PaulieWalnuts

I owned an 89 RS 5 Speed. By 1991 I went through 2 tranys with just normal driving. It rattled, squeeked, and in general was a POS. I then bought a used 88 RX-7 convt and man what a difference in refinement and reliability. If they can get the refinement level up to C6 level they'd have a chance against a Mustang.

jeffe19007

I owned a '68 396 SS with a TH400. I was pretty fast (0 to 60 in about 4 seconds). I went through the engine (had to, there was a bad crank bearing) and it became a drivable but fast car. It did everything well (for the 1970s) but stop. Drum brakes in a big block Chevy suck.

I have driven many new Camaros since and I thought they were poor examples of engineering.

In 1986 I swore off any new GM cars after buying a new 1984 S10 Blazer. I lost the engine, tranny, and front A-arms in 60,000 miles. And it had good care! I rebuilt the tranny and engine and had misery with both. We left it leaking tranny fluid in front of a Mazda dealer when we bought one of the original MPVs.

If GM produces a new Camaro, it has to be price competitive with the Mustang. It also has to be decently reliable of they will lose a whole new generation of potential owners. The current management of GM is still run by accountants, you can see in the penny pinching design and interiors.

Every day I wait for the news that Robert Lutz quit that operation. With him working at GM there is hope. He did great things for Chrysler.

Some good design, and a Hyundai warranty and maybe I'll go over to the Chevy dealer...

Driving the RX-8 has been the first time I had some of the thrill of that '68 Camaro come back. Certainly Chevrolet never did it for me again...

Roaddemon

By past history I think the build quality is going to suck on the new Camaros. If you get a good one your lucky. GM factories are antiquated. I don't see anything comparable to Japenese comming out of them. Thier cars look nice and have good power but I just don't trust them. You know the old saying with the 70's AMC cars. "Must have been a Friday built car" It still applies to GM. They're manufacturing specs are not consistant. There's always another Friday lemon being built. I don't like playing russian roullete with my cars.

Had a bran new 1986 Camaro and 85 tansam. Lots of fun and looks but had nothing but serious mechanical problems with both cars. Things that should last 100k were breaking the first few mos of ownership. No lemon law then or I would have sued.

rx8wannahave

For a new Camaro to work it will have to be (as already stated):

A quality product all around (price, performance, comfort, etc).

You want to know what killed the Camaro...it was not the looks or it's performance, it was it's crappy quality and bloated price. Keep the new Camaro in the 22-28K range and it will kill the Mustang...if it looks something very close to the pic's found here that is.

LucasET

The next Camaro will be a hit regardless of the design (at first). There are so many designs out there, and they are all, at least, decent. After a year or two, the build quality will become more of a factor in determining it's success.
Right now, I have a big chub for the rumor of a Mazdaspeed 3. If they use the 274hp turbo four from the 6 AND make it AWD, I think I'd probably take that over a Camaro. I'd expect the price to be similar. But, I suppose that's like comparing apple pie to sushi.

Apophis

Re: '80s GM quality woes, you guys should know that quality was poor across the board among domestic cars until the '90s. Of course, that experience was enough to convince Americans that our cars are categorically inferior in quality to Japanese cars. That created a bias that will be magnified with myopic interpretation of anecdotal evidence. If you look at quantitative evidence (e.g. JD Power) you'll find that most people underrate the quality of American cars.

Re: Why the Camaro failed, I think it was all about quality and practicality. GM made a fierce-looking vehicle with a mean V-8 that would eat a Mustang for lunch. That is great for car enthusiasts like us, but we're a tiny group compared to the masses of drivers who don't really care about 240hp vs 285hp. In the meantime, Ford built a higher-quality car that had more emphasis on driver enjoyability than quantitative performance (note the shift from the 5.0L to the 4.6L). It had a more mainstream seating position and a more mainstream ride. The Camaro/Firebird was just too hard-core. The Mustang pretty much always outsold the competition because it catered to the masses.

V-8 muscle cars are for enthusiasts who can't afford full-on sports cars. V-6 muscle cars are for people who want sporty cars. Note how ENTIRELY different those two groups are. The V-8 F-body was a better V-8 Muscle car than the V-8 Mustang in the eyes of a V-8 muscle car driver. The V-6 Mustang was a better V-6 Muscle car than the F-body in the eyes of a V-6 muscle car driver. Since V-6 muscle cars VASTLY outsell V-8 muscle cars, you can see why the Mustang won out.