How big are 2010 Camaros?

[Nine Ball]

Big. I snapped this photo of mine while doing a photo shoot on the silver 2nd gen. It becomes very apparent why they weigh 3,850 lbs dry.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/IMG_2472-1.jpg

[Van B]

It looks like you shrunk the 2nd gen in photoshop or something!

Wow same thought, you must have a quicker trigger finger.

[moreHP]

Wow. Are you messing around with photoshop?:) The 2nd gen camaros are pretty good sized cars and it looks like a shoebox nova next to that new camaro!

[maxharvard]

Not exactly a fair comparison between a stock 2010 car and a modified suspension car ;)

I see what you mean though, i got some up close time with a few lately and they do "feel" big as all hell.

[Nine Ball]

I'll take a photo of my Camaro next to my 1970 Chevelle later this week. Bet the new Camaro is bigger, LOL!

[Damn True]

What does the 2nd Gen weigh?

I think Mary's is in the 3600 range.

Take that figure and throw in 72-way power seats, power windows, 4-6 airbags, stereo, nav, on-star and a bunch of other electronic doo-dads, catalytic converters, resonators and other smog stuff, a crapload of sound attenuation material, and bumpers that actually do something and it's really pretty amazing the new Camaro weighs as little as it does.

[TPI Monte SS]

Great looking car Tony! Crikey, the 5th-gen looks huge, but you should put it next to a stock 4th-gen F-car. This info was posted on our local F-body site -

2002 Camaro LxWxH = 193.5 x 74.1 x 51.8 -- Wheelbase = 101.1
2010 Camaro LxWxH = 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.2 -- Wheelbase = 112.3

So the new one is actually 3" shorter than a 4th-gen, but 1.4" taller, and 2.4" wider - pretty close.

I just looked at the 1985 Monte Carlo brochure I have here in my desk as well, and here's the specs -

1985 Monte Carlo SS LxWxH = 202.4 x 71.8 x 55 - Wheelbase = 108

So, it's a foot shorter than the Monte, but almost 4" wider and near the same height. It's also about 400lbs heavier than the Monte.

[Nine Ball]

Good stats Steve. The high midline of the 5th gen makes the entire car look taller. Luckily it has the chopped top look, it sure would be huge if they made the roof proportional to the sides!

[Tony_SS]

Wow and folks were calling the Challenger big.

[Twentyover]

Wow and folks were calling the Challenger big.


Because it is. The deal is, initially these cars were based on smaller, RWD cars. Well, small RWD's aren't out there anymore, so they get based on larger, RWD cars. So they're bigger than the stuff we typically like.

[Damn True]

Wow and folks were calling the Challenger big.

The chally IS big. If I'm not mistaken, in every dimension.

[WILWAXU]

Great looking car Tony! Crikey, the 5th-gen looks huge, but you should put it next to a stock 4th-gen F-car. This info was posted on our local F-body site -

2002 Camaro LxWxH = 193.5 x 74.1 x 51.8 -- Wheelbase = 101.1
2010 Camaro LxWxH = 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.2 -- Wheelbase = 112.3

So the new one is actually 3" shorter than a 4th-gen, but 1.4" taller, and 2.4" wider - pretty close.
Great comparison. The 2010 is more flat sided, so it fills out that space more, which makes it look visually much larger.

[trapin]

Yes, it's all an illusion really. The high belt line of the Zeta architecture gives the car more mass thus making it appear to be "that much" bigger than the other cars. This is not unlike the illusion of Cinderalla's Castle at Walt Disney World. When you walk up to it you think it is huge until you realize that they made the windows and some features of the building smaller to give it the appearance of being bigger than it actually is.

Drop the belt & roof line on that car a bit and the effect would go away.

[Nine Ball]

Wow and folks were calling the Challenger big.

Challenger is even bigger than the Camaro. In fact, the Challenger sits a good 3 inches taller. You can lower your Challenger 2 inches and it will still be taller than a Camaro, LOL!

[Tony_SS]

Wasn't the original Challenger a full size muscle car anyway? Much like a 70 Chevelle?

Here are 09 Chally specs:
Wheelbase (in) 116.0
Length, Overall (in) 197.7
Width, Max w/o mirrors (in) 75.7
Height, Overall (in) 57.1

[BonzoHansen]

Here, I posted this on camaros.net last week.


During a similar discussion at NastyZ I threw this info together while I watched a Yankee game. :)

It's the width & height that make this thing look so damn big too, along with the high belt line. I guess the down side of being based on a 4 dr chassis. IMO it is still maybe 400 pounds too heavy. At least it (and the occupants) will survive a hit way better than the older ones and the HP & MPG and clean tail pipe emissions too. The V6 car continues to impress. The better V6 handling numbers IMO show the adverse impact of the unsprung weight of SUV sized wheels & tires, although I could be at least partially wrong on that.

I still have hopes of buying a 2012 model. :)

************************************************** *****************
From my Camaro white book (except weight as noted)


Year WB Len Ht Width Weight (wt data source)
1967 108.0 184.6 51.0 72.5 3393 (based on white book data incl common options)
1970 108.0 188.0 50.1 74.4 3313 (nastyZ, unknown options)
1974 108.0 195.4 49.1 74.4 3840 (nastyZ, unknown options)
1982 101.0 187.8 49.8 72.0 3273 (92 Z28 HT, 3rdgen.org, unknown options)
1993 101.1 193.2 51.3 74.1 3577 (02 Camaro jalopnik, unknown options)
2010 112.3 190.4 54.2 75.5 3860 (GM, 1SS 6 speed)


I'll tell you how I backed into 67 weight number. All from the Camaro White Book.

I tried to compare a similarly optioned car to the 2010 1SS Coupe:

V8 Hardtop 3070
...then add...
PW 21
AC 86
PB 20
Fr Discs 33
350 72
DUEL EXH 38
PS 29
HD BATTERY 15
AM-FM 9
-----
3393

Or w/o PW or AC
V8 Hardtop 3070
...then add...
PB 20
Fr Discs 33
350 72
DUEL EXH 38
PS 29
HD BATTERY 15
AM-FM 9
-----
3286

Your results may vary. LOL

*************************************



You are thinking of the Challenger.


LS Coupe 1LT Coupe 2LT Coupe 1SS Coupe 2SS Coupe

Curb weight, manual, lbs. (kg) 3780 (1715) 3741 (1697) 3741 (1697) 3860 (1751) 3860 (1751)
Curb weight, auto, lbs. (kg) 3769 (1710) 3750 (1701) 3750 (1701) 3913 (1775) 3913 (1775)

[Mathius]

Take that figure and throw in 72-way power seats, power windows, 4-6 airbags, stereo, nav, on-star and a bunch of other electronic doo-dads, catalytic converters, resonators and other smog stuff, a crapload of sound attenuation material, and bumpers that actually do something and it's really pretty amazing the new Camaro weighs as little as it does.

Exactly.

Mathius

[MrQuick]

I'll take a photo of my Camaro next to my 1970 Chevelle later this week. Bet the new Camaro is bigger, LOL!
How about next to your 69? You still own a 69 right?


Challenger is even bigger than the Camaro. In fact, the Challenger sits a good 3 inches taller. You can lower your Challenger 2 inches and it will still be taller than a Camaro, LOL!

Challie's are huge. Camaro looks better IMHO.
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
Vince

[WS6]

I'd still prefer the originals.

When I finally got to see a new camaro in person, I finally realized what I didn't like about it. The high belt line basically. The roof line and windows look normal but the car looks so thick through the middle. Do crash standards have anything to do with this?

[BuddyP]

Yes the high beltline makes em BIG. I remember seeing a production proto at Woodward last fall and was thinking "Wow, this is a big car"!

[MrQuick]

do crash standards have anything to do with this? 100%

Instead of painful and costly leg/hip injuries the impact victim goes quietly under the car. LOL

[79-TA]

What does the 2nd Gen weigh?

I think Mary's is in the 3600 range.

Take that figure and throw in 72-way power seats, power windows, 4-6 airbags, stereo, nav, on-star and a bunch of other electronic doo-dads, catalytic converters, resonators and other smog stuff, a crapload of sound attenuation material, and bumpers that actually do something and it's really pretty amazing the new Camaro weighs as little as it does.

My '79 Trans Am weighed in at 3471 . . . I calculate it was short of at most 50 pounds of gas from a full tank. I'd really rather the see the 5th gen at 90% scale or so.




So the new one is actually 3" shorter than a 4th-gen, but 1.4" taller, and 2.4" wider - pretty close.


if we were to describe a person like this (shorter with more girth) the term fat might come to mind. I still think the 5th gen looks great, but it really shows just how sleek the classic sheet metal is.

[Damn True]

I'd still prefer the originals.

When I finally got to see a new camaro in person, I finally realized what I didn't like about it. The high belt line basically. The roof line and windows look normal but the car looks so thick through the middle. Do crash standards have anything to do with this?

I've been told a lot of it has to do with the euro pedestrian impact rules. They dictate the height of the hoodline which sorta dictates the belt line. Dunno how true that is, I'm sure Tony can offer a better explaination.

[79-TA]

Part of the thick middle look comes from the inability to tuck the sheet metal gracefully underneath the car as it compromises too much interior space. The 2nd gen is my favorite example of this. It's a large car with a not so large interior thanks to the compromising curved exterior shape.

[mikedc]

Maybe these newer cars are just staying proportional.


The average American buyer has gotten, um, "bigger" in the last 40 years too. (I think we have even gotten a little taller for that matter.)



---------------------------

[formula]

the new challie is HUUUUUGE. Looking at the picture of the challie next to the original makes me feel like the styling deparment just stuck one of those blowers they use for bouncy castles up to the tail pipe of the original and switched it on high...WHOMP! Inflate-a-car!

[ronin8451]

Well, ( flame suit on) if they didn't put the DONK sized wheels on it, the car would be able to sit lower at least. I hate the heavy,monster wheels Detroit is putting on new cars !!:machine::barf:

With the huge wheel openings for these big wheels, it would look stupid to put more appropriate sized 18" wheels on it. That's just my 39 year old opinion . I still want a new Camaro though .

Rick

[WS6]

I've been told a lot of it has to do with the euro pedestrian impact rules. They dictate the height of the hoodline which sorta dictates the belt line. Dunno how true that is, I'm sure Tony can offer a better explaination.

I've heard of this rule before but didn't know it had anything to do with American cars. Regardless, building a car to better protect a pedestrian that was dumb enough to be in front of said car is dumb. Seriously. Next thing you know, they will be citing pedestrian crash standards. I can also see the previews for Jackass 3 now. Steevo jumps in front of one of these cars while Johnny is standing close by with a radar gun making sure it's within the crash speed. Johnny misreads the speed for fun because watching Steevo get tagged is funny.

[Damn True]

Because they'd like to sell Camaros in Europe.

[Vegas69]

I just ran across my first SS on the road tonight. Did nothing for me whatsoever. For the money it's a good car however. Of course it was yellow.

[GrabberGT]

Because they'd like to sell Camaros in Europe.


Still.... Im having trouble envisioning any EU cars that appear to be as bloated as the Camaro or Challenger.

[Damn True]

All the Daimler products have a similar silhouette to the front end. As do Opel and Vauxhall.

[406 Q-ship]

While the 2010 Camaro is quite a bit taller than any previous F-body by lenght they are not too big (even if the wheelbase is the same as a Chevelle). It feels very much similar in size to a 1st Gen car. Here is one with my Monte in the picture......

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/p_00005-1.jpg

Let me say this I drove the SS in the picture, if I did not have 2 cars and the truck I would be down at the Chevy Dealer putting an order in........that car is freakin' fast and handles awesome (suprised me to be honest with almost 3900 curb weight)

[Black-Jacket]

cough stripper model cough

[79-TA]

cough stripper model cough

yea, I demand the 1sc stripper coupe option . . . power windows and power locks, among other options, are lame.

[Chris69]

It feels very much similar in size to a 1st Gen car.

If thats in reference to a first gen F-body I'm going to have to disagree. Now I haven't been able to drive my car and the 5th gens at work back to back yet, but from my experience the 5th gen feels a good deal bigger, except for the interior, which feels less roomy in my opinion.

[chevy42083]

More reference :enguard:
Nothing dead on comparable... but you get the jist

Grabbed these from an old thread on ltxtech
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/ehbreo-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/s652c5-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/2ldl5z-1.jpg

[Chris69]

In my opinion I think the size difference is very noticeable from behind the wheel. I haven't had the opportunity to put one side by side with my 69 yet, but even from the pictures you posted the 5th gen looks a good deal bigger.

[Damn True]

So I'm tooling along on my commute this morning and I glanced into my rear view mirror. My view was filled with a bit of yellow a bit of black and a whole bunch of BADA$$. In person the new Camaro is just freaking amazing looking.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/06/2a8lvup-1.jpg

[Chevrolaine]

Why all the talk on the 5th Gen? Gimme more of that sexy silver 2nd gen!! What publication will it be appearing in???