WeirdC-Mo

The facts of this retro matter aren’t always so plain to see or easy to qualify. If you (like me) are a member of the demographic radar blip known as Generation X you need to understand that almost no consumer product will ever be marketed toward you. As consumers, GenX’ers are forced to align themselves with either one of the demographic giants a few years fore or aft.

This time around, it seems as though the design has a retro (for Baby Boomers) yet overt, cartoonishly, aggressive appearance (for Gen Y “Fast & Furious” types). I know, I know…It’s a concept, not reality. Yet, I’m not sure that the sum of these divergent marketing intentions will add up in the marketplace.

I really want to be supportive, but with all this talk about “broad mass-market appeal,” why do I feel so alienated and left behind? Oh yeah, I answered that question in my 1st paragraph.

However, As per Mr. Settlemire’s request (after all, even if we don’t like the concept, he still does deserve our respect and admiration), I will try my best to stay open minded and positive ‘til I see it in the flesh.

5thgen69camaro

It blows my mind when people say they dont like retro but say look to futuristic designs like the 98-02. The same fourth gen with the 1970 split bumper front grille, long 70s shaped doors, 75 tail lights, and 79 headlights? No looking to the past there?

Chevy is the reason I like GM and the 69 Camaro is the reason I love Camaro.

pickardracing

Youre missing the point.

The 98-02 was the "right blend" of retro and current themes. You can see the 2nd/3rd gen love in it.

THIS car, is exactly what the original poster said. JAMMING the 60's down your throat.

I guess I have become the official speaker for the I Dont Like It crowd.

5thgen69camaro

No I got your point, I just wanted to make it clear that it wasnt the retro you were complaining about. You would perfer another "right blend" of jamming the 70's jet fighter down our throat as opposed to the Classic 60's.

Youre entitled to your taste for 70's and I respect that, but personally for mine you cant beat 69. Thats what will pique my interest.

Lt1 and Ls1

I think the True enthusiast will see the beauty in it! I LOVE IT

JoeliusZ28

i find it funny that people think this car isnt "moving forward." To me it looks like they are going after BMWs with this car, no matter how "retro" it might be. God, i am getting so sick of that word and all the bitching it spouts on BOTH ends of the spectrum.

Every car has their strong points. Sure the 4th gens LOOKED modern, but were they? Not really. Did everyone here forget about the lovely, "cat humps," 10 bolts, dash creaks, defroster problems, optisparks and what not else!? You have to give and take. From what i see on this 5th gen, it looks HELLUVA more refined than the 4th gen case closed.

I would also like to point out that when we got awesome "forward" styling for the fourth gen (according to you guys today) everybody back then bitched about it and said theyd keep their third gens. Did that happen!? hell no, look at the production #s for 95 alone.

pickardracing

As stated earlier, my opinion may change upon sight of the production model, but as it sits, it isnt my cup of tea.

Sorry.

emarkay

Retro is one thing, but thing is a chimera - a mutant of bulges, turbulence inducing stick ons, and a general areodynamic illness that will whistle like a Stuka at speed. At least the original Camaros had the shapes of style, not this style of shapes - there was no CAD or other c/d modeling programs then - it was just "what looked fast", and maybe a few tweaks from the racing circuits.

Look at the rear quarter panels compared to any late 60's early 70's pony car... Something there just looks wrong...

And only one headlamp per side, and no amber turn signals, no cornering lamps? Lemme guess it has drum brakes and a carburetor too?

Where they going to put the obligatory SS (bigger) spoiler? The butt is already looking like an SUV - or a jacked up '64 Corvair!

Like said the visibility issue will mandate a lower beltline and a larger rear window, and hopefully a lower hoodline, and the loss of the '73 Mustang front fender upper creases.

I don't know - the 98-02 design was pretty darn practical and smooth - maybe with a world class interior and some "1990's" or better underpinnings, and an LS7 engine - gee did anyone save the old tooling and dies?


BTW, for what looks like a true retromobile - I mean the style has the old look with just a few modern touches (those goofy Connestoga wagon wheels for starters) and what seems like a well thought out engineering foundation, plus it's almost assured to be produced:
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=420974

SNEAKY NEIL

I thought that was my title.

I will say this again, you want to have the car recognizable for what it is and have a connection to the past but at the same time the car should be new and fresh. When I look at the concept, I see nothing new, I am not shocked, I am not looking at the car for the first time, so to speak, it looks overly familiar.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if someone was to tell me the "new" Camaro is going to be a retro 1st gen and then showed me the pictures, my response would be "Yeah, that's what I expected." I can't express how dissapointing that is.

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

Frankly, If you're doing 160mph in your car, you're insane. Unless it's a closed track straightaway. Second, I don't believe even the 4th gen cars got above 160mph. Top speeds I've seen quoted were around 158 or so. Top speed is just about bragging rights and I don't think it's really all that relavent.

It's really difficult to gauge coefficient of drag. 4th gen is a good example. For all it's swept back styling, it had the same Cd as an '82 Camaro. Early 3rd gen Firebirds were less than the 4th gens. Wait for the numbers, looks can be deceiving.

JOE96Z28SS

After you put the crack pipe down, Put a picture of a 2nd Gen Next to any fourth Gen and tell me how many similarities you see. The 4th gens were bar-none the most perfect evolution of the camaro in my book, the 4th gen IMO started to go downhill 97 when they changed the interior it just looked like they didn't care. . it was too pontiac-ish

as for this abortion GM is turning into that kid in the neighborhood that keeps trying to be cool but F*^k's it up. That's what drew me to the GTO they actually did somthing different and has the Best interior that GM has ever made The front of this new one keeps reminding me of the 80's monte carlo I like the Rear Quarter panels though and the Renderings of the interior look pretty lame but I'll know my opinion for sure next week when I go look at it in Detroit

JOE96Z28SS

That sounds like your in the "Love it or leave it" crowd do you have an opinion or do you just love the little camaro badge and work back from there?

5thgen69camaro

I have a 98 and I dont think its practical at all. With the T-Tops out the trunk disapears, the back seat is minute, and the front pass has a bump in the floor board. The 3800 Engine is under the windshield and so tight changing plugs is a chore. Labor to change plugs and wires when I supplied them was $200 The amber lights were not in the grill in 69 they were toward the center in the sheetmetal. Here they are under the headlights but this is the concept they appear to be clear foglights, the side markers are shaved as well...

JoeliusZ28

thats the first time ive ever heard the GTO described as something different. Everyone here likes to call it a fast grand prix

emarkay

I have a 2000 - and yea the lump in the passenger side goes back to the mid 90's and was unneeded after that - it would have cost GM $$ to retool. The back seat is adequate for short trips (it was never intended to be a limo), and I have to put the T-tops in when I do the weekly grocery shopping - big deal, it's the price for the fun of the T-tops. It's $260 for the LS1 for plugs but you can do them yourself.

Amber lamps I mention are the rear turn signals, and amber front turn signals and side marker lamps are required by federal law since 1968. I mean the side illumination that happens when you put on the turn signals - that should be a given these days.