I like those photos a lot more and the I like the interior of the car better than the last. It's kinda' retro' but contemporary to me; I think it's a nice update now that I've seen it in better shots.
I agree here. I think Camaro/Firebird pigeon-holed themselves starting with the 3rd. Gen. I love the 4th. Gens. I've had, but the hump in the floor gets old, the long doors make parking complicated in some more tighter stalls and the windshield view took a little getting used to. I think it was aimed more toward the enthusiast because it just seems some of these were pretty inconvenient things to have to deal with. I could see the passenger get pretty uncomfortable after a while, but these cars were performers, particularly when we got into the LT1s and LS1s. If GM didn't have these little nags, there would've been a larger market for these cars. There was little marketing I can remember too at the time. The biggest thing that stands out in my mind were the Trans Am commercials after the LS1s came out; those were cool. I think they're exposing the car a lot more and better this time around so I think we could see very competitive sales with Mustang and the rest of the cars in this segment, and possibly even higher segments.
My point was
for pushrods and the Viper engine is pushrod, is it not?... Where's this technology you speak of out-performing pushrod engines I've listed? Mustang SOHC and DOHC engines weren't getting the same effciency ratings as the same vintage LS1s/LS6s, nor did they make more power to my knowledge (I've been wrong before). The closest Mod' Motor to make similar power in this vintage was the 5.4L DOHC in the limited Cobra R (underrated at 385). LS6s were underrated at 405 even and I don't think those 5.4s were getting the same efficiency as the LS6s, were they? Where's this technology?... As far as comparing to the Viper V10, GM had a LS1-style V10 in the works that was an easy match for the Viper, but that's not my point in this thread.
What good is technology without a benefit? Just because there are more parts makes it better? Just because it's more complex in it's mechanics makes it superior?
Right... It's how you use that technology because all the tricks in the book don't add up to anything unless they actually produce an advantage or benefit; I just don't see it, because the idea seems good, but, like in many things, the execution is somewhat lacking. If you want to argue techology, I'd point you in the direction of your primative rear axle in comparison to the IRS in Camaro. Unlike the Mod' motors underachieving past (given a few rare examples), I think this tech' will actually
work and be quantifiable. If I'm wrong, learn me. I'm always willing to listen.
I like these ideas. Are you saying that you think the GT500 will carry over into the new car then? That would be pretty scary, considering there's going to be (eventually?) a 400+ horse' BOSS engine and possible another GT500 with probably close to what it makes now. EEK!!! I know I remembered reading the SS numbers were going to be pretty close to GT500 acceleration numbers but I don't believe for a moment that that '500 won't pull away pretty quick given a good driver and good track from an SS, I'm sorry. This will be a good gauge of how effective that IRS is. They're close to the same weight, the '500 has what, at least another 70 RWHP, and the same tranny for the most part and rear end gearing that isn't too different. This will get
very interesting
Did someone mention this current platform not meeting crash tests in the somewhat near future? If so, this could be the point where Mustang catches up with Camaro and the Challenger in terms of mass. Ugh; heavier cars...