5th gen camaro's are giant!

Keith wrote: 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.

a Grand Cherokee hasn't been big since the very early 80's, and even then they were small for a "big" truck. Camaros, Mustangs, and Challengers have never been "small" cars by modern standards. it's not what they are. and now that they are based on chassis designed for full size cars, they are gonna be bigger than they probably should be.

novaderrik wrote: a Grand Cherokee hasn't been big since the very early 80's, and even then they were small for a "big" truck. Camaros, Mustangs, and Challengers have never been "small" cars by modern standards. it's not what they are. and now that they are based on chassis designed for full size cars, they are gonna be bigger than they probably should be.

I think the Challenger was fairly porkey back in the day, but the Mustang was a compact car when it was introduced in 1964, and the original Camaro was mid-size at the most. Mustangs didn't really get "big" until 1969 (and then inflated straight into bloat hell in 1971.)

That's comparing to their contemporaries though, these days it's even worse. Pretty much everything on the road dwarfs an original Mustang, and they weighed in at well under 3000 lbs to boot. No, Ford probably couldn't've matched that with the new ones, but they could have at least tried...

I'll just hotlink this pic from my post on page 1:

Cotton wrote:

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.

It's not only the size. It is the slab sided design and the weight of the thing, even compared to it's contemporaries in nostalgia. At least the MOPAR designers kept things proportional despite Safety restrictions. I'm sure the Civic is also a behemoth, but I was comparing a car to its progenitor, and not to a taxi for OAPs.

m

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.

You're thinking Charger.

irish44j wrote:

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.

Quick, go race a new SHO.

Jay wrote:

novaderrik wrote: a Grand Cherokee hasn't been big since the very early 80's, and even then they were small for a "big" truck. Camaros, Mustangs, and Challengers have never been "small" cars by modern standards. it's not what they are. and now that they are based on chassis designed for full size cars, they are gonna be bigger than they probably should be.

I think the Challenger was fairly porkey back in the day, but the Mustang was a *compact* car when it was introduced in 1964, and the original Camaro was mid-size at the most. Mustangs didn't really get "big" until 1969 (and then inflated straight into bloat hell in 1971.) That's comparing to their contemporaries though, these days it's even worse. Pretty much everything on the road dwarfs an original Mustang, and they weighed in at well under 3000 lbs to boot. No, Ford probably couldn't've matched that with the new ones, but they could have at least *tried*... I'll just hotlink this pic from my post on page 1:

True, with one small exception:

~1993 Mustang is actually SHORTER than a 1993 Celica.

They're fairly small cars. Not overly light, but not the behemoths we get today.

The link from the OP (which is of a Challenger, not the new Camaro):

amg_rx7 wrote:

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.

yeah, and the Fit is larger in every respect than the original Accord... longer, wider, taller, and heavier

If you were to put the Chrysler 300 front end clip on the Challenger, and add one of those "Bentley" grills you would have a cut rate facsimile of a Bentley Continental GT ! Nice to covering four states in a day.

IIRC the Taurus SHO weighs almost 2 TONS!!!

In reply to Grtechguy:

All said, ultimate fail. Look back to 1967

nderwater wrote: The link from the OP (which is of a Challenger, not the new Camaro):

This picture, to me, demonstrates the point: forget the length/width/height. The BULKINESS of these new cars is what's incredible. The overall volume of the new Challenger/Camaro must be insane compared to even this 4th gen.

Will wrote:

nderwater wrote: The link from the OP (which is of a Challenger, not the new Camaro):

This picture, to me, demonstrates the point: forget the length/width/height. The BULKINESS of these new cars is what's incredible. The overall volume of the new Challenger/Camaro must be insane compared to even this 4th gen.

Even sitting inside my 4th gen I wonder why the car is so big, with such little useful interior space. Next to a new model its looks tiny.

rotard wrote:

irish44j wrote:

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.

Quick, go race a new SHO.

ugh....I certainly am not touting a WRX as any kind of ultimate performance car or anything. It's not. But if you're suggesting that an SHO would "smoke" one as it seems, you should probably think again...

the car mags (yeah, I know...magazine racing) put the 2011 SHO at a 13.7 second 1/4 mile, and the 2009 wrx at 13.4 in the 1/4. And that's stock.

SHO is 365hp and 350tq at the crank, and weighs 4400lbs WRX is known to be about 280hp and 270tq at the crank (under-advertised to protect STi sales), and weighs under 3200lbs. So p/w is similar for both stock for stock. Magazine and forum racing is lame, and numbers on paper mean nothing, but at worst it's a dead heat in a drag, and not even a contest in anything with curves involved, or stopping is involved, or general handling is involved. Simply too much mass.

But it certainly will be able to embarrass the guys in the Camrys and Accords...

I spent most of high school drooling over my neighbor's first-generation SHO, so this isn't brand or model hate speaking, it's disdain for today's monster-size cars.

(neither here nor there, but my wrx is lightly tuned putting down 265whp and 280wtq. Assuming 15- 20% drivetrain loss on an AWD car, I'm around 310-320hp and 325-335tq at the crank. I'm pretty confident that my car could walk an SHO with little difficulty, except from perhaps a top-gear highway roll.) So I'll be happy to go race one ;)

sethmeister4 wrote: IIRC the Taurus SHO weighs almost 2 TONS!!!

well over 2 tons, actually...

motomad1 wrote: In reply to Grtechguy: Look back to 1967

I was much smaller in 1967.

Part of the reason I'm so interested in the FR-S:

I like the Mustang too, but it's a much larger, heavier car than I'm used to (coming from small Japanese sports cars and hot hatches). It still wears its weight much better than the battleship USS Camaro, plus you can see out the windows better and actually find a comfy seat setting!

Same song, different verse.

irish44j wrote:

rotard wrote:

irish44j wrote:

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.

Quick, go race a new SHO.

ugh....I certainly am not touting a WRX as any kind of ultimate performance car or anything. It's not. But if you're suggesting that an SHO would "smoke" one as it seems, you should probably think again... the car mags (yeah, I know...magazine racing) put the 2011 SHO at a 13.7 second 1/4 mile, and the 2009 wrx at 13.4 in the 1/4. And that's stock. SHO is 365hp and 350tq at the crank, and weighs 4400lbs WRX is known to be about 280hp and 270tq at the crank (under-advertised to protect STi sales), and weighs under 3200lbs. So p/w is similar for both stock for stock. Magazine and forum racing is lame, and numbers on paper mean nothing, but at worst it's a dead heat in a drag, and not even a contest in anything with curves involved, or stopping is involved, or general handling is involved. Simply too much mass. But it certainly will be able to embarrass the guys in the Camrys and Accords... I spent most of high school drooling over my neighbor's first-generation SHO, so this isn't brand or model hate speaking, it's disdain for today's monster-size cars. (neither here nor there, but my wrx is lightly tuned putting down 265whp and 280wtq. Assuming 15- 20% drivetrain loss on an AWD car, I'm around 310-320hp and 325-335tq at the crank. I'm pretty confident that *my* car could walk an SHO with little difficulty, except from perhaps a top-gear highway roll.) So I'll be happy to go race one ;)

You'd have to get the 5 Azn Hunnies to stop leaving snail trails on the WRX long enough to race.

rotard wrote:

irish44j wrote:

rotard wrote:

irish44j wrote:

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.

Quick, go race a new SHO.

ugh....I certainly am not touting a WRX as any kind of ultimate performance car or anything. It's not. But if you're suggesting that an SHO would "smoke" one as it seems, you should probably think again... the car mags (yeah, I know...magazine racing) put the 2011 SHO at a 13.7 second 1/4 mile, and the 2009 wrx at 13.4 in the 1/4. And that's stock. SHO is 365hp and 350tq at the crank, and weighs 4400lbs WRX is known to be about 280hp and 270tq at the crank (under-advertised to protect STi sales), and weighs under 3200lbs. So p/w is similar for both stock for stock. Magazine and forum racing is lame, and numbers on paper mean nothing, but at worst it's a dead heat in a drag, and not even a contest in anything with curves involved, or stopping is involved, or general handling is involved. Simply too much mass. But it certainly will be able to embarrass the guys in the Camrys and Accords... I spent most of high school drooling over my neighbor's first-generation SHO, so this isn't brand or model hate speaking, it's disdain for today's monster-size cars. (neither here nor there, but my wrx is lightly tuned putting down 265whp and 280wtq. Assuming 15- 20% drivetrain loss on an AWD car, I'm around 310-320hp and 325-335tq at the crank. I'm pretty confident that *my* car could walk an SHO with little difficulty, except from perhaps a top-gear highway roll.) So I'll be happy to go race one ;)

You'd have to get the 5 Azn Hunnies to stop leaving snail trails on the WRX long enough to race.

I have an '09 (yeah, the one that looks like a Corolla not a wrx), stock-looking, with boring Rota wheels. All my mods are under the skin or beneath the car. The Azn Hunnies don't even notice my car. Even the local ricer civics don't seem to notice it at stoplights.... As Han Solo said, "she don't look like much, but she's got it when it counts"

The camaro and mustang were some fo the smallest domestic cars being sold at the time they were introduced. The hew versions might not be much larger than their classic versions but everything else has shrunk, and now they are some of the largest cars offered by their respective companies. My personal theory is that they wanted the new versions to allow egress of the buyers after they get their artificial hip implant, as most they seem to be targeted so the same buyers, 50 years later.

RexSeven wrote: Part of the reason I'm so interested in the FR-S:

I was going to mention the FR-S/FT-86/BRZ/Toybaru, but I didn't want to sound like a broken record (I'm becoming a bit of a fanboy).

If it lives up to my admittedly inflated expectations, I want to buy one new, and drive it until the wheels fall off.

are there any of those comparison pics with a new Camaro overlaid onto a new Mustang overlaid onto a new Challenger, maybe with some of their namesakes from years past?

Just for fun.

novaderrik wrote: are there any of those comparison pics with a new Camaro overlaid onto a new Mustang overlaid onto a new Challenger, maybe with some of their namesakes from years past?

I've done the Camaro/Challenger one in the past, but the cars are very close in size other than a bit of extra length on the Mopar. There's a whole thread of them - look for car overlays.