so they wont get dumped.

Besides that, lets look up top here again. It says F-body... not the next incarnation of a name that once existed in order to the masses to go gaga over.

[robz71lm7]

Howdy,

Well, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. It'd definately be nice if they offered a "stripper" model w/only power windows/locks/mirrors, cruise, and A/C (and leaving off side airbags, HUD, big stereo, heavy seats, t-tops, etc.). Also be interesting if they offered standalone options for a lightweight hood, 18x11 wheels, rear seat delete, radio delete, and maybe something else...

Ok, the 2nd part was dreaming. :-)

Mark

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I personally don't like a bunch of features. A/C, power windows, locks, cruise, maybe mirrors and that's good enough. I don't need or want power seats, climate control, adjustable pedals, HUD, leather, heated seats, sunroof/t-tops, or onstar. I really don't even want cylinder deactivation, but I know there's no way to avoid that. The one selfish thing I'd really like is the capability to fit big tires like you can on 4th gens. My biggest 4th gen rant is the lack of headroom. It wasn't until I bolted a Kirkey to the floor that I was really ever comfortable driving it.

[Crazy Canuck]

News on the Camaro going to the Oshawa powerplant.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...amp;docid=28088

btw, interesting facts:
1st Camaro: 29-Sept-1966
4.8 Million Camaro sold
977 145 Camaros built in Boisbriand, QC plant.

[Foxxtron]

If I may redigress to the "sedan vs. coupe" ordeal.

The coupe and sedan definitions have become somewhat misnomers over the years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan (it may be wikipedia, but this article has much more validity than some others).

I believe that the now defunct Trans-Am series, which was a defining series of the F-body, amongst the other competitors being Ford, Chrysler/Mopar, and the now defunct AMC was originally titled from its inception in 1966 by SCCA:

Trans American Sedan Competition

Also, what about the American Sedan series that is in SCCA as well?

And as usual, us Commonwealthers usually referred to them as saloons.

Okay, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[rpoz-29]

I understand that cars are getting heavier, but I think there is a major problem when a 2007 4x4 Land Cruiser is ~4300 lbs and a Camaro is ~3900 lbs. Heck my mom's old 4x4 Bronco II fully loaded was only ~3400 lbs. I think if they hit 3600 lbs for the stripper model, then everything will be fine.

That's weird, because my 1987 4Runner 4 cylinder with no options except air weighed in at 3900 lb.

This post has been edited by rpoz-29: Aug 28 2006, 07:26 PM

[firehawkclone]

Well the Challenger is a go, and it will get a Hemi and a 6sp.

Oh the choice's..... the great looks of the Challenger, or an ls2!

[Guardsman]

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.

I agree with you about the height of the body, it's way too high, and makes the car look weird.

The other thing that I noticed is that the Challenger and the Camaro look almost identical. I saw a picture of a Challenger in Hot Rod, and I thought it was another Camaro in red paint.

The front end are almost indentical in size and shape, the A- and B-pillars and windows are, if not identical, very close, and the overall size and shape of the cars are very close. It's almost like they had the same design team doing both cars.

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/na...t/photo_02.html

http://www.dodge.com/dodge_life/news/autos...challenger.html

Open up both, and compare the third photo of the Challenger with the Camaro.

Actually, the differences between them are almost like the differences were between the Camaros and Firebirds, just a few body pieces.

John

This post has been edited by Guardsman: Aug 29 2006, 06:08 PM

[axoid]

The other thing that I noticed is that the Challenger and the Camaro look almost identical. I saw a picture of a Challenger in Hot Rod, and I thought it was another Camaro in red paint.

I disagree. The basic silhouette is similar, but then again it's similar to a BMW 6 series too.

I hate the rear of the Challenger, but I like the nose. And the Camaro has way more character in the creases and edges on side body panels and fender lips than the Challenger does with it's blandly smooth body panels. There is nothing I dislike on the exterior of the Camaro, I can't say that for the Dodge.