[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by edco

Styling
Could one say I hope Ford does not go MadMax like Chevy with the Camaro?
Undercarriage
Soft? They already bounced an '08 Mustang down the stairs in San Francisco on the Bullitt route. It made it to water front and went airborne off the flats. Yes it sparked out on the landings but the drive shaft, exhaust, oil and trans pans, and wheel alignment held intact. Plastic chin took a hit. I have owned two stangs 1970 and 2007. The under carriages are Ford truck tough. Neither rides as "soft" as Gen 5 Camaro. That is because they are Mustangs.

Could a Gen 5 Camaro do that? I think the stamped sheet steel IRS control arms would fold up like a lawn chair and never see the water front. Unlike a solid rear axle, the differential is geometrical exposed, you may lose the lube or ring gear. The four rear CVS joints are built for radial loads, they may separate with high shock axial loads. This is one route where a 20" rim. 4000#, IRS, 112" wb car does not pay off. Soft? When the 15 stang comes out-check the IRS construction, compare it Gen 5 Camaro, blind bet-it will not be anything like the Gen 5 IRS. It will be Ford truck tough. All you have to do is get on your hands knees.

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

What are you talking about? Is this some kind of funny sarcasm? Nobody meant this when they used the word "soft"....I sure didn't. Nobody has even mentioned any of this.

I agree...HUH??? Mad Max...double HUH???

The "soft" conversation was in regards the final look of the Mustang compared to the drawings.

BTW, the Camaro is built like a tank! Pete (from what was Pedders) mentioned this numerous times in developing their suspension for the 5Gen.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Doc

Yeah I did. I got those pics from an email sent to me by someone who's niece was one of the test pilots. She failed to mention it was for a movie. I pretty much don't go to movies so I didn't see it or know about it. From things I've seen and know about stealth programs though, it certainly was done in the style of the way they do things.

Here's a much better example of form following pure function then; and this one is so "dated" it's unbelievable!

Attachment 608642

Kelly Johnson started out with the goal to make the fastest plane in the skies and by the time they were done pursuing that goal, that was the shape they finished with... over 50 years ago. The SR-71; my personal all-time favorite and definitely one of the most beautiful aircraft ever produced. That's what I mean when I say "can't we have both?". Start with the performance and usability goals like Mark Stielow did with the Z/28, THEN put a shape around it. Even though he was already working with the shape of a Camaro, he and his team are clearly the ones who came up with the changes in the front, the back and the aero pieces. Put him and his guys together with the Design Studio team and let him be in charge of creating the 7th gen Camaro. Make it great! And keep the thing hidden so there are NO spy shots or leaked images; use a shell system that allows them to attach fake body panels around the outside to make it look like either a current model of something or a generic nothing so nobody who sees it has a clue what's underneath. Zebra stripes and black shroud coverings just don't cut it.

Start with the goals of a great driver and passenger experience (front seats) and go from there. We've already seen how good Mark is at pursuing a function; let him have a crack at the 7th gen. He's a long time Camaro enthusiast who's made many a customized Camaro, so if anybody would do it right, it would be him.

Always thought that was cool...still do!

[edco]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

What are you talking about? Is this some kind of funny sarcasm? Nobody meant this when they used the word "soft"....I sure didn't. Nobody has even mentioned any of this.

I responded to the following jp23rockstar quote:

Originally Posted by jp23rockstar View Post
All I can hope is Chevy doesn't go soft like Ford went with the Mustang.

Not meant for you KMP. Your posts are interesting, well researched, educating, and the type that makes these forums fun. I replied to your post about styling with the concept sketches. I had a different take and expressed it, that does not make me right or you wrong. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I think this site has more intelligent posters than the equivalent mustang site. I always respect the other guys car. He has money pride and joy in it. I have that in mine. Ford had a super idea with retro in '05. The Mustang got a lot better after GM launched Gen 5 in '09. I learn more from people who don't think like me than from people who do. I respect the Camaro, and consider it a land mark in muscle car history. But like a '14 Camaro buyer wrote here last month, "there is no perfect car." Beating on the differences is entertaining. Driving competing vehicles, does not mean we don't have a lot in common. Good luck and I enjoy your take on things.

[edco]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

I agree...HUH??? Mad Max...double HUH???

The "soft" conversation was in regards the final look of the Mustang compared to the drawings.

BTW, the Camaro is built like a tank! Pete (from what was Pedders) mentioned this numerous times in developing their suspension for the 5Gen.

BTW, I yield to your knowledge about Gen 5 development. I don't have that. I thought the Gen 5 platform was developed by Holden in Australia. Holden used the Pontiac G8 chassis. Gen 5 Camaro prototype was a G8 minus two wb inches and two doors. I did get on hands knees hips and side to study the Gen 5 rear suspension. Army tank does not come to mind. The control arms are stamped sheet steel and too long to be strong. For very little added cost, they could be 2.0" dia. chromoly steel tubular with threaded spherical rod ends. That may not even change the weight. You get alignment adjustment and much stronger arms. I specifically looked for trimming points in the Gen 5 IRS. Did not see any. Perhaps with the car on a lift and one on his feet the rear end is easier to study. On this site in a technical forum, a Camaro driver lost-control went off road-bent his IRS. He feels, after repair, his car is minus 100HP and asking why. I learned this from Coast Driveline (supplied a 4.0" torque tube alum drive shaft for my GT) every 1 degree of angle on a U or CVS joint absorbs 5HP. Camaro has four rear CVS joints. 4 degrees of misalignment = 80 RWHP loss. If a body shop did his repair, they used a tape measure and dead blow hammers to straighten the control arms. To the average knuckle dragger, 4 degrees looks good as straight. I think what happened to the guys performance is the IRS is bent. If that is what dirt does, what is ski jumping your Camaro on concrete going to do? Is IRS great?. Do not have a sideways event or get in a ditch. There is no perfect car or suspension. What problems do solid rears have that IRS solves? I can name major problems that IRS has that solid axles never have. NASCAR-all cars, Ford 9.0" solid rear axle by rule. Are those cars fast?
Z/28, 1LE, ZL1 are hyperperformance and IRS, I suspect the components are radically different from SS and RS. Does Chevy have any tech bulletins for Gen 5 IRS alignment? All I know is what I saw laying on the ground, I suspect that suspension will not take much abuse. Face it, nobody on this site is going to do what Steve McQueen did in Bullitt with their car and that includes me.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by edco

I yield to your knowledge about Gen 5 development. I don't have that. I thought the Gen 5 platform was developed by Holden in Australia. Holden used the Pontiac G8 chassis. Gen 5 Camaro prototype was a G8 minus two wb inches and two doors. I did get on hands knees hips and side to study the Gen 5 rear suspension. Army tank does not come to mind. The control arms are stamped sheet steel and too long to be strong. For very little added cost, they could be 2.0" dia. chromoly steel tubular with threaded spherical rod ends. That may not even change the weight. You get alignment adjustment and much stronger arms. I specifically looked for trimming points in the Gen 5 IRS. Did not see any. Perhaps with the car on a lift and one on his feet the rear end is easier to study. On this Gen5 site in a technical forum, a Gen 5 driver lost-control went off road-bent his IRS. He feels, after repair, his car is minus 100HP and asking why. I learned this from Coast Driveline (supplied a 4.0" torque tube alum drive shaft for my GT) every 1 degree of angle on a U-joint or CVS joint cost 5HP. Gen 5 IRS-four CVS joints in rear drive. 4 degrees of misalignment = 80 HP deduction from RWHP. If a body shop did his repair, they used a tape measure and dead blow hammers to straighten the control arms, to average knuckle dragger, 4 degrees looks good as straight. I think what happened to the guys performance is the IRS is skewed. Is IRS great?. Do not have a sideways event or get in a ditch. There is no perfect car or suspension. What problems do solid rears have that IRS solves? I can name major problems that IRS has that solid axles never have. NASCAR-all cars, Ford 9.0" solid rear axle by rule. Are those cars fast?
I know Z/28, 1LE, ZL1 are hyperperformance and IRS, but I suspect the components are radically different from SS and RS Gen 5s. Does Chevy have any tech bulletins for Gen 5 IRS alignment? All I know is what I saw laying on the ground, I suspect that suspension will not take much abuse. Face it, nobody on this site is going to do what Steve McQueen did in Bullitt with their car and that includes me.

Sorry I'm a road and track guy not a drag strip guy. I don't follow the abuse the strip puts on the car. I do know the ZL1 is built for that. I follow more the 1LE and Z/28 hence my referral to Justice Pete.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by edco

I responded to the following jp23rockstar quote:

Originally Posted by jp23rockstar View Post
All I can hope is Chevy doesn't go soft like Ford went with the Mustang.

Not meant for you KMP. Your posts are interesting, well researched, educating, and the type that makes these forums fun. I replied to your post about styling with the concept sketches. I had a different take and expressed it, that does not make me right or you wrong. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. I think this site has more intelligent posters than the equivalent mustang site. I always respect the other guys car. He has money pride and joy in it. I have that in mine. Ford had a super idea with retro in '05. The Mustang got a lot better after GM launched Gen 5 in '09. I learn more from people who don't think like me than from people who do. I respect the Camaro, and consider it a land mark in muscle car history. But like a '14 Camaro buyer wrote here last month, "there is no perfect car." Beating on the differences is entertaining. Driving competing vehicles, does not mean we don't have a lot in common. Good luck and I enjoy your take on things.

No worries...

[edco]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

Sorry I'm a road and track guy not a drag strip guy. I don't follow the abuse the strip puts on the car. I do know the ZL1 is built for that. I follow more the 1LE and Z/28 hence my referral to Justice Pete.

We are the same. I have never smoked my tires or attended a drag race. It is bad for the life of the car. The road courses we rally on in Missouri are tougher on suspensions than a drag strip. You can't break the speed limit, the terrain will not let you. There are no shoulders and the trees are just two yards away.

In '92 in snow, not performance driving, I put my Cougar XR7 in a ditch. It was a grand to get that 3860# IRS, 5.0 V8 running straight again. IRS is fine as long you stay between the lines. In that IRS Cougar I did RR crossings at 15mph or slower. In the GT I don't worry about them. That is my point about the words soft and Mustang being combined.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by edco

We are the same. I have never smoked my tires or attended a drag race. It is bad for the life of the car. The road courses we rally on in Missouri are tougher on suspensions than a drag strip. You can't break the speed limit, the terrain will not let you. There are no shoulders and the trees are just two yards away.

In '92 in snow, not performance driving, I put my Cougar XR7 in a ditch. It was a grand to get that 3860# IRS, 5.0 V8 running straight again. IRS is fine as long you stay between the lines. In that IRS Cougar I did RR crossings at 15mph or slower. In the GT I don't worry about them. That is my point about the words soft and Mustang being combined.

Got cha.

The word "soft" was only regarding its looks, especially after seeing the renderings.

[Sesiom Summers]

I just hope this 6 gen don't take any references from 2th gen... the new camaro should have just stick a straight and strong American muscle design, no soft line design like a euro car, and that's all what 2th gen is ...

then again they made it right with the 3th gen, straight lines, and good and aggressive design... and then they screw it up again with the 4 gen (is the same 3th gen lines but smoded), please dont get me wrong (I even have a 4th z28 and I love it)... every camaro gen is nice and different.. is like a color in a rainbow, but you have to admit the 2th and 4th gen are the weakest design compared to 1st, 3th, and 5th gen, but seen what GM done with the C7 and the SS (sedan) Im 110% sure it would be a really good looking car

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Sesiom Summers

I just hope this 6 gen don't take any references from 2th gen... the new camaro should have just stick a straight and strong American muscle design, no soft line design like a euro car, and that's all what 2th gen is ...

then again they made it right with the 3th gen, straight lines, and good and aggressive design... and then they screw it up again with the 4 gen (is the same 3th gen lines but smoded), please dont get me wrong (I even have a 4th z28 and I love it)... every camaro gen is nice and different.. is like a color in a rainbow, but you have to admit the 2th and 4th gen are the weakest design compared to 1st, 3th, and 5th gen, but seen what GM done with the C7 and the SS (sedan) Im 110% sure it would be a really good looking car

Don't worry - I very much doubt they'll be so narrow-minded to design it after the second-gen. I know they stressed the design in the studio....a LOT....they knew they needed to get it right, and knew they needed it to look like a Camaro, and still be striking.

And guess what everyone now thinks a Camaro looks like? The 5th gen.

Regarding your comment in bold above: I agree 1000%. I can't wait to see the 6th gen design, because I'm sure it's going to be phenominal!

[edco]

I don't follow the use of the word soft to describe car styling. Is a Porsche 911 soft? Is a Pontiac G8 soft? Is a 2000 Camaro soft? Is a 2004 Cobra Mustang soft?. Line up all those cars and compare them to the 2015 Mustang. The '15 has sharper cut contours than any of them. I would not describe the next Mustang as soft. Can someone describe what hard is?

[edco]

Originally Posted by Sesiom Summers

I just hope this 6 gen don't take any references from 2th gen... the new camaro should have just stick a straight and strong American muscle design, no soft line design like a euro car, and that's all what 2th gen is ...

then again they made it right with the 3th gen, straight lines, and good and aggressive design... and then they screw it up again with the 4 gen (is the same 3th gen lines but smoded), please dont get me wrong (I even have a 4th z28 and I love it)... every camaro gen is nice and different.. is like a color in a rainbow, but you have to admit the 2th and 4th gen are the weakest design compared to 1st, 3th, and 5th gen, but seen what GM done with the C7 and the SS (sedan) Im 110% sure it would be a really good looking car

Terrific composite pic of Camaro styling. Relative to Mustang Camaro has always been plus size, exception being the 2000-2002. That Camaro has 101" wheelbase, and an engine that trounced anything the stock S95 Mustangs offered. The 2002 Camaro/Firebird out performed Mustang in straight line, and road course driving by large numbers. [Car&Driver, Motor Trend, Road&Track]
However, GM discontinued production, Mustang was out selling both. There were some Mustang specialty editions like Cobra-R, and Cobra that not only bettered Camaro, in the day, they out performed Corvette and Viper. Those were low volume high dollar vehicles I discount, because the average muscle car buyer was not going to buy them.

It is interesting that history repeats itself. When the '67 Camaro came out, I did not drive yet, but got a ride in a new one with an older buddy. It was just bigger everywhere than the Mustang. When Gen5 Camaro came out, same, it was just bigger everywhere than S197 Mustang. Wheels, tires, wb, track, width, length, HP, Torque, weight, gas consumption etc.

There is true '67 style keys in Gen5 Camaro. It will be interesting to see where the Gen 6 Camaro goes. One of the things that hurt Camaro sales eighties, nineties, and the Y2k models was interior quality. GM cut a corner on UV stabilizer additives in the injection molded plastic. There is plenty of plastic in Camaros. It just faded, degraded, cracked, and fell apart. Stereos, speakers, accessories, Hvac, and upholstery were disappointments. I have read some complaints of that sort about Gen5s, but I believe in the main the interior quality is far better than the Camaro history. Today, if you don't build a quality car, it will not sell, there are too many quality choices in the market.

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by edco

Terrific composite pic of Camaro styling. Relative to Mustang Camaro has always been plus size, exception being the 2000-2002. That Camaro has 101" wheelbase, and an engine that trounced anything the stock S95 Mustangs offered. The 2002 Camaro/Firebird out performed Mustang in straight line, and road course driving by large numbers. [Car&Driver, Motor Trend, Road&Track]
However, GM discontinued production, Mustang was out selling both. There were some Mustang specialty editions like Cobra-R, and Cobra that not only bettered Camaro, in the day, they out performed Corvette and Viper. Those were low volume high dollar vehicles I discount, because the average muscle car buyer was not going to buy them.

It is interesting that history repeats itself. When the '67 Camaro came out, I did not drive yet, but got a ride in a new one with an older buddy. It was just bigger everywhere than the Mustang. When Gen5 Camaro came out, same, it was just bigger everywhere than S197 Mustang. Wheels, tires, wb, track, width, length, HP, Torque, weight, gas consumption etc.

There is true '67 style keys in Gen5 Camaro. It will be interesting to see where the Gen 6 Camaro goes. One of the things that hurt Camaro sales eighties, nineties, and the Y2k models was interior quality. GM cut a corner on UV stabilizer additives in the injection molded plastic. There is plenty of plastic in Camaros. It just faded, degraded, cracked, and fell apart. Stereos, speakers, accessories, Hvac, and upholstery were disappointments. I have read some complaints of that sort about Gen5s, but I believe in the main the interior quality is far better than the Camaro history. Today, if you don't build a quality car, it will not sell, there are too many quality choices in the market.

Agree!

[Eich]

I think it's obvious that the 6th gen is going to be based on the incredibly popular 5th gen.

That said, the 2nd gen has always been one of my favorites next to the 1st gen. Some great memories as a teenager with a friend of mine having a '70. Loved the design of that car but it didn't hold up well. Doors too heavy for the hinges, rust, dash coming apart, etc.. I would love to see a modern day version of the 2nd gen done up well.