You say the new Camaro is too big?

"The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123" (mattp123)
08/22/2013 at 11:50 • Filed to: None

Let's have a look. Better pics within. Excuse the shitty low light pictures on a rooted phone.

Pretty even in front. The 69 is maybe just a bit further out if that isn't perspective doing it's thing...

And the 5th gen sticks out a bit behind, but not by much.

Ok so maybe it's not the length that matters, but the girth. But hey, at least they didn't make it a sedan like they did with the Charger...

Also, why is your V6 current gen Camaro (or camero for the slow crowd) at a cruise night? Tints, painted wheels, and other tacky cosmetic changes don't make it show-worthy. It might be excusable in summer of 2009 when even dealers didn't have any. But they have been on the road for 4 years now. We can go test drive one if we wanted, even an SS or ZL1, if we went to a dealer.

DISCUSSION (51)

ddavidn > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 11:53

I see this all the time at cruise nights around here. V6 Mustangs, Camaros, etc. Why? They park them in with the classics and I don't get it.

desertdog5051 > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 11:55

Really crappy first photo but, oh well. I learned to take 2 of every shot just in case.

I'll take the '64 Impala if you please.

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 11:55

Now let's weight them.

See?

YSI-what can brown do for you > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 11:56

Eww Gen 1. Everyone knows the Gen 2 is better in everyway.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > desertdog5051
08/22/2013 at 11:57

Seconded. If you must obtain a boat, obtain a boat with swaaaaag.

Casper > Goshen, formerly Darkcode
08/22/2013 at 12:02

Yeah, a 69 should be about 550lbs less give or take. That's a big difference. It gives a manual SS Camaro with 426 HP a power to weight ratio of 0.1136. That means to match up, a 69 only needs about 363 HP. Weight is a big deal, bigger than power in most cases.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > desertdog5051
08/22/2013 at 12:10

Yea ever since I rooted my phone and loaded a new rom the camera has generally been crap. It's never been SLR quality, but it was at least good by P&S standards. It also can't do video anymore which really sucks.

I like the 59-63 Impala but not the 64. And I also generally prefer their Bel Aire/Biscayne base models. I also like the 55 and 56 Bel Aire, but not the 57. All first gen Corvettes except the 56 and 57. I like the 71 and 72 Cutlass, Skylark, LeMans but not the 70. I guess I usually don't care for the most popular model year of a generation.

BeaterGT > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 12:17

Uhhhhhhhh?

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Casper
08/22/2013 at 12:18

And lets figure out that weight distribution as well. And let's test the suspension and steering. I bet the 5th gen even with that extra 550 pounds will walk all over a 1st gen. The matter of weight between 1st and 5th gen is irrelevant, it's apples and oranges. The amount of technology, engineering, and luxury/safety features that comes with the 550 pounds more than makes up for it. Now if you managed to add or subtract 550 pounds to the same generation, then yeah it's a huge deal.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Goshen, formerly Darkcode
08/22/2013 at 12:20

"Ok so maybe it's not the length that matters, but the girth."

That's sorta why I put that in there. Also see my reply to the Casper guy who replied to you. Weight differences between such vast generational gaps is irrelevant.

Casper > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:21

Power to weight ratios is apples to apples. Suspension to PTWR and steering to PTWR are not. No one is saying that a car with modern IRS can't out handle an old car.

If you want to talk distributions the old cars were around 59/41 and the new cars are around 52/48. They are also more rigid in their transfer.

CobraJoe > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 12:25

I completely agree.

There's too much hype for the 1st gen, it's just a chevy branded Mustang. The 2nd gen is where they got their own style. I'd love a '71 or '72, and I'm a Ford guy.

GhostZ > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:26

I love how both Camaros are eclipsed by the boats behind them. MOPAR FTW, and that Impala is sex.

It's all in the "thickness", such as the size between the door and the interior, the amount of space occupied underneath the grill, height of the hood over the wheel arches, and, as we all know how bad it is, the height of the door compared to the height of the window.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Casper
08/22/2013 at 12:26

PTWR is still a pretty useless comparison between two different cars. There are too many other factors to consider.

PTWR works when you're talking about the same platform, like going from V6 Camaro to ZL1, or stock RX-7 to one that has been modified and stripped.

YSI-what can brown do for you > BeaterGT
08/22/2013 at 12:28

You heard me. I am prepared to fight you to the death.

CobraJoe > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:29

They are huge.

Kinja'd!!!

That white car? It's a Crown Vic. You know, a full sized sedan.

Check out this link for more of his comparisons.

YSI-what can brown do for you > CobraJoe
08/22/2013 at 12:31

As a general hater of everything GM, the gen 2 camero is just something else. It looks great and has a bunch of power. It looked so good even te Italians commended them on their efforts!

Casper > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:31

Not really, in acceleration calculations suspension, steering, etc, will be far less valuable than raw PTWR. Suspension is on a massively decaying relevance curve as the vehicle enters motion, playing it's primary roll out in the beginning of first gear. PTWR plays the same role through all gears and speeds. The gearing would play a significant role if radically different, as the rate of acceleration would be hampered/helped by the rate of conversion of torque to horsepower.

You can't simply ignore metrics that you don't like. The increased weight is bad. No way around it. That's why they compensated with more power and better suspension geometry as they evolved the designs.

GhostZ > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:51

Rubber. The 5th gen would not be able to outperform the 1st gen with the same grip, the suspension (magnetic ride control and possibly 1LE excluded, which the above car isn't) can't be much better. That's the difference between a 1970 Camaro being driven in 1970, and a 1970 Camaro being driven in 2013.

I bet an aftermarket EFI system modern rubber, good bushings, stronger and lighter leaf springs, shocks/dampeners, and maybe a CF hood and/or fenders for weight distribution purposes could do amazing wonders to that car's performance.

Almost all technological advances in cars since about the mid-80s have been toward luxury, comfort, economy, and safety. Very few passenger car technologies, outside of direct injection, E85, twincharging, and some aerodynamic advantages have actually improved performance. They've let us get the same speed with more safety and less cost, which seems as if cars are "Getting faster", but we really are just getting the best of two worlds that already existed. I'm totally cool with that.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Casper
08/22/2013 at 12:52

I'm not ignoring the PTWR when comparing 1st to 5th gen. I'm saying it doesn't really matter when everything else is s radically different. Yes, it is a factor, but not the end all be all, even in acceleration, and there's more to a car than acceleration. Hell, even if you put the cars with identical PTWR up against each other in a rolling start straight line sprint, the torque curves and gearing make the bulk of the difference. And depending what speed you get up to, aerodynamics. I feel every breeze in my 72 Cutlass Supreme. If the guy in the car in front of me farts I can feel my car slow down.

Your right, there is no way around added weight. Except "with more power and better suspension geometry". And weight distribution. And gearing. And aerodynamics. You know, kinda like in racing where cars' power and weight are strictly regulated.

Party-vi > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 12:54

YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE THE GEN 1 IS AMURZING!!!!!!

Casper > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:57

You are the one that stated weight difference was irrelevant, not me. That's like saying the drag coefficient or gear ratio are irrelevant.

We were talking about weight, you attempted to argue weight was somehow made irrelevant by other metrics. That will never be true with weight. You could make drag coefficient irrelevant if you placed the vehicle in a vacuum, but weight will always be relevant in the equation even without gravity (without it, Newton's 3rd law makes the car useless) but it would still be relevant due to mass if you gave it a different propulsion method.

youshiftem > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 12:59

Kinja'd!!!

Here is my '85 Regal next to my father in law's 2013, the new one is a bit longer and much taller. So why does everyone say mine is a "boat" but I've never heard anyone say the new one is big? Also interesting was that they get the exact same fuel mileage (mine is highly modified, but I was still surprised).

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > CobraJoe
08/22/2013 at 13:01

1st gen LWH: 186, 74, 51 inches.

5th gen LWH: 190, 75, 54 inches.

Crown Vic LWH: 212, 77, 57 inches

The Crown Vic is still nearly 2 feet longer... I have a 92 Grand Marquis and 2010 Camaro SS. The Camaro would feel a lot smaller if you could see where the hood and trunk end.

Frank Grimes > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 13:02

You guys are out of your minds.

I would take a 69 camaro over any camaro or mustang. a 68 gt 390 fastback in highland green might break that rule.

For me its the motors. I guess I am just a GM guy but I would take a 350 or 327 over a 289 or 302 ford any day.

I guess for me the camaro came out and immediately had some options for those who weren't secretaries with the Z28 and its 302. While the mustang just seemed whimpy in comparison.

The mustang is just a falcon with a fancy body so they could sell them cheap to young working women.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > GhostZ
08/22/2013 at 13:08

I agree with you on the grip part. But it's more so the stuff you mention in the second part than it is with just rubber like the first paragraph.

I agree with the last paragraph. Yeah cars have gotten heavier, but the technology that brought the extra weight is co-evolving with the technologies that increase economy and improve handling.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > youshiftem
08/22/2013 at 13:13

Proportions. And size by current standards. It is smaller than a recent Town Car or Impala, so we convince ourselves the 2013 is not that big?

CobraJoe > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 13:16

Yes, the CV is slightly larger, and has about a foot more overhang on each side. That's not the point.

The point is that it's even comparable to the Crown Vic at all. One is a an old school body on frame American land yacht, and the other is a 2+2 pony car. One can seat six relatively comfortably while carrying a load of luggage in the trunk, and the other can only cram 4 in and has a mail slot for a trunk lid. Considering the difference in interior space, the Camaro should be noticeably smaller.

matthewklein220 > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 13:25

Why are you guys bashing a modern muscle car for parking with its fellows? Just because the cars to it's left and right were made in the 60's, and it was made in the last four years, doesn't invalidate the fact that it is a muscle car! Also, the Camaro looks a lot sleeker than the Challenger and Charger, both of those cars just look too slab-sided.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Casper
08/22/2013 at 13:37

And you brought up the PTWR. I'm just saying PTWR is not the end all be all. Especially considering the huge gap in technology. Adding weight = bad, losing weight = good, but just because a car weighs more doesn't automatically mean it will perform worse than a lighter car.

Casper > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 13:43

That is actually exactly what it means. A lighter car will always perform better, that's why you have to compensate.

I never said PTWR was the end all metric. Each measured statistic has it's own value in formulas, but weight impacts more than any other. I used it to show how much of a power difference the weight difference makes to equalize the PTWR. In that discussion there is no reason to discuss any other metric.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > matthewklein220
08/22/2013 at 14:01

I appreciate the guy's enthusiasm. To call the V6 a muscle car is a little bit of a stretch. I have a 1972 Cutlass Supreme, but I don't consider it a muscle car. It is more luxury/approaching classic. But come on. The point of the show is to see cars that are at least a bit more special than the cars you drive amongst every day. Or you know, more special than the cars that occupy a rental lot... If he had put turbos on that V6, did some suspension work, things that generally improve the performance of the car... I would welcome him with open arms. I, along with some others at the show, might be a little interested, or at the very least appreciate his work and enthusiasm.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Casper
08/22/2013 at 14:03

If all things are equal, suspension, steering, gearing, tires etc. and PTWR... yes, the lighter car will always perform better. A 300hp 3000lb car will handle better than the same car with 500hp and 5000lbs.

I'm just saying the common argument that the 5th gen Camaro weighs a lot more then the 1st gen Camaro and therefore it is bad is a silly argument. Yes weight is a big deal, but not such a big deal when comparing cars with such different technology.

Casper > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 14:10

I wasn't arguing that, but yes, that would be true. Just the weight alone doesn't make one better than the other. Of course it's irrelevant unless you have all other metric as well as the application the car is intended to be good at. A Veyron may have a ton of power, massively impressive suspension systems, etc... but it's not going to rock a tight autocross like a gutted Miata on slicks. Likewise, the new Camaro may run circles around the old one because of suspension voodoo, but that doesn't really matter in a car show.

I will state that the new Camaro's weight is a bad thing in general. There really is no excuse for a RWD car to weight that much. It nearly weighs as much as a 90's full size GM pickup.

YSI-what can brown do for you > Frank Grimes
08/22/2013 at 14:27

All these numbers and I have no idea what they mean!!! I know they mean displacement, but what engine are they talking about. . . I don't know. All I know is that GM rarely makes something I like(60s they were da bomb though!), and the Gen 2 Camaro is that rare exception.

To be honest I don't know much about American muscle. I only know two things. A) Gen 2 Camaro is the most beautiful muscle car ever and 2) The Plymouth Superbird is the most amazing thing ever. Big wing? Lets call it enormous.

YSI-what can brown do for you > Party-vi
08/22/2013 at 14:28

Kinja'd!!!

point is invalid

Party-vi > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 14:36

*shakes fist because he's wrong*

YSI-what can brown do for you > Party-vi
08/22/2013 at 14:39

Whose wrong? Me or you?

Party-vi > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 14:41

Me, because dat ass looks good.

YSI-what can brown do for you > Party-vi
08/22/2013 at 14:45

You are quite the assman aren't you?

Party-vi > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 14:49

Board-certified Bootyologist.

mr. idk > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 14:57

GTFO

YSI-what can brown do for you > mr. idk
08/22/2013 at 14:58

No. NEVER!

mr. idk > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 15:03

ITS A MUSCLE CAR IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE BIG! i dont know why everyone complains about the new camaro. ughhhhh it has horrible visibility, ughhhhh its too heavy. First of all, Ive sat in a Gallardo and it makes the camaros visibility seem like looking down from heaven, and Im sure you wouldnt turn down driving a gallardo, simply based on its visibility. Second, who cares if its heavy? the Camaro SS 1LE is the best brand-new sports car under $50k!

mr. idk > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/22/2013 at 15:05

Honestly, I agree with just about everything you have ever posted, but Imho the best looking camaro was the 1st gen, simply because 69 SS

YSI-what can brown do for you > mr. idk
08/22/2013 at 15:18

I just think it is a bit to big and bulky looking for my tastes. I prefer the sleeker lines of the Gen 2. ALthough with bigger wheels the rear 3/4 of the Gen 1 can look very yummy.

ESSSIX GmbH - Accountant/Wagon Thumper > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/22/2013 at 15:40

the difference here is chest hair.

matthewklein220 > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/23/2013 at 04:24

Good point, although I'd say the Cutlass Supreme straddles the line between muscle car and luxury car. I mean, everyone considers the Hurst Cutlass's to be muscle cars, right?

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > matthewklein220
08/23/2013 at 12:04

Hurst, 442, Rallye 350, and SX moedels? Yes. But here is my interior.

Kinja'd!!!

Overly cushioned, paisley cloth, bench seat? Far from sporty. What moves that couch around? A 350ci 4 bbl single exhaust rated at a nothing shattering 180hp. The only thing muscular about it is the front end. Other than that, it has a more formal roof line as opposed to the fastback, the body lines are sort of tapered back like the fenders on just about every car 25/30 years older than it, and it even has little fins.

matthewklein220 > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123
08/24/2013 at 05:16

Ok, that's definitely more an attempt at luxury.

matthewklein220 > YSI-what can brown do for you
08/24/2013 at 05:18

Gen 2 was sleeker, but larger and heavier. Although both generations look the best, 3rd through 5th look "eh" to me.