[gringo]

Originally Posted by fastball

You still don’t make sense. It’s not just the 5th to 6th gen Camaro. Look at every car on, well, the entire planet!

You can’t honestly tell us you think even one of those cars keeps common dimensions when they get a generational re-design. You don’t seriously believe that do you?

Name a car. Any car. Let’s take the Corvette. No two generations similar.

NONE of them have the same dimensions and parts when comparing back-to-back generations of designs.

Well, actually the C2 ('63-'67) and C3 ('68-'82) shared mostly identical chassis components. Only the body was completely redesigned. Yes, the C3 was about 7 inches longer for '68, but that was due to the more pointy nose design on the C3.

Also, the 4th gen F-body shared the same unibody floor pan stamping with the previous 3rd gen F-body. Width was up 1.5" more, but overall length stayed pretty close 193" vs 192" (Camaro models).

Just saying.....

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by waterman

We are all entitled to our opinions. For those of us that are fortunate enough to be a citizen of the USA, we are also guaranteed by the first amendment of The Constitution the right of free speech. We still can't talk about bombs at the airport. For what it's worth, it's probably not beneficial to stink talk about GM on a Camaro site either.

For the most part, the members on these forums are a great group of enthusiasts and all around good people. I have found this site to be a great source of information and have established some great friendships here.

Unfortunately, as in most facets of this life, this site is approximately 1.67% douche bags. They believe that their opinion is the only one that matters. Don't be discouraged.

Don't let the haters here get to you. This should be a place that we can express/share our thoughts opinions and expertise. A place where we all can benefit and if need be, agree to disagree. The diversity here benefits us all... even the DBs.

Sorry for the rant.

, this is not a rant at all. I also understand where the OP is coming from, and commented in his other thread, even though he doesn't have a real case here, he has a right to express his stance. Heck, the world may not actually be a worse place if more people thought like him.

On a tangentially related note, your car buying experience is the epitome of forcefully delayed gratification, and if there's anybody who could legitimately say "Chevy screwed me", you'd probably be one. I can only admire your patience and goodwill and cheer about your journey and hope you are now thoroughly enjoying the monster

[STYLO LT1]

[fastball]

Originally Posted by gringo

Well, actually the C2 ('63-'67) and C3 ('68-'82) shared mostly identical chassis components. Only the body was completely redesigned. Yes, the C3 was about 7 inches longer for '68, but that was due to the more pointy nose design on the C3.

Also, the 4th gen F-body shared the same unibody floor pan stamping with the previous 3rd gen F-body. Width was up 1.5" more, but overall length stayed pretty close 193" vs 192" (Camaro models).

Just saying.....

Subframe and chassis may be similar but there were enough modifications between the generations to make them different.

The point is to the OP’s complaint his accessories don’t fit.

The ATS and current 6th gen Camaro have the EXACT same chassis. There’s enough modifications between the cars to make very few parts compatible.

I’m pretty sure the floor mats from a ‘67 don’t fit in a ‘68

[90503]

Deja-vu all over again?...lol....Can't wait for thread #3...lol..

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=84

[gringo]

Originally Posted by fastball

Subframe and chassis may be similar but there were enough modifications between the generations to make them different.

The point is to the OP’s complaint his accessories don’t fit.

The ATS and current 6th gen Camaro have the EXACT same chassis. There’s enough modifications between the cars to make very few parts compatible.

I’m pretty sure the floor mats from a ‘67 don’t fit in a ‘68

I would think they would, at least a generic set. Also, on the 4th and 3rd gen F-body, those had the same exact floor shape so I'd assume the floor mats (even the GM spec ones) would be compatible on those.

Your original statement claimed that there is absolutely no similarities in dimensions and parts between different generations. I just proved that there is on some platforms.

Just saying.....

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Camaro_QC

As an admin on other car forum, I wouldn't close this thread unless people start to insult others. OP has the right to express his opinion, and he has to live with the fact that people might agree with him, or not. He created this second thread himself, so he wanted to keep discussing about this... if he complained about people being harsh with him... he shouldn't have opened this thread... but he did.

Nice, but the moderator HERE shut his first thread down for the title and the not related post. All the OP did was use the same words in the title to start it up again.

Consistency?

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Camaro_QC

As an admin on other car forum, I wouldn't close this thread unless people start to insult others. OP has the right to express his opinion, and he has to live with the fact that people might agree with him, or not. He created this second thread himself, so he wanted to keep discussing about this... if he complained about people being harsh with him... he shouldn't have opened this thread... but he did.

As a former mod at another car forum, it’s bad form to start another thread on the same topic that a mod/admin closed earlier.

Plus you don’t have the right to free speech on a private forum. The 1st amendment does not protect you here.

[fastball]

Originally Posted by gringo

I would think they would, at least a generic set. Also, on the 4th and 3rd gen F-body, those had the same exact floor shape so I'd assume the floor mats (even the GM spec ones) would be compatible on those.

Your original statement claimed that there is absolutely no similarities in dimensions and parts between different generations. I just proved that there is on some platforms.

Just saying.....

The floor of the 4th gen f bodies had a bigger bump in the passenger foot well for the catalytic converter than the 3rd gen did. The transmission hump was bigger too to accommodate the new for '93 T56 6 speed.

[gringo]

Originally Posted by fastball

The floor of the 4th gen f bodies had a bigger bump in the passenger foot well for the catalytic converter than the 3rd gen did. The transmission hump was bigger too to accommodate the new for '93 T56 6 speed.

Actually, the passenger-side hump was exactly the same since they shared the same exact floor pan.

In fact, the hump was larger than it needed to be on the 4th gen because the early 3rd gens still had the old, but physically larger, pellet style converter when the car was introduced in early '82.

When the free flowing monolythic style first came out on the L69 H.O., the physical size of the converter was made smaller. However, the original hump size in the floor pan remained the same all through the end of 4th gen production.

The transmission hump remain the same as well except for the firewall stamping which was all new on the 4th gen. Also, you can do a T56 swap on a 3rd gen.

[Camaro_QC]

Not the right of free speech? First, people from all around the world uses forums, so USA amendments are not applicable. Of course there are some subjects you can't talk about, but everyone has the right to express their opinion.

[Zack46]

Originally Posted by Camaro_QC

Not the right of free speech? First, people from all around the world uses forums, so USA amendments are not applicable. Of course there are some subjects you can't talk about, but everyone has the right to express their opinion.

[Camaro_QC]

Originally Posted by Zack46

Totally agree. Haha.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Nice, but the moderator HERE shut his first thread down for the title and the not related post. All the OP did was use the same words in the title to start it up again.

Consistency?

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

As a former mod at another car forum, it’s bad form to start another thread on the same topic that a mod/admin closed earlier.

Thank you two for getting it. The subject of discussion was not why I closed the thread. The title, and the ridiculousness that the thread descended into - constantly bumping the bad title back to the top of the forum was the reason.

And now, the EXACT same thing is happening....

Guys - can we let this die, now?