10% Smaller Camaro

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by aldaron327

I think my favorite part about people worrying about it at this point is this: What... Is GM gonna tear up the blue prints and start with another clean sheet of paper and re-design the whole thing AGAIN?!!!!! I for one am glad that the wait is over. I'll take a 3800 pound SS and move out smartly.

Even if you want to spend the day complaining as so many have done, know that they're done designing it. They're probably at the end of testing it. At this point you might want to get over it and either buy one or move out smartly. As stated above, I'm planning to buy one and...... move out smartly.

Just like re-sizing an image in paint, all GM needs to do is stick theblueprints into photoshop and do the same thing... Then press the big red Easy button and vualla.. A 10% smaller Camaro ready to build...

[baileyrx]

Originally Posted by 1_2Many

If there was one thing I could say I'm not happy about with the new Camaro it would be it's weight. When you look at the overall size of the Camaro it's obvious it is so heavy because of it's size. Also, it is obvious this new Camaro is much larger than it's '69 counterpart. I am just wondering why they couldn't have designed the car to be about 10% smaller in every way, but keep current drivetrain? If the vehicle shrunk about 10% I don't think anyone would really notice and in fact it would likely still be larger than the 1st gen Camaro, but a 10% reduction in weight would put it at about 3500 lbs which seems much better. Just for reference I put the current specs down below:

Wheelbase (in/mm): 112.3 / 2852
Overall length (in/mm): 190.4 / 4836
Overall Width: 75.5 / 1918
Overall height: 54.2 / 1377
Track (front) (in/mm): 63.7 / 1618
Track (rear) (in/mm): 64.1 / 1628 (LS, LT)
63.7 / 1618 (SS)
Curb weight (lb/kg): 3750 / 1705 - LT automatic
3741 / 1700 - LT manual
3769 / 1713 - LS automatic
3780 / 1718 - LS manual
3913 / 1779 - SS automatic
3860 / 1755 - SS manual
Weight balance: 52% front / 48% rear

just to compare>>>>

my 2003 g35 coupe:
w.b:112.00
length:182.2
width:71.5
height:54.8
track(f):60.4
track(r):60.6
curb weight:3422(auto)

so all-in-all pretty similar besides the weight(newer crash standards)
the camaro is wider, that's a plus

everything else is really, really close

[Hylton]

Just for the guys who were not at Indy and have now moved to the subject of height and length, the Camaro team showed us a silouette (sic) of the current Mustang and then overlayed the new Camaro on top of the picture so we could see the comprison in size. Guess what? Almost exactly the same length and wheelbase and the Camaro roofline was lower than the Mustangs.

[headpunter]

Originally Posted by Hylton

Just for the guys who were not at Indy and have now moved to the subject of height and length, the Camaro team showed us a silouette (sic) of the current Mustang and then overlayed the new Camaro on top of the picture so we could see the comprison in size. Guess what? Almost exactly the same length and wheelbase and the Camaro roofline was lower than the Mustangs.

hylton stop it....im getting sweaty from you jogging my memory....


btw with him reminding me i can confirm this aswell...so to recap challenger is too fat and the mustang is too tall and the camaro is just right

[SSinferno]

Just for comparison's sake...

5th Gen
Wheelbase (in/mm): 112.3 / 2852
Overall length (in/mm): 190.4 / 4836
Overall Width: 75.5 / 1918
Overall height: 54.2 / 1377
Track (front) (in/mm): 63.7 / 1618
Track (rear) (in/mm): 64.1 / 1628 (LS, LT)
63.7 / 1618 (SS)


4th Gen
Wheelbase 2566 mm (101.1")
Length 4907 mm (193.2")
Width 1881 mm ( 74.1")
Height 1303 mm ( 51.3")
Track front 1542 mm ( 60.7")
rear 1540 mm ( 60.6")
Weight 3570 lb Z28

2009 Maxima
Wheel Base: 109.3 in
Length: 190.6 in.
Width: 73.2 in.
Height: 57.8 in.
Curb Weight: 3556 lbs.

2009 Challenger
Wheelbase (in)116.0
Length, Overall (in)197.7
Width, Max w/o mirrors (in)75.7
Height, Overall (in)57.1
Tread Width, Front (in)63.0
Tread Width, Rear (in)63.1
Weight 4,140 SR/T 8

Bailyrx's 2003 g35 coupe:
w.b:112.00
length:182.2
width:71.5
height:54.8
track(f):60.4
track(r):60.6
curb weight:3422(auto)

2008 Mustang GT
overall length (inches): 187.6,
overall width (inches): 73.9,
overall height (inches): 55.7,
wheelbase (inches): 107.1,
front track (inches): 62.8,
rear track (inches): 63.0
Vehicle Curb Weight: 3,540 lbs

What does this show?

[LarkVille]

Actually I would prefer the Camaro was a smaller car simply for aesthetic reasons, not necessarily weight.

But the thing is 90% of us including myself have yet to see the car in person so I'll reserve my final opinion until then.

[Matrix]

STOP BITCHING!!!
Join a gym and loose the 10% your looking for! LOL!

[NAHURRY]

Originally Posted by StoutFiles

I want a Camaro 98% smaller in every way so I can carry it around with me.

[FirstLSK]

I have to say that I disagree with everyone wanting it smaller in size.

I have always thought that American automobile manufacturers lost touch with what an American car should look like from the 80's until recently with the retro-muscle cars. In fact, I would only buy pickup trucks because it was the only vehicle that still looked American. No offense to any owners, but the 3rd and 4th gen look like Euro-wedge cars and the only thing that appealed to me was the powerplant that GM put in them.

Now we finally have some broad stance, agressive AMERICAN LOOKING cars and it kills me to hear that people want to turn them into a Geo Metro for weight reduction. Welcome back the American muscle car -- please don't try to crush it.

BTW -- for all of the weenies that want a super light car with a powerful motor, why don't you just buy a LS7 or LS9 crate motor and drop it into a Monster Miata or something like that.

[kdbolt70]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

I have to say that I disagree with everyone wanting it smaller in size.

I have always thought that American automobile manufacturers lost touch with what an American car should look like from the 80's until recently with the retro-muscle cars. In fact, I would only buy pickup trucks because it was the only vehicle that still looked American. No offense to any owners, but the 3rd and 4th gen look like Euro-wedge cars and the only thing that appealed to me was the powerplant that GM put in them.

Now we finally have some broad stance, agressive AMERICAN LOOKING cars and it kills me to hear that people want to turn them into a Geo Metro for weight reduction. Welcome back the American muscle car -- please don't try to crush it.

BTW -- for all of the weenies that want a super light car with a powerful motor, why don't you just buy a LS7 or LS9 crate motor and drop it into a Monster Miata or something like that.

I agree. I don't think it looks like a boat, but I'm happy it is a substantial size. As long as it can carry its weight well (read: turn), I'll be thrilled with it. I love the fact that is a large machine. It demands respect and exemplifies raw power.

[AZCamaroFan]

I know they aren't redesigning it now, and i don't hate it, i just think the hoodline for instance is pretty high. It's higher than a first gen. As for weight, i expected it at least 3,600 , just real suprised if i get an auto SS it's at 3,900. I mean, you have to admit that is heavy for a sports coupe.

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

I have to say that I disagree with everyone wanting it smaller in size.

I have always thought that American automobile manufacturers lost touch with what an American car should look like from the 80's until recently with the retro-muscle cars. In fact, I would only buy pickup trucks because it was the only vehicle that still looked American. No offense to any owners, but the 3rd and 4th gen look like Euro-wedge cars and the only thing that appealed to me was the powerplant that GM put in them.

Now we finally have some broad stance, agressive AMERICAN LOOKING cars and it kills me to hear that people want to turn them into a Geo Metro for weight reduction. Welcome back the American muscle car -- please don't try to crush it.

BTW -- for all of the weenies that want a super light car with a powerful motor, why don't you just buy a LS7 or LS9 crate motor and drop it into a Monster Miata or something like that.

Styling can be kept and even dimensions. A lot of people are just saying it could or should be proportionately smaller, and it might get that way in the future when smaller displacement v8's will be the norm.

[camaro5]

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

I have to say that I disagree with everyone wanting it smaller in size.

I have always thought that American automobile manufacturers lost touch with what an American car should look like from the 80's until recently with the retro-muscle cars. In fact, I would only buy pickup trucks because it was the only vehicle that still looked American. No offense to any owners, but the 3rd and 4th gen look like Euro-wedge cars and the only thing that appealed to me was the powerplant that GM put in them.

Now we finally have some broad stance, agressive AMERICAN LOOKING cars and it kills me to hear that people want to turn them into a Geo Metro for weight reduction. Welcome back the American muscle car -- please don't try to crush it.

BTW -- for all of the weenies that want a super light car with a powerful motor, why don't you just buy a LS7 or LS9 crate motor and drop it into a Monster Miata or something like that.