6th Gen Chevrolet Camaro: 2017 ZL1, Z/28

  • Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 1,021 comments
  • 72,628 views
I dunno, the overall discussion just seemed very lacklustre and not very centred on the way the car will drive, until W&N came in and started spouting his stupid and bigoted views.

People imagine it will drive like the current gen with a bit of tweaking. What more do you want? I mean I wasn't aware we had to reach some threshold of conversation to meet your approval, at least that's the attitude you gave which is a bit offensive to all that contributed up to now before you jumped in with this bit...
 
People imagine it will drive like the current gen with a bit of tweaking. What more do you want? I mean I wasn't aware we had to reach some threshold of conversation to meet your approval, at least that's the attitude you gave which is a bit offensive to all that contributed up to now before you jumped in with this bit...
It just seems that people have no expectations for this car except that it will be ugly. And yes, that's probably realistic. But surely it'd be more interesting if we talked about what GM could do? We know they can design a chassis that'll compete with the best in the world.
 
Here's the damn problem. It goes just as much for the Camaro, the Mustang and the Challenger, and every other damn car that the American brands pull out of their back pocket to drive sales because of the heritage of a nameplate.

The whole damn attachment to heritage is killing the ability for our companies to innovate. As committed to history as those damn Europeans are, they'll toss a damn name out the window to try something new, figure out it doesn't work, and go back to the same name like nothing ever happened, while still having a radically different product. Because, why not? Why does a damn name have to dictate what the entry to a changing, fluid, competitive segment has to be?

Everyone freaks out every six years when Chevrolet is about to roll out a new Corvette, and every single time, GM has to remind people of what the basics are; Front-engine, rear-drive, eight cylinders, and a cheap price tag. Honestly, when they're introducing a middle market sports coupe, why the hell would it be any different for the Camaro? Ever? Sure, GM thought about replacing the Camaro with a derivative of the L-Body and the Beretta - just the same that Ford did with the Probe and Mustang. The difference there is that the Feretta would have had a V8, and well, all-wheel-drive. Forward thinking? From my '90s era American motor company?

Simply put, GM won't go tossing the basic formula out for the Camaro. They'll equip it with different engines and transmissions. The pricing structure might step up a notch. But it'll still be a mid-size, 2+2, rear-drive sports coupe. What the hell are we all screaming about? Honestly, if GM wanted to make it V8-only, the market wouldn't care. They'd still buy a bajillion of them because "Camaro" is emblazoned on the back, and there's a bowtie on the grille. If GM wanted to make it N/A V6 and a V6 turbo, they'd still sell a billion of them because "Camaro" and a bowtie. Sure, people would flip, but they'd get used to it, and the market would move forward.

Given GM's cautious take toward the trucks and how it backfired, and their cautious take toward the Malibu and how it backfired, its really anyone's guess as to whether or not they'll take chances with the Camaro. After all, they went very cautious with the new SUVs, and they control 75% of the market. And they'll probably still control 75% of the market, regardless of what Ford or anyone else does. Fair guess is that GM incorporates the Code 130R styling language to a premium mid-size coupe, and uses the platform to introduce the newer tech to the middle end of the market. Its anyone's guess on a turbo I4 if they go that route (I'm still betting on a 2.5T), but you can bet on that 3.6L V6 making an appearance, and it'll be the first non-Corvette to get the LT1, and will probably get that matched to the 8-speed auto out of the box. Row your own will probably be yet another iteration of the Tremec T060, I doubt they'd fork over that 7-speed unit from the Corvette.

As the official GM fanboy on GTP, I can speak of one primary concern: A CTS Coupe, V-Sport Coupe, and CTS-V Coupe. A new Camaro would have to compete with a car on the same chassis, likely using the same drivetrains, with nearly identical performance with only a slight price increase. Would that be enough for older buyers to select a Cadillac over a Chevrolet? Hell, what about the long-rumored Buick GN revival that's been batted around for years?

The market has changed. The Camaro has to change. It all boils down to GM committing to change in the face of a Mustang that's merely evolved, and a Challenger that just adds oodles of horsepower to an out-of-date chassis. Based on my visit to the Ren Cen this weekend, getting a full-face of GM culture, I'm leaning toward an unchanged Camaro future. The nameplate rules all.
As Niky put it this was great, what gets me though is no one bats an eye as GM try new things with Cadillac that are both American but also influence of Germany (and Europe by large) as well as what China dictates to what they want to see because they buy up these cars better than Americans at times. Yet if the Camaro or any Chevy Heritage car dare go of the beaten path, you can see the fire from the mobs on the hill tops heading toward the city.

So why does one GM division get free reign but the other must stick to this old world conservative thinking?
It just seems that people have no expectations for this car except that it will be ugly. And yes, that's probably realistic. But surely it'd be more interesting if we talked about what GM could do? We know they can design a chassis that'll compete with the best in the world.

We're not mind readers they gave a damn rendering, if this was the Blue Devil rendering as well as hyped specs then sure I can see your point about being fixated on one thing. Also we know what GM can do or possibly will do they pulled nearly all the cards with the current gen Camaro, why wouldn't they with the next gen. Also it's page three of the thread and the last page we were basically talking about car performance and potential future outlook and your fixated on what happened during page one...

There will be plenty of discussion as this thread continues and the car becomes more of a reality, not sure why you want everything to unfold in some instant gratification form.
 
We're not mind readers they gave a damn rendering, if this was the Blue Devil rendering as well as hyped specs then sure I can see your point about being fixated on one thing. Also we know what GM can do or possibly will do they pulled nearly all the cards with the current gen Camaro, why wouldn't they with the next gen. Also it's page three of the thread and the last page we were basically talking about car performance and potential future outlook and your fixated on what happened during page one...

There will be plenty of discussion as this thread continues and the car becomes more of a reality, not sure why you want everything to unfold in some instant gratification form.
I'm only still discussing it because you keep quoting me. Want to end the discussion? End it. I'm merely trying to explain how I feel about the general sentiment around the new and mysterious Camaro.
 
I'm only still discussing it because you keep quoting me. Want to end the discussion? End it. I'm merely trying to explain how I feel about the general sentiment around the new and mysterious Camaro.

You've done this with me more than once in the past you know I'm far too thick headed to "end it", after you my lady...I mean good man :sly:;)

You haven't told us how you feel you've only told us more thoroughly how you feel about the general thread direction and etiquette of us who have posted here so far...

We've been talking about the Camaro in different ways, thanks for noticing.
 
You've done this with me more than once in the past you know I'm far too thick headed to "end it", after you my lady...I mean good man :sly:;)

You haven't told us how you feel you've only told us more thoroughly how you feel about the general thread direction and etiquette of us who have posted here so far...

We've been talking about the Camaro in different ways, thanks for noticing.
:lol: I'm sure we have, I'm quite thick headed myself. And it's 1:30 AM, so I'm not fully functioning...

Well, I feel that people aren't looking forward to this car, which is a shame. Everyone's already talking about what GM will do wrong, and not what they'll do right. Don't get me wrong, that's a pretty realistic view of the car and GM will almost certainly make it as crap as the current model (and then work some chassis magic with the ZL1 and Z28). But for now, I'd like to imagine a world where GM is willing to reinvent the Camaro. I'd like to see a car that looks great but isn't retro, nor does it have a stupidly high beltline. I'd like to see GM do a really good chassis for the whole lineup, not just the overpriced top of the line models. I'd want them to drop the V6 entirely and instead opt for a turbo 4 and a non-turbo 4 as a base model, since this hypothetical car will be light enough for that. And finally, it would have to be moderately refined, with a pleasant interior and decent kit. Now that would be a great car.
 
:lol: I'm sure we have, I'm quite thick headed myself. And it's 1:30 AM, so I'm not fully functioning...

Well, I feel that people aren't looking forward to this car, which is a shame. Everyone's already talking about what GM will do wrong, and not what they'll do right. Don't get me wrong, that's a pretty realistic view of the car and GM will almost certainly make it as crap as the current model (and then work some chassis magic with the ZL1 and Z28). But for now, I'd like to imagine a world where GM is willing to reinvent the Camaro. I'd like to see a car that looks great but isn't retro, nor does it have a stupidly high beltline. I'd like to see GM do a really good chassis for the whole lineup, not just the overpriced top of the line models. I'd want them to drop the V6 entirely and instead opt for a turbo 4 and a non-turbo 4 as a base model, since this hypothetical car will be light enough for that. And finally, it would have to be moderately refined, with a pleasant interior and decent kit. Now that would be a great car.

It's hard to look forward to it when there are still a million other pipe dreams from current gen cars that have yet to be tested or be fully shown. Many are still waiting to see how the Hellcat performs for one. Many are waiting to see how the Z06 performs as well as testing it against the Z/28 (which will probably happen) and as well as testing the Z/28 against other cars after the recent GT-R test. Then there is all the new gen Mustangs to test still like the Ecoboost and what ever upper models that are being hyped (GT350 or GT500). And that is just U.S. Domestic and not all of them just those that are obviously related to this Camaro. So it's quite hard to speculate on something with so much more going on at the moment or near future that is closer to fruition than this.

I don't see how the current model is crap or this one, there is no magic. GM has plenty of know how, they just like to be cheap or make you want to buy the upper tier stuff instead of the basic. Also GM is going to get crap I'm as big of a fan as the self-proclaimed but even I can't deny they deserve crap for their choice of ignition manufacture. As for the rest you should probably explain since we mostly agreed about the 4 cyl turbo.
 
You just stated exactly why I wouldn't trust anyone under 30 with the design of the Camaro.
Does your computer have an AMD or an Intel processor? What's the clock rate? How many cores does it have? How fast is your RAM?
 
It's hard to look forward to it when there are still a million other pipe dreams from current gen cars that have yet to be tested or be fully shown. Many are still waiting to see how the Hellcat performs for one. Many are waiting to see how the Z06 performs as well as testing it against the Z/28 (which will probably happen) and as well as testing the Z/28 against other cars after the recent GT-R test. Then there is all the new gen Mustangs to test still like the Ecoboost and what ever upper models that are being hyped (GT350 or GT500). And that is just U.S. Domestic and not all of them just those that are obviously related to this Camaro. So it's quite hard to speculate on something with so much more going on at the moment or near future that is closer to fruition than this.

I don't see how the current model is crap or this one, there is no magic. GM has plenty of know how, they just like to be cheap or make you want to buy the upper tier stuff instead of the basic. Also GM is going to get crap I'm as big of a fan as the self-proclaimed but even I can't deny they deserve crap for their choice of ignition manufacture. As for the rest you should probably explain since we mostly agreed about the 4 cyl turbo.
Thing is, the Hellcat is based on the challenger, so it's almost certainly rubbish like the rest of the challenger line. The Z/28, while quick and a great driver's car, is a $75 grand track special, so it's pretty useless in the real world. The Z06, yes, I am looking forward to. I feel like there's always that much going on in the auto industry, yet it's never stopped speculation, so why now? Which brings me back to my initial point, which is that people don't seem very hopeful for this car.

The current one is awful to be in. The interior is cheap and very overstyled, and there's no visibility. I'd get claustrophobic if I had to sit in there for more than 5 minutes. It's also a pig, though not as bad as the Challenger, it's way too heavy. They started off with a car that wasn't very good, and GM's performance division made it good. That's not a good business strategy, one where the only driver's cars in a rage of so called sports cars (yeah, right) cost in excess of 60 grand and make about 550 bhp. GM's cheapness is why I don't like them. That's not how you get respect. You get respect by consistently building cars that are good. Period. No conditions, just good in any form.
 
Thing is, the Hellcat is based on the challenger, so it's almost certainly rubbish like the rest of the challenger line. The Z/28, while quick and a great driver's car, is a $75 grand track special, so it's pretty useless in the real world. The Z06, yes, I am looking forward to. I feel like there's always that much going on in the auto industry, yet it's never stopped speculation, so why now? Which brings me back to my initial point, which is that people don't seem very hopeful for this car.

How do you know this? They claim they did chassis and aero work, thus I will pass full judgement when it's tested finally. Also you find it is "certainly rubbish" doesn't mean anything when there is still a big group wanting to see what it can do. No one is stopping speculation, I'm just saying what's the point to us rushing because you want us too, you're whole premise seems a bit naive in the way this thread should be operating. Also I people not liking a rendering doesn't mean they're not hopeless.

The current one is awful to be in. The interior is cheap and very overstyled, and there's no visibility. I'd get claustrophobic if I had to sit in there for more than 5 minutes. It's also a pig, though not as bad as the Challenger, it's way too heavy. They started off with a car that wasn't very good, and GM's performance division made it good. That's not a good business strategy, one where the only driver's cars in a rage of so called sports cars (yeah, right) cost in excess of 60 grand and make about 550 bhp. GM's cheapness is why I don't like them. That's not how you get respect. You get respect by consistently building cars that are good. Period. No conditions, just good in any form.

The visibility in the ones I've driven aren't that bad compared to other vehicles I've driven. Why would you get claustrophobic are you a bigger person? I'm 6'2 and I did just fine so not sure what the hang up here is. Interior is cheap yet over-styled that hardly makes sense and is almost a contradiction. Also how many of these cars have you been in or around since you've said your British and all and they don't have too much of these roaming around. Also GM has done this plenty of times with a slight sporty car for the general masses and then making it a true performer for the dedicated and many companies do this. The car shouldn't be one or the other all the time.

Also it makes more than 550 and in it's grouping is actually one a cheaper option and handles quite well. They do build good cars, but they also build reasonable cars and trucks that is realistic to the majority. You're age and experience hinder you from buying a "dedicated" sports car so many groups offer entry level that do just enough with in reason (hence cheaper option) yet you complain cause it doesn't perform well enough?
 
Also it makes more than 550 and in it's grouping is actually one a cheaper option and handles quite well. They do build good cars, but they also build reasonable cars and trucks that is realistic to the majority. You're age and experience hinder you from buying a "dedicated" sports car so many groups offer entry level that do just enough with in reason (hence cheaper option) yet you complain cause it doesn't perform well enough?

I'll also bring up the fact that the "track special" Z/28 has most of the parts from the Z/28R race cars that are holding their own in competition. I don't think he understands how tough it is for companies to make cars that run as well as they do and make them as cheap as they are. I mean, yeah, I could bring up the aftermarket again, but most aftermarket tuner companies do not offer good warranties for their parts. One of my dad's co-workers bought a ZL1 and absolutely loves it. I highly doubt that most manufacturers would willingly do what GM and Ford are doing- make high-powered cars with MSRPs that are attainable to the average person.
 
How do you know this? They claim they did chassis and aero work, thus I will pass full judgement when it's tested finally.
I don't, for sure. But I know that the rest of the lineup is overweight and is nowhere near being a sports car. I know that magazines like Road and Track compared the Challenger with the Mustang and Camaro once, and then in later comparisons omitted the Challenger entirely because the chassis was so far behind. I know that 707 bhp is a ridiculous amount of power, and that Mopar are very obviously emphasising the power and not how the car drives. And I know that the Chrysler corporation has a very poor record of making good driver's cars. What was their last car with a refined, well balanced chassis that felt good to drive?
Also you find it is "certainly rubbish" doesn't mean anything when there is still a big group wanting to see what it can do.
Almost certainly rubbish. I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me out of context or twist my words. I, too, am one of the ones waiting.
No one is stopping speculation, I'm just saying what's the point to us rushing because you want us too, you're whole premise seems a bit naive in the way this thread should be operating.
I didn't say people were stopping speculation. I said they stopped speculating on how good the car could be, and seemed instead to be focusing on what will be wrong with it. Which seems very unlike, say, the new Mustang. Now, I don't know why my comparing the launch of this car to the launch of the 2015 Mustang is considered naive, nor do I think that expecting a more interesting discussion is naive unless you have a very poor opinion of most of the people on GTP.
Also I people not liking a rendering doesn't mean they're not hopeless.
:confused: What?
The visibility in the ones I've driven aren't that bad compared to other vehicles I've driven. Why would you get claustrophobic are you a bigger person? I'm 6'2 and I did just fine so not sure what the hang up here is.
The convertible isn't too bad, but the high beltline makes it feel like the car is very enveloping. The coupe is just dreadful, the side windows might be maybe 25 cm high, and as a result they don't let in a lot of light, nor does the cabin seem very open. The cowl is high, the beltine higher, and rear visibility is almost nonexistent. As I said, the car has so little glass that it feels claustrophobic to me, because it's very dark and bunker-like inside.
Interior is cheap yet over-styled that hardly makes sense and is almost a contradiction.
Style =/= quality. The Camaro's interior is ugly because they made it too over the top. The gauges are hard to read, the dashboard is unattractive, the door panels are strange. It's designed to look over the top and concept-like, and as a result it's unattractive to me and a lot of people I know, predominantly women. It's cheap because the materials are almost all hard, cheap plastics. It looks toy-like because of the overstyling and that seems cheap, too. The interior looks, feels, and sounds cheap. I don't understand how overstyling and cheapness are mutually exclusive, unless you don't consider material quality, build quality, or material texture to be an influence on how expensive a car feels.
Also how many of these cars have you been in or around since you've said you're British and all and they don't have too much of these roaming around.
I've been in RS and SS models in shows in Pittsburgh. I'll likely get to sit in one or more brand new Camaros in about 2 weeks, and I've already been in at least 3 that I can remember vividly, likely several more at the same events since there are ofte several there.
Also GM has done this plenty of times with a slight sporty car for the general masses and then making it a true performer for the dedicated and many companies do this. The car shouldn't be one or the other all the time.
A car can be genuinely sporty and still be for the masses. The Mazda MX-5 is the best example of this. Sporty cars can sell well, and mundane cars can be made to drive like sports cars. It's not a rule that you want a fun car that you have to buy the performance model of a car. A truly well sorted chassis will be fun, period, not just in high performance applications. And high performance does not mean fun, either. Fun and performance numbers are two totally different things.
Also it makes more than 550 and in it's grouping is actually one a cheaper option and handles quite well. They do build good cars, but they also build reasonable cars and trucks that is realistic to the majority.
So you can't get a sporty car that's realistic to the majority? And what grouping is the Z/28 in? I think it's too track focused to have a grouping. Most other sports coupes for that price are much more civilised, have much more useable tyres, and are better all around cars while still offering an equally good chassis and driving experience.

Also, I used 550 as a vauge number, I know the Z/28 produces over 600 and the ZL1 makes 580. The fact is that that's a huge, huge amount of power, and in the real world you'll never really need a car with more than 300 bhp to have fun on the road. Significantly more power than that and you just can't drive the car flat out on public roads, and most of the fun in driving fast is from the car's at the limit behaviour.
Your age and experience hinder you from buying a "dedicated" sports car so many groups offer entry level that do just enough with in reason (hence cheaper option) yet you complain cause it doesn't perform well enough?
If I could afford to run it, I could buy a dedicated sports car. A cheap, used one, yes, but a dedicated sports car. Something like a Porsche 944 or Mazda RX-8. The idea that fun only comes when you're older and can afford a 50 grand car seems silly to me, especially when you can buy cars like the Mazda MX-5 or Toyota GT86 (see below for more examples of affordable performance). And you should note that I'm not complaining about the performance, but the feel of the car. As I said before, fun =/= performance.

I don't think he understands how tough it is for companies to make cars that run as well as they do and make them as cheap as they are. I mean, yeah, I could bring up the aftermarket again, but most aftermarket tuner companies do not offer good warranties for their parts. One of my dad's co-workers bought a ZL1 and absolutely loves it. I highly doubt that most manufacturers would willingly do what GM and Ford are doing- make high-powered cars with MSRPs that are attainable to the average person.
I'm not buying that for a second. You want to talk about fun cars that are affordable? Toyota GT86/Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ. Mazda MX-5/Miata. Hyundai Genesis Coupe. VW GTI. Ford Focus ST. Ford Fiesta ST. Mini Cooper S. Fiat 500 Abarth. Subaru WRX. Honda Civic Si.

Now, tell me that manufacturers don't willingly make fun, fast cars for relatively low prices. I dare you.
 
A V-6 Mustang has a cheaper MSRP than an FR-S. Of that entire list, I'd only want the WRX or maybe the 500.
Yes, but I'm talking about sports cars, not pony cars. The new Mustang might have the chassis refinement and feel to be mentioned in a discussion about sporty cars like the FR-S, but the old one doesn't.
 
I don't, for sure. But I know that the rest of the lineup is overweight and is nowhere near being a sports car. I know that magazines like Road and Track compared the Challenger with the Mustang and Camaro once, and then in later comparisons omitted the Challenger entirely because the chassis was so far behind. I know that 707 bhp is a ridiculous amount of power, and that Mopar are very obviously emphasising the power and not how the car drives. And I know that the Chrysler corporation has a very poor record of making good driver's cars. What was their last car with a refined, well balanced chassis that felt good to drive?

The press conference on the car would say otherwise, as I already said they were touting aero changes and chassis rework. Well people said the SRT6 Crossfire was quite well, the SRT4 that I drove handled quite well out of the box, and I don't have the money nor access to a Viper so I can't tell you how good or bad it is.

Almost certainly rubbish. I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me out of context or twist my words. I, too, am one of the ones waiting.

How did I misquote you? It's not my fault you've come in here with your usual attitude on American domestics and basically said that you think the car wont do well. So do start this crying wolf with out a wolf there.

I didn't say people were stopping speculation. I said they stopped speculating on how good the car could be, and seemed instead to be focusing on what will be wrong with it. Which seems very unlike, say, the new Mustang. Now, I don't know why my comparing the launch of this car to the launch of the 2015 Mustang is considered naive, nor do I think that expecting a more interesting discussion is naive unless you have a very poor opinion of most of the people on GTP.

Ironically you did the same with the Challenger by comparison. Also once again the reason the new mustang didn't get nearly as much flak is due to having a rendering in the beginning that didn't look retro for one, and also quickly having hype (and still having hype) surrounding what would be driving the car. This doesn't so people are left to speculate about a car that looks different but at this point will probably be the same as the current gen. Since most of us have hashed out discussion on the current gen we're left talking about few things when it comes to this car.


Remove the I (obviously) and you'll see I was trying to say that just because people think the car is ugly doesn't mean they see it as hopeless or all around not good. Just ugly for now.

The convertible isn't too bad, but the high beltline makes it feel like the car is very enveloping. The coupe is just dreadful, the side windows might be maybe 25 cm high, and as a result they don't let in a lot of light, nor does the cabin seem very open. The cowl is high, the beltine higher, and rear visibility is almost nonexistent. As I said, the car has so little glass that it feels claustrophobic to me, because it's very dark and bunker-like inside.

If you say so, I've experienced otherwise.

Style =/= quality. The Camaro's interior is ugly because they made it too over the top. The gauges are hard to read, the dashboard is unattractive, the door panels are strange. It's designed to look over the top and concept-like, and as a result it's unattractive to me and a lot of people I know, predominantly women. It's cheap because the materials are almost all hard, cheap plastics. It looks toy-like because of the overstyling and that seems cheap, too. The interior looks, feels, and sounds cheap. I don't understand how overstyling and cheapness are mutually exclusive, unless you don't consider material quality, build quality, or material texture to be an influence on how expensive a car feels.

I never said style equals quality, what I said is that how is it over styled yet cheap. Unless your use of the word cheap is in the sense that it's gimmick like which is what it seems to be. The interior isn't that busy, and the design isn't that bad, I'm sorry if it isn't full on Alcantara or Leathers or some other Euro styling that you would tout. The design is suppose to be reminiscent of the first gen Camaro while still looking modern which it does. The only part I feel that is ugly is the big knobs for the AC. Also their are material options if you weren't aware to upgrade the car with.

I've been in RS and SS models in shows in Pittsburgh. I'll likely get to sit in one or more brand new Camaros in about 2 weeks, and I've already been in at least 3 that I can remember vividly, likely several more at the same events since there are ofte several there.

So you've never driven one...

A car can be genuinely sporty and still be for the masses. The Mazda MX-5 is the best example of this. Sporty cars can sell well, and mundane cars can be made to drive like sports cars. It's not a rule that you want a fun car that you have to buy the performance model of a car. A truly well sorted chassis will be fun, period, not just in high performance applications. And high performance does not mean fun, either. Fun and performance numbers are two totally different things.

I still haven't seen you explain how it's not fun...because it's not an MX-5 that people go to by default as the ultimate sports car for those on a budget? Also no one is saying performance numbers are what make it fun, the car has enough power in the SS or RS form to have reasonable fun with. Once again I'll tell you as I did W&N, these cars are for regular people that aren't planning on taking them to a track. They want style and a bit of performance but more so they style. Those who are buying the 1LE, Z/28, ZL1 are doing it for more than just style. That's my point.

So you can't get a sporty car that's realistic to the majority? And what grouping is the Z/28 in? I think it's too track focused to have a grouping. Most other sports coupes for that price are much more civilised, have much more useable tyres, and are better all around cars while still offering an equally good chassis and driving experience.

How is it too track focused to have a grouping? And what other cars are you talking about?

Also, I used 550 as a vauge number, I know the Z/28 produces over 600 and the ZL1 makes 580. The fact is that that's a huge, huge amount of power, and in the real world you'll never really need a car with more than 300 bhp to have fun on the road. Significantly more power than that and you just can't drive the car flat out on public roads, and most of the fun in driving fast is from the car's at the limit behaviour.

Well if you know it makes 580 then why use 550 which is what made me think in that moment you were talking about the ZL1. Also the Z/28 doesn't produce over 600 so yeah...not even close. Also as far as power goes, you might want to read my new post in the Mustang thread where I already address this and you'll see that I'm not a power fiend so you should go tell someone else that bit who is in need of it. I'm simply correcting info that you don't know as well as you think.

If I could afford to run it, I could buy a dedicated sports car. A cheap, used one, yes, but a dedicated sports car. Something like a Porsche 944 or Mazda RX-8. The idea that fun only comes when you're older and can afford a 50 grand car seems silly to me, especially when you can buy cars like the Mazda MX-5 or Toyota GT86 (see below for more examples of affordable performance). And you should note that I'm not complaining about the performance, but the feel of the car. As I said before, fun =/= performance.

So a Mazda RX-8 is your choice, wow. I'm almost done here. Also no one said fun only comes when your older if you only plan to afford a 50K car at 45 or so on that's your hang up. I said that the options given for example at 25-32k are reasonable enough. You seem to dislike them because they're too American which has been my issue with you in the past. The GT86/BRZ/FRS is a much better car to point to I'd say than anything you've said so far (other than the MX-5 but to me that's more limited). I also noted that a while ago that you are complaining about the feeling, hence why I want you to give more. Considering you haven't driven one and I've driven all three (Challenger, Camaro, Mustang).


I'm not buying that for a second. You want to talk about fun cars that are affordable? Toyota GT86/Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ. Mazda MX-5/Miata. Hyundai Genesis Coupe. VW GTI. Ford Focus ST. Ford Fiesta ST. Mini Cooper S. Fiat 500 Abarth. Subaru WRX. Honda Civic Si.

So you basically want to compare small compact FWD cars to the Camaro mainly...other than the BRZ and Genesis that I agree with. I really don't see the point in comparing cars that aren't in the same class. If that's what is fun to you that's fine. I drove an ST and it was fine but it wasn't what I'd call fun, no more so than my current car that I compared it to when purchased.

Now, tell me that manufacturers don't willingly make fun, fast cars for relatively low prices. I dare you.

What is this a western stand off? This last line was silly, as if you have some manly internet bravado to prove. Even if not directed at me you could have done better with this.
Yes, but I'm talking about sports cars, not pony cars. The new Mustang might have the chassis refinement and feel to be mentioned in a discussion about sporty cars like the FR-S, but the old one doesn't.

As many have said on the subject, there aren't pony cars anymore this isn't the 60s/70s. There are only Sports cars of varying degree if you don't pay attention to the current Challenger that is. Though even that is more of a sports car than it's original form could have been.
 
Last edited:
I miss the old days when computers used to be owned by enthusiasts. They were highly tuned machines that you would maintain and use for serious stuff. Now they're just tools for the current generation to dick around and waste time on forums and Facebook talking about dumb crap. I asked someone today what kind of processor they had in their computer and they said this:
Intel, 2.something GHz, two, no idea, seriously what.
This is why I hate that computers are designed for the current generation. It's all dumb laptops instead of a much better desktop that's way more powerful. The people I know would laugh at you for saying you'd rather have a laptop than a big powerful custom desktop that you can crank up the power on. Nobody knows if they have a dual, quad, or 8 core processor (I think every computer should have an 8 core processor, they're always the best every time), and nobody knows about what graphics card they have. People don't even know the difference between memory and hard drives these days.

People just buy whatever computer looks cool, and they only care about touch screens and stupid crap like that, and the computers are constantly getting weighed down with these dumb factory installed features like webcams and stupid media stuff and touch screens, so the laptops get way worse battery life. Instead of cutting bloatware they just constantly make less powerful computers so they can advertise their battery life so dumb liberals can buy a computer that says "I'm a mother earth hero!" nobody makes a proper lightweight OS anymore. I could build my own desktop but what if I need a laptop for work or something? If nobody resists the current generation it's all going to be these dumb underpowered laptops that you can't do any real fun stuff with.

The current generation is so dumb. They're all a bunch of idiots, liberals, and metrosexuals, and they treat their computers like appliances.
 
Last edited:
I miss the old days when computers used to be owned by enthusiasts. They were highly tuned machines that you would maintain and use for serious stuff. Now they're just tools for the current generation to dick around and waste time on forums talking about dumb crap. I asked someone today what kind of processor they had in their computer and they said this:

This is why I hate that computers are designed for the current generation. It's all dumb laptops instead of a much better desktop that's way more powerful. The people I know would laugh at you for saying you'd rather have a laptop than a big powerful custom desktop that you can crank up the power on. Nobody knows if they have a dual, quad, or 8 core processor (I think every computer should have an 8 core processor, they're always the best every time), and nobody knows about what graphics card they have. People don't even know the difference between memory and hard drives these days.

People just buy whatever computer looks cool, and they only care about touch screens and stupid crap like that, and the computers are constantly getting weighed down with these dumb factory installed features like webcams and stupid media stuff and touch screens, so the laptops get way worse battery life. Instead of cutting bloatware they just constantly make less powerful computers so they can advertise their battery life so dumb liberals can buy a computer that says "I'm a mother earth hero!" nobody makes a proper lightweight OS anymore. I could build my own desktop but what if I need a laptop for work or something? If nobody resists the current generation it's all going to be these dumb underpowered laptops that you can't do any real fun stuff with.

The current generation is so dumb. They're all a bunch of idiots, liberals, and metrosexuals, and they treat their computers like appliances.

Your W&N satire is uncanny, you should have also put how they can't tell you the difference between GPU and CPU
 
Which I can do, and can also tell the difference between a hard drive and memory.

...and there is the context high above you as it now flies off into a field far behind you. The point wasn't if you can tell the difference it was to sound completely asinine (something not too foreign to you), about a situation that @Noob616 is passionate about most likely, just like you with cars supposedly. Then completely make it something not worth even wanting to talk about because he sounds inane (hence the satire). If I have to hold your hand for this you may want to spend some time evaluating things before tackling the big world of automotive enthusiasm/knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Talking about computers in general is a lot different from talking about a specific type of car... while rampant poshness and displacement downsizing almost make sense in more mainstream classes, cars like the Camaro are supposed to remain clean of that mess.
 
Talking about computers in general is a lot different from talking about a specific type of car... while rampant poshness and displacement downsizing almost make sense in more mainstream classes, cars like the Camaro are supposed to remain clean of that mess.

One it isn't a mess. Two who says?
 
Talking about computers in general is a lot different from talking about a specific type of car... while rampant poshness and displacement downsizing almost make sense in more mainstream classes, cars like the Camaro are supposed to remain clean of that mess.

It's not that different, both subjects are incredibly geeky, uncool, and will bore the hell out of the average person.
 
I disagree with most of the big points @Noob616 raised.
And for the record I built my computer so don't bring any of the points
 
But cars like the Camaro have already had 4 bangers. As I already said, the early third gens had "Iron Duke" 4 cylinder engines as the base engine. I'll repeat my point again that GM should at least try to sell a 4 cylinder, and if people don't buy turbo 4s, they will can them in the same way that the Iron Duke was killed off as an F-Body engine. The engine layout doesn't matter to me as long as it makes decent horsepower and can get decent mileage as well.
 
Which I can do, and can also tell the difference between a hard drive and memory.
OK, so now you're the manager in his 40's who kinda likes cars and knows his new Audi has a turbo but doesn't know what his engine displaces or how many cylinders it has, doesn't have a clue about its output, or know how to maintain it. Not knowing what kind of processor you have is the mark of someone who uses a computer as an appliance. You don't know because you don't care. Your computer does what it needs to and that's all you care about.
Talking about computers in general is a lot different from talking about a specific type of car... while rampant poshness and displacement downsizing almost make sense in more mainstream classes, cars like the Camaro are supposed to remain clean of that mess.
I saw a computer today advertised as a gaming computer. It didn't even have a quad core processor. They say you can get the same performance from a dual core but then you have to run it at a higher clock speed and use a bigger battery so you can get the same battery life, it's so dumb. Why can't they just stick quad or 8 cores in a gaming computer and use the dual cores for the regular ones.
I disagree with most of the big points @Noob616 raised.
And for the record I built my computer so don't bring any of the points
It was very very heavy satire about W&N's insane views on cars. I don't actually believe any of that.
 
It's not that different, both subjects are incredibly geeky, uncool, and will bore the hell out of the average person.

A good-looking, good-sounding, fast car will at least get some stares and comments from passers by, and it can be fun to use in and of itself. A computer, however, is only as good as what is accessed through it, no matter how advanced the equipment.

RE: Processor cores and battery life: or, if you're using a desktop, it's plugged into the wall all the time and you don't have battery life to worry about.
 
Back