I'd be happy to.

Would someone who feels the current car is near perfect, feel less passionate about the car if it had qualities which would also make me feel it were near perfect? Would they like it less if it had more direct steering? Would they like it less if it were more nimble? More tidy? If the interior had a more useable design? If greater visibility gave you greater situational awareness?

I can't imagine anyone who loves the current car, not loving it more if it had all that. Maybe I'm wrong though.....

 

how would those things you mentioned, change the price of the car? im sure that may be where the people would not appreciate the change.

 

Just a guess: not much. A great design (interior or exterior) doesn't cost any more than a questionable one, and that's all it would take to fix the visibility and interior issues. The rest are all suspension/chassis tuning, which costs the same amount no matter how stiff/soft you make the car.

 

I didn't vote, but if I did, I'd probably give it a 6 or perhaps a 7. Biggest downers for me are size/bulk/weight (can't really separate them) and the IRS (sorry...I'm a knuckle-dragging drag racer). Visibility is an issue too, but having only sat in the car and not actually driven it (should have in Atlanta - doh!), I can't really offer a valid opinion. Interior is fine with me. I'm not that picky about materials, and so long as its functional, I'm happy. Exterior is very sharp, even if the rear of the car leaves a bit to be desired (though not nearly as distracting as the Mustang's rear). Who wouldn't love the LS3? The single best part of the 2010 Camaro, IMHO.

 

maybe it wouldnt cost anything more if it were done from the beginning. so your saying that even changing the existing model now to fix these issues, that the cost of the car would NOT go up? i find that very hard to believe that it wouldnt change the cost. what would have kept them from doing these changes in the first place then?

 

Regarding the interior and exterior design, they were just going a different direction. The current car's price was set in a way that will pay off the initial cost of design in some certain amount of time. Then, because they sold a higher percentage of V8s than planned, profits were higher than expected, so it will be paid off sooner than expected. A future revision would work the same way -- each car pays for itself. Sometimes there are loss leaders and other such exceptions to the rule, but in general that's how it works. If they make the changes before the car has paid for its own design, then they'd have to bake the balance of the previous design into the cost of the new one, which may very well increase the bottom line. Anyway, I think Charlie was asking about doing it better in the first place, rather than revising the current car now, after the fact.

Regarding the suspension/chassis tuning, Fbodfather has said repeatedly that they didn't do it up front so that they could leave room on the table for future, higher-peformance models (like a Z28), although he hasn't been quite so explicit about it.

 

1) No money.
2) No well suited architecture.
3) Not a priority with BK looming.


All of those things now go on the 6th gen wish list.

 

no money? how would using different bushings for suspension, take that much money compared to what they spent already? or whatever little changes may be needed for the suspension to get it handling right. cant be much more on top of what they already had into it.

 

As I said above, the chassis/suspension tuning stuff was a decision made in order to leave room for one or more higher-performance models above the SS.

Charlie's comment applies to the rest of the stuff we're talking about.

 

Bushings? If that's all it needed, that would be easy.

You have to understand that GM did this car on the cheap. If GM had money to spend or wasn't operating as a wounded company, either this car would have not been on Zeta or Zeta would have been massively re-engineered (probably costing nearly as much as a new architecture) for the Camaro.

Money was spent to freshen Zeta to Zeta 2 specs, but that was more to fit within GM's North American manufacturing bill of process and share an assembly line with a couple hundred thousand Zeta 2 sedans, rather than creating a better Camaro. GM did spend afew bucks moving Camaro's wheels around compared to the Commodore, but never spent the really BIG BUCKS on re-engineering the floorpan to create proper 2+2 ergonomics (BTW, Mustang did spend money here).

Considering the shoestring budget GM had to work with and the management dysfunction that they had to navigate through with this car, it's really amazing that it came out as good as it did, even if it doesn't push everyone's buttons. But most of it's shortcomings are baked in. They'll require a next gen re-do to rectify.

 

i say bushings because it seems to be the fix to alot of the camaros suspension/handling problems.

 

I'd imagine that those are some badass bushings.

 

The Aussies are really, really bad at bushings.

 

well what else is the issue with it then?

 

Potentially one, some, or all of the following......

overall weight
shock valving
spring rates
anti-roll bar sizes
front tire width vs rear tire width
alignment specs
suspension geometry
center of gravity location
roll center location
wheelbase