2016 Camaro

Less mass... I guess you guys don't know a goddamn thing about how to build modern cars with stiffer structures for better crash ratings and better handling, and in these car's cases, the need to carry the stresses of high power V8s and high G suspension loadings, and brakes to slow you down from elevated speeds safely, repeatedly, that require larger wheels and tires, etc. Everything adds up. No one wants an old flexi flyer 3rd gen Camaro or the literally crap build quality of a '60s car. That's why even ECONOMY CARS weigh around 3000 lbs and why it's SO hard for companies like Mazda to keep grams off of cars like the Miata. 400hp, inexpensive V8 powered car with high G loadings and modern safety specs under 3500 lbs? Yeah, not gonna happen, not when a CIVIC weighs 3200lbs with a goddamn 4 cyl.

High beltlines? Yeah, with crash regulations making them that way. High hoodlines to keep crush room above the engines as per pedestrian safety regs pushes the cowls up, which pushes the whole beltline up.

You guys are supposed to be smart car guys. You should know this E36 M3 by now.

In reply to Vracer111:

LOL, the F-body died in 1983. LEAF SPRINGS FOREVER!!!

Chris_V

That I know you have an Engineer from Ford on here and I used to be an Engineer for a Tier 1 to BMW and Benz (and formerly GM, but my line was discontinued). We are pretty sure we know how to build cars. As that is how we feed our families. We also know cost is priority 1 for 98% of what is done, from that experience.

Slow your roll there.

Vracer111 wrote: Yuck...this is the absolutely ugliest Camaro generation, nice job going backwards both in making the style and visibility even worse than the previous gen GM. Belt-lines have become freaking neck-lines, the window sill is now a place to rest your chin if you can stretch your neck high enough...: I mean, just look at the "I don't even..." expressions on these two GM spokesmen's faces...LOL Love the even smaller mail-box slot that is the rear window view, no wonder backup cameras are being mandated soon... I had a 4th gen hardtop base Camaro, which while no lightweight still came in at just over 3200 lbs with a full tank on a calibrated drag strip scale (well it was stripped out nearly 200 lbs from stock...) While an overweight and aged ballerina that wasn't exactly nimble and a real pain for upkeep/maintenance, she was very competent and balanced on track (almost could be called a sports car...) and her beauty beyond these latest Camaro iterations. 3,700 lbs for a Camaro is heavy (and the ~4k lbs of the current gen is already disgustingly overweight) - get it under 3,500 lbs or don't even bother GM. And again, stop assaulting my eyes and build a proper Camaro... so what if it's "The best handling Camaro ever" - it's still ugly and morbidly OBESE. The Camaro after the 4th gen is dead to me... except the insane Z-28, which would be even more insane with LESS MASS GM!

lol at the overly dramatic post. Car looks good to me!

Flight Service wrote: Chris_V That I know you have an Engineer from Ford on here and I used to be an Engineer for a Tier 1 to BMW and Benz (and formerly GM, but my line was discontinued). We are pretty sure we know how to build cars. As that is how we feed our families. We also know cost is priority 1 for 98% of what is done, from that experience. Slow your roll there.

Then tell the folks that keep asking for what ain't gonna happen to slow THEIR roll. The bitchiness about why cars are why they are now is getting stupid. Without a lot of costly composite construction we're not going to see modern passenger cars that weigh like a '85 CRX ever again. Not even with cheap, lightweight little 4 cyl engines powering them. And the only way to give them taller side glass is to make the entire car taller. Like an i3.

The new Camaro and Mustang are amazing cars that do things that were unimaginable in factory performance cars back in the day. They accelerate better, stop better, handle better, have better build quality, better safety, and lower NVH, with lower emissions and better FE and do so at prices that, adjusted for inflation are no higher than they've ever been, even compared to '60s muscle. Complaining that they don't weigh the same as they did in '69 misses the entire reality of why they are so much better in every real aspect.

Chris_V wrote: Complaining that they don't weigh the same as they did in '69 misses the entire reality of why they are so much better in every real aspect.

Except outward visibility?

T.J. wrote:

Chris_V wrote: Complaining that they don't weigh the same as they did in '69 misses the entire reality of why they are so much better in every real aspect.

Except outward visibility?

Actually, compared to my '70 Mustang or '71 Torino GT, the new ones aren't any worse in that regard, either. And they are still better than most work trucks, panel vans, cube vans, etc that people drive with no problems on a regular basis.

Chris_V wrote:

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Chris_V: The past 12 calender months the Mustang has been leading. The new car is killing the Camaro and Challenger combined. So there is some truth to his statement given a limited timeline.

Well, yeah, the new hotness vs an end of lifespan model... The Camaro has been outselling the Mustang for the last 5 years before that, though. But if you (or anyone) think that the styling of the new Camaro was developed in the last few weeks to compete with the 15 Mustang, you really don't know how long lead times are for new designs.

The photo was of a new Mustang and a new Camaro. Not 5 year old models. BTW, I know very well how cars are designed and built. I don't think anyone said that the Camaro was developed in short time in response to the new Mustang - Those are your words, not ours, and you are starting to sound a lot like an irrational fanboi my friend.

This is funny. At least the base model 4cyl will outrun a first gen camaro. Hell im bold enough to say I bet a 4cyl turbo camaro would drag the OLD 69 zl1 ..banking on old tire tech here, but even still muscle cars weren't nescicarrisly quick, or fast, or safe for that matter. And yes I have driven real muscle cars. Im happy with the direction we are going in. When I was a boy (onlu 24 now) gm killed the camaro and trans am. I litteraly cried thinking I would never own one and would have to drive a got dang hybrid. That didn't happen and im thankful we still have turbos and v8s and most of all CAMAROS AGAIN!

bravenrace wrote:

Chris_V wrote:

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Chris_V: The past 12 calender months the Mustang has been leading. The new car is killing the Camaro and Challenger combined. So there is some truth to his statement given a limited timeline.

Well, yeah, the new hotness vs an end of lifespan model... The Camaro has been outselling the Mustang for the last 5 years before that, though. But if you (or anyone) think that the styling of the new Camaro was developed in the last few weeks to compete with the 15 Mustang, you really don't know how long lead times are for new designs.

The photo was of a new Mustang and a new Camaro. Not 5 year old models. BTW, I know very well how cars are designed and built. I don't think anyone said that the Camaro was developed in short time in response to the new Mustang - Those are your words, not ours, and you are starting to sound a lot like an irrational fanboi my friend.

A fanboi? I'm a Mustang owner, so STFU, you are starting to sound like the typical GRM closed minded new car hater, and posting the picture you did proves it. I actually like ALL kinds of cars, old AND new, cheap AND expensive, and have owned from most major manufacturers worldwide. I'm not a fanboi of ANY marque, and can find things to like in all of them. You might want to try it sometime.

The new Camaro was not developed because they were getting outsold by the Mustang, and was actually developed back when they were handily outselling the Stang, so your goddamn picture meme was false and patently stupid. Get that though your thick skull.

Alright, everyone needs to simmer down.

In reply to Chris_V:

I own 9 vehicles. Three of them are GM, one is Ford. I posted the picture because Keith Tanner said he saw Mustang in the new Camaro. It was a good picture to illustrate that, so I posted it. There is nothing wrong with that, despite what you might think. I was trying to help. And again, I never said the Camaro was designed that way to compete with the Mustang. If you are going to argue with me, at least get your facts straight. And please calm down.

Calm down just calm down and no one gets shot. I got a hair trigger and no one calls camaro ugly! I was born in a 2nd gen and ill die in a 2nd gen with my mullet flyin, whoo america!

In reply to chiodos:

Did you know that there have been more Mustangs sold since 1965 than Camaros?

Hey guys, what's everyone's thoughts on the new Camaro?

Oh.

I wonder how the numbers would have been if camaros would have debuted in 1965 also. They did sell over a million mustangs before the camaro came on the scene in 1967.

Wow, did I just walk into a Bathurst 1000 race?

How long until we see Firebird & T/A conversions on this new camaro......it'll probably look better.

Chris_V wrote: Without a lot of costly composite construction we're not going to see modern passenger cars that weigh like a '85 CRX ever again.

This jumped out at me because I have an '85 CRX. 1961 lbs on my scales.

2015 Smart ForTwo: 1808 lbs
2015 Mitsubishi Mirage: 1972 lbs

Smart is physically way smaller than the CRX, so that makes sense (and it's pretty sophisticated structurally), but not much of a 4 place V8 musclecar. ;) The Mitsu is probably the last of a very old style of manufacturing and is widely known to be a cheap POS, so very much in line with being a brand new '70s Japanese car. How does it crash test these days, though?

I am walking into a E36 M3 storm here but here it goes anyway.

Chris_V why are you adamant that a modern V8 car has to be closer to 4k lbs than 3k lbs? You have had, by my knowledge, 3 people in the auto building business tell you it isn't required. Yet you still want to argue or dismiss everyone's position.

I am just curious at this point, what your position is coming from? Do you not like light weight cars, or feel they would be unsafe? Or is it something else entirely?

/thread

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

X-frames suck! Your picture proves it!

4cylndrfury wrote:

That's just cool.