Talk:Chevrolet Camaro/Archive 4

message: While doing my last edit, I noticed the article length warning.  This article is getting fairly long and may be going into too much detail for something encompassing 30+ years of production.  Strike-through text Do we want to split it up the same way the Corvette article is, with small sections for each generation and a wikilink for a more detailed article on each generation? Ayocee 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right, but we should try and split it at little as possible simply because it's easier to keep information sync'd up when there are less places to deal with. It'd be interesting to think how and where the article could split. I don't know if I'm too keen on the idea of doing generational splits, but maybe. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was giving this a little thought and, yes, it's actually a really good idea. It just needs to be done right. The Corvette article, in my opinion, is the perfect way to do it wrong simply because the info in the generation sections of the main article is the exact same information in the separate generation articles. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it, but we knew that :)  If we keep the proper level of detail in each generation article, it shouldn't fall to the same problem that the Corvette article suffers from to some extent. Ayocee 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Anyone want to take on the other generations? I'll do it in a week or so after a quick vacation if no one else wants to. Roguegeek (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea, but the current article names are a little more in line with Wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions. You can read about them here. Roguegeek (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to split? 

message: There was a black '67 or '68 (not sure which model year) that appeared in the 1985 film Better Off Dead starring John Cusack.
Jmn4667 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree! And one way to cut down on the clutter was by removing the "trivia" entries that had no Wiki links. The purpose of this article is no to list every appearance of the Camaro over the years. Such a list is best left for an enthusiast hobby web pages -- not in an encyclopedia. A list of "appearances in pop culture" provides no information about the actual car, its design, features, etc. Moreover, since there is no "standard" and probably no agreement as to what appearances are worthy of mention or not, it would be good to "nuke" the entire section. CZmarlin 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much agree. Roguegeek (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances in pop culture 

message: There is a redirect from IROC to Chevrolet Camaro, but no explanation of what IROC is anywhere in the Chevrolet Camaro article... this needs to be fixed. -76.4.49.201 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IROC-Z 

message: I just noticed there's nothing about the z28 version of the camaro, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I own a '95 Z28 and used to own a '80 Z28. I like the version and I think it's pretty important to somehow even mention it. It must be added, as it is useful and relevant info about the camaro.
Teresa.Fr 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you go into the generation articles that are linked to each section, you'll find plenty of information on the Z28 trim levels for all generations. Is this what you're talking about? Roguegeek (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sort of. I think there should be an article dedicated to the Z28. Also, maybe a mention of the existance of the Z28 somewhere in the main article of the Camaro. I'm a fan of Z28, so for me the standard and the Z28 are very different. Teresa.Fr 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see what other people think about this. The Z28 is a trim package for the vehicle and not a unique vehicle, so I think mentioning it in the generation articles as such is good enough. Should it have a stand-alone article? Well there's definitely enough content to make one. The problem is the article is section by generation and not by trim (which makes sense to me). This being the case, trim information should simply be incorporated into generation articles. Roguegeek (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're rightabout that. It'd be really hard to add something about the Z28 to the article, considering how it's been constructed. Teresa.Fr 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On top of that, trim packages have varied widely on the Camaro over the years.  Z28 hasn't always been available, and the intent of the Z28 in the later generations is certainly not what it originally was (which was to build the fastest 5.0 liter street car they could so it could race Trans-Am).  Not that I would mind them putting out a modern big-bore, short-stroke high-RPM engine ;) Ayocee 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Z28 

message: The 5th generation Camaro concept is not actually powered by the LS2.  It's powered by an LS6 that is dressed up to look like an LS2.  I'm not making an edit to reflect this since I don't have a source.  It was told to me by Scott Settlemire at the 10th annual Fbody Gathering in Atlanta last year.  Get Shorty 05:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would definitely need a source. Roguegeek (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Three problems with this idea.  First, the LS6 has been out of production for some time.  Second, visually speaking there's no real difference between the two, aside from intake manifolds and throttle bodies, really.  You'd need to crawl around and look for casting numbers to try and prove one way or the other without disassembling the engine and seeing if it's a 5.7 or 6.0.  Third, the engine is dolled up in so much show-car-only plastic that for all we know there's only one with an actual motor and the rest have cinder blocks to keep the front end at the right height. Ayocee 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: every source we have on the Camaro concept says that it uses a 400hp 6.0L LS2 with Active Fuel Management.. the LS6 certainoly didn't have AFM... and the LS6 was 5.7L... Also i keep up with basically everything Scott Settlemire (aka Fbodfather) says and i havent once seen him say that the Concept car had anything other than an LS2 with AFM Thontor 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no source.  You think they'd make it public that the concept wasn't actually LS2 powered?  I just thought someone might be interested, or happen to know of a source.  To Ayocee, I wasn't suggesting that the car would be built with an LS6, just that the first silver concept was powered by it.  For all I know, it was only true of the concept car that I saw, and not later ones that were built.  Get Shorty 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no source, then it's not going in Wikipedia. Ayocee 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camaro Concept's engine 

message: Lots of good info on this page, maybe someone can start a stub? http://www.iroc-z.com/birthofirocz/birthofirocz.htm
12.111.23.142 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion of it here: Third-generation Chevrolet Camaro in the years it was available. -  CZmarlin 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no IROC-Z reference?