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

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

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

Admittedly I didn't pay much attention to the Camaros after the mid 80's despite being a huge fan just because it held absolutely no attraction for me. In your two examples above I would not even consider the older models over the Gen5. To me, those aren't Camaros, they are just something else. Personal preference being a child of Gen1 and gen2 I guess.

I didn't buy a Gen5 for all the reasons you mention so we really aren't that far off in opinion.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Admittedly I didn't pay much attention to the Camaros after the mid 80's despite being a huge fan just because it held absolutely no attraction for me. In your two examples above I would not even consider the older models over the Gen5. To me, those aren't Camaros, they are just something else. Personal preference being a child of Gen1 and gen2 I guess.

Strange, you owned an '83 (3rd gen), right? You don't consider those to be Camaros? Or is it only the 4th gen you don't consider to be "Camaros". Either way, why not? The 3rd gen was a big improvement over the 2nd, actually a bit lighter weight to begin with. The 4th gen was likewise an improvement over the 3rd, with zero size or weight gain.


The 5th gen is CLEARLY (to me anyway) the one generation of Camaro that doesn't belong with the others. The others are reasonable size/weight V8 pony cars. 5th gen is more a modern high-perf 2-door Impala or Caprice if you ask me...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Strange, you owned an '83 (3rd gen), right? You don't consider those to be Camaros? Or is it only the 4th gen you don't consider to be "Camaros". Either way, why not? The 3rd gen was a big improvement over the 2nd, actually a bit lighter weight to begin with. The 4th gen was likewise an improvement over the 3rd, with zero size or weight gain.

Yes, I owned a GEN3 Z28, with an aftermarket Targa, rocking it "Simon and Simon" style! It's the Gen4's I really didn't care for. Number-wise I'm sure they were fine members of the Camaro family (my sister owned one and loved it) but it just got to dove-bar and stretched to me. I really hated the front-end. Again, just a personal preference, and looks matter to me almost as much as performance (sometimes more).

Originally Posted by ZDan

The 5th gen is CLEARLY (to me anyway) the one generation of Camaro that doesn't belong with the others. The others are reasonable size/weight V8 pony cars. 5th gen is more a modern high-perf 2-door Impala or Caprice if you ask me...

I do understand what you are saying. I think maybe I'm stuck on design and not numbers. I do wish the GEN5 was smaller, and it really didn't need the fat rear-end. I think if they had left off the fender flairs from the rear, it would have been a much lighter, better car. It would have also been a better retro design.

It will be interesting to see what they do to it in GEN6.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yes, I owned a GEN3 Z28, with an aftermarket Targa, rocking it "Simon and Simon" style!

Ha!

It's the Gen4's I really didn't care for. Number-wise I'm sure they were fine members of the Camaro family (my sister owned one and loved it) but it just got to dove-bar and stretched to me. I really hated the front-end. Again, just a personal preference, and looks matter to me almost as much as performance (sometimes more).

I LOVED the '93-'97 styling! I loved the micro-quad hedlights, the agressively pointed shark's nose, the whole low-in-front swoopy shape of the car. No tacked-on sideskirts, air dams, or spoilers. Also loved the lack of creases/lines around the wheel openings. Very sculpted and very clean, the opposite of what the manufacturers prefer now, with heavy-handed THICK flat circular surfaces around the wheel openings. I think in most cases it's an attempt to disguise the HUGE vertical size of most modern cars.



They came in GREAT colors, too. Teal, mystic teal, hunter green, mine was dark purple.

Also, 4th gens got more powerful 5.7 liter engines (LS1 in '98), and great (with CAGS disabled, anyway) close-ratio (1-4 anyway) 6-speed manuals. Fantastic! I only saw positives and no real negatives with the 4th gen.

I do understand what you are saying. I think maybe I'm stuck on design and not numbers. I do wish the GEN5 was smaller, and it really didn't need the fat rear-end. I think if they had left off the fender flairs from the rear, it would have been a much lighter, better car. It would have also been a better retro design.

The weight ain't coming from the rear fenders... The weight is coming from the full-size gargantuan sedan the car is built on. The flares do lend to the cartoonish character of the car's styling. Wouldn't bother me much if it were LITERALLY 3/4 to 7/8 the size and weight that it is!

It will be interesting to see what they do to it in GEN6.

Hopefully there'll be significant improvement on the size/weight fronts. But they're selling a ton of the 5, and the new crowd of oversized overweight Camaro fans won't stand for a properly small and lighter-weight one, I bet. Even if they do make it smaller/lighter, the current one is SO oversized/overweight, they can claim victory with 200 lb. weight savings and still be 200-300 lb. overweight at 3600 lb. or so. Doh...

[Allch Chcar]

The 4th gen Camaro wasn't so bad. I wouldn't consider the new Camaro coupe anymore than a new Mustang coupe though.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Ha!

I LOVED the '93-'97 styling! I loved the micro-quad hedlights, the agressively pointed shark's nose, the whole low-in-front swoopy shape of the car. No tacked-on sideskirts, air dams, or spoilers. Also loved the lack of creases/lines around the wheel openings. Very sculpted and very clean, the opposite of what the manufacturers prefer now, with heavy-handed THICK flat circular surfaces around the wheel openings. I think in most cases it's an attempt to disguise the HUGE vertical size of most modern cars.

I think we've found the root of our difference. These are the very things I didn't like about those models!

It's all good though, that's why they make different kinds of cars.

[Tbomb 25]

GEESHHHHH......the 5th gen is a whale...and i've always thought the 4th gen was kinda big. A girl i knew had a WS6 and it seemed to be just a bit bigger than my MkIII Supra...which is big to me,because i was used to Mk2 & 3 GTI's,FC's and Miata's, WoW the Camaro is Huge!!!

[Tbomb 25]

Im going to drive a Mustang GT tomorrow up the street from my house asap.... it isnt the track pac its just the base with 3.31 gears but this is a must to find out right away. Even with 420HP it may be to big for me...the FRS seems very much the size of my old FC Turbo II i had...

[JohnnyR]

Negative on the 4th gen Camaro, it was all about the Firebird in those years, especially the White and Blue anni edition WS-6, or the Firehawk.

Anyways, back on topic:

I expected this much. I figured the Mustang would win on the track, I just didn't expect by this margin considering the handling prowess of the 86's chassis. Granted, tires are a huge impact on this, and them going with those eco-tires is ridiculous for this car. But, you're tacking on an additional $1000~ to an already overpriced BRZ/FRS, and considering you can get a V6 track pack way below MSRP, the Mustang is a better value in performance/dollar.

This and the 86 vs Mustang thread have been incredible reads. I haven't been this amused in a long while. Get yourself in check; if you want the 86 because it's "feel and look" that's fine, it's subjective after all. But you have to realize that it's under-tired and underpowered to be a real competitor, it is what it is when they made this engine lacking power in both forms. To say "well I'll just get more power out of it, and that'll teach the mustang a lesson" is a wrong train of thought as well. It'll cost you vastly more money to get the amount of power needed to edge out the Mustang, and if you put equal money into the Stang with a real suspension kit to make it more flat and nimble feeling, it'd end up cheaper perhaps.

The Mustang won here, there's no denying that, and it's the better "bang for the buck" when it's focused on the performance capabilities at the track. People have a negative perspective on these cars, and I don't know why. It's not like the clunkers they've made since the Mustang II. The new Mustangs are the real deal. Not just in performance, but fit and finish, and price. A 5.0 is a steal for what you get out of the car. A Boss is a steal. And a new GT500 I'll admit as someone who adores GT-Rs, 911s, and the likes, is just ridiculously awesome. I may just save up that extra money from a Boss and swing myself one of those.

I understand what these media outlets are doing. It's akin to a parent saying to their kid after losing a game, "you did great, just work on it and you'll do better next time, I know it". And I'm fine with that. As long as it yields a new "MKIV Supra", giving them that motivation to do so, it's cool. We know Toyota is capable of making a real performance deal, in price, and pure performance as well. They just want to give them that nudge to get back in the fray and build some new legends.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

Negative on the 4th gen Camaro, it was all about the Firebird in those years, especially the White and Blue anni edition WS-6, or the Firehawk.

With you on that, I hated to see the Firebird die with Pontiac. I've seen a couple of concepts of the 5GEN Camaro with a Firebird Kit cosmetic on it, pretty sweet! Even a couple with the Tacky Chicken.

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

...the Mustang is a better value in performance/dollar.

...Get yourself in check; if you want the 86 because it's "feel and look" that's fine, it's subjective after all..

As a Mustang co-owner (OK, even if it is the '05 V6 Convertible) I agree with you. It's just not a car I've ever wanted for myself, even back to the '64. My next family car purchase though will most likely be a Mustang (wife is a huge fan). If all I wanted was performance/dollar though, I'd have to be buying a Mustang, probably the GT500/Almost.

[Tbomb 25]

Originally Posted by JohnnyR

Negative on the 4th gen Camaro, it was all about the Firebird in those years, especially the White and Blue anni edition WS-6, or the Firehawk.

Anyways, back on topic:

I expected this much. I figured the Mustang would win on the track, I just didn't expect by this margin considering the handling prowess of the 86's chassis. Granted, tires are a huge impact on this, and them going with those eco-tires is ridiculous for this car. But, you're tacking on an additional $1000~ to an already overpriced BRZ/FRS, and considering you can get a V6 track pack way below MSRP, the Mustang is a better value in performance/dollar.

This and the 86 vs Mustang thread have been incredible reads. I haven't been this amused in a long while. Get yourself in check; if you want the 86 because it's "feel and look" that's fine, it's subjective after all. But you have to realize that it's under-tired and underpowered to be a real competitor, it is what it is when they made this engine lacking power in both forms. To say "well I'll just get more power out of it, and that'll teach the mustang a lesson" is a wrong train of thought as well. It'll cost you vastly more money to get the amount of power needed to edge out the Mustang, and if you put equal money into the Stang with a real suspension kit to make it more flat and nimble feeling, it'd end up cheaper perhaps.

The Mustang won here, there's no denying that, and it's the better "bang for the buck" when it's focused on the performance capabilities at the track. People have a negative perspective on these cars, and I don't know why. It's not like the clunkers they've made since the Mustang II. The new Mustangs are the real deal. Not just in performance, but fit and finish, and price. A 5.0 is a steal for what you get out of the car. A Boss is a steal. And a new GT500 I'll admit as someone who adores GT-Rs, 911s, and the likes, is just ridiculously awesome. I may just save up that extra money from a Boss and swing myself one of those.

I understand what these media outlets are doing. It's akin to a parent saying to their kid after losing a game, "you did great, just work on it and you'll do better next time, I know it". And I'm fine with that. As long as it yields a new "MKIV Supra", giving them that motivation to do so, it's cool. We know Toyota is capable of making a real performance deal, in price, and pure performance as well. They just want to give them that nudge to get back in the fray and build some new legends.

Lol...this is 1 of the most honest posts i've seen on this forum....and i agree 110% about what your saying....good stuff...

[Vracer111]

I had a '98 V6 Camaro... I did like it once I modded it for track/autocross, but even gutted and stripped down it was still ~ 3200lbs and it just wasn't light on its feet. Was definitely the best handling Camaro that has been made though, being mid engine and balanced really well. Handling was excellent steady state, okay for transitions, and phenominal under braking (talking pull your eyeballs out their sockets level with track pads and brembo rotors.) Build quality and design of the car was absolutely horrible though....since the engine was shoved literally under the dash, it was fun to work on say if your transmission slave cylinder went out (internal in the transmission for a '98). And then you had 3 different types of bolts used on the front shock towers - Metric, English, and Torx... My first and only big, heavy American car... had enough of that! Went back to a track Integra RS which was quicker around track with bone stock motor and so much more responsive with nearly 1,000lbs less to haul around.

I really did like the looks and how the '98 Camaro generally handled though (Koni Yellow shocks, massive Hotchkis Sport hollow Antirollbar setup - [that everyone said was 'too much' for the car on a roadcourse...er no, not enough for me really], hollow rear control arms and panhard bar with spherical race bearings, Hawk HP+ pads, and 17x9.5 Z-06 knockoffs with 275/40-17 Nitto555-RII DOT-R tires...) Would LOVE to get the AWESOME braking ability it had as well with the FR-S...hopefully the FR-S can be made to brake the same. Now I would definitely choose a new Mustang over the Camaro (if those were the only 2 choices and it was forced at gunpoint... LOL) The 5th gen Camaro made a wrong turn for the worse while the Mustang has been getting better and lighter every year it seems.







[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c_sMDIW-jM"]Autocrossing on a dry course..wmv - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXwIlWWNKO4"]Clean lap....wmv - YouTube[/ame]

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Vracer111

I had a '98 V6 Camaro... I did like it once I modded it for track/autocross, but even gutted and stripped down it was still ~ 3200lbs and it just wasn't light on its feet. Was definitely the best handling Camaro that has been made though, being mid engine and balanced really well.

Even if the front of the V6 is behind front wheel centerline (surely not the case for the 55/45 V8 4th gen), that doesn't make it "mid-engined", no matter how many marketers or wishful-thinking front-engined car owners might like to call it that.

I think Nissan started this whole "front mid-engine" thing with the Z33 (despite its front-biased 53/47 weight distribution). Pure marketing.

Having the engine as far aft as possible on a front-engine rear-drive car is of course important. But moving the engine aft in its front-mounted compartment to the point that some arbitrarily defined criterion is met does NOT magically transform a car from front-engine to mid-engined.

Anyone who's driven front- and mid-engined cars at the track or autoX will appreciate that there are fundamental differences in handling feel between the two.

My S2000 (engine entirely behind front wheel centerline, 49/51 f/r with me in it) handles WAY more similarly to my 240Z (front two cylinders in front of front wheel centerline, 50/50 front/rear with me in it) and my LS2 FD RX-7 (front 1.5 cylinders in front of front wheel centerline, 50/50 with driver and half tank) than to a Boxster/Cayman. The Z, FD, and S are all CLASSIC FR (front engine/rear-drive) sports cars. The S isn't somehow fundamentally different and "mid-engined" relative to the Z and FD. They have the SAME layout. Front engine/rear drive, FR, period.

Love of God lets end this "front mid-engine" (inevitably reduced to "mid-engine" by some) nonsense.

[Lostnknox]

About the 4th gen camaro. I just want y'all to know how important it was for me to reply about its complete lack of sensible style. The 4 gen camaro to me was 10 top ugliest cars ever made. It was like a model alien space craft that your retarded sister lulu made. That camaro killed the F style body. So yes in a sense you are right the 5 gen does standby itself and with that said it stands miles in front of any previous Camaro weight be damned. People concern themselves so much with the weight of the car more than the over all performance of the car. The GT R weights more than an SS and it's seem to preform fine. What the new Camaro has is a updated model based on the zeta platform.aerodynamics, Independence rear suspension, good front to back weight ratios and a large wheel base make the new Camaro a very stable car at high speeds. The mustang GT is an illusion. The chassis great with 400's horsepower but you put more power under the hood and the limits of a live rear axle begin to show. The reason the mustang GT which by all mean is no feather weight itself seems to be more agile than the Camaro is more due to the different wheel bases of each than the weight. As long as the "stang" ain't going to fast she perrs like a kitten