(EXPANDED FROM 3/4/2015)
The 1993-2003 Chevrolet Camaro is a paradox. It sold so poorly that it was discontinued. This was a doubly painful failure given that the fourth-generation Camaro had a more modern body than the Ford Mustang’s.
As discussed further here, I would argue that a key reason the Camaro lost altitude was that it grew too big and heavy. Yet once Ford finally redesigned the Mustang in 2005, its brand-new body ballooned to roughly the same size as its vanquished rival’s.
The Camaro was roughly 193 inches long, 74 inches wide and weighed almost 3,300 pounds. Although the 2005 Mustang was around five inches shorter, it was about as wide and more than 50 pounds heavier in base trim. That represented a meaningful increase in size from the previous-generation Mustang, which was around five inches shorter, one inch narrower and almost 300 pounds lighter.
This is a classic example of the groupthink that has long pervaded the American auto industry. Bigger, glitzier and more powerful are almost always considered better — even when the market signals otherwise.
Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’
RE:SOURCES
- Automobile Catalog; 2021. “Specifications.” Accessed Sept. 16.
This is an expanded version of a story originally posted March 4, 2015.
Yes, the 1993-2003 G.M. F-bodies (Camaro / Firebird) grew larger, but a part of that was building a car that would meet the 1998 crash standards. Further, G.M. was in a quandary about future styling directions, complicated by the corporate mess that was unfolding as the Roger B. Smith-era was ending: Can anybody call the 1991 rear-drive full-size cars a styling success, with G.M. making down-sized wheelbase cars look like rounded versions of the 1974-1976 land yachts ? The Camaro was simply a rounded version of the previous generation Camaro with even more front overhang, in my jaundiced opinion.
I’ve read a rumor that the ’90s F-body design was adapted from the intended styling of the cancelled FWD F-body. I dunno if it’s true or just an apocryphal attempt at finding a reason for a RWD car to have so much front overhang. Either way the dimensions of the F-body were the same for the 3rd and 4th gens (1982+). As of 2002 the problem with the F-body was that it was an aging design with roots in circa 1980 GM. Sleek styling and brilliant powertrains obscured the desperate need for a modern RWD platform. Something turn of the millennium Truck/SUV crazed GM had little desire to spend money on.