[shaffe]

What he said ^ competition makes everyone better. and that goes for almost every industry.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I think what everyone is failing to miss is when or if Camaro goes away, development from Ford and FCA for the competing platforms will likely stagnate as they did from 2003-2009 when Camaro was previously cancelled. Competition breeds success/development/better cars out of necessity. They all thrive when all three of the main American muscle cars are doing well. Challenger was released in 2008 to take some of the space the Camaro left behind to the Mustang, but they didn't exactly give us a World beater.



Where that affects guys like you is you won't have as many advanced muscle car/ American options at relatively good prices in the future if Camaro is cancelled again. Besides the Mustang, you could possibly go M4/RS5/C63S coupe/Supra 3.0 type vehicles, but those German brands are quite a bit more money for similar performance, and the Supra is slower in a straight line and similar around a track for similar (but generally higher) money, AND it doesn't have a back seat.



I for one, hope the Camaro becomes successful and lives on. Unfortunately, the numbers so far in 2020 look dismal, and only partially due to Covid (numbers in the 1st quarter before Coronavirus were low, too).



GM needs to re-focus the Camaro and make it more desirable, otherwise, it will probably go away again.

I will do a self-quote from another thread here:

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

...
I did have a thought, though. You know those "pick two" triangles? Here is one to sum all of this up:

- Appeal to enthusiasts
- Appeal to general consumers
- No extra cost for "prestige"

Porsche/Audi would be the first two. You have enthusiasts but also people who would pay extra for them just for the badge, so the profit still works out. Mustang picked the last two.

Camaro picked the first and last items on the list. Historically, this hasn't really been a formula for great sales. It doesn't take away from how good the cars are, but it is what it is.
...

So it really is a lose-lose. Either you get a car that doesn't perform as well or you have a good performer that doesn't sell well and it ends up killing future competitions, as you have described.

I surely hope Camaro to sell better but as I said, it's hard to appeal to general consumers if you don't have that prestige. Corvette does, BMW and Porsche do, just not the Camaro.

If they can make it more practical without sacrificing the performance then sure yeah, go for that, but somehow I doubt that.

Sent from toaster or something

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

If they can make it more practical without sacrificing the performance then sure yeah, go for that, but somehow I doubt that.

Sent from toaster or something

That is the thing is I believe they could have bc some of the shortcomings in the practical area is due to styling decisions.

Seeing the things GM has done with their performance vehicles the last few years I am pretty sure they could have kept all the performance and found a way to give it a useable trunk opening/size

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I will do a self-quote from another thread here:



So it really is a lose-lose. Either you get a car that doesn't perform as well or you have a good performer that doesn't sell well and it ends up killing future competitions, as you have described.

I surely hope Camaro to sell better but as I said, it's hard to appeal to general consumers if you don't have that prestige. Corvette does, BMW and Porsche do, just not the Camaro.

If they can make it more practical without sacrificing the performance then sure yeah, go for that, but somehow I doubt that.

Sent from toaster or something

I agree to an extent. I also agree with Shaffe in that many of the issues are design choices, not engineering/chassis issues. A few items off the top of my head:

Interior ergos: I know you and other enthusiasts don't mind, but a downward tilted screen, low AC vents, map pockets that start behind you, the large double bump above the gauge cluster, etc., gun slit windows, could all be fixed with different design choices.

Visibility: This is a bit more difficult as some of these changes likely slightly affect the rigidity, but I think visibility could be improved without sacrificing much if any performance: Lower the door sills 1/2", raise the roof 1/4 or 3/8", or at least provide a "double bubble" to give more headroom, and raise the seats by 1/4 or 3/8". I know enthusiasts like the low seating position, but general population doesn't prefer that as much. Give the option for a lower "sport" seat and that issue is resolved. Revise the gauge cluster surround to be smaller/lower. Lengthen the rear glass so rear visibility is improved. Bring the top of the windshield slightly further back or shorten the dash/gauge pod. If you look at a top photo of the Camaro and the Mustang, the Camaro roof line starts about even with the back of the gauge pod/dash, while the Mustang has several inches of space between the back of the gauge pod and where the roofline starts. This helps improve front feel and openness - less closed in if you will. Increase rear quarter window size slightly and reduce the fender bump height. Lower trunk height 1/2". Reduce A-pillar bulk. All these small adjustments to a gen 7 Camaro would help.

Look at the difference in roof length in the image below, the Camaro has a longer roof than the Mustang, likely causing a more "bunker" type feel to the car:
https://www.caranddriver.com/photos/...llery/?slide=4

Regarding the trunk - I believe Jim mentioned once that the small opening is due to a chassis decision made that caused the rear of the chassis to be higher up, thus causing the opening to be smaller, but the chassis more rigid. It seems there could be some wiggle room to improve that, and make the rear taillights narrower so that the opening is wider near the back of the car, similar to the Mustang (not a tri bar rear light, just narrower for a better/more usable trunk space).

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

The charts you posted only have one chart that shows torque and horsepower on the same graph. Not to mention the torque scale is twice what the horsepower scale is, so any changes will be shown as half of the actual change, relative to horsepower. That's why the torque curve doesn't seem to drop as significantly.



If there is a 7th gen and that's a big if. Why is a big if? Because the Camaro sales don't justify the investment of a new generation. They don't even justify the development of other 6th gen models.



See, now you are purposely taking my statements out of context to justify your argument. What I actually said is Ford managed to generate a 20 horsepower bump in the 5.0 with minimal development work. GM is not willing to do the same thing. I never said it was a big gain or some ground breaking change.



My Camaro experience is watching the brand die again because GM is not willing to do anything to keep the vehicle relevant and watching blind fanboys do mental gymnastics to justify the lack of development. You can't see the forest for the trees. You hang your hat on magazine testing, while the car dies.

No that's not your Camaro experience, it's a 5th gen. Lol you hang on sales and dramatic model death worries while my personal car is fine and better than the alternative for my needs. There's no fanboism besides yours, regular people don't care about sales, I don't really care about the Camaro brand I care about having the best performance car in the segment. I'll hang on to my magazine performance tests nurmbers and you hang on to your sales numbers to try to take away from that.

And why are you stressing "if there's a 7th gen" as if everybody already knows there likely isn't going to be one and my post clearly eludes do the fact that I know this being that I said "if" and obviously don't care if there isnt. For dramatic effect?

One chart has the torque values on a different scale, the other two don't. Don't know why it matters if one isn't on the same graph if it has the same values and scale, oh it doesnt. Honestly did you even look at it? Forget the one with different scale for the torque(which still clearly shows a different curve) the other two have a different torque curve with far less of a drop than the single chart you posted that you keep trying to hang your hat on for some reason.

Nobody is taking your comments out of context buddy, this is what you said which was wrong to which is what I responded to. I didn't disagree with the fact that it'd be nice to see gm do the same, I agree with that, I simply corrected your erroneous statement about the mustang pulling away after the 1/4 mile and touched on the fact that the 20 extra hp didn't do the Bullit any good.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Outsiders analysis:

The LT1 curves shown are all a bit different, but the dyno curves have something in common: They all fall down to 300 ft-lbs or less by 6500 rpm (redline). This doesn't count the SAE curve Robbybeefcake shows since that only goes to 6000 rpm and is SAE net crank.

I think that both parties are partially correct. The difference in the "softer" curves are that the peak isn't nearly as high. For example:

Bhobbs' curve shows a peak torque of about 415 ft-lbs at 4700 rpm, dropping to 300 @ 6500 rpm, which is a 28% drop.

RBC87 curves show: STP J-607 curve: 380 ft-lbs @ 4700 rpm down to ~290 @ 6500 rpm, which is ~24% drop in torque.
The K&N curve goes from 375 @ 5200 rpm down to 295 @ 6500 rpm, which is about 21.5% drop - flatter than the other two, esp. the Bhobbs curve.

So RBC87 is correct in the curves he shows are less severe drops, but not by a massive amount (esp. the STP J-607 curve at a ~24% drop). The main difference is Bhobbs curve example has a disproportionately high peak torque value. All drop down to 290-300 ft-lbs by 6500 rpm.

Take it with what you want.

Yea the lt1 drops off for sure, never said it didn't. Just not necessarily as disproportionately as the one graph Bhobbs is grasping onto suggests compared to the ls3 as he argued.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by shaffe

What he said ^ competition makes everyone better. and that goes for almost every industry.

This is the only reason to have any care on the sales as a comsumer, for the good of the segment as a whole, but even then as UnknownJinX stated not at the expense of making concessions to end up with a more broadly appealing but ultimately waterwd dowm performance vehicle.

I'm interested to see how the new shared modular vehicle platforms Ford and chevy will be using for their future line up effects performance outside of straight line stuff. I imagine the modularity and modern designs will translate to good performance but not being purpose built for it or with it in mind like in the case of a proprietary sports sedan/coupe chassis will be a hurdle on that end however you slice it.

[LESS1]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I agree to an extent. I also agree with Shaffe in that many of the issues are design choices, not engineering/chassis issues. A few items off the top of my head:

Interior ergos: I know you and other enthusiasts don't mind, but a downward tilted screen, low AC vents, map pockets that start behind you, the large double bump above the gauge cluster, etc., gun slit windows, could all be fixed with different design choices.

Visibility: This is a bit more difficult as some of these changes likely slightly affect the rigidity, but I think visibility could be improved without sacrificing much if any performance: Lower the door sills 1/2", raise the roof 1/4 or 3/8", or at least provide a "double bubble" to give more headroom, and raise the seats by 1/4 or 3/8". I know enthusiasts like the low seating position, but general population doesn't prefer that as much. Give the option for a lower "sport" seat and that issue is resolved. Revise the gauge cluster surround to be smaller/lower. Lengthen the rear glass so rear visibility is improved. Bring the top of the windshield slightly further back or shorten the dash/gauge pod. If you look at a top photo of the Camaro and the Mustang, the Camaro roof line starts about even with the back of the gauge pod/dash, while the Mustang has several inches of space between the back of the gauge pod and where the roofline starts. This helps improve front feel and openness - less closed in if you will. Increase rear quarter window size slightly and reduce the fender bump height. Lower trunk height 1/2". Reduce A-pillar bulk. All these small adjustments to a gen 7 Camaro would help.

Look at the difference in roof length in the image below, the Camaro has a longer roof than the Mustang, likely causing a more "bunker" type feel to the car:
https://www.caranddriver.com/photos/...llery/?slide=4

Regarding the trunk - I believe Jim mentioned once that the small opening is due to a chassis decision made that caused the rear of the chassis to be higher up, thus causing the opening to be smaller, but the chassis more rigid. It seems there could be some wiggle room to improve that, and make the rear taillights narrower so that the opening is wider near the back of the car, similar to the Mustang (not a tri bar rear light, just narrower for a better/more usable trunk space).

The only "issue" is you still trying to point out Camaro's shortcomings that the majority of the folks here don't agree with. As has been pointed out before the Camaro was not necessarily designed for the mass market consumer and is an enthusiasts car. Unlike your Mustnag which is full of performance compromises. Why else are there 14 different variations? To try and compete with the "issue ridden" Camaro. Go pedal your BS where it belongs.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

I agree to an extent. I also agree with Shaffe in that many of the issues are design choices, not engineering/chassis issues. A few items off the top of my head:



Interior ergos: I know you and other enthusiasts don't mind, but a downward tilted screen, low AC vents, map pockets that start behind you, the large double bump above the gauge cluster, etc., gun slit windows, could all be fixed with different design choices.



Visibility: This is a bit more difficult as some of these changes likely slightly affect the rigidity, but I think visibility could be improved without sacrificing much if any performance: Lower the door sills 1/2", raise the roof 1/4 or 3/8", or at least provide a "double bubble" to give more headroom, and raise the seats by 1/4 or 3/8". I know enthusiasts like the low seating position, but general population doesn't prefer that as much. Give the option for a lower "sport" seat and that issue is resolved. Revise the gauge cluster surround to be smaller/lower. Lengthen the rear glass so rear visibility is improved. Bring the top of the windshield slightly further back or shorten the dash/gauge pod. If you look at a top photo of the Camaro and the Mustang, the Camaro roof line starts about even with the back of the gauge pod/dash, while the Mustang has several inches of space between the back of the gauge pod and where the roofline starts. This helps improve front feel and openness - less closed in if you will. Increase rear quarter window size slightly and reduce the fender bump height. Lower trunk height 1/2". Reduce A-pillar bulk. All these small adjustments to a gen 7 Camaro would help.



Look at the difference in roof length in the image below, the Camaro has a longer roof than the Mustang, likely causing a more "bunker" type feel to the car:

https://www.caranddriver.com/photos/...llery/?slide=4



Regarding the trunk - I believe Jim mentioned once that the small opening is due to a chassis decision made that caused the rear of the chassis to be higher up, thus causing the opening to be smaller, but the chassis more rigid. It seems there could be some wiggle room to improve that, and make the rear taillights narrower so that the opening is wider near the back of the car, similar to the Mustang (not a tri bar rear light, just narrower for a better/more usable trunk space).

I agree with most of these points, and yes, I can live with these compromises, but as an average consumer, these could definitely be a problem when it comes to practicality.

Subtle changes like these could go a long way. I was just talking about the visibility with a friend over the weekend and he said that yeah, raising the roofline for about an inch or lowering the beltline by the same amount, which shouldn't change the bodyline too much while giving some improvement for visibility. As I said, if I can have the cake(great handling) and eat it too(better practicality), why not?

Oh and don't forget a sunglasses holder. Another little gripe I have with the car.

Originally Posted by LESS1

The only "issue" is you still trying to point out Camaro's shortcomings that the majority of the folks here don't agree with. As has been pointed out before the Camaro was not necessarily designed for the mass market consumer and is an enthusiasts car. Unlike your Mustnag which is full of performance compromises. Why else are there 14 different variations? To try and compete with the "issue ridden" Camaro. Go pedal your BS where it belongs.

I wouldn't say I don't agree with these issues. They are not a problem for me, but they can be a problem for some more casual drivers and the like.

He has some pretty constructive criticism I am seeing here.

Sent from toaster or something

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

This is the only reason to have any care on the sales as a comsumer, for the good of the segment as a whole, but even then as UnknownJinX stated not at the expense of making concessions to end up with a more broadly appealing but ultimately waterwd dowm performance vehicle.

I'm interested to see how the new shared modular vehicle platforms Ford and chevy will be using for their future line up effects performance outside of straight line stuff. I imagine the modularity and modern designs will translate to good performance but not being purpose built for it or with it in mind like in the case of a proprietary sports sedan/coupe chassis will be a hurdle on that end however you slice it.

I mean, GM built a camaro, a cadillac coupe and sedan and a bigger cadillac sedan off of the same platform. All of them were good performers. I have faith GM could have made the camaro more practical and it wouldn't have sacrificed any performance since most of the compromises were styling related.

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I wouldn't say I don't agree with these issues. They are not a problem for me, but they can be a problem for some more casual drivers and the like.

He has some pretty constructive criticism I am seeing here.

Sent from toaster or something

That's what kind of spirals these threads into pages long debates lol. Someone brings up something that could be a legit issue, but some people act like you were talking bad about their first born lol

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by shaffe

That's what kind of spirals these threads into pages long debates lol. Someone brings up something that could be a legit issue, but some people act like you were talking bad about their first born lol

I don't mind discussions that get somewhere with some good points, AKA constructive critism, but the "Oh muh Camaro is dying" and "Sales suck and therefore the car sucks" posts don't offer anything of value. Also, some of the issues are blown out of proportion.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I agree with most of these points, and yes, I can live with these compromises, but as an average consumer, these could definitely be a problem when it comes to practicality.

Subtle changes like these could go a long way. I was just talking about the visibility with a friend over the weekend and he said that yeah, raising the roofline for about an inch or lowering the beltline by the same amount, which shouldn't change the bodyline too much while giving some improvement for visibility. As I said, if I can have the cake(great handling) and eat it too(better practicality), why not?

Oh and don't forget a sunglasses holder. Another little gripe I have with the car.



I wouldn't say I don't agree with these issues. They are not a problem for me, but they can be a problem for some more casual drivers and the like.

He has some pretty constructive criticism I am seeing here.

Sent from toaster or something

I don't disagree fully either, they are not a problem for me either and many enthusiasts but maybe for some they can be deal breakers.

The crazy thing is that all these "issues" are only marginally better on the Mustang. Maybe the marginal improvements to these make all the difference. I think it's a combo of a few factors.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I mean, GM built a camaro, a cadillac coupe and sedan and a bigger cadillac sedan off of the same platform. All of them were good performers. I have faith GM could have made the camaro more practical and it wouldn't have sacrificed any performance since most of the compromises were styling related.



That's what kind of spirals these threads into pages long debates lol. Someone brings up something that could be a legit issue, but some people act like you were talking bad about their first born lol

I'm not saying they couldn't make a more practical sports car/sedan chassis, but depending on how flexible and multi vehicle dedicated the chassis of a far fetched 7th gen is it may have some short comings on the performance end. Personally I love the styling and understand compromises needed to be made except for the damn trunk opening lol. Our mustang doesn't have much more room, but it's much more easily accessible.

Some people don't mind that the future s650 is rumored to be on the same platform as the explorer because the explorer rides on a pretty sporty platform for an SUV. However that's a compromise as a possible future s650 buyer that worries me and I'd prefer it be on a dedicated car chassis. I get why it's done though.

[LESS1]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I agree with most of these points, and yes, I can live with these compromises, but as an average consumer, these could definitely be a problem when it comes to practicality.

Subtle changes like these could go a long way. I was just talking about the visibility with a friend over the weekend and he said that yeah, raising the roofline for about an inch or lowering the beltline by the same amount, which shouldn't change the bodyline too much while giving some improvement for visibility. As I said, if I can have the cake(great handling) and eat it too(better practicality), why not?

Oh and don't forget a sunglasses holder. Another little gripe I have with the car.




I wouldn't say I don't agree with these issues. They are not a problem for me, but they can be a problem for some more casual drivers and the like.

He has some pretty constructive criticism I am seeing here.

Sent from toaster or something

I disagree with the previously mentioned issues. Now in my case, I'm not 6'2" tall and fit into the car very good so no issues. GM/Chevy built a unique performance/sports car with max performance as a high priority. Which contributed to the overall design and shape of the end result. The resulting Camaro performance set the bar so high and is even more impressive when you consider the number of attempts Frod made to de-thrown the Camaro.

Not sure about you but I am focused entirely on Track performance first and everything else is secondary. In addition, I applaud GM/Chevy for the risk they took in the final design which ended up in the market place. This took guts and could have been a career ender for those involved if this risk didn't pan out.

Taking the suggested "design" queues into consideration and to me, this looks like the Cadillac version of the Alpha platform. As previously mentioned, compared to its peers the 5th and 6th Gen Camaro is a unique product in the marketplace. Given the herd reality we live in today I embrace uniqueness whenever possible. And in this case many more Camaro pros versus cons to ignore for those wanting the best performance car in the segment.

If I wanted a Mustnag I would have bought one. I for one am not going to sit here and listen to "constructive criticism" for a Mustnag fanboy about what needs to be addressed to make the Camaro better. Take your "constructive criticism" and go fix Mustang issues that still exist after multiple design/engineering improvements. In the hopes of finally closing the performance gap between the two platforms instead. One last thing. I cross shopped Frod, BMW, Porsche, and C7 Vette and decided on Camaro. I'm not what you would call brand loyal. When shopping for a track car performance and longevity in between the car/platform becoming irrelevant on track is what I shop for. Also, I try not to get too carried away with modifying my track cars, been there done that, and not interested in the headaches involved when you get too sideways with mods.