Camaro Vs Firebird (Appearance)
05-29-2005, 09:18 PM
#83
Launching!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Orange County
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey joedrum what kinda hood is that........... 
.....it looks like it belongs on my z 
.....o and i vote for the camaro but i do love the birds as well......tough choice
.....it looks like it belongs on my z .....o and i vote for the camaro but i do love the birds as well......tough choice 
08-18-2005, 01:53 PM
#86
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camaro SS all the way......I only drove this car to drive another F-body to solidify my choice on getting a WS6......damn 24 hour test drive!!!! Drove it home on Saturday.....drove it ALL Sunday.......finalized teh deal Monday. It was purely the color though, I was looking for a Pewter WS6 and found this. I hated Camaros when I bought it too, now the little things about the TA get to me, but I will still get one eventually....look totaly badass up front!
Just look at my Sig! I think it looks total badass too, but again, it's gotta have the SS hood or a cowl hood, and the SS spoiler!
Just look at my Sig! I think it looks total badass too, but again, it's gotta have the SS hood or a cowl hood, and the SS spoiler!
08-18-2005, 02:51 PM
#87
TECH Addict
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Top of 4th Gear; Plano, TX
Posts: 2,245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z28 spoiler looks like crap, SS spoiler looks sexy and sleek as hell. I think however that a T/A HAS to have a WS6 hood to look good where as on the lines of a Camaro it's not needed as much, but still looks better with a SS hood. There's things on Camaros I like better and things on a WS6 I like better. Some angles both cars don't look as good as the other.
08-19-2005, 09:58 AM
#89
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure this will not make me any friends in Camaros, but remember, he asked for opinions. 
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
08-19-2005, 10:27 AM
#90
TECH Addict
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Top of 4th Gear; Plano, TX
Posts: 2,245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that was nice. Little on the harsh side especially for them being the same essential cars with only minor styling changes- front end, taillights and spoiler, flared sides and hood.
08-19-2005, 03:10 PM
#91
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte NC...but a Jersey boy till death
Posts: 574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Razzak
When people see a camaro in the rear view, it makes them want to look as it blazes by. When people see a black T/A in the rear view it makes them wet their pants.
08-19-2005, 03:18 PM
#92
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte NC...but a Jersey boy till death
Posts: 574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HPP
I'm sure this will not make me any friends in Camaros, but remember, he asked for opinions.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
and I think you need to get laid or something...built up aggression.
08-19-2005, 04:12 PM
#93
As a previous owner of a 3rd gen Camaro, that's the last generation of Camaro I would purchase. I agree with the Chrysler compairison sadly... It's sad when you see a newer Camaro comming towards you and you think it's some other car... 
No disrepect for the Camaro, but to even get close to standing apart you need to have an SS... It's all in the eyes of the beholder...
Thus, I bring you....... the Firehawk
No disrepect for the Camaro, but to even get close to standing apart you need to have an SS... It's all in the eyes of the beholder...Thus, I bring you....... the Firehawk
08-19-2005, 05:03 PM
#94
Originally Posted by HPP
I'm sure this will not make me any friends in Camaros, but remember, he asked for opinions.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
08-19-2005, 08:54 PM
#95
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 3,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HPP
I'm sure this will not make me any friends in Camaros, but remember, he asked for opinions.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
Ok, Trans Am, vs Camaro..... Clearly, Trans Am. It's not even a question really - assuming you don't want econo-box that is.
The LS1 Camaro looks like an ordinary, boring passenger car. In fact, it looks scarily like a Chrysler Concorde.
Separated at birth?
Even with that unfortunate likeness, it can grow on you, but it stops looking good at the door mirrors. Beyond that, things just continue to get worse.
For one thing, look at the profile. You will see the lines rise, from the tip of the nose, up to the top of the mirror, then drop about 4", then continue to rise again toward the rear. That's hideous.
Then there is the body molding. Every GM product, and most cars in general, have an irritating a-symmetry in wheel well openings with the front being larger. It looks like ****. Why they don't cut the rear the same as the front, I have no idea. But the molding line on the side of the Camaro actually accentuates this a-symmetry, making a bad look, look even worse.
Then there is the spoiler, it looks like they just dug out a little material to make a hint of a spoiler. Even the 3rd Gen Camaro spoiler was better than this. The 4th Gen's looks even worse than the Firebird spoiler (base model - the one that is molded into the body).
And then of course there is the tail lights. Amber lights on the back of a car is just down right hideous.
The interior is also lacking. From what I've read here, the Trans Am seats are much better, and from the pics I've seen, I can see that the Pontiacs got the better looking guage layout (the bezel makes a world of difference) and better vents (round looks better and is also perfectly suited to accomodating guages if you're so inclined).
Whereas, the Trans Am has a mean, aggressive, undeniably sports car, look to it and it looks like nothing else on the road. It has flip up headlights, and until the recent craze for exposed lights, almost all proper sports cars had flip ups. Again, it's something that is the domain of performance vehicles, not to be found on sedans.
It has a serious wing on it that works perfectly with the overall look of the car. It's aggressive and functional without being ricey.
It doesn't have any of that nasty, cheap and chinsey looking amber crap out back.
As mentioned, it has a nicer interior, with better gauge lighting. The red-orange lights not only give it a really cool aircraft look, it is also better for your eyes at night, which is why BMW has used it.
It has a lower Cd (barely)(at least with the flat hood, not sure about the WS6 hood), and more rear down force.
It has an awesome, curvacious hourglass figure thanks to wide fender flares. This is a very practical advantage over the Camaro as you can more easily fit wider rims/tires under a Firebird or Trans Am. Fender flares also are indicitive of performance. You don't find them on family cars or econoboxes, because they are there to serve a purpose, that of accomodating wider tires. Something only important to performance vehicles. The Camaro is boringly flat sided.
And of course, you will be part of a more exclusive club if you go with the T/A. The Camaro sold in much higher numbers, because it's cheap and has a Chevy badge on it. (people are apparently attracted to bright chevy badges for some reason (whereas animals are attracted to bright shiny objects)). Why be part of such a large crowd when you could be different?
Also, the Firebirds and Trans Ams have heritage on their side too. Up until GM gutted the divisions (about the start of the 3rd Gens), they have always been faster than the Camaros (as well as better looking). Starting in the 2nd Gen, they had better aerodynamics. When they were no longer allowed to do their own thing and forced to use the exact same engines that Chevy was, Pontiac went further into aerodynamic and produced one of the cleanest cars ever made. There is an ad for the '84 with a .32Cd. That is amazingly good, especially for it's time. I have a Hot Rod article about someone who wanted to hit 300mph in a stock body. His choice? An '88 Trans Am. Why? Aerodynamics. And as far as looks go, why do you think movies and TV shows use the Trans Am instead of the Camaro?
If I was faced with getting a Camaro as my only GM option, honestly, I'd look at either a new Mustang, or an '03/'04, particularly a Cobra.
Powerful, convincing, and cruel argument, indeed! 
I felt bad just reading all that, sick almost.
08-19-2005, 11:07 PM
#96
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always thought the Z28s and V6 cars just looked worthless....I mean there is nothing bold about them in any way! For the SS I have to say they look great. I am not biased either, they look great IMO. The spoiler is something that the car needs more than anything, it sets the tail off big time. The SS hood....well, it is not a must, but something other than stock is a necessity. These cars look great with cowl hoods....GREAT as a matter of fact. The TA, looks great with or without the hood. Without the WS6 hood you have clean smooth lines, with it, a muscular agressive front end. The Raptor hood retains the sleek lines while still getting the message across that it is all business.
If I were you.....I would stare at the pictures of each......you will end up getting the TA most likely. I plan on getting both, and will do so in the next year or so....going to be weird haveing 3 vehicles. :haha: But I am trying to create a way to get a 6 speed WS6 in LPM, SOM, or NBM.......
If I were you.....I would stare at the pictures of each......you will end up getting the TA most likely. I plan on getting both, and will do so in the next year or so....going to be weird haveing 3 vehicles. :haha: But I am trying to create a way to get a 6 speed WS6 in LPM, SOM, or NBM.......
08-20-2005, 12:18 AM
#97
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lafayette. Indiana
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the clean lines of the camaro. The WS6 is just a little over the top for me. Don't get me wrong, The WS6 is a damn sexy whip but I prefer the little less understated SS.
