http://www.petitiononline.com/CamaroSS/petition.html

this is to bring back the camaro. gm is strongly considering it. so lets help them out. comeon guys. lets bring back the camaro so we can shut the's mustang owners up.

 

one can only dream

 

Bring it back and have the ecotec as the base engine. The concept that looks like a 69 is the body to go with. I would like to have a 200 cid V-8 that revs to about 8000 rpm in mine. Something that would sound like a Ferrari, it could be the Z28. Then have the Ls7 engine in the SS. The top seller would be the 4 cylinder model, just as the 6 cylinder models were the biggest sellers in the 64 mustang.

 

4cyl Camaro ?...i'd make it a mission in life to find and burn them all.

 

i like camaros, and signed it, but i dont think a little online petition is going to make a big proposal to a company like GM

 

Omg, GM is working on it, I am so annoyed by threads like this posted on every forum as they usually is one on most forums, People like to talk big about how they need a new Camaro, but how many of them would actually go out and buy one. 1000s of people signed the petition not to kill it, but how many people actually went out and bought one?

GM knows what a valuable name the Camaro is, they won't let it die its to valuable.

 

That's what I'm thinking. Seriously, when was the last time one of these things actually worked?

 

True there is a post like this in every type of forum, but its ok. lol and to be honest w/ you I would go out and buy one. if i had the money yes. I could have owned an 02 ss but insurance for me since i'm 22 would have been more then my damn car payment. and i have a clean dmv record.

What he said.

 

I had a Camaro. It was an OK car but not something I want to buy again. I also have a WS6 TA.
If they bring them back, I hope they are 1000% better made

 

And there in lies the problem, everyones behind the idea, but most can't actually do anything about it. The Fbody was great for what it was, a fast car that was good on a track, but that was about it. Insureance was a joke, the interior was pathetic, but as long as all you cared about was going fast then it was the car for you. The problem is to keep a car profitable and selling these days it must be that and more.

Thus IMO if they do bring it back, I hope it has nothing to do with the 4th gens, don't get me wrong im all for heritage in cars (not retro, I hate the new Mustang), I think it should stay true to its roots, but If GM wants to get back on its feet, it needs a solid performer on all levels, performance, ride and handling, driveability, and especially the interior.

So in these bring back the Camaro threads I have to say no, don't bring it back, make a new one that is more deserving of the name.

 

Well, GM made them (Firebirds too) from 1982-1986, so you better get your lighter handy as they made a lot of them.

GM is downsizing through attrition, they will focus on fewer, more profitable models (like the SUV's used to be.) Not a lot of room for a niche vehicle.

Camaro sales have been terrible for decades, IMHO it was because they were so ugly, but, except for a handful of years, the drivetrain was much better than the Mustangs. Guess who out-sold who?

People lamented the demise of the F-body, but nobody bought one (relatively speaking). The car you are all asking for is already being built. It is called the GTO. Even with the restyle in 2005, the sales are still poor. GM will reuse the Camaro name, but will <eventually> use V6 power and 4-door platforms. Everyone likes the idea of a Camaro, but they won't buy them.

 

Honestly why does GM need to bring back the camaro? They are building Grand Prixs, GTOs Monte Carlos and Impalass that have more power than most of the camaros that were ever made... I think it's nice that instead of concentrating all the "Power" in one style of car they are spreading it around to a lot of different areas and giving people some choice!!

 

Because Camaro is the 3rd most recognized nameplate in the GMs arsenol. Its as much Chevy as the Corvette is.

As for the GTO, the 05 is set to sell all the 12K they are importing this year with little to no rebates, the 04s were a bit slower selling I will admit, but 05 sales are 100% more in some months than the 04s were. So to say that it isn't selling is a fallacy, when they are, but at 12K total, you won't see them everywhere like you will the Mustang.

The Camaro will be back with a V6, but you will never see it in a sedan form.

 

The ONLY year that a 4cyl was found in a Camaro was 1984 and it was for one year only. Production numbers were very low and most are probably dead already. I've only seen one in person in my life.

I agree that even considering a 4 cyl (ecotec or not) as a powerplant option in the possible 5th gen f-body platform would be criminal. Bob Lutz has made it very clear that if they re-introduce the Camaro (likely on the Zeta platform; though thought terminated) that it will be a 2dr RWD platform, as it should be, not a 4dr regurgitation of the namesake. No way they won't have an answer to the Mustang. The sales for the damn thing have been stupid profitable. I know, we own an 05 GT and traded in the 98 LS1 Z28 for it.

-Keith

 

Well, even with supply issues, 12 thousand lousy cars won't have GM turning cartwheels over sales and wanting to design (pay for) a similar Camaro car.

If there was unlimited production, I doubt the GTO would sell over 50K units a year. Hell, the Caprice sold a lot more units in the last couple years of production, but they killed it off anyway, more room to make SUV's...

As far as no sedan's with the Camaro name....we shall see, but go ahead and count the doors on the new Charger before you use the word 'never'.

The fact is, the f-body cars sales have been dropping since the late 70's. Sadly, the Camaro's time is over.

 

I have seen many of them, more 4-cylinder Firebirds admittedly, but I have seen them, was in high-school at the time and they were popular.

Ridden in a few of the iron duke 'birds and it was every bit as exciting as 92 savage horsepower could make them.

As far as being dead already, I agree and thank God that it is so.

Just checked out a couple of Camaro sites and they back up my memory. 4 cylinder cars were made between 82 and 86.

They were a lot more rare in the later years, but they made a ton of them in 82-3.

 

Whoa...what the hell? I'm sorry, you're absolutely right! I looked into it and they made them form 82-84 dubbed the iron duke. That's nuts! I've owned 5 Camaros and consider myself a fan but I've only seen 1 4cyl that was my friends and for some reason thought it was a one year only thing! Good looking out.

 

OK yeah so Gm makes grand prix's only offered in automatic GTO's which are only limited in production and monte carlos which are again only made in automatic. GM needs to make a come back with the manual transmission. If they started making a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix with a 5 speed or even a 6 it would most definately sell much more. And as for people not going out to buy camaros. When my family heard that the camaro was not being produced we went out and bought two. A 02 Z28 and a 00 Z28. Camaros have been in my family forever and I have learned how to drive in them. So they defiantely need to bring them back and my family will definately purchase three of them. One for each member.

 

No 4 cly Camaros---they don't belong in a Camaro. Leave 4 cly cars for sport compacts. A new Camaro would likely fall in the 3300-355lbs range (look at the Mustang) a 4 cly woild get terrible gas mileage as its straing to haul the car around.

Plus it would be super slow.

200CID V8??? Hello---there would be zero torque. Gm doesn't have a V8 that small and is not going to make one. Even Fearris have 3.6L V8s--but they cost alot of money to build.

The top seller would not be a 4 cly for obvious reasons stated above.

LS7 in the SS or Z/28 wold be great though.

 

Okay know your facts before posting misinformation.

Camaro sales have been terirble for DECADES????? NOT

These are actual production numbers from the Camaro white book:

2002: 42,098
2001: 29,009 Camaros were built for worldwide distribution. 2001 was built-out early (May, 2001) for early start-up of 35th Anniversary Camaros)
2000: 45,417
1999: 42,098
1998:48,490
1997: unknown
1996 : 61,362
1995: 122,738
1994: 119,799
1993: 39,103 (first year of 4th gen, late start of production)

1992: 70,007 (who wants to buy a car tht will be replaced?)
1991: 100,838
1990:34,986 (short model year)
1989: 110,379
1988: 96,275
1987: 137,760
1986: 192,219
1985: 180,018
1984: 261,519 (wow)
1983: 154,381
1982: 189,747

1981: 126,139
1980: 152,005
1979: 282,571
1978: 272,631
1977: 218,853
1976: 182,959
1975: 145,770
1974: 151,008
1973: 95,751
1972: 68,651 (strike at GM)
1971: 114,630
1970: 124,901 (model year for 70 syated after feb 1970)

1969: 243,085 (production went to feb 1970)
1968: 235,147
1967: 220,906

As you can plainly see Camaro production was not terrible for decades
The 4th gen was the leat succesful in those terms, sales were weak. And there were a few good years.

A major factor in sales VS Mustangs was price. 1987-1993 Mustangs were fast and cheap. Camaros were more $$$$$.

Ugly? --lets take a poll--you'll be in the extreme minority. Speaking of which those 80's Mustangs sold a ton and they couldn't win a bueaty contest if they bribbed the judge!
Words like sqaure and boxy comes to mind.

I had an 86 Mustang LX---fast but the car looked terribly dated. My 87 IROC was modern and bueatiful. Again, the Mustang was cheap. Camaro had no 4.9L LX equalivavlint. The IROC-Z was thousands more.

GTO sales were sow to start but have staedily improved. Even so--they are only importing 18,000 per year. Even if GM wanted they could not import more. It would take take to do so. Plus the UAW would probably have a stroke.

Niche Vehicle? Look at the Solstice! They are building 20,000 a year! Camaros have never been a niche vehcile. If Ford can build 190,000 2005 Mustangs GM could at least do half that and still amke money.

They key lies in building a car with the right balance of sportiness and practicality. Give it good visibility, easy to get in and out, for starters. When I drive a 4th gen I cannot see the hood---every other gen I can.

Note I am not counting Firebird numbers. Generally speaking, there were about 50% less Firebird built. Although the late 70's had a few 200,000 plus+ years for the Firebird.

Don't make me get out my Firebird Redbook. Seriously, I can't find it

THe GTO did not replace the Firebird or Camaro. Its too exspensive

Okay I am done my rant.

Yes they should bring back the Camaro. Do what Ford did---take a moden platform, dumb it down a little (keeps costs low) add some great engines (Fords 4.0L is a POS truck engine) keep price in line with Mustang. Some retro styling perhaps.

I am not keen on the Firebirds return--even though I own one. I don't want a mechanical clone with a different body to be a Firebird. Which is exactly what the 4th gen was.

 

I think they could build a 69 camaro clone that could weigh under 2800lbs with a 4 cyl. in it. 65 mustangs only weighed that much with a 289 in them. Damn Cobalt weighs 2990lbs about 500 more than a Cavalier, so I guess it can't get the mileage a Cavalier can.
200 cid would have no torque, thats why we have transmissions and rearends with different gear ratios. Torque doesn't mean much Hp does, as long as you gear it right. I don't want another pig Camaro, that is why they quit selling. They were overweight, too wide, cost too much and the seating position was terrible. Who wants to sit on the ground and lean way back, can't hardly see over the dash and I am 6' 3" tall. I am all for options, several engines, cars with manual everything or power whatever you want, that is why I said they could build Ls7 engined SS cars with all the power crap and be a heavier car for those who want them. But I still think a 145hp ecotec powered 69 Camaro clone would be the big seller. Most people don't care about how quick the car is, as long as it gets good mileage, doesn't cost too much, and looks good.

 

Hey a low weight is great but technically speaking hard and very exspensive to do.
Look at the Corvette C6, Posche Boxter and Acura NSX---they are weigh in at a bit over 3000lbs and they are two seaters.

It would be impossible to get a Camaro at that weight and keep the car profitiable. It would cost alot of money.

Increasing weight has been happening for awhile--a fact of crash regulations (like side impact beams) The structures cars have now are heavier but worth it as they are very stiff and inflexible.

I can understand you egronomic concerns about the 4th gen Camaros. Not the most driver freindly and a bit hard to see out of.

Only the heaviest Coblats would weigh over 2900lbs--most fall in the 2800lbs range.

Another pig Camaro you say? Well the new Mustang is a pretty heavy car 3500-3700lbs and for is building 190,000 of them this year. Guess that weight thing has no bearing on sales. And the 210hp V6 will account for more sales the other models.

The weigh of the Camaro did not contribute to the cancellation at all.

4 clys were offered in Camaro and they were embarassing and slow. I bet the 2.8L sold more. If someone wants a 4cly 2dr coupe there is the Cobalt. That is the cars role. A Camaro is a perfornace car that has a certain image to live up to.

I don'think you have ever owned a Camaro--there is a certain formula that makes a Camaro and its not a 4cly or zero torque, rev to the sky V8. Most Americans do like torque--give the car a nice jump off the line without resorting to high rpm cluthc drops.

Honda S2000 is reasonably quick---and geared high but you have to abuse the hell out of it to make it move. And it gets crappy mileage.

Guess I can't change your mind but we have nothing to fear--GM would never do this to the Camaro, they will never make a 200 CID V8--and the car could never weigh so little.

 

I disagree... Right now, the age of the SUV is finally starting to end, much the same way that the Musclecar era ended. Now people are starting to want fun to drive, fuel efficient cars again. Remember 1982? Remember when GM and Ford got everyone to have fun again with the Mustang GT and re-designed Camaro? I have a Car & Driver article from 1982 that quoted the Camaro as "928 aspirations 924 executions", which wasn't all that bad. One of the motoring scribes had described the F-body of the future as having Turbo 4 or 6 power or even a supercharger... Wow, deja vu all over again.

I signed the petition just like everyone else. I actually had an 87 Firebird Formula for a bit. I also tried like hell to buy a 2002 Camaro Z28, but the insurance bastards weren't too keen on me having it. The were conspiring with the banks, I'm sure!

As for the market... the market is there for the asking, if the product would capture that 'look'. Look at all the 'retro' vehicles out there. Here's the downside to all this sweetness and light... how to keep the unit cost down? What platform would you engineer it on? You've got an excellent family of engines to choose from... all it needs is a good, solid platform.

The ergonomics of the last generation Camaro weren't that bad... definitely an approvement over the 1970-1981 Generation. My biggest bitch about the 4th Gen Camaro was the fact that you couldn't see all the gages over the airbag. I liked the way the car sat and it definitely felt like you were a bullet fired from a gun when driving it. (my boss has a 2001 Camaro SS with the Z06/LS6 engine swap)

By the way, the Camaro/Firebird 4-cylinder was the 2.5L OHV engine. This engine first appeared in the mid-70's in the Sunbird/Monza/Firenza/Starfire and later on in the Citation/Pheonix/Omega/Skylark, Celebrity/6000/Ciera/Century, Camaro/Firebird, S-10/S-15... these were superceded by the 2.5L Tech 4 variant. This engine was eventually replaced by the 2.2L OHV engine.

Scott

 

well said Scott

 

While your is a fine and persuasive argument, your own numbers prove my point. Nearly a quarter-million units per year for the first gen and dropped each successive revision. If you were trying to build yourself up by tearing me down with numbers you copied out of a book, 'fraid you were less then successful. So, just to recap, 4 decades ago sales were quite good, then over the last 35 years they declined. Then 2 decades ago, they really started tanking in comparison to the first gen cars. Sounds like sales were terrible for decades to me.