5th gen camaro's are giant!

Sorry I can't seem to get the photo link button to work from my phone.

is this a canoe ?

Nope, but the link from his phone didn't work either.

And, yes they aren't much smaller than my Roadmaster.

i have a pic of my 04 Cavalier next to one at a delaership, and yes, it looks big.. but the dealer has another Camaro parked next to a new Buick LaCrosse and it looks small next to the Buick. i think it's all about the proportions that makes it look bigger than it is.. i believe that the thanks for that go to Europe and their stupid pedestrian safety requirements and USDOT for our stupid passenger ejection and sideways crash standards.

The local dealer had a red one parked next to the original. I had to shake my head and walk away as it really showed how much GM had lost the plot.

m

7pilot wrote: The local dealer had a red one parked next to the original. I had to shake my head and walk away as it really showed how much GM had lost the plot. m

I saw a mids 80s civic parked by a new one....the new Civic is huge. I had to shake my head and walk away as it really showed how much Honda had lost the plot.

I parked my old 87 Toyota 4x4 next to a new Tacoma. I had to shake my head and walk away as it really showed how much Toyota had lost the plot.

I'm being sarcastic, but my point is not too many new cars are getting smaller than the predecessor these days....if any.

But Ford and Dodge are equally big

The Ford is by far the smallest and the lightest. (not saying much when it's in the upper 3000s.)

Modern Crash standards are to blame. You should see my 92 Sentra parked next to a new one.

DoctorBlade wrote: Modern Crash standards are to blame. You should see my 92 Sentra parked next to a new one.

I don't think so. The Fit, Mazda2 etc all meet modern crash standards.

amg_rx7 wrote: I don't think so. The Fit, Mazda2 etc all meet modern crash standards.

Yes, they do, but I think that when a manufacturer makes updates to an existing name, they want to keep the inside the same size (or slightly larger). In order to do this and meet the new standards, the outside dimensions need to increase.

The Fit, 2, Fiesta, etc. all were new (or far removed from the old versions) models specifically catering to a market who wanted a smaller car size.

I notice this dramatically when I compare the doors on my 1994 Exploder (original body style) with a new one. The new ones are nearly twice as thick to deal with all the extra side impact protection structure and air bags in headers (and sound insulation too I imagine). In order to meet new standards, the cars either grow externally, or shrink internally.

Grtechguy wrote:

anybody that likes the new Challenger clearly does not remember or has never seen the original. As this photo illustrates, it just doesn't do justice to the original

novaderrik wrote: i have a pic of my 04 Cavalier next to one at a delaership, and yes, it looks big.. but the dealer has another Camaro parked next to a new Buick LaCrosse and it looks small next to the Buick. i think it's all about the proportions that makes it look bigger than it is.. i believe that the thanks for that go to Europe and their stupid pedestrian safety requirements and USDOT for our stupid passenger ejection and sideways crash standards.

No, it's not the proportions or an optical illusion. They're monsters.

In reply to a401cj:

That, or they just don't like old Challengers. The new ones are better, but still not all that good looking.

Count me in that group. I also think the new Challenger is so vastly superior to anything that went before it in the marque. First and foremost, it has four doors.

There was some moron following me too close last night. I was driving the Miata and his/her headlights were shining right in the back window and mirror. I assumed it was the stereo typical SUV driver, until I turned off and realized it was a Taurus ! Parked right beside a Sable at the mall this morning and it's mirrors are at the height of my hardtop. As for the Challenger, I don't think of it as a pony car because it's essentially a 2-door Chrysler 300. Mustang and Camaro don't need to be that big, but that's what they decided to sell. I'll be looking at the Scion/Subaru GT86 twins at the Detroit Auto Show.

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to a401cj: That, or they just don't like old Challengers. The new ones are better, but still not all that good looking. Count me in that group. I also think the new Challenger is so vastly superior to anything that went before it in the marque. First and foremost, it has four doors.

????

This post makes no sense.

In reply to DeadSkunk:

If you think that's funny, I was driving home from work one day in my GT6 and noticed this odd looking SUV behind me...

Then I looked again and realized it was a Smart.

My wife asked me "What that big thing in front of us?" as we sat at a light in my Miata. It was her first ride in it. The vehicle in front of us was a Ford Focus.

I would be going apeE36 M3 for the new crop of muscle cars if they made them at 3/4 scale. Actually if Ford had made a modern car under a slightly updated (no chrome, ground effects, wider) body of a 1965 Mustang I would already own three of them.

a401cj wrote:

Grtechguy wrote:

anybody that likes the new Challenger clearly does not remember or has never seen the original. As this photo illustrates, it just doesn't do justice to the original

I beg to differ. I've ridden in an original '70 Challenger T/A. I've always loved challengers. The new one is no exception. I like it the most out of all the new "Pony Cars".

Keith wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i have a pic of my 04 Cavalier next to one at a delaership, and yes, it looks big.. but the dealer has another Camaro parked next to a new Buick LaCrosse and it looks small next to the Buick. i think it's all about the proportions that makes it look bigger than it is.. i believe that the thanks for that go to Europe and their stupid pedestrian safety requirements and USDOT for our stupid passenger ejection and sideways crash standards.

No, it's not the proportions or an optical illusion. They're monsters.

you come from the world of little cars and almost everything looks big when compared to a Miata or a Porsche.. for someone like me, they are midsize at best.

Well, it's longer than a 2000 Grand Cherokee. I guess that might be considered a compact in some circles, although it's a real-world example from my own driveway. I also have a 1966 Cadillac and a 3/4 ton Dodge crew cab, but they're pretty small when you compare them to a Mack

How about a minivan? They're pretty large compared to a pony car. Oh, no, wait...

But they are smaller than a Crown Victoria. Just tiny when viewed in that scale.

I have a lowered 4th-gen Camaro, and 5th-gens absolutely dwarf it when they're side by side. The length is roughly similar, but the height of the hood and deck on the new car makes them look like UPS trucks.

And the extra 600 pounds doesn't help, either.

DeadSkunk wrote: There was some moron following me too close last night. I was driving the Miata and his/her headlights were shining right in the back window and mirror. I assumed it was the stereo typical SUV driver, until I turned off and realized it was a Taurus ! Parked right beside a Sable at the mall this morning and it's mirrors are at the height of my hardtop. As for the Challenger, I don't think of it as a pony car because it's essentially a 2-door Chrysler 300. Mustang and Camaro don't need to be that big, but that's what they decided to sell. I'll be looking at the Scion/Subaru GT86 twins at the Detroit Auto Show.

the new Tauruses are gigantic. I was next to one at a light today in my 2009 WRX (not exactly a subcompact itself) and my eyes were about at the level of his doorsill. The Taurus is basically an SUV with a notchback, not a car.

The more notable part about that is that I can fit 5 people just like a Taurus, am as fast or faster than a Taurus, and also have AWD like a Taurus. It may have a bigger trunk, but otherwise I'm not seeing why all that extra size is needed.