Blake Noble

If you had the chance to buy a 1970 Buick Wildcat Custom for one-thousand, five-hundred dollars in solid condition, would you do it? Or would you rather buy a(nother) 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme for the about the same price in about the same condition?

Happy birthday, NOS!

It feels a little ... /b/tarded in here. It's sort of making me a little itchy.

Chances of GM and FIAT getting in bed together again: zero. Remember the fiasco between the two that happened around the beginning of the decade?

2000 GMC Terradyne concept.

My point was that, considering just how honestly massive the F5 Camaro is, why isn't there a bigger trunk? It's dimensions are certainly big enough to have a useful one.

Again, everyone but GM has a better idea of how to handle Zeta than GM itself does. (Or in this case, how it should have been handled.) And, ideally, not on Zeta. And here's the kicker: around the 1998 to 1999 timeframe, GM was thinking about going rear-drive with the cars that would have been the Monte Carlo and Impala. Of course, I think you already knew that. The case of building recent rear-wheel drive cars at GM is one example of many of the company's unwillingness to commit to products that cover every spectrum of the market correctly.

Zeta is a great platform dynamically considering its weight, but everything about it is wrong for a Camaro. On the other hand, it is better suited for a new Chevelle (and El Camino, of course). And that's where GM made it's mistake. (Personally, the only Zetas at Chevrolet should have been an Impala coupe and sedan. But the demand to revive the Camaro was so large and since Zeta was the only way to do it, the end product wound up compromised as a result. Using the Zeta platform at Chevrolet shouldn't have been used for a Camaro revival. Too late now, huh?)

It's all good. It happens to all of us.

What ZL-1 was trying to say was that Alpha should be able to accept cars of various sizes and shapes, just like Audi's B8 platform, not that Audi has a RWD/AWD platform in the works that Alpha should emulate. And ZL-1 is right.

Don't get me wrong; I do want the F5 Camaro to have decent success so that we can see a lighter and proper F6 Camaro as well, and hopefully we will. There has to be a high-volume (or higher-volume) product on Alpha somewhere, correct, to help prop up the Cadillac Alpha. It's been said a dozen times from various sources. And I don't doubt that Alpha is more than "a twinkle in GM's eye" like Bob Lutz said either.

Well, like Chazman said, it isn't finding favor with management because of it's size and weight. And I'll put that aspect of the F5 Camaro in perspective here, as I have done in another thread. These are some dimensions of the F5 Camaro versus the dimensions of my 1972 Cutlass, an all-steel, body-on-frame, classic American car. 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 350 V8: Curb weight: 3,515 lb Wheelbase: 112 in (Coupe models) Overall length: 201.7 in Overall width: 76.8 in 2010 Chevrolet F5 Camaro 3.6L V6: Curb weight: 3741 lb (LS w/ manual) Wheelbase: 112.3 in Overall length: 190.4 in Overall width: 75.5 in As you can see the F5 Camaro weights some 200 pounds more and is about one inch narrower and ten inches shorter in overall length than my Cutlass. And, like I've already said, my Cutlass is all steel and body-on-frame. In addition, my Cutlass is on a wheelbase that is in the same ballpark of most modern full-sized sedans. For example, the 2009 Impala's wheelbase comes in at 110.5 in. and that's actually around two inches shorter than my Cutlass. The Camaro's wheelbase is 2.3 inches longer than the full-sized Chevrolet Impala's. No, this new Camaro is a cow. Of course it is, it almost tips the scales at two tons in base form with a V6 and a manual transmission. It might be a good product, but considering the reality of its size and weight, it won't be a "nimble" car. It's dimensions would suitable for a new Monte Carlo maybe, but never a Camaro. There is a reason why the Cobalt SS Turbocharged was just as good as it was around the Nurburing. And remember, I supported the Camaro almost all the way up until the end. What killed the fun for me was coming to terms with the facts I have just posted here, although I knew just how big the Camaro was going to be beforehand (I just didn't realize it was going to be that big).

Well, considering the wheelbase is the same as my Cutlass and the overall length is only ten inches shorter ...

Remember the Concept R? This sort of car is more than just a gleam in VW's eye, I'd imagine.

Agreed.

Well, the original idea was to have the sketch and chop competitions merged into a single competition so that: a.) it would be easier to keep up with and b.) encourage more entries.

Who wrote this? Obviously, they haven't set foot in a Cadillac dealership since 2004, because the STS is a rear-drive sedan and not a "front-drive boat."

Let me know when I give a damn.

This is a very good looking design -- very handsome and upscale. This is the car that should take the place of the current Sebring. I have only one small complaint and its that the details of the front portion of the car are a little derivative of designs like the Mazda 6 and Lincoln MKR concept. However, I can see that the 200C concept is a further development of a few cues from a prior Chrysler concept car, the Nassau.

I'm trying to hold my tongue until I can test drive a Camaro like the theoretical LS RS that I was considering to buy, but I honestly don't think the F5 will be necessarily "nimble." It's going to be a big car. And for perspective, here are the dimensions of the F5 Camaro versus my '72 Cutlass: 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 350 V8: Curb weight: 3,515 lb Wheelbase: 112 in (Coupe models) Overall length: 201.7 in Overall width: 76.8 in 2010 Chevrolet F5 Camaro 3.6L V6: Curb weight: 3741 lb (LS w/ manual) Wheelbase: 112.3 in Overall length: 190.4 in Overall width: 75.5 in Look at that! It's almost as big as my Cutlass is! A unibody, V6 Camaro should not weigh more and be almost as big (the Cutlasss is about 10 in. longer than the Camaro and the Camaro is less than an inch narrower than the Cutlass) as a body-on-frame, V8-powered classic car.

Excuse me while I break out the Jergen's.

Why did they have to make it so over-f@#king-weight! (I don't mean to take a dump on your thread gm4life, but GM Outside Tabloid had photos of an Aqua Blue Camaro with the 18" steel wheels about a month ago. By the way, the steel rims looked horribly cheap on the Camaro they posted. They work alright with the black paint, I'll admit. Otherwise, if someone intitally told me that they had come of off a late 80s S-10, I'd actually believe them at first.)

Because it weighs two tons.

Oh, there are. They're just not new cars. :AH-HA_wink: For example, when I realized that I wanted a two-ton car with at least 300-horsepower, I decided not to buy a F5 Camaro (because the concept of a two-ton Camaro is absolutely illogical, for starters) but instead go with a classic car that was cheaper to buy and restore and maintain. The value also only can appreciate, instead of depreciate, as in if I had bought the new car. Also some food for thought: For the price of a F5, I can actually afford not just one classic, but two and have the second purchase restored as well and still come out a few thousand dollars less in the hole (while I wait for the F6 Alpha Camaro).

New vehicles only? Well, that's no fun.