DAKMOR

Take a gander at the 1969 you can see at many car shows.

Then go check out the guy burning 12s at your local dragstrip in his 4th gen.

And after all that, ask yourself, do you really want to go backwards in design?


The 69 gave way to the 2nd generation of Camaros, the 12 years that took a muscle car and gave it just enough styling cues and sales to continue to turn the old beast into a sports car lookalike as it did in 82 as the 3rd Gen. The 4th Gen came some 11 years and further developed those sports car looks and really adapted them well in the 98 refurbishing. Thus giving us a sports car from a muscle car.

So why is the 5th Gen, the supposed successor to the sports car Vette lookalike (to morons) 4th Gen, a muscle car and having 69 style influences?

That just seems backwards.

Is it because of the Mustang being retro nowadays? Maybe, maybe not. The previous Mustangs were alright in my book with styling, because it took what the oil crisis redesign to an econobox gave it, and filled out those lines, like an ugly chick in high school that turns out to be nicely legged, with ginormo ***** and a butt to make you go . You know, those Maury Povitch gals.

Well, if you look at that 80s Mustang, and the 04 you can see the basic shapes working together and the same ideas just in a more modern and contemporary way, just as that 82 Camaro can be quite similar to the 02, as opposed to being able to compare a 69 to an 02. Or for that matter, 1974 Bumblebee to the 2007 Concept Bumblebee, just comparing the looks of his two forms and seeing the 07 concept as a step forward is quite shocking to me.

The point here is that those old stylings really did not stick around long enough, and if they had, would you still have bought one? Because you seemed to like what GM gave you instead.

So the first question is, why did you accept the change in 1970 as a Camaro when the styling in the front went away from that nearly straight edge, blockyness of muscle cars, and that which developed and gave birth to the sports car we had?

And the second question is, why is the 07 concept and the 09 production model acceptable as a continuation of the Camaro, when it blatantly ignores the past 3 generations of styling?

CLEAN

From all accounts, the concepts design was as well received as anything the General has done in recent memory. Sure there will be some that don't like it, but the response has been overwhelmingly in favor of it. To me, it captures the spirit of the 1st gens, but in a futuristic, very modern way. It's very Cadillacesque if that is a word.

SSRich

NOT everybody is going to make a flat out race car for aerodynamics as of the 3rd and 4th gens did. IMO i think the 3rd and 4th look like shi7. The 1st gen and the concept look like muscle cars like they will eat you alive and the 3rd and 4th is mostly aero. I rather have looks over aerodynamic any day of the week.

MarcR94v6

Let me annoyingly answer your question with another question: Why did you waste your time making this thread? Were you here in 1970? Most here weren't either. They accepted it because it looked good and it said Camaro on it. Why did you accept the leap in design from 3rd gen to 4th? Why did they call it Camaro and not Klamato?

This thread is all over the place.

Rob V

Also, now car designers have access to our wonderful internet on which they can garner a response, whereas even 10 years ago when the internet was slowly coming into peoples lives, it was unheard of for such a thing to take place. Having seen the concept in person at the Calgary International Autoshow, I will say it draws from the past but it does not look out of place amongst all of the future releases from all marques.

hyperv6

I think you will find that the Futurwe of the new car is going to be much like the Vette where it will carry some of the past but move it into the future.

At one point they has a proposal that had a more 2nd gen roof line.

I would not get too bent out of shape here as I am not a real big retro fan but I still understnad that herritage is still a important part.

The Vette for years has been a somthing old and something new car and it works. I know we always have some who want more radical moves but when a formula works it is hard to fix and expensive to replace if it fails.

If this car woeks as I see it will you may get a little more 2nd gen in a new wraper that will move the car forward.

ckt101

The North American car companies spent a good part of the 70's through the 90's trying to out-do the Japanese and Europeans at their styling, in my opinion. I don't necessarily believe this to be true with the 3rd and 4th gen f-bodies, although the 2nd gen was undeniably euro-styled. It's nice to see North America go back to it's strengths in the 60's and evolve from there.

fastball

Keep in mind, the 4th gen, while appearing very aerodynamic, does not have as low Cd (coefficient of drag) as the 5th gen will have, even though it looks less aerodynamic. Modern design and engineering can do wonders with things like that.

guionM

You ask an extremely silly question in why we accepted change of the 1970 Camaro.

1. How many of us were of car buying age and income in 1970, 37 years ago?!
2. Again, that was 37 frigging years ago. Styles, tastes, and federal regulations change.

The other question (the '09 ignoring the past 3 generations of Camaro) completely is oblivious to the fact that the 4th gen Camaro's styling was a failure and that the US bying public no longer favors hatchbacks.

I have a question for you.

Is the new Camaro really retro?

Is it retro because it will return to a traditional long hood, short deck design instead of the 4th gen's Corvette inspired doorstop look? There's plenty of modern designs that have some variation of that. Is it because it has round headlights? BMWs, Neons, and a host of other cars have had that over the years, and none aree considered retro. Is it because it's blunt up front and has a well creased body? Cadillac's Arts & Science design had more creases than a wrinkled suit. But that grille....

That grille is unlike anything else on the road today. Everything produced over the past couple of decades has not only been aerodynamic, but made to actually look aerodynamic. At times way too much so. The 3rd and 4th gen Camaros are perfect examples. Early 4th gen Camaro noses resembled late 70s Chevrolet Monza only bigger (and therfore retro itself?) while the '98 and later Camaros resembled Chrysler Concordes and sebrings up front.

The 4th gens also were the 1st GM pony cars to be pretty much obliterated (as opposed to simply being outsold) by Mustang in the pony car market.

The coupe market is also style driven. Looks are of extreme importance. Unlike the general volume sedan market, the sports coupe must have character , a theme, & a strong presence to be successful. It must be easily identifiable. Most important of all, It must have it's own identity. Remembering very vividly when I 1st saw the '93 Camaro, I can easily say the new Camaro has all of that in spades over the 4th gen. That's what's made Mustang successful all these years. Although Ford did regular restylings on the Mustang, it was always different from anything else on the road, and it was always easily recognizable as a Mustang.

2 door coupes are style driven, but they also have to be user friendly. Most people don't like "dropping into" their ride instead of simply getting in. 2 door coupes also have to have some practicality. All of this mandates a certain style & certain proportions. Better ride height and seat placement. A hidden storage area (trunk over hatchback). A-pillars and upper door edges that are far away from your head. All that sets up proportions.

Also consider that the new Camaro seems retro only because it's strayed so far away from the original formula.

Camaro started down a different path with the 2nd gen, going for a more "European GT" look, which evolved into a bigger Corvette. Spend time with a 1st gen Camaro, then go look at a 4th gen and you'll feel like you're not just looking at a different car, but that 4th gen at 1st blush looks like someone went too far in the styling department. Taking time off, and bring back a Camaro that goes back to the basics and the original formula looks retro only because Camaro got so far off track. You look at the new Camaro, and you can easily imagine it looks the way Camaro would have looked if it had evolved over the past 35 years off the 1st gen.

It isn't retro because it doesn't look like anything from the 1960s or '70s.

It looks modern almost to the point of being futuristic.

It looks like a Camaro should look.



BTW:

The Mustang II didn't grow out of the oil crisis, and it's a common myth.

Work began in 1969 to develop a back to basics Mustang off of the Maverick-Pinto chassis spearheaded by Lee Iaccoa himself (he was overruled on the bigger 1971 Mustang so he started work on the following gen for 1974). The 1974 Mustang debuted in September 1973 and OPEC turned off the oil in October 1973.

The Mustang II arguably turned out to be the most perfectly timed automotive introduction in history. Over the years people who don't know how long it takes to create an automobile believe that the Mustang II was Ford's answer to the Energy Crisis. In reality, Ford got extremely lucky.... and Lee Iaccoca gained a reputation (again) for accurately being in tune with the consumer.

Another item: Work began on the "Fox" that underpinned the new 1979 Mustang before the energy crisis started as well, making (at least) it's roots independent of the energy crisis as well.

saroyan689

Another thing to consider- do we see any car not have design changes over the years? How many Mustangs would Ford have sold the first year of the updated body? Maybe as many as the year before- but surely not hitting the sales numbers they did with their retro look.

Hylton

Backwards??!! Is this car really that retro? It has a recessed egg crate grill front end and gills in front of the rear wheels but that's about it (okay the C pillar is a total swipe from the 67-8 car but it is damn sexy).

People are complaining that the back end looks nothing like "a Camaro" but then someone else says the car is going back in time. No doubt, the car was inspired by the 69 Camaro but it will stand on it's own. I do not believe GM is trying to bring back the '69. They are trying to capture the essence of what a Camaro is: 2 door, 4 seater that has exciting styling and can be either a smart economical daily commuter or an absolute ashphalt punisher.

detroitboy

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. If you don't like the concept car dont buy it when it comes out. You currently have NO camaro available....and obviously not everyone in this world was happy when the designs changed anyway. And guess what? None of us here had any say in the matter when it happened.

As the used car salesmen once told me when I asked who would ever buy a piece of crap ramcharger that he had on his used car lot....................."theres an *** for every seat"

DAKMOR

I do like it, I just don't think the design is going forward in the right way. It seems to be restarting with the 1st Gen. That's quite clearly pointed out by other people.

Well, if Chevy decided to produce it based upon what the reaction was from people there when it was unveiled(Fact), then I think you may have had a say in it. If you were at that show or shows.

jg95z28

I have one question for you. Have you seen the concept in person? If so, have you looked at it carefully for more than 10 seconds before writing it off as "retro"?

IMHO it isn't retro. While it is inspired by the 1st gen Camaros (and its actually more '68 than '69 BTW), it gets equal inspiration from the C6 Corvette and has an anguality shared by most modern Cadillacs. It has an updated state-of-the-art feel to it. Had this shape been presented as the 1970 Camaro back in the day I'm sure many would have quipped that it was "too futuristic" or "modern" for production.

We aren't going backwards, we're moving forward and dumping that "faux-aero" look of the 1990s for something more traditional and longer lasting.

JasonD

While are are talking about opinion and everyone else's opinion is worth just as much to them as mine is to me, I completely agree with this statement. The design is very polarizing, as I have heard people say.

Again, just my opinion.