3rd, 4th Gen. vs. 5th Gen.
i hate how they based it on the 1st gen. its supposed to be a differnt generation so make it look DIFFERENT. not make it look like a previous car
i, like 99.9% of people say '67-'69 are the best, and then i like 3rd and 4th pretty much da same. kinda biased since i own a 4rth.. they are ugly but for some reason i really like em.. strange
i, like 99.9% of people say '67-'69 are the best, and then i like 3rd and 4th pretty much da same. kinda biased since i own a 4rth.. they are ugly but for some reason i really like em.. strange
I had a chance to drive a 5th gen this afternoon. It was a silver V6 model with a black and gray interior. A friend had it as a rental after someone hit his Impala. There were 17k miles on the clock.
Honestly, it felt a *lot* like my 94 in terms of road feel and handling. Sure it was a bit tighter and quieter but it had 100k fewer miles. The 3.6 V^ (WTF Is that, never heard of it) was super peppy but there was an almost imperceptible lag in response when you gave it gas. Drive by wire I assume. When I put the steering wheel at a comfortable angle for me the top of the gauges were blocked. The info center between the speedo/tach was nice but at the outset it showed a large digital speed display. No thanks.
I found the power seat to be weird. When you adjust seat height the back seems to stay in place while the cushion drops. Otherwise comfortable with good side support.
The instrument panel seemed to be a large, blank panel to the right of center. It got my attention several times. The climate control ***** were very weird, being about 4" in diameter with multiple pushbuttons in the middle.
This car had paddle shifters on the back of the steering wheel but i didn't use them.
Handling was about the same as my 94 with familiar back jolts and a thump or two when I hit bumps.
I didn't do any highway driving but the car felt fine around town.
In summary I see no need to buy one. Mostly because I don't want a car payment but there was nothing spectacular to make me lust for one. The back end is still butt ugly to me.
Now if I can just get my neighbor to let me take his hemi orange, 6-speed, Challenger SRT8 for a little drive I might change my mind about car payments...
Honestly, it felt a *lot* like my 94 in terms of road feel and handling. Sure it was a bit tighter and quieter but it had 100k fewer miles. The 3.6 V^ (WTF Is that, never heard of it) was super peppy but there was an almost imperceptible lag in response when you gave it gas. Drive by wire I assume. When I put the steering wheel at a comfortable angle for me the top of the gauges were blocked. The info center between the speedo/tach was nice but at the outset it showed a large digital speed display. No thanks.
I found the power seat to be weird. When you adjust seat height the back seems to stay in place while the cushion drops. Otherwise comfortable with good side support.
The instrument panel seemed to be a large, blank panel to the right of center. It got my attention several times. The climate control ***** were very weird, being about 4" in diameter with multiple pushbuttons in the middle.
This car had paddle shifters on the back of the steering wheel but i didn't use them.
Handling was about the same as my 94 with familiar back jolts and a thump or two when I hit bumps.
I didn't do any highway driving but the car felt fine around town.
In summary I see no need to buy one. Mostly because I don't want a car payment but there was nothing spectacular to make me lust for one. The back end is still butt ugly to me.
Now if I can just get my neighbor to let me take his hemi orange, 6-speed, Challenger SRT8 for a little drive I might change my mind about car payments...
May 2013 ROTM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,671
From: Farmington Hills, MI
ROTM Winner's Club
yeah, I noticed too in automatic Camaros that when you really punch it it takes a REALLY long time for anything to happen...I actually noticed that when I drove a Regal as well...
Also, those "paddles" aren't actually paddles, which I also found rather annoying. They're just buttons with parts that stick up like paddles.
Also, those "paddles" aren't actually paddles, which I also found rather annoying. They're just buttons with parts that stick up like paddles.
Senior Moderator
January 2010 ROTM Winner
January 2010 ROTM Winner
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 18,306
From: The 'Burbs of Chicago
Not all of em! 
The true meaning of the term "musclecar" refers to certain 1960's-70's cars which were a stripped down bare-bones (read lightweight) model, with high horsepower engines, ready to play at the strip right out of the box. They proceeded to die off in the early 1970's smog era. Even though the word gets thrown around, calling a current car a musclecar is just plain incorrect. Having muscle does not a muscle car make.
Oh, and this car is what has always been referred to as a "poor man's Vette". A good number of you may have never seen or heard of the old 1968-73 Opel GT.
The true meaning of the term "musclecar" refers to certain 1960's-70's cars which were a stripped down bare-bones (read lightweight) model, with high horsepower engines, ready to play at the strip right out of the box. They proceeded to die off in the early 1970's smog era. Even though the word gets thrown around, calling a current car a musclecar is just plain incorrect. Having muscle does not a muscle car make.
Oh, and this car is what has always been referred to as a "poor man's Vette". A good number of you may have never seen or heard of the old 1968-73 Opel GT.
Fourth Generation Moderator
October 2009 ROTM
October 2009 ROTM
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,560
From: Eastern PA,
ROTM Winner's Club
Not all of em!
The true meaning of the term "musclecar" refers to certain 1960's-70's cars which were a stripped down bare-bones (read lightweight) model, with high horsepower engines, ready to play at the strip right out of the box. They proceeded to die off in the early 1970's smog era. Even though the word gets thrown around, calling a current car a musclecar is just plain incorrect. Having muscle does not a muscle car make.
Oh, and this car is what has always been referred to as a "poor man's Vette". A good number of you may have never seen or heard of the old 1968-73 Opel GT.
The true meaning of the term "musclecar" refers to certain 1960's-70's cars which were a stripped down bare-bones (read lightweight) model, with high horsepower engines, ready to play at the strip right out of the box. They proceeded to die off in the early 1970's smog era. Even though the word gets thrown around, calling a current car a musclecar is just plain incorrect. Having muscle does not a muscle car make.
Oh, and this car is what has always been referred to as a "poor man's Vette". A good number of you may have never seen or heard of the old 1968-73 Opel GT.
Recently I have thought a Seirs II/5speed would be fun in one but I would require a custom seat.
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6
From: INDY
I apologize for being long winded...but here goes...
I personally agree with "Camaro 69" as far as the original understanding of the term "Muscle Car"...
The term "Muscle car" meant stripped down and powerful, however, today the term means or conveys something all together different. We all know that the connotation of words change over time...and "Muscle Car" is no different. I'm actaually in the "in-between" generation...post baby-boomer and pre generation X...so for me the term goes both ways!
As for generation comparison...each has its Pro's and Con's, and aside from general similarities since they ARE all Camaros...each gen stands on its own merits. As the term "generation" implies several to many years, each Camaro gen...for the most part...encompasses the techncal advances of its time. I've personally owned 5 Camaros...1 2nd gen, and 1 early 4th gen, and 3 late 4th gen cars...and I've thouroughly enjoyed each one for what it offered at the time. Except for my current Camaro...which is a 94 LT1 car...each car had the latest and greatest stuff...NOT the best stuff...for if it had the BEST stuff it wouldn't be a Camaro...it would be a ZR1 or a Ferrari.
For me...I'm stuck in the 4th gen...because that is what appeals to me...it is what I remember as the "best" times of my life...so far! I've test driven the 5th gen...a 2SS 6spd and it was an awesome car to drive...but the styling...mostly exterior...hasn't done it for me...but that's just me...not to mention the 35K'ish price tag is a turn-off! This whole discussion just shows you that we weren't all made the same..."different strokes for different folks"...definately applies here.
Remember..."Drive it like you stole it!"
I personally agree with "Camaro 69" as far as the original understanding of the term "Muscle Car"...
Originally Posted by Camaro 69...
The true meaning of the term "musclecar" refers to certain 1960's-70's cars which were a stripped down bare-bones (read lightweight) model, with high horsepower engines, ready to play at the strip right out of the box.
The true meaning of the term "musclecar" refers to certain 1960's-70's cars which were a stripped down bare-bones (read lightweight) model, with high horsepower engines, ready to play at the strip right out of the box.
As for generation comparison...each has its Pro's and Con's, and aside from general similarities since they ARE all Camaros...each gen stands on its own merits. As the term "generation" implies several to many years, each Camaro gen...for the most part...encompasses the techncal advances of its time. I've personally owned 5 Camaros...1 2nd gen, and 1 early 4th gen, and 3 late 4th gen cars...and I've thouroughly enjoyed each one for what it offered at the time. Except for my current Camaro...which is a 94 LT1 car...each car had the latest and greatest stuff...NOT the best stuff...for if it had the BEST stuff it wouldn't be a Camaro...it would be a ZR1 or a Ferrari.
For me...I'm stuck in the 4th gen...because that is what appeals to me...it is what I remember as the "best" times of my life...so far! I've test driven the 5th gen...a 2SS 6spd and it was an awesome car to drive...but the styling...mostly exterior...hasn't done it for me...but that's just me...not to mention the 35K'ish price tag is a turn-off! This whole discussion just shows you that we weren't all made the same..."different strokes for different folks"...definately applies here.
Remember..."Drive it like you stole it!"
I like both 4th and 5th. I have driven both. Own 2 4th gens.
I like the look of my 4th gen over the 5th gen, but the interior, however lacking it may be, is still superior to my 4th gens in every way. It also rides, drives, and handles better than BOTH of my 4th gens. One of which is a WS6 with quite a few suspension mods.
How each person compares them is different according to themselves. I prefer my TA truthfully simply because of the looks and it's still a bad *** car. But if I could afford a 5th gen, I'd buy one over my 4th gen Camaro any day of the week.
For the record 35k isn't a bad price... The window sticker for my TA says 32000 :P That's 12 years ago btw I'm sure FD's says about the same thing lol.
I like the look of my 4th gen over the 5th gen, but the interior, however lacking it may be, is still superior to my 4th gens in every way. It also rides, drives, and handles better than BOTH of my 4th gens. One of which is a WS6 with quite a few suspension mods.
How each person compares them is different according to themselves. I prefer my TA truthfully simply because of the looks and it's still a bad *** car. But if I could afford a 5th gen, I'd buy one over my 4th gen Camaro any day of the week.
For the record 35k isn't a bad price... The window sticker for my TA says 32000 :P That's 12 years ago btw
I'm sure FD's says about the same thing lol.
Last edited by evilkal; Dec 16, 2010 at 07:40 AM.
Thread Starter
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 18
I personally agree with "Camaro 69" as far as the original understanding of the term "Muscle Car"...
The term "Muscle car" meant stripped down and powerful, however, today the term means or conveys something all together different. We all know that the connotation of words change over time...and "Muscle Car" is no different. I'm actaually in the "in-between" generation...post baby-boomer and pre generation X...so for me the term goes both ways!
As for generation comparison...each has its Pro's and Con's, and aside from general similarities since they ARE all Camaros...each gen stands on its own merits. As the term "generation" implies several to many years, each Camaro gen...for the most part...encompasses the techncal advances of its time. I've personally owned 5 Camaros...1 2nd gen, and 1 early 4th gen, and 3 late 4th gen cars...and I've thouroughly enjoyed each one for what it offered at the time. Except for my current Camaro...which is a 94 LT1 car...each car had the latest and greatest stuff...NOT the best stuff...for if it had the BEST stuff it wouldn't be a Camaro...it would be a ZR1 or a Ferrari.
For me...I'm stuck in the 4th gen...because that is what appeals to me...it is what I remember as the "best" times of my life...so far! I've test driven the 5th gen...a 2SS 6spd and it was an awesome car to drive...but the styling...mostly exterior...hasn't done it for me...but that's just me...not to mention the 35K'ish price tag is a turn-off! This whole discussion just shows you that we weren't all made the same..."different strokes for different folks"...definately applies here.
Remember..."Drive it like you stole it!"[/quote]
Hey OldSchoolZ,
You really hit the nail right on the head for me w/above statements!
You sum this up really well, in both categorizing the term muscle car, (others did as well) and that each Gen. stands on it's own merits and technological benefits of the time...
Also like you, "I'm actaually in the "in-between" generation...post baby-boomer and pre generation X...so for me the term goes both ways!"
But, as I said on the onset, I remember the late 60's models running around, but more fondly remember the 2nd & 3rd gen. and this is the style that I'm more familiar with.
"For me...I'm stuck in the 4th gen...because that is what appeals to me...it is what I remember as the "best" times of my life...so far!"
So, I guess this is why I really gravitate towards the older body styles then the new one, and as others have commented as well, "the backend is *** ugly!
But again, thanks for all the insightful feedback as now I know why I like the earlier generations better and intend to hang on to mine for sometime.
It also helps that it only has 10K on the clock, so it is still literally like new condition.
and special thank you to Camaro '69 for posting the pic of the awesome looking Opel GT, I still remember the first time I saw one in the parking lot of an A&P w/my mother, we were both checkin it out...
Garret
The term "Muscle car" meant stripped down and powerful, however, today the term means or conveys something all together different. We all know that the connotation of words change over time...and "Muscle Car" is no different. I'm actaually in the "in-between" generation...post baby-boomer and pre generation X...so for me the term goes both ways!
As for generation comparison...each has its Pro's and Con's, and aside from general similarities since they ARE all Camaros...each gen stands on its own merits. As the term "generation" implies several to many years, each Camaro gen...for the most part...encompasses the techncal advances of its time. I've personally owned 5 Camaros...1 2nd gen, and 1 early 4th gen, and 3 late 4th gen cars...and I've thouroughly enjoyed each one for what it offered at the time. Except for my current Camaro...which is a 94 LT1 car...each car had the latest and greatest stuff...NOT the best stuff...for if it had the BEST stuff it wouldn't be a Camaro...it would be a ZR1 or a Ferrari.
For me...I'm stuck in the 4th gen...because that is what appeals to me...it is what I remember as the "best" times of my life...so far! I've test driven the 5th gen...a 2SS 6spd and it was an awesome car to drive...but the styling...mostly exterior...hasn't done it for me...but that's just me...not to mention the 35K'ish price tag is a turn-off! This whole discussion just shows you that we weren't all made the same..."different strokes for different folks"...definately applies here.
Remember..."Drive it like you stole it!"
[/quote]Hey OldSchoolZ,
You really hit the nail right on the head for me w/above statements!
You sum this up really well, in both categorizing the term muscle car, (others did as well) and that each Gen. stands on it's own merits and technological benefits of the time...
Also like you, "I'm actaually in the "in-between" generation...post baby-boomer and pre generation X...so for me the term goes both ways!"
But, as I said on the onset, I remember the late 60's models running around, but more fondly remember the 2nd & 3rd gen. and this is the style that I'm more familiar with.
"For me...I'm stuck in the 4th gen...because that is what appeals to me...it is what I remember as the "best" times of my life...so far!"
So, I guess this is why I really gravitate towards the older body styles then the new one, and as others have commented as well, "the backend is *** ugly!
But again, thanks for all the insightful feedback as now I know why I like the earlier generations better and intend to hang on to mine for sometime.
It also helps that it only has 10K on the clock, so it is still literally like new condition.
and special thank you to Camaro '69 for posting the pic of the awesome looking Opel GT, I still remember the first time I saw one in the parking lot of an A&P w/my mother, we were both checkin it out...
Garret
