Motor Trend's $28K Bang for the Buck (spoiler alert!)

[AshWilliams]

Originally Posted by Tbomb 25

Very nice find....its no suprise who the favorites are,their are a few things that bugged me tho...no MX-5,Mazdaspeed 3 or Camaro...and then the worst no FRS...clearly on price it and the base Mustang PP would be the winners consdering their price...

I don't know what's wrong with the Camaro. Ever since the usual suspects (Car and Driver and its clones) said ad nauseum that the new 'tang with the live axle is better at everything, even the retro styling, and that even the ZL1 can't dethrone the Shelby while peppering their articles with the usual GM interiors are garbage, the fit and finish isn't that of a Bentley Arnage, Chevy has stopped giving out press cars.

GM is the perennial punching bag, being the recipient of a government bailout, and I guess they're sick of car authors getting on a soapbox and blathering on to imply that "this is where our tax money is going" when the Cruze, Sonic, Camaro, Volt isn't the next coming of Jeebus.

I used to race Miatas, now I race Mustangs. The Camaros aren't bad, in fact they do really well.

There is no automotive journo love for the Camaro, tho, and I can't figure out who's to blame.

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by AshWilliams

I don't know what's wrong with the Camaro. Ever since the usual suspects (Car and Driver and its clones) said ad nauseum that the new 'tang with the live axle is better at everything, even the retro styling, and that even the ZL1 can't dethrone the Shelby while peppering their articles with the usual GM interiors are garbage, the fit and finish isn't that of a Bentley Arnage, Chevy has stopped giving out press cars.

GM is the perennial punching bag, being the recipient of a government bailout, and I guess they're sick of car authors getting on a soapbox and blathering on to imply that "this is where our tax money is going" when the Cruze, Sonic, Camaro, Volt isn't the next coming of Jeebus.

I used to race Miatas, now I race Mustangs. The Camaros aren't bad, in fact they do really well.

There is no automotive journo love for the Camaro, tho, and I can't figure out who's to blame.

My wife has a Sonic LTZ 1.4t its clearly the best car in its class and the best performance wise....but the Camaro is a heavy brick...when you see them from a distance they dont look all that big but when you get close...its unbelievable how big it is...but it does handle and go well even the V6...bu its still to big tho..

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by AshWilliams

I don't know what's wrong with the Camaro. Ever since the usual suspects (Car and Driver and its clones) said ad nauseum that the new 'tang with the live axle is better at everything, even the retro styling, and that even the ZL1 can't dethrone the Shelby while peppering their articles with the usual GM interiors are garbage, the fit and finish isn't that of a Bentley Arnage, Chevy has stopped giving out press cars.

GM is the perennial punching bag, being the recipient of a government bailout, and I guess they're sick of car authors getting on a soapbox and blathering on to imply that "this is where our tax money is going" when the Cruze, Sonic, Camaro, Volt isn't the next coming of Jeebus.

I used to race Miatas, now I race Mustangs. The Camaros aren't bad, in fact they do really well.

There is no automotive journo love for the Camaro, tho, and I can't figure out who's to blame.

I agree with that, it confounds me. The current gen Camaro is the best in ages, probably going back as far as the early 80s (the last model I liked). I'm admittedly have a huge bias for the Camaro, and hate to see it not included in these shootouts, even if it would get beaten up. I drove a base V6 Camaro about a month ago, and it was a decent car. It's no ZL1 mind you, but it was a good solid pony car.

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I agree with that, it confounds me. The current gen Camaro is the best in ages, probably going back as far as the early 80s (the last model I liked). I'm admittedly have a huge bias for the Camaro, and hate to see it not included in these shootouts, even if it would get beaten up. I drove a base V6 Camaro about a month ago, and it was a decent car. It's no ZL1 mind you, but it was a good solid pony car.

It has the power and a very good suspension setup even in V6 trim to be competive it would be at the lowest 3rd but probably 2nd in the accelaration tests...i see tons of them but im more interrested in the enthusiasts point of view....of why and why not to consider it...

[Boss]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I agree with that, it confounds me. The current gen Camaro is the best in ages, probably going back as far as the early 80s (the last model I liked). I'm admittedly have a huge bias for the Camaro, and hate to see it not included in these shootouts, even if it would get beaten up.

These comparison always include a Mustang instead of a Camaro because the Mustang performs better. When you have two very similar vehicles which have been compared many times it makes sense to use the better one in multi car shootouts.

[thill]

I swore I read that MotorTrend had reached out for a Camaro from GM, but GM decided not to participate...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by thill

I swore I read that MotorTrend had reached out for a Camaro from GM, but GM decided not to participate...

That seems like the most likely scenario to me. If you know you are going to be beat by your closest competitor (Mustang) you probably don't want to play.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by AshWilliams

I don't know what's wrong with the Camaro.

It's at least 400-500 lb. overweight, even allowing for it being a CAMARO.

GM shoulda developed Kappa to be expandable and made the 5th gen a V8 2+2 coupe version of the Solstice/Sky. Instead, they made it a 2-door version of an oversized/overweight sedan

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It's at least 400-500 lb. overweight, even allowing for it being a CAMARO.

GM shoulda developed Kappa to be expandable and made the 5th gen a V8 2+2 coupe version of the Solstice/Sky. Instead, they made it a 2-door version of an oversized/overweight sedan

I agree its a bit overweight but I don't agree with the size. Camaros have never been very small. For the most part they have always been semi-practical 4 seaters. I personally wouldn't have wanted that to change. I know that I would have been disappointed if it was the size of a Sky coupe which would probably not been much bigger than the FRS.

[ZDan]

Camaros from 1967 to 2002 were MUCH smaller than the current hulking behemoth. Particularly from 1970 through 2002, Camaros were pretty low-slung cars. The 5th gen's belt line sits literally 4-6" higher.

The +2 seats in Camaros have never been any more usable than those in cars like the FR-S/BRZ, and that holds for the new one. Difference is that the new one is FAR bigger on the outside, while not offering any additional space on the inside.

5th gen was literally a HUGE step in the wrong direction, as far as size/weight go.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Camaros from 1967 to 2002 were MUCH smaller than the current hulking behemoth..

I agree it's bigger, and a step in the wrong direction, just not sure I would say it was MUCH bigger. It is a lot taller, I think that is part of the perception. Here's two I have the info from.


2012 Camaro Coupe

Wheelbase:112.3, Length 190.4, Width 75.5 Height, 54.2 Weight 3780


1970.5 Camaro:

Wheelbase: 108, Width: 74.4, Height, 50.1 Weight: 3313

I do think the early 80's ones were sub 3000 pounds. I know my 83 was definitely lighter than either one of these two.

As far as the back seats, I guess that's just a difference of opinion as to what is usable. I've often ridden 4 up in Camaros with no issues. I was just saying I think 2+2 Sky/Solstice body would have been too far in the other direction.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I agree it's bigger, and a step in the wrong direction, just not sure I would say it was MUCH bigger. It is a lot taller, I think that is part of the perception.

It's not just taller overall, the whole nose/hood/fenders/tail are elevated by several inches. That's HUGE. Look at the new one next to one from the 70s/80s/90s/00s side by side, the new one occupies MUCH more volume, despite the overall length x width being somewhat similar. 5th gen is actually slightly shorter than the 4th gen, but there's more to "bigness" than length x width x height.






To my eyes, the new one is MUCH bigger. And 400-500 lb overweight...

I do think the early 80's ones were sub 3000 pounds. I know my 83 was definitely lighter than either one of these two.

I don't think a stock V8 Camaro was ever under 3200 lb.

As far as the back seats, I guess that's just a difference of opinion as to what is usable. I've often ridden 4 up in Camaros with no issues.

How big were the "+2"? The back seat in my '95 Z28 was not any bigger/more accomodating than in my '91 240SX (presumably similar to the 86 twins). Two full-size humans in back => neither is going to be very happy...

I was just saying I think 2+2 Sky/Solstice body would have been too far in the other direction.

A 2+2 Sky/Solstice would have been about the same size as any '70-'02 Camaro, perfectly in keeping with the rest of the Camaro line other than 5th gen.
The new Camaro is about the same size/weight as a Cadillac CTS.
WAY too damn big and heavy, inconsistent with previous Camaros.

[whtchocla7e]

That Camaro is straight up fat. So is the Mustang. I wouldn't buy either one of them out of principle. I don't understand why cars keep getting larger and heavier each year.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by whtchocla7e

That Camaro is straight up fat. So is the Mustang. I wouldn't buy either one of them out of principle. I don't understand why cars keep getting larger and heavier each year.

Thank God for the FR-S/BRZ! Sick to death about hearing that newer cars MUST be bigger/heavier due to safety-regs/buyer-expectations/etc. etc. B.S.! FR-S/BRZ are pretty much the new S13 240SX (much more so than AE86 IMO), and they are pretty much exactly the same size/weight and relative price/performance as that car was in the late-80s early-90s!

Cars can and SHOULD be getting smaller and lighter-weight vs. the current oversized/overweight/overconsuming behemoths on the market today.

Supposedly the new Mustang is aiming for 3300 lb. for the 4-cylinder variant. IMO they should be aiming for 3200 lb. for the V8 like the 80s/early-90s 'stangs.

If Subaru/Toyota can build a 2700 lb. 4-cylinder 2+2 coupe, domestics should be able to build a 3200 lb. V8 2+2 coupe while maintaining similar performance/price points vs. the current gargantuan models. Not expecting this to happen, but it *IS* technically feasible, if the will is there as it was with Toyobaru.