Found the new camaro specs online easily of course. Seems like the new one is HUGE! Quite a boat. Grandpa's Lincoln Continental with horsepower and good looks. Wouldn't it go faster if it were smaller?

I got to thinking about comparing size between new and old Camaros. What are the specs for the first gen as listed for the new one below.

Thanks!

54.2Height
75.5 width
190.4 length
64.1 back width

Have to specify. If anyone is able to help me out, I am looking for the comparison in body sizes of a 1967 and 1968 vs. a 2010. Not looking for a 69 camparison.

Thanks.

http://motortrend.automotive.com/92111/112-0809-2010-camaro-v6-vs-1967-camaro-ss-350/specs.html

It does seem the new one is quite large. Showing the progression of time, the V6 outperforms the V8 67. That kinda sucks, but what can you do? The looks of the new one is disgusting. You couldn't give me one. GM really dropped the ball with this one. This is supposed to be the GM bailout vehicle and I think they really could have done a much better job in the looks department.

On a side note, there is a radio show here in Baltimore called the Mickey and Amelia show. Amelia says she has one of the new V8 Camaros and she got it in May. How is this possible?

It does seem the new one is quite large. Showing the progression of time, the V6 outperforms the V8 67. That kinda sucks, but what can you do? The looks of the new one is disgusting. You couldn't give me one. GM really dropped the ball with this one. This is supposed to be the GM bailout vehicle and I think they really could have done a much better job in the looks department.

On a side note, there is a radio show here in Baltimore called the Mickey and Amelia show. Amelia says she has one of the new V8 Camaros and she got it in May. How is this possible?

Well, you wouldn't know it by the demand this car has....I work just up the road where the Camaro is being built...they had to add extra shifts to keep up with the demand and I see the trucks rolling out on a steady basis....so, they did something right....I agree, they could have done a better job w/ its looks.....the charger and Mustangs are a better tribute to their former siblings than the Camaro is......but, they are flying out of the factory!! I say its already a sucess. If they introduce a Z/28 and improve on some of the issues they have with it.....I will put pen to paper and have a little sister for my 69

The Z/28 is not going to be built due to GMPP division being disolved. That is what I read in one of my magazine subscriptions.

Yes, but what is the Height, width, and length of a 68????

If they introduce a Z/28 and improve on some of the issues they have with it.....I will put pen to paper and have a little sister for my 69

That's what I keep saying, ugly or not, if the put out a 567 hp Camaro, I will buy one! It would not take much effort, I hope someone is listening.

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

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

Also, technically GM Performance Parts is still alive & kicking. It's the group that made the specialty cars (and I cannot remember the name right now) that is on hiatus. Just in case anyone was worried, lol.

i heard the 2010 tipped over 4k like at about 4200lbs?? (2ss 6speed)

The wheel options matter a great deal on weight. 18s-21s. Most of the 1SSs are alittle over 3900lbs with gas in tank minus a driver. New Safety regulations in 03 forced the Camaro to accomodate for more dimensions and what-not and that's one reason the car weighs so much. The IRS is another reason as it's the first time a Camaro has had that. The exhaust alone(catback system) is over 80lbs! There's alot of weight to easily take off the car once modding begins.

The Z/28 is not going to be built due to GMPP division being disolved. That is what I read in one of my magazine subscriptions.
it wasn't the GMPP division that got dissolved, it was a division with a different set of initials that escapes me at this moment. i think it was GMPD or something like that- the group that developed only the high performance models.
GMPP is a parts department, and you can still get their catalog and buy their parts..

The first thing i noticed when i parked my 67 next to the new one was how much bigger it is. Not saying its neccessarily a bad thing but its quite a difference. Look at the difference in the height of the rear quarters...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/thorpe67rs/newandoldbackend.jpg?t=1244145347

I'll stick with my rusty clunker;
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj181/crustyz11/oldandnew.jpg

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
-----
3286Your results may vary. LOL

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

Also, technically GM Performance Parts is still alive & kicking. It's the group that made the specialty cars (and I cannot remember the name right now) that is on hiatus. Just in case anyone was worried, lol.



Thank you! Nice job on that. I was arguing with a buddy and these specs show how wrong he was that they are so close in size. Thanks again. :hurray:

i heard the 2010 tipped over 4k like at about 4200lbs?? (2ss 6speed)

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)

You are thinking of the Challenger.


Or the Shelby Cobra. Oink Oink.

Or the Shelby Cobra. Oink Oink.

Yeah, no joke, lol. 400hp 03/04 Cobra=12s stock, 500hp GT500=12s stock, 540hp KR=12s stock, 725hp SuperSnake=12s stock.

For those of you keeping track at home . . .

2010 vs. a 67 - 2010 is 3” inches wider
2010 vs. a 67 - 2010 is 5.8” longer
2010 vs. a 67 - 2010 is 3.2 ” higher

Car weighs nearly 500 pounds more (depending)

Thanks again all!!!!!

i take a 69 DZ 302 M22 car anyday before i get a 2010....and taking from the info above the new camaro sits 4 inches higher then my 71.....i like my stance better!

The new ones are starting to grow on me..... but I cannot understand the direction they took with these cars. If they had the retro look of the new Mustang & Challenger, I would own one aready.

A few years back, people turned to the GTO when Camaro production stopped & many complained how much slower they were due to the extra weight. Others complained about the independent rear suspension when drag racing them. GM then makes the 2010 Camaro along the same design. What I would love to see is a 3200lb, straight axle Camaro with an engine over 400hp.

I would like 1 of each generation actually....