I'm feeling pretty disappointed....

[Chazman]

http://www.automochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154

Starting at 2nd post...

[Northstar]

Well, the real thing is going to have to ave real bumpers. That probably adds an inch overall, no?

[Chazman]

Well, the real thing is going to have to ave real bumpers. That probably adds an inch overall, no?

It's within a couple of inches of a Commodore. I'm beginning to lose excitement for the car.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Chazman

[Northstar]

It's within a couple of inches of a Commodore. I'm beginning to lose excitement or the car.

Wow, that is much too big. That's much bigger than the GTO!

[Chazman]

Wow, that is much too big. That's much bigger than the GTO!

Actually slightly larger than a GTO.

[Northstar]

So closer to GTO than G8? That puts it at about 192 inches long. 6 inches longer than the concept.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Looking as good as the concept: that's what matters the most to me.

[NOS2006]

It's all about where you put the extra size. From the sounds of it, it'll mostly be in the rear overhang. GM's not going to disappoint you guys with this and make it much different from the concept. Really, what's the difference if it's 185" or 190"? Seriously. I guess we'll all have to see it first.

[caddycruiser]

Meeting the GM people involved with this in person a few weeks ago at the special auto show invite, I'm VERY confident the translation from concept to production is going to be very much like it used to with Chrysler--realistic wheels, door handles, and mirrors, and an inch here and there changed--and the result a car that's almost indistinguishably different for most people. As we were told there, it's essentially identical, save for an extra roofline inch, I believe, and mirrors and door handles...so we'll just wait and see.

Even if it's 90-95% of the concept in style, that would be killer. Seeing it up close and personal, though, there's little at all that couldn't translate exactly to being a road-worthy vehicle.

Edited February 25, 2007 by caddycruiser

[Satty]

Adding inches to the length may throw off the proportions of the concept. Plus it wont do much to keep the car light, which GM has a problem with anyways.

[ocnblu]

Yeah, but everybody's porky these days. Crash tests dictate that modern vehicles have a lot of structure. If the car is a hardtop (and it better be), it will need a damn strong lock pillar for side impact tests.

[NOS2006]

A few Scott Settlemire posts from CamaroZ28.com:

The late 4th gen cars were not lightweight.

Yet:

>It's taken Ford how long to come up with a car faster than a stock LS1 based SS?

>Little known fact that I wasn't allowed to talk about: Until the advent of the Z06, a 1LE Camaro SS was faster on a road course (same course, same driver, same conditions) than a Z51 Corvette...............and would put cars costing 3 times as much to shame.............

........the biggest problem with them to many was that they were so big in terms of length and width.

If the new Camaro can do EVERYTHING better than a 4th gen.......and soundly trounce everything in it's class --- and cars costing 3 times as much............and provides a thoroughly enjoyable driving experience -- and you're still not happy -- well then, it's a free country. You simply select something else to buy. I hate to say that because I've only ever told two other people to please buy something else.

Perhaps you should give us the opportunity to build the car first.

It does not appear that you want to listen to the simple fact that WE DON'T WANT THE CAR TO BE OVER WEIGHT.

the car is smaller than a Mustang in many measurements, but don't count on a 'lightweight'....not if you want it affordable.

What people tend to forget is crashworthiness. Unless you design for a 5 star rating in front/rear/side/rollover......you will be dead in the water in terms of sales and insurance rates. That does not come cheaply.....and it means weight.

REST ASSURED that no one wants to see a light weight Camaro more than GM.......why? CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) where weight is poison to fuel economy.

Yes.....we can use exotic materials to drop weight....but it comes at a price.

If the car trounces everything near it in terms of handling on a track.......and has class leading acceleration.....????????

Can we move on knowing that most of the Camaro team owns Camaros and would like the Camaro to be the best ever? ...that it will outperform all the vehicles in its class -- and perhaps many in classes far above it????

Let me ask you this: IF.........the new Camaro could:

>be best in class in acceleration

>be best in class on a road course and autoX

>be best in class in fuel economy

>be best in class in driver comfort

>be best in class in terms of crashworthiness -- five stars all around...........

how important would weight be?

:AH-HA_wink:

[Northstar]

I don't think weight is really the issue, as long as it's not terribly porky. The issue here is how long and wide it is. The longer and wider you make a car, the less and less maneuverable and therefore less fun it becomes to drive.

[NOS2006]

I don't think weight is really the issue, as long as it's not terribly porky. The issue here is how long and wide it is. The longer and wider you make a car, the less and less maneuverable and therefore less fun it becomes to drive.

Please allow me to re-quote:

Let me ask you this: IF.........the new Camaro could:

>be best in class in acceleration

>be best in class on a road course and autoX

how important would weight {size} be?

One more point I'd like to make on that quote... If it's sized similarly to your GTO, are you saying the GTO is wearing the "less maneuverable/less fun" line thin?

Edited February 26, 2007 by NOS2006

[Croc]

Most of the extra length will be in bumpers. How is that going to throw off the proportions? The concept was 186" and the production will likely be about 190"...that's about the width of 4 fingers. With the roof 3/8" higher, it will prolly have the same overall effect.

Honestly, don't bitch about it until you see it...debating and "getting sad/disappointed/depressed" over an un-visualized change from a concept car is ridiculous IMO. Wait til you see it...this guaranteed won't be like the G6 losing a ton of width and gaining a lot of height. GM won't do that again, not with the Camaro.

[hyperv6]

Why don't we wait to see the end results before we pull the pin on this panic granade.

A inch or two here or there is not going to be a big deal. I think if GM can design a car like this they can do a good job to translate it into production.

The Solstice is a good example. The prototype and the production car are not identical nor in real life would the prototype survive on the road so changes had to be made or every owner would lose the front valance at the first trip to a parking lot. Anyway if you compare the prototype Solstice to the production they made the needed adjustments to keep it all in proportion and retain the show cars looks.

Read the new Lamm book on the Solstice as it explains what and how they made the transition and worked hard to retain the show car appearance.

[Northstar]

Please allow me to re-quote:

One more point I'd like to make on that quote... If it's sized similarly to your GTO, are you saying the GTO is wearing the "less maneuverable/less fun" line thin?

Size has nothing to do with how well it performs. I'm talking about day-to-day driving, darting in and out of traffic, etc., not "oh it would make it be slower or make AutoX times slower."

And no, I don't think the GTO is too big, it's lots of fun to drive, but:

1) If it was smaller, it would probably be even more fun. There's no reason they can't make the Camaro even more fun and nimble, and

2) The Camaro has always been a smaller vehicle than the GTO. The new Camaro sounds as though it will be bigger than the GTO. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to some people, I'm sure.

[Chazman]

Read the new Lamm book on the Solstice as it explains what and how they made the transition and worked hard to retain the show car appearance.

Is it a good book? I didn't even know he wrote a book on the Solstice. Where can you get one?

[AAS]

I don't care.

[Chazman]

Update from Bob Lutz:

http://www.automochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229

[Croc]

Exactly...all this worry for nothing.

[hyperv6]

Is it a good book? I didn't even know he wrote a book on the Solstice. Where can you get one?

Its not a book for the deep thinker it is more a PR/coffee table book with some interesting unpublished info on the building and design of the car. You can still tell this was a GM approved book.

The book is from Lamm publishing but written by Gary Witzenburg.

Gary has written many books on GM cars [Firebird and Fiero,etc] and you can tell he was hired by GM by only telling you the good stuff with out many warts.

In the Solstice book it is similar but they do address the things like the roof and trunk space but only lightly. He and his wife are both retired GM people.

I called Michale Lamm to order my book right from him as he is sellng them. I assume Motorbooks or someone else will also distribute them in the future as it has only been out 2 months.

This book did give some insight on the problems and changes in building the car. It in a way shows the new way GM is operating.

At the end of the book Gary writes he is not only a writer on the Solstice but a owner. He relates some of his own adventure with his car. He loves it and has no regrets.

[Drew Dowdell]

the less and less maneuverable and therefore less fun it becomes to drive...in the Target parking lot.....

fixed

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Update from Bob Lutz:

http://www.automochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229

And there you have it. This isn't like what happened with the SSR.

[AAS]

I still wouldn't have cared.

[97regalGS]

Size has nothing to do with how well it performs. I'm talking about day-to-day driving, darting in and out of traffic, etc., not "oh it would make it be slower or make AutoX times slower."

And no, I don't think the GTO is too big, it's lots of fun to drive, but:

1) If it was smaller, it would probably be even more fun. There's no reason they can't make the Camaro even more fun and nimble, and

2) The Camaro has always been a smaller vehicle than the GTO. The new Camaro sounds as though it will be bigger than the GTO. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to some people, I'm sure.

you want smaller RWD? wait for alpha!

(not direct at you northstar, just a comment on the 'HOPE' of alpha!)

Edited February 26, 2007 by 97regalGS

[-Camaro-]

Size has nothing to do with how well it performs. I'm talking about day-to-day driving, darting in and out of traffic, etc., not "oh it would make it be slower or make AutoX times slower."

And no, I don't think the GTO is too big, it's lots of fun to drive, but:

1) If it was smaller, it would probably be even more fun. There's no reason they can't make the Camaro even more fun and nimble, and

2) The Camaro has always been a smaller vehicle than the GTO. The new Camaro sounds as though it will be bigger than the GTO. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to some people, I'm sure.

Things change...

1) Get a Solstice GXP then.

2) True, but the GTO isn't a boat anymore. It's pretty small. Well around average.

[turbo200]

i'm with the smaller is better crowd.

[Chicagoland]

Some have huge, unattainable expectations. And these are just fans who go to auto shows or read mags, not buyers.

Just wait and see the real car.