I think you are sort of missing my point.

Hard core performance buyers who are looking for speed and handling are probably not going to buy a Genesis or a G37 but when you start expanding the equation to the more general buying public that is looking for a good, "sporty" two door coupe I think both the G37 and the Genesis would have to be included. If one is going by price alone then the Genesis has to be seriously considered.

I'm also sure that in day to day living or on long trips, the Genesis is probably easier to live with than probably any other on my list except perhaps the G37.

I don't love the Genesis and likely would not buy one for myself but 300+ horse power in a decent looking two door coupe, I think, has to be taken seriously even if it's not quite in the same league as the others.

 

Uhm....no.

I have a copy of a '97 Camaro Z28 road test, where R&T was singing the praises of the re-designed interior, appreciating the ergonomics and yes, even the soft-touch material on the upper dash. In its day, it was a decent design.

Too monotone today, and too plasticky today...but fine THEN. This one is simply odd looking TODAY.

 

Come on! The Camaro may be bigger than you expected. It may be slightly larger than the current Mustang. It may be slightly larger than the 3rd and 4th gen Camaros. But to call it "disturbingly huge" is just rubbish.

I did not hear anyone make a comment on how large the car is during the HRPT.

If you want huge, go look at some 1970s Cadillacs and Lincolns.

What you really mean to say is that the Camaro is bigger than you want it to be. That is fine. But calling it huge is not accurate.

 

The Camaro exceeded my expectations. Now I have to preface that with being on this site I was fully aware of the cars dimensions, 20" wheels, high beltline and curb weight. So I wasn't expecting a 4th gen size or type car. We knew it was Zeta based so I was thinking more Challenger size anyway. We can debate if that is the Camaros’ true heritage but not here. In that regard I found the car to be better than expected.

I found the interior to be better than I thought also. Again after the spy pics here and the concept I knew what the style was going to be. I was more looking into it's livability and fit and finish. Yes the materials are just slightly better than the 4th gen in many places but the seats and color contrast options are much better. I was lucky to see the inferno orange accent interior and that with the ambient lighting helps to add some depth and character to what is an odd style.

 

Interior styling, how the materials feel, fit and finish, etc are one thing but I wonder how well the interior will hold up over time?

One of the things I had issues with in my fourth generation car were things like carpet and seat leather cracking/loosing color, etc. Certainly, the quality of the materials come into play but "feel" of the materials such as whether materials are hard plastic or soft for example; don't necessarily speak to actual quality.

I have no idea if the fifth generation will be better in that regard or not but I hope it will.

 

Roadrace professionals with the ability and latitude within the rules to completely rebuild the car will probably fare just fine. But that's not really what we're talking about here, is it?


Frankly, based on the evidence at hand and witnessing similar vehicles in action, the car won't have a chance.

Using the C&D info:

Despite a 111 hp advantage and larger rear tires, 0-60 is only very slightly in Camaro's favor: 4.8 vs 4.9.... why?
Despite MUCH smaller hardware on the Mustang, braking is dead even.... why?
Despite smaller rear tires, skidpad numbers are significantly in favor of the Mustang: 0.85 vs 0.92.... why?

I really would have liked to see the lane change numbers. That one would be key. I have little doubt it would be another big advantage for the Mustang. Why? Find the reason for the "whys" above and you'll know.

In any case, this is moot. The serious autocross guys, those more experienced and mechanically astute than myself, have discussed the specifications and have almost universally shunned the car as a potential competitor. It is simply too big and too heavy without enough tire. These are things that just can't be addressed within the SCCA Solo rulebook for the streetable classes.

As a side note, these big wheels kill a car in competition. There is very little in the way of race rubber in those sizes and what does exist is prohibitively expensive.

 

Actually, I'll stick with that. In my mind it's accurate. The Mustang is larger than I would want. The Camaro is simply huge. Challenger type huge.

I wouldn't want to get into a pissing contest regarding what you've heard or what I've heard from the crowd. But, I can tell you that I hear lots of people commenting on it's size.

 

I have yet to actually see one in person.

 

I would agree but let's keep in mind that there are two types of autocrossers.

One type, probably the "serious" type you refer to above, is the guy (or girl) who wants to seriously compete in their class; not just on their local level but perhaps even in multiple regions/nationally. These are the folks who spend appreciable money on tires or whatever else they can do within the limitations of their class.

The other type is the person who simply wants to improve his or her skills in their particular car and have a good time doing it.

The first group is likely not going to choose the new Camaro; the other group will buy the car because they like it and won't mind if it isn't the absolute best choice for the class they compete in.

 

I don't know, I saw one on the road just the other day and it looked basically like it was styled at the same time they did the Tiburon back in the late 90's. It doesn't look like one of today's cars.

 

I don't think the one I sat in had a sunroof, but then again, I didn't pay much attention since I wouldn't want a sunroof anyway.

 

Camaro is closer to a Mustang than a Challenger. Challenger is 7" longer than Camaro, while Camaro is only 2" longer than the Mustang. All are give or take an inch apart in width. Sorry, I just got to keep busting your chops on this one

 

Oh absolutely, I agree completely that The Car can and will be autocrossed. Many drivers will have fun autocrossing The Car. But then again, a Ford Lightning can be autocrossed and the driver can have fun. He or she just won't be competitive. What if someone's idea of fun is actually competing with their new car and not just taking glorified fun runs?

Therefore, the issue as it has been brought up here is, will it be as successful? Will it "make its mark" as the past gens have? I say it won't.

The reality of this is aimed at those here who are so quick to scream and assert heresy when someone dares to suggest that The Car is not the pinnacle of all automotive achievement. They simply have nothing to back up their empty predictions of dominance and gathering storm clouds. My opinions are at least based in fact and actual results where theirs largely appear to be the result of blind, unquestioning loyalty to the brand. Honestly, to some extent I understand the sentiment because I too am a Camaro fan. But because I am also a competitor and a critical thinker, I just cringe when I see stuff like that.

If you don't care about competing, fine. Ignore me. Buy and enjoy your 5th gen. Heck, buy two. Just don't delude yourself into believing that you could mop the floor with any car in your class should you choose to grace the local autocross venue with your presence some weekend.



Finally, I'd like to apologize to the online heretic hunters for periodically intruding upon their little spheres of alternate realities.

 

I remember my room mate's 1997 Z28 when it was new and remember thinking how it was better than the 1993 - 1996 dash, however it wasn't good by any means. The fit was terrible. The vents didn't match the shape of the dash, the a pillar molding didn't fit into the dash right (huge gap), also it had squeaks. The sail panels would come loose where they attached by the doors. Simply put I can't agree that anyone could over look the 4th gens fit and finish issues.

 

Traction and gearing. Camaro's power to weight ratio is superior to Mustang's. Note that after 60 (where traction is a moot point), Camaro runs away.
Traction again. Mustang w/ Track Pack has more tire up front than Camaro SS does. Also, I'd like to see how the Mustang's brakes perform in road race conditions, where fade matters. My guess is that's where the Camaro's Brembo gear will really shine.
Suspension tuning. Mustang w/ Track Pack has beefier swaybars, stiffer spring rates, etc.

Weight plays a part in all of the above too, but stop fooling yourself into thinking it's the only problem.