This thread is 2-3 days old and this is the first time I read it.

I, too, am growing weary of hearing that the world is collapsing on itself.

I'm 25, and if I've got, at best, 50 years left in me to get done what I need to do here on earth, there is NO TIME to sit around and mope about the **** that's hitting the fan. Especially since those 50 years aren't guaranteed.

I can't say this is the best time for the Camaro to be reborn into the automotive world. But there is a huge gathering of us ready to embrace it with open arms, cheering for its success. The best we can do is speak of its good points, spread the word, show it off, take pride, and be willing to lay down cash for the things we like.

 

It was a mistake to build the Camaro on a big, heavy, luxury sedan platform. Shoulda made it a 2+2/coupe Solstice/Sky. Ecotec 4 base engine, turbo option engine, LS3 SS/Z28/whatever-you-wanna-call-it top model.

3600+ lb. (now we're hearing 4000+ even?!)? Even with a v6 mileage will be poor enough that it will be a problem moving them. It's not the engine that kills the mileage, it's weight and CdA, both of which will be abysmal.

Oh well...

 

Car and Driver doesn't like GM. The last time they reviewed a Camaro and Firebird they likened them to Playboy and Penthouse. They are the ones who sneeringly predicted they would be relegated to the trailer parks of history. That's not an objective performance evaluation, it is simple nastiness.

Car and Driver should not be invited to test the new Camaro. GM should not advertise in Car and Driver

We all forget one thing: Mustang is one of Ford's best selling cars even with the high fuel prices. Why wouldn't a Camaro with better fuel mileage, styling and power sell better? It is up to GM's marketing department to work overtime selling the Camaro as a practical fun car. The current image of it as a gas guzzling muscle car is false and it has been false since the advent of the LS1.

Admittedly, the current executive at GM looks like it won't last. There have been mistakes with the Camaro (building a platform for large RWD vehicles then forcing Camaro to use it), like making it too large, but it's still a great looking car. GM has been slow to slash its workforce and the styling on a lot of its vehicles is bland, generic and almost 80s. Pontiac I believe has suffered the most, with Buick running a close second.

Nevertheless, look at Camaro objectively and you see an aggressively styled car with an economical HO V6 standard. Only people who want the V8 will order the SS package. What is wrong with that? There may be criticisms of GM, but those that target Camaro and Corvette are really just veiled GM haters. Wagoner's legacy for performance has been very good, and with so many lessons under his belt, I don't think it's time to get rid of him.

 

I don't think that's true at all.

And as far as the Camaro and Firebird, C&D has been very good to them. Even after the 4th gen was well passed it's prime, C&D still had kind things to say, while all the the other mags simply wrote them off.

Not allow C&D to test the Camaro? Are you serious? C&D has the most circulation of any other car book in the country.

And regarding Csaba Csera's comments on the Camaro ( and Challenger), you don't think he has a point? I think he's right on. I just can't imagine two ton Camaros selling very briskly once initial demand is met.

 

It would have been a travesty and a slap in the face of Camaro fans everywhere, to make it a 4-cyl 2+2 Solstice clone. Thank God that GM didn't do that!

And I disagree about the engine killing the mileage. Put a too-small engine in a sporty car and people will still get crummy MPG, from having the poor wheezer floored all the time.

The weight of the new Camaro is about what should be expected, for its price point, features, POWER available (which drives the associated weight in structure, brakes, etc) and adherence with multitudinous modern rules and regs. Get over it already. Maybe your yesteryear Datsun has warped your expectations of modern cars

 

I agree completely with Dwarf's opinion of Car&Drivel. I'm still smarting from their review of the 30th Anniversary Trans Am. The couldn't contain their cynicism for the car. The reviewer said he thought it was so gaudy "he wanted to put a sign on it while driving saying 'NOT MY CAR'"

 

Here's what I said:
"It's not the engine that kills the mileage, it's weight and CdA, both of which will be abysmal"

 

It has indeed. I expect modern cars should EASILY be faster, I find it quite amusing that for the most part they are not.

 

You probably have a different perspective than some folks because the last really serious economic recession was before you were born. Keep the optimism up, we'll need it.

Anyway, if you think the auto industry is full of doom & gloom, just be glad you don't work in housing

 

I know what you said. Now I will repeat - I DISAGREE with that. The wrong engine can indeed hurt MPG - for example a too-small engine will be at WOT more than is desired for fuel economy's sake, due to the driver being frustrated with poor acceleration. My point being, there are quite a few factors that affect MPG. Gearing, engine output, multi-speed transmission design (for example the SIX-speed auto in the new Camaro), advanced powertrain controllers, tire pressure monitoring systems such as are standard in the new Camaro, and on and on.

BTW - who appointed you the expert on the new Camaro's CdA? (CdA, for the unaware, is the calculated combination of aero drag coefficient and total frontal area). How do you know, exactly, if the 2010 Camaro's CdA is 'abysmal'? Have you done calculations? ( ).

I believe when people start comparing the new Camaro to, for example, the new Challenger, they are going to realize what a sleek, optimum size it really is for its segment

 

Because we are assuming it will have an assload of frontal area.

 

Based on... what exactly?

This reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_aerodynamics shows the total drag area of the 1993 Camaro was less than that of the 1992 Camry

 

1000 pardons, when you said: "I disagree about the engine killing the mileage" you must have meant to say "I disagree about the engine NOT killing the mileage", no?

A small engine operating at closer to peak power will generally be more efficient than a larger more powerful engine operating at a smaller percentage of its peak power. But my point was that this isn't as important as far as fuel economy goes as light weight and low drag.

That's all fine, but doesn't alter the fact that fuel economy would be much better with lighter weight and less drag.

Big frontal area (a fact) plus less-than-optimal shape (might not be that bad, but certainly could be better) = more drag.

Sleek relative to the new Challenger isn't much to brag about. I've seen minivans that are sleeker than that brick.

 

And the new camaro has how much more frontal area? And how much higher Cd? I don't see how a comparison between a '93 Camaro and a '92 Camry has anything to do with the new Camaro's aerodynamics.

 

The funny thing about all that is in the 1990s people began rebelling against the so-called "jelly bean" effect that had all cars enslaving their styling to aerodynamics. People don't want cars that look like teardrops with wheels any more than they want a brick with wheels.

I think you will be quite surprised by how aerodynamic the new Camaro is, but I don't think it will compete with anything like a 1993 Camaro, probably because nobody cares.