The Much Anticipated 2009 Chevy Camaro

[mach177]

the mustangs and camaros were never ALL about road handling, most owners enjoy straightline performance, and you cannot beat a solid axle setup for putting the horsepower to the tarmac. which in turn, the cobra irs system pulled over 1 g on a cobra r, which isn't too bad.

[eddiehaskell]

With enough tweaks, a 1987 Mustang can pull 1g....

[jpd80]

And another thread descends into IRS Vs SRA.

[eddiehaskell]

Only on a Ford forum could that happan lol.

[NickF1011]

Only on a Ford forum could that happan lol.

 

Nah...the debate has come down to IRS v SRA in several of the Camaro threads on GMI too.

[ebritt]

There is no need for an IRS in a mustang, untill you get to the top of the line models(400+HP). A V6 stang is just fine with a live axle and it makes it cheaper. That was a rare smart move on Ford's part.

Edited January 30, 2007 by ebritt

[jlsaylor]

All things equal, if the GM V6 is within $1500 of the Mustang - it would be hard to turn down the IRS car.

 

I would prefer an IRS in the Mustang, but the 'all else being equal' bend to this argument takes a lot of faith. The F-body failed because GM didn't see fit to make it a decent car in the modern era, just a fast one. Speed addicted owners could fix any hp defeciency in their Mustang, ridding a Camaro of the ridiculous cat hump in the passenger footwell or living with doors that don;t swing right at two years old is another story altogether.

 

Nothing GM has wrought since indicates that they understand how to put together a car that is as compelling as the Mustang, and as practical, for similar money. The Solstice and Sky are pointed to often enough as an indicator of GM's turn-around, but in reality they get by on looks in a class where the only other player is Mazda. Compared to Mazda's Miata, the Kappa twins are sloppy (could we make them any heavier boys?), impractical (the roof and trunk are both like bad jokes), and not as cheap as GM would like you to believe. Weight aside, their spec sheets are much more impressive than is that of the Miata, yet in terms of real worlds dynamics they are far inferior. This says what we all really knew already. There is more to building a car than throwing impressive-sounding equipment at it and making it pretty.

 

GM has had some impressive efforts with their new sedans and suv's, but it remains to be seen wether they have actually learned anything of value as it relates to building performance cars in this price range. GM is still the one with something to prove here.

[jlsaylor]

And another thread descends into IRS Vs SRA.

 

I know what you mean. It's as though the only thing some people think will determine supremacy in the revived pony cars wars is IRS or the lack thereof. It will be far more interesting than that I'm sure.

[BlackHorse]

It's all going to come down to price just like it did before. Most of the buyers of these cars are not nearly so educated about the internal workings of a modern muscle car as you give them credit for. "It looks good and goes fast." is about where the criteria end. After that it's going to come down to who sells their sports car cheaper. To that end, Ford knows they can get away with a live axle rear. It's performance capabilities aside, the fact remains they could have fit an IRS to the Mustang GT. If you can go purchase a Mazda RX8 for less than or right around 30 thousand with IRS there's no reason Ford couldn't do the same with the Mustang. They left it off for a number of reasons. First, they knew that most drivers would likely never press the car hard enough for an IRS to really make a difference. More importantly, however, a live axle rear end is cheaper to make and put on the car that you are still charging 30 grand for and oh boy that sure makes for a nice fat profit margin. Now I know for you fellas that work for Ford that's a good thing, but to the average consumer, it's not. But then most consumers don't know the difference and don't understand they are actually getting a little ripped off there. Additionally it makes the production line move a lot faster if you don't have to change the suspension type between base model V6 Mustangs and the GT. An IRS would have all different mounting points on the chassis and would require a different process to attach it to the car. That could slow things down a little, but I'm no expert on assembly line process so maybe not. So like I said, in the end it's going to come down to who can make their car cheaper. If GM opts for the IRS and as a result they can't reasonably lower their price below say 27 grand, you watch and see if the price of a Mustang GT doesn't drop back to 26 or 25 grand and still clear profit.

GM is still the one with something to prove here

 

 

What? What do they have to prove? It's just cars my friend. Some people will prefer the GM cars, others the Ford cars, still others will buy Hondas. There is nothing to prove here. We can speculate back and forth about who's better, quote magazines and news stories, the whole nine. But in the end, it's all going to come down to some people will buy Fords, others won't.

[eddiehaskell]

I would prefer an IRS in the Mustang, but the 'all else being equal' bend to this argument takes a lot of faith. The F-body failed because GM didn't see fit to make it a decent car in the modern era, just a fast one. Speed addicted owners could fix any hp defeciency in their Mustang, ridding a Camaro of the ridiculous cat hump in the passenger footwell or living with doors that don;t swing right at two years old is another story altogether.

The fbody had a cat hump - the Mustang had 100 less hp, a 30+ yr old chassis and a suspension setup from the stone age. GM catered to performance and performance doesn't always move cars.

 

Nothing GM has wrought since indicates that they understand how to put together a car that is as compelling as the Mustang, and as practical, for similar money. The Solstice and Sky are pointed to often enough as an indicator of GM's turn-around, but in reality they get by on looks in a class where the only other player is Mazda. Compared to Mazda's Miata, the Kappa twins are sloppy (could we make them any heavier boys?), impractical (the roof and trunk are both like bad jokes), and not as cheap as GM would like you to believe. Weight aside, their spec sheets are much more impressive than is that of the Miata, yet in terms of real worlds dynamics they are far inferior. This says what we all really knew already. There is more to building a car than throwing impressive-sounding equipment at it and making it pretty.

The Soltice/Sky sold about 30,000 units in 2006 - the MX-5 sold about 15,000. Any way you look at it, the kappas are a success - in their first year the dominate a market that had one player for 15 years. A manual top with less trunk space just isn't as big an issue as some people want to believe.

 

The Kappas are heavier because the chassis is much more rigid compared to a MX5 - the cars are also built with a 260/260lb-ft version in mind. The MX-5 comes with what? 166hp. Compare the Solstice curb weight with the S2000 - they are within 50 lbs.

 

The Sostice's performance in SCCA autoX shows how well these cars are engineered. In C-stock, the Solstice came in and dominated the Miata in its first year. The Solstice put up times that were as good as A-stock -- incredible. The Solstice also won SSB. I can't wait to see how the turbo models do!

 

GM has had some impressive efforts with their new sedans and suv's, but it remains to be seen wether they have actually learned anything of value as it relates to building performance cars in this price range. GM is still the one with something to prove here.

You do know that the fbody out sold the Mustang about 17-18 yrs from '67-'02, right?

[Watchdevil]

You do know that the fbody out sold the Mustang about 17-18 yrs from '67-'02, right?

 

Part of the reason F-bodies sold so well was because the Camaro and Firebird had Ferrari looks at Wal-Mart prices. That is not to say the quality was top notch but the drivetrain was virtually bulletproof. It really took off after 1982 when pop culture was influenced by Miami Vice and Magnum PI... No ordinary person could afford a Ferrarri, but you could buy a look-alike.. Just like you could a knock-off of a Members Only jacket.

 

Poor Mustang was saddled with the Pinto origins from 1974-76, then for 1979 it became the Fairmont's Gremlin.. Meaning a short wheelbase small body hatchback version of the Fairmont with very upright squared-off styling that look more like a sedan than a sporty coupe.

 

Magical as it is.. The Mustang did not regain popularity over the Camaro again until the pony emblems were returned to the car...

[Watchdevil]

What? What do they have to prove? It's just cars my friend. Some people will prefer the GM cars, others the Ford cars, still others will buy Hondas. There is nothing to prove here. We can speculate back and forth about who's better, quote magazines and news stories, the whole nine. But in the end, it's all going to come down to some people will buy Fords, others won't.

 

It's the same decades old debate.. Ford Vs. Chevy... It's no different that people rooting for thier favorite teams while berating the opposing team..

 

I am just glad to see very interesting and capable sporty cars on the market...

 

GM does make good cars.. And they are getting a lot better.

[NickF1011]

If you can go purchase a Mazda RX8 for less than or right around 30 thousand with IRS there's no reason Ford couldn't do the same with the Mustang.

 

Now I know for you fellas that work for Ford that's a good thing, but to the average consumer, it's not. But then most consumers don't know the difference and don't understand they are actually getting a little ripped off there.

 

 

I'd feel a little bit more ripped off if I got a weak (twice downrated on power) Renesis rotary under the hood instead of a 4.6 3-valve.

[jlsaylor]

The fbody had a cat hump - the Mustang had 100 less hp, a 30+ yr old chassis and a suspension setup from the stone age. GM catered to performance and performance doesn't always move cars.

 

I see you neglect to mention that the last generation of f-body was based on a platform which traces it's roots back to 1982. Although, I'm sure that those four extra years on the Mustang's chassis made all the difference. Also worth mentioning is the ox-cart axle GM put out back just like Ford. GM's F-Body has a somewhat better sorted IFS, but the points GM loses for a chassis that was an avid flex-flyer even when compared to the Mustang, especially with t-tops, aren't helping the f-body. And the last F-Body had a lot more than a cat hump to cause problems. In a car aimed at tuners, the engine played such a ridiculous peek-a-boo act under the cowl that I've seen professional racers rid themselves of their daily driver Camaros and Firebirds saying that they wanted to mod their car and their F-body wasn't worth the trouble! That goes well beyond simple oversight. The build quality was wretched even by GM's standards. And frankly, the styling was more than simply controversial, most people found them downright ugly.

 

As for having 100hp less.....picking and choosing the years we compare here Beav'? The 99 and newer Mustang GT's came equipped with 260hp, which while still a disadvantage relative to the Camaro was somewhat less than 100hp. By 2003 Ford had closed the gap entirely, and then some, with the Mach-1 and SVT's ringer Cobra. GM never had anything extra in terms of power planned for these model years even if production had continued, but rather than continue losing ground GM simply quit altogether. Somehow that isn't impressive.

 

In the end, the last V-8 Camaro was simply an LT1/LS1 wrapped in the cheapest car GM knew how to build. I might call that a great many things, but some romantic notion that this was a car for the true enthusiast just doesn't wash.

 

The Soltice/Sky sold about 30,000 units in 2006 - the MX-5 sold about 15,000. Any way you look at it, the kappas are a success - in their first year the dominate a market that had one player for 15 years. A manual top with less trunk space just isn't as big an issue as some people want to believe.

 

The Kappas are heavier because the chassis is much more rigid compared to a MX5 - the cars are also built with a 260/260lb-ft version in mind. The MX-5 comes with what? 166hp. Compare the Solstice curb weight with the S2000 - they are within 50 lbs.

 

The Sostice's performance in SCCA autoX shows how well these cars are engineered. In C-stock, the Solstice came in and dominated the Miata in its first year. The Solstice put up times that were as good as A-stock -- incredible. The Solstice also won SSB. I can't wait to see how the turbo models do!

Manual top operation isn't what I'm complaining about since the same is perfect for the class, at least as standard fare. The fact that the Kappa's top is an engineering nightmare that works even worse than it looks, that is a problem. And while no trunk space may not be as unfortunate in this class as some others, it isn't going to help by any means.

 

As for a performance argument. The SCCA Solstices did wonderfully, unfortunately for the vast majority of owners this doesn't generally translate into a superior on road car since you have to get the FE3 suspension package to play and that requires a step up to the GXP or a base car. This might work fine for now where orders outstrip production, but it doesn't really make sense, and is hopelessly short-sighted, since it certainly wont help demand long term. The base motors somewhat crude manner is another sore spot, as is the 5-speed manuals far from slick nature.

 

Yeah, the cars are good looking, they're relatively comfortable for the class, and their dynamics will satisfy most of the crowd actually dropping coin on them in a very limited field of alternatives. But the above list represents some pretty substantial shortcomings. Against a relative ugly car like the Miata, and one with somewhat of a chick car image, this may work fine. The problem for GM is that this isn't likey to work against the Mustang which is one of the better all around cars in production for the money, which is my point. If the Camaro shows up half-baked with the same kind of compromises the Kappa twins possess GM will have serious issues since Fords pony car isn't leaving the door wide open like the Miata has.

 

The Camaro will come out of the gate strong for obvious reasons regardless of execution. But how good it is will determine long term outcome, and this wont be as easy a road to travel as Kappa was.

 

You do know that the fbody out sold the Mustang about 17-18 yrs from '67-'02, right?

 

Remind me.....which one hasn't been around for the last five years again? And why was that?

Edited January 31, 2007 by jlsaylor

[one2gamble]

Is it just me, or is this thing freakin' awesome. I love the current Mustang too and I can't wait to see the special editions in the next few years.

 

I read somewhere (I need to find the link) that GM plans to keep the design, dimensions, almost exactly like the concept's. If this is true, my money will go to GM in 2009.

 

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/

 

 

Its just you, the concept honestly isnt very good

[eddiehaskell]

I see you neglect to mention that the last generation of f-body was based on a platform which traces it's roots back to 1982. Although, I'm sure that those four extra years on the Mustang's chassis made all the difference. Also worth mentioning is the ox-cart axle GM put out back just like Ford. GM's F-Body has a somewhat better sorted IFS, but the points GM loses for a chassis that was an avid flex-flyer, especially with t-tops, aren't helping the f-body. And the last F-Body had a lot more than a cat hump to cause problems. In a car aimed at tuners, the engine played such a ridiculous peek-a-boo act under the cowl that I've seen professional racers rid themselves of their daily driver Camaros and Firebirds saying that they wanted to mod their car and their F-body wasn't worth the trouble! That goes well beyond simple oversight. The build quality was wretched even by GM's standards. And frankly, the styling was more than simply controversial, most people found them downright ugly.

The fbody traced it's roots back to '82 but if you recall, the fbody platform had an extensive revision in 1993 when the 4th gen came out. The platform was also designed for a Camaro and not a Fairmont! On a side note, the '05 Mustang uses the same panhard rod rear suspension setup as the fbody did. The fbody chassis was not flexible as you say - the 4th gen was substantially stiffer than the 3rd gen. The fbodies performance in SCCA T2 is a testament to how well the chassis and suspension worked. The Mustang is NOT competitive. When it comes to handling the fbody is just the superior car. Bottom line.

 

The fbodies engine placement may be a problem for you, but the cam and heads can changed with the engine IN the car. Additionally, the fbody engine is easier to work on compared to Ford's OHC setup. Having the engine set back also helps with weight distribution. The OHV design on the engine also lowered the center the gravity compared with the more top heavy OHC engine used by Ford.

 

As for having 100hp less.....picking and choosing the years we compare here Eddie? The 99 and newer Mustang GT's came equipped with 260hp, which while still a disadvantage relative to the Camaro was somewhat less than 100hp. By 2003 Ford had closed the gap entirely, and then some, with the Mach-1 and SVT's ringer Cobra. GM never had anything extra in terms of power planned for these model years even if production had continued, but rather than continue losing ground GM simply quit altogether. Somehow that isn't impressive.

No sir, not picking and choosing at all. I'm comparing the cars that both companies sold the most of - the Z28/Formula/Trans Am and the GT. I'm glad you brought that up though, because it further supports my point. With GM, you could get the high performance engine in a Z28 for $22,000. With Ford, a person had to buy the limited edition Cobra to get 300hp. The Mustang GT came with 260hp - that is much less power than a equally priced fbody. In 1998 the Mustang GT came with 225hp - that is MUCH MUCH less power than the fbody.

 

As far as 2003 cars (Mach 1/Cobra) and newer - that is really irrelevant because GM didn't have a comparable pony car. I'm sure that GM probably knew years before 2002 that they wouldn't have an fbody for 2003. I'd say they probably knew in '99 or '00 because automakers usually have future products planned well before they are released.

 

In the end, the last V-8 Camaro was simply an LT1/LS1 wrapped in the cheapest car GM knew how to build. I might call that a great many things, but some romantic notion that this was a car for the true enthusiast just doesn't wash.

The fbody was no cheaper than the Mustang. If you are having grand dulusions that the Mustang was the pinnicale of quality - you are SADLY mistaken. That does bring up a few other points though - the fbody had an electric antenna, steering wheel radio controls and hydraulic hood props. The Mustang didn't have any of these features. The Mustang also didn't offer T-Tops or an equal seating position/shifter position.

 

To recap, the fbody had several advantages such as: more power per dollar, better weight distribution, lower center of gravity, better aerodynamics, better rear suspension, better front suspension, better gas mileage, modern features like power antenna, steering wheel controls and hydraulic hood props, better response to modifications(i.e, cam = 400rwhp), better seating position, better shifter position, optional t-tops, stronger T-56 transmission, stronger bottom end and a few other things. I will say that the Mustang had a stronger rear end, but both would need work with slicks.

 

 

Manual top operation isn't what I'm complaining about since the same is perfect for the class, at least as standard fare. The fact that the Kappa's top is an engineering nightmare that works even worse than it looks, that is a problem. And while no trunk space may not be as unfortunate in this class as some others, it isn't going to help by any means.

Do you own a kappa? The top can be lowered in under 30 seconds. That is about as good as a manual can get. Here is someone taking their time and getting it done in 24 seconds!

 

As for a performance argument. The SCCA Solstices did wonderfully, unfortunately for the vast majority of owners this doesn't generally translate into a superior on road car since you have to get the FE3 suspension package to play and that requires a step up to the GXP or a base car. This might work fine for now where orders outstrip production, but it doesn't really make any sense and is short-sighted since it certainly wont help demand long term. The base motors somewhat crude manner is another sore spot.

Not exactly. Grassroots Motorsports did a comparison bewtween the Solstice, MX-5, and a race prepped Miata. The results were as follows:

 

99 Miata Sport (National Level car) 39.363 (225/45/15 Hoosier A3S05)

06 Solstice 39.578 (245/40/18 Hoosier A3S05)

06 MX-5 40.214 (225/45/17 Hoosier A3S05)

 

This was with a base Solstice suspension with NO LSD. The Solstice is no joke when it comes to autoX - it was only 2 tenths behind a national level car in stock form....

 

To further support my point, here are the top finishers in C-stock:

 

C Stock Drivers: 45 Trophies: 12

T 1 168 Kevin Dietz 2006 Pontiac Solstice B Kumho 50.846 50.532 49.958 101.697

[68]Seattle, WA Evolution/ Jims Detail S Northwest 51.831 51.739 55.926(2)

T 2 68 Mike Lillejord 2006 Pontiac Solstice W Kumho 51.171 50.896 50.627 102.830

[168] Redmond, WA Brotherton Cadillac/GMC/ Northwest 52.465 52.355 52.203 (1.133)

T 3 197 Darrin DiSimo 1999 Mazda Miata Wht Hoosier 52.905(1) 51.204 50.593 103.138

[97] Coral Springs, FL Florida Re 52.776 52.763 52.545 (0.308)

T 4 189 Chris Harvey 2006 Pontiac Solstice S Hoosier 51.371 51.368 50.969 103.430

[89] Osceola, IN The Tire Rack - Thanks South Bend 52.592 52.461 52.685 (0.292)

T 5 198 Ryan Buetzer 2002 Toyota MR2 Spyder Kumho 51.499 51.059 51.220 103.511

[98] Long Beach, CA TimBo Racing/Kumho Cal Club R 52.452 53.011 57.756(2) (0.081)

T 6 194 Daniel E Stone 2006 Pontiac Solstice S Hoosier 54.161(1) 51.959 51.198 103.714

[94] Sheridan, IN ST1 Racing Indianapol 52.516 60.020 54.953(1) (0.203)

T 7 90 Tim Herron 2000 Toyota MR2 Spyder Hoosier 52.050 52.308 51.084 103.959

[190] Independence, MO Team Barking Spyder/ For Kansas Cit 53.426 56.968(2) 52.875 (0.245)

T 8 195 Eric J Peterson 1999 Mazda Miata Slv Hoosier 52.141 51.295 51.661 103.992

[95] Hillsborough, NC Timeless Machines North Caro 54.598(1) 52.697 53.078 (0.033)

T 9 86 Timothy P McIntosh, 2006 Pontiac Solstice Z Hoosier 55.354(2) 51.642 51.600 104.063

[186] Berkley, MI GM Performance Division Detroit Re 54.133 52.511 52.463 (0.071)

T10 89 Joe Tharpe 2006 Pontiac Solstice S Hoosier 54.618(2) 54.426(2) 52.672(1) 104.770

[189] Marshalltown, IA The Tire Rack - THANKS N Des Moines 52.098 52.116 54.576(1) (0.707)

T11 193 Bradley Lamont 1999 Mazda Miata Blk Hoosier 51.689 52.195 52.687 104.934

[93] Chicago, IL Chicago Re 53.795 53.476 53.245 (0.164)

T12 186 Steve Bunce 2006 Pontiac Solstice Z Hoosier 52.135 51.744 55.912(2) 105.078

[86] Clarkston, MI GM Performance Division Detroit Re 53.639 53.355 53.334 (0.144)

13 163 Bud Collins 2006 Mazda Miata Red Hoosier 53.700(1) 51.924 52.683 105.210

 

The 6th place finisher Dan Stone, DID NOT have the FE3 suspension and as you can see, he finished MUCH better than the BEST MX-5! He was about 1.5 seconds quicker (an eternity). The Solstice, with any suspension offered by GM would kill the MX-5.

 

The MX-5 just can't overcome being underdamped, soft springs, body roll, ride height, less rigid chassis etc. Most people say when you buy a MX-5 you've gotta pay the "miata tax" which consist of buying new springs and swaybars from Mazda.

 

 

Yeah, the cars are good looking, they're relatively comfortable for the class, and their dynamics will satisfy the crowd dropping coin on them in a very limited field of alternatives. But the above list represents some pretty substantial shortcomings. Against a relative ugly car like the Miata, and one with somewhat of a chick car image, this may work fine.

The biggest drawback to buying a Kappa is the truck space and manual top - like I was saying, this isn't enough to stop people from buying. People want style and the Solstice delivers. Some people want performance and the Solstice delivers there too - especially the turbo models.

 

The problem for GM is that this isn't likey to work against the Mustang which is one of the better all around cars in production for the money, which is my point. If the Camaro shows up half-baked with the same kind of compromises the Kappa twins possess GM will have serious issues since Fords pony car isn't leaving the door wide open like the Miata has.

GM isn't trying to topple Mustang sales. They are looking to sell about 100,000 Camaros - this is a far cry from the ~180,000 Mustangs that Ford sold this year. With the Camaro being on a chassis shared by 7-8 other cars, it will definately cut down expenses and it wont require them to sell as many to recover developemental cost. So far, judging by Commodore reviews, the Camaro will have a very good suspension and weight distribution.....and we all know GM will bring the power.

 

Remind me.....which one hasn't been around for the last five years again? And why was that?

The fbody wasn't around because GM took a more performance oriented approach. Performance cars usually aren't volume cars because they can't be everything to everyone. The fbody was low, long and harder to park - the average point A to point B V6 buyer does not want this. This is probably why the new Camaro has a more conventional upright look. Edited January 31, 2007 by eddiehaskell

[Mark B. Morrow]

You do know that the fbody out sold the Mustang about 17-18 yrs from '67-'02, right?

 

Do you have sales stats to support this claim. I remember reading that the Mustang outsold both F-body cars for some years before GM threw in the towel.

[eddiehaskell]

Do you have sales stats to support this claim.

I looked the stats up and wrote them down. You should be able to do a google search and find them.

 

 

 

I remember reading that the Mustang outsold both F-body cars for some years before GM threw in the towel.

It did. 1997 was the last year GM sold more fbodies.

[NickF1011]

I looked the stats up and wrote them down. You should be able to do a google search and find them.

 

 

 

It did. 1997 was the last year GM sold more fbodies.

 

 

I was quite shocked myself when I looked up the sales back in 2004 or so of both model lines from every year. Listening to people, you'd think that the Mustang outsold the F-body 3-1 every year, but it's not even close to being the case. All said and told, the F-body sold somewhere around 5 million units total if I recall, which wasn't all that far beind the roughly 7 million the Mustang had amassed by 2002. There were definitely at least a dozen years the f-body outsold the Mustang.

[BlackHorse]

I'd feel a little bit more ripped off if I got a weak (twice downrated on power) Renesis rotary under the hood instead of a 4.6 3-valve.

 

And yet the weak little RX8 motor still manages 5.8, 0 to 60 and 14.49 in the 1/4 mile as compared to the Mustang GT at 5.1 and 13.5.

 

So we are talking .7 seconds respectively, about the time it takes you to blink. Look I like the Mustang too, but lets keep things on an even keel. The RX8 is every bit as good a car, probably handles better as well.

 

Additionally we should factor in that most Mustang GT's on the road are automatic transmission, and that lowers those numbers to 5.5 and 14.1 respectively. I don't know if most of the RX8's that are sold are also automatic but I wouldn't doubt it.

Edited January 31, 2007 by BlackHorse

[jlsaylor]

The fbody traced it's roots back to '82 but if you recall, the fbody platform had an extensive revision in 1993 when the 4th gen came out. The platform was also designed for a Camaro and not a Fairmont! On a side note, the '05 Mustang uses the same panhard rod rear suspension setup as the fbody did. The fbody chassis was not flexible as you say - the 4th gen was substantially stiffer than the 3rd gen. The fbodies performance in SCCA T2 is a testament to how well the chassis and suspension worked. The Mustang is NOT competitive. When it comes to handling the fbody is just the superior car. Bottom line.

 

Perhaps this is why the Ford actually made a suitable every day car and the Camaro was horribly compromised in this respect from 1982 on? Claiming a platform is exculsively Camaro brings absolutely no cachet to the table.

The last F body was a first rate flexi-flyer. Using the 3rd gen as an example of the 4th gens superiority is like bragging about an A average in a remedial class. F-body's did very well indeed in SCCA T2, largely due to their IFS setup and power advantage.

 

The fbodies engine placement may be a problem for you, but the cam and heads can changed with the engine IN the car. Additionally, the fbody engine is easier to work on compared to Ford's OHC setup. Having the engine set back also helps with weight distribution. The OHV design on the engine also lowered the center the gravity compared with the more top heavy OHC engine used by Ford.

If you want to make your life harder than it has to be, sure. But whats the point? This design represented short-sightedness at it's finest. The notion that OHV's are easier to deal with is strictly an opinion at best, and one which I would disagree with. I much prefer to service the valvetrain on an OHC engine than the old cam in block, OHV designs. And once again, you have to completely ignore the ridiculous placement of the F-body's engine to even make that claim in the first place. Everything is a trade, and there is no way to justify, as a manufacturer, where they put this cars engine. The penalty for doing so was simply too large.

 

No sir, not picking and choosing at all. I'm comparing the cars that both companies sold the most of - the Z28/Formula/Trans Am and the GT. I'm glad you brought that up though, because it further supports my point. With GM, you could get the high performance engine in a Z28 for $22,000. With Ford, a person had to buy the limited edition Cobra to get 300hp. The Mustang GT came with 260hp - that is much less power than a equally priced fbody. In 1998 the Mustang GT came with 225hp - that is MUCH MUCH less power than the fbody.

As far as 2003 cars (Mach 1/Cobra) and newer - that is really irrelevant because GM didn't have a comparable pony car. I'm sure that GM probably knew years before 2002 that they wouldn't have an fbody for 2003. I'd say they probably knew in '99 or '00 because automakers usually have future products planned well before they are released.

 

GM has considered cancelling the F-Body long before 99 or 00. But they didn't really put the final nail in the coffin more than a year or two ahead of the actual demise of the car at most. I'm sure many F-body fans would like to think that GM cancelled the F-body with little consideration for what Ford was doing, but that is highly unlikely. And the fact that the Mustang so thoroughly dominated the segment that GM chose to leave the market altogether, rather than take another go at it is hardly irrelevant.

 

The fbody was no cheaper than the Mustang. If you are having grand dulusions that the Mustang was the pinnicale of quality - you are SADLY mistaken. That does bring up a few other points though - the fbody had an electric antenna, steering wheel radio controls and hydraulic hood props. The Mustang didn't have any of these features. The Mustang also didn't offer T-Tops or an equal seating position/shifter position.

Yup, I remember, hydraulic hood props that stopped working at about three years old. Steering wheel controls in an interior so ridiculously cheap one could find several better places to have spent the money these required. And the power antenna, can't live without that. Did I leave out the T-Tops which assure that you and your car will match on rainy days? Of course I mean that you'll both get wet. The Mustangs shifter position was a serious sore spot, and it's interior hopelessly cheap, but it was a step up from the f-body to be sure. And your passenger could actually have legs in the Mustang, always a plus. Also, Camaro only has a better seating position if you're cruising in New Jersey. Most people don't like sitting on the floor.

 

To recap, the fbody had several advantages such as: more power per dollar, better weight distribution, lower center of gravity, better aerodynamics, better rear suspension, better front suspension, better gas mileage, modern features like power antenna, steering wheel controls and hydraulic hood props, better response to modifications(i.e, cam = 400rwhp), better seating position, better shifter position, optional t-tops, stronger T-56 transmission, stronger bottom end and a few other things. I will say that the Mustang had a stronger rear end, but both would need work with slicks.

 

A more accurate summation......Better aerodynamics at the cost of a ridiculous looking exterior. More power per dollar because they spent all of the money on the engine. A lower center of gravity because the engine is under the windshield. Better rear suspension...not really. Better Front suspension? Yeah. Better gas mileage? Yep, but your buying premium. Better response to N/A mods if you are willing to actually wrestle with the motor positioning to make them. Better seating position? No. Maybe GM will figure out that sitting on the floorpan isn't ideal for most people this go round. Optional T-Tops? Camaro's had an image as the car for mullet wearers for a reason, and keeping the t-tops didn't do the fourth gen any favors. Stronger bottom end? Not quite. If a strong bottom end is your concern then the older Cobras easily beat the LS1 and wer far cheaper to get really serious hp from if a power adder was your cup of tea.

 

 

Do you own a kappa? The top can be lowered in under 30 seconds. That is about as good as a manual can get. Here is someone taking their time and getting it done in 24 seconds! The biggest drawback to buying a Kappa is the truck space and manual top - like I was saying, this isn't enough to stop people from buying. People want style and the Solstice delivers. Some people want performance and the Solstice delivers there too - especially the turbo models.

In the Miata I can unlatch the top for the windscreen and reach over my shoulder to go topless in about five seconds, without rushing the process. This is an area that should worry GM fans like yourself. Why on earth wouldn't GM just copy the top mechanism from the Miata? The last generation Miata would have served just fine, and GM obviously knew that it existed and was a far superior design. Why would they ignore it outright and intentionally design a far worse solution? Things like this are what remind me of engines half hidden under windshields and doors that don't swing right.

 

As for performance.....some people also want refinement and a polished feel. Does Kappa deliver there too? At 8/10 maybe, at 10/10 apparently not. GM did a good job with the basic Kappa design, but made some rather serious misteps along the way. Here is where the problem lies. What is GM doing about those? Are they looking into redesigning the top? Are they considering ways to lower the weight of the cars? Are they considering a more refined replacement for the existing 5-speed manual? The list goes on and on.

 

The answer to all of these is most likely no. GM is selling cars and they are so thrilled to be doing so they don't see any need to fix these issues. In fact, I rather think they see it as you do. "Ah, we're selling enough already. And its a sports car. Who needs a trunk? Or a top that is simple to operate?" Now ask yourself if you really think that Mazda isn't considering a sportier suspension setup, or an styling update, or a Mazdaspeed version packing the MS3's turbo 4? These are all known quantities, we know Mazda is doing exactly that. Misteps can be forgiven, but acting as though these issues don't need absolution is exactly what got GM into trouble in the first place.

 

Frankly, given the template the Miata provided, that GM made the above errors at all is inexcusbale. That GM apparently sees no need to fix them is even worse. And this time they have a more difficult target to hit with the Mustang. Not long ago rumours were floating everywhere that GM was having a very difficult time figuring out how to make the Camaro reasonably match the Mustang V-6, and GT for that matter, in terms of pricing. This begs the question, did they go back to the well one more time and short change the buyer because they think they can? We'll see

 

GM isn't trying to topple Mustang sales. They are looking to sell about 100,000 Camaros - this is a far cry from the ~180,000 Mustangs that Ford sold this year. With the Camaro being on a chassis shared by 7-8 other cars, it will definately cut down expenses and it wont require them to sell as many to recover developemental cost. So far, judging by Commodore reviews, the Camaro will have a very good suspension and weight distribution.....and we all know GM will bring the power.

 

Ah, but it looks as though power wont be exclusive to GM anymore in the lower ranks. Fords new Duratec V-6 has thus far shown more promise than has GM's HF V-6 lineup, and the Boss V-8 engine line will apparently be here before the Camaro debuts too. We don't know when these will show up in Mustangs, but we know that they will show up, and rlatively soon, this solves any problems the LS2, or LS whatever might pose to more common Mustangs. As for GM not wanting to topple the Mustang? C'mon. We both know they want this so badly they can taste it. GM is simply setting their expectations low so they wont put themselves in a bad position financially, or in the eyes of the public, whatever the long term outcome.

 

The fbody wasn't around because GM took a more performance oriented approach. Performance cars usually aren't volume cars because they can't be everything to everyone. The fbody was low, long and harder to park - the average point A to point B V6 buyer does not want this. This is probably why the new Camaro has a more conventional upright look.

 

The F body wasn't around anymore because GM reasoned that it's poor sales were due to an overall lack of demand for 2-door performance cars in general rather than the actual reason, which was that the car wasn't very good. Well this and because they knew that Ford was investing more money into the Mustang and they didn't want to reciprocate. This has all happened before and it will happen again. Most mainstream auto makers are doing the former with small trucks as we speak. I'll agree that lack of demand for V-6 cars hurt the F-body badly, but that lack of interest was for far more reasons than simply being low and hard to park. To be blunt, without the V-8 there was simply no compelling reason to buy a Camaro or Firebird.

Edited January 31, 2007 by jlsaylor

[jlsaylor]

edited: posted in error

Edited January 31, 2007 by jlsaylor

[eddiehaskell]

Perhaps this is why the Ford actually made a suitable every day car and the Camaro was horribly compromised in this respect from 1982 on? Claiming a platform is exculsively Camaro brings absolutely no cachet to the table.

The last F body was a first rate flexi-flyer. Using the 3rd gen as an example of the 4th gens superiority is like bragging about an A average in a remedial class. F-body's did very well indeed in SCCA T2, largely due to their IFS setup and power advantage.

As I have said - the fbody was a much better platform. The 3rd suffered the same problem as the foxbody - both cars weren't rigid. Claiming the 4th gen is nothing more than slightly changed 3rd gen is ignorant to say the least. Maybe you could provide some torsional data instead of repeating "flexi-flyer" over and over. Your argument would be taken more seriously if you provided some data.

 

All cars will have some flex. The 4th generation Fbody is not a car that is considered to be extremely flexible like the third gen. It is really a solid car. Here is a quote from Road and Track in 1993 about the 1993 Firebird "23 hertz bending and 20 hertz torsional on the 1993 car with a T-top, as compared to 18 and 16 for its predecessor. In comparative terms, the Firebird unitized body has been transformed from one of the corporation's most willowy structures to GM's very best."

 

Here is a quote from Norm Fugate, director of validation and development.

"We designed this to be a T-top car. We figured if we could do a T-top car, the weakest of the coupes, the solid roof car would be a piece of cake. In the early going, they are all framed up as if they are going to be a coupe. Then, after the car is welded together, we simply go back and clip this section out."

 

 

Another interesting fact:

The prototype Trans Am was forced through two of GM's toughest durability schedules in only 8 months. It was ran through a 100,000 mile rough road test then a full general durability schedule. "This car went through the equivalent of two 100,000-mile lifetimes." - Andy Lang, durability validation engineer "That would just about kill any car going."

 

After a hoist inspection and a walk around with many engineers and other people they had a ride and drive with the F-car staff.

 

The conclusion? "This car's built like an M-1 tank," laughs Ted Robertson, platform engineering director. "Usually, when a car comes off one of these durability tests, they're pretty well broken in. They're like a limp noodle. We got this car after two durability schedules, and there wasn't a squeak or rattle. It felt brand-new."

 

A few more points in comparison to the 3rd gen:

 

*"The only things on the car that are carry-over are the rear compartment pan and the rear suspension. Everything else is new. Everything. " Ted Robertson

*The 1993 Firebird has 700 fewer parts than the 1992 Firebird.

*The F-car is GM's first "math-data" car. Critical dimensions for every component were translated into numerical data and digitized on the computer. "The whole car is done on the computer, and every part has computer data." - Ted Robertson

 

Care to give any bending or torsional figures on the Mustang?

[eddiehaskell]

If you want to make your life harder than it has to be, sure. But whats the point? This design represented short-sightedness at it's finest. The notion that OHV's are easier to deal with is strictly an opinion at best, and one which I would disagree with. I much prefer to service the valvetrain on an OHC engine than the old cam in block, OHV designs. And once again, you have to completely ignore the ridiculous placement of the F-body's engine to even make that claim in the first place. Everything is a trade, and there is no way to justify, as a manufacturer, where they put this cars engine. The penalty for doing so was simply too large.

As far as 2003 cars (Mach 1/Cobra) and newer - that is really irrelevant because GM didn't have a comparable pony car. I'm sure that GM probably knew years before 2002 that they wouldn't have an fbody for 2003. I'd say they probably knew in '99 or '00 because automakers usually have future products planned well before they are released.

Haha. The engine was moved back for a reason - weight distribution. The cam and heads can be changed with the engine in the car so your argument is a wash. The only downside to its placement is changing the plugs. Having ONE cam is also a bonus - easier to change, cheaper to buy and more HP gain - a win, win, win situation. BTW, you are one the first people I've met that prefer working on OHC engines LOL.

 

GM has considered cancelling the F-Body long before 99 or 00. But they didn't really put the final nail in the coffin more than a year or two ahead of the actual demise of the car at most. I'm sure many F-body fans would like to think that GM cancelled the F-body with little consideration for what Ford was doing, but that is highly unlikely. And the fact that the Mustang so thoroughly dominated the segment that GM chose to leave the market altogether, rather than take another go at it is hardly irrelevant.

There is no way GM "put the nail in the coffin" a year or two before 2002. What platform were they thinking of using in 2000-2001? NONE - they didn't have one. GM knew many YEARS before 2002 that the fbody wouldn't come back.

 

Yup, I remember, hydraulic hood props that stopped working at about three years old.

That's funny, I've never seen one stop working. Regardless, that is getting way off topic - if you would like I can pick apart the Mustang anecdotal quality issues too.

Steering wheel controls in an interior so ridiculously cheap one could find several better places to have spent the money these required.

When comparing a fbody and Mustang - interior quality is a wash. Both are all plastic and neither is better than the other. When you don't have an argument, interior quality does make for a quality scape though, I will admit.

 

And the power antenna, can't live without that.

Something tells me, that is Ford's attitude with everything.

Did I leave out the T-Tops which assure that you and your car will match on rainy days?

I've owned 2 t-top cars and never had a problem with leaks. Of course Mustang owners may not know the benifits of t-tops - because Ford didn't offer the option.

[eddiehaskell]

The Mustangs shifter position was a serious sore spot, and it's interior hopelessly cheap, but it was a step up from the f-body to be sure. And your passenger could actually have legs in the Mustang, always a plus. Also, Camaro only has a better seating position if you're cruising in New Jersey. Most people don't like sitting on the floor.

Yeah, the Mustang's shifter position was out in left field. The Mustang also feels like your riding in a truck. The seating position is horrid. I expect a sporty/sports car to have an aggressive low seating position - think Corvette not F150 LOL. The Mustang's interior has never taken a step up from anything - heck, every review still thrash the new Mustang's interior. The Mustang gets no bonus points for interior - thats funny though I'll give you that.

A more accurate summation......Better aerodynamics at the cost of a ridiculous looking exterior.

Looks are subjective. You can debate looks all day. I suggest going to a Mustang/fbody specific message board for that. You can argue until you're blue in the face.

More power per dollar because they spent all of the money on the engine.

Just how a proper gear head prefers it.

A lower center of gravity because the engine is under the windshield.

Just how someone looking for a performance car prefers. Better rear suspension...not really.

Better Front suspension? Yeah.

Of course.

Better gas mileage? Yep,

You know it.

but your buying premium.

Not required.

Better response to N/A mods if you are willing to actually wrestle with the motor positioning to make them.

Do your homework. Working on a LS1 fbody is easy. I suggest going here: http://www.ls1howto.com/ or here: ls1tech.com to do your homework.