Shno's House of Z

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Camaro has to evolve to fit the times or die again. Heritage is important, but it's not everything.

For example, the 2.0T will most likely be the base engine for the 6th gen. It's a fantastic engine that will offer a great balance between performance and fuel economy. Yet a lot of people are already crying foul just because it's a four cylinder.

GM knows what the Camaro represents, and they'll do it justice.

It's not the base car they need to worry about. But I'm sure they'll do it justice.

[FenwickHockey65]

Alpha can support a V8. That isn't going away.

[shank0668]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Alpha can support a V8. That isn't going away.

I believe in this. I also wouldn't be shocked if AWD was an option, but I think it could go either way.

[Number 3]

For all intents and purposes, one could argue that the Camaro is already a 2 door version of the Commodore. One could argue that this is what the GTO redesign would be with some Pontiac exclusive sheetmetal.

So a 4 door off the same architecture? Sure you can do that and we have that. What we won't see is a 4 door Camaro. GM now knows better than to try to do something that stupid..................at least you hope they do.

So in the end if you go through through the anals of history we have already had 4 cylinder pony cars. Mustangs have had 4 cyclinder engines as has the Camaro, a 90 hp 2.5L display of awesomeness.

So you can't make the argument, at least I don't think you can that a 4 cylinder can't go in a pony car.

AWD is another story. But just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it breaks the definition of a pony car. It just makes the performance better. It would take the car to a whole new level. GTR is all over a Corvette Z06 simply because of AWD. So if AWD makes your car even better does that mean it isn't a pony car? or a Camaro for that matter?

[Number 3]

Of course on further reflection, this also raises the question of whether the Camaro is a Pony Car (original classification) or a Sports Car as some would like it to be.

By some definitions, a Sports car is a 2 seater. By others, a car simply purporting to have Sporting intentions, which the Camaro clearly does. But just because Cadillac races the CTS Sedan, doesn't make it a Sports Car.................or does it

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by Number 3

For all intents and purposes, one could argue that the Camaro is already a 2 door version of the Commodore. One could argue that this is what the GTO redesign would be with some Pontiac exclusive sheetmetal.

So a 4 door off the same architecture? Sure you can do that and we have that. What we won't see is a 4 door Camaro. GM now knows better than to try to do something that stupid..................at least you hope they do.

So in the end if you go through through the anals of history we have already had 4 cylinder pony cars. Mustangs have had 4 cyclinder engines as has the Camaro, a 90 hp 2.5L display of awesomeness.

So you can't make the argument, at least I don't think you can that a 4 cylinder can't go in a pony car.

AWD is another story. But just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it breaks the definition of a pony car. It just makes the performance better. It would take the car to a whole new level. GTR is all over a Corvette Z06 simply because of AWD. So if AWD makes your car even better does that mean it isn't a pony car? or a Camaro for that matter?

Originally Posted by Number 3

Of course on further reflection, this also raises the question of whether the Camaro is a Pony Car (original classification) or a Sports Car as some would like it to be.

By some definitions, a Sports car is a 2 seater. By others, a car simply purporting to have Sporting intentions, which the Camaro clearly does. But just because Cadillac races the CTS Sedan, doesn't make it a Sports Car.................or does it

Muscle Cars / Pony Cars traditionally have been high HP motors stuffed into an ordinary chassis with bias ply tires and drum brakes in the 'golden age'

Technology changed and radial tires were added, along with disc brakes. Technology continues to change. An AWD Muscle Car is still a Muscle Car. A Muscle car that handles exceptionally well is still a Muscle Car.

A sports car in my mind has been and always will be a SMALL two seater, extremely light.

1947 MG TC Specifications - Specs

price $2 395 USD
engine Inline 4
valvetrain OHV
displacement 1250 cc / 76.3 cu in
bore 66.5 mm / 2.62 in
stroke 90.0 mm / 3.54 in
compression 7.25:1
power 40.6 kw / 54.4 bhp @ 5200 rpm
hp per litre 43.52 bhp per litre
bhp/weight
torque 86.8 nm / 64.0 ft lbs @ 2700 rpm
drive wheels Front Engine / RWD
body / frame Steel Body Panels over Wood & Metal
front brakes Drums
f brake size 229 mm / 9.0 in
r brake size 229 mm / 9.0 in
front wheels F 48.3 x 12.7 cm / 19.0 x 5.0 in
rear wheels R 48.3 x 12.7 cm / 19.0 x 5.0 in
front tire size 4.50-19
rear tire size 4.50-19
steering Bishop Cam
weight 837 kg / 1845 lbs
wheelbase 2388 mm / 94.0 in
front track 1143 mm / 45.0 in
rear track 1143 mm / 45.0 in
length 3670 mm / 144.5 in
width 1422 mm / 56.0 in
height 1351 mm / 53.2 in
transmission 4-Speed Manual
gear ratios 3.38:1, 1.97:1, 1.35:1, 1.00:1
final drive 5.12:1
top speed 117.5 kph / 73.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 22.0 seconds
0 - 1/4 mile 21.8 seconds

Manufacturer Standard Motor Company[1]
Triumph Motor Company (Leyland Motors)
Production 1962–1980
Assembly Canley, Coventry, England
Australia [2]
Body style 2-seat sports convertible
Layout FR layout
Wheelbase 83 in (2,108 mm)
Length 145 in (3,683 mm)
Width 57 in (1,448 mm)
Height 48 in (1,219 mm) hood up.
Curb weight 1,568 lb (711 kg) to 1,750 lb (790 kg) (unladen U.K.spec)
Related Triumph Herald, Triumph Vitesse, Triumph GT6
Designer Giovanni Michelotti

Also called Mazda MX-5 Miata (United States)
Production 2005–present
Body style 2-door roadster
2-door hardtop
Platform Mazda NC
Engine 1.8 L (110 cu in) MZR I4 (Europe)
2.0 L (120 cu in) MZR I4
Transmission 5-speed manual
6-speed automatic
6-speed manual
Wheelbase 91.7 in (2,330 mm)[citation needed]
Length 2006-08: 157.3 in (4,000 mm)
2009-: 4,020 mm (158.3 in)
Width 67.7 in (1,720 mm)
Height 2006-08: 49.0 in (1,240 mm)
2006-08 PRHT: 49.4 in (1,250 mm)
2009-: 1,245 mm (49.0 in)
2009- RHT:　1,255 mm (49.4 in)
Curb weight 1,095 kg (2,410 lb)

These are classic sports cars in my mind, though some would refer to them as roadsters.

A Camaro was, is and always should be an American Muscle Car. That does not preclude AWD, but when regulation prevents the use of a V8 can it still be an American Muscle Car? Without a V8 or V10 is there such a thing as a Muscle Car?

[LOWDOWN]

The Gen-5 Camaro shares a common "shadow" with '64-'72 Malibus. Which were NOT the epitome of "pony car" stature/status.

If you think of Jag XJS, Ferrari 456, Maserati Ghibli...Grand Touring...very comfy up-front for two, with a lovely leather-lined rear seat/luggage compartment that on occasion doubled as short-term passanger space (of a certain minimalist size), then you have a closer description of what a current Camaro approaches with regard to "classic designation"...

Not to be confused with Mustang's idea of what a GT was/is, for the Mustang, currently, is very close in overall size to the '71-'73 versions. Or a '70-'81 Camaro/Firebird. Which was/is a "pony car".

EDIT:
wheelbase/length/curb

*Gen-5 Camaro - 112/190/3850
*1970 Malibu 2dr - 112/196/3550
*2006 GTO - 112/189.8/3750

2012 Mustang - 107/188/3631-BOSS
1971 Mustang - 109/189/3560-BOSS 351
1971 Camaro - 108/188/3496-V8

*Typically, there's more weight in the wheelbase/occupant area, than there is in the overhangs. Longer wheelbase = more structural weight. The current Mustang has longer overhangs than the Camaro, although they are within 2" in overall length. And, frankly, a lighter structure, overall. Witness the X-brace required to realize optimal handling with of the BOSS LS.

[wildpaws]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Camaro has to evolve to fit the times or die again. Heritage is important, but it's not everything.

For example, the 2.0T will most likely be the base engine for the 6th gen. It's a fantastic engine that will offer a great balance between performance and fuel economy. Yet a lot of people are already crying foul just because it's a four cylinder.

GM knows what the Camaro represents, and they'll do it justice.

I think we're saying the same thing from different perspectives. Yes the Camaro has to evolve to fit the times, but it does not have to evolve so far as to be totally a different class of vehicle. And while heritage is not everything, it should not be forgotten and have the Camaro morph into nothing but just another chassis/body combination that is yet another look alike small transportation "box". I'm not moaning because the base engine might be a small I4 engine (after all, the 6th gen should be considerably lighter), I'm more concerned that the process of evolving could leave us with a non-descript, vanilla ecocar that does not even remotely resemble what a Camaro could and should be.
Clyde

[2cnd chance]

Times they are a changin'. That having been said, the lines are getting blurred. Sports cars "were" exactly as Pete described them. Now a Corvette is a combination of Sports-GT-Super-Car. A Camaro is a Muscle-Sports-GT-Car. Apparently new names are necessary.




BTW, see picture edit at post #9788 I could see this become a Chevelle with a few changes.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by wildpaws

I think we're saying the same thing from different perspectives. Yes the Camaro has to evolve to fit the times, but it does not have to evolve so far as to be totally a different class of vehicle. And while heritage is not everything, it should not be forgotten and have the Camaro morph into nothing but just another chassis/body combination that is yet another look alike small transportation "box". I'm not moaning because the base engine might be a small I4 engine (after all, the 6th gen should be considerably lighter), I'm more concerned that the process of evolving could leave us with a non-descript, vanilla ecocar that does not even remotely resemble what a Camaro could and should be.
Clyde

There are no indications that anyone at GM views the future of a Camaro as an eco car. Mark Reuss and many others will keep everyone on track. Having said that, if the government continues to mandate higher and higher MPG all cars will be appliance like eco cars.

We all must keep that in mind the next time we enter a voting booth.

[PYROLYSIS]

I wouldn't have a problem with an AWD Camaro. Most of the power goes to the rear wheels anyway. AWD could be an option for staying ahead of the game like IRS was against the Mustang. I personally would like to see development money spent on making NA motors with acceptable horsepower and vastly improved gas mileage. V-8 horsepower wouldn't really need an increase for the SS if the weight is reduced as much as we think. V-8 gas mileage was a step in the wrong direction for the fifth gen. A 2002 6 speed SS was rated at 28 MPG highway!

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

I wouldn't have a problem with an AWD Camaro. Most of the power goes to the rear wheels anyway. AWD could be an option for staying ahead of the game like IRS was against the Mustang. I personally would like to see development money spent on making NA motors with acceptable horsepower and vastly improved gas mileage. V-8 horsepower wouldn't really need an increase for the SS if the weight is reduced as much as we think. V-8 gas mileage was a step in the wrong direction for the fifth gen. A 2002 6 speed SS was rated at 28 MPG highway!

Didn't the 2002 have less power, less weight and better aero.

[FenwickHockey65]

2002 SS did 28 MPG under the old system. It does 26 by today's standards.

[LOWDOWN]

For those in the HouZe, travelling this summer, consider a stop-off at "the cottage"...

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210114