5thgen69camaro

Engine bay or trunk for rear impact or neither?

stars1010

Well then keep it short

I see what your getting at now

5thgen69camaro

I dont know how else to put it...

The car is extreemly small. Comparing it to FWD cars in size is not fair. If you wanted to shorten it, you could take out the back seats or make them non functional and call it Solstice Vette or XLR, you could minimize the trunk and call it Vega, or you could make it front wheel drive and call it Monte Carlo. But if you do any of those please dont call it Camaro!

Look at the Mustang. Under the hood you have the front headlights, and behind that against the back of them is the radiator, almost directly behind that is just enough room for the block and of course directly behind that is the firewall. There is no room to play. In the drivers seat of the 06 convertable I sat in I had less room than the 4th gen or my 69 Camaro. The back seats were almost touching (granted it was convertable) The trunk was miniscule. Again granted convertable with optional subwoofer. AND camaro somehow managed to be slightly shorter. I have no idea how. The one thing Im wondering is that a car that only has to drive down a runway doesnt need a production size radiator??? OR if turning the rear exhaust sideways bought GM some length. But the front overhang is gone.

So thats why I ask, Is it an impact standard causing the rear to grow? is it makeing the engine compartment more realistic for a production car? or something else?

As for width, its not that bad. It is ONE inch wider than a Z06. That is assuming the 79 was realy a misprint as stated by 2 inches by some here. It is a concept car with exagerated Z06 like fenders... And we hear it may get a little thinner. So far Im pretty happy with the dimensions at this point...

PacerX

Anywhere but the front seat legroom.

A huge selling point for the F4's over the Mudstain was the fact that bigger guys could be comfortable in a Camaro, but Ferd's knee bolsters were too aggressive so we couldn't comfortably fit in one. Even with the seat tracks all the way back and a significant recline angle on the seat, my knees still rested on the knee bolsters. All Ferd's from the era are like that - it was an anti-submarining/belt management strategy on Ferd's part.

GM figured out a better way to do the same thing - and should stick with it... if need be, go with pyrotechnic pretensioners on the belt system to prevent the above.

Because the seating position in the F5 looks to be more upright, I would implore GM to remember the above statement. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT make me eat the knee bolsters or have to rest the outside of my right leg on some rock-hard part of the center console while driving (which starts to hurt after a while).

The F4's, once in them, were phenominally comfortable if you were a relatively big guy.

PacerX

I'm pretty sure GTO is actually a midsize, roughly comparable dimensionally to a Malibu and smaller than an Impala.

5thgen69camaro

Excellent point on the front leg room. But I disagree with the rest. Im 6'3 and thought it was very uncomfortable. From the wide tunnel my foot got hung on accelerating to the plastic box that caught the top of my foot decelerating to having to lean the seat back because Im tall and looking up at stop lights through the t- tops, very uncomfortable chairs, to the wide long doors and door sills. Having to manuver to use the auxillary power outlet or to get something out of the glove box. By the way my knees are almost in the dash of my 98 on passenger side. The 69 has better head room without having to put the seat back in the first place. But to each their own. Im sure production seats will be adjustable. I want back seats and the trunk personally.