If there was one thing you would like GM to fix in the Camaro, what would it be?

[jd10013]

Originally Posted by linc400

Yes, well that is the problem. The Mustang and Camaro and Challenger were based on their 1960's or 70's versions. Which actually could be practical daily drivers. Especially the Mustang as it was never originally intended to be a performance car, That came later.

None of the new versions are as practical.

it's just a case of form over function. these cars are built to "look" a certain way. for instance, where would you get more back seat room? shrink front seat room? raise the roof line? make it longer? wider? all of those things could be done, but doing so would drastically alter the look of the car. and the way the car companies look at it, if you want something with more room just buy a midsize. the only real exception to this is the Maxima, but at nearly 50k it's out of reach for most buyers.

[skipinminn]

Originally Posted by MikeSVX

My passenger seat. It needs a height adjustment.

:l aughabove:

[linc400]

Originally Posted by jd10013

it's just a case of form over function. these cars are built to "look" a certain way. for instance, where would you get more back seat room? shrink front seat room? raise the roof line? make it longer? wider? all of those things could be done, but doing so would drastically alter the look of the car. and the way the car companies look at it, if you want something with more room just buy a midsize. the only real exception to this is the Maxima, but at nearly 50k it's out of reach for most buyers.

Take a look at a 1967-9 Camaro or 1965-66 Mustang. Do they fall short on styling? Hardly. They are highly desireable now just as when they were new. In fact they are what inspired the current versions. Yet they have more trunk space, more rear seat room, better visability, etc.

So how is it that the new versions that are based on them are unable to offer the same when they are basically the same size? Saying it would have ruined the styling is just a lame excuse for not putting the effort into designing it into the car from the beginning.

[jd10013]

I'm not saying it would have ruined it, just changed it. the space has to come from somewhere. and I'm sure a lot of the safety features and emissions equipment account for some of the lost space between cars from that era and current cars. I highly doubt any of those cars would receive 5 star crash ratings.

[CamaroSSpence]

Rear axles - make them stronger....

[linc400]

Originally Posted by jd10013

I'm not saying it would have ruined it, just changed it. the space has to come from somewhere. and I'm sure a lot of the safety features and emissions equipment account for some of the lost space between cars from that era and current cars. I highly doubt any of those cars would receive 5 star crash ratings.

That accounts for some, but not all of it.

For example (this is hard to explain in words) we have a 2006 Monte Carlo SS. Rear seat room is adequate, but it is nearly impossible to get into the back seat. Why? Because the door opening at the rear is convex instead of concave. So instead of a larger opening, it is smaller with a pointed angle that bangs you in the back or leg when you try to get in or out. Would either have changed the look of the car? No, it was just a stupid design. Add to that the fact that you have to manually tilt the seat back forward and then it does not go back to its original position. You have to ratchet and readjust the whole seat back again any time it is moved forward. Does that change the looks? No, it is just a very stupid design.

I'm sure plenty of similar stupid design flaws eat up space in the Camaro but are probably not as obvious.

[jd10013]

again, go look at your car and tell me where the space would come from. the problem your describing is one of access to the back seat, not a lack of room. to the best of my knowledge, there is no wasted space in the camaro. it's not like the headliner is 8 inches think wasting head room, or that there's 5 inches of insulation between the interior panels and the frame. the lack of space comes a lot form low roof line, and small rear end of the car.

[linc400]

Originally Posted by jd10013

again, go look at your car and tell me where the space would come from. the problem your describing is one of access to the back seat, not a lack of room.

It is not something you can add to the car now. It would have to be designed into it from the beginning. Even so, an extra 2 or 3 inches in length would hardly ruin the entire look of the car. Henry Ford II demanded it be done with the original Mustang, and it hardly killed the looks.

[jd10013]

Originally Posted by linc400

It is not something you can add to the car now. It would have to be designed into it from the beginning. Even so, an extra 2 or 3 inches in length would hardly ruin the entire look of the car. Henry Ford II demanded it be done with the original Mustang, and it hardly killed the looks.

it would change the roof line too, or the space would be rather unusable. but I'm sure GM will do just that in the 6th gen. I also look for them deal with some of the blind spots too. but regardless, and inch or two isn't going to make a huge difference back there. just look at the car, from the drivers door back is only maybe a third of the car. the car has a small rear end. that gives it a certain look. changing that will change the look of the car.

[linc400]

Originally Posted by jd10013

it would change the roof line too, or the space would be rather unusable. but I'm sure GM will do just that in the 6th gen. I also look for them deal with some of the blind spots too. but regardless, and inch or two isn't going to make a huge difference back there. just look at the car, from the drivers door back is only maybe a third of the car. the car has a small rear end. that gives it a certain look. changing that will change the look of the car.

Just as an example, if you added one inch to the quarterpanel behind the door, and 2 inches in length to the door, that would give an extra 3 inches to the rear seat without much of a noticeable difference to the car. The roof height would not change at all. It would just be 3 inches longer which would make the roof look even lower.

[jd10013]

all that's going to do is give you a little more leg room. still going to be very cramped back there.

[linc400]

Originally Posted by jd10013

all that's going to do is give you a little more leg room. still going to be very cramped back there.

Legroom is the big complaint.

[Secret Squirrel]

Originally Posted by 14pilot

The ultra thin paint.

+1

[GEEKFREEKSCOTTY]

Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel

+1

I am noticing that the paint chips very easily. To the point that the car would probably need a respray in 5 years of daily driving