[Martinjlm]

There is a big difference in terms of what a platform or architecture is and what it is called. TLDR...internally a platform is called whatever we want to call it. I say WE because I was in GM Product Portfolio Planning during the run of Gen 5 and Gen 6. Also TLDR regardless of what anyone (internal or external to GM) wants to call them, Gen 5 and Gen 6 bear almost zero correlation to Gen 1 - 4 from a platform / architecture basis. So whatever made an F-Body an F-Body did not exist in the 2010 car. The F in the VIN is homage at best. Ironically, the physical limitations of gen 1-4 platform / architecture is one of the primary reasons the program went dark in 2002.

Originally Posted by 102SS

Well if the body chassis has something to do with it the first Gen 67-69 were the only real F Bodies by your description.

Not really. I wasn't around at the time, but the term "F-Body" was coined with the launch of Gen 1 and continued on through the course of Gen 1 - 4, regardless of actual differences that evolved in the platform.

At the time every platform in GM was referred to by a letter name designation that typically changed when there was substantial change in the architecture. For example, in the late '70s early '80s Buick Regals and Centuries as well as Olds Cutlass, Chevy Monte Carlo, and Pontiac Grand Prix were all A-Bodies.

Lesabre was B-Body, and Electra was C-Body. In the mid '80s when they were downsized, the Regal / Century became G-Body. That included Grand National / GNX. And when they went FWD they became W-Body.

Now keep in mind Lesabre and Electra were built on the same basic chassis on the same assembly line and were basically the same with a small wheelbase / OAL difference, but one was B-body and one was C-body. Just easier to discuss them internally by grouping them into "B" and "C" along with their same-sized Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac counterparts.

After the letter names period, GM moved to Greek letter designations (Alpha, Zeta, Theta, Epsilon and so on). Then after that, Product Portfolio Planning used more cryptic 4-digit coding and then moved to where they are today "Vehicle Set" designations like VSS-F, VSS-R and so on. So Gen 6 Camaros were designated A1SC using the 4-digit cryptic system. Alpha 1st run Short wheelbase low roof Chevrolet. ATS was A1SL and CT4 was A2SL Alpha 2nd run Short wheelbase low roof Cadillac. CT5 was A2LL, first L for Long wheelbase.

Originally Posted by 102SS

...
GM was hindered on what they could do with the car as the Zeta platform was the only RWD car platform remaining

Absolutely!! Well, other than Y-Car (Corvette) and that wasn't happening. There was no one single reason Camaro went away after 2002. There were several reasons that each had to be managed in order for the car to stay in the product plan. I was in Powertrain Portfolio Planning at the time and needed to coordinate with the vehicle teams on what powertrains went into which vehicles. That is how I was internally informed of the when and why of Camaro dropping from the portfolio. Sales was a concern, no doubt. The Ford boys like to believe that the Mustang drove the Camaro into extinction. Couldn't be further from the truth. There were new fuel economy regulations and, more importantly new crash safety requirements that the existing Camaro / Firebird architecture could...NOT...meet... Period. Full stop. End of sentence. Do not pass go.

Product Portfolio Planners ruined a lot of pencils and calculators trying to find a platform home for Camaro but nothing worked. The closest to working was consideration to build the 5th Gen Camaro on the soon-to-be-new Sigma platform. This was at a time where Cadillac was pretty much saying "Not only do we want a unique engine, we want a unique architecture so you're NOT using OUR architecture for a Chevrolet. Stop asking". They were still a bit miffed that Northstar got stretched to include V8 and V6 variants for Oldsmobile, so they really held to their guns on using Sigma for Camaro. Same story for a Sigma based Buick Park Avenue, though that did get built for China.

It was about this time that Bob Lutz came back to GM. He and my boss's boss, Tom Stephens - VP Powertrain, got together and developed a scheme to import the Holden Monaro from GM Australia and sell it as Pontiac GTO. This was basically a precursor to adapting the Holden Commodore's Zeta platform to underpin the 5th Gen Camaro. Ed Welburn, VP - Design literally parked his 1st Gen Camaro convertible in the Design Center and directed his team to deliver a modernized version of the car. Lutz, Stephens, and Welburn were the driving force behind bringing the Camaro back. Al Oppenheiser and his team were the driving force behind putting the metal to the ground.

Originally Posted by 102SS

A lot of chopping cutting and narrowing got the car down in size and weight from its Aussie cousins but it was still bigger and heavier than any previous Camaro and the Zeta 2 chassis was born.

The car was a smash hit

YUP!!!

Originally Posted by 102SS

and helped save GM

ehhhhh <cough> Escalade <cough>

Originally Posted by 102SS

The 6th Gen was a clean sheet design that borrowed heavily from the 5th on styling cues but shrunk in size and weight for the first time in the cars history.

The cars handling/ performance and Alpha chassis received rave reviews from the automotive press but sales dropped significantly from the Gen 5.

With Lutz / Stephens / Welburn throwing their weight behind it, Cadillac had zero legs to stand on to demand that Alpha be Cadillac only. In fact, all Product Planning business cases indicated that the only way for Alpha to move forward as a business case and give Cadillac a true 3-Series capable competitor was to thin the costs by including higher volume non-Cadillac brand(s) on the platform. So Cadillac agreed, as if they had a choice.