The latest Camaro: too big or just right?

irish44j wrote: 20% too big, 30% too heavy. I always laugh when I pull up next to one in my wrx sedan and it's dwarfed by a two-door barge like the new camaro. Not as if the old Camaro was small either, but Chevy should have taken a note from Ford....the Mustang is still reasonable size and ever more agile. Don't even get me started on the abomination that is the new Challenger...

Y'know, I like the way the new challenger looks, but I often tell the wife when we see one- that would be great at 7/8's size or even 3/4. Congrats to the 'vette for not seeming to get too big. The camaro.... too... "transformer'y" for me. Even if it weren't in the movie (that I haven't seen), it looks transformer'y.

they look great on track

Teh E36 M3 wrote: < Congrats to the 'vette for not seeming to get too big.

It's funny.. the vette used to seem HUGE

novaderrik wrote: not all new cars are heavy- the Z06 Corvette is something like 3200 pounds and has 500hp and all the creature comforts you'd ever need, but lacks a rear seat.

Put me in the "new Camaro is too big and porky" camp. With advances in materials and manufacturing methods, curb weights should be moving down, not up. I find it hard to believe that a few airbags weigh 1000 pounds. I'm tempted to believe that big oil is paying automakers to stash half a ton of ballast in each car they build just to keep the profits flowing.

The rear-drive, LS powered beast the wife and I drive weighs about 1,000 pounds MORE than the Camaro and still scoots around surprisingly well...it also has three rows of seats and tons of cargo room.

I agree that the weight is a serious handicap but it can be compensated for, you just need more of everything that yields performance; sticky tires, grabby brakes, proper suspension stiffness and geometry, chassis rigidity and finally power. I think while the new Camaro may post some impressive numbers it has strayed from the original incarnation's purpose and heritage; a powerful, nimble pony car. I'd take a 10% decrease in weight over a 10% increase in power any day. (Says the guy who thinks his 2,600 lb, 130 hp Brighton is "quick" and "nimble".)

You can fight physics but there's no defeating it.

i rarely like anything new.

I pulled up next to one at a light while in my 99 Z28. I was shocked at how much bigger it was than mine. It was like pulling up next to an Impala.

As for all the airbags and mandates increasing weight...you can find a stock 4th gen close to 3300 pounds. How much weight have safety standards actually added since 02, and how much of this extra weight is just the fact that the new Camaro is huge in every dimension?

We seem to be deep into a cycle when people just accept cars being hugely overweight as long as they make good power. I'm all for the power, but I'm waiting for another round of late 70s-style downsizing to American cars.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

Well when you need additional sensors, modules, and brackets for those airbags, it adds up fast. Plus you have to have a "solid" support structure behind that airbag for it to deploy "properly". You ever lifted a newer car dash out yet? I E36 M3 you not they weigh a solid 150#. Most of it is the internal structure for the airbags.

BoostedBrandon wrote: I compare the current objections with weight to peoples problems with fuel injection 30 years ago. Modern cars are fat because of the required 400 airbags, pedestrian bumper height laws, and so on so fourth. Personally, if it's sales can help keep chevrolet in business, than I can't see enough of em. Kwitcherbitchin.

ORLY? Then how are both Mazda and Mercedes coming out with lighter models every cycle?

novaderrik wrote: i'm curious how much mass a guy could shave off a new Camaro just by removing all the useless big brother crap stuff like air bags and other useless things like sound deadener. if one wanted to get really crazy, i bet you could take 1000 pounds off one and still have a usable car with what looks like a complete interior.

I dunno about the Camaro, but the factory Dodge drag racing package Challengers do weigh 1,000Lbs less with all of that stuff removed, a carburetor, and a solid rear axle. Still makes it the heaviest Super Stock car to ever race though...

I have to dispute the Mustang as the smallest and lightest of the bunch at a still hefty 3572lbs it is 300lb less than the Camaro and a huge 600lb less than the Challenger.

Just because your girlfriend is smaller than Rosanne doesn't make her skinny.

The Mustang is nothing like a small car and nothing like the original pony cars. It's on a full sized chassis and it's girth shows.

No kidding. The latest Taurus dwarfs its predecessors. An Odyssey makes a Trailblazer look petite. The European pedestrain-impact regs have re-shaped the proportions of many manufacturers' offerings. The Camaro is way big, but it's a global trend.

forzav12 wrote: Who really cares about how much heavier the new iron is compared to a bunch of clapped out old econo cars and Miatas? Here is a news flash-new cars are heavy. Many of the cars that folks here get all gaga over(Audis, Benzs, BMWs,etc,etc,etc) are damn porky, as well. Most of today's buyers want all the extra crap and the government requires another load of weight adding safety equipment=heavy. Big surprise, a lot of the usual suspects here don't like domestic offerings. BOT, the new Camaro is a pretty good performance bargain, provides very good performance and distinctive looks. I think its attractive from the 3/4 viewpoint and has a pretty acceptable front view(not a fan of the cheap looking grill, though). The direct rear view is awkward, IMO, as the tail lights size and shape do not integrate particularly well. Is it too big and heavy? Yes, but not excessively so considering today's realities.

When I drove one I was amazed how such a huge car could have so little usable room on the inside. I also hated the poor visibility out of the car. But most of all, I hated how the almost new car, with a full load of oil in the morning, ran OUT of oil after 2 co-drivers ran it in an autocross, which is why I can't speak about how the car is to drive aggressively. (V6, automatic, and for the record, no, it wasn't my car!)

From 200yrds away they look fantastic.

From outside, close up they are a hideous abomination.

From the driver's seat they are claustrophobic, cheap, gaudy and feel ponderous and slow even with all that power.

I am not sure how the general could have taken such a good looking drawing, a stout powertrain and missed the mark so badly.

The way they made race cars out of them was to throw the car away and build a tube chassis to set the bodywork on.

I worked @ GM in marketing for 2.5 years and drove many SS's - They are heavy - even modified with good suspension they feel heavy and cumbersome . I had no issues with them @ our spring track day in my 05 Mustang GT (base car 3420#) Weight is the enemy. Even my friends brand new 2011 mustang with the glass roof is a tub and barely able to pull away from my 05. His car comes in @ 3970#!!!

Thats a HuGe B!tch!!

I like the look of the retros (Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, etc.)

They are ALL MUCH too fat.

I've driven the new Mustang. Big disappointment after driving the original Pony cars (it handled like what I expect from a Cadillac. It was like driving an overweight Barcolounger). It's got reasonable power (even with the V6), but can't maneuver to save it's life. Plus, the seats are just shy of an overstuffed bench seat. No support. It did have nice retro interior detailing.

New Camaro is huge and ugly. Bleh.

Disappointment in a new mustang that can hold it's own against a new M3 around a track? Huh? What car do you deem worthy?

too big. I drove a 6 cylinder version, it was ok, steering wheel is terrible looking. A friend just bought an ss convertible, Im waiting to see it. He agrees its heavy but says it makes so much power he doesn't care.

Too big, too heavy and mostly ugly. I see them everywhere so Chevy must be doing something right although they do seem to be mostly older guys driving them.

You can argue that any of the three (Mustang, Camaro and Challenger) offer speed, handling and a performance for the dollar value but they are all just flat out porky.

And they aren't exactly cheap. At the car show at the Fair I found you could buy to totally loaded out STI for the price of a fair to middlin' Mustang.

Someone mentioned the Vette doesn't look big by comparison and someone else mentioned that they needed to be at 7/8 scale.

Make the Vette and the new "pony" cars about 3/4 scale and they'd be about right. I'm thinking someone was looking at Budweiser Clydesdale pony when they were figuring out the proper dimensions.

Way back in the mid '70s I rode in a cousin's Camaro, and thought that it was a huge car...considering how cramped you feel as a passenger. Of course, about the same time Ford was launching the Mustang II.

I like the looks of these 3 cars (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) but I've never cared for cars that make it obvious that styling was THE highest priority and functionality is way down on the list of priorities. I'd love to see a Camaro that is sized somewheres closer to a Miata than an Impala.

BTW, the latest rumor is that the next Mustang (due in 2013) will NOT have retro styling.

We compared a pic of me standing by the trunk of an original Challenger from back in the day to me standing by a new one. The trunk is over 1' higher!

A lot of the issues with the new Camaro is that they were locked into the looks of the original and trying to fit it onto a seriously larger chassis. That made for some compromises.

And yes Integraguy, the Camaro ceased to become a real Camaro and became just a badge name someplace in the 70s. It had lost it's heart and soul and became a corporate nameplate to put onto whatever they thought might make them a little money. But that's happened to a lot of cars. You'd almost rather see them go away than become a joke.

AutoXR wrote: Disappointment in a new mustang that can hold it's own against a new M3 around a track? Huh? What car do you deem worthy?

First off, they didn't run the V6 against the M3. They ran the GT/ 5.0. Big difference, in both suspension and power.

Secondly, I said it had OK power, but is fat and handles porky.

I said it handles like a Cadillac. Cadillacs are pretty fast on the track. They are not firm or fun to drive. They are fat.

Thirdly, I was talking about the driving experience, not a measured track comparison. A stock SVX feels slow too, and is kind of boring to drive, but it's still mighty fast. Sometimes fast isn't so much fun.

I was disappointed. This isn't about what I "deem worthy". Drive one and decide.

But I have spent a lot of time driving original Ponies. They have a great balance of power and agility. This one does not. It has no soul.

I think all three of the "Pony" cars are too big and heavy. I realize a lot of the safety requirements do cause some of the weight, but nearing 2 tons is silly. Heck, the Challenger is as heavy or heavier than my 2000 Dakota R/T (it weights 4140 lbs). That's just not right.