[fastball]

Originally Posted by corsa636

5,3l V8 (with the 8-speed Automatic) sounds good in my ears :-)

I think there is room in the model line-up, when the SS moves upwards with the 10-speed Automatic...

Maybe there a 4-Door Camaro (means a Chevrolet Variant of the ATS) with such an V8 would make sense, especially since the Chevrolet SS is no longer....

You answered your own question with the SS sedan.

Actually the Chevy Caprice PPV also has the Camaro drivetrain and chassis.

[HalfMoon]

Originally Posted by fastball

4th gens were great looking. But their design was also their downfall: they were not going to meet modern safety standards.

Of the many reasons the F-bodies were killed and the Camaro name was dead for 7 years is the old F-body, particularly the A pillar angle and close proximity to the head, could not be modified to meet safety standards without completely re-designing the car anyway.

A-pillar and head safety? Pfft, we have guys in this thread that want to remove standard airbags to save some money, what's a little goose egg on your head if you get in an accident??



P.S. I loved my two 4th gen SS', a 1995 with the Opticrap LT1 and a '99 SS.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by fastball

You answered your own question with the SS sedan.

Actually the Chevy Caprice PPV also has the Camaro drivetrain and chassis.

Caprice PPV is on Zeta( so 5th gen chassis) and uses the 6.0 V8 from the G8 GT.

[maraging]

Rename the thread... Mega thread of bad ideas! lol

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Number 3

By the way is this any admission that the car may not be selling as well as GM had planned? Might be interesting in one of the monthly sales threads.

Interesting isn't it?

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Why would GM care that the Camaro is behind the Mustang in sales, when it's ahead in retail sales which are the important sales?

LOL

I think with this move it is obvious that they are not happy with the overall volume car. Now they are being smart about it though. Instead of going and chasing fleet, they are trying to find a way to increase retail sales. But it does appear to me they are admitting the car is not selling how they anticipated

[RagingHawk]

I really don't get why people are complaining about the design. It looks different enough, go see it in person. Most of those complaining about the car or visibility are those who couldn't afford it and went on a tirade bashing it. Or Ford trolls.

Let's be real it's not going to sell like it did with the introduction of the 5th Gen. Nor is the refreshed Mustang going to sell well. Most people purchase for design. The 5th Gen wowed some people and everyone wanted it, and could have it at an attainable price. Again the V6 model is the issue. It should be made standard like it was before. A 1LS or 2LS(auto) could be had for low to mid 20's.

Ford did well with the 6th Gen Mustang too, again because of design and affordability. Now the V6 is ditched, pricing has gone up, and the sleek design was ditched in favor a weird front fascia. It is not going to sell like it did.

So we have to wait for the 7th gen cars to see if they will go back to that formula and no doubt performance will take a hit if that's the case. I personally am in favor of the 6th gen as it is. Probably will lose interest in the Camaro if the 7th Gen goes through a dramatic departure from the current design language in favor of general masses.

[Zodiac]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Caprice PPV is on Zeta( so 5th gen chassis) and uses the 6.0 V8 from the G8 GT.

Nope. The Caprice uses an L77. The G8 GT used an L76.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by fastball

4th gens were great looking. But their design was also their downfall: they were not going to meet modern safety standards.

Of the many reasons the F-bodies were killed and the Camaro name was dead for 7 years is the old F-body, particularly the A pillar angle and close proximity to the head, could not be modified to meet safety standards without completely re-designing the car anyway.

Corvette meets all standards with a very aggressive a pillar angle. And in aluminum to boot.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Corvette meets all standards with a very aggressive a pillar angle. And in aluminum to boot.

It also has a longer hood (bigger crumple zone) ahead of the A pillar. There's a ton of science wrapped into meeting crash requirement. Things that improve score in one area can kill the score in another area.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Corvette meets all standards with a very aggressive a pillar angle. And in aluminum to boot.

Not as aggressive as the 4th gens. Also, they're engineered COMPLETELY differently.

[GP86]

Oh, so they are doing the thing that they do everytime a mid-cycle refresh is due? Sort of like every other car maker does to each one of their vehicles? How peculiar!!

What a stupid article.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It also has a longer hood (bigger crumple zone) ahead of the A pillar. There's a ton of science wrapped into meeting crash requirement. Things that improve score in one area can kill the score in another area.

Originally Posted by fastball

Not as aggressive as the 4th gens. Also, they're engineered COMPLETELY differently.

I know. Not only was I manager of the team that engineered the a-pillar and rest of the structure for the C6, I also have crashed cars for a living too. So I get it.

My point was the aggressive a-pillar angle on the Gen4 had little to do with whether it could pass crash standards or not. There was much more to it.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I know. Not only was I manager of the team that engineered the a-pillar and rest of the strtucture for the C6, I also have crashed cars for a living too. So I get it.

My point was the aggressive a-pillar angle on the Gen4 had little to do with whether it could pass crash standards or not. There was much more to it.

Wouldn't be surprised if we've met before. For a while I was Powertrain Planning Director. Then I headed up the Competitor Intel team in Planning.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I know. Not only was I manager of the team that engineered the a-pillar and rest of the structure for the C6, I also have crashed cars for a living too. So I get it.

My point was the aggressive a-pillar angle on the Gen4 had little to do with whether it could pass crash standards or not. There was much more to it.

Didn't GM plan to build the next Camaro on the CTS platform, before cancelling it? I thought I read that somewhere. Might have just been an internet rumor.