I agree with heritage cues, and yet retaining some modern designs. I do not agree at all with going fully retro, If I buy a new car I want it to look like a new car. If I wanted a 60's styling car, then I'd buy a car from the 60's. I also think T-tops need to stay, it just wouldn't be the same Camaro without them. I do not think a 4 cylinder should ever be put in a Camaro ever again. If you want a 4 cylinder, get a Cavailer or whatever GM has at the time. The 6 cylinder should be the base model. I believe there should be a RS package that has performance options, not just ground effects, gears, and exhaust. The RS should target the younger crowd, because most cannot afford the Z. A supercharger, like the ones they made for the 2.4 I-4, should be made for whatever they put in the RS and be avialible at the dealers. Just my 2 cents.

 

Couple of points:

-Say it with me: *Hatch* *Back* It's more practical, usable, and you can fit more stuff in it. I'll never fit a kitchen table or a christmas tree in my Mustang, but the Camaro had no problem.

-Keep the "unusable" rear seat the same size. Make the car smaller, instead. Mustang sized would be great.

-Retro has only been "proven" to work for a couple of years.

-Make it a Targa instead of T-Tops. I can't believe anyone wants that stupid "Burt Reynolds Bar" there. Corvette got rid of it, why can't camaro? This is one 70's legacy that can go, IMHO.

-You can hardly even get a hyundai for 13K. But 24K would be a fabulous price for an entry level Z28/RS

My ideal Camaro is Here:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=59423

 

The hatchback is way more practical than a small trunk, I love mine it is a better use of interior space. You’d be amazed at what will fit back there, and with the seats folded it’s like a station wagon back there. Its main drawback is that the glass is very heavy, I wonder if they could use thinner glass ala Z06.

 

I understand where you are coming from. Yet, I have always seen (fallacy or not) the f-body as more of an all-out performance oriented platform than the Stang, first-gen included. From the beginning Camaro was offered with the Z/28 package and a big block. Performance didn't start with the Mustang until a few years in. The Stang didn't recieve its first real high performance engine (some may argue the 289, but it wasn't really that hot IMO) until the 390 arrived in 67'. I do agree that the first-gen had more of a coupe feel to it than any Camaro that would followed.

You'll have to help me on the years, but to me the 69-74? Mustangs seemed much more sportscar-like than previous models. I wouldn't consider them sport coupes at all. It is after these years that I view the Mustang as turning back into more of a sporty coupe.

Anyways, here's a to a pair of very cool cars with great histories.

-Mike

 

If the Camaro had stayed true to the concept of the 1967 original - a bland, undersized Mustang clone - I never would have bought one. To me, the 'real' Camaro lineage didn't start until the F2 premiered in 1970, and it culminated with the last of the F4s. That was when the car became more than a rebodied Nova, with good handling and breaking. The Mustang just remained Falcon in drag, becoming a sad Pinto coupe and then a chopped Fairmont.

It all comes down to the difference between a "pony car" and a "muscle car. The Camaro became more extreme over time, the closest thing to a 4-seat Corvette. In comparison, the Mustang remained true to form - a car that wouldn't offend the timid.

 

I would like to see the Camaro come back with modern styling instead of retro. I believe that Camaro did keep its heritage very well, infact better than Mustang.
I would like to see the 5th gen with a trunk for a coupe bodystyle instead of the hatchback bodystyle.
T-Tops are a part of Camaro heritage, and they should be back, or maybe an upgrade to a targa top.
I like retro when its done right, like the Thunderbird. but when done wrong like the Mustang concept in my opinion looks like a mushed over body style with to much retro trying hint at to many different generations of the past.
Some things I've always thought was the Camaro had a rep of being a poor mans Vette, and over the years the Vette leaped forward and the Camaro should have followed one-step behind but did not other than in the power train dept.
I would have loved to seen things like IRS, active suspension, HUD display, more supportive bucket seats, OnStar, XM radio.

 

I had to LOL at the "Third Gen superiority"!! Thats right Proud and every1 else here too!! I discuss pretty much all the topics. We talk about so many things here and learn some too.

The 5th Gen must have cues but not be a done over design as the new M*****g is. It has to look "Camaro" with a new flare and not lose touch the way 4ths did.

Base: (Base Car) V6
RS: (Mid Model) V6, V8 option
SS: (Top Model) V8, powerfull, more luxuries, more compliant handling
Z28: (Special Top Model) V8, no compromise in any area of performace, except an Auto and average comfort options. An all-out street ruler, the car the top M*****g wishes it was, with no / in Z28.

An there has to be T-Tops and a hatchback.

 

Some good ideas you have but: no LX Camaro--I don't think GM have ever used that desination. Besides--thats FORD

How about the 3.5L DOHC 20Valve 5 cyl for a base engine? 220hp
RS--4800 V8 290hp
Z/28 6.0 (like a Z06--restrict colurs options, trans ect) 400hp
SS-- 5.3 (loaded) 330hp

Make it a bit smaller--and drop 200lbs--more useable luggage area and interioe packaging.

oh yeah---NO T-TOPS--haha love pising off all the T-top guys.

I've had 3 rd gen Camaros--all solid roof.
Had an 87 Monte SS and a 86 5L LX with T-roofs--never fotr real excited about the whole thing.

 

How about the 3.5L DOHC 20Valve for a base engine? 220hp
SS-- 6.0 -- 400hp
Z/28-- 5.3 -- 330hp

Make it a bit smaller--and drop 200lbs--more useable luggage area and interioe packaging.

 

Hey--thats what I said. Great minds think alike eh?

 

Your knowledge of the Mustang is very good! '67 was the first year for FE-block engines... which not only included the 390 you mentioned, but also the 428 P.I. and the legendary 427 SOHC. I would like to point out that the K-code 289 was a mechanical-lifter, high-compression engine that put out a conservative 271hp - not bad for a N/A 289 engine. It was available in the first year model (1964.5) models, and could be backed with a top-loader 4-spd and 3.89 or 4:11 Detroit Locker. These 'lil Mustangs were BAD - at @2800lbs... REAL BAD. This was the same engine Shelby selected for his GT 350 Mustangs (which boasted 306hp due to the addition of tri-Y headers Ford wouldn't put on factory cars) AND also in the Shelby Cobra 289.

Again, you are very astute! "69 saw the intro of the Boss 302 and Boss 429 - which were new levels of performance from Ford directly. 1969 also saw the introduction of the Mach 1 which was also a higher performer than the 'GT' it eventually killed off! The performance years died with the '73 model though. 1974 was the ONLY year the Mustang didn't even offer a V8! So no performance there!!! I still respectfully disagree about the "sporty" thing though... even though Ford offered these higher performance cars in the model lineup, there were FAR more 200ci-I6s and 302-2Vs sold than the big bad boys. They also introduced the Grande - which was "all luxury" in the ponycar skin - offering cloth seats, power equipment, convenience group options, etc. Again, catering to the "one-for-everybody" theme, I think Ford covered all the bases from high performer to sporty coupe to even luxury sport coupe.

And there's my FAVORITE part of your post!!!
Allow me to reciprocate...


Hey WERM - GREAT IDEA about the targa top! I personally would prefer a targa over traditional T's. I have 3 T-top cars, and though I think they are great, I do have issues with them. Mostly the awkwardness of cantilevering them in and out, and then theres the issues with the 800,973 individual components that it takes to keep them working properly like inner seals, outer seals, gutters, trim, handles, pins, sockets, latches, hooks, bag, clips, etc, etc.

 

I too would love to see a targa F, but how would you store it? The storage system in the F4 is awesome. It's what steered me away from doing a 92 Heritage.

I'm not familiar with the storage with the C4/C5 or last gen Supra. Care to enlighten? If done properly, this would be the best choice (seeing as how everyone wants to do one)

 

Ill cry if there is a 4 cylinder option. I dont want to see another Iron Duke, they've tarnished my generation's Camaro enough, I dont want my kids to have to endour the same chastisments I get.

Past cues, but definitely 100% absolutely no full blown retro car. I dont want to see it happen on the 5th gen or any other future generations. Its such a predictible way out that its not what the Camaro needs. When the car rolls out at the 2006 NAIAS with Bobby behind the wheel I want people to say "God damn that's a sharp looking car" not "Damn that really looks like a 69 Camaro." You lose all shock value with retro since you've already seen the car. It doesnt grow on people because if it hasnt grown on them in the past 35 years it never will.

And just make the god damn car sturdy. When I go over a bump I dont want to feel the damn body flexing.

But they gotta keep three things.

1. When you hammer it off a light you have to get that rush of excitment that isnt really explainable.

2. When you throw the damn thing into an "oh ****" curve at twice the recommended speed, its gotta let you know that you can take it about 5 mph faster next time.

3. It needs to give you the feeling that theres nothing better you could be doing than driving your car with the top down/off on a nice summer night.

Oh yea, make mine a hatch.