super83Z

Z284ever

Why the rolling eyes?

jg95z28

Probably because your comment was a bit of an exaggeration. My '67 Chevelle wasn't much bigger than my '67 Camaros are. It was primarily longer in the trunk however the cowl heights were similar. While the 5th gen is bigger than my first gens, its not that much bigger and very comparable to the differences between the 2010 and 1971 versions of the Mustang.

bossco

Yeah pretty big, its amazing what a lower belt line and and roof line can do for a car. Put a big splitter (ala' 2000 Cobra R) on the new car and it would win out in the length contest.

Z284ever

What do you mean by bigger? I'm talking about things like cowl and fender height and beltline. The Camaro and Mustang are simply too bulky in that regard - let's throw Challenger in there too.

Was I exaggerating a bit on the Camaro's fender ht? Sure, but not by much. Visually when the two were parked next to each other the difference was shocking.

Z284ever

Me to GM guy: You know, the GT500 will drop about 100 pounds when it gets an AL block.


GM guy to me: Yeah, well we already have an AL block.

teal98

How heavy do we think a Z/28 with the LSA would be? I'm thinking it would close the gap with the Mustang.

The difference in mfr quoted curbe weight between Mustang GT and Camaro SS is 256 pounds. If the Z/28 closes the gap to 125-150, then maybe it actually does pretty well up against the GT500?

The test reports of the tuner Camaros with a supercharger added to the LS3 remarked not only about the added power, but also about the subjective improvements to handling. They also only added about 50 pounds of weight.

Z284ever

Welp, I can only tell you what I've been told. 4100 pounds.

guionM

I was a little too young to appriciate the Trans Am racing series. But I'd be all over it if it returned!

As far as fastest, I think you're right.

As far as handling, I'd have to give the nod to the 1989-1992 Thuinderbird SC (Ford softened the suspension in 93 and again in 95).


IMO, GM made NO MISTAKES with the 5th gen that can't be easily fixed (ie: better interior materials and tighter front bushings and wider P-Zeros up front).

Camaro is what it is. It's a very good car (great in V6 trim). It looks phenominal, goes very quickly, and (again in V6 trim) is a unbeatable value. It's more muscle car than Mustang. It's closer to GTO than GT. Once you look at it in that regard then you really begin to appriciate the Camaro.

Sure it's a little heavy. But you get IRS and you still get great fuel economy with the 300 horse V6, and with the V6 you get the same economy as some import V6s.

Sure the 6th gen will improve on the 5th's shortcoming the way the 5th improved on the 4ths.

But to say that GM should have simply sat on their laurels waiting for some magic miracle chassis to come along is pure ludicris. GM is selling about 5,000 Camaros a month. There's over 60,000 Camaros on the street right now with no signs of letting up. Camaro has generated many millions of much needed dollars for General Motors as well as priceless press as well as becoming the face of the new GM to the public.

Wait around for a "perfect" car?

Seems the public thinks the current Camaro chassis is just fine.

(Just need to fix that damn interior and get some grip up front!)

guionM

While I understand what you are saying, but allow me to add my 2 cents worth.

Not quite true.

It is true that Oshawa was initially planned to make an assortment of Zeta cars, the capacity of the plant can easily be filled with the variations of the Espilon. Keep in mind that the same plant that makes Mustangs also makes FWD Mazda sedans.

Wasn't exactly an outcry over the interior. There was controversy over it, but the best designs do tend to be controversal. I think the issue is more about materials and the blank wall facing the front passenger than anything else.

Pretty false. Here's why.

1. The chassis wasn't nearly modified as much as Ford did with the Lincoln LS/Jaguar XJ chassis to create the Mustang. Ford took as much cost out as they could. IRS became live axle, SLA became struts. New floorpan. Then the mods to convert a 4 door sedan into a 2 door fastback. Creating Camaro almost certainly cost GM less than what Ford spent creating the current Mustang structure.

2. Holden fashioned a new engine/suspension cradle to bring the front wheels forward and used a shortened Zeta floorpan. As far as issues with production methods, there is none. I think you are basing that opinion on the fact that whenever a car maker sets up a new architecture, they need new networks and supply systems. If GM had done a high volume Zeta here such as an Impala or a Buick-Cadillac, they would have had to invest in setting up a whole new network of here in the US. With a relatively low volume car like Camaro, GM simply can utilize many of the same sources as Holden uses... again, GM saves a ton of money.

You are correct that much of Camaro's early sales was due to backup demand of Camaro enthusiasts (who else would pay $5-10K+ markups?). But now that most every Camaro enthusiast who can afford one has one, we're getting into normal sales to regular people who see them, like them, and after checking it out, decide to buy one or not.

Every car goes through a sales cycle. Sporty coupes cycles are nortoriously short. What's hot today turns stale quickly, usually 3-4 years. When it was new, the last Mustang stopped traffic as effectively as the new Camaro does. Now you don't notice them at all. The 4th gen ran through the same thing. So did the Ford Probe. Even the SN95 grew old hella quick.

Camaro is has been getting a free ride (so to speak). Now that regular joes and janes are looking at Camaro, we'll see how it does. My guess is that it will do well.

You're correct.

But don't expect those numbers from Mustang in the near future.

Sure, today's coupes ARE bringing in new buyers fresh out of imports and even some crossovers. However, the core of coupe buyers tend to be restricted to singles and those who are middle age with 2 cars already who already tend to have a loyalty and know what car they want before going into a showroom. It's the younger end that powers the numbers, and they aren't a growing catagory. That means that there's going to be significant canibalism in sales.

Mustang generated some serious numbers at the expense of the 4th gen then the absence of the Camaro. Today you have a Dodge Challenger that suddenly seems to have caught on, you have a Camaro that's a show stopper, a Hyundai that makes a good case for an alternative (if you are looking at 4 cylinders or V6s), and even Toyota is looking to get into this rwd coupe game with what is essentially a modern 240sx.

Camaro isn't a perfect car. But then what car is?

Camaro is too heavy and it's interior materials are old GM, but it looks great outside, gets good fuel economy and can hold it's on on a track.

Mustang is now hella quick, can hold it's own on a track, and carries a V6 that's knocks on an LS1's door till you pass 60 mpg. But the rear end is still ugly, it has a live axle, and you see one almost every block.

Challenger is plenty quick, looks plenty good, has plenty of room, and gets the best V8 fuel economy of the 3 even with a Hemi (look it up), but it's tires have no stick, the dash infront of the driver seems incomplete, and it's the least intresting V6 version of the 3.

91_z28_4me

That wasn't my point. GM had 2 volume RWD chassis (VE and Sigma) in production that could have easily been adapted to Camaro at the time production was ended (2002). GM didn't make a Camaro on them because they had the exclusive production agreement with the CAW for the 4th gen plant. They instead choose to miss out on MANY sales to close a plant that it had put to little product into to keep busy. A Sigma Camaro would have been just as compromised as the Zeta Camaro (the big complaint back in the day IIRC was a tall cowl height and look how that turned out) but would have been able to pull some of those nearly 1 million Mustang sales.

The public thinks BMWs are FWD, that doesn't mean BMW will just start making all its models FWD to save costs does it?

I also contest the comment about supply chain vs production methods. It was mentioned numerous times (by yourself included) that Zeta 2.0 is setup for North American production system and Zeta 1.0 not being able to be built in NA (but obviously working on the AUS line).

Also your argument about Camaro's success riding on the exterior design in the highly style specific and quickly dated sports coupe segment doesn't bold well for the future of the 5th gen (which will only get an interior update and likely a grill/lights exterior update).

My opinions weren't meant to bash the 5th gen at all but to point out that it isn't the end all/be all some make it out to be. It has flaws and mistakes were made. GM needs to acknowledge those mistakes and not make them with the 6th gen. Also honestly as a 29 year old professional who recently graduated from college I should be excited over this car and I am not. I am the target market if there was one. I want to like it but I just don't. The car's interior looks childish and cheezy, the exterior looks great but is just to big for it to fit my definition of Camaro (having owned a 91 z28 and a 97 Monte Carol I have a clear minds eye of sports coupe size). The 2010 and 2011 Mustangs look better to me and seem to have a more complete package.

Z284ever

You are correct. The Camaro was re-engineered to fit GMNA's manufacturing bill of process. That's why it is a Zeta 2 and the Commodore/G8 is Zeta 1. The assemby process is different for either car.

ProudPony

I mean this with 100% positive enthusiasm, and chose your post to comment on because you are a 100% car-man who knows his stuff.

All of your positive comments have to do with speed or quickness.
All of your negative comments are subjective.

When the public at-large looks at a potential car to buy, I HOPE TO GOD-ALMIGHTY that they are thinking about more than this. It sounds like much the same scenario that sent the 4th gen into mothballs for a rest. Seriously... you did it right there and didn't even think about it, and you are the same fellow that has never really said how "fast" your previous Mustang SSP was, but have said many times how "fun" it was to drive, how durable it was, easy to toss around, to play with, fit like a glove, etc. So all the things you talk the most about with your old Mustang have become non-existent in your descriptions of the new one. You too have now been vexxed by the new marketing spin for the new Mustang by the new Ford.

This is EXACTLY why I despise the Mustang becoming the power-monger car it is becoming. It is trying to turn it's appeal towards winning the public over with 1/4-mile stats, 0-60 times, and track numbers instead of sound basics, simple good styling, and economical and practical ownership. Bad deal.

I would 10-FOLD rather someone like guionM make comments like "the interior is awesome", "the car fits in a normal Walmart parking spot and you can get out of it without being a yoga instructor", "I drove it 752 miles and felt great when I got out of it in BFE", "It held my clubs, my suitcase, a cooler of beer, and some hiking gear and I never hit my head on the trunk lid loading it either", "the cockpit fits me like a glove - I see everything, reach everything, and feel comfortable doing it", or this is probably the best one to hear... "I rented one at LAX and had it for the weekend... I simply didn't want to turn it in!"

Let's be honest - for the 100,000,000th time... Sally or Sue just don't care what an IRS thing is, and Bobby and Brad likely don't either - they are just happy to have a new Mustang. When the solid sticks are giving you handling that rivals a Ferrari, and absolutely 100% trouble-free driving for 99.99999% of the cars sold on the street - it's doing fine. Only Mr. Gearhead Performance is interested in the benefits (?) of the IRS system, and the cost/complexity just ain't worth it for those 3 folks. Been there, done it with Cobras of yore, and it ain't come back yet... for a reason.
Fried-okra birthday cake might be "better" for you than regular birthday cake and even made at an equal cost - go sell the upsides of it to a bunch of 10-year-olds...

Last point - you see one every block. Couldn't agree more, and I want it to be 2 or 3 per block if possible. A red one that has white LeMans stripes over the top, aftermarket rims and body kit - followed by a windveil blue convertible with a tan top and tan leather interior with stock argent bullet rims, mach sound system, and the small "Mustang" stripes on the rocker panels, and the 3rd one could be a black V6 with the pony package, 10-spokes, chin spoiler, and tinted windows, or it could be a GT500 in white with guardsman blue stripes. My point here is that I'd love to see each car (especially the base units) as a blank canvas for each person to personalize and take it where they want it. I could look at 1000/day so long as they are all different and have no problem with it at all.

What I see as the big problem here is not that there is competition - there's been competition before... the problem is that Ford is changing the recipe for the car. It's going upscale in every way. Lee Iacocca had a mandate of $1/pound on the very first Mustang offered in 1964 - and it was met. He never said it must have 1hp/ci or have the latest suspension system?!?! The cars were @ $2400 for a 2400-lbs vehicle. They were 170 and 200 inch I6's with 3-spd or autos because they were light and cheap. The first V8 was a 260 ci version in late 1964 - HARDLY a match for the 406-6V Galaxies of 1962 or 1963, or a match for a 427 Galaxie or Thunderbolt from 1963 or 1964 - I PROMISE. Sure Mr Shelby popped-out a Corvette-killer in 1965 with his pumped-up 289 Hi-Po (271hp in a 289 is stout) and a buggy-full of suspension and chassis mods, but how many did he make? How $much$ were they? Those were intended to be image-makers for marketing, not the main bread-and butter units with 50-100 on every dealer's lot. Up until the recent S197 units, there have been base cars that were just good-looking people movers and performance was not a point of interest. They were fairly small, easy to drive, fun to fling around, and economical to own/operate.

Now if I want into a Mustang, I'm going to get 300 hp whether I want it or not (need it or not). The car is definitely "big" again. The car is contented - whether I want it or not. I simply think that this is all moving into a place that is "un-Mustanglike", and it will lead to a slow but certain death if not corrected. I like the work going on with the weight - good start. Now lets shave some inches around the waist (which would help weight tremendously by default), drop that greenhouse a bit, and slide a bunch of the featured crap over into the "options" column and put checkboxes beside them. To the theme of this thread (and not just a wild rant), THIS is what I'm hoping the new Boss is indicating - a beginning for another change. 2014 is a good ways off - I think there's ample time to get the message across.

Guy - please understand my criticism of the car/issues in this post is not aimed at you in any way - don't expect or want you to reply directly, but always love to hear your thoughts. It is my respect for you and your knowledge of cars that made your comments above THAT MUCH MORE MEANINGFUL when I read them, and deserving to use to point out that Mustang is indeed moving into the "performance" car arena instead of the value-driven/sporty-styling/economical car market.

Cheers and Beers to you!

guionM

Bad news Teal. The LSA engine isn't simply an LS3 with a 50 pound aftermarket supercharger strapped to the top.

The block is heavier (and a bit more reinforced), it's internal components are a bit tougher (and as a group, slightly heavier). Then there's the bigger cooling system that holds more water (more weight) not just for the engine that's generating more heat, but also for the air to water intercooler.

Then you go to the drivetrain.

You can bet that the tranny is going to be a bit more robust (and heavier). Those half-shafts and rear differential will be stronger (and a bit heavier). Did we mention the clutch? Bet it's going to be a little heavier as well.

Will the Z28 have thicker brake rotors to resist warping from stopping the heavier car after repeated hot laps around the track? If so, bigger iron rotors equal even more weight.

A bit bigger rims? A bit more weight.

Supercharger? I'd bet the one that GM puts on top of the LSA is tougher than what the aftermarket uses. It's gotta be. It's going to be certified for 200,000 miles. Far longer than the warranty on the aftermarket's version. More weight.

By the time you finish adding 5 pounds here, 2 pounds there, a pound somewhere else, another few pounds somewhere else, and on and on, a 3900 pound Camaro SS can easily turn into a 4100 pound Z28.

To be honest, it would be a minor miracle if the thing weighs less.

But don't simply take our word for it.

Go do a search between the weight that production superchargers add to regular production cars.

The CTS coupe and sedan are perfect examples since both the V6 and V8 are identical to the V6 Camaro and the Z28 engines. Take the difference of their V6 weight versus their "CTSV" weight and add that number to Camaro's V6's weight.

You might want to be sitting when you do this.

bkpliskin

Based purely on the projected power output of both cars, from an acceleration standpoint, the Mustang has no chance. The Mustang will also be considerably cheaper. It has always been the intention of GM to put the Z28 against the GT500. The (re)introduction of the Boss does not change this.