GM is off to a good start in ruining the Camaro again

[Petetrucker07]

The '69 Z-28 still does it for me. One-year-only styling, and an obvious inspiration for all the "retro" BS knockoffs. I'll take an original anything over a copy/modded anything any day. Put a hot LS, real brakes and suspension in this thing...and though the '68 is admittedly cleaner, the uniqueness of the '69 appeals to me.

The second car here is perfect. I'm sure it has a modern motor, modern suspension and brakes. I really like the 69s too. They are just way out of my price range. But, I'm very happy to have my 72. Even though it's far from stock and almost not streetable. But a real blast.

[Joe Handley]

If a 4 cylinder Camaro ever came through the dealer for service I never saw it. They've had 3.6 liter V6's until recently. I do remember those SVO Mustangs ...man those were lil' smokers back then for sure!!

IIRC, those were early 3rd gen cars, most had a 2.8l then 3.1l V-6 or a 305ci V-8 that made a screamin' 170hp. I can't imaging how bad that 4 ran in those cars, it was probably a danger to the motoring public at large!

[Rob Hall]

IIRC, those were early 3rd gen cars, most had a 2.8l then 3.1l V-6 or a 305ci V-8 that made a screamin' 170hp. I can't imaging how bad that 4 ran in those cars, it was probably a danger to the motoring public at large!

Yeah, over 30 years ago...I don't think the F-body 4cyl version lasted the whole 3rd gen run...they must not have been high production, not sure if I've seen one since the 80s. The 6th gen 4 will be the 275hp 2.0 turbo I've read, GM's been putting this engine in quite a few models across the range from Chevys to Cadillacs...

Edited May 23, 2015 by Rob Hall

[Ace-Garageguy]

Now don't you be cluttering up his rant with facts and logic!

Yeah, but the whole 4-cylinder thing may seem all Mr.Wizard and oh-so-efficient, but the facts most folks happily overlook are these:

When you put a small engine in a heavy car, force it to make power similar to a V8 by winding it up tight as a cheap watch and adding turbochargers, etc, you're stressing the small engine MUCH more heavily than you'd stress a larger one to get the same result. This tends to make the entire system very complex, complicating service, and shortens the unit's life span.

Couple this with the unfortunate and widely ignored fact that to get as much power out of a small engine as you get from a large one, you simply have to cram as much fuel and air through it as the big one burns. There ain't no free-energy lunch, and the small engine really isn't going to return significantly better fuel economy figures than the larger one.

A small engine in a LIGHT car can be vastly more efficient, but a highly-stressed small engine in a 2-ton hog is an exercise in doublethink.

But yeah, why let the realities of engineering and physics interfere with your opinions, and the feel-good marketing positioning of a small engine?

Edited May 23, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Rob Hall]

Gen 6 is supposed to weigh around 3000lbs w/ the 4...the ATS (same Alpha platform) w/ the 2.0 turbo is a decent performer..

[Ace-Garageguy]

Gen 6 is supposed to weigh around 3000lbs w/ the 4...the ATS (same Alpha platform) w/ the 2.0 turbo is a decent performer..

Ok, a ton-and-a-half hog. Gen-5 was about 3750. you're saying they engineered 750 pounds out of the new one? Good job if they did...really...but I'll have to see it on scales to believe it.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Rob Hall]

Ok, a ton-and-a-half hog. Gen-5 was about 3750. you're saying they engineered 750 pounds out of the new one? Good job if they did...really...but I'll have to see it on scales to believe it.

That was what one of the articles I saw said..I really doubt if it will be that light, maybe 3300-3500lbs. But they are going from the full size Zeta platform to the compact Alpha platform.... The ATS coupe w/ the 2.0 is approx. 3500, and the Camaro sounds like it will be about the same size...3500lbs is pretty light by today's standards..

Edited May 23, 2015 by Rob Hall

[Aaronw]

If a 4 cylinder Camaro ever came through the dealer for service I never saw it. They've had 3.6 liter V6's until recently. I do remember those SVO Mustangs ...man those were lil' smokers back then for sure!!

Sorry I meant 4 and 6 cylinders have been offered every year, but not always both. Camaros have mostly been 6s, but they did have a 4 available in the 3rd gen cars. Mustang has a fairly extensive history of offering a 4 cyl as it was available for 20 years in the 2nd and 3rd gen cars including performance versions with 4 cyl turbo models.

What some people seem to forget is the majority of these cars sold are base models, with less impressive engines not the high performance GT and SS models. A non V-8 Camaro or Mustang is nothing new.

[Krazy Rick]

4th gen was terrible and theyre off to a good start in ruining the 5th

I really hate ALL these "Retro Looking" cars, no matter who pumps them out, their trying to appeal to those 50 & up who are attempting to revisit "the good old days" ...... to me, if it has air bags & a computer and you can't work on the engine - it's garbage, by them sticking a name from the past on these "things" & pretending it's the real deal; is a joke. I don't want gadgets, trinkets, Wi-Fi & all that other jazz; and I like to feel the road - I'll stick with the heavy metal originals & avoid all this new junk / plastic gunk .

Edited May 24, 2015 by Krazy Rick

[PARTSMARTY]

Of the 3 the only one that does anything for me is the challenger.

[BigBad]

I really hate ALL these "Retro Looking" cars, no matter who pumps them out, their trying to appeal to those 50 & up who are attempting to revisit "the good old days" ...... to me, if it has air bags & a computer and you can't work on the engine - it's garbage, by them sticking a name from the past on these "things" & pretending it's the real deal; is a joke. I don't want gadgets, trinkets, Wi-Fi & all that other jazz; and I like to feel the road - I'll stick with the heavy metal originals & avoid all this new junk / plastic gunk .

Too bad it ain't 1970 anymore, huh? When cars used leaded (very environmentally healthy) gas and did 16 MPG on a good day and maybe 20 going downhill. Welll, actually my dad used to drive this 69 Chevelle coupe with a 307 that did 16-20 MPG on the highway... My 97 Z28 does 25MPG highway at 70 MPH regularly. This 2016 455HP Camaro will do over 30 highway when driven in a normal manner, also if you have to hit or get hit by something solid by some real bad luck, lets see who walks away from 1969 or 2016 car. Wellcome to 2015.

Yes I do like the 69 Camaro Z/28 RS very much, definitely the best looking car after the 67 Corvette Stingray. But they can't make cars like these anymore. The 2010-2015 Camaro, 2005-2014 Mustang and the current Challenger are the closest you're going to get. The performance cars we get today from GM-Ford-Chrysler still look better than similar ones coming out from Lexus and Nissan, Mazda and Subaru... I like most Camaros, I drive a clean 97 Z28 and I like this new one as well. You want a mean lookng, take no prisoner Porsche GT3 challenging car? The 2014-15 Z/28 is hard to beat. As far as weight goes... Anyone knows how much a big block 1969 396 (375 gross HP) Camaro SS weigh? This was NOT a 3200 pound car! Try more like 3790.

Another thing about past metal, they rusted just by looking at them, I remember seeing a lot of Valiants, Dusters and Chargers with rust holes on the top of the front fenders... While we're at it, looking a little more closely the panel gaps were not very constant (being polite here), the paint faded within a year or 2, dash top pads cracked within 2 or 3 years, people went thru fabric seat covers way quicker than the cheapest car made in the last 10 years, you absolutely needed to tune up the car every year or it drove like junk! Should I go on?

The "good" old past are exactly that, past and were not as perfect as some people seem to remember.

I like the styling of the 2016 Camaro, but I still have reservations about how I see out of it, until I sit in one.

[unclescott58]

I just need to put my 2 cent in. The next Camaro looks okay to me. My favorite Camaro will always be the '70 - '73. But, it's not the late 60's or early 70's anymore. For a modern car it looks pretty good. Will I buy one? Probably not. But then I would not have purchased a Camaro at time in its past either. It's not right type of car for me.

Scott

[Ace-Garageguy]

Too bad it ain't 1970 anymore, huh? ... As far as weight goes... Anyone knows how much a big block 1969 396 (375 gross HP) Camaro SS weigh? This was NOT a 3200 pound car! Try more like 3790.

Yeah, the old muscle cars were heavy barges too, and the weight was one big reason I fell out of love with American iron in the early '70s...first time I drove a 911S, a roughly 2300 pound car, and realized that even with its 'wimpy' 190hp, as soon as the roads got a little twisty it would run away and hide from the V8 sleds.

I know enough about strength of materials and engineering (rather a lot, actually) to be well aware that the Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers just don't have to be as heavy as they currently are to meet the crash standards, but they're probably overbuilt considerably to satisfy the lawyers...and the legions of potential owners who would rather have the feeling of being 'protected' by their vehicles in crashes than actually learn how to avoid them.

Yeah, welcome to the present.

PS. Just as an example, the EPA rates the current Challenger with the 5.7 and 6-speed at 15 city, 18 combined and 23 highway. Not all that impressive to me (and I tend to believe the EPA numbers are ALWAYS overly optimistic) because my 5.7 1989 GMC truck (which I converted back to a carb when the electronics failed, and is about as efficient aerodynamically as a barn) gets about the same fuel mileage as EPA lists for the Challenger...which costs a LOT more, and is vastly more complicated.

Bottom line, there's no question that modern combustion chamber design and electronic engine management have added power and efficiency to engines worldwide, but overall, I'm just not seeing improvements that really justify the millions of man-hours and billions of dollars spent on vehicle R&D over the fairly recent past.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy